Royal New Zealand Air Force

[t68]

I still standby that a mixed fleet of C17and C27J would be in NZ long term interest with all the problems with European kit with spare and broken promises just leaves me a bit skittish, A400M has had a rocky run but time will tell how it turns out.

I don’t see having only 3x C17 will much of a problem when working jointly with the RAAF C17 fleet, remember that’s 9 strategic lifters in Oceania having 1 available at all times should not too hard for the RNZAF and that’s all you will need 80% of the time.C27J will be the workhorse and the mainstay of the fleet around the south pacific. With the initial deployment of 3 NZLAV C17 would have come in handy and would have been your air bridge in Afghanistan without relying on external support.

I do wonder if once the UK is finished with Sentinel R1 it would make a good fit for the RNZAF; these aircraft were put to good use in Afghanistan, Libya and Mali

 

[RegR]

With a few nations trying to offload a few A400s from their inventory already most would see this as an oppourtunity to secure a deal at a favourable price, beats negotiating for aircraft on the end of the line. If it means we bring forward our plans/decisions to replace the transport fleet then so be it, win win as far as I see dependant on your usual teething problems of course.

Todj I have to disagree with you on the B757s, yes they are civilian airliners at heart but again not all our air taskings are combat in nature therefore options is not a bad thing. I don't know about you but I would travel in comfort anyday over lumbering around in the hold with the freight. The boeings can move a coy group quickly, comfortably and in style to a excersise, disaster or staging area and also evacuate civilians, transport dignitaries or medevac wounded when needed. The fact that it can only carry a certain amount/size of freight and is 'un-protected' dose'nt prevent it from being of use just means you plan its use better and task it accordingly.

Surely a civilian aircraft would be alot cheaper to purchase then a dedicated military aircraft, maybe not nescessarily running but surely theres pros and cons otherwise why would we have had them so long (727 and 757). There's also nothing like having your own kiwi roundel on the side for abit of national pride, in fact up until the aussies got their airbuses some where quite jealous of the boeings as they were used to Hercing everywhere. They are not the best but they are also far from the worst.

 

[RobWilliams]

I do wonder if once the UK is finished with Sentinel R1 it would make a good fit for the RNZAF; these aircraft were put to good use in Afghanistan, Libya and Mali

Preferably you won't be getting hold of them for a while, but that's something we'll find out post-2015

 

[Todjaeger]

Todj I have to disagree with you on the B757s, yes they are civilian airliners at heart but again not all our air taskings are combat in nature therefore options is not a bad thing. I don't know about you but I would travel in comfort anyday over lumbering around in the hold with the freight. The boeings can move a coy group quickly, comfortably and in style to a excersise, disaster or staging area and also evacuate civilians, transport dignitaries or medevac wounded when needed. The fact that it can only carry a certain amount/size of freight and is 'un-protected' dose'nt prevent it from being of use just means you plan its use better and task it accordingly.

The problem is that civilian airliner designs are limited in a number of areas, quite apart from whether or not one in military service has been fitted with a self-defence suite.

Take the B757's for instance, IIRC there is room for 11 pallets of cargo but due to cargo deck strength limits, each pallet cannot weigh more than 2,000 lbs. So this means that a B757 can transport roughly a company group of personnel some 3k n miles fairly quickly and comfortably, but at the same time only move ~22,000 lbs of cargo. Further, the arriving airport/airfield needs cargo handling equipment to unload the pallets. This IMO is where the use of civilian airliners by small air forces can be a problem.

Using disaster response to a tropical cyclone as an example, such events can easily damage or destroy an airport's ability to load or unload cargo. Without operational lifts, getting a packed pallet out of the cargo area of a civilian airliner would likely require personnel to board the cargo deck and manually break down the pallets while passing the cargo out by hand. A military airlifter with a cargo ramp does not have that sort of problem.

I do not dispute that personnel movement aboard an airliner would be faster and more comfortable, there is really no question on that score. What I do question is just how often the NZDF has to move a company-sized detachment of personnel via air? If that only happens once a year or a few times a year for exercises, then chartering those flights would likely be less expensive. This would also free up resources for dedicated military airlifters. As it stands now, the RNZAF has a quarter of its airlift in sheer numbers, only able to operate from working airports.

