|
Post by beagle on Jan 1, 2019 20:24:55 GMT 12
Tankers are just a sign we got the wrong aircraft, One shouldn't forget that tanker gas is REALLY expensive (best counted in many multiplies of standard price) and really only makes sense where you occasionally operate at very long ranges which isn't the case here. Would Antarctica be considered somewhere where that kind of range/support might be needed in case a transporter couldn't land and needed to return to NZ? We're not getting C-17s which I understand don't have that problem but what about the A400 of it is an option? A400 can take 20 tonne load to Mc Murdo, if weather turns crap, they can turn around over head and return to NZ, plus do that if an engine has to be shut down for any reason.
|
|
|
Post by machina on Jan 1, 2019 21:12:59 GMT 12
Would Antarctica be considered somewhere where that kind of range/support might be needed in case a transporter couldn't land and needed to return to NZ? We're not getting C-17s which I understand don't have that problem but what about the A400 of it is an option? A400 can take 20 tonne load to Mc Murdo, if weather turns crap, they can turn around over head and return to NZ, plus do that if an engine has to be shut down for any reason. Thanks Beagle.
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Jan 2, 2019 11:59:15 GMT 12
Would Antarctica be considered somewhere where that kind of range/support might be needed in case a transporter couldn't land and needed to return to NZ? We're not getting C-17s which I understand don't have that problem but what about the A400 of it is an option? A400 can take 20 tonne load to Mc Murdo, if weather turns crap, they can turn around over head and return to NZ, plus do that if an engine has to be shut down for any reason. Seem to remember a comment online it's about 15 tonnes Chch to Phoenix field & return if they can't land. The return distance is about 4230 NM and A400 is rated at 3450 NM with 20 tonnes according to various (PR) sources that all appear rehash the same AirBus source: www.redstar.gr/Foto_red/Book/A400M.pdf Regardless it's still a huge gain on a C130. edit: if the link doesn't work paste & go on 'http://www.redstar.gr/Foto_red/Book/A400M.pdf'
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Jan 2, 2019 12:12:59 GMT 12
Why exactly does the RNZAF actual do airlift to McMurdo, its little more than a seasonal airline operation and as such would much cheaper to charter out.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 2, 2019 13:13:15 GMT 12
Why would you want to take away one of the RNZAF's vital training roles for No. 40 Squadron RNZAF, Madmac? Operating in different and extreme environments is all part of being an Air Force. If you take away such experiences, you diminish their capability and their worth to the nation.
|
|
|
Post by fiftythree on Jan 2, 2019 17:55:51 GMT 12
It's not about being a seasonal airline or training for the RNZAF. The military is a tool for implementation of government policy. Successive governments of NZ have maintained that an Antarctic presence is important to NZ. Ongoing scientific research and the fact that NZ is one if five places close enough to fly direct to the ice from is considered an important thing and worth utilising military equipment and expertise for. The RNZAF are part of the joint logistics pool supporting Ant NZ, USAP, KOPRI (South Korea) and ENEA (Italy). It basically is contracted out. For the capability the RNZAF offers, the programs are getting reasonable value for money. Other flying organisations that are part of the joint logistics pool include USAF (heavy lift), New York Air National Guard 109th Air Lift Squadron (specialist operations on the continent), Sky Traders (A319 air liner for early season pax transport, Australian outfit) and Lynden Air (L382G cargo support to ENEA, American (Alaska) outfit).
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 2, 2019 19:49:09 GMT 12
Correct, and also there is the angle that New Zealand lays claim to a sizable chuck of the Antarctic territory, and there are some countries who dispute the claims made by countries who have territory there. Pulling out our military presence would weaken our claim.
|
|
awol
Flight Sergeant
Posts: 21
|
Post by awol on Jan 2, 2019 22:26:58 GMT 12
Correct, and also there is the angle that New Zealand lays claim to a sizable chuck of the Antarctic territory, and there are some countries who dispute the claims made by countries who have territory there. Pulling out our military presence would weaken our claim. Furthermore: ...sovereignty. Scott Base has been manned every single day since 1957 – 60 years of continual habitation. That matters because one day the Antarctic Treaty System might come undone...In the event of a territorial lolly scramble, New Zealand could claim the dependency as its own and continual habitation would strengthen our case.Having the means to access the continent at will, without reliance on contractors or other sovereign nations, is important.
|
|
|
Post by tfly on Jan 2, 2019 22:56:21 GMT 12
Correct, and also there is the angle that New Zealand lays claim to a sizable chuck of the Antarctic territory, and there are some countries who dispute the claims made by countries who have territory there. Pulling out our military presence would weaken our claim. Furthermore: ...sovereignty. Scott Base has been manned every single day since 1957 – 60 years of continual habitation. That matters because one day the Antarctic Treaty System might come undone...In the event of a territorial lolly scramble, New Zealand could claim the dependency as its own and continual habitation would strengthen our case.Having the means to access the continent at will, without reliance on contractors or other sovereign nations, is important. As a matter of interest (whilst we are talking sovereignty) could an armed P8 make it down to Antarctic and back to NZ (possibly land/refuel on the ice). And if a P8 cannot make it there and back then maybe having a KC46/A330MRTT in the fleet might be prudent? Just food for thought after all deterrence does have its uses! 😉
|
|
|
Post by exkiwiforces on Jan 2, 2019 23:33:40 GMT 12
Furthermore: ...sovereignty. Scott Base has been manned every single day since 1957 – 60 years of continual habitation. That matters because one day the Antarctic Treaty System might come undone...In the event of a territorial lolly scramble, New Zealand could claim the dependency as its own and continual habitation would strengthen our case.Having the means to access the continent at will, without reliance on contractors or other sovereign nations, is important. As a matter of interest (whilst we are talking sovereignty) could an armed P8 make it down to Antarctic and back to NZ (possibly land/refuel on the ice). And if a P8 cannot make it there and back then maybe having a KC46/A330MRTT in the fleet might be prudent? Just food for thought after all deterrence does have its uses! 😉 Due to the Antarctic Treaty requirements New Zealand can’t land armed Aircraft on the ice, atm the P3’s can land unarmed and all treaty nations have to be notified in case they want to inspect the P3 unlike two nations atm namely Russia and China, but’s that another story.
