|
|
Post by fartfart218 on May 24, 2013 7:05:27 GMT 12
Seems like the C130's will be around for a while. Now pushed to 2025 for retirement. The A400 will be a mature project by then.
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on May 24, 2013 9:17:58 GMT 12
They will just order one extra then pull it down for spares. Yep I thought about that but it'd be damn near twice the price of a NH90 & govt is very cost adverse. But I suppose when you think about it, is it a cheaper option than a spares package? I think on the face of it when you take every thing into account it would be especially after our Sprite experience. Theoretically it should the platform(s) that is (are) the best suited for NZDFs needs. However in the real world (NZ) this is not necessarilly the case and cost can be the dominate factor. Personally I think going to the C130J on its own would be a mistake, because it would not meet all our requirements. For example can't fit an NH90 in it so can't do really do strategic air lift in it. But on the other side how many times would we need to air lift the NH90s? The number of time I have flown in a Herk and it has been full is almost everytime so i think there is a need for them, plus a smaller platform, but I think costs might outweight getting both. |
|
|
|
Post by flyinkiwi on May 24, 2013 11:33:22 GMT 12
Personally I think going to the C130J on its own would be a mistake, because it would not meet all our requirements. For example can't fit an NH90 in it so can't do really do strategic air lift in it. But on the other side how many times would we need to air lift the NH90s? This raises a few questions in my mind - What are NZs requirements as regards to tactical/strategic lift capability?
- Can we afford the
best cheapest solution to those requirements? - If we simply cannot afford them, is second best good enough or should we reassess our requirements to a more modest capability?
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on May 24, 2013 15:47:20 GMT 12
The number of time I have flown in a Herk and it has been full is almost everytime so i think there is a need for them, plus a smaller platform, but I think costs might outweight getting both. No if they went for the A400 then they'd have to get somthing smaller as well, what the yanks call a Battlefield Airlifter. They have taskings at moment where Hercs too big but they still do them. There was a Public Symposium on Understanding NZs Security Future at Victoria Uni in Wgtn yesterday which seems to have attracted a lot of people and some very good speakers. This is a quote from an blog posted by Andrew Davies on the Strategist site last night: "The net result is a real question mark over the continuing ability of the NZDF to execute the tasks identified for it. The consensus here seems to be that the minimum capability required is air and sea lift in support of stabilisation and peacekeeping operations, and the ability to put a battalion on the ground if required (around 600 personnel). Full article. It is a good read. There are three other very pertinent articles about the ANZAC relationship that I'll post on the NZDF page. |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on May 24, 2013 16:10:33 GMT 12
So would the A400 fit into the category of a strategic Airlifter. Airbus would probably say yes.
What I am trying to say is i don't think the NZDF would have the finances to procurr, maintain and operate 3 different types for transport.
Someone will now come on and say well we used to with the Andovers,C130's and B727's which i would say yes, but costs for things nowadays have risen to a pont where purchasing and operating like that are just too much for this small country.
The other thing I started to try and say is, would the A400 be ok as a B757 replacement.
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on May 24, 2013 16:29:45 GMT 12
Ok we do have a need for a strategic lifter especially as our illustrious leaders have promised the US kiwi peacekeepers in te Middle East (if that ever happens). But it also has rough field capability which I think the C17 doesn't have so that would be of interest to the ADF and we would have a niche kit. I just think the A400 would be a bit large for humping 20 bods and say 3 pallets to somewhere in NZ or the Pacific. Same with the C130. We never repaced the Andover. Say what you like about the 757 it does do the job but I think we should've got three. Ones been sitting at Anfews AFB near Washington DC for the last week. They appear to work well on the Deep Freeze runs carting pax and freeing up space on the C17s & C130s for cargo. If we decide to get a B757 replacement what do we get? What about the C30 MRT (KC30 MRTT without the refuelling capability)? That's what the air transport study is going to hopefully answer. But it all comes down to the political will power to action the reccomendations. Personally, if we were able to I's plumb for 4 x A400s + 1 crated for spares, 6 x C295, 3 x C30 MRTs as suggested above. The A400 is able to be fitted out for AAR and also can carry a tank inside the fuselage for AAR. There is nothing around I can think of at moment in the B757 size unless you go B787 and that could be expensive because it'd have to be converted.
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on May 24, 2013 18:46:07 GMT 12
As you can tell I am a big A400 fan, which I think they will have to look seriousely at, for both a strategic role and tactical. I think if they get 5 which permits OLM / ILM as well as tasking plus 5-6 C295's for the battlefield tactical role. The C27's would possibly be better suited for this but acquisition costs would probably dictate us to go a full Airbus military package.
On the B757 front, yes I think they are a brilliant size and with their upgraded package a very capable variable role platform for our use.
The C30 would be a bit of an overkill in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on May 24, 2013 21:45:48 GMT 12
I happen to be a big fan of the A400 as well. This is a Flight Global article and it has a video with some inflight shots. I don't like the name Atlas - far prefer Grizzly. |
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on May 24, 2013 22:39:46 GMT 12
Strategic Airliner ?.. Good luck landing it on some of smaller atolls the NZDF visits in the Pacific. Guess they would have to put floatations devices on the pallets.
