|
Post by mumbles on Jun 8, 2019 13:56:41 GMT 12
And with the front line military types look how Japan , Greece , and Germany have maintained their F4 and Corsair fleets thanks to the scrapman supplying bits. . Sorry to be that guy, but Japan is currently in the process of retiring the F-4, Luftwaffe F-4s were retired in 2013, and HAF A-7s in 2014. Other long term F-4 operators like Turkey and South Korea are also retiring their F-4's or about to. I think Iran are hanging on theirs for a while yet
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Jun 8, 2019 15:45:47 GMT 12
Like so much of our equipment we know what we would like to do with it which is not always what the government needs us to do with it and is prepared to pay for.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jun 8, 2019 16:33:13 GMT 12
I didn't know the Manawanui is just an interim replacement. I must admit it looks great saw it looming out of the fog and rain a week or so back, It looked like a large office block as the rain started to clear. However I'm a little concerned that we don't know what capacity we need and just bought something that will just do. Sorry for the slight rant but it can't be that difficult to buy the appropriate equipment for our services.
Does that mean our PM is an X man ooops I mean woman. I wonder what her super power is? My explanation might have been a bit simplistic. Its not so much Navy don't know what they need, as getting this vessel will enable continuation of the current capability, that may inform better options when more money is available. As i understand it this is a good buy. Maybe not the best example, as they have had a few major project stuff ups, but Australia has been using 'interim' type replacements for a while. Think F-18 Super Hornets and the later various Landrover types, largely replaced with the Merc.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jun 8, 2019 16:39:12 GMT 12
Ardern was born 26 July 1980. I looked up the definition yesterday before I posted this to make sure and it said anyone born after 1976, with another source saying anyone born after 1977. Either way it was only meant in jest, so don't get all stressed Sam. Gen-X's, they take things so seriously. I'm sure they've had humour bypasses...
|
|
|
Post by mcmaster on Jun 8, 2019 18:18:02 GMT 12
I didn't know the Manawanui is just an interim replacement. I must admit it looks great saw it looming out of the fog and rain a week or so back, It looked like a large office block as the rain started to clear. However I'm a little concerned that we don't know what capacity we need and just bought something that will just do. Sorry for the slight rant but it can't be that difficult to buy the appropriate equipment for our services.
Does that mean our PM is an X man ooops I mean woman. I wonder what her super power is? Maybe not the best example, as they have had a few major project stuff ups, but Australia has been using 'interim' type replacements for a while. Think F-18 Super Hornets and the later various Landrover types, largely replaced with the Merc. I dont think the RAAF Supers are interim in any sense. The Pigs were old and we bought new planes.
|
|
|
Post by kiwiruna on Jun 8, 2019 18:26:12 GMT 12
Saratoga,Thanks for the clarification makes sense to me now.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jun 8, 2019 22:23:49 GMT 12
Maybe not the best example, as they have had a few major project stuff ups, but Australia has been using 'interim' type replacements for a while. Think F-18 Super Hornets and the later various Landrover types, largely replaced with the Merc. I dont think the RAAF Supers are interim in any sense. The Pigs were old and we bought new planes. The Supers were interim to the ever delayed F-35, the fact they will stay on is a bonus.
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Jun 9, 2019 12:55:51 GMT 12
Gen-X's, they take things so seriously. I'm sure they've had humour bypasses... Nah we just have low bullshit tolerances
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jun 9, 2019 15:32:36 GMT 12
Have to disagree there. 2 words, 'global warming', its like a religion to some. More BS there than on a cattle farm. BS, Maybe you'll know it when you stand in it?...
|
|
|
Post by kiwiruna on Jun 9, 2019 17:00:34 GMT 12
It's a shame that everybody getting rid of the F-4s You can never have enough Phantoms....Phantoms phorever.
|
|
|
Post by No longer identifiable on Jun 9, 2019 17:08:51 GMT 12
Why don’t we buy second-hand? In keeping with some of the flippant replies to a reasonable question, the answer is because we just know that all the hour-meters have been wound back!
But seriously, there are plenty of reasons why this isn’t such a good idea these days for military aircraft, and the obvious one is that the age of airframes that could come on the market would probably mean we’re no better off (as ErrolC, madmark, and nighthawkz have already said). Another would be the state of the avionics and communications suite, where an upgrade may be required to align our aircraft to the same standards as our defense partners.
