Royal New Zealand Air Force

greenie

New Member
Thats a real shame the medium aircraft has been dropped or maybe hiding I would like to think.
If it has been dropped then maybe there is an opening for the Navy to either lease or buy a couple of 15 - 19 seaters to provide its own SATS and crew transport. (I seam to remember seeing a couple of J31s sitting at woodbourne a little while back.)With 6 new patrol boats plus others the cost in dollars of providing airline seats (often at short notice ) to regional airports is huge if not extreamly expensive , I know from experience with my own training that courses and exercises have been cancelled because air force trans has fallen over and the budget is too tight for ANZ.
It would be interesting to work out the costs .
 

Challenger

New Member
I'm new here, and expect to get flamed, I apologize in advance.:)

If National come to power, God I hope they bring back the Air Combat Wing. Was talking to Wayne Mapp (Defence Minister) who is also the National MP in my area and he was saying that National would increase spending in Defence, however he failed to confirm or deny the "Fighters" issue. I personally would love to see the Air Force, and NZDF in general come back to what it was.

Would there be any outside chance of CH-47's coming into service if NZDF was to play a more important role in the war on terror ( Due to their usefulness in Afghanistan) ?

Due to years of dreaming under labours tyranny I decided upon 'My Ideal RNZAF' which would consist of::rolleyes:

No. 14 Squadron: 14 BAe Hawk
No. 2 Squadron (Nowra): 14 F-16 (Modernishh)
No. 75 Squadron (Ohakea): 14 F-16 (Modernishh)
No. 40 Squadron: 8 C-130 ( 2 KC-130)
No. 40 Squadron: 2 757-200
No. 5 Squadron: 6 P-3
No. 42 Squadron: 5 Kingairs

Helicopters:

22 E-101 / NH-90 (8 NAVY)
10 CH-47:D
14 AH-64D
8 Training Helicopters.

This would supplement the 4 Navy Frigates, 8 Infantry Battalions (Including 1 Para and 1 Marine ) and of course calvary provided by Challengers 2 ( 32), Scimitars ( 36) and Warriors (96). Not even counting Artillery........:D
 

Lucasnz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #583
I'm new here, and expect to get flamed, I apologize in advance.:)

If National come to power, God I hope they bring back the Air Combat Wing. Was talking to Wayne Mapp (Defence Minister) who is also the National MP in my area and he was saying that National would increase spending in Defence, however he failed to confirm or deny the "Fighters" issue. I personally would love to see the Air Force, and NZDF in general come back to what it was.

Would there be any outside chance of CH-47's coming into service if NZDF was to play a more important role in the war on terror ( Due to their usefulness in Afghanistan) ?

Due to years of dreaming under labours tyranny I decided upon 'My Ideal RNZAF' which would consist of::rolleyes:

No. 14 Squadron: 14 BAe Hawk
No. 2 Squadron (Nowra): 14 F-16 (Modernishh)
No. 75 Squadron (Ohakea): 14 F-16 (Modernishh)
No. 40 Squadron: 8 C-130 ( 2 KC-130)
No. 40 Squadron: 2 757-200
No. 5 Squadron: 6 P-3
No. 42 Squadron: 5 Kingairs

Helicopters:

22 E-101 / NH-90 (8 NAVY)
10 CH-47:D
14 AH-64D
8 Training Helicopters.

This would supplement the 4 Navy Frigates, 8 Infantry Battalions (Including 1 Para and 1 Marine ) and of course calvary provided by Challengers 2 ( 32), Scimitars ( 36) and Warriors (96). Not even counting Artillery........:D
Greetings and welcome - we'll promise to be nice with the flaming, though things can be a bit heated at time. National has made it clear in a couple of statements that they are not looking to bring back to aircombat force.

As to your structure - Nice, but you have to use what you've got - we'd have to do some of the re-equipment all over again.

Forget Hawks - stick with the MB-339. F-16's - we only need 18, which allows for a deployed sqn of 12 and 6 at home minding the milk. Forget KC-130's - the NZ C-130 was able to refuel the A4 by rolling a tanker on a throwing a hose out the back with the correct fitting. If we need additional lift we should get a replacement for the Andover. With the P-3 forget 6 as a replacement when we orginally only had 5. Having said that I like the dream.

