Royal New Zealand Air Force

[kiwi in exile]

FOC of an RNZAF ACW would not be till 2030, in 2030 do you want a 4th gen aircraft or 5th gen?

Yes, by this time anything less than 5th gen may be irrelevant. Reminiscing about what might have been re F16s or possible joint ANZAC hornet squadrons - maybe not the best approach. Australia, India, China, Japan, Russia and possibly indonesia will be fielding 5th gen aircraft. If we are to start thinking about a NZ ACW, we should start by looking at what the strategic environment and air combat will look like in 2030, not what can we get for 'cheap' now.

If its CAS and maritime strike something like the X47B might be better.

 

[King Wally]

I'd probably rather see my Kiwi cousins invest in their maritime elements, a 3 x Frigate force into the future, a nice Choules style LPD with a dock and hanger space for a few NH-90 (of which a couple extra would be needed as 8 is just not enough when you start deploying), throw in a few P8's on patrol armed with Harpoons and torpedo's etc and you guys would be kicking along very nice.

Let the Yanks and the Aussies provide the fast jets (they will be sending along F-35's in large numbers to any deployment anyway, so lets be honest about the limitations of 2nd hand F-16's or even new FA-50's into the 2020's-2030's) and you guys can concentrate on providing a strong and effective naval task group to any situation. Anyway just my 2 cents.

 

[htbrst]

Is this what you were linking to Reaver?
suspected that we would be going for the A400. This may be on the back of a recent order of additional airframes for Aust.

Hopefully they have taken notice that the C-17 beats the pants off anything else in the region for just sheer getting stuff on the ground where it needs to be fast;

In particular I think they should take a good look at just how supportable maintenance wise "right not" the C-17 is via the Boeings Global support partnership, and with allied countries - which have multiple direct flights to NZ daily to get parts vs only a single non-euro customer (Malaysia) which only has direct flights once or twice per week. USAF operations out of Christchurch probably adds a little bit of a spares pool and knowledge too let alone the share closeness of the Australian depot.

Big aeroplanes are expensive and time-consuming to run, and I just fear that the A400 is just too much of an unknown right now to be hedging our bets on in the future - sure by then it will be more of a known quantity and possibly the only game in town - but I think its worth hedging our bets on the C-17 now.

It probably means the upgraded C-130's could soldier on for an extra 5+ years spreading out the big $$ spend on P-3 replacements, Frigates etc.

 

[Gibbo]

Hopefully they have taken notice that the C-17 beats the pants off anything else in the region for just sheer getting stuff on the ground where it needs to be fast;

In particular I think they should take a good look at just how supportable maintenance wise "right not" the C-17 is via the Boeings Global support partnership, and with allied countries - which have multiple direct flights to NZ daily to get parts vs only a single non-euro customer (Malaysia) which only has direct flights once or twice per week. USAF operations out of Christchurch probably adds a little bit of a spares pool and knowledge too let alone the share closeness of the Australian depot.

Big aeroplanes are expensive and time-consuming to run, and I just fear that the A400 is just too much of an unknown right now to be hedging our bets on in the future - sure by then it will be more of a known quantity and possibly the only game in town - but I think its worth hedging our bets on the C-17 now.

It probably means the upgraded C-130's could soldier on for an extra 5+ years spreading out the big $$ spend on P-3 replacements, Frigates etc.

There's talk on at least 1 other forum that it could in fact be 2 RAAF C17's (from their last order for 4) based in NZ, presumably with some 'sharing' arrangement whereby NZDF picks up part of the tab.

Whilst I'd love to see RNZAF owned examples, the attached article gives a reasonable indication of the costs & when you see 4 will cost the Aussies $1.6B once support , spares etc etc are included, it could be a hard sell. We here all appreciate the suitability of the C17 in the NZ context, but alas we are the educated minority!

http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/australia_14-56_0.pdf

No idea just how much substance is in this but I think the assessment above (ie: 2 x RAAF C17 based in NZ) may be closer to the truth. I have no problem with that so long as NZ Govt don't use such an arrangement to scrimp on the C130 & B757 replacement.

