Royal New Zealand Air Force

[RegR]

i would be worried Reg R of a LITERAL running into the ground of our ageing C130 , like other airforces have had with younger versions than ours over the years, most recent case in point, Indonesia Airforce C130 crash, june 30th 2015. tragedy killed crew and passengers onboard.

I have always wondered how we would cope with such an incident (sitting in the back gives you time to ponder things). I would not like to push the envelope regardless of how world class our maintenance regime is or sections we have 'zeroed'. I trust our people, machines are less forgiving.

 

[MrConservative]

Agreed the 767 would be an improvement in terms of range, size, capacity etc just wondering if the nay sayers who were considering ditching the current boeings would pull out the same arguments just on a slightly larger scale perhaps?

As you say at least some polly support will come from first hand experience from the 'incident' so that is an argument in favour of at least. Can the 767 conduct a point of no return round flight or is it still commited at some point?

Boeing reports a range of between 11800-12000 kms so it should be A-OK with respect to SPR rules heading into Pegasus field. That is well past the likes of the A400M/C-17A.

As for naysayers there are few other options in 2016 compared to before.

 

[RegR]

Yeah true was ranty wasn't I - just pissed off about lack of balls by Govt! True 2018 DMRR could offer some hope but I won't hold my breath (will hold it for next years election tho!).

Regarding Aussie maritime assets for ice ops - yes they already lease a very capable vessel - refer to this link then look at what their planned replacement looks like - it'll be far in excess capability-wise of what our's will be!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_Australis_(icebreaker)

Good to be passionate, shows you care lol. Yes knew they had some 'civi' vessels doing outside navy work which is why I thought we may go down a similar lease but crew path for this particular option, think there was talk on here.

I just did not consider the fact we would, essentially, patrol for them although guess it makes sense to check each others yard when we are in the neighbourhood, sharing the responsibility somewhat.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Isnt the issue with the C17 really now availability of airframes, seeing the need for such has been pointed out by the services themselves, and we now have the funds to do so?

 

[kiwipatriot69]

I have read from exersizes we have done recently our ground and air crews are world class, im not knocking them, just the govt wanting to run them planes for so long, i like gambling myself, but not with peoples lives.

 

[Gibbo]

Isnt the issue with the C17 really now availability of airframes, seeing the need for such has been pointed out by the services themselves, and we now have the funds to do so?

Not so sure it's just numbers of airframes. Point #7 in the attachment refers to heavy-lift airlift foregone to limit opex & capex overrun compared to DMRR funding levels. Having said that this is just an input to DWP2016 and not necessarily a final policy decision.... but given heavy airlift appears to be removed in final paper then we can only assume that decision was made, on a funding basis.

http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/dwp2016/nsc-16-min-0011-dwp2016-funding.pdf

 

[RegR]

Boeing reports a range of between 11800-12000 kms so it should be A-OK with respect to SPR rules heading into Pegasus field. That is well past the likes of the A400M/C-17A.

As for naysayers there are few other options in 2016 compared to before.

That would definately add to the reasoning then, pollies will jump back on board the antartic flight bandwagon with ease now with a safety net in place (not to mention the added benfits for other parts of the world).

Yes I to get the feeling some of these options were more maybe a case of 'we have to work with what we got' rather than possibly what they wanted. The 'safe' an definite options.

Who knows, a new party could swoop in between now and go time and pull another blindside.

 

[Gibbo]

That would definately add to the reasoning then, pollies will jump back on board the antartic flight bandwagon with ease now with a safety net in place (not to mention the added benfits for other parts of the world).

Yes I to get the feeling some of these options were more maybe a case of 'we have to work with what we got' rather than possibly what they wanted. The 'safe' an definite options.

Who knows, a new party could swoop in between now and go time and pull another blindside.

Damn - just realised B767-2C would never get the tick from pollies... it doesn't have windows! No more 'windowed' B767 variants being built that I'm aware of. :teary

 

[MrConservative]

Isnt the issue with the C17 really now availability of airframes, seeing the need for such has been pointed out by the services themselves, and we now have the funds to do so?

The availability of sound C-17 airframes is the issue. They would have to be used and go through a convoluted FMS process. Both of those issues are not insurmountable but are difficult.

What we know of is that 16 airframes last month got given the deactivation status from UASF front-line to back-up reserve status. This means that their is an expectation that they could go back into service via rotation to plug any operational gaps such as when aircraft head through depot.

