Royal New Zealand Air Force

[recce.k1]

737's and 757's etc

Phew, I was going to reply later once I had some more time to do my homework, but here's a quick reply for now etc.

According to the Air NZ news item there doesn't appear to be anything unusual about Air NZ wanting to replace the 737-300's. Eg it says "Air NZ's 16 Boeing 737s have an average age of 11 years and are nearing the end of their service life, he said. Leases on 11 of the planes expire over a five-year period from 2011. Air NZ owns the other five" and then later they report the replacement aircraft will have 35% more capacity and have the latest passenger entertainment gizmos, stuff that airlines care about due to competition etc. Presumably the new fleet will be cheaper to operate etc.

Anyway I'd have to agree with Mr C in that since the RNZAF operates the 757, it would be advantageous to simply buy a third 757-200 and modify it to the same standard as the first two. Obviously a lot of training and procedures have been developed so to minimise costs, sticking with the same type makes a lot of sense. This means greater chance of ensuring the aircraft are available when required in an emergency etc.

However personally, if the ex-Air NZ 737's idea had some merit higher up, and if the Govt gave the air force additional funding to introduce yet another type of aircraft into service along with the associated costs to train air/ground crew to support it, then a purchase of 2 or 3 could be useful perhaps. Eg perhaps I'm thinking of RAAF 34 Sqn with their 737-700/800 BBJ variant in the VIP role. Now I know the media and some kiwis like to give VIP aircraft some stick (well not until said media get flown overseas in one!) but the RNZAF operated dedicated VIP aircraft for decades. Nowadays they use Beechcraft B200's and 757's in that role which is fine but it seems to me there's a bit of a gap here. Ideally perhaps some Falcons or Challengers etc might be the way to go to fill the gap, but 737's give more room to outfit a better VIP suite and have room for other purposes (eg carrying personnel, media, cargo, maybe even fit an electronic spy/survellience suite of sorts etc)!

I think one problem of relying on 757's for VIP work is the aweful media beat-up that can happen when there is an emergency (be that military or civilian evacuation etc) when say the 757 is ferrying the PM or Royalty around the region and then the 757 is needed asap to deal with this emergency. If one thinks about it, it is not a good look and potentially damaging to any govt in power when the opposition starts playing this up. Thanks to the media sniffing a scandal these things get traction out of all proportion to the reality of the situation etc.

Anyway the advantages in my mind of a small 737 fleet would be that the 737 has the ability to land on many NZ/Pacific airfields whereas the 757 has some operational limitations due to its size. Also unsure how practical this is but I wondered whether the 737's could fly troops to say Timor via a stopoff in Aussie (if the 757's are unavailable) freeing up the slower C130's for pure cargo (and who wants to ride in a noisy and slow C130 on uncomfortable seating when a nice fast ride in a comfy 737 would be better)? Also one could possible sneak a white painted 737 easier into Fiji than a grey military C130 which would give the game away, hint hint!

On the downside apart from the extra costs to introduce another type into service, there's the problem of a fleet of 757's and 737's not being used enough to ensure air crews maintain their ratings on the type etc. But perhaps as I said earlier, perhaps the Reservists could train up on the 737's and perhaps similar to putting navy ships in reserve, the air force has a reserve fleet of 737 aircraft that are operated periodically and when not, are there just in case. Alas NZ being a small country has a wide sphere in which to operate in the region so in my mind anything that gives the air force a few more assets (granted not ones that drop bombs) would go a long way to ensure the govt can respond quickly to civil and low intensity military emergencies/evacuations.

I suppose if 737's were viable (and I know this is just an idea which may likely go nowhere) then perhaps they ought to be mod'ed in a similar fashion to the 757's to make them more multi-role. An air evac/medical fit out could be useful for civil/military purposes etc.

 

[MrConservative]

Phew, I was going to reply later once I had some more time to do my homework, but here's a quick reply for now etc.

According to the Air NZ news item there doesn't appear to be anything unusual about Air NZ wanting to replace the 737-300's. Eg it says "Air NZ's 16 Boeing 737s have an average age of 11 years and are nearing the end of their service life, he said. Leases on 11 of the planes expire over a five-year period from 2011. Air NZ owns the other five" and then later they report the replacement aircraft will have 35% more capacity and have the latest passenger entertainment gizmos, stuff that airlines care about due to competition etc. Presumably the new fleet will be cheaper to operate etc.

