Royal New Zealand Air Force

[ngatimozart]

This is Ron Marks press release.

C17 Fantasy Not for New Zealand

Monday, 15 December 2014, 1:14 pm
Press Release: New Zealand First Party
Ron Mark
Spokesperson for Defence
15 DECEMBER 2014

C17 Fantasy Not for New Zealand

New Zealand First is stunned by news that the New Zealand Defence Force has enquired about buying the $400 million C17 Globemaster III.

“There is no way we could justify the $US2 billion price tag to replace our Hercules fleet let alone operate them,” says New Zealand First Defence Spokesperson Ron Mark.

“New Zealand First can reveal this cost based on a United States Foreign Military Sale notification from Australia for four C17’s.

“The cost is really our point because ‘budgetary limitations’ would likely land us with only two or maybe three C17’s. This means, yet again, we are trading numbers for size but two aircraft cannot be in three locations at the same time.

“Worse, if we purchased only a couple of C17’s, it is more likely these aircraft would combine with the Royal Australian Air Force in what our Prime Minister would talk up as some ‘ANZAC squadron’. This would see 40 squadron go the same way as 75 squadron.

“It is cut, cut, cut in terms of operational capability, but above all, operational flexibility.

“There’s no question the C17 is a magnificent strategic airlift aircraft but our needs are tactical not strategic.

“That’s why I couldn’t believe hearing Labour’s Phil Goff on the radio praising this Defence Force enquiry. Labour systematically disarmed our armed forces while National has not lifted a single finger to restore any lost capability.

“We wasted hundreds of millions buying too many Light Armoured Vehicles. We then bought hugely expensive NH90 helicopters and in fewer numbers than the Iroquois they replaced. Even then, we scrimped on automated folding rotors so taking the NH90’s to sea isn’t easy on that North Sea ferry design they used for the Canterbury.

“Labour also squandered $226 million extending the life of our C130’s instead of going for new or modern aircraft via United States’ Department of Defense stock.

“That would have been much cheaper and better given our youngest Hercules was delivered back in 1969. We must ensure our five old C130’s are replaced with at least five airlifters.

“New Zealand First is pledging to put the arms back into our armed forces and you’ll hear much more about this over 2015,” says Mr Mark.

ENDS

As far as I can see it hasn't been picked up by the mainstream print and TV media along with the rest of this story. As far as I can gather, the possibility of a C17 acquisition has only been broadcast on three separate radio stations and then only briefly. Each has had a different part to the story. Most, if not all, of the public discussion has been here and on that well known kiwi aviation forum. I am aware the the media check that other forum but so far not a bite

 

[KiwiRob]

Why is Ron stating 4 additional C-17's for Australia? The Aussies according to the above link have only asked for 2.

 

[ngatimozart]

Why is Ron stating 4 additional C-17's for Australia? The Aussies according to the above link have only asked for 2.

The actual DCSA approval was for four. The Aussies have confirmed two and have possible options on the second two.

 

[kiwi in exile]

apparently 2 more have been sold. Apologies if this is a re-post.
Boeing sitting on eight unsold C-17s, with more orders pending - 12/16/2014 - Flight Global

Given the sums we are talking about here, you'd think someone in the MSM would start poking around and force a pollie to say a bit more about this. But either way it's probably too soon for someone to say anything definitive beyond what Brownlee has allready said.

 

[Volkodav]

Claiming the C-17 is too big for the RNZAF is like claiming the 747 and 787 are too big for Air New Zealand. I think the claims that its too big or too expensive are a mile off the mark, really everything else is too small and not an effective use of the money available.

Just look at the geography, NZ needs long range and high speed to such an extent I would suggest they would have been better off with Starlifters instead of Hercules in the first instance. This is a golden, limited time only, opportunity for the NZDF to acquire an extremely relevant, versatile and capable asset that will be as much a tool of foreign relations as anything else. It would be an extremely effective contribution to international humanitarian disasters, or even, shock horror, coalition military deployments.

 

[ngatimozart]

apparently 2 more have been sold. Apologies if this is a re-post.
Boeing sitting on eight unsold C-17s, with more orders pending - 12/16/2014 - Flight Global

Given the sums we are talking about here, you'd think someone in the MSM would start poking around and force a pollie to say a bit more about this. But either way it's probably too soon for someone to say anything definitive beyond what Brownlee has allready said.

The mainstream media are quite slack in some aspects and probably too much like hard work to go out and do some proper investigative journalism. I saw a story on the Stuff website today by Andrea Vance claiming that the 2015 DWP is the DMRR.