Eight airframes from 10 Airlift Sqd at McChord and another eight from 17th Airlift Sqd at Charleston S.C have been pulled. I believe that the Charleston airframes were particularly old being amongst the first C-17 builds with 91-95 serial tails. Their most timed airframe has hit over 20000 hours and is 25 years old. I understand the McChord tails are somewhat younger but still fairly old with 96-99 serial tails and I would assume they are the ones which were be pulled from the flight line first as 10 Sqd was deactivated. I have not seen what serial tails 10 Sqd were flying.

USAF now has an expectation that the C-17 will stay in service to 42000 hours beyond the original 30000 hours. The bulk of C-17 fleet have flown between 11000-15000 hours. The early block builds are in the high teens. The average C-17 historically has flown 800 hours pa. However some years, some airframes have been given in excess of 1000 hours.

The DoD considers that it has more than ample Strategic Airlift in its force structure mix. It has more airworthy C-17's & C-5's than it can fund. Congress has loved building them in marginal congressional districts across the 30 states were component manufacturing was in place. However, Congress has never been too keen on operating them. I would not be surprised to see another couple of CONUS C-17 Squadrons deactivated over the next few years.

The next political gravy train will be the C-17 MLU which will create lots of further work in marginal Congressional districts next decade. No announcement about this as yet but it is about as certain a thing as the tide coming in.

 

[MrConservative]

Damn - just realised B767-2C would never get the tick from pollies... it doesn't have windows! No more 'windowed' B767 variants being built that I'm aware of. :teary

They are shallow but not that shallow Gibbo. The only Polly's who actually use the B757 are the PM and the FM though that is conditional.

The travelling officials should be working on reports anyway and who gives a stuff about the press gallery. There are a couple of token exit door windows for rubber neckers.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

So, hypothetically speaking, if our airforce did go down that path and we got the remaining C17 'whitetail' not bought from the final production run, plus two more at 15/25 yrs old might create problems down the road with another SLEP required?

 

[MrConservative]

So, hypothetically speaking, if our airforce did go down that path and we got the remaining C17 'whitetail' not bought from the final production run, plus two more at 15/25 yrs old might create problems down the road with another SLEP required?

I would avoid hypotheticals as I think the final Whitetail will likely end up in Kuwait.

Yes it will create problems.

 

[ngatimozart]

Yes was just thinking along the lines of maybe abit too large and maybe they would try and keep in the similar size bracket to current 757 (athough I guess if we were legitamitly considering C17 then not an issue). I do like the idea of sticking with boeing and if the 737 range had a viable contender than the obvious similarities with any P8 purchase would be a bonus but since they are pushing the antartic angle I do not think this is best option.

Agreed the 767 would be an improvement in terms of range, size, capacity etc just wondering if the nay sayers who were considering ditching the current boeings would pull out the same arguments just on a slightly larger scale perhaps?

As you say at least some polly support will come from first hand experience from the 'incident' so that is an argument in favour of at least. Can the 767 conduct a point of no return round flight or is it still commited at some point?

I did not believe govt (especially) would be to quick to give up the boeing capability as with our minor force it actually projects a certain status as well as strat trans, kind of ultimate flag waver for our pollies, and I guess the C130 toilet would have changed some of their penny pinching attitudes haha.

There was a plan after the scare with the minister on the B757 during the white-out, to undertake a trial with an Air NZ B767 into Pegasus Field. From memory the first attempt was canned because of weather and not sure why the rest were canned. The B767 most definitely has the capability to orbit Pegasus field for a short time and return to NZ if necessary without landing. My only concerns with the B767-2C are that two is not enough because we have had issues with B757 availability because of only having two. IMHO three would be better, just because of the rule of threes, plus we could definitely commit one to the NZ-US Joint Logistics Pool each year and on occasion two as required. Finally, the third airframe takes the pressure off both the B767 and the C130Js.

 

[Gibbo]

There was a plan after the scare with the minister on the B757 during the white-out, to undertake a trial with an Air NZ B767 into Pegasus Field. From memory the first attempt was canned because of weather and not sure why the rest were canned. The B767 most definitely has the capability to orbit Pegasus field for a short time and return to NZ if necessary without landing. My only concerns with the B767-2C are that two is not enough because we have had issues with B757 availability because of only having two. IMHO three would be better, just because of the rule of threes, plus we could definitely commit one to the NZ-US Joint Logistics Pool each year and on occasion two as required. Finally, the third airframe takes the pressure off both the B767 and the C130Js.