Anyway I'd have to agree with Mr C in that since the RNZAF operates the 757, it would be advantageous to simply buy a third 757-200 and modify it to the same standard as the first two. Obviously a lot of training and procedures have been developed so to minimise costs, sticking with the same type makes a lot of sense. This means greater chance of ensuring the aircraft are available when required in an emergency etc.

However personally, if the ex-Air NZ 737's idea had some merit higher up, and if the Govt gave the air force additional funding to introduce yet another type of aircraft into service along with the associated costs to train air/ground crew to support it, then a purchase of 2 or 3 could be useful perhaps. Eg perhaps I'm thinking of RAAF 34 Sqn with their 737-700/800 BBJ variant in the VIP role. Now I know the media and some kiwis like to give VIP aircraft some stick (well not until said media get flown overseas in one!) but the RNZAF operated dedicated VIP aircraft for decades. Nowadays they use Beechcraft B200's and 757's in that role which is fine but it seems to me there's a bit of a gap here. Ideally perhaps some Falcons or Challengers etc might be the way to go to fill the gap, but 737's give more room to outfit a better VIP suite and have room for other purposes (eg carrying personnel, media, cargo, maybe even fit an electronic spy/survellience suite of sorts etc)!

I think one problem of relying on 757's for VIP work is the aweful media beat-up that can happen when there is an emergency (be that military or civilian evacuation etc) when say the 757 is ferrying the PM or Royalty around the region and then the 757 is needed asap to deal with this emergency. If one thinks about it, it is not a good look and potentially damaging to any govt in power when the opposition starts playing this up. Thanks to the media sniffing a scandal these things get traction out of all proportion to the reality of the situation etc.

Anyway the advantages in my mind of a small 737 fleet would be that the 737 has the ability to land on many NZ/Pacific airfields whereas the 757 has some operational limitations due to its size. Also unsure how practical this is but I wondered whether the 737's could fly troops to say Timor via a stopoff in Aussie (if the 757's are unavailable) freeing up the slower C130's for pure cargo (and who wants to ride in a noisy and slow C130 on uncomfortable seating when a nice fast ride in a comfy 737 would be better)? Also one could possible sneak a white painted 737 easier into Fiji than a grey military C130 which would give the game away, hint hint!

On the downside apart from the extra costs to introduce another type into service, there's the problem of a fleet of 757's and 737's not being used enough to ensure air crews maintain their ratings on the type etc. But perhaps as I said earlier, perhaps the Reservists could train up on the 737's and perhaps similar to putting navy ships in reserve, the air force has a reserve fleet of 737 aircraft that are operated periodically and when not, are there just in case. Alas NZ being a small country has a wide sphere in which to operate in the region so in my mind anything that gives the air force a few more assets (granted not ones that drop bombs) would go a long way to ensure the govt can respond quickly to civil and low intensity military emergencies/evacuations.

I suppose if 737's were viable (and I know this is just an idea which may likely go nowhere) then perhaps they ought to be mod'ed in a similar fashion to the 757's to make them more multi-role. An air evac/medical fit out could be useful for civil/military purposes etc.

The RNZAF’s VIP component is only a fraction of 40Sqd and 42Sqd outputs. I don’t think there is a case to boost that for international VIP flights. There also does not seem to be the urgent need for an extra troop transport capacity (which the Army now only capable of Company sized requirements every couple of months does not meet the threshold) in my view. If it did arise then another B757 could be leased and with the current glut of mid-life commercial airliners out there looking for lease/charter work it is in my view the cost effective option. I would steer clear of the 737-300 if it was my decision to make.

I agree with Todjaeger that the B757 was not the most optimal purchase and I still think that over the long term the NG 737’s are far more efficient than even classic 737’s like the 300 series. At that time in my view circa 02/03 when the 757 project was not yet underway we should have bought six C-130J’s as partner of the RAAF deal and the 737-800 had become available by then VIP/troop transport (and adapted during construction to meet our other specific needs from the get go – per medi-vac, troop transport, enlarged cargo doors etc). The series 800 is essentially the modern equivalent to the 727/757-200 though with slightly shorter range and payload in the case of the 757. Nevertheless 189 troop capacity or 175 in a 2 class layout is more than adequate. It is also the base platform for the P8 which may well be the future Orion replacement, thus some synthesis in that regard (though not entirely it must be said).