-Cheers

 

[harryriedl]

Preferably you won't be getting hold of them for a while, but that's something we'll find out post-2015

In regard to the R1 Im reading in few places that it won't be replaced until it has a replacement

 

[MrConservative]

The problem is that civilian airliner designs are limited in a number of areas, quite apart from whether or not one in military service has been fitted with a self-defence suite.

Take the B757's for instance, IIRC there is room for 11 pallets of cargo but due to cargo deck strength limits, each pallet cannot weigh more than 2,000 lbs. So this means that a B757 can transport roughly a company group of personnel some 3k n miles fairly quickly and comfortably, but at the same time only move ~22,000 lbs of cargo. Further, the arriving airport/airfield needs cargo handling equipment to unload the pallets. This IMO is where the use of civilian airliners by small air forces can be a problem.

Using disaster response to a tropical cyclone as an example, such events can easily damage or destroy an airport's ability to load or unload cargo. Without operational lifts, getting a packed pallet out of the cargo area of a civilian airliner would likely require personnel to board the cargo deck and manually break down the pallets while passing the cargo out by hand. A military airlifter with a cargo ramp does not have that sort of problem.

I do not dispute that personnel movement aboard an airliner would be faster and more comfortable, there is really no question on that score. What I do question is just how often the NZDF has to move a company-sized detachment of personnel via air? If that only happens once a year or a few times a year for exercises, then chartering those flights would likely be less expensive. This would also free up resources for dedicated military airlifters. As it stands now, the RNZAF has a quarter of its airlift in sheer numbers, only able to operate from working airports.

-Cheers

I agree with your take on this Todj. The relative small size of the NZDF and infrequent use of a commercial airliner airliner for either troop transport or VIP use make it not vfm. The Broomsticks were not been a great buy for the cost - not just that they paid far too much for them to begin with (top dollar for well used 13 year old airframes in a post 9/11 era when the market was flooded with aging commercial jets) but also the lengthy and huge expense to make them pallet capable. They certainly look nice and the RNZAF puts on a great display with them, however they bring limited capability as a so called strategic airlift platform in the modern military context. For an output cost of in excess of 100m a year for just 1200 flight hours and a $220 million project cost for starters its not any wonder Treasury had and still has a fit. Take off the 200 hours for VIP, the annual run up to the NH to visit old battlesites for the Vets, and the occassional troop rotations, everything else but strategic lift meaning a 1000 hours of core tasking (or in the NZ context tactical lift strategic distances) can be done better by another platform/charter or airline.

In fact troop transport ... sheesh .... the kids today and wanting a comfy chair in a pressurized airconditioned modern airliner must be soft or something - in grandads day Kiwi serviceman travelled up to Singapore in a slow prop Hasting and it took about 3 days and they all had a big smile on their face the whole way. If we really need a vanity VIP, comfy chair for troop transport aircraft, lease a 10 year old one and put it under the CA register and have the money come out of the DCPM and MFAT or Ministry or Arts and Culture.

Also talk of three C-17's is not viable. There is frankly probably enough work for one, out of the tasking budget of 3600 flight per annum the RNZAF usually has had in recent years (ignore the current stats as they are 1000 hours short due to the LEP situation). With 25% of our airlift needs strategic, buying 1 let alone the baseline 2 to make a C-17 operationally viable does not stack up. Talk of one for one replacements of the C-130H is also not going to happen either if they plumb for the A400 or even the C-130J-30. Because it will likely end up as a 2 tier fleet with four medium-heavy and four light-medium.

In my view the best result will be 4 A400M's to replace the 2 Broomsticks and the first 2 of the LEP H's that now have there countdown clock clicking followed by 4 C-27J's as the last 3 H models get phased out. With the added knowledge that more airframes can be procured later if there is a need. BTW the NZD to Euro ratio is far better today than 5 years ago and likely to remain so for sometime to come, thus making the A400M which once was heading to C17 pricetags is becoming more affordable and thus plausible. I would ignore the joblot approach of a C295 deal tacked alongside the A400 because the C-27J in my view is more suitable in that it would complement the A400 better with respect to the load/range/kg lift quantum that the NZDF will require of its future tasking tempos.