Kiwiruna used the new navy ship HMNZS Manawanui (ex Edda Fohn) as an example where buying second-hand seems like a good idea, and I agree with him that this was a pretty good deal. However, a ship is not an aircraft, and it’s relatively easy to modify a ship compared to an aircraft, especially when airworthiness and certification has to be taken into account. Also consider that the ship was a commercial one and its new navy role will be similar in that it’s not envisaged to be used as a fighting ship. HMNZS Canterbury is another good example, but things can still go wrong as we saw with HMNZS Charles Upham.
Others have described the second-hand car market as an example where good value for money can be found, but again, this is misleading because the vehicle market world-wide is designed with consumerism as the primary objective. The modus operandi is to entice people to buy the latest model, no matter how much life is left in the car they already own, so of course there is an enormous market for second-hand cars with a huge range of models and prices. So again, not an enlightening or useful example to use when comparing to used military aircraft.
And I don’t think we should use the second-hand commercial aircraft fleet as an example either, because none of these passenger aircraft were ever designed for military use and the reason airlines get rid of them, these days anyway, is to purchase more fuel-efficient models. Fuel is probably the biggest cost for a commercial airline, so it makes sense to get rid of older, less fuel-efficient aircraft if possible. If we want to replace our B757s with something similar then a commercial aircraft perhaps makes sense, but I think this discussion is more to do with replacing the C130H transport fleet which is an entirely different game.
To my mind madmac has identified the real problem, in that successive governments have failed to plan and put money aside for the eventual transport fleet replacement. Now we’re faced with huge costs for Hercules and Orion replacements in about the same timeframe, and for any political party this is a very hard sell to the public.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Jun 10, 2019 21:43:31 GMT 12
The thing with 2nd hand is one has to have realistic expectations of what the the purchased item can do and to be pragmatic in the trade off in attributes. The B757 buy probably falls under an example of how not to do it (high value airframe, very few in the scrap yard, put on military reg*). The current defence culture / funding mechanisms / politics seem to actively discourage this.
The new aircraft market bubble is apparently bursting at the moment, throw in the Boeing is going to expecting its military division to help make up the 737 Max losses, we might see a lot more of creative use of commercial airframes in military scenarios (P8's might still be more expressive than P3's yet).
*operating airliners on mil reg is fine, you just need to buy a couple of airframes to scrap for spares, as the mil reg ex clues you from parts of said aircraft in the civilian supply line so no swapping out of life units for overhead units with suppliers.
|
|
|
Post by isc on Jun 10, 2019 22:48:31 GMT 12
I suppose second hand transport aircraft started with the ex TEAL DC-6 taking over from the Hastings, giving the RNZAF a pressurized aircraft with "4" engines, and at the time a freer run through the USA. isc
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 11, 2019 10:45:29 GMT 12
Second hand transport aircraft started in the 1920's for the NZPAF
|
|
|
Post by isc on Jun 11, 2019 14:27:01 GMT 12
I think just about all the pre war aircraft were second hand, as were the Mosquitos and Sunderlands, but the DC-6 sort of comes into a modern era( well good many here would remember them. I suppose the next in line would be the B-727. isc
|
|
|
Post by pjw4118 on Jul 6, 2019 13:50:45 GMT 12
I am certainly not generation X , and really dont know what it means , nor do I want to. But to me ,the military industry today need their products to become obsolete quickly in order to continue making huge profits The major powers armed forces love this as they are always getting new toys with perceived extra benefits but at a vastly higher price.
Perhaps the parallel is in I phones where the original purpose of actually talking to somebody is no longer important , and the life cycle of the unit has shrunk to 12 to 18 months. The features and " versitility " of the units has overcome their original reason for being , you no longer have to speak with anyone.
For a country like ours that cant afford many new toys its good to have a few rich friends and we can go visit and play with theirs. But at home we keep a few really useful ones to keep our hand in , maybe not as fast but still working so when we get on their new ones we can still whip their ass , cause we have to be very good operators to wring performance from our old stuff. Taking about Play station here !
So lets have a few state of the art aircraft that are essential to our needs like P3 and C130 replacements but fill up the working inventory with good commercial stuff thats proven , reliable and cheap to run. If you have to throw in some special encrypted comms equipment so the politicians chatter cant be intercepted but keep it simple lads and importantly have enough units to do the job.
