|
Post by htbrst on Nov 23, 2018 15:21:11 GMT 12
When would we ever need to urgently deploy LAV...never!. They have only been deployed to the sand pit in a support role and to Australia on exercise, both having long lead times. I think the LAV's to Afghanistan were actually an urgent requirement after the politicians realised Hilux's wouldnt cut it and the HUMVEES we "borrowed" would barely be OK if they had a LAV escort which would avoid having to spend $$ on MRAPS..... but there wasn't anything available to take them.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Nov 23, 2018 17:38:39 GMT 12
When would we ever need to urgently deploy LAV...never!. They have only been deployed to the sand pit in a support role and to Australia on exercise, both having long lead times. I think the LAV's to Afghanistan were actually an urgent requirement after the politicians realised Hilux's wouldnt cut it and the HUMVEES we "borrowed" would barely be OK if they had a LAV escort which would avoid having to spend $$ on MRAPS..... but there wasn't anything available to take them. It was not an urgent requirement, it was an act of stupidity from the government trying to save money, getting them into the after was a planned event eventually
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Nov 23, 2018 18:59:45 GMT 12
another operation case study... Here's an interesting piece, commentaries incl from ex-C130J operators- on the A400M’s operational debut in the UK's humanitarian relief effort in the Caribbean - Operation Ruman - after the Cat 5 typhoon in September last year. Used C-17, C130J, and 2x A400 for the fixed wing airlift. Read Here: www.aerosociety.com/news/atlas-shoulders-the-load/Wing Commander Burdett: “It could take three times as much as a C-130 into a tight, small strip without taking any military risk in its performance. Whereas the C-130 was taking in five tonnes, the A400 would be taking in 15.” Footnote: RAF have 20 (of 22) A400Ms now in service. They have sold off their 10 regular C130Js and retaining 14 stretched C130Js for Spec Ops. They also have fleet of 8 C-17s.
|
|
|
Post by isc on Nov 23, 2018 20:25:53 GMT 12
An A-400M might get into and out of a strip the same size or smaller than a C-130J, but what load bearing quality does the strip require, is it much greater than for a C-130. 5 tons of cargo is better than nil if the aircraft can't land, and an air drop is not on. isc
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Nov 23, 2018 20:58:16 GMT 12
Isc, to your question, only old reference I have to share was an analysis written on thinkdefence - www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/09/the-airbus-a400m-atlas-part-2-what-is-so-good-about-it-anyway/ - that cited: "The specification of the A400M Atlas requires it to match or improve upon the short field performance of the equipment it is replacing, namely the C160 Transal and C130 Hercules. If it does not do this it will have failed against one of the key design metrics so Airbus have aimed for a significant improvement. If one looks at the undercarriage arrangement, the nose wheel and main wheels it is obvious that they are big, have a large footprint and designed to spread the load out across a larger area, thus reducing ground pressure." "The A400M has been designed not just to land and take off from rough and soft surfaces but to do so repeatedly. On a CBR 6 surface it can land, unload and take off 40 times before the runway is unusable without improvement with a mixed fuel/payload load of 30 tonnes. On a CBR 8 surface this raises to 225 missions. It can land 27 tonnes onto an 830m soft strip" afraid I am not as current these days on a400m specs/performance literature ...just a casual reader
hope that's a start at least...
|
|
|
Post by foxcover on Nov 23, 2018 21:26:06 GMT 12
Does anyone know whether 2 A400 and 3 C295 could be purchased for roughly the same price as 5 Hercs?
Rough cigarette packet figures in millions.
5 hercs at $160 = $800, and you’d still need to replace 757’s.