As for the army go Commando 21 structure, with what we have, and streamline the TF force into a more combat capable orgainisation.
 

greenie

New Member
Yes the B350 is a yummy aircraft but only if you want to carry 9 people, Id rather have the PAL750 and have a useful 9 seater.I know it cant do twin training but it can do BGT training,anly a small prob :)
As I said before we need something just a little bigger,around the 15-19 seats .The NZDF needs the ability to move a useful number of personal in something smaller than a C130 but bigger that a B200(refer previous reply:))
Welcome challenger, as for your proposed fleet, wow, as lucasnz said the MB339 is more than capable plus we all ready have them and the oldest has done only 2500hrs!
If only the polies had our dreams.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Surprised no-one has picked up on this link yet - it details the replacement a/craft requirements. MTOW 19000lbs & 'up to 100 hours VIP...' counts out anything other than existing role - so e can forget Q200/300 or similar.

http://www.defence.govt.nz/acquisitions-tenders/request-for-proposal.html

My pick is the B350 :)cool: hmmmm!) - any other suggestions that fit the specs?
Thanks, hadn't noticed that! Noted that the first para also says "limited amount of short-range air transport tasking" so short range would rule out a Q300, in fact the MTOW of a Q300 is about twice that specified weight of 19,000lb. According to http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/beechcraft/aircraft/turboprops/ka350/specifications.aspx and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Super_King_Air the B350 MTOW is 15,000lb, so wonder whether they have the B350 in mind (as used by the ADF) with a bit of leeway or something else very similar?
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Greenie: I agree something bigger is also required (to replace those Andovers) but hopefully the next Govt, be that either or, will see the need as a seperate project and maybe re-link it into the medium air patrol (but even then I can see two different types being the ideal eg Q300 & C-27 (or CH-47)!

Challenger: Nice dream, keep those ideas coming! I'll just limit my comment to the rotary types, I'd agree that CH-47's even just 2-3 or 4, would be useful for SAS work, heavy lift for the Army, or even perhaps as the Aussies may be heading, as replacements for their Caribou (aka our Andovers)! With coalition rotaty assets being in demand in places like Afghanistan, NZ could make a worthwhile contribution to the cause etc. Agreemore NH90's are needed for the Air Force/Army as well as the Navy. Attack helos would be interesting especially if there were no air combat force (actually vital really for NZ overseas deployments). Keep remembring our pollies saying NZ can't afford an ACF AND attack helos - I dunno, can anyone help dispell that thought from my head?!

Re the Advanced Pilot Training aircraft, this article appeared last week. Didn't post it as it was same old, heard it all before, but at least it gives a pricetag of up to $75M (mind you is that before the NZ dollar dropped)?!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4736376a11.html
Air force seeks $75m for new fleet of planes
By HANK SCHOUTEN - The Dominion Post | Thursday, 23 October 2008

The air force could soon be in line for a new fleet of twin-engined aircraft to train its pilots and provide VIP transport at a cost of up to $75 million.

The Defence Ministry has issued a request for proposals to provide five pressurised turbo-prop planes to replace its present fleet of leased B200 King Airs.

Project manager Squadron Leader Dave Forrest said it was hoped that replacement advanced training aircraft would be in service by June 2010.

The air force would consider leasing or buying new or used planes. It was also looking to get a flight simulator to cut flying hours required by at least 20 per cent.

The air force is budgeted to provide 100 hours of VIP flying each year and the King Airs have been used occasionally by Prime Minister Helen Clark when scheduled services are not available. Last month she was criticised for commandeering a flight from Ohakea to Invercargill when Wellington airport was closed by bad weather.

Squadron Leader Forrest would not disclose how much money had been approved for the aircraft. The defence long-term development plan says the cost is expected to be between $65 million and $75 million.

The Government is also looking at fitting missiles to its P-3 Orion surveillance aircraft. The plan says a study will be carried out to determine the most appropriate air-to-surface weapons at an estimated cost of between $35million and $45 million.

