Stuart Mackey
New Member
As it happens I have heard rumours that such a purchase has been discussed, and sticking with the C130 type (J model I presume) or a modern equivalent to the old Andover to perform tactical roles.
Correct.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Actually, Investigator, for the bit above analysing the merits of the options, well done. I, maybe even "we", have been waiting and waiting for some analysis to back up your thoughts, whether it is right or wrong or partiallly right or partially wrong is not my point, the point is you can put your mind to it and and I/we can all debate the issue and facts of the matter objectively etc.
I've searched but can't find anything written down anywhere to back up what I'm about to say, but from memory there were brief passing comments on delays getting the J's into service and the range and payload may have been questioned, thus making the J seem like an unattractive and senseless proposition. I may have heard these comments on Radio NZ's Checkpoint drive time current affairs show, but the reporter just simply listened to the defmin's reply without questioning him further. Unfortunate because the defmin could have then been quizzed as the J's teething troubles were being and have been addressed etc, and clearly as AD advises here the J has a number of advantages over the H such as speed, range and operational reliability.
What I was getting on about before was the cost discrepencies. Figures from 2002 media reports were around NZ$800m for 5 J's then the defmin says $1000m in his press release. It appears that Norway got a better deal so this leads to two questions, firstly was the former defmin out of touch with the figures or were the figures massaged to sell the upgrade to the public? Secondly is NZ so out of favour with the US post ANZUS breakdown that it can no longer source equipment at the same prices as Nato countries and Australia? If so the pollies won't go there on that one but as a holders of the public purse it is a fair game question.
Last edited:
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
The more I think about this the more I reckon the Govt of the day should go ahead and bite the bullet and order two now/soon. It would be perhaps about a $1000m investment but it would be a 30-40 year investment, which in that context is certainly affordable and payment could be spread over 10 or so years. The C17 would be an advancement a bit like the C130 was back in the 1960's for NZ. Everyone takes the C130 for granted and similarly the C17 would be taken for granted within a few years etc.
AD has pointed out what we all know in that the NZDF has gotten "fatter" (eg LAVIII's replacing M113's, NH90's to replace UH1's, Seasprites replacing Wasps, bigger MB army trucks than the old Bedfords or whatever they were etc).
NZ is "at the end of the line" and we all know we have committments to the Pacific, Australia, SE Asia and the Middle East currently. The C17 has a 75,000kg carrying payload to 2400nm or 45,000kg payload to 4000nm http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c17/docs/C-17_overview.pdf It's around 3300nm from NZ to Darwin thus could take 2 fully laden LAVIII's plus have enough room for 5,000kg of support equipment and troops.
Contrast this to the A400 which only has a 20,000kg payload to 3450nm http://www.airbusmilitary.com/specifications.html which would carry only one LAVIII to Darwin but no support equipment and very little personel. (All of a sudden an A400 starts to sound like a C130, in a LAVIII context). BTW a NZLAVIII weighs around 20,000kg according to the NZ Army http://www.army.mil.nz/our-army/equipment/nzlav/default.htm and for those that don't know, Darwin is a major staging and transitting point for the NZDF.
With air-to-air refuelling from the RAAF's new Airbus tankers (eg over NE Australia), the C17 (or A400) could certainly take a large payload further if there was some regional crises in Timor or to the north west etc.
The A400 would be a useful asset for the NZDF in 10 or so years especially for carrying lighter loads but the Govt would be kidding itself not to also invest in the C17 now/soon. This Labour Govt is unlikely though but if they did they would fill a huge capability and capacity gap for the NZDF and actually gain alot of praise (and even from the likes of us here).
The C17 could carry a decent civil defence disaster recovery team, cargo, bulldozers and trucks into the Pacific all in one hit whenever there is also cyclone damage to clean up etc.
The NZ Antarctica operation would support the C17 aquisition (as they obliquely referred to NZ needing to improve on its C130 transporter a few months ago) and would lend towards better logistics support with the USAF there.
Win-win as far as I can see.
Last edited:
Investigator
New Member
Comments deleted.
Last edited:
A pair of C17s would be fantastic, would be great for supporting the Antartic program where we have been doing some major bludging off the US in recent times (even Helen Clarke travelled down to the ice on one !), Unfortunately it would mean shelling out some serious money at a time when the capital purchase program is fairly commited, but I think the capability over and above the projected A400 would be well worth it. (could maybe even set-up a service capability at Christchurch and work on the USAF C17's as well). With the moddded 757's back on line we would be looking pretty good in the air transport capacity.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Thanks for your thoughts. I'll just comment on the hypothetical C17 numbers. I understand what you mean when you compare a fleet of 4 for Australia and 4 for Canada, thus 2 for NZ could seem out of proportion. But the figure 2 is meant to ensure that 1 is available if 1 isn't, which would be an important consideration for what the NZDF is tasked to do (operate anywhere, anytime 24/7 etc).
Also I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that Australia might consider buying additional C17's.
