|
Post by jumpertech on Apr 15, 2015 18:03:33 GMT 12
Here is a link to the report (the Foreign Affairs, Defence & Trade Select Committee's 2013/14 Annual review of NZDF & MoD). C-17 info on paqe 3. linkHmmm, makes me cautiously optimistic... although 3 would be the sensible number, I think the reality is there won't be any support for an almost $1B spend for 3. At least the report pretty much states another type will be required to 'work alongside', which I expect would ultimately be a twin-engine type. ....fingers crossed! I agree on feeling optimistic, the language used seems positive. Got a bit over-excited when I read the Herald Headline, thought it had been signed off!
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Apr 15, 2015 19:23:46 GMT 12
just reading other forum groups on the subject and facebook. I just laugh at some of the comments from people who wouldn't have a clue.
|
|
|
Post by atea on Apr 16, 2015 2:51:17 GMT 12
I think that a price in the area of $600 million is pretty reasonable. I would have thought that the total budgeted replacement cost for whatever the Hercules are replaced with would total around the $1 Billion mark so that leaves around $400 Million for something like 4 C27's. 757 capabilities replaced by the troop carrying capacity of the C17's and VIP by something like a Boeing Business Jet. Hopefully they make the decision quickly as I don't think the remaining C17's will be sitting around for long.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Apr 16, 2015 6:11:15 GMT 12
1.6 billion for total airlift and again I reinterate, not just the Hercules replacement
|
|
|
Post by ZacYates on Apr 16, 2015 9:27:42 GMT 12
I was about to ask whether two would be enough?
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Apr 16, 2015 10:13:31 GMT 12
Getting 3 spends too much of the available $$. A 90% chance of being able to move an NH90 quickly with little warning is better than 0%?
|
|
|
Post by isc on Apr 16, 2015 14:09:40 GMT 12
Aren't ANZ changing from B-737 to A-320. isc
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Apr 16, 2015 14:28:35 GMT 12
Aren't ANZ changing from B-737 to A-320. isc So what if they are? It's run as a commercial business, as it should be.
|
|
|
Post by obiwan27 on Apr 16, 2015 14:31:06 GMT 12
www.stuff.co.nz/national/67796886/defence-force-could-spend-600m-on-two-new-planesRon Mark's summary of the idea of a C-17 purchase : "NZ First defence spokesman Ron Mark has opposed the purchase of C-17s because he said most of the NZDF's work involved short-distance missions. Mark submitted written questions to Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee over what contact the Ministry of Defence had had with Boeing and the United States government regarding the purchase of C-17s. Brownlee responded that the Ministry had sought information on both the price and availability of C-17 from the United States government, and further information was being sought. Ad Feedback Asked if similar queries had been made with aircraft manufacturing companies Airbus, Embraer and Lockheed Martin for alternative replacements, Mark said he received a "ministerial brush off" from Brownlee. His answer stated that representatives of those companies "frequently update Ministry of Defence officials on the range of products and services that their companies offer." The minister was "favouring Boeing" in looking to replace the NZDF's aging aircraft, and a proper review of the replacements was needed, Mark said. Brownlee rejected Mark's claim that he had been brushed off, and said all options were under consideration. "It would be absurd to say you have to consider all these aircraft and then get upset about us considering one of the aircraft that's in the mix," Brownlee said. "The price availability that we've sought from Boeing around the C-17 reflects the fact that Australians fly them, the US flies them, Great Britain flies them, Singapore flies them… It's all of our defence partners." Brownlee was looking at a set of criteria he had to be satisfied of, while considering what the NZDF's transport needs were. "Bearing in mind that one of our major areas of operation is the Antarctic and we had a near-miss with a plane in the Antarctic in 2013 and haven't been able to fly there since." The 2015 Defence White Paper promised a review of air transport options, but Mark said Brownlee was "playing fast and loose with procurement due diligence." "It seems for the cost of two C17s, for example, we could acquire up to six Lockheed Martin C130Js [the newest version of the Hercules aircraft]. "I understand Airbus' A400M would be about two-thirds the cost of a C17 but like the C130J, is cheaper to fly on a per hour basis than a C17," Mark said." Others, more learned in such matters than I are welcome to comment. Apparently most of the NZDF's (not RNZAF's!!) flights are short distance!? Anyway, my lay-person's pov is that purchasing Hercs again (we should have when the Aussies were upgrading to J-models doesn't resolve a lot of issues mentioned on this thread already. He seems to be a big fan of Airbus all of a sudden? Wouldn't be 'in their pocket' would he?
