|
Post by 30sqnatc on Dec 20, 2018 21:04:45 GMT 12
E +, 50 years ago. Govt/MOD policy is 'proven design',otherwise we can end up with the Simpsons monorail!..or NH90. Just recall the fun we had with the Aermacchi's, that was a proven design with new mod engine teething problems. Not to mention maintaining orphan P-3 and C-130 upgrades!
|
|
|
Post by kiwiinoz on Dec 20, 2018 22:57:48 GMT 12
Well the Cessna Golden Eagle was a proven design and they proved you can stuff that up as well
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Dec 21, 2018 9:52:44 GMT 12
We bought the Golden Eagle because it was the only type we could get three of with the finance allocated for the deal. Alternate reason - the Prime Minister of the day wanted an aircraft only he could stand upright in.
What if story. In the preceding years the USA State Department had bought 50 King Airs for Embassy duties around the world. The link is that before my time in Wellington I was on 42 Sqn and had seen such a King Air at Townsville, it had full USAF markings. If NZ had had its act together we could have tagged on the back of that order and got three King Airs to replace the Devons on 42 using MAP purchase (that is the Military Aid something or other). But the world is not that simple, when the time came to do the deal we were pushed into a different corner.
How the B757/C-130 replacement evolves is going to be Deja Vu all over again. But comma there is only one large tail loader that can cruise the international air lanes at Mach 0.8 and all that that implies.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 21, 2018 10:10:03 GMT 12
What exactly was the issue with the Golden Eagles? I have never heard anything negative about them said before this post.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Dec 21, 2018 10:14:17 GMT 12
'Read between the lines' Dave...')
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 21, 2018 10:42:42 GMT 12
What lines? For goodness sake, this forum is for sharing information, not making cryptic comments that no-one else understands!
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Dec 21, 2018 10:50:40 GMT 12
They were purchased under a Labour govt, so thats about as good as you'll get for explanation.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 21, 2018 11:13:26 GMT 12
They were purchased under a Labour govt, so thats about as good as you'll get for explanation. Rubbish, the Cessna Golden Eagles were purchased in 1980 and arrived 1981, during which period the government was National, under Robert Muldoon. So what exactly are you guys actually trying to say here about the Golden Eagle aeroplanes?
|
|
|
Post by isc on Dec 21, 2018 13:32:55 GMT 12
Under that government they were lucky to get anything, let alone Cessnas. isc
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Dec 21, 2018 17:36:39 GMT 12
Not until it is a proven design, NZ can never be a launch customer for new model platforms. The only new stuff we jump onto is social engineering and that will ultimately be the demise of NZ as a nation. Well technically you were the launch customer for the H model True and only the second export operator of the Kaman SH-2G Super Seasprite.
Just what is the criteria used for "a proven design" or relegates the design to be still deemed developmental anyway?
Compare to the other 2 contemporary Strategic airlifters the West has produced:
>Boeing produced 230 C-17s, introducing the lastest version after build #71 in 2000. Production started 1991, but first export delivery (UK) was not until 2001. Operators: US, UK, Australia, India, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Canada, Nato
>LM produced 130 C-5s. Production started in the 70s, ended in the 80s. Refurbishing 79 with modernised avionics and engines occurred between 2003-2012. 52 eventually converted into the C-5M. No Exports. Operator: US
Airbus is building their 100th A400 (174 on order). Production started 2011. Now delivered and operating with; France, Germany, Malaysia, UK, Spain, Indonesia and Turkey. Belgium, Luxembourg, and South Korea join as operators in 2019/20. The RAF have 22 of their planned fleet of 25 in service. France logged 10,000 flying hours this year with their nascent fleet of 14, that will eventually number 50. Malaysia has 4 in service since 2015. Indonesia has 2 in service, with 3 more to be delivered.
If and when NZ decides to order, there will be at least 10 air forces (3 in our region) operating the A400 for a decade. Pretty sure the A400 will warrant being considered "a proven design" contender by then.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Dec 21, 2018 18:03:26 GMT 12
Proven design generally means in service for an active period(x yrs). Another criteria is in service with bloc(not eastern) nations(5eyes/ABCANZ/NATO). My comments related to any new engined versions of C-17/C-130/A400...until proven in service.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Dec 22, 2018 5:16:15 GMT 12
Indonesia has 2 in service, with 3 more to be delivered.
Just wondering where you get this information from please.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Dec 24, 2018 8:43:55 GMT 12
I'm putting my money down on 6XC130-30J with a follow on order of 2xKC-46 with the flying boom.
Sometime ago I read on another forum about the secondary capabilities that RNZAF would like to have, (dammed if I can find it now) but one of those capabilities was for AAR, at the time I thought what the f##k, but as time goes on the more I think this is a realistic option.
The C130-30J have the option of either probe or receptacle provisions for AAR, this capability gives a lot of options for defence not only for running down to the ice but interoperability with other allied nations and also provides extra capability to the RAAF by 2035 majority of the RAAF fleet will be boom refuel capable, interoperability between the ADF/NZDF will be crucial the ADF has the capability to move outsize loads for New Zealand. AAR is a force multiplier in operations at the strategic and tactical level. whilst the future aircraft will be a sovereign capability the close cooperation between NZ/AU will have an influence on regional security needs and additional AAR in the region maybe more rational move by NZ.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Dec 24, 2018 10:16:03 GMT 12
You can but dream.
4 -J's more likely, and not KC-46, not even out of the blocks yet,so way too new. Oz would be unlikely and unable to provide any quid pro quo on that sort of deal.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Dec 24, 2018 15:23:22 GMT 12
I see the RAAF has external tanks on a couple of their J's. Which raises a point the C130J can't do everything an C130H can do without eternal tanks, but that is going to have a knock-on effect with operating costs and block times. www.airforce-technology.com/news/c-130j-flight-tests/
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Dec 24, 2018 16:57:12 GMT 12
I see the RAAF has external tanks on a couple of their J's. Which raises a point the C130J can't do everything an C130H can do without eternal tanks, but that is going to have a knock-on effect with operating costs and block times. www.airforce-technology.com/news/c-130j-flight-tests/I believe those external tanks are refurbished tanks from the H model
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Dec 25, 2018 20:54:52 GMT 12
Yup, and 8 tonnes of extra fuel means 8 tonnes of freight they cannot carry, plus I'd dare say that they would cause a slight bit of drag either slowing them down a tad or increasing power to keep speed the same .
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Dec 26, 2018 7:08:37 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Dec 27, 2018 13:44:21 GMT 12
You can but dream. 4 -J's more likely, and not KC-46, not even out of the blocks yet,so way too new. No chance of the KC-46. Boeing has a backlog to clear with USAF, and after years of delay it's not a great bet. The A330 MRTT on the other hand is a much more likely option.
|
|
|
Post by machina on Dec 27, 2018 15:29:53 GMT 12
You can but dream. 4 -J's more likely, and not KC-46, not even out of the blocks yet,so way too new. No chance of the KC-46. Boeing has a backlog to clear with USAF, and after years of delay it's not a great bet. The A330 MRTT on the other hand is a much more likely option. So, A400/C295/A330 MRTT combo deal then?
|
|