Royal New Zealand Air Force

[t68]

Nothing like lifting 50 tonnes of rock onto a fairly small runway to demonstrate what its capable of :

Not a bad idea to immediately fly the beancounters in for a look at the C-130 to see just how little they can carry in comparison.

Would have thought it was a known capabilty to show as its not like the first time we have gone there and not moved any of your equipment before

 

[ngatimozart]

Would have thought it was a known capabilty to show as its not like the first time we have gone there and not moved any of your equipment before

Well would need one to move Gerry the Minister I did see on that well known Kiwi aviation forum that he is heading overseas for a conference shortly and the inference is that the C17 would be the ideal platform to transport him.

 

[MrConservative]

Here are the Select Committee Members who would have been on Big Gerry's C-17 visit.

Mark Mitchell, National, Rodney (Chair)
Shane Reti, National, Whangarei (Deputy Chair)
David Bennett, National, Hamilton East
Phil Goff, Labour, Mt Roskill
Kennedy Graham, Green, List
Jami-Lee Ross National, Botany
David Shearer, Labour, Mt Albert
Tabuteau Fletcher, NZ First, List
Lindsay Tisch, National, Waikato
Jian Yang, National, List

Gerry seems very keen on the C-17 though careful to qualify it. Someone in defence (I would say pretty high up on both sides of the Tasman) must have give the big guy the heads up on that the aircraft was visiting Wellington and suggested this to sell Gerry further - to close the deal so to speak. I would at a guess think Mitchell, Bennett, Ross and Tisch who are the senior Nats would have been impressed. They would have an opinion shaping role within their caucas. We know Goff is not against it and Shearer would probably see the huge capability it would have in the HADR role. Again opinion shaping roles within their lot. Interesting that Dr Reti went straight into a DC role as a newby MP. It means that the PM and his inner circle rate him. Coleman has essentially replaced Ryall in that inner circle which stregthens the pro-defence side of the ledger.

 

[htbrst]

Would have thought it was a known capabilty to show as its not like the first time we have gone there and not moved any of your equipment before

NZDF maybe, but not the politicians going along for the ride.Theres nothing like seeing something in action for yourself when your shelling out that much money.

An article this morning in the NZ Herald:MPs test out military giant - the C-17 Globemaster aircraft - National - NZ Herald News

Mostly a rehash of the press release above, with some additional comment by Ron Mark and others that the C-17 "can't do tactical airlift'. Again the only comment of note was this by Phil Goff (The Labour opposition Defence spokesmen):

Labour defence spokesman Phil Goff said the C-17 deserved serious consideration as a replacement for the Hercules.

"The disadvantage New Zealand has with a small budget is that we have to make a single piece of equipment do a number of jobs," Mr Goff said.

But the Labour MP had concerns about timing because the C-17 would cease production in 2015.

This meant that if New Zealand wanted the aircraft it might need to order it quickly and bring forward capital expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Typical policitican language having a bob each way (being a good thing and bashing the current government at the same time) but I think overall this is a positive sign. I guess their a bit limited in being able to criticise too much as they ordered the C-130 upgrade and are well aware of how poorly that fared overall

 

[t68]

NZDF maybe, but not the politicians going along for the ride.Theres nothing like seeing something in action for yourself when your shelling out that much money.

An article this morning in the NZ Herald:MPs test out military giant - the C-17 Globemaster aircraft - National - NZ Herald News

Mostly a rehash of the press release above, with some additional comment by Ron Mark and others that the C-17 "can't do tactical airlift'. Again the only comment of note was this by Phil Goff (The Labour opposition Defence

Ahh good anything to sway the hands on the till.

It's not like C17 cannot land on dirt strips it's just that they can't do so in a small area.

I like the photo in that news article, take away the wing and engines they have a little bit of Thunderbird 2 about them

Edit*

It's interesting when I read the article in full(got called away) don't know if it's an omission biut the way it reads on the replacement aircraft that it's a two horse race between C17 and C130J no mention of other combinations such as A400 and A330MRTT

 

[40 deg south]

Gerry seems very keen on the C-17 though careful to qualify it. Someone in defence (I would say pretty high up on both sides of the Tasman) must have give the big guy the heads up on that the aircraft was visiting Wellington and suggested this to sell Gerry further - to close the deal so to speak.

I suspect delivering a pile of Aussie rocks is more like political cover for a straight sales trip. The building of the war memorial isn't exactly a surprise, and rocks aren't perishable. Australia could have shipped the sandstone across in two 20 ft containers for a couple of grand, and put the savings towards the P-8 purchase!

I'd read this as firm encouragement from Australia (presumably with support from Boeing) for NZ to join the C-17 club. I guess they can see us using (at a price) their simulators and training package, as well as a genuine desire to boost the amount of 'friendly' airlift in the Pacific.

