Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Sea Toby]

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.

Ten years from now it will be too late to order C-17s, as the US is closing that line down soon. Unless New Zealand ordered some this year one can forget about New Zealand ever buying new C-17s....

And if the Brazilian transport jet is a success, I wouldn't be surprised if Lockheed or Northrup or Boeing decided to build them or something similar. My looking glass isn't good enough to see much into the future, but it would be no surprise if the C-130 Hercules line closed before New Zealand ever decided to buy new ones. After all, the C-130 Hercules is an old design which has been upgraded time and time again....

There is a reason why Embraer, and it appears France as well, decided to invest and build baby Globemasters, KC-390, to replace Hercules, many of which are reaching their paying off dates.... Embraer sees over 700 potential sales....

The KC-390 is designed to ship 5 military pallets or a armored personnel carrier, similar to a Hercules.... The smaller Spartans transports carry much less. Nations are buying them to replace smaller transports....

At $50 million, four KC-390s can be bought for one C-17.....

 

[MrConservative]

Ten years from now it will be too late to order C-17s, as the US is closing that line down soon. Unless New Zealand ordered some this year one can forget about New Zealand ever buying new C-17s....

And if the Brazilian transport jet is a success, I wouldn't be surprised if Lockheed or Northrup or Boeing decided to build them or something similar. My looking glass isn't good enough to see much into the future, but it would be no surprise if the C-130 Hercules line closed before New Zealand ever decided to buy new ones. After all, the C-130 Hercules is an old design which has been upgraded time and time again....

There is a reason why Embraer, and it appears France as well, decided to invest and build baby Globemasters, KC-390, to replace Hercules, many of which are reaching their paying off dates.... Embraer sees over 700 potential sales....

The KC-390 is designed to ship 5 military pallets or a armored personnel carrier, similar to a Hercules.... The smaller Spartans transports carry much less. Nations are buying them to replace smaller transports....

At $50 million, four KC-390s can be bought for one C-17.....

A number of countries are expressing interest in the C17 - Korea, Japan, Germany, UAE, India, Sweden and an extension of the NATO strategic lift programme. Two years ago there were threats to the US Congress that the production line would close aircraft in 2010. I understand low production of the C17 will possibly continue for sometime. A400 issues and the need for the C5 Galaxy replacement from 2015 also are factors of the C17 continuation.

The C130J should be around for awhile yet. Under the skin it is a new aircraft and not just an upgraded C130H. So four KC390's can be bought for 1 C17, but it takes four sorties, four aircrews, four times longer to conduct a long range strategic airlift op. Operational economies of scale should be considered a factor. It is simply better for the RNZAF to get standardisation with the RAAF. Also it is likely that NZ will order the C130H replacement well ahead of their phase date.

 

[Sea Toby]

A number of countries are expressing interest in the C17 - Korea, Japan, Germany, UAE, India, Sweden and an extension of the NATO strategic lift programme. Two years ago there were threats to the US Congress that the production line would close aircraft in 2010. I understand low production of the C17 will possibly continue for sometime. A400 issues and the need for the C5 Galaxy replacement from 2015 also are factors of the C17 continuation.

The C130J should be around for awhile yet. Under the skin it is a new aircraft and not just an upgraded C130H. So four KC390's can be bought for 1 C17, but it takes four sorties, four aircrews, four times longer to conduct a long range strategic airlift op. Operational economies of scale should be considered a factor. It is simply better for the RNZAF to get standardisation with the RAAF. Also it is likely that NZ will order the C130H replacement well ahead of their phase date.

Why is the USAF under the Obama administration funding a new cockpit and engines for every C-5 saving $20 billion from building new aircraft? The Obama administration has zero C-17s in the FY2010 budget as well. The USAF reported that the C-5 airframes still have a lot of life in them, they are strong at 80 percent of life remaining. The USAF ends the C-17 production at 205. Its now or never to buy C-17s, and there may be more built at the end of the USAF run for other nations. But if they buy, better buy before its too late.

Boeing will continue to build what it has on order which should keep the line open into 2012.

I'm not familiar with New Zealand's C-130s, but I don't see them buying any replacements for their Hercules after upgrading them soon. Maybe five or six years from now, but not this year....

There is talk that the Airbus A-400M may be cancelled and those orders will go to the C-17 extending its line. But I think this is all talk with no substance.

