Royal New Zealand Air Force

[MrConservative]

So your telling us that you have the same view of Defence as the NZ military. Yeah right!

I think you will find on a personal level that the vast majority of NZDF uniformed members and even civvi staffers, privately hold candid views somewhat at variance to yours. Views based on real knowlege, real experience and the professionalism that the career brings.

I still want to see from you a Defence plan! Don't avoid it. Be constructive. Put your thoughts out there Investigator.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I gave my view. That my view is also the view of the NZ military does not make it wrong. If we had taken the cut down option you would be whinging about that as well - if Labour ordered it. You talk about my political bias yet call yourself MrConservative.

If the view of the NZDF is to upgrade the aircraft, why bother employing a private contracting firm to assess whether new aircraft should be bought, or old aircraft upgraded?

Being the cynical and suspicious person I am, I wonder if perhaps this independent contracting agency could have been L-3 Spar by any chance?

In any case you are still missing the point. Your C-130H fleet is becoming increasingly obsolete due to the size of the cargo hold, the size of it's fuel tanks, the efficiency of it's engines and general design.

The upgrade addresses none of these issues and what you will get is an airlift capability identical to now, but slightly more reliable.

With a quick glance at your other defence acquisitions, the platforms being acquired to provide mobility, protection and firepower for your land forces are not designed for air transportability in a C-130 and therefore you are spending a large amount of money on a project that delivers very little capability enhancement.

It's akin to Defmin Nelson's off cited example of upgrading an EH Holden with modern Commodore components. At the end of the day, it's still an EH...

On top of which your sums are wrong. At the current US-NZ exchange rate according to universal currency converter, US$304m equates to NZ$402m and this is the price Norway is paying for it's fleet for 4x C-130J-30's. The capability of that fifth C-130 must be KILLER at more than $600m for a single trash hauler. I don't think a C-17 even costs that much...

Try dividing NZ$402m by 40 years and see what the yearly rate works out to. Significantly less than $5m per year I think you will find...

I'm not advocating this for NZ mind you, the C-130J-30 doesn't improve on the C-130H's ability to lift heavy loads, it just allows the C-130J-30 to lift the maximum weight it was intended to lift , nor is it's payload / range specifications in the league of the A400m, let alone the C-17, however it is a large improvement over the C-130H.

I would not at all be surprised to see that 4x C-130J-30's offer greater sortie rates than your upgraded C-130H's will and when combined with range and cruising speed increases, I'm sure even you can see that it's the better airlifter, despite what your Defmin might have stated about it...

 

[t68]

Q. What will happen to the option to purchase C-130 ‘J’ model aircraft?

A. New Zealand has the option to purchase new C-130J aircraft as part of a contract that Australia has with the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin. New Zealand will be declining that option. Five replacement aircraft would cost over $1 billion. They are a new aircraft and have a number of recognised operational shortfalls. They are not an appropriate investment at this time, given that upgrading the current C-130H fleet is both feasible and affordable

And what are the recognised operational shortfalls of this aircraft acorrding to the defmin ?


REGARDS
TOM

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Unlike other so called NZers on this board I do not accept being insulted over the capability of the NZ defense force. I'm proud to be a New Zealander and do not spend my time running our country down.

Why are you even posting on this thread if you only provide sarcastic, non constructive comment?

If any one should be insulted on this forum its those of us who are from NZ get you repeatedly questioning our loyalty to our nation because we exersize our right to freedom of expression when that expression differs from your own. Disagreeing with government policy is not disloyalty, this is something that was thrashed out centuries ago, hence the concept of 'Her Majesties Loyal Opposition'.

 

[MrConservative]

If the view of the NZDF is to upgrade the aircraft, why bother employing a private contracting firm to assess whether new aircraft should be bought, or old aircraft upgraded?

Being the cynical and suspicious person I am, I wonder if perhaps this independent contracting agency could have been L-3 Spar by any chance?

In any case you are still missing the point. Your C-130H fleet is becoming increasingly obsolete due to the size of the cargo hold, the size of it's fuel tanks, the efficiency of it's engines and general design.

The upgrade addresses none of these issues and what you will get is an airlift capability identical to now, but slightly more reliable.

With a quick glance at your other defence acquisitions, the platforms being acquired to provide mobility, protection and firepower for your land forces are not designed for air transportability in a C-130 and therefore you are spending a large amount of money on a project that delivers very little capability enhancement.

It's akin to Defmin Nelson's off cited example of upgrading an EH Holden with modern Commodore components. At the end of the day, it's still an EH...

On top of which your sums are wrong. At the current US-NZ exchange rate according to universal currency converter, US$304m equates to NZ$402m and this is the price Norway is paying for it's fleet for 4x C-130J-30's. The capability of that fifth C-130 must be KILLER at more than $600m for a single trash hauler. I don't think a C-17 even costs that much...

Try dividing NZ$402m by 40 years and see what the yearly rate works out to. Significantly less than $5m per year I think you will find...

I'm not advocating this for NZ mind you, the C-130J-30 doesn't improve on the C-130H's ability to lift heavy loads, it just allows the C-130J-30 to lift the maximum weight it was intended to lift , nor is it's payload / range specifications in the league of the A400m, let alone the C-17, however it is a large improvement over the C-130H.

I would not at all be surprised to see that 4x C-130J-30's offer greater sortie rates than your upgraded C-130H's will and when combined with range and cruising speed increases, I'm sure even you can see that it's the better airlifter, despite what your Defmin might have stated about it...

Yep, the A-400 is the ideal platform but has the drawback in that if we ordered the aircraft today we would be at the end of a long and growing line, which would see delivery only in the second half of next decade. But the damage has been done yet again, because even though with the advice of serving defence planning staff - who under convention cannot complain to the media or public as they are servants of the Executive, we will have to muddle through as usual.

