|
Post by beagle on Dec 29, 2014 20:54:41 GMT 12
Anybody seen Jerry in 40 SQN hangar recently with a tape measure
|
|
|
Post by suthg on Dec 30, 2014 7:47:13 GMT 12
Then there is the other obvious use for C-17's - heading to Antarctica for the annual transfer of equipment supplies and trading crews in and out. I know the US provide a plane or two probably mainly for their own crews and functions at McMurdo Station. It may save some stress on the 757, although there are a huge number of pax transferred, discussed somewhere else on the forum.
|
|
|
Post by kiwirob on Jan 1, 2015 10:13:46 GMT 12
I think you will find the Government is stuck between a rock and a hard place on this and the C-17 is really the only option they have. The A-400M is a great aircraft but unproven at the moment and will mainly been seen in Europe and the risks involved are most likely too high. I am unsure on a stretched version of the C-130J on if an NH-90 would fit in. I cannot see the Government doing nothing here as it would beg the question was the NH-90 the right choice back in 2006 and I cannot see them going down that track. Sure it's a huge capital investment but so to was the purchase of 5x new C-130H Hercules back in 1965 and that investment has been paid back several times over. Think about it this way the C-17 was unproven not all that long ago. I don't see a problem with the Govt buying A400, we'll get them further down the track, many bugs should have been sorted by then. C-130J cannot fit an NH-90, even with the rotors removed. I think going with the NH-90 was the smart choice, it's a new chopper at the start of it's development, the Blackhawk is now well into it's lifespan and is probably nearing the end of it's development cycle. If we buy C-17 (I hope we do) we will have to get another smaller tactical transport as well.
|
|
|
Post by Chris F on Jan 1, 2015 12:19:08 GMT 12
I have always been surprised that the Andover has not been replaced from a tactical transport role point of view so one would think this is also long term been considered but who knows all very speculative at best. I believe the NH-90's can only be stored on flight deck of the Canterbury as they don't fit in the hangars rotors don't fold..anyone know the answer to this?
|
|
|
Post by htbrst on Jan 1, 2015 12:27:53 GMT 12
I believe the NH-90's can only be stored on flight deck of the Canterbury as they don't fit in the hangars rotors don't fold..anyone know the answer to this? Yup - but they can take the rotors off to fit. Not ideal but workable
|
|
|
Post by Chris F on Jan 1, 2015 12:44:16 GMT 12
Thank you..so we do have a capability to transport them..just not fast or ideal...
|
|
thax
Warrant Officer
Posts: 31
|
Post by thax on Jan 1, 2015 13:26:55 GMT 12
The RNZAF NH90 main rotor blades can be folded, but this must be done manually (only the NFH variants have automatic blade fold). Once folded aft they are secured to a frame that mounts to the aft fuselage. The aft tail boom section also folds to reduce the length of the stowed airframe.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 1, 2015 17:07:57 GMT 12
I believe the NH-90's can only be stored on flight deck of the Canterbury as they don't fit in the hangars rotors don't fold..anyone know the answer to this? The NH90 fits fine in CANTs hangars. I was on board when they carried out interface trials in 2012. They also embarked an MRH90 when the first of class flight trials were conducted.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jan 3, 2015 16:18:02 GMT 12
SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, Ill., Dec. 31 (UPI) -- Two Air Force squadrons of C-17 transport aircraft are being inactivated over the next two years as a cost-saving measure, the service announced. The two squadrons -- 16 planes in all -- are at Joint Base Charleston, S.C., and Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash. The inactivation, the Air Force said, is based on President Barack Obama's defense budget for fiscal 2015. "In this fiscally constrained environment, we have to balance readiness, capability and capacity," said Maj. Gen. Michael S. Stough, the AMC Strategic Plans, Requirements and Programs director. "To best preserve this capability, the intent is to fund these aircraft back into primary mission aircraft inventory in future years, and transfer them to the Reserve Component -- and we're working with our Air National Guard partners to do that, perhaps even as early as FY16. "We rely on our total force partners to meet our global mobility requirements; we couldn't do the mission without them. We'll continue to leverage the unique strengths of the active and Reserve components to meet current and future requirements with available resources," he said. The fiscal year 2015 budget transfers the 16 aircraft from the primary mission aircraft inventory to backup aircraft inventory. As part of the backup inventory, the planes will continue to receive funding to support weapon system sustainment but there will be no funding to assign personnel to the aircraft or to aircraft flying hours. The Air Force said the move will save about $110 million annually.