If Embraer can keep the price of the KC-390s in the vicinity of US$50 million, i.e. 2009 value, they will win many orders with Lockheed charging nearly US$100 million for new C-130s.

 

[recce.k1]

The KC-390 sure is an interesting aircraft and could no doubt be a useful addition to the RNZAF fleet (eg as a direct C-130H replacement perhaps).

BUT with a 19 ton payload (same as the C-130J), it seems to me that it won't be able to transport a NZLAVIII (20 tons) very well, nor perhaps very far, unless striped right down etc. (Plus these new mine protected fighting vehicles are approaching 33 ton in weight! No doubt NZ will buy something similar in the near future thanks to operational needs etc).

On the other hand a C-17 with a 70 ton payload, could transport 2, possibly 3, combat ready LAV's direct to Darwin for deployment into the region there (along with supplies, spares and even troops). Speed is the essence these days (due to the sorts of instability issues we have to deal with eg more so than during the Cold War etc).

The A400 would also mostly fit the bill, but form memory could only transport 1, possibly 2. LAV's direct to Darwin.

Heavy airlift is lot more affordable nowadays, so NZ could have options such as leasing C-17's otherwise buying 1 or 2, they will after all be in service for many a decade and provide stirling service as far south as Antarctica (along with the USAF C-17's that operate from Christchurch to there) as well as into SE Asia. Looking at it that way, the near $1B investment strecthed out over 30-40 years looks favourable (and the previous Govt didn''t have an issue forking out nearly $1B on 8 operational helicopters)!

The RNZAF's upgraded C-130H's were reported last year or so to only last till about 2017-ish, which means the RNZAF are no doubt ramping up a replacement. Bearing in mind it will take around 2-3 years to upskill to a new type and become operational, I'd be hoping the Defence Review (for release next year) would be prioritising the C130 replacement and be for signing up for something then, meaning the C130 replacement could even become operational, say 2012-14 etc. Then again, working in some joint capacity with the RAAF (and Boeing) and operating a common type like the C-17, could mean this could be realised a lot sooner.

The pollies couldn't go wrong with C-17 (or A-400), their worth to NZ's non-direct defence needs, eg Pacific disaster relief, Antarctic support, volcano/earthquake relief in NZ etc, would make these highly valuable and publically acceptable.

 

[PeterM]

Another option of the RNZAF to replace the C-130H is to go with some smaller aircraft such as C-27J pr C-295M perhaps in a mix with larger longer ranged aircraft such C-17 or KC-390.

I still think that commonality with the RAAF will be a key factor, so I would expect to see C-130Js and possibly with a mix of the future light tactical aircraft (probably either c-27J or C-295M).

 

[Sea Toby]

Embraer is planning to have the first fly in 2012. The Brazil Air Force is planning for delivery during 2015. You know how development programs tend to last longer than planned.

Embraer has a number of engines to choose from with different thrusts near one another . One never knows how much the plane will lift until the prototypes fly of each engine. The Airbus A-400M was supposed to lift 32 tons, and its been reported it will only lift 29 tons. It would be better if this jet transport could lift 21 tons, one ton more than one ton less.

One thing that is certain, even if that plane won't lift 20 tons the Canterbury is able to sea lift LAV IIIs. The quickest way to move a significant number of LAV IIIs is with sealift. Most of the islands in the South Pacific can be reached within three days with the Canterbury, some within 2 days. Is the New Zealand Army prepared to move quicker?

Most likely New Zealand will buy new C0130s, but other aircraft are moving into the picture...

 

[MrConservative]

Why is the USAF under the Obama administration funding a new cockpit and engines for every C-5 saving $20 billion from building new aircraft? The Obama administration has zero C-17s in the FY2010 budget as well. The USAF reported that the C-5 airframes still have a lot of life in them, they are strong at 80 percent of life remaining. The USAF ends the C-17 production at 205. Its now or never to buy C-17s, and there may be more built at the end of the USAF run for other nations. But if they buy, better buy before its too late.

Boeing will continue to build what it has on order which should keep the line open into 2012.

I'm not familiar with New Zealand's C-130s, but I don't see them buying any replacements for their Hercules after upgrading them soon. Maybe five or six years from now, but not this year....

There is talk that the Airbus A-400M may be cancelled and those orders will go to the C-17 extending its line. But I think this is all talk with no substance.

If Embraer can keep the price of the KC-390s in the vicinity of US$50 million, i.e. 2009 value, they will win many orders with Lockheed charging nearly US$100 million for new C-130s.