Another flaw in this C-130 refurbishment programme was that there is already a significant capability gap in that we currently dont have enough airframes. This programme could have picked up at least one more additional C-130H from any number of sources and ran it through the upgrade to get six. That would help. That would lift things up from survival mode.

This programme adds nothing to the capability of the RNZAF and NZDF. It is not an example of a sustainable Defence policy.

Buy the way. AD not only knows more about the ADF than Investigator and no doubt the current Norwegian C-130J procurement background. He knows more about the NZDF as well but is probably too modest to say that here.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

The Hercules do not need to move the other assets. The MRV was purchased to move the larger items. Otherwise we could pay to use another air force's spare capacity as we have done in the past when it was considered better use of funds.

Notice I said pay (in a forlorn attempt to stave off the inevitable "bludging" comments).

snip

If there is some kind of emergency that requires we move items by air, what makes you think anyone will have spare capacity?. One of the reason that Australia and the UK have purchased C17's is because the US did not have spare air lift capacity, in particular during the Boxing day Tsunami, when they needed it.
Furthermore, if we do pay to use another nations capacity, in any medium, did it ever occur to you that they might resent this, as we are using their equipment to carry out our foreign and Defense policies? We might pay for the gas, but that will never recoup the mileage on their equipment, so yes, when we do that, we are bludging.
Moreover, its hardly a constructive sign of an independent nation when we reliant other nations gear to carry our our policies.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Yep, the A-400 is the ideal platform but has the drawback in that if we ordered the aircraft today we would be at the end of a long and growing line, which would see delivery only in the second half of next decade. But the damage has been done yet again, because even though with the advice of serving defence planning staff - who under convention cannot complain to the media or public as they are servants of the Executive, we will have to muddle through as usual.

Another flaw in this C-130 refurbishment programme was that there is already a significant capability gap in that we currently dont have enough airframes. This programme could have picked up at least one more additional C-130H from any number of sources and ran it through the upgrade to get six. That would help. That would lift things up from survival mode.

This programme adds nothing to the capability of the RNZAF and NZDF. It is not an example of a sustainable Defence policy.
snip

Given the lack of numbers and capacity with RNZAF airlift and the timeframes on getting a replacement, I wonder if getting a pair of C17's (soonish) would be a good idea? Yes they would cost a lot, but it would give NZ the distance and lift to cover operations of current size, allow the use of the Hercs in utility roles for longer periods, reduce the strain on the C130's and buy time for their eventual replacement.

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[MrConservative]

Given the lack of numbers and capacity with RNZAF airlift and the timeframes on getting a replacement, I wonder if getting a pair of C17's (soonish) would be a good idea? Yes they would cost a lot, but it would give NZ the distance and lift to cover operations of current size, allow the use of the Hercs in utility roles for longer periods, reduce the strain on the C130's and buy time for their eventual replacement.

Good point Stuart. I wonder if, had we been able to achieve a closer partnership with the ADF under CDR in recent years whether we could have worked out an arrangement where two C-17's bought and paid for by New Zealand and operated by us as well, could have been piggybacked on to the ADF purchase as well. Also having a contract set up with the ADF to provide the higher phase servicing for them. In the spirit of Anzac Interdependence of old. But from the Aussie point of view, post the withdrawl of 2 Sqd from Nowra and the repercussions following from that, it might have been a bit rude to ask from our end.

 

[MrConservative]

Oh my god! Now C-17s. We almost never have a need for them and you want to have 2. That is a huge amount of money for a small number of planes. Even Australia has only 4.

Should we tell Investigator about Nationals secret plan to by a squadron of F-35's

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[MrConservative]

The Hobart Class are not a big secret, they will be on their way early next decade along with the Canberra Class. You are a well imformed guy! How's that Defence plan of yours coming along? Just a brief outline will do.

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If you blokes are going to use the forum to get snippy at each other, can you please us PM for that purpose?

 

[mug]

By the way the great thing about liberal democracies, which I might add on this Armistice Day is significant, is that the freedom of speaking out against mediocrity, ineptitude and things such as thin skinned immature nationalism is one of cornerstones of a civilised society. If that doesn't sink in maybe that Defence is spelt with a 'C' and not with the letter 'S' when using New Zealand English. Possibly that doesn't matter so much with the NCEA exams your probably sitting at the moment.

Best chuckle I've had all day! Would it be an opportune time to point out that it should be "you're" in the last sentence?

Back on track - after discussions with people in the last week or so, it would seem that (in relation to some recent Defence purchases) "ya gets what ya pays for" is starting to come to the surface.

 

[MrConservative]

If you blokes are going to use the forum to get snippy at each other, can you please us PM for that purpose?

No problem. I will let others deal with this.

Mug: 'Your' is perfectly fine in front of the adjective 'probably' as it means pertaining to; better use than the contraction 'you're. But really who gives a stuff - eh!

 

[gf0012-aust]

No problem. I will let others deal with this.

I don't have a problem with the topic, I just don't want to see this become a subcutaneous sniping contest.

It's not a shot at any of the participants, its an issue of being aware that it doesn't take much for things to get derailed and personal.

Either that or pause awhile...

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Thanks Stuart. I was waiting for the Independent nation rubbish. Under your view Australia and the UK only became independent when they got their c-17s. It may be news to them. At least the UK may have thought it has been independent for longer than that.

I would appreciate it if you don't strawman my arguments.

As for the comment about gas money, why do you think they are so stupid that they don't already add the actual costs including wear and tear to what they charge?

Oh, I realise that, but are you aware that that is airframe life that is no longer available to them?. But I think that what you are failing to realise is that why should they have to do it at all?