This had me thinking. This is a bit winded but bare with me. I think quite a few of us know that the NZDF is quite serious regards C17 purchase, whether it be 2 or 3 airframes. This will be for the strategic transport part of the project and would fulfil this role plus some tactical on occasion. These will not replace the C130 at this stage but compliment them until they get replaced early 2020's.
My thoughts are with other countries also looking at adding to their current C17 fleets and new buyers like us saying "if we don't purchase now, we won't get another chance" , what would happen if the up to 10 white tails be gone before we make a decision. So from the article heading this post, would there be any chance that if that happens that the USAF and Boeing say, hey we can make some extra money here, instead of deactivating all those airframes, could we not sell some of the last of the USAF frames off the line to those who may have missed out. I have read that the USAF had said that they didn't really want all that what coming their way and it was probably motivated by congress and Boeing to keep the plant open longer.
So what do you reckon, just my 2 cents worth.
And Frank Dyer, if you read this, can you remember taking my camera while on IceCube 1992 and snapping pictures of bare tarmac and boring stuff at the Deep Freeze apron.
|
|
|
Post by noooby on Jan 6, 2015 9:33:52 GMT 12
Did Frank not give your camera back??? LOL
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jan 6, 2015 20:04:21 GMT 12
yeah and when I got it developed, there was probably only a few I took, all the rest were from him and I think another shady character that ended up being officer in Murray Dobson
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jan 7, 2015 9:03:05 GMT 12
Someone needs to ask whether the C17 is allowed to carry the NH90. A little bird tells me NHI wont certify the transport of the NH90 in a C17. Might be entirely mistaken of course, I stand to be corrected. It would be up to the operator of the aircraft to decide if the NH-90 could be carried. The ADF have a special unit that does this and have done it for the MRH-90. The point in your later post about warranty ma be a factor if the aircraft is damaged I guess.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jan 28, 2015 17:17:34 GMT 12
So I wonder how long before the committee get any news back from the USA Can we make a decision re purchase before the White Paper is out
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Jan 28, 2015 18:37:11 GMT 12
Can we make a decision re purchase before the White Paper is out Yes. A White Paper is simply a statement of what a particular government thinks at the time of publication. While it is often a culmination of many different lines of work, there is nothing particularly special about it. If government wants to make a decision about strategic transport prior to publication it only takes a cabinet decision.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jan 28, 2015 19:03:18 GMT 12
pretty sure my MP, Amy Adams in in cabinet so should drop around a slab to her front door with a note
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Jan 28, 2015 19:29:51 GMT 12
pretty sure my MP, Amy Adams in in cabinet so should drop around a slab to her front door with a note I remember hearing a former minister say if MPs get more than 5 letters from different people on a subject they treated it as a 'major issue.' Some emails etc probably wouldn't hurt.
|
|
|
Post by isc on Jan 28, 2015 20:53:53 GMT 12
Amy is my MP also, think she got Justice, took over from Collins. Brownlee is Defence I think, and we would need C-17s to cart ministers that size. isc
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jan 28, 2015 21:12:17 GMT 12
where are you living
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Jan 29, 2015 7:56:17 GMT 12
Some emails etc probably wouldn't hurt. My political mole tells me that one written letter has more impact than 50 emails. Writing to your MP at Parliament means you don't even need to use a stamp!
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 29, 2015 9:29:57 GMT 12
Shows how out of touch the Government departments are if they put more store in snail mail than email.
|
|