Because it is not every C-5 that will go through the programme to turn them into the M model. Most if not all of the early A models will need replacing. The options - buy a proposed military version of a French built A380 or more US built C17's. As a US citizen Toby you could imagine how well that would go down in Congress.

 

[Sea Toby]

Because it is not every C-5 that will go through the programme to turn them into the M model. Most if not all of the early A models will need replacing. The options - buy a proposed military version of a French built A380 or more US built C17's. As a US citizen Toby you could imagine how well that would go down in Congress.

I did a bit more research, and I learned all of the aircraft are receiving new avionics, with only the Bs and Cs getting new engines. I stand corrected. Still the study showed 80 percent of airframe service life remaining for the C-5s.... The upgrades will be completed during 2016. I don't see a quick end to the C-5s.

As for the KC-390 the payload is considered 19 tons, 41,888 pounds. I was under the impression 40,000 pounds is 20 tons. Never mind though, the NZ LAVIII weight is 38,029 pounds. Source Deagel.com....

On the other hand Wiki quotes 19.85 tonnes, or 21.88 tons. Armor included. No pound figures.

Militaryfactory quotes 18.75 US short tons, 37,368 pounds.

So which is correct? Three websites with three different answers. Two say the KC-390 will be able to load the NZ LAV III....

I have a feeling if I check more websites I will get different specs.

Pray the KC-390 doesn't come up 3 tons short....

 

[recce.k1]

From NZ Army - Our Equipment - NZ LAV the NZ LAVIII weight is 19.85 tonnes (metric). Mind you, if NZLAVIII protective armour is upgraded in the future then the weight will rise (seeing the US is investigating upgrading its Stryker protection with a new design etc).

Personally I'd prefer that RNZAF get heavy airlift (C17 or A400 etc) seeing that we operate to various places (and now have larger LAV's and helos to transport etc).

As for medium lift, I guess there are a number of options eg C130J, KC390 or perhaps a smaller airlifter eg C27/CN295 etc. I'd hope though something of the C130J or KC390 capability is sought, thus freeing up the C17/A400 for long distance/coalition tasks. We still need something decent (C130J or KC390) for regional tasking.

Wishful thinking eh!

 

[swerve]

As for the KC-390 the payload is considered 19 tons, 41,888 pounds. I was under the impression 40,000 pounds is 20 tons....

Different tons. 40000lb is 20 US or "short" tons of 2000lb each.

41888/19 = 2204.6. 2204.6lb is 1000kg, i.e. one metric ton.

An Imperial ton is 2240lb

The difference between US & other tons often causes confusion, e.g. the "70 ton" M1A2 tank - only in US tons.

 

[Sea Toby]

Thanks for clearing up my confusion Swerve. As an American I tend to think in short tons.
I knew there had to be an explanation for the different sites figures...

 

[MrConservative]

From NZ Army - Our Equipment - NZ LAV the NZ LAVIII weight is 19.85 tonnes (metric). Mind you, if NZLAVIII protective armour is upgraded in the future then the weight will rise (seeing the US is investigating upgrading its Stryker protection with a new design etc).

Personally I'd prefer that RNZAF get heavy airlift (C17 or A400 etc) seeing that we operate to various places (and now have larger LAV's and helos to transport etc).

As for medium lift, I guess there are a number of options eg C130J, KC390 or perhaps a smaller airlifter eg C27/CN295 etc. I'd hope though something of the C130J or KC390 capability is sought, thus freeing up the C17/A400 for long distance/coalition tasks. We still need something decent (C130J or KC390) for regional tasking.

Wishful thinking eh!