However, for domestic VIP flights their possibly is a case for an increase. An A-109 LUH with quick change leather seats and carpet could suffice when considering the NZ terrain. Possibly a leased business jet with enough range to reach the Sth Pac or eastern seaboard of Australia could be useful once economic conditions improve may well be a further option for the Govt. But right now we have the headache that the last Govt (after years of wasting taxpayer dollars on unproductive crap) has left us with a 8.6 Billion dollar hole in the Govt coffers.

 

[recce.k1]

Sweet, just thinking outside the square eg adoption of a 737-300 or two now may "ease" the transition (in the next few years and by then in a supportive settled economy etc) to the NG 737's eg P-8's and/or BBJ's for transport/VIP. Transition as in NZDF wise and public acceptance wise etc. (ahem cough hint cough hint). Would also be a small boon for Air NZ engineering support, which is a plus to retain as much as possible etc. With the Govt accounts diminishing it would be more acceptable to sell/buy second hand and keep it inhouse in this instance (whereas a brand new purchase would be out of the question etc)!

 

[KiwiRob]

Okay, being the -300 series does make a difference. The oldest of which could be nearly 25 years, but the newest would be much younger. If they are only about a decade old, any idea why Air NZ is looking to remove them from the inventory? I ask because that reason can make all the difference in the question how viable they would be for the RNZAF.

-Cheers

Air NZ operate the youngest 737-300's in the world, they bought the last aircraft off the production line.

 

[dave_kiwi]

RNZAF NH-90 - first flight

Some more good news - the first of the RNZAF's NH-90s has made its first test flight.

From the NZ GOV site:

quote: The first of the eight-strong fleet had its initial test flight at manufacturer NH Industries in Marignane, France, last week.

link: http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/lift-+air+force’s+first+new+helicopter

Also on the site is link to a photo of the unpainted RNZAF NH-90.

image: Beehive - NH-90 MUH

Looking forward to when we can see the "painted" version

 

[greenie]

Anybody got any updates on the C130 and P3 projects?

Where are they??
The Skyhawks could have stayed under cover all this time !!!

 

[KH-12]

Anybody got any updates on the C130 and P3 projects?

Where are they??
The Skyhawks could have stayed under cover all this time !!!

I think the first completed C-130 is due back in NZ anytime now, as to the P3-K2 program I think it is abit behind schedule with the first conversion virtually complete and begining the testing phase with RNZAF crew. Hopefully the remaining conversions happen alot quicker, I was wondering why the opportunity had'nt been taken to upgrade the T53's to the lastest versions offering lower fuel burn and cleaner exhaust, cost I guess but in the scheme of things probably not that much more than the total program cost.

 

[Kip]

The last message was on May 25th. What are we, pacifists? Don't answer that.

Even the last Royal Airforce post was 3 weeks ago so we are in good company.

RNZAF planes 'not for flying' - National - NZ Herald News

The above is a link referring to new aircraft used for training rather than on operations. The report says the six Kaman SH-2F Seasprite helicopters have been in the Arizona desert for 14 years.

As I understand it our Seasprites have been well utilised (5 purchased from 2001 for use on two frigates and now one Multi Role Vessel) so would it be worthwhile to purchase some of these "relatively unused" helicopters and upgrade them to our standard?

The Australians did have problems with their upgrade but I'm sure lessons have been learned.

A point of clarification - our naval helicopters are under the airforce rather than the navy.

Royal New Zealand Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[recce.k1]

The last message was on May 25th. What are we, pacifists? Don't answer that.

Even the last Royal Airforce post was 3 weeks ago so we are in good company.

RNZAF planes 'not for flying' - National - NZ Herald News

The above is a link referring to new aircraft used for training rather than on operations. The report says the six Kaman SH-2F Seasprite helicopters have been in the Arizona desert for 14 years.

As I understand it our Seasprites have been well utilised (5 purchased from 2001 for use on two frigates and now one Multi Role Vessel) so would it be worthwhile to purchase some of these "relatively unused" helicopters and upgrade them to our standard?

The Australians did have problems with their upgrade but I'm sure lessons have been learned.

A point of clarification - our naval helicopters are under the airforce rather than the navy.

Royal New Zealand Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No doubt one could purchase SH-2F's and upgrade them up to SH-2G(NZ) standard easily enough, at least that would give NZ enough plenty of airframes for the 5 naval vessels meant to be carrying them.

But putting aside the spares support issue NZ had (has still?) been experiencing, the SH-2G will be the only "aircraft" in NZDF inventory without a glass cockpit. Whether this is an issue or not I couldn't say (apart from making training less simplistic etc).