A C17 purchase would almost certainly see the B757 go and the C130 replacement down-scaled in numbers (& possibly airframe size) which is probably understandable, but unless we then owned the C17 & got to determine what we do with them (and when), I would always consider them Aussie owned & 'on loan' and therefore resource 40 sqn accordingly.

Anyway, we wait in (nervous) anticipation to see where this rumour goes! :hul

 

[RegR]

The reason we would not get JSF (or even similar) is the exact same reason we do not have an ACF right now and I really do not see how (or why) we would go from nothing to top of the game from scratch just to keep up with the Smiths next door? As hypothetical as even getting back into the fast air genre (and again if and only if all the other priorities are already financed and sorted) is we would not need JSF as has been stated, leave them to the big boys with the big budgets, and we fill niche roles more suited to us and not US ie Afghan top cover, ISIS bombing runs, wayward airliners, dodgy shipping etc etc If we somehow boosted our budget then by all means top of the line gear for everyone but somehow...... again everythings not a Top Gun movie inspired scenario against every powerhouse country in the world. We could just relieve demand off our stretched allies in certain low-med intensity arenas but history (A4) shows more likely just provide detterant and options regionally and here in NZ.

The thing with F-16C/Ds is that they are a lot cheaper to aqquire, maintain, operate and support then the others with their state of the art tech, twin engines, unproven capabilities, infrastructure blah blah but are still very capable, most bang for our limited buck, and this is crucial for our small country with limited (after paying for everything else by then) resources to realistically do what we need to do with them and not what Aus, US or UK does with theirs as we are to a degree very different. We could invest in improved stand off weapons, defences and sensors to alleviate some of the perceived deficiancies. F16 is still being procured around the world so is still an enabler, just not top dog but still a useful platform nonetheless especially for us in our situation (or lack of).

They would also be ready a lot sooner ie similar in time to say 10 parked up SH2G(I)s?? whilst pilots, train the trainers and maintanence pers could deploy to any number of friendly users around the world (of which there are many) for initial training prior to arrival and a cadre of allies could then post in for continuation and refinement. Yes it won't be a quick process but will be a lot quicker than say with some other options and at the end of the day we do still have quality pilots and aircraft techs, same fundamentals new sub-trade, some on here talk as if we will be training cavemen in the art of space travel via an open heart surgery course using 7 different languages! We will need help but we are not helpless, it's not a nuclear submarine it's a jet aircraft so not a completely foreign concept to us.

Costs and savings are what eventually killed the original F-16s (which were also older A/Bs back then) so why would we repeat history when this is a type now being parked up by the squadron and seemingly spare and available, no one is as yet mothballing FA-18s, JSFs or the like therefore we would be paying a premium when all we are doing is stepping back onto the ladder and not taking on the top 5 in air to air combat or sneaking into their backyards for a cheeky surgical strike. It's not all dogfights and stealth runs, baby steps on a shoestring budget.

Thanks MrC, I wondered how US decided how and when to 'allocate' kit to various nations, obviously us having an ACW is not that vital in their big picture for them not to have already offered therefore not as needed as it would seem.

C-17s??? hmmm not sure on this arrangement, too many factors, C+C, operating budgets, majority task overkill etc. Whilst they would be a great asset they would almost definitely cut any idea of our own A400 at all or even any other transporter in any decent numbers for that matter, would they be worth it overall?

 

[MrConservative]

There's talk on at least 1 other forum that it could in fact be 2 RAAF C17's (from their last order for 4) based in NZ, presumably with some 'sharing' arrangement whereby NZDF picks up part of the tab.

Whilst I'd love to see RNZAF owned examples, the attached article gives a reasonable indication of the costs & when you see 4 will cost the Aussies $1.6B once support , spares etc etc are included, it could be a hard sell. We here all appreciate the suitability of the C17 in the NZ context, but alas we are the educated minority!

http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/australia_14-56_0.pdf

No idea just how much substance is in this but I think the assessment above (ie: 2 x RAAF C17 based in NZ) may be closer to the truth. I have no problem with that so long as NZ Govt don't use such an arrangement to scrimp on the C130 & B757 replacement.