Wishful thinking or not Recce, it is in the context of future tasking requirements common sense in our post 2017 world. (It is well known that within the RNZAF that 40Sqd has had tasking for eight C-130's and two B757's (B727's) for the last decade) I still think that there is a reasonable chance the C-17ER production will be in place at least in low volumes until 2015-2017. Its future is brighter than 24 months ago. I agree the decision/tender/order over the C-130H replacements will begin to be sorted out 2012-2015 for delivery post 2017. I believe that the C-130J is a very obvious frontrunner because of the long relationship the RNZAF has had with Lockhead and for interoperability with the ADF. The more integrated CDR relationship is going to be a key factor over the next decade and beyond. The two ANZAC leaders are singing from the same song sheet. A new context has been set and I would doubt a NZ Labour govt which would have to move to the right to have a chance of re-election next decade would not risk changing it. I also agree that the improved ANZAC relationship will extend to airlift compatibility and procurement. Also for politcal considerations the US would be the prefered supplier. As for the C-390, no doubt it is a wonderful aircraft for its context, but political considerations will trump it. Also I gather that it will lack the C-130J's rough field capability which would not help its case. At a proposed US$50m it is cheaper than the US65m for the C130J. However, in my view not enough to sweeten the good karma of a US deal. Four C130J's and two C-17ER's along with the continuation of the B757 would be what I consider appropriate for NZDF needs. That would mean a Billion dollar investment in todays money, nevertheless in the scheme of things it would represent just as much value for money as AVM Morison's original buy of the C-130H's back in 1965.

 

[Renown]

Wishful thinking or not Recce, it is in the context of future tasking requirements common sense in our post 2017 world. (It is well known that within the RNZAF that 40Sqd has had tasking for eight C-130's and two B757's (B727's) for the last decade) I still think that there is a reasonable chance the C-17ER production will be in place at least in low volumes until 2015-2017. Its future is brighter than 24 months ago. I agree the decision/tender/order over the C-130H replacements will begin to be sorted out 2012-2015 for delivery post 2017. I believe that the C-130J is a very obvious frontrunner because of the long relationship the RNZAF has had with Lockhead and for interoperability with the ADF. The more integrated CDR relationship is going to be a key factor over the next decade and beyond. The two ANZAC leaders are singing from the same song sheet. A new context has been set and I would doubt a NZ Labour govt which would have to move to the right to have a chance of re-election next decade would not risk changing it. I also agree that the improved ANZAC relationship will extend to airlift compatibility and procurement. Also for politcal considerations the US would be the prefered supplier. As for the C-390, no doubt it is a wonderful aircraft for its context, but political considerations will trump it. Also I gather that it will lack the C-130J's rough field capability which would not help its case. At a proposed US$50m it is cheaper than the US65m for the C130J. However, in my view not enough to sweeten the good karma of a US deal. Four C130J's and two C-17ER's along with the continuation of the B757 would be what I consider appropriate for NZDF needs. That would mean a Billion dollar investment in todays money, nevertheless in the scheme of things it would represent just as much value for money as AVM Morison's original buy of the C-130H's back in 1965.

Totally agree
4 C-130Js and a pair of C-17s would be perfect for what NZ requires.
I'm reminded of a quote, "Victory in battle often goes to the one who gets there firstest with the mostest" and this would enable the NZDF to move meaningful loads over meaningful distances quickly and the C-17s would give the NZDF the ability to move LAVs and NH90s that the C-130 struggles with.
Also the rough field capability of the C-130J is a very important consideration in the South Pacific.
The other thing to remember is while it might sound like a lot of money most NZDF assets have a very long lifespan, in the case of the C-130H over 40 years, so the cost per year is not that great.

 

[Sea Toby]

Totally agree
4 C-130Js and a pair of C-17s would be perfect for what NZ requires.
I'm reminded of a quote, "Victory in battle often goes to the one who gets there firstest with the mostest" and this would enable the NZDF to move meaningful loads over meaningful distances quickly and the C-17s would give the NZDF the ability to move LAVs and NH90s that the C-130 struggles with.
Also the rough field capability of the C-130J is a very important consideration in the South Pacific.
The other thing to remember is while it might sound like a lot of money most NZDF assets have a very long lifespan, in the case of the C-130H over 40 years, so the cost per year is not that great.

While the House voted for the C-17s, the Senate didn't. We will have to wait for the joint committees and final votes. For a program that was to stop at 180 and before that at 120 to replace C-141s, the C-17 have long passed that mark.

Therefore, I don't think the C-17 line will exist when New Zealand gets around to buying any a few years from now. However, I really do like the KC-390. Embraer builds wonderful aircraft. I would think 4 KC-390s for quicker delivery of C-130 loads would suffice along with 4 C-27s. Instead of spending at least US$250 million for each C-17, and US$100 million for each C-130, the government could spend US$200 million for four KC-390s, and a similar amount for four C-27s. The C-27s will provide the short runway deliveries. The total RNZAF requirements could be met with a sum of less than US$400 million to replace its transport aircraft fleet. NOT US$1.4 billion......