 

[t68]

In regard to the R1 Im reading in few places that it won't be replaced until it has a replacement

That will be right at the time for Air 2015 is due, the timing might work and reduce the reliance on the Kiwi Orion fleet. With the UK Air Seeker KC-135 due in 2014/15

 

[RubiconNZ]

The RNZAF needs something with a good reach while remaining viable for use on a short runway, it was only a few years ago iirc where C-17's flew relief equipment to the RNZAF for them to transport with C130's as they could land on the airfield where the C-17 couldn't.

This is key in the Pacific there are a lot of short/medium strips in the Pacific and this is NZ's core area of interest and responsibility.

As MR C has said the NZD vs Euro is at a prime ratio now would be the best to plug into the A-400M, that along with a Spartan buy would be a great combination. At least there would be some great opportunities with commonality with the RAAF. Not to mention the RAAF C-130J's are already coming up to 15 years old so I think a grizzly buy is not out of the question in the mid 20's.

 

[ngatimozart]

In fact troop transport ... sheesh .... the kids today and wanting a comfy chair in a pressurized airconditioned modern airliner must be soft or something - in grandads day Kiwi serviceman travelled up to Singapore in a slow prop Hasting and it took about 3 days and they all had a big smile on their face the whole way. If we really need a vanity VIP, comfy chair for troop transport aircraft, lease a 10 year old one and put it under the CA register and have the money come out of the DCPM and MFAT or Ministry or Arts and Culture.

Granddad had it soft then as DC6 & Hastings more comfortable & quicker than Bristol Frightner - oops I mean Freighter.

Also talk of three C-17's is not viable. There is frankly probably enough work for one, out of the tasking budget of 3600 flight per annum the RNZAF usually has had in recent years (ignore the current stats as they are 1000 hours short due to the LEP situation). With 25% of our airlift needs strategic, buying 1 let alone the baseline 2 to make a C-17 operationally viable does not stack up. Talk of one for one replacements of the C-130H is also not going to happen either if they plumb for the A400 or even the C-130J-30. Because it will likely end up as a 2 tier fleet with four medium-heavy and four light-medium.

In my view the best result will be 4 A400M's to replace the 2 Broomsticks and the first 2 of the LEP H's that now have there countdown clock clicking followed by 4 C-27J's as the last 3 H models get phased out. With the added knowledge that more airframes can be procured later if there is a need. BTW the NZD to Euro ratio is far better today than 5 years ago and likely to remain so for sometime to come, thus making the A400M which once was heading to C17 pricetags is becoming more affordable and thus plausible. I would ignore the joblot approach of a C295 deal tacked alongside the A400 because the C-27J in my view is more suitable in that it would complement the A400 better with respect to the load/range/kg lift quantum that the NZDF will require of its future tasking tempos.

My only concern with the C27J is are we going to end with an orphan aircraft? The USAF has done everything it possibly can to rid itself of anything to do with the Spartan and I know it is politics and jealously over US Army flying Battlefield Air Lifters. Apart from the RAAF buy there are no other large operators unless the Indians buy some. If we do get it I think we would be better getting it directly from Alenia. Definitely do not go through the FMS program.

 

[ADMk2]

Granddad had it soft then as DC6 & Hastings more comfortable & quicker than Bristol Frightner - oops I mean Freighter.

My only concern with the C27J is are we going to end with an orphan aircraft? The USAF has done everything it possibly can to rid itself of anything to do with the Spartan and I know it is politics and jealously over US Army flying Battlefield Air Lifters. Apart from the RAAF buy there are no other large operators unless the Indians buy some. If we do get it I think we would be better getting it directly from Alenia. Definitely do not go through the FMS program.

RAAF bought ours through FMS. The systems on the C-27J will be supportable through FMS and the aircraft will be supported by Alenia...

There is an in-service fleet of more than 80 world-wide, with something like 7 different users at present and the chance of further sales, even if the US abandons the aircraft and retires it completely, which seems unlikely as the US Coast Guard is likely to take over the US Air Force's C-27J's...