I still have concerns that the high price per unit will leave us with just two aircraft, and thus more dependent than ever on offshore help when one aircraft is down for maintenance. Still, even 5 years ago the prospect of C-17 was unthinkable, so having concerns that it might not be exactly the right aircraft for is a big step forward.

The next question is how/if Airbus will respond? I understand there is a French A400M due at the Avalon airshow in March...

 

[40 deg south]

It's interesting when I read the article in full(got called away) don't know if it's an omission biut the way it reads on the replacement aircraft that it's a two horse race between C17 and C130J no mention of other combinations such as A400 and A330MRTT

Saw that too, but suspct it is simply a reflection on the poor google skills of the journalist in question. Probably only knows the names of the two aircraft (C17, C130) that were mentioned in the government presser.

 

[kiwi in exile]

An article this morning in the NZ Herald:MPs test out military giant - the C-17 Globemaster aircraft - National - NZ Herald News

Mostly a rehash of the press release above, with some additional comment by Ron Mark and others that the C-17 "can't do tactical airlift'. Again the only comment of note was this by Phil Goff (The Labour opposition Defence spokesmen):

Typical policitican language having a bob each way (being a good thing and bashing the current government at the same time) but I think overall this is a positive sign. I guess their a bit limited in being able to criticise too much as they ordered the C-130 upgrade and are well aware of how poorly that fared overall

Can't see any bashing of the current gov't in Goffs comments. In fact I think the two points he makes quoted in the article are good considerations. Making the money available to purchase C17s in the near future may have significant short/midterm effects on other areas of defence spending. However, if the powers that be decide that a c17 is the way to go I suppport it.

Lots of comments, Ron Mark etc, saying that the C17 cannot do tactical. I always thought that NZDF/NZG were looking at getting a medium tactical transport as well.

Wonder if Gerry will have a VIP seat at Avalon. He could write it off as a work trip.

 

[ngatimozart]

Saw that too, but suspct it is simply a reflection on the poor google skills of the journalist in question. Probably only knows the names of the two aircraft (C17, C130) that were mentioned in the government presser.

I tweeted him to mention the A400, that the C17 can do tactical, to state that the aircraft went to Woodbourne and to provide a link to a video of the aircraft landing at Woodbourne. One of the guys based at Woodbourne noted that it stopped in a shorter distance than the Air NZ (Eagle Air) Beech B 1900Ds did.

Addition: This is video I took at Timaru on 10/11/2013 of USAF C17 there during EX Southern Katipo 13. Missed it landing as was travelling down State Highway 1 when I saw it circle and do it's finals so did a quick detour. The runway length there is 4200 ft. At Woodbourne it is 4675 ft.

 

[chis73]

For sake of completion, TV3 News have video of the C-17 landing at Wellington (here), which gives a somewhat more useful idea of landing performance (with the aircraft carrying a 50t load). To my uncultured eye, it might have been exciting in the wet.

Hopefully, the A400M is brought over from Geelong early next month and given the same treatment. I think the contest between the C-17 & the A400M is too close to call. It would be a shame if both aircraft were not fairly evaluated. If we can get 3 strategic lift aircraft based in NZ (either A400M or C-17) we should be OK. A long-range tactical airlifter (that can perhaps also provide limited strategic lift) is also required (again 3-4, either A400M or C-130J). If we fail to get a minimum of 3 of each type then I think we will be in trouble (and even more so if some aircraft are based in Australia). Any small-medium tactical airlifter should be in the bonus category, and I think is only warranted if it can perform dual roles (ie. its primary function is to be a coastguard style MPA) - seeing that it would struggle to lift a useful load beyond the Chathams.

I think whatever points Ron Mark & Peter Greener were making in the Herald article have been mangled beyond repair. Probably something along the lines of that the C-17 alone is not suitable as the C-130 replacement, and that a genuine tactical airlifter is also required (going from what was said in Greener's article on Stuff & Mark's press release). There seem to be a number of other errors in the Herald piece (Christchurch instead of Blenheim, the word airliners used for airlines) - it gives the impression of having been written in a hurry (does the Herald have sub-editors these days?).

Chis73

 

[t68]

Well it made the news in China,
New Zealand government mulls US-made Globemaster for air force - Chinadaily.com.cn

Appears to be a near copy and paste of the earlier article

There supposed to be a capabilty report due soon, any idea when that should be released?

 

[John Fedup]

For sake of completion, TV3 News have video of the C-17 landing at Wellington (here), which gives a somewhat more useful idea of landing performance (with the aircraft carrying a 50t load). To my uncultured eye, it might have been exciting in the wet.