The RNZAF would end up with more airlift capacity than what it has currently. And for the price of four new C-130s. Price does make a difference.... Especially when the Corps of Engineers or the Seabees can build mile long runways for a million or two in a few days.....

LAVs and NH90s can be shipped abroad on the Canterbury. Its not like the C-130 does that much better anyway.....

 

[MrConservative]

While the House voted for the C-17s, the Senate didn't. We will have to wait for the joint committees and final votes. For a program that was to stop at 180 and before that at 120 to replace C-141s, the C-17 have long passed that mark.

Therefore, I don't think the C-17 line will exist when New Zealand gets around to buying any a few years from now. However, I really do like the KC-390. Embraer builds wonderful aircraft. I would think 4 KC-390s for quicker delivery of C-130 loads would suffice along with 4 C-27s. Instead of spending at least US$250 million for each C-17, and US$100 million for each C-130, the government could spend US$200 million for four KC-390s, and a similar amount for four C-27s. The C-27s will provide the short runway deliveries. The total RNZAF requirements could be met with a sum of less than US$400 million to replace its transport aircraft fleet. NOT US$1.4 billion......

The RNZAF would end up with more airlift capacity than what it has currently. And for the price of four new C-130s. Price does make a difference.... Especially when the Corps of Engineers or the Seabees can build mile long runways for a million or two in a few days.....

LAVs and NH90s can be shipped abroad on the Canterbury. Its not like the C-130 does that much better anyway.....

The C390 does not have rough field capability nor is it intended to get it in due course. The Canterbury can not go inland so air lift options are significant. The DF Review round at present is endorsing the C130J due to interoperability with the RAAF. The US - NZ relationship is more important than Brazil - trade ties, history and again inter-op - again that factors in the C130 over the C390 which at this stage is just a concept.The airlift requirement needs rapid reaction capability before the Canterbury gets retasked whatever it needs to carry. That may takes days even weeks. The C390 is not that much quicker than a C130J and finally in the real world how long will it take for the Seabees to whack in a nice mile long runway for the C390 to land on lets say an outer atoll in the Cooks. Also the international market will dictate the length of C17's eventual production run not the US Senate procurring for US military needs. Demand usually leads supply and it seems that non US demand for the C17 will at least give the programme lifesupport at low volume production.

 

[Sea Toby]

The C390 does not have rough field capability nor is it intended to get it in due course. The Canterbury can not go inland so air lift options are significant. The DF Review round at present is endorsing the C130J due to interoperability with the RAAF. The US - NZ relationship is more important than Brazil - trade ties, history and again inter-op - again that factors in the C130 over the C390 which at this stage is just a concept.The airlift requirement needs rapid reaction capability before the Canterbury gets retasked whatever it needs to carry. That may takes days even weeks. The C390 is not that much quicker than a C130J and finally in the real world how long will it take for the Seabees to whack in a nice mile long runway for the C390 to land on lets say an outer atoll in the Cooks. Also the international market will dictate the length of C17's eventual production run not the US Senate procurring for US military needs. Demand usually leads supply and it seems that non US demand for the C17 will at least give the programme lifesupport at low volume production.

I believe the Canterbury sailed back from Samoa in three days, Much of the South Pacific isn't as far away as Samoa. More than half the time the Canterbury is docked. NOT WEEKS! I doubt seriously whether the New Zealand Army is prepared to ship an enlarged company group in one day.

Its not like New Zealand is going to buy enough C-130s to lift an entire company group and its equipment with five Hercules either.

Your only argument that makes any sense is the interoperability with the Aussies. But when has an Aussie buy ever influenced a Kiwi buy? Interoperability has never meant buy the same....

New Zealand should buy equipment to fulfill its needs, not Australia....

 

[Gibbo]

I believe the Canterbury sailed back from Samoa in three days, Much of the South Pacific isn't as far away as Samoa. More than half the time the Canterbury is docked. NOT WEEKS! I doubt seriously whether the New Zealand Army is prepared to ship an enlarged company group in one day.

Its not like New Zealand is going to buy enough C-130s to lift an entire company group and its equipment with five Hercules either.

Your only argument that makes any sense is the interoperability with the Aussies. But when has an Aussie buy ever influenced a Kiwi buy? Interoperability has never meant buy the same....

New Zealand should buy equipment to fulfill its needs, not Australia....