I won't comment on your pre-rental suggestion as I don't know much about that topic, however a variation on that theme would be to strike a deal with Australia, have NZ buy only 1 C17 then, allow the NZ C17 to be used for ADF work (pretty much like the 757 has been) and thus have Australia provide a C17 for NZDF backup tasks should the NZ C17 be under going maintenance. As Mr C says, tie the NZ C17 into some Australian deep maintenance programme and that would make alot of sense in light of this arrangement.
For this to work though our pollies would need to stop pandering to public opinion polls (a la Air NZ - ADF controversy) as the NZ C17 could be potentially flying to places where ever the ADF have a presence, eg Iraq. However being a war zone no doubt there would be some govt agreement in place to allow this under conditions that would minimise potential harm within reason to NZ's aircraft and crew, which would thus appeal to the pollies (apart from the Greens of course)!
There's some agreement for the European Nato countries to buy and share 4 Nato C17's (as individual country's probably feel they can't justify their own aircraft as they are mainly geared towards European operations where distances are shorter and the armoured vehicles are already on the ground) hence maybe we need a similar co-operation agreement with Australia in these uncertain times.
Last edited:
Firstly. Investigator that was a good post. Why? Because you are thinking about options. You probably think I am the devil incarnate, but I'm not. I actually voted Labour 84, 87, 90 and 93. I would actually have no problem with Phil Goff leading a Labour Party and I do feel for him today with the tragic loss of his nephew in Afghanistan. I could tell he was upset on the midday news. Ninth in his class at West Point shows, that his nephew was indeed a young man with great ability. A real loss. Goff is a pragmatic fellow and not an ideologue and a dramatic improvement as Defence Minster from his predecessor and I have heard from Wellington friends that would do more if he could get more. Nevertheless good post.
Recce. I'm pleased you bought up the Euro-Nato C-17 arrangement. Yes its something we need to look at down under.
The two Anzac countries when combined are a fairly powerful diplomatic, economic and resource rich region. I might have mentioned it before but I remember reading somewhere, that combined the Anzac nations would technically qualify for G9 status and what with their combined natural resource reserves which could possibly include GSB oil/gas, direct territorial influence over a sizable chunk of the world's surface, stable liberal democratic and economic traditions would indeed firmly cement a regional power status of some standing. Though as separate modern sovereign entities at the higher political level, their international goals are very close. One could say it is a unique case of independence and interdependence. Though trade and foreign policy goals are driven from each domestic situation they are essential similar in outlook. On the international level UN/WTO/EU/APEC the two countries have had a very close team approach, which has been in both formal and informal existence for decades. The history of military interdependence harks back even further. This approach of independence with interdependence has underpinned the two countries success over the last century. Indeed a case of unity is strength.
Therefore in my view the organisation of our military forces needs to be complementary and integrated, not in the sense of a binding command structure, which would unbalance the sovereign 'independence' of each nation, but in the 'interdependence' sense whereby the component parts of the NZDF and the ADF when bought together would provide for a more integrated and combined weight in terms of operational platforms, strategic outlook and economic rationalisation.
The Closer Defence Relationship agreement hasn't lived up to its full potential. But, in the case of tactical and strategic transport it is very definitely an area, which CDR has in my view, has great potential. What has greatly upset the Australians in recent years was that with the removal of the RNZAF strike wing the net loss to the 'Anzac' CDR relationship amounted to what some people have regarded as around 20% of its combat aviation assets. That loss was never balanced up in terms of some other form of direct and genuine replacement in military capability be that in tactical or strategic transport, maritime surveillance, increased rotary and so forth. It is from that premise that a proposal for a two RNZAF C-17 and a four RAAF C-17 strategic air transport capability would indeed benefit each nation and bring together in a meaningful and balanced sense the common goals of CDR. The benefits of working together using complementary platforms is a win - win.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Depends what you want the NZDF to be able to do. If you wish NZ to be capable of performing rapid deployment of forces and equipment into the Pacific, including your NZLAV's, then yes. Nothing else available will do it so quickly.
If you want to do long range runs to Afghanistan, to support PRT and specwarops operations, without relying on the vagaries of chartering civilian aircraft (such as Antonov's) or attempting to hire spare capacity from those Countries who have invested in strategic lift capability, then yes. Australia used to rely on chartered aircraft for a long time too. Until the expense of doing so made it a more financially sound option to simply purchase our own, outright.
There are also security concerns when transporting special forces and their equipment for operations by civilian charter aircraft operators...
A fleet of 2c C-17's supplemented by a fleet of smaller transport aircraft would possess far greater lift and range capacity than the present force or plans would provide.
As always though, you get what you pay for...
The comments about sharing the DLM burden of RAAF C-17's with any possible RNZAF C-17 purchase are a little of the mark. AFAIK the Aussie C-17's will go back to the US for any DLM. The cost of setting up a facility for just 4 aircraft was not feasible.
Also the logistic and spares footprint is reduced by a global supply line. So instead of buying X amount of spares and storing them in warehouses the OEM supplies a serv item out of its own global pool and the U/S one is repaired by the OEM and then put back into the pool. I believe future purchases like F/A-18F and F-35A will work along the same principal.