You know it seems no time at all ago the discussion here was how the B757 could be dumped (ie: as per VFM review) & have commercial operators handle VIP & Pax taskings. Given Strategic airlift is now a distinct deliverable / outcome for DWP it would suggest Govt has finally realised the value they provide and that the C130 can't do everything so the role is here to stay!

Also note from the discussion papers that a distinction has been made between strategic airlift and heavy airlift - interesting as to whether that could have a bearing come time to place an order!?! Pure supposition and not the 'like for like' strategy mooted, but could it open the door to a couple of heavies (A400M probably the only option by that date) to supplement both tactical & strategic lifters!?! Clearly a rhetorical question as we try to 2nd guess NZ Govt defence purchases! :sleepy2

 

[Gibbo]

There was a plan after the scare with the minister on the B757 during the white-out, to undertake a trial with an Air NZ B767 into Pegasus Field. From memory the first attempt was canned because of weather and not sure why the rest were canned. The B767 most definitely has the capability to orbit Pegasus field for a short time and return to NZ if necessary without landing. My only concerns with the B767-2C are that two is not enough because we have had issues with B757 availability because of only having two. IMHO three would be better, just because of the rule of threes, plus we could definitely commit one to the NZ-US Joint Logistics Pool each year and on occasion two as required. Finally, the third airframe takes the pressure off both the B767 and the C130Js.

As for South Pacific taskings I guess B767-2C would be too big for many island strips but the model could be to drag the bulk of gear to a B767-2C capable field & transfer into C130J size loads for the tactical leg!?!

3 would be ideal although there has been talk about how much 'idle' time the B757 enjoy... although I suspect that's not as much as it was initially. 3 ideal - 2 most likely.

 

[Gibbo]

Hmmm...

Posted on NZ Army thread but relevant in parts to here as well... noticed differences between 2 supposedly similar docs... compare fact sheet (link #1) to latest Army News (3rd page = link #2)

http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/dwp2...-factsheet.pdf

http://www.army.mil.nz/downloads/pdf...rmynews473.pdf

Army News link tends to give a little more detail on each... (including all RNZN IPV's going). For airlift it states C130 replacement with similar capability, B757 replacement with improved support capability and lift capacity. Alas the latter sounds like a C17 but that ain't happening so wonder if Army News is based on old news!?!

 

[MrConservative]

As for South Pacific taskings I guess B767-2C would be too big for many island strips but the model could be to drag the bulk of gear to a B767-2C capable field & transfer into C130J size loads for the tactical leg!?!

3 would be ideal although there has been talk about how much 'idle' time the B757 enjoy... although I suspect that's not as much as it was initially. 3 ideal - 2 most likely.

If the runs down to MacTown become a regular cycle then three would be ideal. But like you I believe that two will be sufficient with an option for a third.

 

[htbrst]

757 and C-130 in the news with a real world example of the running cost, and something that could be chartered rather than coming out of the NZDF budget:

One hundred Maori and Pasifika artists were flown to Guam by the Royal New Zealand Air Force to take part in the country's Festival of Pacific Arts. New Zealand's contingent flew to the small pacific island on an RNZAF B757 and their artwork was flown over by a C-130 Hercules.

The Defence Force has released figures showing the cost of the return flights was $237,000 and was provided under 'defence support to the community'.

Air Force fly Maori and Pasifika artists to Guam | Stuff.co.nz

Must have been big artwork to require the addition of a C-130 for the 757 to not be able to handle only 100 passengers and some artwork.

 

[ngatimozart]

There is a full blown crash fire alert at Whenuapai at the moment with a C130 in trouble, due to land 11:30am NZST. What is not known is who the C130 belongs to because the USAF has three MC130H Combat Talon II's operating out of Whenuapai at the moment.

Edit: Aircraft down safely. Problem appears to be lack of pressurization and smoke in cockpit. Reports suggest that aircraft is RNZAF.

 

[MrConservative]

There is a full blown crash fire alert at Whenuapai at the moment with a C130 in trouble, due to land 11:30am NZST. What is not known is who the C130 belongs to because the USAF has three MC130H Combat Talon II's operating out of Whenuapai at the moment.

Edit: Aircraft down safely. Problem appears to be lack of pressurization and smoke in cockpit. Reports suggest that aircraft is RNZAF.

RNZAF and 17 on board. Good that it is safely down. No doubt there will be a full inquiry by RNZAF air safety.