I don't know, but I would think so especially with the over water distances they have to cover.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Probably not the EXACT same fitout TBH, as the US uses different units of measure. IIRC when the RAAF 'took' USN build slots for their F/A-F SHornet order, those aircraft were similar to the USN SHornets, but things like the gauges were changed or reprogrammed to use the metric system.
We and the Aussies don't use the metric system when flying. It's all feet and nautical miles.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Hmm... I thought I recalled reading Aus Aviation when the SHornet purchase was announced that certain gauges needed to be changed due to different units of measure. Would not want a repeat of the Gimli Glider incident.
Could be the air pressure gauges.
From memory the international aviation control system has always been feet and nautical miles and I have not heard that this has changed.
Aluminium Hail
New Member
Yes feet and nautical miles. But litres and kilograms for things like fuel. The Americans use gallons and pounds. Civilian aircraft coming to NZ would normally have fuel gauges speced with metric. I can't comment on mil spec though.
As we’ve seen in recent weeks, there are many ways to skin a cat. Civilian drones dropping modified hand grenades and mortar bombs are having effects out of proportion to conventional wisdom as to survivability and overall combat effectiveness.
Similarly not every maritime strike will be coming up against a Type 055 at full readiness. Would you want to use a P-8A and JSM (assuming you had them in-service) against a patrol boat?
If lessons can be drawn from current conflicts, one of the major ones (which isn’t at all new, but is definitely reinforced) is that ultimate capability should always be derived from an overlapping spectrum of capabilities, rather than a handful of exquisite / niche capabilities, especially when those flexible capabilities can be re-rolled in extremis.
As we’ve seen in the Ukraine in recent weeks and days, it is possible to do maritime strikes against a greater than peer nation with armed UAS and modern missiles, even anti-tank missiles under specific scenarios.
A fast jet fleet would address a myriad of issues for NZ and help Australia no end with regional security but it’s far from the only capability gap NZ has and maybe not even the most urgent?
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
Indeed, could not a primary interest be security and integrity of communications and broad based situational awareness, and its denial to an enemy, be the issue NZ should first focus on? To this end, the ability to securely deliver communications and other satellites to orbit and denial of that space to opponents?
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
A bit of fluff post on on the P8's nothing new just the first fuselage being going to the Boeing Factory
Would this A320LR military conversion the German’s have purchased work as a 757 replacement for RNZAF?
simpleflying.com
German Air Force Receives First Converted Airbus A321LR Handover From Lufthansa Technik
Lufthansa Technik has handed over the first of two A321LR troop carriers to the German military.
simpleflying.com
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Well possibly if our glorious politicians and media want to use the air force primarily to travel around the world in style as VIP's (seems the air force's current B757's are too "'90's like" for some of their liking)!Would this A320LR military conversion the German’s have purchased work as a 757 replacement for RNZAF?
German Air Force Receives First Converted Airbus A321LR Handover From Lufthansa Technik
Lufthansa Technik has handed over the first of two A321LR troop carriers to the German military.
Seriously though the DCP19's Future Strategic Air Mobility project has an indicative cost of NZ$300-600m which at the lower end could potentially be a couple of second hand airliners again with modifications (or A321neo's), at the higher end it could potentially be a couple of new A-400m's, C-2's (or just possibly a couple of A330MRTT's if the actual budget stretches slightly). Note though that the costs I'm using are from simple google searches and any project costs will therefore be higher including training, modifications, support and spares (and potentially new infrastructure such as hangers, if so that'll add another hundred million or so). It also depends on what the Govt defines as its requirements, which were well defined previously (publicly) under the previous National administration (covered in these forums by Mr C. a few years ago), more or less continued by the recent Labour/NZF coalition administration, although the current Labour administration is re-assessing defence so who knows yet what they have in mind and as their priorities.
Germany's A321LR conversion is quite interesting, particularly the MedEvac setup's look impressive (the video provides a good look inside the aircraft).
