No doubt this is covered on the RAF thread (?), but I imagine their use of the A400 could sway political and service opinion (e.g. deployments to Mali to support the French effort), not to mention the RAF flew an A400 to Ohakea in Feb 2017. Me and my lad were quite impressed by the British personnel handing out branded Frisbees and sunglasses..
I think the point being missed here is that geographical area does not determine such things. In the 17th century the Netherlands was tiny - so why did it build a huge fleet, & how could it afford it? How could it establish colonies around the world, from such a tiny base?
Geographical determinants are a factor and I am not arguing that it is a causal singularity - geo-political considerations are always multi-factorial and often there are conflicting reasons for a nation state and its leadership to act in certain ways. I am simply questioning the motives of Qatar's 'vanity' symbolism by acquiring a disproportionate of number of C-17's for what clearly is a very small nation.
I don't disagree with that. There are perfectly valid reasons for them to to do so. I just question why the hell they had to buy eight of the bloody things. Six of them would have been enough, which would have least left a couple for us to put into very productive use over the next 40 years.
Now that is a non-sequitor. Was that deliberate?
Honestly I'd agree with novascotia boy on Nz defence budget having champagne purchases on a beer budget, though we could have afforded two C17 and had replaced our hueys with more blackhawks for less than the cost of NH 90, without the issues they have given us.Geographical determinants are a factor and I am not arguing that it is a causal singularity - geo-political considerations are always multi-factorial and often there are conflicting reasons for a nation state and its leadership to act in certain ways. I am simply questioning the motives of Qatar's 'vanity' symbolism by acquiring a disproportionate of number of C-17's for what clearly is a very small nation.
I don't disagree with that. There are perfectly valid reasons for them to to do so. I just question why the hell they had to buy eight of the bloody things. Six of them would have been enough, which would have least left a couple for us to put into very productive use over the next 40 years.
Now that is a non-sequitor. Was that deliberate?
Furthermore I hope they get thrashed at the World Cup in 2022! Am I bitter ... nah..yeah
I second that motion put by the hesteemed member of the Wheel Tappers and Shunters CoommitteeeeeGeographical determinants are a factor and I am not arguing that it is a causal singularity - geo-political considerations are always multi-factorial and often there are conflicting reasons for a nation state and its leadership to act in certain ways. I am simply questioning the motives of Qatar's 'vanity' symbolism by acquiring a disproportionate of number of C-17's for what clearly is a very small nation.
I don't disagree with that. There are perfectly valid reasons for them to to do so. I just question why the hell they had to buy eight of the bloody things. Six of them would have been enough, which would have least left a couple for us to put into very productive use over the next 40 years.
Now that is a non-sequitor. Was that deliberate?
Furthermore I hope they get thrashed at the World Cup in 2022! Am I bitter ... nah..yeah
Yes, eight is rather over the top, just like the recent fighter buying spree.Geographical determinants are a factor and I am not arguing that it is a causal singularity - geo-political considerations are always multi-factorial and often there are conflicting reasons for a nation state and its leadership to act in certain ways. I am simply questioning the motives of Qatar's 'vanity' symbolism by acquiring a disproportionate of number of C-17's for what clearly is a very small nation.
I don't disagree with that. There are perfectly valid reasons for them to to do so. I just question why the hell they had to buy eight of the bloody things. Six of them would have been enough, which would have least left a couple for us to put into very productive use over the next 40 years.
Now that is a non-sequitor. Was that deliberate?
Furthermore I hope they get thrashed at the World Cup in 2022! Am I bitter ... nah..yeah
Same group as Australia, Japan or ROK and cop a 5-0 thrashing would be fine by meYes, eight is rather over the top, just like the recent fighter buying spree.
Isn't the rest of the world hoping they get thrashed at the World Cup?
In recent years they seem to have significant support contracts from the mainly US vendors including personnel support that can run into the billions in some cases if you take a look at the contracts going through the US State Departments Defense Security Cooperation Agency.Same group as Australia, Japan or ROK and cop a 5-0 thrashing would be fine by me
One question I have to ask about countries like Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia is do they fully understand the importance of backing up these buys with Maintenance, Trg and Logistic programs?
Between Airbus and Boeing, LM, who do do think is more established here in terms of infrastructure and investment, that would be the frontrunner in such a decison for our Airforce?
And BAE, Dassault, Airbus & Alenia.
Do you mean in terms of their corporate footprint in NZ? Airbus and Boeing have close associations with Air NZ, Airbus now owns SAFE, LM and the RNZAF go back decades, they all have their strengths and weaknesses. However new infrastructure and investment will be required for the new capabilities so there is an element of 'greenfields' to what happens next irrespective of past performance.
Found this interesting article comparing metrics for the C-130J to earlier versions in USAF use, and in our AOR. Note the "can carry 9,000 pounds more cargo" reference -
Weren't we involved in that disaster relief mission in Indonesia recently,with our C130? I remember seeing that on the 6 pm news. Oh well, lets see what RNZAF gets approval for this Xmas then.
Yes
Well it originally the decision was supposed to be made in November (which has gone). Then the Minister said that the matter was so urgent that he was bringing the decision forward, then nothing more was heard. Maybe he didn't say which November. We still await with bated breathe, although I would like to see the RNZAF C-130H(NZ) replaced before my 4 year old grandson is eligible to collect his pension. He only has 61 years to wait to qualify under the present rules.
My understanding was that the Capability report was to come first followed by the decision on the C 130 H in November. As neither has appeared yet it would appear that the capability report may be the problem. Have the pollies found that there is not enough capability? (we all know this anyway). are they playing games again? (nothing new) or is there a genuine reason for the delay? Maybe the pollies are just more interested in their xmas shopping. But seriously what report on defence ever comes out on time? Once the pollies see the draft they usually require alterations to suit themselves so they don't have to commit to anything.
RNZAF personell involved in keeping them C130 H flying must be among the best there is to do so for so long, i read somewhere they the oldest serving hercules in existance. I couldnt imagine if a commercial airline like Air Nz would expect its customers to fly on planes decades past their use by date, doing expensive short term refits to buy another ten years use.