Then again some here wonder whether NZ ought to replace the SH-2G at the mid-life upgrade point, within the next few years? Might depend on whether the NFH-90 is fully operational at that point etc.

Then again I recall in the 1980's there was talk of replacing the then Wasp's with Lynx's and that never happened, the Wasps kept soldiering on! So if the SH-2G's keep soldiering on, I do also hope there are additonal airframes .... otherwise additional T/LUH's bought for the OPV's with a search radar (thus keeping the SH-2G's mainly for the Frigates etc).

 

[MrConservative]

The White Paper will allow us to plan ahead the future of the SH-2G. However, I believe that short term our defence planning will be set in a holding pattern with no new acquistition projects started up until post 2011/12.

Its my guess that the White Paper will shift emphasis back to an enhanced maritime capability and increased rotary and air transport capability. Its been no secret that National, Defence Experts and the Navy Heirachy are of the opinion that at least three and possibily four surface combatants are required.

This might mean that midway next decade under the resulting White Paper planning, two new frigates may be phased in over the second half of the decade and two more replacing the current Anzacs post 2020.

We also know that the Navy is keen on another multi-role vessel to provide fleet supply and sealift to replace the Endeavour and complement the Canterbury. This might mean that in ten years up to six ships may at times require a naval helicopter. The SH-2G's and this is just a hunch will be required to survive until around 2016/17 and be replaced by the NHF-90. There is no other logical choice. Though there will be six ships that will be capable, only 3 to 4 will be true surface combatants thus it does not mean all six ships will require a full naval/ASW version like the NHF-90. It may mean that 6 NHF-90's are acquired for 6 Squadron as well as a further two NH-90's which can be part of 3 Squadron and can supplement the different operations of the new Endeavour and the Canterbury.

Obviously (as nearly all of us here on defencetalk have noted) the 5 Agusta A109LUH's are not enough. I believe that a further 3 should suffice to bring the total up to 8 which I gather was the original RNZAF intention for the LUH. So in a decade 8 LUH, 6 NHF-90 and 10 NH-90 helicopters would be quite an effective and sensible rotary capability.

 

[Kip]

A decade is a long way away, but I think Mr Conservative's numbers are achievable given the need - and the public's willingness to pay for it. Better helicopters give us more options with the new ships.

Perhaps others, with a more conservative pedigree than I have, would like to tell our Prime Minister that is what we want him to do - instead of tax cuts or other government spending - and he needs to get it done. Military spending is for the long term and at some point needs to be put into the budget.

Another 5 years of National will see it actually occur - no chance to demur if it is already bought and paid for - sign the contracts before the next election (an inevitable conservative win). It is better to budget for it at the start of their term, and sign the contracts and pay the money, than risk someone else having to pay for it who may have other priorities.

I look forward to this being put into practice in the next two years or so. Otherwise we will be sorely dissapointed.

 

[MrConservative]

A decade is a long way away, but I think Mr Conservative's numbers are achievable given the need - and the public's willingness to pay for it. Better helicopters give us more options with the new ships.

Perhaps others, with a more conservative pedigree than I have, would like to tell our Prime Minister that is what we want him to do - instead of tax cuts or other government spending - and he needs to get it done. Military spending is for the long term and at some point needs to be put into the budget.

Another 5 years of National will see it actually occur - no chance to demur if it is already bought and paid for - sign the contracts before the next election (an inevitable conservative win). It is better to budget for it at the start of their term, and sign the contracts and pay the money, than risk someone else having to pay for it who may have other priorities.

I look forward to this being put into practice in the next two years or so. Otherwise we will be sorely dissapointed.

I am happy enough to have the White Paper map out the direction during this goverments term in office - I understand that right now in 2009 it would be politically suicide to hint at any major acquisitions. It looks like the White Paper will be out mid next year which will give the Government a platform for the 2011 election then only a year away - which it is most likely to win as Labour are being deservedly hammered. It will also give the NZDF/DefMin enough time for pre aquistition evaluations. Once elected John Key and his mates get their second term then they have the mandate to proceed and hopefully by 2011 this economic recession is history so that wont factor. Then it will be time to put the orders and contracts together over the following three years. Grandfather clauses in the contracts will be too hot for
any government who attempts to wriggle out of them.

