The P-8 has its own production line at Renton. The 737 Max is not a factor in this. The P-8 has only gone to full production and the order book is well open and the Renton line will be open for some time to come.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
From what I understand the P1 came first then the decision was made to turn it into a regional airliner. If it was designed as an airliner first they would not have used 4 engines.
The NZ govt could always by C2 as well, since there is some (marginal) commonality between the aircraft, this could result in reduced maintenance costs. I'm guessing this would be similar to operating Spartan and Hercules, some shared components. I also believe they share a common cockpit and type rating so the pilot pool could cover both aircraft, saving more training costs.
The Japanese sold India 15 ShinMaywa US-2 Amphibious aircraft, so they might sell it.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The article implies pending orders from Australia and Canada for some of the 8 white tails. Are the 4 jets OZ want part of this 8 or have they already been accounted for? If so, adding in 1 for Canada would leave 3.
A political party (NZ First) released a pretty ranting press release recently about the RNZAF's enquiry about C-17's and slagging off both main political parties.
It did have one thing of note in it that the main opposition party defence spokesman (Labours Phil Goff) was "praising this Defence Force enquiry"
So maybe there is support from both sides of the house for such a purchase?
It did have one thing of note in it that the main opposition party defence spokesman (Labours Phil Goff) was "praising this Defence Force enquiry"
So maybe there is support from both sides of the house for such a purchase?
The P-1 was designed as a dual role aircraft from the outset. The the C-2 has some issues that have kept it still under development years behind its proposed test milestones. I would not touch them with a barge pole and nor will the NZ Govt.
I suggest that you NZ based guys get on to Ron Mark and tell him to pull his head in. That he is trying to score political points before knowing the facts. That he is embarrassing himself. You could tell him to join DT while your at it so we can sort him out!
First sensible thing that Goff has said in years. Pleased he has also fessed up about lying about Intell matters.
Generally I cringe at the NZ media and some of the Pollys.
t68
Well-Known Member
I don't see how anyone can object to such a purchase, it a stragic lifter not which can and will support a number of tasking. Ask them if they objected to RAAF C17 bring in supplies to Japan and New Zealand because they are an offensive weapon, Christ it's not an AC130 gunship
There are 10 white tails.
KiwiRob,
Check the article in htbrst's post #2780. An undisclosed customer has just bought two C-17s, leaving 8. I presume (and hope) the undisclosed customer isn't NZ, seeing as we have only just announced that we have sent the FMS request for pricing in, and I understand replies usually take a couple of months.
I actually agree with most of Ron Mark's press release (there are some dubious bits - such as insinuating we will get 5 replacement aircraft, for $2b).
I'll play devil's advocate and argue against the C-17. As Mark says, nothing wrong with it as an aircraft, just that it is too large for our needs. We might at best be able to purchase 2 (I think 3 at $300m NZD plus is unlikely), which very much like the frigates, leads to a critical numbers problem. With one of these aircraft likely to be committed to Antarctic operations each summer, too much of the time we will be left with just one aircraft available. What happens when an upgrade is required? I think we would be better served, operationally & cost-effectively, by at least 3 aircraft of half the size of the C-17. There may even be enough money saved by going down this route to purchase a few C27/C295 for our 'home' game. I also think that the Hercs should be treated separately, and not linked to this project (as Brownlee did on the radio, calling the C-17 a Herc replacement).
The main advantage of the C-17, is that it is operated by two of our closest partners, Australia & USA, so we save in terms of logistical support & training. But neither of those two countries is particularly wanting in terms of C-17s (Australia will have 8-10, USA 223!). One (most likely) from NZ therefore isn't helping much, and doesn't suit our own requirements very well. How often do we need to transport more than 4 Herc loads at once? I think a C-17 would be uneconomic in terms of frequency of use and operating costs.
NZ doesn't own any equipment that demands an aircraft the size of C-17. We have no tanks, no Chinooks or Merlins. Everything we have could be transported by an A400M or C-2. Where is the need for a C-17?
Chis73
Check the article in htbrst's post #2780. An undisclosed customer has just bought two C-17s, leaving 8. I presume (and hope) the undisclosed customer isn't NZ, seeing as we have only just announced that we have sent the FMS request for pricing in, and I understand replies usually take a couple of months.
I actually agree with most of Ron Mark's press release (there are some dubious bits - such as insinuating we will get 5 replacement aircraft, for $2b).
I'll play devil's advocate and argue against the C-17. As Mark says, nothing wrong with it as an aircraft, just that it is too large for our needs. We might at best be able to purchase 2 (I think 3 at $300m NZD plus is unlikely), which very much like the frigates, leads to a critical numbers problem. With one of these aircraft likely to be committed to Antarctic operations each summer, too much of the time we will be left with just one aircraft available. What happens when an upgrade is required? I think we would be better served, operationally & cost-effectively, by at least 3 aircraft of half the size of the C-17. There may even be enough money saved by going down this route to purchase a few C27/C295 for our 'home' game. I also think that the Hercs should be treated separately, and not linked to this project (as Brownlee did on the radio, calling the C-17 a Herc replacement).
