atgv
Flight Sergeant
Posts: 29
|
Post by atgv on May 19, 2015 23:33:19 GMT 12
We really don't need a standalone VIP aircraft. There can't be a proper VIP flight more than once a month can there? Often the contingent is just made up of a senior minister or two, some bureaucrats and a lot of media. Ministers can fly business class, the bureaucrats and journos can fly economy. I imagine it would work out a lot cheaper than what it costs to fly a Boeing around..
|
|
|
Post by beagle on May 21, 2015 3:53:08 GMT 12
yippee, Budget Day, wonder if there will be any defence announcements
|
|
|
Post by gungadin on May 21, 2015 13:14:17 GMT 12
Don't hold your breath
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2015 16:49:56 GMT 12
I didn't hear anything about C-17s, unless it was in code??
|
|
|
Post by macnz on May 23, 2015 12:22:53 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by Ian Warren on May 23, 2015 13:06:09 GMT 12
Here's one analyst's "should it propose replacing the two frigates with three combat ships." ... umm analyst's - I know this a C-17 topic ... what was in the thinking with this writing ... a Frigate is a combat ship so what do they label a C-17 transport aircraft
|
|
|
Post by suthg on May 23, 2015 14:57:40 GMT 12
I believe there is an existing budget set aside just for this purpose, and spread out over 5 further years, and for a 10 year plan as well. The money is there already for a wide range of purchases. It can be moderated in direction and scope through those years. I don't think it needed to be funded from the current proposed budget. I believe the funds mentioned in the budget were for increases in the three codes for annual costs and for some alterations on current equipment. Nothing was mentioned about additional funds for new scopes of purchase. There is authority within the MOD for managing the replacement budgets (as they exist) as they see fit.
|
|
|
Post by atea on May 23, 2015 16:23:40 GMT 12
Yes suthg that is how I understand the funding to be allocated as well. There is most likely budgeted money set aside outlined in the Defense Mid Point Re-balancing Review as anything I have read about this review has been heavily redacted with large sections that would seem to involve monetary issues missing. As for the analysts view of the budget it seems to me from having a good look through the Vote Defense part of the budget that there may be overall $10 million less but this is made up of lower outgoings in terms of veterans pensions and other non core services. The money allocated to the 3 forces increases for each.
|
|
|
Post by macnz on May 23, 2015 19:17:00 GMT 12
I believe there is an existing budget set aside just for this purpose, and spread out over 5 further years, and for a 10 year plan as well. The money is there already for a wide range of purchases. It can be moderated in direction and scope through those years. I don't think it needed to be funded from the current proposed budget. I believe the funds mentioned in the budget were for increases in the three codes for annual costs and for some alterations on current equipment. Nothing was mentioned about additional funds for new scopes of purchase. There is authority within the MOD for managing the replacement budgets (as they exist) as they see fit. Does anyone know how much is currently accrued in this replacement fund? $2-3b? Assuming the procurement needs are replacements for; Hercs, 757s, P3ks on the RNZAF side and 2 frigates, replenishment ship (Endeavour) and a littoral vessel (Manawanui)? on the RNZN side, then just to buy such new assets in the next 10 years could likely set NZ back $2b to $2.5b (excl. initial operating costs) and assuming our exchange rate continues to remain strong against USD & Euro over next decade.
|
|
|
Post by suthg on May 23, 2015 20:24:57 GMT 12
All MOD decisions have a political bent to them, so yes - scope, types, numbers, branch of Armed Forces and who has needs most will all play their part in decisions over replacements in each branch of the Military.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on May 23, 2015 20:55:54 GMT 12
7.4 mill for new digital radios. Will these be replacing the old valve radios in the joe rooms
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2015 21:13:24 GMT 12
7.4 mill for new digital radios. Will these be replacing the old valve radios in the joe rooms They should keep the Valve Radios they will work after a Nuclear War Too keep on topic I recommend Valve Radios for the C-17s
|
|
|
Post by bell407 on May 27, 2015 17:06:31 GMT 12
Hi all. I'm not too sure if this link will work or not but there are some interesting pics of an NH 90 being loaded onto an RAAF C-17 and it looks like there was space to spare as well. NH 90 in a C-17
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on May 27, 2015 17:27:37 GMT 12
Thanks! So rotor blades (but not hub) removed. Maybe the references to lack of auto-folding blades on ours is that rotor assemblies are either auto-folding or non-folding?
|
|
|
Post by No longer identifiable on May 27, 2015 18:02:26 GMT 12
7.4 mill for new digital radios. Will these be replacing the old valve radios in the joe rooms They should keep the Valve Radios they will work after a Nuclear War Too keep on topic I recommend Valve Radios for the C-17s Seconded!
|
|
|
Post by suthg on May 27, 2015 18:42:01 GMT 12
Rotor blades can be manually folded, but removal would obviously make space.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on May 27, 2015 19:47:21 GMT 12
The biggest problem I can see is the wing centre section, making the interior cabin height just too low to have the blades folded.
|
|
|
Post by atea on May 27, 2015 21:57:20 GMT 12
So Gungadin seems to have gone quiet. Maybe having meeting's with Gerry as he seems to be the Airbus rep in New Zealand. 32 posts on this one thread and all heavily favouring the A400 leave me with my suspicions
|
|
|
Post by isc on May 28, 2015 14:29:51 GMT 12
What's the head room in an A-400, compared with the C-17, ie., is there reduced room with the wing spar. isc
|
|
|
Post by beagle on May 28, 2015 19:23:59 GMT 12
A400, h= 12' 7", w = 13'1" , C17, h = 14'9", w = 18' at the wingbox, h = 13', w = 17'4"
|
|