Handover of the first of two Airbus A321LR for German Armed Forces - Lufthansa Technik
On June 23, 2022, ILA Berlin provided the setting for the public unveiling of the first of two Airbus A321LR for Bundeswehr, the German Federal Armed
www.aerocontact.com
The RNZAF's B757's were also setup for the MedEvac. I haven't/has anyone seen what that setup looks like?
The RNZAF's B757 also has some slight differences though: upper deck cargo door and a strengthened floor to allow the carrying of up to 11 pallets (the modifications were carried out by Singapore Technologies, Mobile Aerospace Engineering (and Boeing Integrated Defence Systems), this ST Engineering Aerospace PDF shows some typical configurations).
Finally and on a personal note, I believe the Future Strategic Air Mobility project (as it is currently defined) is flawed/compromised. Firstly the budget will likely only allow for a minimum of two aircraft (the original minimum should have been three to reduce govt policy failures. Now, with the changing global/regional security situation, the new minimum ought to be at least four to better support concurrent operations and to ensure a number of aircraft are always available due to servicing unavailability). Secondly Defence ideally requires at least two different types of aircraft, one type with a rear loading ramp primarily to carry outsized cargo, and a second type to primarily carry troops and their cargo and VIP's etc. Both types must be able to travel to and from the likes of the Antarctic safely. Anyway these are simply my views (other views are welcome) and of course reality will get in the way.
Good evening AllWell possibly if our glorious politicians and media want to use the air force primarily to travel around the world in style as VIP's (seems the air force's current B757's are too "'90's like" for some of their liking)!
Seriously though the DCP19's Future Strategic Air Mobility project has an indicative cost of NZ$300-600m which at the lower end could potentially be a couple of second hand airliners again with modifications (or A321neo's), at the higher end it could potentially be a couple of new A-400m's, C-2's (or just possibly a couple of A330MRTT's if the actual budget stretches slightly). Note though that the costs I'm using are from simple google searches and any project costs will therefore be higher including training, modifications, support and spares (and potentially new infrastructure such as hangers, if so that'll add another hundred million or so). It also depends on what the Govt defines as its requirements, which were well defined previously (publicly) under the previous National administration (covered in these forums by Mr C. a few years ago), more or less continued by the recent Labour/NZF coalition administration, although the current Labour administration is re-assessing defence so who knows yet what they have in mind and as their priorities.
Germany's A321LR conversion is quite interesting, particularly the MedEvac setup's look impressive (the video provides a good look inside the aircraft).
Handover of the first of two Airbus A321LR for German Armed Forces - Lufthansa Technik
On June 23, 2022, ILA Berlin provided the setting for the public unveiling of the first of two Airbus A321LR for Bundeswehr, the German Federal Armedwww.aerocontact.com
The RNZAF's B757's were also setup for the MedEvac. I haven't/has anyone seen what that setup looks like?
The RNZAF's B757 also has some slight differences though: upper deck cargo door and a strengthened floor to allow the carrying of up to 11 pallets (the modifications were carried out by Singapore Technologies, Mobile Aerospace Engineering (and Boeing Integrated Defence Systems), this ST Engineering Aerospace PDF shows some typical configurations).
Finally and on a personal note, I believe the Future Strategic Air Mobility project (as it is currently defined) is flawed/compromised. Firstly the budget will likely only allow for a minimum of two aircraft (the original minimum should have been three to reduce govt policy failures. Now, with the changing global/regional security situation, the new minimum ought to be at least four to better support concurrent operations and to ensure a number of aircraft are always available due to servicing unavailability). Secondly Defence ideally requires at least two different types of aircraft, one type with a rear loading ramp primarily to carry outsized cargo, and a second type to primarily carry troops and their cargo and VIP's etc. Both types must be able to travel to and from the likes of the Antarctic safely. Anyway these are simply my views (other views are welcome) and of course reality will get in the way.