The idea has merit, but such a small fleet will always be in heavy demand, especially in the current operational enviroment.
Barra
Also the logistic and spares footprint is reduced by a global supply line. So instead of buying X amount of spares and storing them in warehouses the OEM supplies a serv item out of its own global pool and the U/S one is repaired by the OEM and then put back into the pool. I believe future purchases like F/A-18F and F-35A will work along the same principal.
The idea has merit, but such a small fleet will always be in heavy demand, especially in the current operational enviroment.
Barra
Good helpful comments Barra. It all helps to piece together options in a creative and collective approach to problem solve. I for one didn't know that the ADF weren't going to do the C-17 DLM domestically. With four airframes, even six if there were a hypothetical NZDF purchase, I can see that it lacks the economies of scale to make it economically feasible. Though more limited routine phase servicing would still be handled by the RAAF wouldnt it? At this stage I'm a little in the dark over the RAAF C-17 purchase but for the fact they are a quantum leap over what you had previously. The specifics such as servicing, supply lines .... not up with the play.
If that is in the afirmative about routine servicing done domestically, then with this hypothetical idea we are kicking around here of a potential 2 x C-17 purchase by the NZDF to add to the Anzac 'pool', I would envisage that the routine servicing of the two RNZAF C-17's would be done under contract in Australia alongside the RAAF aircraft. With this Anzac 'pool' feeding into the OEM system for DLM. Barra I would really like your ideas - good ideas and solutions are always interesting and helpful. Since the idea has merit its worth developing. Cheers MrC.
We can get all the good stuff we need without having to join Australia as its far too late for that. Its about making smart choices and forward thinking. Certain synergies are of mutual benefit as in CDR, CER and other frameworks. Independence and interdependence. There would unsurmountable constitutional issues let alone what colours the national sports teams would wear. Though we would thrash the Poms at will which wouldn't be all bad. But lets not go down that road at this stage and just stick to what ways we can work through the RNZAF issues.
The Statute of Westminister Adoption Act 1947 and the Constitution Act 1986 as well as the other New Zealand Statutes that make up our constitutional framework essentially expunged that notion. Is it OK we head back to talking RNZAF stuff?
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Need to know weight and dimensions of these CHP's. (Although what exactly are they, can you elaborate further)?
From the RNZAF website the max underslung load is 4000kg (compared to Huey = 1000kg). See http://www.airforce.mil.nz/about-us/aircraft/nh90/specs--nh90.htm
From the NHI- NH90 website http://www.nhindustries.com/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?arbo=3&noeu_id=10012&lang=EN, if these could be carried internally, the cabin dims are:
Length 4.80 m
Width 2.00 m
Height 1.58 m (std cabin)
1.82 m (high cabin)
Volume 15.20 m3 (std cabin)
17.50 m3 (high cabin)
Sliding doors opening (WxH) 1.60 m x 1.50 m
Rear ramp opening (WxH) 1.78 m x 1.58 m
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I think I know what you are referring to. The NZ Army had a containerised portable field hospital (based on large shipping containers - with operating theatre etc). I've been searching fruitlessly on the web but can't find any info. However the Dominion Post reported a couple of years ago that they were to be scrapped (they were awaiting their fate at Trentham). It was controversial as they cost a few million dollars to construct but they were never deployed. Can't recall the reasons why now except one in which the NZDF didn't have any assets to deploy them (sound familiar? Eg wouldn't fit into a C130 .... but would fit nicely into a C17 thanks)!
Which is a real shame. Apparently they were to be used on overseas missions - would have been a handy asset in Timor or Banda Aceh etc. The NZ Army had to use tents for the hospital in East Timor back in 2000 etc (and probably still do in other places), I read that it was pure luck that heavy rains or storms didn't either wreck the tents or cause any major disruptions. I believe the container hospital concept grew out of this (and other countries have them eg Australia). Hopefully someone in the know can correct what I've said here and give the other reasons why these things have been scrapped (or else they are waiting to be scrapped). It's seems odd yet again that the hard worked NZDF are having to make do when there are or have been better solutions out there (eg containerised hospitals). Unless perhaps they were designed on the cheap and not really fitted out properly in an efficient manner and with the right equipment etc??
Unsure of the answer to your initial question on whether a NH90 could carry them as I don't know what they weigh.
The NZ Army though has the Mercedes Benz 2228 Truck which is capable of carrying containers (the trailer can take 12 tonnes), so one would think that these containerised field hospitals would have been a useful civil defence asset.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #420
The auditor general did a report on preparation and deployment of medical services to East Timor in Feb 2003.
The army operates a forward surgical team, which includes a surgical capability. The auditor general's report describes the capability like this.
5.20 The FST is a lightweight transportable surgical facility designed to be deployed quickly to support military operations or disaster relief. All the necessary equipment and personnel (approximately 30) can fit into one Hercules C130 aircraft. The FST is deployed with sufficient stores to operate independently for 48 hours. It can be assembled and ready for operation within 12 hours of landing.
The report also highlighted a shortage of medical specialist personnnel. I like the rapid air transport capability, but NZ probably needs two of these.