2 A400 at $230, 3 C295 at $60 each is $640 leaving $160 to buy a vip/medivac a321neo.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Nov 23, 2018 22:19:10 GMT 12
Does anyone know whether 2 A400 and 3 C295 could be purchased for roughly the same price as 5 Hercs? Maybe on one of those awful 'Black Friday' sales, but not in the real world. 2 aircraft is an unsustainable fleet, 3 is in the 'only just' category.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Nov 23, 2018 22:47:43 GMT 12
A one for one is the bare minimum for concurrent tasking for tactical lift needs, just because they are new dose not mean the can go down unserviceable, if it was me I’d begoing 8 A400m for both strategic/tactical lifter all in one NZ does not have economy of scale and leasing a 737BBJ thru ANZ for VIP
|
|
|
Post by foxcover on Nov 23, 2018 22:50:42 GMT 12
Does anyone know whether 2 A400 and 3 C295 could be purchased for roughly the same price as 5 Hercs? Maybe on one of those awful 'Black Friday' sales, but not in the real world. 2 aircraft is an unsustainable fleet, 3 is in the 'only just' category. So why did the government consider 2 C17? 2 strategic airlifters a better than none.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Nov 24, 2018 6:54:23 GMT 12
So why did the government consider 2 C17? 2 strategic airlifters a better than none. Yes we’ll only have two is better than none, but the reason NZG only do a half arsed job is money pure and simple. If you look at the RAAF experience with C17 the main reason we ordered airframes 5/6 was the aircraft were getting used pretty heavily and were coming up to the heavy maintenance schedule for which the airframes had to go back to Boeing and would be out of service for a considerable time which would impact the aircraft tasking for the rest of the fleet, you have to build fat into the fleet That’s why I suggested that A400m be bought to cover both roles 1-1 and lease a 737BBJ for VIP, the only real concern I have with A400 is that the risk is still attached with the aircraft and we all know of the after sales support from the euro’s (NH-90 ARH)
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Nov 24, 2018 12:42:57 GMT 12
Not surprising - RAAF experience and why they had to add airframes. Flight mission availability rate of C-17 in USAF was 60% thats why they needed 200+ in the AMC fleet. C-5 was worse(40%) until their modernisation program lifted it to 65%. The C-17 is a versatile aircraft but expensive to maintain/sustain availability. Mission availability is key to procurement affordability - second only to having the people to operate them. i.e. Navy's IPVs - good procurement but let down by resource planning. Maintenance and sustainment services will always be the risk whether Boeing, Airbus or other. Wonder if NZDF could 'lease to buy' the A400s like the RAAF initially did for their first C-17s. Maybe it would give NZDF additional leverage on support servicing until FOC. Would be interesting to learn what rate the RAF and RMAF are experiencing with their A400s.
Update: C-17 mission available rate 2017 said now to be 83%, and C-5M is 67%.
Footnote: a 2016 Rand report estimated for US DOD "C-17A restart case would have at least $2.1 billion in nonrecurring costs" to restart build on 150 C-17A aircraft. This excluded retooling and site. To retain all C-17A production-only tools ($860m worth) would have cost DOD $70m. Boeing now selling Long beach- even if tools were retained - kills likelihood anymore will be produced - sorry C-17 fans, any refurbished airframes expect will be destined for USAF given that there is no replacement program in funding submissions (up to FY2025) to Congress.
|
|
|
Post by machina on Nov 27, 2018 18:40:29 GMT 12
The announcement is supposed to be this month isn't it? Only a few days left until December...
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Nov 28, 2018 7:59:43 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by steveh on Nov 28, 2018 20:39:03 GMT 12
An interesting thread, I dimly remember the old one but have not been about much for a bit & am interested to see no mention of the Enmbraer KC-390, so am I missing something here, it seemed to me that the A400 is way more than we need, whereas anything c-130 derived is less than we need but the KC-390 was right on target, but then again, I guess politics trumps (sorry ) commonsense every time. Steve.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Nov 28, 2018 20:52:52 GMT 12
Don't they keep crashing?
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Nov 28, 2018 21:08:42 GMT 12
Don't they keep crashing? Just the once, to a significant degree.
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Nov 28, 2018 21:18:43 GMT 12
Don't they keep crashing?hasn' Hasn't it only been one during the development and one after ... How many has the C-17 had a few... and if you look at the development problems they had... there were problems with its wings strength, and technical problems were found with the mission software, landing gear, and well as other many other areas. The C-17 program was over budget, and did not meet weight, fuel burn, payload and range specifications. It failed several key criteria during airworthiness evaluation tests. But was given time to solve the issues...
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Nov 28, 2018 21:54:44 GMT 12
The C-17 was being developed in the early '70s, so with the investment into it i would hope it would ,finally, succeed. Not really relevant to this discussion though, as it is no longer available.
The KC-390 is a much more recent design and likely has a few more years before we could go anywhere near looking at a purchase.
Which leaves A400(still a bit on the 'young' side) or C-130.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 30, 2018 20:35:05 GMT 12
So which November was Mark supposed to be making the big announcement? Obviously not November 2018.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Dec 1, 2018 16:33:27 GMT 12
A one for one is the bare minimum for concurrent tasking for tactical lift needs, just because they are new dose not mean the can go down unserviceable, if it was me I’d begoing 8 A400m for both strategic/tactical lifter all in one NZ does not have economy of scale and leasing a 737BBJ thru ANZ for VIP 8 A400's, yeah right dreams are free but not the ADF budget
|
|