I'd love to see a C-17 or two but I just can't see NZ being prepared to pay for them - even though on paper they may be cheaper to operate over their life. The defence review underway is the perfect vehicle to drive purchase of more airlift, and I'd love to see even a single RNZAF/RAAF C-17 purchased (operated in a similar fashion to the NATO C-17s ordered).

I expect we'll see C130J's replace the 'H' models, in part because NZer's understand what a C-130 is & what it does (hey that's about as complicated as most of us NZer's defence thinking seems to get!) which makes them an easier sell to the public! But our C130 experience has been a good one & it's makes sense to continue withsomething that is proven (overseas) & is used by all major allies.

The key is providing more airlift so NZ needs more than 5 C130J's. I'd like to see 7-8 'stretched' models although I don't hold ot too much hope!

It's also almost irrelevant to look at 'shelf' prices for hardware - by the time you factor in trainign & engineering support; spares etc - the end price is often may in advance of the shelf price. The AW109 & NH-90 purchases highlight this - both orders final cost are far higher than the shelf price would suggest.

 

[MrConservative]

extra info

I believe the Canterbury sailed back from Samoa in three days, Much of the South Pacific isn't as far away as Samoa. More than half the time the Canterbury is docked. NOT WEEKS! I doubt seriously whether the New Zealand Army is prepared to ship an enlarged company group in one day.

Its not like New Zealand is going to buy enough C-130s to lift an entire company group and its equipment with five Hercules either.

Your only argument that makes any sense is the interoperability with the Aussies. But when has an Aussie buy ever influenced a Kiwi buy? Interoperability has never meant buy the same....

New Zealand should buy equipment to fulfill its needs, not Australia....

The point is it that the Canterbury may be undertaking a specific task and may take sometime to resupply and retask. That is why it has been for many years a NZDF requirement to have on very short notice a C130 that react to any situation that arises. I'm sorry Toby but at times you leaps of logic and comprehension are quite extraordinary. The essential argument on this thread is about airlift requirements and not sealift. Introducing disengenious topic tangents strays from the central theme of the topic at hand. There are tempo and timing differences that are to be satisfied per NZDF movement requirements. As for the C390 a concept at present it is simply not suitable. Please understand it is for lack of rough field capability, the politics between NZ-US greatly improving defence and trade relationships, the long term relationship with Lockhead, the proven C130J capability all count against it. If you think that is not argument enough to put out to pasture the C390 in RNZAF service idea of yours then God help the notion of rationality.

 

[Sea Toby]

The point is it that the Canterbury may be undertaking a specific task and may take sometime to resupply and retask. That is why it has been for many years a NZDF requirement to have on very short notice a C130 that react to any situation that arises. I'm sorry Toby but at times you leaps of logic and comprehension are quite extraordinary. The essential argument on this thread is about airlift requirements and not sealift. Introducing disengenious topic tangents strays from the central theme of the topic at hand. There are tempo and timing differences that are to be satisfied per NZDF movement requirements. As for the C390 a concept at present it is simply not suitable. Please understand it is for lack of rough field capability, the politics between NZ-US greatly improving defence and trade relationships, the long term relationship with Lockhead, the proven C130J capability all count against it. If you think that is not argument enough to put out to pasture the C390 in RNZAF service idea of yours then God help the notion of rationality.

Then why is Boeing, Northrup, and Lockheed afraid of this aircraft and want to join the French in developing it with Embraer? If Lockheed is afraid, maybe there is something wonderful about this aircraft. Its not like New Zealand is going to buy new aircraft within five years....

 

[Renown]

Then why is Boeing, Northrup, and Lockheed afraid of this aircraft and want to join the French in developing it with Embraer? If Lockheed is afraid, maybe there is something wonderful about this aircraft. Its not like New Zealand is going to buy new aircraft within five years....

I don't think Boeing etc are afraid of the C-390 as such. It offers a different sort of capability to the C-130J and they just want another product to cover other bases.
The C-390 does look to be a great aircraft at what it does and may take some sales off the C-130J for some countries, however in NZs case the rough field capability is paramount and would probably rule it out of consideration.
Your idea to buy Spartans to cover this lack of rough field capability would work, but we would then have two different aircraft types resulting in increased costs for training, spare parts etc.
While a pair of C-17s would be great, I agree that the cost and possibly timing would rule them out.
The other option, if it exists, is the A-400, cheaper than a C-17, but more capable than a C-130J.
However who knows if it will ever get off the ground (excuse the pun).