That is good news. The plan under the former President was to phase out all the BUFF's by 2040. It makes sense as most only have around 20000 hours on their airframes. The C-5 is another from that era, though a decade or so younger, that will be another super veteran. The M model upgrade and re-engining with the CF-6 solved the huge $$$$ issue of reliability and running costs.
Original? There was a project to replace the C-130 in the 1970s. Two jets were built to compete for it, but it was cancelled. Advanced Medium STOL Transport - Wikipedia
In NZ terms it's a tactical transport not requiring to fly from here to the black stump and back with a LAV and 100 grunts in the back. We don't do that, whereas other larger militaries may and do. Of all the contenders, it is the best suited and offers the best VfM in that role. If it was offered in the strategic role it would be about as useful as an electric coat hanger as far as NZ was concerned. It may have the range, but it sure makes for an expensive pallet of baked beans. The other important consideration, especially in the NZ context is numbers. For tactical aircraft with the required range and payload, for every A400M / KHI C-2, we can acquire approximately 2.5 C-130Js meaning greater coverage with 5 / 6 + 2 / 3 than just 4 / 5 all up.
The age of the aircraft is not in my opinion a significant factor. What kills aircraft is their fatigue life and how advanced this is. The systems and engines etc can and are reconditioned to an as new standard as long as the parts are available. The aircraft structure is the problem and ours have had a full fatigue rebuild including new centre sections rebuilt outer wings and significant fatigue attenuation of the fuselage.. As long as the structure is in good shape and ours are, the age is of little consequence and your normal maintenance should take care of the systems.
While you are wright in a day to day contex, I think we should be looking at what is required when the crap hits the fan, as that is the ultimate reason for having a military in the first place. I know the greens will disagree with this , but so be it . You did forget the KC 390 witch is reputed by some sources to have lower life time costs. I have not seen the proof of this, but would be surprised if they were significantly more than the C130J.
If we, as a country, were seriously looking at what is required when the crap hits the fan, we'd be spending in the region of 2 - 2.5% GDP on defence, would've acquired 6 P-8, 6 -8 C-130J back in the mid 2000s when the RAAF acquired theirs, 2 - 3 C-17A circa 2010 - 12, would've had been looking at a MLU for the brand new F-16 C/ D we should've bought in the 1990s about now, etc. However NZ hasn't taken defence serious since WW1, except for WW2 and more so the panic after 7/12/1941. As soon as the Japanese surrendered, the NZG went straight back to business as usual. Why do you think there were service mutinies over pay and conditions after the war in 1946 & 47. It was not as though the country was on the bones of its backside unlike the UK. Yes we owed the US for lend lease but there were significant offsets in that we supplied the US Army and USN with food, services and advanced radar technology, plus the UK owed us for all the tucker that we shipped to them throughout the war, included the stuff that was deep sixed because of enemy action. Australia was in a similar position to us vis a vis the US and the UK.
If they contested the Airbus MRTT for the Boeing alternative, do you really see the US buy a foreign transport in numbers?
Agree that fatigue Life plays a significant portion to aircraft serviceability, but it cost more per square meter to renovate an existing house than it does to build new
I remember when I was down at defence HQ in the late 70's being told and shown some figures by a lower Treasury official that showed that we were owed more by the US than we owed them and were the only country in the world that the US did not except the return of equipment as this was use to offset their debt to us. in other words we bought the gear though no money ever change hands due to what they owed us for reverse lease lend. We also were owed a considerable debt by the UK which was written off and never collected. NZ came out of WW2 in damn good shape.
IMHO I think the risk factor is often overstated, While there is some risk of problems (MAX 8 ) these are usually quickly resolved in the case of fixed wing aircraft and in the case of the C2 and the KC 390 these are conventional aircraft designs that do not push the limits in regard to new technologies and use well known design technics. They are made by long established and well regarded companies, so I think the risk factor is very low. In my opinion if you do not take some risks you simply don't have progress.
Grumman Northrop has a number of technical defence partnerships with Kawasaki Heavy Industries including the EC-2 variant. It would benefit KHI's global footprint if they were to move this corporate relationship into a more sales and global support partnership with GN so as to leverage their experience with respect to the C-2, analogous to the Embraer-Boeing relationship with the KC-390. KHI also has ties with Boeing and Lockheed as well.
And what did we do with all those lovely nice aircraft we had left over at the end of WW2? F-4U Corsairs, P-40 Kittyhawks, TBF-3 Avengers etc. Parked them up outside of Hamilton scrapped them and decided to go back to pommy gear, straight away. We burned a squadron of Corsairs in Japan rather than return them to NZ. We could've operated a mixed fleet of Corsair and Mustang fighters along with Mosquitos from 1945 until the early 1950s and then acquired jet fighters and the Canberras. So in 1945 the only aircraft we would've had to pay for would've been the Mosquitos and we did order 80 of those, flew what 20, and burned the rest. What a waste.
Interesting your choice of GN instead of NG in your post, ok by me, Grumman made two of my favourite things, the Tomcat and Lunar Rover. Hired many ex- Avro employees after the Arrow cancellation as well. Given Boeing’s current problems, an increased NG relationship for KHI could be a good route for them to pursue.