Hopefully, the A400M is brought over from Geelong early next month and given the same treatment. I think the contest between the C-17 & the A400M is too close to call. It would be a shame if both aircraft were not fairly evaluated. If we can get 3 strategic lift aircraft based in NZ (either A400M or C-17) we should be OK. A long-range tactical airlifter (that can perhaps also provide limited strategic lift) is also required (again 3-4, either A400M or C-130J). If we fail to get a minimum of 3 of each type then I think we will be in trouble (and even more so if some aircraft are based in Australia). Any small-medium tactical airlifter should be in the bonus category, and I think is only warranted if it can perform dual roles (ie. its primary function is to be a coastguard style MPA) - seeing that it would struggle to lift a useful load beyond the Chathams.

I think whatever points Ron Mark & Peter Greener were making in the Herald article have been mangled beyond repair. Probably something along the lines of that the C-17 alone is not suitable as the C-130 replacement, and that a genuine tactical airlifter is also required (going from what was said in Greener's article on Stuff & Mark's press release). There seem to be a number of other errors in the Herald piece (Christchurch instead of Blenheim, the word airliners used for airlines) - it gives the impression of having been written in a hurry (does the Herald have sub-editors these days?).

Chis73

The A400M is marketed by EADS as a tactical transport with strategic lift capability and Boeing does the reverse with the C-17, strategic lifter with tactical capability. The C-17, with its 75 ton maximum lift and proven performance makes it better value for money IMO. It is no secret that initial deliveries of the A400M have problems which will probably be resolved at some point and at some additional cost. Proven and ready now sounds like a better deal for NZ so some of the remaining whitetails should be ordered asap while they are still available.

 

[Reaver]

Any small-medium tactical airlifter should be in the bonus category, and I think is only warranted if it can perform dual roles (ie. its primary function is to be a coastguard style MPA) - seeing that it would struggle to lift a useful load beyond the Chathams.

Chis73

Chris I do not agrre with your comment about a small-medium tactical airlifter would struggle to lift a useful load beyond the Chathams

C295 - 8,500 Kg 1000nm - 6,000 kg 2000nm
C27J - 10,000 kg 1000nm - 6,000 kg 2500nm

As the Chathams are about 700nm from Welllington it would seem that both of the likley contenders for the small-medium tactical airlifter would offer useful loads at ranges far in excess of your Chatham requirement.

 

[RegR]

The US has opened up armed reaper sales to friendly nations (previously only UK), does this have some if any benefits in a NZ context?? Maritime? Quasi ACF? Allied contribution? Patrol etc?

10-15m a pop, financially beneficial use or waste of money?

 

[ngatimozart]

Read elsewhere that the French Air Force A400M will be visiting Wellington and Whenuapai at the beginning of March after the Avalon Airshow. Said well known Kiwi aviation forum also stated that a rumour abounds that the A400M might do a Christchurch to Pegasus Field (McMurdo Sound, Antarctica) flight whilst it is here. If the flight to Pegasus Field does happen and Airbus can show that the aircraft can operate there without a PSR (point of safe return) requirement before McMurdo, would work in the A400Ms favour. Having said that the C17 has that capability.

After Big Gerry (I like that term Mr C) and the select committee members had a flight to Woodbourne in the C17 it would be good if the process could be repeated in the A400M because then they would get a good comparison.

 

[recce.k1]

Read elsewhere that the French Air Force A400M will be visiting Wellington and Whenuapai at the beginning of March after the Avalon Airshow. Said well known Kiwi aviation forum also stated that a rumour abounds that the A400M might do a Christchurch to Pegasus Field (McMurdo Sound, Antarctica) flight whilst it is here. If the flight to Pegasus Field does happen and Airbus can show that the aircraft can operate there without a PSR (point of safe return) requirement before McMurdo, would work in the A400Ms favour. Having said that the C17 has that capability.

I wonder how practical an A400M Christchurch-McMurdo-Christchurch demo flight will actually be and will it actually prove anything (especially if the aircraft is only carrying the aircrew, perhaps a few others, no cargo but fully laden with fuel)?

I haven't heard of an A400M flying to/from Antarctica before, so presumably a demo flight would require a lot of pre-planning beforehand, then may require a prior test flight with aircrew and a few extra personnel only (eg other people with experience of flying the route/Airbus engineers etc), let alone actually carry any passengers and cargo, let alone actually land there with said pax/cargo etc. Hopefully the NZG wouldn't send some of its MP's/VIP's on the test flight until Airbus can prove the A400M can actually do it safely!

"This is probably the most dangerous peace time mission that we do"

"The pilots we choose to fly down there are the absolute best, and this really pushes them to their limits as far as their skills and decision-making."

Flying in Antarctica leaves little room for error.

I seem to recall that the RNZAF 757's had to undertake some trial flights first (and much planning), I think one year in advance before the aircraft could actually be tasked with Antarctic operations proper!