|
|
|
Post by machina on Jan 3, 2019 6:09:32 GMT 12
...unlike two nations atm namely Russia and China, but’s that another story. Could you please briefly elaborate on this or point me in the direction of some more info?
|
|
|
Post by exkiwiforces on Jan 3, 2019 15:17:18 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by machina on Jan 3, 2019 17:01:23 GMT 12
Could you please briefly elaborate on this or point me in the direction of some more info? Here is some open source information... Not in the military but thanks for providing what you can, it's appreciated. I will get stuck into it tonight.
|
|
|
Post by kiwirico on Jan 8, 2019 8:36:33 GMT 12
I see many combinations of transports, both large and medium sized... and suddenly even tankers!!! My simple question is; are the Hercs and later on Boeing 757 to be replaced by one single type... or is their a official plan to buy a combination?
My thought was a mix of C-130J (or A.400M) plus few medium sized planes (obviously the C-295).
|
|
|
Post by foxcover on Jan 8, 2019 8:45:23 GMT 12
I see many combinations of transports, both large and medium sized... and suddenly even tankers!!! My simple question is; are the Hercs and later on Boeing 757 to be replaced by one single type... or is their a official plan to buy a combination? My thought was a mix of C-130J (or A.400M) plus few medium sized planes (obviously the C-295). I really hope it’s an A400/C295 combo but I can’t see it happening, will be new Hercs soon and A320 at a later date unfortunately.
|
|
jjt
Sergeant
Posts: 19
|
Post by jjt on Jan 12, 2019 17:18:06 GMT 12
Hi all,
Bit of a random question/thought - it’s been a while since I was last on the base....but, IF we ended up purchasing A400’s.......would they fit in the hangars at Whenuapai (that currently house the C130’s)? ...or would new hangars be required?
Can’t see us buying new birds and not having a place for them.
Potentially would that be a reason or consideration as to whether either the C130J or the A400 gets the green light or not.....? as in a C130J would slot straight into the hangar (presuming of course the A400 didn’t fit - moot point if it did however).
On the back of that, when were the C130 hangars built and have they been upgraded since?
Apologies if I’m heading off on a tangent here, just thought it might be relevant. I think that those airframes are the only ones in the game realistically for the tactical role (arm chair opinion only - sorry I know that’s frowned upon!!!!).
Given the knowledge and experience of a number of posters here, I’m sure there’ll be someone who’ll be able to provide some insight reference the hangars..
Cheers,
JT
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 12, 2019 18:07:32 GMT 12
The concrete hangars at Whenuapai were built in 1939-1940. The one No. 40 Squadron uses was in need of a large repair after a Hudson dived through the roof in 1942.
The wingspan of an A400M is just two metres more than that of a C-130H. At 45.1 m in length they are longer than a C-30H (29.8 m). Possibly the crucial thing is the C-130H is 11.6 m tall and the A400M is 14.7 m. But I don't know the actual dimensions of the hangar opening and some people here reckon they will fit in find. If they can get the tail in at that height, then they should comfortable fit two in to a hangar I'd think.
However the RNZAF will probably be keen for new buildings like No. 3 Squadron got and No. 5 Squadron is getting.
|
|
jjt
Sergeant
Posts: 19
|
Post by jjt on Jan 12, 2019 18:10:40 GMT 12
The concrete hangars at Whenuapai were built in 1939-1940. The one No. 40 Squadron uses was in need of a large repair after a Hudson dived through the roof in 1942. The wingspan of an A400M is just two metres more than that of a C-130H. At 45.1 m in length they are longer than a C-30H (29.8 m). Possibly the crucial thing is the C-130H is 11.6 m tall and the A400M is 14.7 m. But I don't know the actual dimensions of the hangar opening and some people here reckon they will fit in find. If they can get the tail in at that height, then they should comfortable fit two in to a hangar I'd think. However the RNZAF will probably be keen for new buildings like No. 3 Squadron got and No. 5 Squadron is getting.
|
|
jjt
Sergeant
Posts: 19
|
Post by jjt on Jan 12, 2019 18:17:40 GMT 12
Thanks Dave, good info (didn’t know about the Hudson..!). New buildings/hangars fit for purpose makes sense, especially given the originals are circa WW2......! Even if we get J model Hercs, I’d like to see that done. All comes back to the almighty dollar though doesn’t it....!
Cheers,
JT
|
|
|
Post by machina on Jan 12, 2019 18:57:05 GMT 12
All comes back to the political willpower though doesn’t it....! Cheers, JT Fixed
|
|