|
Post by saratoga on Dec 27, 2018 17:07:46 GMT 12
You do know its not legal to smoke that stuff yet?
|
|
|
Post by machina on Dec 27, 2018 17:59:08 GMT 12
You do know its not legal to smoke that stuff yet? Unfortunately our governments of all stripes are more concerned with BS like that rather than maintaining a military. Or decent police force. Justice system. Schools. Etc.
|
|
|
Post by tfly on Dec 28, 2018 1:06:20 GMT 12
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? I see the C295W/A400M/A330MRTT as a good option for NZ, maybe something like 5x C295W 3xA400M 2xA330MRTT (although I do feel three would provide better availability coverage) All being Airbus should give RNZAF the opportunity to negotiate a good deal
|
|
|
Post by foxcover on Dec 28, 2018 5:47:42 GMT 12
So, A400/C295/A330 MRTT combo deal then? I see the C295W/A400M/A330MRTT as a good option for NZ, maybe something like 5x C295W 3xA400M 2xA330MRTT (although I do feel three would provide better availability coverage) All being Airbus should give RNZAF the opportunity to negotiate a good deal More feasible would be 3 x C295W 2 x A400M 1 x A321NeoLR
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Dec 28, 2018 7:25:28 GMT 12
None of this replaces C-130 and you've added in a vanity purchase. Unless you meant on top of the 4 C-130 J's and we are suddenly very rich(we aren't).
|
|
|
Post by No longer identifiable on Dec 28, 2018 17:16:47 GMT 12
This discussion is like going to a car yard knowing that you were OK with the old Corolla and although it may not go as fast as you would like sometimes, or handle as well as you would like sometimes, it's what you can afford and it meets almost all of your daily-driving needs. But then when you get there you can't keep your eyes off the flasher, bigger, faster and more expensive cars. The temptation is strong to forget the Corolla and start trying to justify why you must have the bigger car.
I think the reality is we will end up with J model Hercs, and that isn't so bad for a small country.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 28, 2018 17:22:50 GMT 12
Probably drive home in a Skoda.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Dec 28, 2018 17:51:21 GMT 12
Probably drive home in a Skoda. Air-Trekka
|
|
|
Post by johnnyfalcon on Dec 28, 2018 19:49:51 GMT 12
Latest Skodas are not like the old ones Dave. I'd be happy with a new Octavia or other!
|
|
|
Post by isc on Dec 28, 2018 21:01:05 GMT 12
Back in the 60s, early 70s my sister had an Octavia down in Dunedin, she did find that if nothing else, it handled snow better than the companies Mitsubishi Galants, and it was the cheapest car she could find.isc
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Dec 29, 2018 4:50:27 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. I’m not too sure the problems will hurt the NZ timeline for entry into service of 2025, MRTT had intail development problems similar to what’s happening with KC-46, so I’m expecting them to be sorted out well and truely by the NZ timeframe, yes Boeing will be going flat out to recover any penalties thrown at it by the USAF for late delivery, but if Boeing can slot in a small order for 2 aircraft I’m sure they could handle that. A330 most likely too much aircraft for NZ, where’s the current 757 combi has a max pax of 160, the the MRTT has 270 plus cargo. No doubt you could get a good deal on a A400M-KC30A I guess it will come down to price difference v’s capbilty
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Dec 29, 2018 5:16:41 GMT 12
None of this replaces C-130 and you've added in a vanity purchase. Unless you meant on top of the 4 C-130 J's and we are suddenly very rich(we aren't). Agree, A C295 in a NZ context is not going increase the flexibility of the RNZAF as it places too many limitations on the aircraft, Distance is the tyranny for the C295 it’s approximately 3300klm to the Cook Island a C295 only gives 6000 kg payload or a max load of 9000kg will only reach Norfolk Island. C130J with a max nominal payload of approximately 16500kg will reach the Cook Islands. For the limited amount of airframes NZ will procure C295 does not meet VfM place too many operational limitations on a small fleet.
|
|
|
Post by machina on Dec 29, 2018 11:01:02 GMT 12
None of this replaces C-130 and you've added in a vanity purchase. Unless you meant on top of the 4 C-130 J's and we are suddenly very rich(we aren't). Agree, A C295 in a NZ context is not going increase the flexibility of the RNZAF as it places too many limitations on the aircraft, Distance is the tyranny for the C295 it’s approximately 3300klm to the Cook Island a C295 only gives 6000 kg payload or a max load of 9000kg will only reach Norfolk Island. C130J with a max nominal payload of approximately 16500kg will reach the Cook Islands. For the limited amount of airframes NZ will procure C295 does not meet VfM place too many operational limitations on a small fleet. Not sure if the need/requirement is there, and if it is maybe it would be better served by helicopters, but what about the C295s operating as feeder aircraft to smaller islands once the heavier lifters have brought the aid up from NZ?
|
|
|
Post by machina on Dec 29, 2018 11:05:13 GMT 12
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. I’m not too sure the problems will hurt the NZ timeline for entry into service of 2025, MRTT had intail development problems similar to what’s happening with KC-46, so I’m expecting them to be sorted out well and truely by the NZ timeframe, yes Boeing will be going flat out to recover any penalties thrown at it by the USAF for late delivery, but if Boeing can slot in a small order for 2 aircraft I’m sure they could handle that. A330 most likely too much aircraft for NZ, where’s the current 757 combi has a max pax of 160, the the MRTT has 270 plus cargo. No doubt you could get a good deal on a A400M-KC30A I guess it will come down to price difference v’s capbilty I know some here scoff at the suggestion of a tanker but is there any merit in the idea that as well as providing lift an aircraft like the KC-46/330 would also increase the capability of our P-8s? Going from 6 P-3Ks to 4 P-8s seems like a reduction in capability but maybe one that could be compensated for by keeping those 4 in the air for longer?