 

[t68]

My only concern with the C27J is are we going to end with an orphan aircraft?

But it’s not like it has its completely different supply chain, it basically a mini-me of a C130J use the same avionics and engines

The USAF has done everything it possibly can to rid itself of anything to do with the Spartan and I know it is politics and jealously over US Army flying Battlefield Air Lifters.

That’s a tough one you ask the US Army about the needs of a battlefield airlifter and the C27J wins hands down but for some reason which I can’t really explain the USAF had taken over the project and killed it, only reason I can see it is that the Ground Combat Vehicle program will not be dictated by size limitations of the C130J air mobility will be provided by C17.

Maybe the USAF really don’t see the need as they really don’t have to worry about place like the RAAF and RNZAF they see Army using Chinook as the battlefield airlifter for ARMY

USAF can see the writing on the wall for C130 size aircraft in the future and felt threatened by army will be tasked with all tactical lift programs. Wonder if Lockheed Martin will produce a lifter to compete with A400M.

 

[MrConservative]

Granddad had it soft then as DC6 & Hastings more comfortable & quicker than Bristol Frightner - oops I mean Freighter.

My only concern with the C27J is are we going to end with an orphan aircraft? The USAF has done everything it possibly can to rid itself of anything to do with the Spartan and I know it is politics and jealously over US Army flying Battlefield Air Lifters. Apart from the RAAF buy there are no other large operators unless the Indians buy some. If we do get it I think we would be better getting it directly from Alenia. Definitely do not go through the FMS program.

It is not that much of an orphan Ngati, that is a meme that gets sometimes overegged. It is not as like the AV systems, engines and undercarriage are all bespoke. It is that the graduated spectrum of airlift tasking that the RNZAF requires within the context of likely budgeted flight hours, ranges, load types and weights makes it the C-27J a better fit than the C-295 for the RNZAF/NZDF. The C-295 is the bridesmaid in my veiw. Are you scared off by the ADF costs per the C-27J FMS deal? The acquisition calculations can be highly variable with respect to what actually what is been bought and paid for and for how long. OZ has its own measurement of what costs what compared to other nations and the financial recording and reporting of the platform acquisition is determined by each governments own audit regs, financing regime and the level of support they want. So what I am suggesting is that a NZ buy of a certain aircraft will not be entirely the same as another nations even Australia. Though you are right. When I did first see the C-27 projects price tag my jaw dropped.

Yes the Bristol Freighter was not a bring on a smile for Grandad on a jaunt to Singapore. In a strong headwind they were almost stationary according the old mans mate who flew them. That said, in my grandfathers day and no doubt yours, planes were made out of wood, wire and canvas thus a Bristy would have been like a B2. My Grandy did not fly until he was in his 80s and that was on one of the very early B737 flights out of Dunedin not long before he past away. Here was a bloke who was already 18 when the Wright Bros first flew and first trip North 60 years earlier took 5 days by steamer. The changes in technology during his adult life time were breathtaking. And he been a technical sort of guy revelled in it. Absolutely overjoyed by his first plane flight.

 

[Gracie]

A400m and C295

Hi All, this is my second post. I have been following this for a while now. Great commentary.
I think the C17 is just too expensive and large for the numbers NZ could afford. Numbers are a benefit when you are comparing with a group of 3. I think the combination of A400M and C295 will suit the needs well. The A400M can lift our equipment were it needs to be, i imagine a 1:1 replacement with the Hercs would be the min. The C295 can move the smaller loads and a good number of people cheaper than the C27. The C295 can also be used for parachute training.
I do not see the 757 being replaced, best to send those dollars into appropriate numbers of A400M and C295 aircraft. The speed of the A400M is close to the 757, so not losing much there. The PM can hire a commercial plane when he does the state visits.
I think that both of these planes being supplied by the same company will be a bonus in terms of purchase and support deal. Training would also benefit.
I guess we will have to see what the review recommends. I wonder what the actual lift requirement will be since this generation of equipment is heavier. I just hope we get enough planes.