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on May 24, 2013 23:43:21 GMT 12
Strategic Airliner ?.. Good luck landing it on some of smaller atolls the NZDF visits in the Pacific. Guess they would have to put floatations devices on the pallets. The A400M has short landing capability but you are right about some Pacific Island airfields. That's why they might have the C295 or C27J twin engined aircraft. Anmyway can do a low pallet drop out of a A400 - use chute to extract pallet. been done heaps of time on Hercs. |
|
|
|
Post by bell407 on May 25, 2013 1:56:09 GMT 12
But it also has rough field capability which I think the C17 doesn't have so that would be of interest to the ADF and we would have a niche kit. The C-17 Does have a very good rough field capability, it is well known for it's rough field work as well as the ability to do a pallet air drop, they are also well known for being about US$200 million per plane. I love the C-17 and C-130J combination, I think it would work well. However, I do also think the A400 (Even though it is a scare bus) and a C295 or C-27 combo would be better suited to NZ's requirements. |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on May 25, 2013 16:49:55 GMT 12
Thats what we have to look at. Our needs.
I just hope they don't look at doing some sort of deal with the Aussies where if and we need to fly big things like the Warrior overseas.
If they do that then it will be J model Herks.
|
|
|
|
Post by bell407 on May 25, 2013 19:12:03 GMT 12
I don't think our current Hercs have been a bad thing for the RNZAF and I'm certain they have served admirably, I am as certain that werre the RNZAF to get the C-130J, especially the stretched version, the C-130J-30 such as the Aussies have, that it would serve the RNZAF very well indeed and would not be a poor choice, if not necessarily the best.
|
|
|
|
Post by conman on May 25, 2013 19:52:36 GMT 12
The C-130J at the end of the day is still a "tarted up" 60 year old aircraft design, any replacement aircraft is going to have to serve for many decades best to get a modern design as a means of future proofing as has been done with the NH90
|
|
|
|
Post by keroburner on May 25, 2013 22:22:37 GMT 12
My ideal fleet would be: a C-17 or 2 (yes I know. Dreams are free) 2x B737Max Combi's 6x C130J-30 (forget carting NH90's, the navy can do that  plus you won't see NH90's hitting 25 years service let alone 40+) 5x CN-235 (remember those? smaller, cheaper, and a ramp) Just my 2 cents worth. No solution will meet all requirements 100% anyway. More types = more capability = more regional respect = higher operating costs. |
|
|
|
Post by Mick F on May 26, 2013 1:18:02 GMT 12
Good luck leasing one of our 17s. They are all flat out, which is why we went from 4, then 5 and finally the sixth.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on May 26, 2013 17:53:37 GMT 12
My ideal fleet would be: a C-17 or 2 (yes I know. Dreams are free) 2x B737Max Combi's 6x C130J-30 (forget carting NH90's, the navy can do that plus you won't see NH90's hitting 25 years service let alone 40+) 5x CN-235 (remember those? smaller, cheaper, and a ramp) Just my 2 cents worth. No solution will meet all requirements 100% anyway. More types = more capability = more regional respect = higher operating costs. No C17s. To expensive and to big. We can't justify one let alone two. B737 wouldn't meet the criteria because it probably doesn't have the legs and the engines are slung too low for Antarctic ops. C130J only if nothing else fits. CN235 too small and now only manufactured in Indonesia. I've been thinking about the B757 and Beags comment about the C30 MRT being overkill and how well the B757 is serving the RNZAF and NZDF. The USAF is going to be flying its KC135s for another 40 years. So they upgrade them as they do major services on them. The modern KC135 is totally different from the first tranche flown in the 1950s. They've changed the engines and avionics etc, and they use a 737 cockpit now, plus upgrade and replace components of the airframe as servicings happen and old parts no longer exist. So my question is, would it be cost efficient for us to do the same with the B757, instead of having to modifiy and bring a different type into service? If that is the case then I would suggest buying a third B757, modifying it to the same as the current two. IMHO three in the fleet is more efficient and cost effective in the long term than two. Secondly, if we do this, do we buy a couple of attritional airframes for spares? |
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on May 26, 2013 17:58:21 GMT 12
Good luck leasing one of our 17s. They are all flat out, which is why we went from 4, then 5 and finally the sixth. Sent from my Nexus 7 using proboards Yep, but what happens after the ADF has pulled out of Afghan and those taskings no longer exist? Will the C17s still be flat out like a lizard drinking then? |
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on May 28, 2013 19:46:38 GMT 12
I've been having a look around and according to wikipedia the Airbus A321-200 is a direct competitor to the B757-200 which the RNZAF 757s were modified from. Airbus did plan a freighter version of the A321-200 and had partners but tyhe program was cancelled in 2011 because of need for PAX airframes. So maybe this is an option to replace B757s with when the time comes and if Airbus & EADS won't do it we could try ST in Singapore again as they did the B757 conversion. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A321#Stretching_and_shrinking |
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on May 29, 2013 14:58:06 GMT 12
Do you mean the A321 is a competitor to the 757 in military terms? Because I always thought of the A321 as a competitor to the later Boeing 737 series.
|
|
plus you won't see NH90's hitting 25 years service let alone 40+)