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Dec 29, 2018 12:29:03 GMT 12
I know some here scoff at the suggestion of a tanker but is there any merit in the idea that as well as providing lift an aircraft like the KC-46/330 would also increase the capability of our P-8s? Going from 6 P-3Ks to 4 P-8s seems like a reduction in capability but maybe one that could be compensated for by keeping those 4 in the air for longer? Interesting take on it: defsec.net.nz/2018/11/10/fee-for-capability/As far as P-8s go, if you wade through some of the old NZDF reports you can see how many flying hours the P-3 fleet was delivering. It's pretty clear than P-8 should be able to easily do better.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Dec 29, 2018 13:46:21 GMT 12
o Not sure if the need/requirement is there, and if it is maybe it would be better served by helicopters, but what about the C295s operating as feeder aircraft to smaller islands once the heavier lifters have brought the aid up from NZ? In all honesty from my POV no, the smaller islands would be fit from sealift and heavier rotary assets (CH-47F) HMNZS Canterbury will need replacing in the 2030’s, if NZ could replace her with something like the proposed Singaporean Endurance 170 LHD that would give more scoops for a heavy lift helicopter, I think this gives more capability than C295 at the same time increasing the HADR on ability to move a light infantry platoon. I still maintain a 4x C130-30J 2x KC-130J & KC-46 will be the way forward all fitted with UARRSI, ifvthe need arises the CH-47F can be fitted with a probe to increase the range if required but I don’t think this would be ideal for NZ for long overwater flights.
|
|
|
Post by machina on Dec 29, 2018 14:10:06 GMT 12
o Not sure if the need/requirement is there, and if it is maybe it would be better served by helicopters, but what about the C295s operating as feeder aircraft to smaller islands once the heavier lifters have brought the aid up from NZ? In all honesty from my POV no, the smaller islands would be fit from sealift and heavier rotary assets (CH-47F) HMNZS Canterbury will need replacing in the 2030’s, if NZ could replace her with something like the proposed Singaporean Endurance 170 LHD that would give more scoops for a heavy lift helicopter, I think this gives more capability than C295 at the same time increasing the HADR on ability to move a light infantry platoon. I still maintain a 4x C130-30J 2x KC-130J & KC-46 will be the way forward all fitted with UARRSI, ifvthe need arises the CH-47F can be fitted with a probe to increase the range if required but I don’t think this would be ideal for NZ for long overwater flights. Had wondered about the CH-47 as well. What about some permanent real estate up in the islands from which to base that type of aircraft and aid missions from?
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Dec 29, 2018 14:43:03 GMT 12
I know some here scoff at the suggestion of a tanker but is there any merit in the idea that as well as providing lift an aircraft like the KC-46/330 would also increase the capability of our P-8s? Going from 6 P-3Ks to 4 P-8s seems like a reduction in capability but maybe one that could be compensated for by keeping those 4 in the air for longer? Interesting take on it: defsec.net.nz/2018/11/10/fee-for-capability/As far as P-8s go, if you wade through some of the old NZDF reports you can see how many flying hours the P-3 fleet was delivering. It's pretty clear than P-8 should be able to easily do better. Yes very interesting - I'm in mixed minds if that model would fit in NZ as the NZ 'model' (Govt attitude) seems to be you make efficiencies in one area but it gets pocketed rather than being re-directed to another area of higher benefit. Looking at the tanker discussion - yes I do agree the B757 replacement should have a true military capability to push it's value beyond what a commercial airliner could deliver... I just don't know if I expect political will to spend the dosh! It is also interesting to consider what influence the P8 purchase will have on the strategic aspect of the FAMC project as NZ is getting 1 (maybe 2?) Mobile Tactical Operating Centre (MTOC) and as the article states, these alone weigh 29,500kg. I would say that considerations such as these will see a definite bias on FAMC project staff away from the smaller size aircraft such as C295 towards the bigger (C130J, C46, A400, A330MRTT etc) but I'm not going to speculate as to what the fleet will look like, other than I know what tactical option I expect will be selected... my main concern is numbers thereof!
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Dec 29, 2018 16:09:23 GMT 12
If you are suggesting a single P8 requires a 29.5 tonne facility to be deployed to support just its tactical planning, data interoperation etc then we have been sold a lemon.
How heavy is the equivalent P-3 support requirement - 0.5 tonne?
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Dec 29, 2018 17:08:19 GMT 12
br]Had wondered about the CH-47 as well. What about some permanent real estate up in the islands from which to base that type of aircraft and aid missions from? Yep sounds good in theory but you would have to build the infrastructure to deal with cyclonic conditions, one only has to look at aftermath of the recent hurricanes in the US and damage done to USAF fighters. I think it’s better to have a mobile airfield that can also carry the required stores. The AusGov has announced a new Pacfic ship for primary HADR work and wave the flag missions, I would like to see a capbilty that of the old HMAS Stalwart an Escort Maintenance ship as they would go along way not just in times of natural disasters but for regular maintence of spealist equipment.
|
|