 

[Volkodav]

I suppose the risk with the A400 and CN295 is years down the track when you are hunting for parts to keep them flying. Then again it need not be years down the track as recent experience with Euro products has been soured by lack of support with aircraft grounded for days or weeks waiting for bits to fly in from OS. Anything on FMS is a completely different kettle of fish, its not cheap but your gear works when you need it. You need to look at real through life costs (which could easily stretch to 40 years) as part of the decision not just up front procurement and operational costs.

 

[t68]

I do not see the 757 being replaced, best to send those dollars into appropriate numbers of A400M and C295 aircraft.

To be honest I don’t see how you cannot replace it, it may have limitations but it’s still an important piece of kit. The government is risk adverse when it comes to defence, it wants to show the flag but do it in a way that is relatively benign environment.

The aircraft has to conduct a range of tasks and swing between them which can include transportation of personnel and equipment, VIP transport, aeromedical evacuation and rapid response support to HADR and support to NZDF exercises. These operations will not only be restricted to the South Pacific but also Europe and the US.

AD brought up if the A400M is purchased that the plumb it up for AAR, whilst the feature would have no benefit for the NZDF it would be a make enormous asset in a coalition environment. I don’t think it would be a wise move doing it to a tactical airlift aircraft when you will have so few but more than feasible using a MRTT.

Even with all the debate on C17 and I still favour its introduction, it’s just not going to happen over the next 10/15 years treasury obligations to defence is going to be a strain finances considering what needs to be replaced. If I was to bet on this it going to come down to money A400M won’t be able to compete C130J is always going to be the logical, low risk, proven answer.

 

[RegR]

I agree with your take on this Todj. The relative small size of the NZDF and infrequent use of a commercial airliner airliner for either troop transport or VIP use make it not vfm. The Broomsticks were not been a great buy for the cost - not just that they paid far too much for them to begin with (top dollar for well used 13 year old airframes in a post 9/11 era when the market was flooded with aging commercial jets) but also the lengthy and huge expense to make them pallet capable. They certainly look nice and the RNZAF puts on a great display with them, however they bring limited capability as a so called strategic airlift platform in the modern military context. For an output cost of in excess of 100m a year for just 1200 flight hours and a $220 million project cost for starters its not any wonder Treasury had and still has a fit. Take off the 200 hours for VIP, the annual run up to the NH to visit old battlesites for the Vets, and the occassional troop rotations, everything else but strategic lift meaning a 1000 hours of core tasking (or in the NZ context tactical lift strategic distances) can be done better by another platform/charter or airline.

In fact troop transport ... sheesh .... the kids today and wanting a comfy chair in a pressurized airconditioned modern airliner must be soft or something - in grandads day Kiwi serviceman travelled up to Singapore in a slow prop Hasting and it took about 3 days and they all had a big smile on their face the whole way. If we really need a vanity VIP, comfy chair for troop transport aircraft, lease a 10 year old one and put it under the CA register and have the money come out of the DCPM and MFAT or Ministry or Arts and Culture.

Also talk of three C-17's is not viable. There is frankly probably enough work for one, out of the tasking budget of 3600 flight per annum the RNZAF usually has had in recent years (ignore the current stats as they are 1000 hours short due to the LEP situation).

Infrequent use? 1200hrs for 2 boeings vs 3600hrs for 5 Hercules is about right considering the nature of tasks for each type as thats only another 120hrs per Herc and thats to be expected considering compared to a 757 a C130(or A400) would also fly intra-theatre ops and usually stay longer whereas the boeings are straight A-Bers. Also if you look at 40 Sqn taskings the 757s are quite busy around the world, region and even NZ and something that lets them down is actually their availability.

Also the whole compareing today to back when my grandad flew, must be going soft, lets do it tough routine does'nt really acheive anything (its not hard to sit in any plane) but why do it if you don't have to? seriously? That mentality is still around today and the saying is theres a easy way to do something and then theres the army way, the current retention issues (in all services) show somewhat that this way of thinking needs to be weeded out ASAP.

The only reason treasury are considering the chop for the 757s is not out of some heartfelt, efficiency or tactical reasoning but purely to save a buck as they are flat struggleing financially and as we have seen this does not always bode well for any defence force as its always a good time to cull a capability. The fact that we have flown boeing types in conjunction with transports since 1981 shows they must have some merit and just happens they are now no good during a govt financial crisis? bad timing or what.