This is in addition to the $373 million being spent replacing obsolete sensors, computers, navigation and communications equipment on the Orions.

The development plan says missiles would significantly enhance the value of the aircraft "in fulfilling policy roles relating to the territorial sovereignty of New Zealand and Australia ..."

While the Orions provide targeting information, "the inability to take immediate action against surface threats limits the P-3's ability to provide force protection for New Zealand naval vessels".

The navy's Seasprite helicopters can fire Maverick missiles but the air force lost its missile capability when its old Skyhawks were grounded in 2002.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Yes the B350 is a yummy aircraft but only if you want to carry 9 people, Id rather have the PAL750 and have a useful 9 seater.I know it cant do twin training but it can do BGT training,anly a small prob :)
As I said before we need something just a little bigger,around the 15-19 seats .The NZDF needs the ability to move a useful number of personal in something smaller than a C130 but bigger that a B200(refer previous reply:))
Welcome challenger, as for your proposed fleet, wow, as lucasnz said the MB339 is more than capable plus we all ready have them and the oldest has done only 2500hrs!
If only the polies had our dreams.

Yes Welcome Challenger. I am all for those who offer solutions.
In my view they should just lease two B350's Intro/VIP and then purchase four larger light multi-mission aircraft and a simulator. I notice they talk about the lack of short range usage - well we do need medium range airlift (i.e Sth Pac) and we do need further EZZ air patrol capability - the Q300 can only one of those tasks.

Possible solution is the C-295M or the C-27J x 4 instead of the Q300.
We have rapidly aging elderly aircraft that cost huge amounts to operate per hour. The Herc and the P3 are tasked accordingly so alot of what we used to do is now not done. The Andovers and the Friendships of the 80's-90's era are part of the reason why we still have aircraft old enough to be grandfathers in human years still flying.

The Macchi will need to be fitted with the correct radar / IFF package so it could actually find an Anzac to have a go at - not impossible but will cost - at least it would put some pride that has been diminished in the RNZAF of late.

Im personnally not convinced regarding specialist Attack helicopters in the NZ context. An acquistition package for the two realistic types that would be suitable in the likely coalition environment we would need them for, is the PAH-2 Tiger (USD60 million per unit ) and the AH-64 Apache (USD62 million per unit). Yes there is the AH-1Z King Cobra at under a third of the price (USD14-15 million) but we are talking pre-legacy stuff there. The logistics trail for specialist attack is very lengthy and involved and the training competency factor is involved. As outlined in the CCS report a few years ago they are also fairly one dimensional in relative purpose for NZ. For example only useful for a Chapter 7 UNSC situation and up. The rotary solution possibly could be taken up by ramped up versions of the A-109 LUH which should suffice for Chapter 6 stuff.

There is better overall utility and value in the NZDF context for a return of an ACF. An easier transition back to competency in the NZ context is for a return to a higher level of combat capability through leased F-16's or Gripens. We would not need the arming of P-3's for anti-ship strike which I have serious issues with, would provide an additional peacekeeping task capability - think no fly zone enforcement, can provide CAS at a higher end, and also CAP/AD which is a bonus without really needing it and finally of course interdiction. When logic previals over ideology as it will...

The ACF is the elephant in the room. And as pretty much all the local experts Paul Buchannan, Dr Ron Smith, Lance Beath et al have said it is not a question of IF for the NZDF to see combat capability back - it is a question of WHEN.

Generally I would not get too excited over the KingAir replacement nothing wont move until July next year when the lease comes off and they will know doubt be entended further. Remember in 10 days there very well be a change in direction for the better.

Did anyone pick up that Labour finally want to do a White Paper. Imagine a Greens-Labour White Paper .... we might as well just give up!
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Did anyone pick up that Labour finally want to do a White Paper. Imagine a Greens-Labour White Paper .... we might as well just give up!
Defence in the election has been so low key, that I hadn't realised that Labour had released their defence policy until I noticed Wayne Mapp's rebutal (when I went to search for National's defence policy, which hasn't been formally released yet. But why bother IMO, the public obviosly isn't getting worked up about the issue and Labour have already flogged the "National would have supported the Iraq War" and "hundreds of NZ's would have come back in body bags", which was instantly discredited by the media, and really no-one got worked up about that hot air)! What more could be said?