I feel before we jump into the capabilities , type etc i think we need to take a major step sideways and think about the future of WP as an Airbase in the 21st cent. We have seen 5sqn move to OH , largely due to runway length i understand, its being squeezed out by urban growth, and housing of pers is becoming a much greater problem . Maybe first , as scary and expensive as it sounds , we should be talking about a new air base with a suitable runway , armories, surrounding land and afforable housing nearby . Then we would be able to operate , well, anything
Just my thoughts before a wee drop.
ImJustDubzzz
Member
I think having a discussion about WP future as an airbase would be good, I don't see it lasting in the long term.
What about the possibility of a dual use airfield? Ardmore is probably too busy, but maybe Hamilton? I understand they are extending their runway from 2000m to 3000m. Hamilton is only the tenth busiest airport in NZ, so relatively little traffic. I think dual use would be fine for a transport base.
ImJustDubzzz
Member
Considering the fact that the transport aircraft would benefit being further north rather than south I think moving to Hamilton may not be the smartest idea, additionally the Seasprites should still be in close proximity to the Devonport Naval Base. Although they can make the trek back up it might be counterproductive for the whole fleet of aircraft currently at Whenuapai. Perhaps somewhere immediately outside of Auckland suburbs towards the north in Kaipara harbour maybe? There is room for it to stay and grow and still maintain a presence near Auckland and in the north of the country. If a new base were built further north (all theoretical here) it'd be interesting to see whether the RNZAF would reassess 5 squadrons location at Ohakea (again, all theoretical for this last part regarding 5 squadron.)
I saw a article last week and it appealed to me as a viable option as part of a B757 replacement option.Would this A320LR military conversion the German’s have purchased work as a 757 replacement for RNZAF?
German Air Force Receives First Converted Airbus A321LR Handover From Lufthansa Technik
Lufthansa Technik has handed over the first of two A321LR troop carriers to the German military.
I actually think that the A330MRTT is the best option as a partial strategic airlift option and we would have to acquire three. How many times have our B757 fallen over somewhere and we have had to make other arrangements because we've only got two of them and the second is usually unavailable because it's either fallen over or in the hangar under going programmed maintenance. The Rule of Threes very much applies.Well possibly if our glorious politicians and media want to use the air force primarily to travel around the world in style as VIP's (seems the air force's current B757's are too "'90's like" for some of their liking)!
Seriously though the DCP19's Future Strategic Air Mobility project has an indicative cost of NZ$300-600m which at the lower end could potentially be a couple of second hand airliners again with modifications (or A321neo's), at the higher end it could potentially be a couple of new A-400m's, C-2's (or just possibly a couple of A330MRTT's if the actual budget stretches slightly). Note though that the costs I'm using are from simple google searches and any project costs will therefore be higher including training, modifications, support and spares (and potentially new infrastructure such as hangers, if so that'll add another hundred million or so). It also depends on what the Govt defines as its requirements, which were well defined previously (publicly) under the previous National administration (covered in these forums by Mr C. a few years ago), more or less continued by the recent Labour/NZF coalition administration, although the current Labour administration is re-assessing defence so who knows yet what they have in mind and as their priorities.
Most definitely and the funding needs to have at least $1 billion added to it. That way you could acquire a decent strategic airlift component of say 3 A330MRTT, and 3 C-2. I am plumbing for the C-2 because I see it as a necessary defence diplomacy acquisition from Japan in order to help us acquire a much needed security agreement with Japan. We also need one with South Korea. We are NATO's Indo Pacific partners with them along with Australia, so we should really make a concerted effort to be really serious about it.
Yes it is a good idea and we have been talking about it off and on. This has to be discussed in the context of the Navy moving from Devonport to Marden Point at some stage as well.
Why would they benefit from being further north? They actually need to be close to their client which is the Army and it's main bases are at Linton and Burnham. HADR and transporting govt ministers around are not the RNZAF core function. They are a secondary consideration.