Shame that there wasnt a good Canberra replacement, we could have still been flying them.
|
|
|
Post by isc on Jul 6, 2019 20:50:22 GMT 12
Now there's a job for the airforce techies, kit set DIY Canberras, perhaps 75% scale.isc
|
|
|
Post by senob on Jul 8, 2019 0:19:11 GMT 12
No longer identifiable makes very valid points in his post above. The only criticism I would have is his statement about Canterbury being a good acquisition. It wasn't because the ship isn't fit for purpose and was not what the RNZN wanted. They wanted a purpose built ship with a well dock, not a converted vehicle ferry that the politicians bought because it was cheap against all advice from maritime experts. Actually the whole Project Protector was an acquisition stuff up because it was done on the cheap.
The B757-200 Combis have served NZDF well, but like all converted airliners they have their limitations. They require external facilities and equipment for loading and unloading and they don't operate from austere locations, apart from McMurdo. In the case of the RNZAF B757s the govt was too stingy to pay for the aircraft protection systems, so they couldn't fly them into Afghanistan.
When it comes to their replacement, as far as types go, there are two choices: a dedicated military airlifter with a rear ramp; or a converted airliner, be it a pax jet or a freighter. If it is the former then it has to be new build aircraft which at the present point in time are the A400M or the C2. If it is the latter then a used airliner will be the option which makes perfect sense.
There is a false economy in acquiring used aircraft in the long term. First of all, as a general rule when you acquire them they will have at least half of their life of type hours used. So you not only have to pay the fly away costs, but if it's a new type being introduced into service for all of the training, manuals, spares, maybe infrastructure, weapons etc. Then it'll require an expensive mid life upgrade (MLU), which is probably why they're being sold in the first place. Until you design, describe, prototype and put all of the platforms through the MLU they are costing a lot to operate, because the MLU efficiencies will not be present and as we all know a MLU is time consuming.
Ok, we've bought our second hand aircraft, done an MLU and a service life extension program (SLEP) on them which has given us 20 - 25 years of service. We have to replace them. Now if we'd spent more up front and acquired brand new aircraft by the 20 - 25 year mark we would have the choice of a SLEP or replacement. However with second hand aircraft we have no choice and taking in the Whole Of Life Costs under both scenarios, buying new is better Value for Money - more bang for buck.
This model also applies to warships for the same reasons because warships to cost more to operate as they get older. They become less fuel efficient, more maintenance intensive, parts harder to source, MLUs are expensive due to drydocking cutting holes in the hull to remove / add / replace equipment, stripping bulkheads,decks and deckheads to get at cables and pipes behind them, etc.
So that's why I argue for new in favour of used. The big problem we have in NZ are short sighted politicians who only view the world in 3 year cycles, and Treasury who absolutely abhor spending money.
|
|
|
Post by beegeetee on Jul 8, 2019 10:08:02 GMT 12
I didn't know the Manawanui is just an interim replacement. I must admit it looks great saw it looming out of the fog and rain a week or so back, It looked like a large office block as the rain started to clear. However I'm a little concerned that we don't know what capacity we need and just bought something that will just do. Sorry for the slight rant but it can't be that difficult to buy the appropriate equipment for our services.
The Navy knows exactly what capacity it needs and the Manawanui fulfills the Navy's needs. The reason the Manawanui is regarded as an interim solution is because the Navy intended to procure a bespoke new build vessel but the frigate upgrade cost overrun cut into it's budget so they only had enough money left for a second hand vessel. The Navy still plans to eventually get a new build ship, but that probably wont be for a very long time. And, to get back on topic, second hand aircraft can be a good option in certain circumstances, especially buying extra aircraft of a type already in service (like the RNZAF did with the P-3 and A-4). Replacing the P-3s and C-130s is not one of those circumstances. New aircraft is right choice.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Jul 8, 2019 10:36:43 GMT 12
There is no New or Used is always better, we must always be focused on the best value through clever use. The short sighted politicians are real but the problem is much bigger than that. Defence spending in the long term must keep going down for the simple fact that economically NZ is equivalent of an eastern Europe country and rapidly slipping behind (nearly all growth for the last decade or two has been purely driven by population grow i.e add 10% to the population, add 10% to GDP). An example of clever might be that its not hard to build kit to allow converted airliners to unload unassisted (5 mill tops).
|
|