|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jul 30, 2014 14:07:48 GMT 12
He just happens to be the current CAA manager in charge of the section in the sights of the lawyers, hence the reason why he is in their firing line.
It sounds like he has been copping a real grilling over alleged lax CAA standards in monitoring what was going on and acting on complaints.
Bad time to take over that job, I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by exkiwiforces on Sept 11, 2014 19:58:45 GMT 12
Found this on Janes Defence this morning about the RAF's A400' and this was at the end of the article. Don't know the exchange is at moment for the Pound and the Kiwi dollar.
The UK's 22 aircraft were procured at a cost of GBP2.809 billion (USD4.670 billion), equating to a unit cost of about GBP127 million, although it should be noted that the contract covered infrastructure, training, spares, support, and other ancillary services.
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Nov 19, 2014 4:33:02 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by camtech on Nov 19, 2014 8:40:33 GMT 12
Agree - might make it difficult for the LAPES deliveries. (Low Altitude Parachute Extraction).
Besides, we would need to keep at least one Herc to carry the loading ramps!!
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Nov 19, 2014 8:52:02 GMT 12
40 sqn role store might have to be enlarged
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Jan 14, 2015 13:10:16 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by flyinkiwi on Jan 14, 2015 15:54:50 GMT 12
Kind of stating the obvious. But with our nations track record I can see why it needs reiteration.
The powers that be need to go into this process with a mind as open as their chequebook. So any and all solutions need to be seriously considered without being discarded out of hand.
More accurately translated: when it comes to major defense equipment acquisitions, ministers and prime ministers have been prone to make decisions based solely on political considerations, and not just on the advice of officials tasked with doing all the due diligence.
|
|
|
|
Post by suthg on Jan 14, 2015 19:26:09 GMT 12
OPINION: More accurately translated: when it comes to major defense equipment acquisitions, ministers and prime ministers have been prone to make decisions based solely on political considerations, and not just on the advice of officials tasked with doing all the due diligence. Yes - whether they hold back the finances and try and balance the budget and get back in again next time... without any consideration to the military based reviews, our position on the Security Council, and allegiances to treaties and balances and swings in our pacific region (and further afield - ie Middle East) as far as maritime support, regional disaster support, S&R, counter terrorism support, seafaring piracy etc, etc which a C-17 capacity with NH90 transport capability and NZD personnel military transport and maritime surveillance facilities all to be accounted for with our current and an expanded aviation capability. It is still feasible to continue to maintain our C-130 fleet for little added cost for a further 10 years. There is a plan to do so out to 2025 or so... So I agree, very often the reports, reviews and proposals are stalled and decisions are based more on political and personal feelings as a short term expediency rather than a long term calculated and future proofed contiguous plan. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 15, 2015 11:19:25 GMT 12
Typical hopeless journalism, the oldest in the fleet turned 50 on the 19th of November last year!
|
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Jan 16, 2015 7:00:15 GMT 12
The Value for Money review that slammed the 757 feet did so for good reason. It wasn't about the cost, it was the value government gets from its investment. Essentially the Boeings don't do anything that a civil charter couldn't. They don't fly anywhere there is any sort of threat, and they need ground handling equipment to unload cargo. That means they don't provide any capability to government that can't be achieved by a credit card and a call a charter operator.
I think people talking about runway lengths in the Pacific are missing the point. Most of the island groups have runways big enough for large commercial aircraft - all well within the capability of land a C-17 on. Unlike a civilian aircraft a C-17 doesn't need a runway to unload relief supplies.