A C17 purchase would almost certainly see the B757 go and the C130 replacement down-scaled in numbers (& possibly airframe size) which is probably understandable, but unless we then owned the C17 & got to determine what we do with them (and when), I would always consider them Aussie owned & 'on loan' and therefore resource 40 sqn accordingly.

Anyway, we wait in (nervous) anticipation to see where this rumour goes! :hul

Good. Saved in the nick of time having to find things to talk about on the NZDF threads until something interesting came along - viz hypothetical ACFs.

Well if the rumoured press reports are true (it is out of a defence reporter they will have fact checked hopefully from more than one source) - the current Air Mobility study must have felt that the capability of the C-17 may have stacked up for the long term in the strategic role. And that with C-17 production going offline soon (around the time the Air Mobility study was to be released) they had to get there skates on.

If they are going to buy C-17's over A400Ms good. At least a proper study has been carried out and a viable case has been made.

If it is going to be some sort of RAAF basing arrangement - and that rumour has been around for at least 5 years - I am not enthusiastic about it all. I loathe the idea. Why - because it plays into the whims and prejudices of politicians. On both side of the ditch and both sides of the house. As part of a temporary transitional nature fine. But it is sheer stupdity to consider it on a long term basis. If I was an Australian taxpayer I would also find such a basing arrangement offensive. I would be lobbying ALP politicians about.

If there is - following the Air Mobility study - a requirement for two C-17s to operate out of NZ, then that must be the capability, acquired and sustained by NZ. By all means make it as part of the ANZAC Strategic Airlift pool - that is true joint operational interdependence.

There will have to be some infrastructural investment at WP if C-17s appear. Right now this rumour sits with me as either the best thing in a long while or the worse thing.

EDIT The B757 cannot do a return trip to MacTown without refueling, They will be testing an Air NZ 767 to do this - But of course the C-17 can fly CHC - MacTown and back. That is in its favour right off the bat!

 

[John Fedup]

Does anyone know how many whitetail C-17s remain available? Recent rumours of a couple of additional ME orders along with Australia's new order must be must have the remaining number below 10. Also, India may want to increase their number. Canada should get 1-2 more as well but this likely isn't on. If NZ wants this option it will have to act soon.

 

[htbrst]

There will have to be some infrastructural investment at WP if C-17s appear. Right now this rumour sits with me as either the best thing in a long while or the worse thing.

EDIT The B757 cannot do a return trip to MacTown without refueling, They will be testing an Air NZ 767 to do this - But of course the C-17 can fly CHC - MacTown and back. That is in its favour right off the bat!

Totally agree with all of what you said - I did wonder if the incident with the 757 with a certain politician aboard might have swayed them into doing things properly.

I actually assumed that they would be based at Ohakea rather than WP given the better runway and closeness to the helicopter fleet and Linton Army base (for ease of deployment in both cases) and that they probably wouldn't be part of 40 sqn.

Totally agree that they should be NZ owned for political reasons, I wouldn't mind if a RAAF bird covered for times when they were down for depot checks, heavy maintenance etc (and vice versa) but it could just be so much of a political hot potato on both sides of the Tasman.

 

[kiwi in exile]

I have mixxed feelings about NZ C17s. Obviously on the plus side this would be a huge increase in capability and give us some real strategic airlift.

But long term, post herc retirement, would it mean that we would have to operate more aircraft of more types, IE the C17s as strategic assetts, and two classes of tactical airlift (smaller C27/C295/395 and medium super hercs/A400). And is it too big for our needs, at least most of the time.

 

[ngatimozart]

I have mixxed feelings about NZ C17s. Obviously on the plus side this would be a huge increase in capability and give us some real strategic airlift.

But long term, post herc retirement, would it mean that we would have to operate more aircraft of more types, IE the C17s as strategic assetts, and two classes of tactical airlift (smaller C27/C295/395 and medium super hercs/A400). And is it too big for our needs, at least most of the time.