There are various options but first the overall assumptions. We presume that Ohakea is becoming crowded and local infra structure precludes further development for the time being. It's also seen as being militarily and politically desirable for a new base to be established. The problem is where. I could give a few options but I will just state my preferred option and people can provide their own preferred option and their reasons why. That way we may get a good cross section of options.
My Preferred Option
Move all flying training from Ohakea to Woodbourne and lengthen the Ohakea runway to take fully laden C5M / AN124.
40 Sqn and 41 Sqn (Strategic Airlift Component) can move to Ohakea. 3 more C-130J-30 acquired for 40 Sqn.
RNZN moved to Marsden Point as Navy Base North and airfield built on naval base to take aircraft up to A330MRTT / C-17 size. Mainly used by RNZN aircraft.
New RNZAF airbase built at Timaru. Runway same length as extended OH runway to take fully laden C5M / AN124.
Navy Base South built at Timaru port.
Why Timaru? Well there's a pre-existing regional airport that's under utilised. It's a 90 minute drive from Burnham Military Camp and about a 2 hour drive from Tekapo Training Area, which makes Waiouru look really tropical this time of year. It's also a 2 hour drive from Christchurch and a 2hr 30min drive from Dunedin. So approximately half way between two universities. There are fuel storage facilities at Timaru Port. Recreationally it's close to a variety of skifields and lakes. Salmon fishing rivers nearby (wild salmon) and good canal fishing for trout and salmon. My brother tells me that the trout are huge large because they live downstream of the salmon farms in the canals. The salmon are those that have escaped from the salmon farms. The climate in Timaru is pretty good to.
That's my suggestion.
Why would transport aircraft benefit from being further north when they routinely have to fly south to uplift their primary users anyway? The only reason they are even realistically in Auckland now anyway is to facilitate immediate deployment of NZSAS which also needs to be co-located near an international airport and those requirements are few and far between nowadays. Funnily enough the idea of moving WP (even just to OH) was quashed due to costs so somehow I doubt building an entire new airbase would be any cheaper in the great scheme of things.
If and when WP does close I can just see them re-looking at the consolidation plan (remember oroginally this was pre the new 3/5 Sqn hanger days) as as it turns out there are actually mirror hangers in OH same as in WP with one being now empty and the other being under utilised with a few king airs, why build new when you can just re-appropriate existing? 6 Sqn will stay north with navy along with a cadre and air mov terminal (ala WG air moves but more operational) to maintain a presence and provide options for NZSAS, ideally at the AIA extension or possibly if Navy moves but again, costs. The training functions including Texans and king airs move south to WB and free up precious real estate at OH. Infrastructure will still need to be built to support just not on the level of an entire base from scratch.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #8,939
I'm not a fan of moving the navy to Marsden Point. I think there are to many limitations, especially when considered in conjunction with talk around the Port of Auckland. I would be more supportive of the retention of Devonport for Core Maritime Training, MCM / Hydrographic, Inshore Patrol, Tanker and maybe Canterbury.
The increasing size of ships does mean we need a new naval base, but Timaru would be a non-starter from my point of view due to large tidal range in that port. It would also mean shutting down commercial side of the business in order to provide sufficient berths for Frigates and OPV's. Realistically NZ is pretty limited as to where a new navy base could be located given the best spots are already in use.
As an alternative the navy could continue to use Devonport but have forward operating bases say in Christchurch or Dunedin (existing naval units and Industrial base for repairs not involving a drydock) and the South Pacific. This would see ships permanently based in the SI and return to DNB for refit / docking etc. and at least one on permanent rotation in the South Pacific.
I do think 14 Sqn should move to Woodbourne, and I can't dispute the logic behind Timaru as a future Airbase.
ImJustDubzzz
Member
I can see why I'm wrong about creating a new base further north, thank you for the explanation Ngati and RegR. I guess late night thinking doesn't promote good thinking!