 

[Reaver]

Editorial: NZ must keep heavy airlift capability

There are indications that both the Hercules and the 757s should be replaced by an aircraft more suited to the needs of a balanced Defence Force.

Replacing ageing military equipment is often fearsomely expensive. As much has been re-emphasised by the visit to this country of a Royal Australian Air Force Boeing C-17 Globemaster. The aircraft, seen as a possible successor to the air force's five Hercules C-130s and two Boeing 757s, was test-driven by members of Parliament's foreign affairs and defence committee this week. Any enthusiasm would have been tempered by the $250 million price attached to the giant aircraft.

That tag seems to have persuaded the New Zealand First defence spokesman, Ron Mark, that this country can do without them. If it wanted to take troops long distances, it should be able to call on "the club", the Prime Minister's description of its American, Canadian and Australian allies, he said. Wielding the begging bowl would not, however, be wise. There will be times when this country's interests and priorities are different from those of its allies. Its air force should be able to carry troops on peacekeeping operations or deliver humanitarian aid when and where they are needed.

Equally, not having that capacity risks making New Zealand the butt of jokes. Already, the Hercules, three of which are 50 years old, have ventured into that territory. In 2003, for example, the dispatch of military equipment to the Solomons had to be delayed because all four of the Hercules then in New Zealand were out of action. Subsequently, some $170 million has been spent upgrading the aircraft. But if there have been fewer embarrassing breakdowns, the Hercules are an ongoing challenge for the air force's engineers.

The Boeing 757s have also had their problems. In 2013, one of them, with Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully on board, had to make an emergency landing at a fog-enclosed Antarctic airfield. Like the Hercules, the 757s do not have the range to be able to turn back to Christchurch if they pass a point of no return. The Transport Accident Investigation Commission said the incident raised questions about the suitability of the 757s for Antarctic operations.

That indicates both the Hercules and the 757s should be replaced by an aircraft more suited to the needs of New Zealand in the interests of a balanced Defence Force which has the flexibility required for its sphere of operations. A decision must be made soon. The upgrading of the Hercules was intended to give them 15 more years of life, a period that expires in 2018. The choice is between an upgraded version of the Hercules, at a cost of $90 million to $100 million each, and the Globemaster which, at more than twice the cost, can fly faster and further than the Hercules and land on shorter runways.

There are strong arguments for both aircraft. Over many years, the Hercules have proven themselves the durable workhorses of many air forces. In disaster zones, they may be more flexible. Cost is obviously also a strong point in their favour. The versatile Airbus A400M is another possibility. Either way, the Government must not abandon a heavy airlift capacity.

Not if it wants a credible Defence Force.

- NZ Herald

 

[John Fedup]

@reveaver..." The choice is between an upgraded version of the Hercules, at a cost of $90 million to $100 million each, and the Globemaster which, at more than twice the cost, can fly faster and further than the Hercules and land on shorter runways."

I don't think the shorter runway statement is correct for the C-17 but faster and further is correct and the maximum lift is a significant advantage vs the A400M or C130J.

NZ will still need an additional tactical lift capability if the C-17 is selected as the C-17 is primarily a strategic lifter.

 

[John Fedup]

I wonder how practical an A400M Christchurch-McMurdo-Christchurch demo flight will actually be and will it actually prove anything (especially if the aircraft is only carrying the aircrew, perhaps a few others, no cargo but fully laden with fuel)?

I haven't heard of an A400M flying to/from Antarctica before, so presumably a demo flight would require a lot of pre-planning beforehand, then may require a prior test flight with aircrew and a few extra personnel only (eg other people with experience of flying the route/Airbus engineers etc), let alone actually carry any passengers and cargo, let alone actually land there with said pax/cargo etc. Hopefully the NZG wouldn't send some of its MP's/VIP's on the test flight until Airbus can prove the A400M can actually do it safely!

"This is probably the most dangerous peace time mission that we do"

"The pilots we choose to fly down there are the absolute best, and this really pushes them to their limits as far as their skills and decision-making."

Flying in Antarctica leaves little room for error.

I seem to recall that the RNZAF 757's had to undertake some trial flights first (and much planning), I think one year in advance before the aircraft could actually be tasked with Antarctic operations proper!

If the Antarctic missions are important then why screw around with unproven solutions when the proven solution exists and is time sensitive, i.e. whitetails may be gone before you know it!

 

[rjtjrt]

Can the C-130J with the wing external tanks fitted, do Christchurch - McMurdo with a similar Point of Safe Return cf C-17?
I seem to recall the C-130J is now not typically fitted with the external wing tanks, but it is still able to use them.
Tempting as it is to have C-17 or A-400, the C-130J would appear to give more bang for the buck in terms of the available budget, especially with such an experienced operator of the Hercules, already set up with Hercules infrastructure and trained crews and support personnel, some of which will transfer to the C-130J seamlessly or with limited changes.