 

[ngatimozart]

Infrequent use? 1200hrs for 2 boeings vs 3600hrs for 5 Hercules is about right considering the nature of tasks for each type as thats only another 120hrs per Herc and thats to be expected considering compared to a 757 a C130(or A400) would also fly intra-theatre ops and usually stay longer whereas the boeings are straight A-Bers. Also if you look at 40 Sqn taskings the 757s are quite busy around the world, region and even NZ and something that lets them down is actually their availability.

Also the whole compareing today to back when my grandad flew, must be going soft, lets do it tough routine does'nt really acheive anything (its not hard to sit in any plane) but why do it if you don't have to? seriously? That mentality is still around today and the saying is theres a easy way to do something and then theres the army way, the current retention issues (in all services) show somewhat that this way of thinking needs to be weeded out ASAP.

The only reason treasury are considering the chop for the 757s is not out of some heartfelt, efficiency or tactical reasoning but purely to save a buck as they are flat struggleing financially and as we have seen this does not always bode well for any defence force as its always a good time to cull a capability. The fact that we have flown boeing types in conjunction with transports since 1981 shows they must have some merit and just happens they are now no good during a govt financial crisis? bad timing or what.

Are Treasury still trying to chop the B757? You are right about their use and exposure. We've just had one parked up at Andrews Air Force Base for a week for the NZ - US Business Forum in Washington DC, so they are more than just moving bods from A2B. I really think that in the case of the B757s we need to look at the wider picture in that they also represent NZ Inc, and sure an Air NZ aircraft looks neat but an aircraft with Royal NZ Air Force emblazoned on the side, with the national flag on the fin and the roundel makes a bigger statement than just an airline which would be perceived as a commercial entity which it is. Where as a RNZAF B757 is seen as a sovereign entity and that makes a greater impression in foreign eyes. It's about perceptions and in the game of nations perceptions are very important.

Two B757s are not enough and this has been shown plenty of times. On the Kiwi aviation forum I lurk it was suggested that if we'd had gotten the F16s then more B757s should have been acquired and set up as AARs. Anyway the two B757s are due to be retired around 2022 - 25 and as I have said previously they have given us good service. With regard to the comments about using civil airliners for miltary service, what do you think the KC30 MRTT or the KC135 etc., have been based on and built from? The B757s the RNZAF use are actually Boeing 757 - 200 M Combis, with the M denoting military. It's exactly because we are a small military that we do need to have a platform we can multirole and the B757s fill the MRT capability. The old B727 vomit comets didn't and that is the big difference. We cannot afford to dedicate a Boeing Business jet to fly the PM around, so having an aircraft that can do VIP, medivac, bulk pax, combi pax and freight and is quick is an asset, not a liability.

 

[Todjaeger]

Are Treasury still trying to chop the B757? You are right about their use and exposure. We've just had one parked up at Andrews Air Force Base for a week for the NZ - US Business Forum in Washington DC, so they are more than just moving bods from A2B. I really think that in the case of the B757s we need to look at the wider picture in that they also represent NZ Inc, and sure an Air NZ aircraft looks neat but an aircraft with Royal NZ Air Force emblazoned on the side, with the national flag on the fin and the roundel makes a bigger statement than just an airline which would be perceived as a commercial entity which it is. Where as a RNZAF B757 is seen as a sovereign entity and that makes a greater impression in foreign eyes. It's about perceptions and in the game of nations perceptions are very important.

Two B757s are not enough and this has been shown plenty of times. On the Kiwi aviation forum I lurk it was suggested that if we'd had gotten the F16s then more B757s should have been acquired and set up as AARs. Anyway the two B757s are due to be retired around 2022 - 25 and as I have said previously they have given us good service. With regard to the comments about using civil airliners for miltary service, what do you think the KC30 MRTT or the KC135 etc., have been based on and built from? The B757s the RNZAF use are actually Boeing 757 - 200 M Combis, with the M denoting military. It's exactly because we are a small military that we do need to have a platform we can multirole and the B757s fill the MRT capability. The old B727 vomit comets didn't and that is the big difference. We cannot afford to dedicate a Boeing Business jet to fly the PM around, so having an aircraft that can do VIP, medivac, bulk pax, combi pax and freight and is quick is an asset, not a liability.