Above all other options, a C-17 purchase would provide a Whole of Government capability. Antarctic New Zealand is an obvious customer. Another is the Fire Service. A self deployment capability is a requirement to accredit a USAR Task Force internationally. Having C-17 in the inventory would enable NZFS to do that. Don't underestimate what that capability means to Cabinet and top decision makers.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwirob on Jan 19, 2015 8:47:46 GMT 12
Above all other options, a C-17 purchase would provide a Whole of Government capability. Antarctic New Zealand is an obvious customer. Another is the Fire Service. A self deployment capability is a requirement to accredit a USAR Task Force internationally. Having C-17 in the inventory would enable NZFS to do that. Don't underestimate what that capability means to Cabinet and top decision makers. Please explain how the fireservice would benefit from a C-17 purchase by the govt? |
|
|
|
Post by bell407 on Jan 19, 2015 9:07:10 GMT 12
Above all other options, a C-17 purchase would provide a Whole of Government capability. Antarctic New Zealand is an obvious customer. Another is the Fire Service. A self deployment capability is a requirement to accredit a USAR Task Force internationally. Having C-17 in the inventory would enable NZFS to do that. Don't underestimate what that capability means to Cabinet and top decision makers. Please explain how the fireservice would benefit from a C-17 purchase by the govt? You know how many water balloons you can through out the back of a C-17?  |
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jan 19, 2015 15:16:15 GMT 12
Above all other options, a C-17 purchase would provide a Whole of Government capability. Antarctic New Zealand is an obvious customer. Another is the Fire Service. A self deployment capability is a requirement to accredit a USAR Task Force internationally. Having C-17 in the inventory would enable NZFS to do that. Don't underestimate what that capability means to Cabinet and top decision makers. Please explain how the fireservice would benefit from a C-17 purchase by the govt? rapid deployment of fire fighting equipment and personnel to areas of need - e.g additional fire trucks needed for disaster recovery or deployment to assist Australian bushfires. Fire service would therfore only need a small pool of the really specialised equipment and deploy as required. As noted it would allow NZ Urban Search and rescue teams to be internationally accredited. |
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Jan 19, 2015 18:28:39 GMT 12
Please explain how the fireservice would benefit from a C-17 purchase by the govt? In order for USAR teams to be internationally accredited they need to be able to self-deploy with all their heavy equipment and supplies for X number of operational hours. The timeframes response teams work to preclude multiple stopovers enroute. A lack of a reliable self deployment capability has been one of the issues facing accreditation for some time. |
|
|
|
Post by machpants on Jan 27, 2015 12:01:39 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Jan 28, 2015 16:03:08 GMT 12
There's some interesting data on the web about where the various project are at. Objectively the A400 is at a similar state of development as the J-model Hercs were assessed as being too risky for the RNZAF in the late 90s. The issue now is that by the time the Atlas is further through its testing programme, there won't be any commercially available alternatives to it at the higher end of the capability spectrum.
The lowest risk option would be to buy the C-17 outright.
There are some interesting stats from Australia and the US about the costs per flight hour of the C-17 versus the J-model Hercs. t looks like the cost difference is around the 20-40% mark, which is pretty negligible.
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Feb 17, 2015 13:15:11 GMT 12
australianaviation.com.au/2015/02/airbus-to-bring-a400m-to-avalon/Airbus Defence and Space is bringing its A400M turboprop military transport aircraft and A330 MRRT aerial refuelling tanker to the Avalon Airshow. It will be the first time Airbus has brought the A400M to the South Pacific, the company said in a statement on Tuesday. The aircraft will be on static display and is one of the six A400Ms operating with the French Air Force. Meanwhile, the A330 MRRT to appear at Avalon from the RAAF, which has five A330 MRRT aircraft in its fleet. “It will be the first time that an A400M and an A330 MRTT have appeared together at an air show in the region,” Airbus said in a statement. Other Airbus Defence and Space aircraft coming to the airshow, which runs from February 24 to March 1, included the KC-30A, C295 MPA multi-role maritime patrol aircraft and a full-scale model of its mini-unmanned aircraft system designated Tracker.
|
|
|
|
Post by area51 on Feb 17, 2015 23:05:13 GMT 12
The A400M is due to visit Wellington and Whenuapai early March post the Avalon show. There is speculation it may do a run from Christchurch to Pegasus and back also..... we shall wait and see!!
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Feb 18, 2015 4:19:11 GMT 12
Airbus must know we need something with more range to extend the PSR. Maybe they have been reading this forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Feb 18, 2015 15:28:58 GMT 12
Lets hope so Beagle.
And if Bell/Boeing or AgustaWestland are monitoring ...a V-22 Osprey or AgustaWestland AW609 Tiltrotor NZ stopover would also be warmly welcomed.
FYI - Apparently the Italian Army is eyeing developments of the planned AgustaWestland AW609 tiltrotor rather than the Boeing Osprey. Italian firm AgustaWestland is now going alone in the development of its commercial AW609 after ending a partnership with Bell. The firm is also discussing a military version to their Army ...probably cheaper and with less red tape than the US one.
|
|