Brownlee declares war on defence jargon

 

[KiwiRob]

The actual DCSA approval was for four. The Aussies have confirmed two and have possible options on the second two.

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence – Purchase of two C-17A Globemaster aircraft

Claiming the C-17 is too big for the RNZAF is like claiming the 747 and 787 are too big for Air New Zealand. I think the claims that its too big or too expensive are a mile off the mark, really everything else is too small and not an effective use of the money available.

No wanting to burst any bubbles here but the 747 has always been to big for ANZ, they purchased it because they had to purchase it, there was nothing else out there with the range of the 747, when later large twins arrived they were restricted by ETOPS, which still meant ANZ had to keep the 747's. Now they have all gone and been replaced with reduced seat count 77W's. ANZ could have ordered 748's but they didn't, it still too much airliner for ANZ.

 

[MrConservative]

Claiming the C-17 is too big for the RNZAF is like claiming the 747 and 787 are too big for Air New Zealand. I think the claims that its too big or too expensive are a mile off the mark, really everything else is too small and not an effective use of the money available.

Just look at the geography, NZ needs long range and high speed to such an extent I would suggest they would have been better off with Starlifters instead of Hercules in the first instance. This is a golden, limited time only, opportunity for the NZDF to acquire an extremely relevant, versatile and capable asset that will be as much a tool of foreign relations as anything else. It would be an extremely effective contribution to international humanitarian disasters, or even, shock horror, coalition military deployments.

Absolutely right Volk. Especially with respect to the smart power aspect of it.

Thus the following may (and it is indeed a speculative judgment on the scarcity of information thus so far and in some respects a plausible likelihood and solution)

NZ acquires two whitetails and formally joins into the C-17 global partnership. Australia exercises the option for its extra two aircraft. The positve smart power role NZ can play in the wider region and dramatically improved US relationship with the strong NZ+OZ relationship lobbying the US (who will be in a situation to pick winners and favourites) and also the US Pacific pivot all being factors.

Those 2 aircraft from the ADF option are based in NZ (solves the Amberley issue) alongside our two C-17s, and jointly or prorata funded by the NZDF (or possibly jointly owned and shared like a partnership for peace program). The basing infrastructure is something we can provide for those 2 RAAF aircraft as part of the deal/relationship. New Zealand replaces the C-130H(NZ) as their airframes hit their respective EBH with a US tactical airlifter that has operational synergy with our NZ tasking requirements as well as those of the ADF and the US, who we will no doubt be working with far closer over the next 30 odd years or more.

Cheers MrC

 

[Nick underscore]

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence – Purchase of two C-17A Globemaster aircraft

As NG already mentioned - four C-17s are being looked at by RAAF -
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/australia-c-17-globemaster-iii-aircraft-1

 

[KiwiRob]

Well they better tell that to the Australian Minister of Defense because according to his statement it's only 2, who do you believe the man signing the cheque of the guy making the offer?

 

[RegR]

Has anyone thought maybe Australia suggested the idea of the C-17 for RNZAF and the 4 includes the 2 they are actually getting with the other 2 options on offer to us? A little bit like the ANZAC frigates, we commited to 2 with options on 4 but never took it up, Aus will probably go for the other 2 if we don't take them.

Obviously we are going to need a lot of help from the RAAF to support and maintain any C-17 so this deal for us involves them in spades.

So realistically everyone on here is saying we need (want) C-17 purely to move NZLAV, NH90, MAN 6x6/8x8 and HMEE now my question is exactly how many times per year regularly do we need to move these quickly in small numbers? and then what do they do for the other 40 weeks of the year? Antarctica?

I cannot think of anywhere we needed to send multiple C130s at once to move general freight or pax and definitely not 4 (that would make for a good sight however).

I just find it a little strange that not so long ago in this very thread C-17 was discounted as an option for the herc replacement for various reasons such as cost, size, numbers etc but we have overcome those issues and it is now best option? Not sure why as nothing has changed, in fact its gotten worse, the herc SLEP has just bedded, NZ is now in deficit after reaming the NZDF to make surplus and we now have no major overseas ops on the go and is the most stagnant we have been in decades and all this while we have a few more big ticket items coming up for renewal.

Also shouldn't the same arguments reference the 2 frigates and why we need 3 min come into play or is that purely a nautical theme and not relevant in this particular case?