However your comment has a lot of truth in it. I listened to the last Radio NZ Election debate on 26 Oct called "Our Place in the World" which mainly covered foreign affairs, aid and identity etc, and in the last few minutes of the debate they covered defence very, very briefly, and sure enough the Watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) couldn't wait to state that all that has to happen next is get rid of the Frigates in favour of eez patrol ships. Fortunately no one else advocated anything like that! But oh the irony, everyone was rushing/gushing over each other to (quite rightly say) that the NZDF has been wonderful in keeping the peace, once we have peace aid can be restored, once aid is restored development can commence unhindered, once development is restored skills and infrastructure can be built up along with good governance etc etc. Oh the irony of the Watermelons not putting 1 and 1 together in that if you want NZ to contribute to peace outside of the "benign" pacific area, eg SE Asia or Asia or whereever (i.e. where NZ earns its export dollars to pay for these fools way of life etc), then that's where Frigates, Orions and ACF's prove their worth with other coalition or UN types. Good grief if the LPG Hydra somehow makes it back in! At least Labour have fended off formal coalitions with the Greens over the last 3 elections, but this time they are desperate and it's their only resort to cling to power. Spooky!
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
The scary thing about the watermelon monster coalition you describe Recce is the amount of people I talk to who definitively say if a certain woman is running the country after November 8 they are off. Its the hard working taxpaying law abiding skilled people we are talking about - the backbone of the country people - to work hard and be well rewarded yet left alone by nanny state is all they ask. Which is pretty much my philosophy. Though it would be fun to watch Ron Marks and Keith Locke argue Defence around the Cabinet table - they should televise it :nutkick
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Yes, the migration option has some attractions too ... but one of these days the trans-tasman borders may have to be closed (the aussies won't want too many more kiwis coming over (or seriously immigrants to NZ using it as a place to gain residency and then the means to enter aussie) or the kiwi govt will want to stem the flow (gotta protect their tax intake, the very means to bribe more voters via welfare) :D

Now the govt could be onto a money earner, I'd even pay good money to watch a Locke v Mark policy discussion around the cabinet table! I wonder how long before the fisty-cuffs come out? Wasn't Mark an ex-W/O or Captain? ;)

Now the RNZAF has been short changed IMO. Yes, hats off to the Govt for investing in replacing/upgrading its operational fleet over the last 9 years etc.

Putting aside the ACF disbandment debacle (and subsequent gutting of several hundreds of personnel in 2001 (or was it more?) which makes the DefMin's recent spin of increasing NZDF numbers since 2002 lame (come on Media, dig back to NZDF numbers prior to 2002 and even before, to counter the spin etc) and the subsequent reduction in career paths for some trades (let alone losing the option of older but experienced ACF pilots re-roling onto multi-engine aircraft etc) ... there has been a total lack of vision for the RNZAF from this govt. Now the govt had a vision for the Army, and more or less with the Navy in terms of building up border protection patrolling etc, but there is no vision for the RNZAF. The impact of this is personnel retention and although there is no major shortage of kids wanting to join the RNZAF I wonder whether there is actually a reduction of highly motivated types wanting to join i.e. those innovative, practical rural type go-getters which have traditionally made fine ACF pilots or soldier/SAS types etc? I don't think I'm articulating this very well but I think some will know what I mean etc.

In terms of a vision for the RNZAF fleet, it's been blindingly obvious to anyone with an interest that the fixed wing and rotary transport fleets are lacking numbers and need to be rebuilt back to similar numbers that were the norm last decade, actually if not more to reflect the fact that the NZDF is being deployed one heck of alot compared to during the cold war. Yes NH90's & A109's are much more capable that their predecessors and can carry more but there will be insufficient numbers to allow meaningful deployments in multiple locations.