I freely admit I have a rather different perspective on the B757, across the entire service spectrum.

From a planning viewpoint, several things need to be kept in mind. The funding available for the NZDF is strictly limited (both in terms of acquisitions and operations), which means that whatever the RNZAF has needs to operate efficiently. Also, the most flexibility possible is required, to cover as many contingencies as possible.

With respect to VIP transport, I would suggest that the RNZAF should follow what the RAF has done with it's No. 32 Squadron. Basically it is military needs first, then if there is extra/excess capacity, that is made available for Royal and/or governmental use. That and the aircraft themselves are smaller, consisting of BAE 146 and BAE 125 jets. After all, if the PM is visiting the US or UK for a week, does the PM need to be accompanied by 200+ staff?

As for other air forces using variants of civilian airliners for transport, this is true. At issue though is the impact on RNZAF air transport force structure and capacity. Using the RAAF as an example, roughly a third of RAAF aircraft are either civilian airliner designs, or variants thereof, at present. Actually a slightly higher percentage than for the RNZAF. However, this is not including the 10 C-27J Spartans on order for delivery in 2015. Also the number of personnel and amount of cargo which the airliners are configured to move are not a significant percentage of the total RAAF airlift capacity.

In the RNZAF's case, the B757's are 28% of large airlift aircraft numbers, 34% of the cargo lift capacity, and ~50% of the personnel movement capacity (depending on configuration). It is also worth noting that the cargo itself is limited in terms of size/weight. What concerns me is that the RNZAF operates so few airlifters, ao that the two B757's are a significant portion of the airlift, yet are unsuitable for many of the scenarios where NZ would need airlift. For the other nations which do successfully operate airliners, they can usually do so because they have sufficient numbers of different kinds of airlift so that some of the limitations an airliner would have become non-issues.

-Cheers

 

[MrConservative]

RegR

Let me clarify. When I say infrequent it is in the context of the 200 odo hours per anmum per VIP / TT for rotations. The remaining 1000 hours includes the strategic element - and of course a significant part of that is flight and crew training related. Also a reasomable amount of NZ's strategic airlift in recent times has been courtesy of the RAAF because the Herc and B757 have limitations.

Yes they are saving money by cutting the B757. It is because they dont provide enough capability for their cost and that cost is a fiscal chain ball and chain dragging behind the rest of the NZDF.

 

[RegR]

RegR

Let me clarify. When I say infrequent it is in the context of the 200 odo hours per anmum per VIP / TT for rotations. The remaining 1000 hours includes the strategic element - and of course a significant part of that is flight and crew training related. Also a reasomable amount of NZ's strategic airlift in recent times has been courtesy of the RAAF because the Herc and B757 have limitations.

Yes they are saving money by cutting the B757. It is because they dont provide enough capability for their cost and that cost is a fiscal chain ball and chain dragging behind the rest of the NZDF.

Yes understood but that is still providing a service that otherwise a Herc(or A400) would have to do, if we had a large group of people to move(which ironically happens alot in th DF) is it better to use a airliner or a transport? bear in mind we don't usually take our own vehicles overseas on ex (again we are not constantly deploying on just operations) or a bulk load of equipment just personel kit+ and even if we did that said veh/bulky kit would usually take up alot of pax space anyway therefore negating the original bulk pax move somewhat.

It also swings and roundabouts as our boeings have at times moved Australian personnel, amongst others, because they are better suited to the job. Its all about options, not saying we can't do it in a A400/C17 type but its all relevant to the task and we don't stack pers 4 high in a transport anyway so there will sometimes be wasted capacity in any mode of transport but also some a perfect for the job, options help mitigate that, purpose built is just a bonus.

Everytime Govt says something does'nt provide capability we lose something, agreed sometimes its needed and provides elsewhere but certain examples that spring to mind are an ACF, frigates, andovers, experienced personnel, perks etc etc. Yes they cost money but somethings are worth it in terms of what they ultimately provide. It costs us alot to save money, short term gains for long term problems.