Now I am usually all for bigger is better however in this case more is less for the majority of the tasks and most of the time, VFM for certain aspects but then plain wastage and overkill for the rest and with only 2 available we will just have similar problems to the 757s to a degree, they are 'underused' because we cannot just make up bulk pax flights to justify flying (same with bulk cargo flights) resulting in dis-proportional PFH costs when we do use them.

 

[htbrst]

Well they better tell that to the Australian Minister of Defense because according to his statement it's only 2, who do you believe the man signing the cheque of the guy making the offer?

Janes is reporting 4 in this article from yesterday but everyone seems confused

In November Australia signed for four more aircraft, leaving just four of the white-tail C-17s available. Canada is reportedly interested in acquiring another aircraft, India has previously stated that it would like a further six (although the numbers on the line no longer remain for this to happen), and there are reports that New Zealand has expressed an interest in one or two as well. Earlier reported interest from NATO and the Partnership for Peace nations for additional aircraft is no longer there. The same is true for the United Kingdom, which had suggested procuring more aircraft but will not now do so.

No C-17 delivered to Algeria, Boeing confirms - IHS Jane's 360

 

[John Fedup]

Janes is reporting 4 in this article from yesterday but everyone seems confused



No C-17 delivered to Algeria, Boeing confirms - IHS Jane's 360

So out of the remaining 4, Canada wants 1 leaving 3 assuming Australia does not exercise the option for an additional 2. Canada would be wise to purchase 2 instead of 1 but with an election coming up, it could be a tough sell to voters. The one way it would work is a package deal for 24 advanced Superhornets/Growlers with the C-17s (2 or 3) and a reduced F-35 buy. The overall cost would not be much better or maybe even worse but this package would be more sellable to the Canadian public and might even be more useful overall to us and our allies.

 

[swerve]

Er - no.

Start with 10.
2 sold to an un-named customer = 8
Australia asks for up to 4. Not 4 plus 2 options. Nobody has suggested that Australia would buy 6.
So there are 4 to 6 free before Canada stakes a claim.

 

[Gibbo]

Has anyone thought maybe Australia suggested the idea of the C-17 for RNZAF and the 4 includes the 2 they are actually getting with the other 2 options on offer to us? A little bit like the ANZAC frigates, we commited to 2 with options on 4 but never took it up, Aus will probably go for the other 2 if we don't take them.

Obviously we are going to need a lot of help from the RAAF to support and maintain any C-17 so this deal for us involves them in spades.

So realistically everyone on here is saying we need (want) C-17 purely to move NZLAV, NH90, MAN 6x6/8x8 and HMEE now my question is exactly how many times per year regularly do we need to move these quickly in small numbers? and then what do they do for the other 40 weeks of the year? Antarctica?

I cannot think of anywhere we needed to send multiple C130s at once to move general freight or pax and definitely not 4 (that would make for a good sight however).

I just find it a little strange that not so long ago in this very thread C-17 was discounted as an option for the herc replacement for various reasons such as cost, size, numbers etc but we have overcome those issues and it is now best option? Not sure why as nothing has changed, in fact its gotten worse, the herc SLEP has just bedded, NZ is now in deficit after reaming the NZDF to make surplus and we now have no major overseas ops on the go and is the most stagnant we have been in decades and all this while we have a few more big ticket items coming up for renewal.

Also shouldn't the same arguments reference the 2 frigates and why we need 3 min come into play or is that purely a nautical theme and not relevant in this particular case?

Now I am usually all for bigger is better however in this case more is less for the majority of the tasks and most of the time, VFM for certain aspects but then plain wastage and overkill for the rest and with only 2 available we will just have similar problems to the 757s to a degree, they are 'underused' because we cannot just make up bulk pax flights to justify flying (same with bulk cargo flights) resulting in dis-proportional PFH costs when we do use them.

2 x C17 would be a real game changer in RNZAF service, especially with respect to bridging the vast distances 40 sqn covers, but I'm afraid what I call my 'common sense' voice keeps kicking in & telling me pretty much all the points you make above.

Budget deficits & funding crunches; other major platforms needing replacing; C130H SLEP bedding in; lowest operational tempo in 15 years; ability of C130H airframe size to meet much of RNZAF's transport requirements for 60 years - I'm just not quite convinced this is going to happen.

I'd love to see 2 x C17 bought but they would spend an awful amount of time being under-utilised & leave stuff-all else in the bank to allow RNZAF to get a decent number of transport aircraft to replace the C130H. I know C17 offers cavernous capacity, but how often has RNZAF actually trully required that and not been able to get help from other forces or charters. Airframe numbers is important relative to airframe capacity when you're running such a small fleet as RNZAF is and is exacerbated by the huge distances faced in NZ's case every time they deploy.