The main advantage of the C-17, is that it is operated by two of our closest partners, Australia & USA, so we save in terms of logistical support & training. But neither of those two countries is particularly wanting in terms of C-17s (Australia will have 8-10, USA 223!). One (most likely) from NZ therefore isn't helping much, and doesn't suit our own requirements very well. How often do we need to transport more than 4 Herc loads at once? I think a C-17 would be uneconomic in terms of frequency of use and operating costs.
NZ doesn't own any equipment that demands an aircraft the size of C-17. We have no tanks, no Chinooks or Merlins. Everything we have could be transported by an A400M or C-2. Where is the need for a C-17?
Chis73
NH90 & MHOV - Just Sayin
Reaver, A400M will carry NH90. The MHOV (MAN HX60) can be carried by the Herc (see Air Force News no. 160).
[ame=http://vimeo.com/67400951]A400M loading NH90 on Vimeo[/ame]
Agreed Chis, as beneficial as C-17 is, for us a few times a year would not warrant the costs (Aqquisition, maintainence and operation) of having them run around half empty/in NZ/training flights etc. The medium lifters have been mooted to fill a gap in our transport sector and for all reasons that have been brought up on here and now we want to go even bigger with even less available at even more cost all the while potentially cutting out the medium lifters (or some other capability) all together.
Some possible options I see would be
A. 2 C-17s, 5 legacy C130 (B757 gone) and wait out the SLEP life until we win lotto.
B. 2 C-17s, 2 C130J-30s (no medium lifters) heavy transport taken care of.
C. 2 C-17s, 4 C-27s (nil C130 size) more coverage spread.
D. 4 A400s, 5 C-295 (somewhat unproven depending on time) better numbers
All options with B757 gone, another factor/loss to take into account (remember NZ context not doomsday theory)
I still feel A400 would be our best option in terms of fleet size, capability (covers 90, LAV etc) and costs. Like NH90 by the time we have got our moneys worth out of the SLEP all the niggles should be ironed out. If only we could get a couple of C-17s, a few A400 and some medium lifters we would be top of our transport game however cost (both short and long term) dictate and say a big resounding no or adversely affects fleet numbers whichever direction you go.
Some possible options I see would be
A. 2 C-17s, 5 legacy C130 (B757 gone) and wait out the SLEP life until we win lotto.
B. 2 C-17s, 2 C130J-30s (no medium lifters) heavy transport taken care of.
C. 2 C-17s, 4 C-27s (nil C130 size) more coverage spread.
D. 4 A400s, 5 C-295 (somewhat unproven depending on time) better numbers
All options with B757 gone, another factor/loss to take into account (remember NZ context not doomsday theory)
I still feel A400 would be our best option in terms of fleet size, capability (covers 90, LAV etc) and costs. Like NH90 by the time we have got our moneys worth out of the SLEP all the niggles should be ironed out. If only we could get a couple of C-17s, a few A400 and some medium lifters we would be top of our transport game however cost (both short and long term) dictate and say a big resounding no or adversely affects fleet numbers whichever direction you go.
They have to take the rotors and rotor off and the tail rotors off, meaning you then have to spend time at the other end reassembling the whole rotor head assy and tail rotor assy then ensuring that its balanced. In a C17 you'll just have to fold the rotors and secure then prior to loading the aircraft. After disembarkation you all you have to do is unfold, lock and start up. A lot easier and a darn site quicker.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Given the price of the A400m, a much smaller maximum load and the fact it really hasn't been proven yet makes the C-17 a much safer bet and better value for money.
OK you got me with the HX-60 yes it fits but what is the range penalty on the C-130? I guess you will want to ignore the HX-58 and HX-77 versions but my point is to disagree with your comment about there being no oversized loads needed to be carried by the NZDF. LAV, HMEE no need for a C-17 right, just ask 3 SQN how they are deploying on excercise next year and if a C-17 would be useful
Last edited:
A4kscooter
Member
NZ although a small nation with limited sources militarily proportionally contributes more to UN & humanitarian missions than many much larger nations.
As an asset the C17 will benefit the NZ both militarily and for humaritarian missions and IF purchased will be a much more usual asset than the underused 757 which lacks flexibility.
As an asset the C17 will benefit the NZ both militarily and for humaritarian missions and IF purchased will be a much more usual asset than the underused 757 which lacks flexibility.
Wouldn't that customer be Australia?
Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence – Purchase of two C-17A Globemaster aircraft
One word will be driving a possible NZDF look at the C-17 "Logistics" it can carry every item in the NZDF inventory that needs to go by air if the story in ADM is correct then from MHO its fits perfectly with the current NZDF purple thinking. For this aircraft will definitely be purple.
CD