The Hercs, with nicely upgraded avionics etc, will still have the old engines and fuel systems etc, still expect to see aircraft failures and unavailability times due to these reasons etc. The RNZAF cannot wait until 2017 for replacement A400's to support NZDF missions around the region, they need a govt with a vision to get out there and buy a couple of C17's NOW! One RAAF C17 has just taken 4 NZ Hueys to exercises to Aussie (compared to one Huey per C130) and as posted before the C17 has the range to take 2 LAV's and a lot of extra freight direct to Darwin whereas an A400 can't. The A400's or C130J's can replace the balance of the C130's later but something is needed now and the A400 isn't ready anyway.

We need UAV's now to supplement the P-3's (and could reduce P-3 airframe hours) over a very demanding and turbulent (air flow wise) region. Maybe full on attack helos for the Army can't be justified, up gunned A109's, NH90's or blackhawks maybe, but decent Army UAV's would give the Army much enhanced battlefield recon abilities to protect the troops etc.

Get 3 or 4 CH-47's - I am suprised we never bought some back in the 60's/70's after their worth in SE Asia at the time etc.

Forget closing Whenuapai airbase, grow the RNZAF again and we'll need the two operational bases + Woodbourne for training etc. Let's hope the new defence whitepaper articulates such a vision etc.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
NZPA release 01 November 2009

Further tensions in the LPGNZF Coalition Government were exposed recently when two cabinet ministers came to physical blows over defence policy.

According to sources who spoke to the NZPA under conditions of anonymity, Minister of Defence, Keith Locke, pre-empted what appeared to be an impending right-hook from former Army Captain Ron Mark, by quickly grabbing one of his prized protest placards from his ministerial office wall and clobbered Mr Mark over the head.

According to sources, for Mr Mark it was the final straw, in which cabinet approved Mr Locke’s recommendations to replace the NZ Army’s standard issue assault rifle, the Steyr 5.56mm, with the AK-47 and to replace the NZLAVIII’s M242 25mm Bushmaster Cannon with a water cannon.

Earlier in the day, Mr Locke announced to the press gallery that “the LAVIII is highly symbolic of the New Zealand Government and people’s commitment of bringing peace to the region. With the recently announced deployment of yellow painted LAV’s to Timor Leste and the Solomon Islands, cabinet agreed with my recommendation that the water cannon would be more appropriate for crowd control and deterrence, should tensions escalate. A 25mm cannon is most inappropriate for our peace-keepers, as it presents an image of war mongering and may be construed as too aggressive by the locals”. The Defence Minister agreed that the NZ Army & LAV’s should be able to have some form of self-defence, especially as not all rebel high-powered rifles had been accounted for, so has agreed that the LAV’s turret mounted MAG58 7.62mm machine gun would remain. “Of course I would not put NZ troops at risk” commented Mr Locke, “should the forces encounter any problems, I have asked that the LAV commander pop his head out from the safety of his enclosed turret, put on a friendly smile and ask the locals if everything is ok. If he sees the locals with a gun tucked into his trousers, the commander will advise that “we come in peace” by demonstrating that the MAG58 is unloaded. If a stand off develops, the commander will then, with help from an interpreter if necessary, advise the local that if he doesn’t back off and put their weapon down, the commander will be forced to have a second crew member pop up from another hatch and wave an ammunition belt for the MAG58 above his head. If the threat level increases, the second crew member will very slowly, as not to antagonise the situation, feed the ammunition belt into the MAG58 machine gun. Once he does that, he is to then inform the local that he will be radioing me personally for approval to fire a warning shot. I tell you, I am a very peaceful guy, but I trust my commanders on the ground and I will issue an order via sat-phone to fire a warning shot if necessary”. Mr Locke refused to elaborate what would happen next if the locals still did not comply “sorry I won’t be revealing our rules of engagement to the media thank you very much!”.