 

[dave_kiwi]

RNZAF P3-K2 first flight

Finally, after 3.5 years - the first of the upgraded P3s has taken to the sky's. Been a long time coming, but good to see. Another "leap" in capabilities for 5 Sqn, comparable to the advancements the Rigel fit produced in the early '80s. (Wish I was a tech again - managed to get posted onto 5 Sqn just after the Rigel upgrade was completed -- while it was still really being bedded in).

Ministry of Defence announcement:

Beehive - Upgraded Orion makes first test flight

 

[recce.k1]

Ahem, a couple of hi res shots at that link!
Mind you, they may have been taken earlier.

 

[Todjaeger]

The last message was on May 25th. What are we, pacifists? Don't answer that.

Even the last Royal Airforce post was 3 weeks ago so we are in good company.

RNZAF planes 'not for flying' - National - NZ Herald News

The above is a link referring to new aircraft used for training rather than on operations. The report says the six Kaman SH-2F Seasprite helicopters have been in the Arizona desert for 14 years.

As I understand it our Seasprites have been well utilised (5 purchased from 2001 for use on two frigates and now one Multi Role Vessel) so would it be worthwhile to purchase some of these "relatively unused" helicopters and upgrade them to our standard?

The Australians did have problems with their upgrade but I'm sure lessons have been learned.

A point of clarification - our naval helicopters are under the airforce rather than the navy.

Royal New Zealand Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Given the problems the RNZAF has had keeping the SH-2G(NZ) operational due to parts issues, etc, then purchasing a few mothballed aircraft and cannibalizing them as needed would seem sensible. This assumes of course that they are in decent shape and available for a reasonable price.

However, I do not think it would be a good idea for NZ to acquire more with an eye towards expanding the existing Seasprite fleet for the following reasons. The current RNZAF Seasprites are of the SH-2G(NZ) variant. Which means that in order to have aircraft commonality amongst the Seasprite fleet, time and money would need to be expended to return the single-engined -F variants to a service as twin-engined -G(NZ) variants. Whilst this would likely be less expensive than a purchase of new-build SH-2G(NZ) helicopters, I am uncertain that it would be significantly less in terms of either time or money.

Another consideration is the limitations of the design itself. The SH-2 Seasprite is a design dating from the mid-1950's and achieved first flight 40 years ago... This in turn means that without significant modification and upgrades, the design is not as capable as other, more recent designs. Also, attempting to carry out significant upgrades to make the design more competitive with other, newer aircraft means increased project risk which is amplified by the rather small pool of current users. A good (or obvious) example of this is the RAN FAA ultimately not inducting the SH-2G(A) Seasprites (which were based around rebuilt -F's)

My personal opinion on RNZAF naval helicopters is that steps should be taken to get use out of the fleet until their currently expected retirement in ~5-10 years or whatever is the current timeframe. At the same time, initiate discussions with the RAN about their future ASW/ASuW helicopter. Given that the RAN has a projected need of ~27 helis and due to not accepting their Seasprites for service, they only have 16 S-70's, the RAN might be placing an order for more/newer helis soon. By doing a joint purchase, the NZDF has the potential for greater capability relative to cost than otherwise available if placing an order on its own (plus given the potential offerings, greater capability than is available in the SH-2G) as well as allowing for ease of interoperability with RAN assets.

While it would be nice to be able to say something to the effect that the RNZN would be replacing the SH-2G with the NFH-90, thus maintaining some compatibility with the existing order of RNZAF NH-90s... IMO it is premature to do so. IIRC the expected in-service date for the 1st NFH-90s is not until 2011, which means a potential time crunch if one will, for project definition, determination of which asset best meets requirements, contracting, build & delivery, and entry into service. All this also assumes that the NFH-90, which is going to be a significantly larger helis than the Seasprite, can be operated from the relevant vessels in RNZN service and provide the required capabilites.

My personal vote at present would be for the RNZN (and RAN) to acquire MH-60R 'Romeo' Seahawks from Sikorsky, as I like the improvements made in the mission systems and situational awareness. Having said that though, if a MOTS purchased NFH-90 is capable of delivering a similar capability, that would be acceptable.

Incidentally, I just took another look at the RNZAF site's aircraft list here and the SH-2G Seasprite is not listed. Hmm, I find that curious...

-Cheers

 

[mattyem]

Incidentally, I just took another look at the RNZAF site's aircraft list here and the SH-2G Seasprite is not listed. Hmm, I find that curious...