If the story is true and not just a rumor, then they may just go 2 x C17As and 5 x C130Js without bothering about twin engined tactical airlifters. Both aircraft are a known quantity however I have mixed feelings about the C17 in kiwi colours because of acquisition and operating costs but I do see advantages in it. It may be doable if they don't replace the B757s.

 

[ngatimozart]

:NG - Are you up for my Bill English Hypothetical Challenge?

I have given it some thought and If I were Bill English knowing what I know and support I'd be pushing for an increase in Vote: NZDF and NZDF CapEx. However I would not in any circumstances sacrifice a third frigate for half an ACF of less because I see no gain or reason in having two half capabilities unable to fully function. At the present point in time a frigate is more important in that it would give the Naval Surface Force a basic capacity for naval combat which is the prime reason for any navy - see Till, 2004. However a maritime strike force based around three frigates sans SSM, 8 helos and 6 Orions is not overly viable hence a fixed wing strike force should be included in the NZDF order of battle. It is somewhat cheaper to lose one F16 or similar than a P3/P8. However unless there is a major U turn by the NZG around funding, an ACF in kiwi colours is not going to happen in the near to medium future or even in the long term future. I just started this conversation to see if people thought anything may have changed or what they thought was theoretically viable.

 

[Reaver]

C-17s??? hmmm not sure on this arrangement, too many factors, C+C, operating budgets, majority task overkill etc. Whilst they would be a great asset they would almost definitely cut any idea of our own A400 at all or even any other transporter in any decent numbers for that matter, would they be worth it overall?

I wonder what the comments would have been like if this forum existed back in the 1960's?

C-130s pahhhhh what do we need those big expensive complex 4 engined things for? When are we ever going to depoly to the otherside of the world and even if we did it would bankrupt us, there is nothing wrong with our Bristol Freighters, they are perfect for the way the RNZAF operates. And don't even get me started on P-3s, A-4s or the UH-1. We didn't fly those in the war!!!!

What are the chances that next ice season the only C-17s operating on the ramp at Harewood have a RNZAF roundel and a 41 SQN badge on the side.

Noooooooooooooooooooooo buy more Fast Attack Jet fighters, that is the future we want, stuff that boring truckie stuff

 

[ngatimozart]

I wonder what the comments would have been like if this forum existed back in the 1960's?

C-130s pahhhhh what do we need those big expensive complex 4 engined things for? When are we ever going to depoly to the otherside of the world and even if we did it would bankrupt us, there is nothing wrong with our Bristol Freighters, they are perfect for the way the RNZAF operates. And don't even get me started on P-3s, A-4s or the UH-1. We didn't fly those in the war!!!!

What are the chances that next ice season the only C-17s operating on the ramp at Harewood have a RNZAF roundel and a 41 SQN badge on the side.

Noooooooooooooooooooooo buy more Fast Attack Jet fighters, that is the future we want, stuff that boring truckie stuff

We had the DC6s and Hastings back then which we used for personnel changes in Singapore both Army and RNZAF. No they'll have the 40 Sqn Compass on the tail if we get them and I think that's a big if at the moment but don't quote me - stranger things have happened.

 

[Gracie1234]

I have to wonder if the C17 is a short term solution because the C130s are not at the required availability rate. We might have a lease arrangment with Australia until we get our A400 and C295 types operatonal.
In terms of ACF, if this was a senario would we not be going for unmanned options, once they are matured in about 10 years time. They would be able to perform all the roles a manned ACF force would be envisaged to perform in RNZAF service but be more suitable for ISR due to increased endurance. Hence more utility from a NZ perspective. I do not beleive they would be cheaper at the high end.

 

[ngatimozart]

I have to wonder if the C17 is a short term solution because the C130s are not at the required availability rate. We might have a lease arrangment with Australia until we get our A400 and C295 types operatonal.
In terms of ACF, if this was a senario would we not be going for unmanned options, once they are matured in about 10 years time. They would be able to perform all the roles a manned ACF force would be envisaged to perform in RNZAF service but be more suitable for ISR due to increased endurance. Hence more utility from a NZ perspective. I do not beleive they would be cheaper at the high end.