IMHO the imbalance in RNZAF's case has not been the lack of a C17 but more the lack of an Andover replacement to supplement the C130. Hey I will get just as excited as everyone else if we do get 2 x C17 but I'd get er nervous that it won't be backed up by a big enough secondary fleet.

I dare say this query by Brownlee is a result of discussions in the last 2 months with both the Aussie Minster of Defence (Oct) and the US Secretary of Defense (Nov) - I suspect both mentioned the closing window of opportunity for the C17 and how well it suits our isolated geography, plus allowed us to be seen to making a positive contribution. They are regular talks but I suspect the C17 purchase is not a certainty, although a comment about flight manuals arriving at Whenuapai, if true, is intriguing (could there be an innocent explanantion for that?).

So RegR you're probably right... but stranger things have happened...

 

[t68]

Kiwi-Rob does throw up some interesting counter arguments in relation to just when RNZAF will fully utilise these two C17. As mentioned NZ does do a fair bit for the international community in regards to airlift, strategic range is an important factor weigh heavily in C17 favour when taking into account the cargo weight normally undertaken by the current C130H fleet and the capacity for NZ to do oversize loads, the important information is that the C17 will not be an orphan in the region and can be in service relatively soon.

But I am sort of leaning to Robs thinking of economy of scale and reducing your logistic footprint A400M there are a number of countries with reduced orders Airbus is desperate for more international orders, these aircraft are force multipliers that they can not only carry equipment and troops but the feather in its cap is air-to-air refuelling (AAR) something the C17 cannot do, it gives the government more options on the types of operations it is willing to do in a coalition event.

Timing is the one area that will let the A400M down, if you ordered now don’t think you will see a Grizzly till 2019 at the earliest,

Airbus A400M Full Production List

 

[RegR]

2 x C17 would be a real game changer in RNZAF service, especially with respect to bridging the vast distances 40 sqn covers, but I'm afraid what I call my 'common sense' voice keeps kicking in & telling me pretty much all the points you make above.

Budget deficits & funding crunches; other major platforms needing replacing; C130H SLEP bedding in; lowest operational tempo in 15 years; ability of C130H airframe size to meet much of RNZAF's transport requirements for 60 years - I'm just not quite convinced this is going to happen.

I'd love to see 2 x C17 bought but they would spend an awful amount of time being under-utilised & leave stuff-all else in the bank to allow RNZAF to get a decent number of transport aircraft to replace the C130H. I know C17 offers cavernous capacity, but how often has RNZAF actually trully required that and not been able to get help from other forces or charters. Airframe numbers is important relative to airframe capacity when you're running such a small fleet as RNZAF is and is exacerbated by the huge distances faced in NZ's case every time they deploy.

IMHO the imbalance in RNZAF's case has not been the lack of a C17 but more the lack of an Andover replacement to supplement the C130. Hey I will get just as excited as everyone else if we do get 2 x C17 but I'd get er nervous that it won't be backed up by a big enough secondary fleet.

I dare say this query by Brownlee is a result of discussions in the last 2 months with both the Aussie Minster of Defence (Oct) and the US Secretary of Defense (Nov) - I suspect both mentioned the closing window of opportunity for the C17 and how well it suits our isolated geography, plus allowed us to be seen to making a positive contribution. They are regular talks but I suspect the C17 purchase is not a certainty, although a comment about flight manuals arriving at Whenuapai, if true, is intriguing (could there be an innocent explanantion for that?).

So RegR you're probably right... but stranger things have happened...

I'm with you Gibbo I would love to see our own C-17s covering the next 'Afghan' deployment, it's just that those types of ops are too few and far between and the numbers don't add up (literally). I'm not against C-17 just thinking logically against my better judgement.

Get 3 and confirm a medium lifter then I'll jump on the bandwagon however that will be a politically sensitive spend up especially now, talk about bad timing.

 

[RegR]

Kiwi-Rob does throw up some interesting counter arguments in relation to just when RNZAF will fully utilise these two C17. As mentioned NZ does do a fair bit for the international community in regards to airlift, strategic range is an important factor weigh heavily in C17 favour when taking into account the cargo weight normally undertaken by the current C130H fleet and the capacity for NZ to do oversize loads, the important information is that the C17 will not be an orphan in the region and can be in service relatively soon.