Sources close to Ron Mark, advise that tensions between him and Defence Minister Locke had been building for some months now. Under the Coalition agreement to form the Government, Ron Mark was forcibly appointed as Minister of Disarmament, and was recently forced by Cabinet to negotiate the selling of the RNZN’s ANZAC Frigates to Venezuela for the symbolic cost of $1US dollar. In return, the Minister of Trade and the Minister of Defence proudly announced that not only would NZ sever its oil imports from the Middle East (a spokesperson for Mr Locke said off-the-record that the Minister was proud that NZ would not have to get its hands dirty relying on supporting imperialist US Foreign Policy in the Middle East, that we would no longer need to send NZ Frigates and Orions to support coalition efforts in the Gulf Region and that instead NZ would offer to be peace brokers), but instead NZ had signed a thirty year agreement to source “much cheaper” oil from Venezuela as part of the ANZAC sale agreement.

This was a controversial move that caused the Government some embarrassment when the President of Venezuela, Mr Hugo Chavez, was reported on Fox News to have antagonised the US Administration by proclaiming “see you imperialistic yankee dogs, what we have bought for 1 US dollar, this is the value of your soldiers lives should you dare threaten us with invasion!”.

Another of Disarmament Minister Mark’s tasks was to fulfil the Cabinet agreement to offer the RNZAF’s new NH-90 helicopters to the Afghanistan Government. At the time of the announcement Defence Minster Locke hosted a joint press conference with an incredulous and beaming Afghan Defence Minister, who hugged Mr Locke so much with gratitude that Diplomatic Protection Staff were visibly uneasy and were preparing to intervene. “NZ must get out of Afghanistan and let the locals sort out their own problems. They don’t need Westerners telling them what to do! But it is important that NZ contribute to the stability of the region and we will do so by gifting our resources, and all NZ taxpayers can be proud of donating NZ$1B worth of helicopters to the Afghans, so that they can do things for themselves. When the time comes to replace the NH-90’s in another thirty years (or sooner if there are mishaps) I’m sure all NZ’ers will share my sentiments that ‘hey, we will be there for you and your people to do so again, Mr Afghan Defence Minister’. A small RNZAF contingent will train the Afghans and upon completion of their mission, the RNZAF crews will return to NZ and be disbanded” said Mr Locke at the time.

Disarmament Minister Ron Mark had chalked up some successes though against Mr Locke in apparently other fiery Cabinet meetings. Sources close to Mr Mark say that he successfully persuaded Cabinet to rule against Mr Locke’s proposal to offer the RNZAF Orions to Afghanistan when Mr Mark pointed out that Afghanistan was a land-locked country and would need “Orions as much as Keith would like my boot firmly planted up your backside mate”.

Prime Minister Helen Clark downplayed the latest controversy saying it was nothing to worry about and things had become overblown in the media. “Move along” she said with a chuckle, “there’s nothing to see here, at least a 4 headed Hydra Coalition Government has more brain power than the Opposition. Apparently the leader of the Opposition couldn’t tie his shoelaces till he was 18! Ha ha, imagine trusting him to run the country, he probably still needs his Deputy to tie his laces in case he fell over!” The Prime Minister then said as she would talk no further on the issue, instead issuing a press release from her Co-Deputy Prime Ministers’ Jim Anderton, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Russel Norman and Winston Peters saying there were no tensions between Mr Locke and Mark and both were committed to working together for the common cause.

Yesterday Investigate Magazine Editor, Ian Wishart, “a creep of a journalist” according to the Prime Minister, dropped a bomb-shell by concluding that the signatures on the Co-Deputy Prime Minister’s media statement were forgeries, demanded to know if the PM did them and demanded to know why the Press Release was removed from Government websites.

A spokesperson for Margret Wilson and Partners Communications, the company that won a controversial contract this year to provide all external communication and media services on behalf of the Government with external stakeholders such as mainstream media and the public discredited Investigate Magazine saying they “were poodles of those dark and dangerous right wing elements found in the darkest corners of this great nation”. When asked about the AK-47 decision to replace the Steyr’s, the spokesperson said that although Mr Locke was a Pacifist, in order to better understand the workings of the NZ Army, and in a compromise reached with Mr Mark, the Army was asked to provide some time to Mr Locke on the Army shooting range at Trentham Camp, on how to safely use and operate an AK-47. When we tried to talk to Mr Locke’s office to confirm this, a spokesperson for Mr Locke’s office said “he was taking some well deserved training, sorry I meant time-out” in the Urewera Ranges “with some like minded friends” and would be “unavailable for a few days”.