Well gracie the A400 and the 295 were never cast in stone and only us suggesting them as viable options. We've always thought the C17 as being to expensive to acquire and operate in NZDF terms. However if that story has any semblance of validity, then the NZG may not be thinking so and it would find uses for them such as the US NSF logistics lift contract to McMurdo as an example. Another would be working in with the ADF covering each other as aircraft go into maintenance. On present numbers that would give 10 C17s in the South Pacific. However in reality, at present it is all very much hear say and what ifs although would be a nice acquisition.

 

[Volkodav]

We had the DC6s and Hastings back then which we used for personnel changes in Singapore both Army and RNZAF. No they'll have the 40 Sqn Compass on the tail if we get them and I think that's a big if at the moment but don't quote me - stranger things have happened.

Well I was stunned at both the C-17 and the LHD acquisitions in Australia, they were both so far in excess of anything I could have imagined. To date the C-17 has proven to be so versatile and capable it has been expanded while the traditional C-130 capability has been reduced, it has proven great value for money delivering far more capability for the outlay than could possibly be obtained through other alternatives i.e. A-400, plus a tactical lifter and / or C-130 and leased Antinovs for outsize loads, as well as leased commercial assets or loaned allied capacity.

C-17 is a big hit up front and its not cheap to operate, but when you look at the capability you are gaining and the other capabilities it can replace it is worth it. A handful of C-17s is far more capable than a full squadron of C-130s and so versatile that you could actually downsize the rest of your transport fleet and still have a net increase in capability. You could retire your Hercs and acquire a short squadron of tactical lifters as well as a couple of commercial type business jets and be miles ahead of where you are now. Not cheaper but getting much better value for your money.

 

[ngatimozart]

Australian Defence: Latest defence industry news, events and special reports.

Yes we would if we chose to buy the kits and we could configure the C130s to do the same with drogues form wing hard points.

 

[MrConservative]

I wonder what the comments would have been like if this forum existed back in the 1960's?

C-130s pahhhhh what do we need those big expensive complex 4 engined things for? When are we ever going to depoly to the otherside of the world and even if we did it would bankrupt us, there is nothing wrong with our Bristol Freighters, they are perfect for the way the RNZAF operates. And don't even get me started on P-3s, A-4s or the UH-1. We didn't fly those in the war!!!!

What are the chances that next ice season the only C-17s operating on the ramp at Harewood have a RNZAF roundel and a 41 SQN badge on the side.

Noooooooooooooooooooooo buy more Fast Attack Jet fighters, that is the future we want, stuff that boring truckie stuff

Speaking of the 1960s Reaver. I for many years knew the the RNZAF Engineering Officer posted to Lockheed stateside in the 1960s to introduce the C-130H and P-3B. He passed away a few years ago but about 10 years ago when we were talking about the 40th BDay of the C-130s he said "Y'know the CAS at the time actually wanted the Starlifter to replace the Hastings and the C-130 to replace the Bristols." Evidently the then CAS worked out that if he won the argument over Starlifters it would kiss goodbye to the first choice F-4 replacing the Canberras.

 

[swerve]

Does anyone know how many whitetail C-17s remain available? Recent rumours of a couple of additional ME orders along with Australia's new order must be must have the remaining number below 10. Also, India may want to increase their number. Canada should get 1-2 more as well but this likely isn't on. If NZ wants this option it will have to act soon.

IIRC the total number of whitetails started at 10. It was going to be 13, but LM cancelled the last three just before long lead items were bought, because of lack of orders for the 10 already building.

So, all new sales (including to Australia) have to add up to no more than 10.

 

[KiwiRob]

EDIT The B757 cannot do a return trip to Mac Town without refueling, They will be testing an Air NZ 767 to do this - But of course the C-17 can fly CHC - MacTown and back. That is in its favour right off the bat!

A C-17 shouldn't be able to do a return trip without refuelling if the 757 can't, our 757-200's have a greater range than a C-17ER.

It's interesting I can find a lot of article's about trailing the 767 to McMurdo but no articles about the flight itself, it was supposed to have happened in 2013, does anyone know if it actually happened?