But I am sort of leaning to Robs thinking of economy of scale and reducing your logistic footprint A400M there are a number of countries with reduced orders Airbus is desperate for more international orders, these aircraft are force multipliers that they can not only carry equipment and troops but the feather in its cap is air-to-air refuelling (AAR) something the C17 cannot do, it gives the government more options on the types of operations it is willing to do in a coalition event.

Timing is the one area that will let the A400M down, if you ordered now don’t think you will see a Grizzly till 2019 at the earliest,

Airbus A400M Full Production List

Yes it does all we want but (slightly) cheaper meaning more types will be able to be aqquired (at least 4 hopefully, unsure how much Malaysia is paying?) and with some nations offloading excess then could even be a chance for some deals to be made. Agreed timings are a factor but if we stay status quo until then, as per, then should not be an issue and what has spurred our sudden need for new large AC anyway? Hercs dying? mystery op looming? pre-empting a natural disaster? or is it purely due to C-17 line closing and we don't want to miss an oppourtunity?

Obviously not as much cabin space, speed, range etc as C-17 but enough to cover off our big gear so still a vast improvement. Still big enough for those particular tasks people are referencing, compromise.

 

[Volkodav]

Has anyone thought maybe Australia suggested the idea of the C-17 for RNZAF and the 4 includes the 2 they are actually getting with the other 2 options on offer to us? A little bit like the ANZAC frigates, we commited to 2 with options on 4 but never took it up, Aus will probably go for the other 2 if we don't take them.

Obviously we are going to need a lot of help from the RAAF to support and maintain any C-17 so this deal for us involves them in spades.

So realistically everyone on here is saying we need (want) C-17 purely to move NZLAV, NH90, MAN 6x6/8x8 and HMEE now my question is exactly how many times per year regularly do we need to move these quickly in small numbers? and then what do they do for the other 40 weeks of the year? Antarctica?

I cannot think of anywhere we needed to send multiple C130s at once to move general freight or pax and definitely not 4 (that would make for a good sight however).

I just find it a little strange that not so long ago in this very thread C-17 was discounted as an option for the herc replacement for various reasons such as cost, size, numbers etc but we have overcome those issues and it is now best option? Not sure why as nothing has changed, in fact its gotten worse, the herc SLEP has just bedded, NZ is now in deficit after reaming the NZDF to make surplus and we now have no major overseas ops on the go and is the most stagnant we have been in decades and all this while we have a few more big ticket items coming up for renewal.

Also shouldn't the same arguments reference the 2 frigates and why we need 3 min come into play or is that purely a nautical theme and not relevant in this particular case?

Now I am usually all for bigger is better however in this case more is less for the majority of the tasks and most of the time, VFM for certain aspects but then plain wastage and overkill for the rest and with only 2 available we will just have similar problems to the 757s to a degree, they are 'underused' because we cannot just make up bulk pax flights to justify flying (same with bulk cargo flights) resulting in dis-proportional PFH costs when we do use them.

What's worse, having a capability that you do not need to work to death but is available for missions that none of your other assets can conduct, as well as missions you previously didn't participate in because you lacked the capability to do so, or not having the capability to do things you need to do at all?

 

[Volkodav]

I believe NZs interest in the C-17, I say NZ because this is obviously a government level interest rather than a service or even whole of defence interest only, may have come from the Australian, UK and other operators of small fleets of C-17s experience.

As I understand it the C-17 has, in every case, proven itself to be far more than just a military strategic airlifter. Initially acquired to replace the use of leased capacity on Antonovs, actually having the assets available led to them being used for missions that leased capacity would never even be considered for. It was discovered that the C-17, rather than just doing the missions the C-130 couldn't do, actually ended up efficiently replacing the C-130 in many of it's day to day missions. For example, once the full potential of the C-17 was realised, the RAAF ended up retiring the C-130H, cancelling additional C-130J and moving the existing Js to the tactical role, while increasing the size of the C-17 fleet and finally acquiring the, long delayed, tactical air lifter. The C-17 facilitated a much more capable, flexible and versatile transport / movement capability for the ADF while reducing overall aircraft numbers.

The NZ government would have been looking very closely at the overseas experience before considering such an outlay. This acquisition, if it occurs, will go through because the NZ government considers the extra capability the C-17 brings being worth the outlay. If the C-130, A-400 or a combi version of a commercial airliner was up to the job the traditionally frugal, almost anti defence in some instances, NZ parliament would obviously go for one of them over the C-17. The simple fact that NZ is considering the C-17 shows that they have been impressed by the experience of their neighbour and see the capability as, not only a good value acquisition, but also a sustainable, peerless capability going forward.