Defence Satire :D
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
That was a very funny piece Recce. Well done. Keith Locke as DefMin and Ron Mark as Disarmament Minister .... black comedy. Though the reality would be a nightmare.

The 2 x C-17 idea is actually a very good one. It would mean that the Anzac's nations would have six between them in a pool. A certain amount of operational sharing could evolve. It would mean that because of budgetary reasons the NZDF would need to look at C-27's or CN295M's to round out for tasking requirements.

Based on widely reported deals found in defencenewsdaily.com and from deagal.com I came up with some rudimentary costings comparing A400, C17, C130J, C27 and C295's for a small transport fleet.

USD685 (2 C-17, 6 C295)

USD615 (2 C-17, 4 C-27)

USD600 (4 A400, 4 C-295)

USD625 (6 C130J)

USD690 (6 A400M)

USD540 (4 130J, 4 C27J)

There is room to pick and mix further of course.
 

moahunter

Banned Member
USD615 (2 C-17, 4 C-27)
I really like this one - that would be a nice mix of flexibility, and easily maintained as well.

No rush on the c-27's though. The hercs can fly for a while longer. The Embraers, if built, could be looked at too, no need to worry about gravel runways shreding composite props then (which I understand is a concern about the c130js suitability for NZ, the old hercs didn't use composites).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_C-390
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
No rush on the c-27's though. The hercs can fly for a while longer. The Embraers, if built, could be looked at too, no need to worry about gravel runways shreding composite props then (which I understand is a concern about the c130js suitability for NZ, the old hercs didn't use composites).
Also an advantage of the old G.222, or C-27A, of which Alenia has several available for sale. About USD15-16 mn refurbished, with initial spares & a few years support. Limited, but relatively cheap.

The Embraer C-390 is an interesting project. Intended (like the A400M) to be plumbed for AAR as standard, so to fit it out as a tanker you just load the optional hose drum unit & plug it in.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
I really like this one - that would be a nice mix of flexibility, and easily maintained as well.

No rush on the c-27's though. The hercs can fly for a while longer. The Embraers, if built, could be looked at too, no need to worry about gravel runways shreding composite props then (which I understand is a concern about the c130js suitability for NZ, the old hercs didn't use composites).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_C-390

Is it possible to have the standard props on a j model but still keep the 6 blades to stop the shredding on gravel runways?
 

greenie

New Member
I love the idea of getting the C17 ,should we get rid of the B757s or keep them anyway cause of the ammount of money spent on them .In my view they still make a very useful addition to the NZDF ,for some jobs the cost per mile would make it way cheeper not to mention the C17s would be spending a large part of there time based out of Amberley.
Just imagine carrying the NH90 instead of having to fly them , another huge cost saving:)
 

Challenger

New Member
What about a logistics force of:

No 40 Squadron, 8 C-130 (2 KC-130 (I Still think they could work)), 2 757-200
No 41 Squadron, 2 C-17, 6 C-27
No 42 Squadron, 5 Kingair's.

.:)

Going off on a limb, But with regard to the Five Power Defense arrangement, could we return to Singapore (Malaysia) with a force of 4 NH-90s, 2 C-27 and 1(2) infantry companies. :rolleyes:. Would also provide Defense to NZ, because any attack would most likely come through south east Asia.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
I like the idea of a couple of c17,but how often would you need them?
it might be a bit of an overkill.
I would like to see A400m in Kiwi colours to replace the h model hercs
and some chinooks
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
I like the idea of a couple of c17,but how often would you need them?
it might be a bit of an overkill.
I would like to see A400m in Kiwi colours to replace the h model hercs
and some chinooks
One example: The C-17 would be an Asset to the US and NZ in terms of being able to provide reliable day/night and summer/winter airlift support to Scott Base / McMurdo as part of operation Deep Freeze out of CHC. This would be politically very good in the ongoing relationship building between the US and NZ. Would free up high demand Airlift assets for the US.
 
Top