-Cheers

The airforce maintain the our (RNZN) helos, but they are piloted by navy and the crewman onboard is also navy. The Navy operates them, not so much the airforce

 

[Todjaeger]

The airforce maintain the our (RNZN) helos, but they are piloted by navy and the crewman onboard is also navy. The Navy operates them, not so much the airforce

IIRC the Seasprites had been listed on the RNZAF site, as they are an 'air force' asset. Hence finding it curious that it was no longer so listed. IMO they should be RNZN assets, as for all practical matters they are used by the navy, not the air force, but then again, no one asked me...

-Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

IIRC the Seasprites had been listed on the RNZAF site, as they are an 'air force' asset. Hence finding it curious that it was no longer so listed. IMO they should be RNZN assets, as for all practical matters they are used by the navy, not the air force, but then again, no one asked me...

-Cheers

While the navy helicopter crew flies the helos, they were trained by the air force and their ground.maintenance crew are air force.

 

[Sea Toby]

Just a few of comments to cover this:

I think that once the upgraded C-130’s are delivered 40 Sqd would be in good shape. Well at least the best shape in the last 10 years. This should see us through until late next decade when we will have to do a proper long term procurement for 40sqd.

My view is that the 737-300 probably would not work effectively as a patrol platform. A Q200 MP / CASA 235 are far cheaper aircraft to operate in the low slow environment for coastal air ops. The 737-300’s limited range, pax & payload, also make it probably not the aircraft for airlift ops.

Also pilots will not qualify for the 10th day scheme until current rules nor will ANZ ground crew be keen as their EPMU Secretary Andrew Little dislikes the idea.

I also think that even leasing a couple of 737’s to carry John Key to a trip to see Kevin Rudd or to deliver some speech to a pacific Forum would lose votes. Not the stuff of positive headlines.

Having the B757 available for reserve pilots will only work if we have civilian pilots in NZ who are rated on the aircraft. I’m not sure there would be that many as the 757 is operated only by the RNZAF and very few would have gone Civvy St. Maybe an airline pilot would give us the good oil on what is involved swapping a 767 seat for a 757 seat. I understand it’s a bit more involved than jumping out of Cessna and into a Piper.

AF Reserve pilots could slot into the other aircraft on the fleet if they have already experienced the type.

A leased 757-200 would probably be the best result if we did require a further aircraft in the interim period.

The $500 million to transfer RNZAF Whenuapei ops to Ohakea is an example of a former Govt who did not have a clue how to run a defence force. It says it all really.

I would think this will be the last upgrade for the old Hercules. After another ten to fifteen years of use, a good replacement for the Hercules would be the new Brazilian jet transport, with the same size and lift as a Herucles, the KC-390. By that time Brazil should have these in production.... At the moment they are slightly less expensive than a new Hercules. The C-17 Globemasters are too expensive for New Zealand....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX6sjjpaUvA]YouTube - Brasil: O Gigante Adormecido Acorda. - El Despertar Bélico del Brasil.- KC- 390[/ame]

 

[MrConservative]

I would think this will be the last upgrade for the old Hercules. After another ten to fifteen years of use, a good replacement for the Hercules would be the new Brazilian jet transport, with the same size and lift as a Herucles, the KC-390. By that time Brazil should have these in production.... At the moment they are slightly less expensive than a new Hercules. The C-17 Globemasters are too expensive for New Zealand....

Yes this will definately be the last upgrade for the Herc's. They are odds on to be phased out between 2017 and 2020. It is unlikely that the NZDF will buy anything other than C-130J's since they are looking for greater integration with the ADF. Also I do not think their is also the political adversion of American defence products like there was in the recent past. It would be very unlikely the NZ government would go down the C-390 route even if it is a very fine aircraft. As for C17 been expensive it all depends on what are the projected future tasking requirements are. In some regards they are very cost effective. Airlift assets aren't bought like buying a new car where the initial price tag is the buyers principal concern. A couple of US $240m aircraft are not expensive in the context of lift requirement, speed, distance for an aircraft which if bought might be in service for 30-40 years for a nation state to buy. A nation that regularly needs to conduct multiple taskings to the same destination due to the distance and weight limits of its current tactical airlift capability. Also in context we have a film director down here who has spent $105 million on the latest Gulfstream executive jet. So to say the C17 is too expensive for NZ might need to be quantified with a little more finese. Back in 1965 they said buying three C130's was too expensive and too much capability for the RNZAF when they replaced the Hastings. The Government bought two more four years later. I would neither count C17's in or out sometime in the future at this stage as part of a package to replace the C130's in context with ANZAC requirements and I would not presume that only a factor of cost and affordability would count them out.