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Apr 16, 2015 14:56:22 GMT 12
Mark is playing the role of an opposition MP at the expense of the NZDF. The NZDF deployments to Bosina and Afghanistan undermine his argument. To get away from politics and try and explain why I think his comments make no sense would go a bit far off topic. So I hope the reader forgives me for not elaborating any further.
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Apr 16, 2015 15:14:59 GMT 12
In order to find out the price of C-17s, we have to follow a certain procedure. this procedure has been followed. For the other possible purchases, this procedure is not required (indeed, is not available). Also, if we are going to buy C-17s, the decision has to be made fairly quickly. So it is hardly surprising there is currently a firm price from the US Government, and ongoing talks with the various other commercial entities. There also seems to be a fixation (by people other than the government) on directly replacing the Hercs with C-17s. A high-low mix may be a better solution than the current medium-only. Even if the comment that 'most of the NZDF's work involved short-distance missions.' is true, that doesn't mean that high-low (e.g. C-17 + C-27J) isn't a better way to serve the need. You also tend to do the tasks you are best able to perform, so the current mix of work will tend to align with the current capabilities. e.g. if we had C-17s we might look at playing a bigger part in Darwin-based exercises.
|
|
chis73
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 86
|
Post by chis73 on Apr 16, 2015 15:45:28 GMT 12
Goddamn this is entertaining! My favourite part, "Brownlee said Mark's response was "a bit knee jerk, and not really all that informed, with all due respect."" This is just after Gerry has informed us that Singapore operate C-17s. Um, no they don't Gerry! Maybe these two need to sort it out like real men. Banjos at 20 paces! link
|
|
|
Post by ZacYates on Apr 16, 2015 16:42:17 GMT 12
Does anyone have a ballpark figure on the purchase of one C-17 and say three C-27Js? Just out of idle interest, extrapolating Errol's "high-low mix" idea.
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Apr 16, 2015 16:53:54 GMT 12
High-low isn't my idea specially, plenty of people talked about it on the 'Transport Fleet replacement' thread. 1 C-17 would be silly, 2 is only just viable
|
|
|
Post by atea on Apr 16, 2015 18:02:28 GMT 12
Australian purchase of 10 C27's was approx $900 Million so should be able to get the 2 C17's and 4 C27's for around $1 Billion. Unit Cost of One C17 may be more than the implied $300 Million each for 2.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 16, 2015 19:17:36 GMT 12
Goddamn this is entertaining! My favourite part, "Brownlee said Mark's response was "a bit knee jerk, and not really all that informed, with all due respect."" This is just after Gerry has informed us that Singapore operate C-17s. Um, no they don't Gerry! Maybe these two need to sort it out like real men. Banjos at 20 paces! linkNot to mention this brilliant quote: "Bearing in mind that one of our major areas of operation is the Antarctic and we had a near-miss with a plane in the Antarctic in 2013 and haven't been able to fly there since." Uh, yes we have.
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Apr 16, 2015 19:42:06 GMT 12
In Ron Mark's world the Huey is the perfect chopper, the Landrover the perfect vehicle and the M113 the perfect AFV. Little wonder he's opposing change. Ron's an opposition politician, and he always will be. If he were capable of an original thought he wouldn't be working for Winston.
|
|
|
Post by gungadin on Apr 16, 2015 19:55:54 GMT 12
The C-17 will out of production and the white tails sold toin all probability to India so there will no aircraft available for the RNZAF. Look at the difficulty the RAAF had sourcing spares for the out of production F-111.
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Apr 16, 2015 20:28:30 GMT 12
The C-17 will out of production and the white tails sold toin all probability to India so there will no aircraft available for the RNZAF. Look at the difficulty the RAAF had sourcing spares for the out of production F-111. There is a not insignificant difference between the F-111 and C-17 in terms of post production support. The reason the RAAF found it increasingly expensive to operate the F-111 was because after 1996 they were the sole operator of the type worldwide. That will not apply to the C-17 for some decades yet.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Apr 16, 2015 20:43:27 GMT 12
In Ron Mark's world the Huey is the perfect chopper, the Landrover the perfect vehicle and the M113 the perfect AFV. Little wonder he's opposing change. Ron's an opposition politician, and he always will be. If he were capable of an original thought he wouldn't be working for Winston. I couldn't agree more! Very well said.
|
|