Zero Alpha
New Member
Merging some warehouses and storerooms would be the next step. And closing the ones at Linton and moving them to Ohakea.....
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I disagree about the worth of going all A400M. Yes, it would give a maximum amount of strategic lift, it would also mean that all the tactical lift was done with strategic airlifters. Something a number of services have known from their use of C-130's is that often the load needed for a given location is much less than the "maximum normal" load, nevermind max possible load for a C-130. Going all A400M would mean even more of the time, the airlifter will be at much less than a full load. Given that the operating costs for such a large aircraft are likely significantly higher than those of short/medium tactical airlifters, going with an all-strategic fleet sounds more expensive than really needed.
Plus I doubt that an A400M can operate from some of the places NZ might need to fly into, either due to aircraft weight or length of runway required. I think NZ needs to at least maintain a two tier fleet of airlifters, if not actually returning to a three tier fleet.
It is worth noting that the RNZAF airlift capability of today is less, in some areas significantly less, in all areas except VIP and strategic troop/personnel lift when compared to the period between 1976 to 1998, and that there was a significant loss in strategic cargo lift after 2003.
The B727-100QC could only lift 8 vs. the 11 pallets of the B757-200, but the B727 could lift ~17,000 kg each vs. only ~10,000 kg each for the B757, and there were 3 B727's instead of the 2 B757's.
The third 727 only flew for 21 hours in RNZAF service, it was broken up at Woodburn and used for spare parts for the other 2.
NZDF-Serials Boeing 727
t68
Well-Known Member
I understand where your coming from, but to be honest C17 are a long shot getting three types is even longer C17-A400/C130-C27J/C295 due to budgetary concerns if and when push comes to shove I believe having a larger lift capacity (A440)and travelling with half loads is better than having too little if the powers to only replace on a one for one basis. Even if they gett the A400 they still need a VIP aircraft so something like BBJ will fit the bill as it would be compatible logistic wise if they replace the Orions with Posiden, because of the small fleet it's better to have more of the same aircraft which will reduce the logistical burden
Actually to be honest a dedicated VIP aircraft such as a BBJ is not really a necessary requirement because as Mr C has suggested, Air NZ could supply such an aircraft as needed. The real important requirement is the three tier platform structure if the C17s are acquired. If they aren't then it becomes a two tier structure with the A400M and the C27J / C295. However if the C17s are acquired then IMHO it will have to be a three tier structure because the capability gap between the C17 and the C27J / C295 is too large. Hence something would have to fill that gap either the A400M or the C130J or even at the very outside the KC390. But the days of the C130 are nearing their end and considering that any new acquisition will have to last 40, probably 50 years in NZDF service then NZDF does need to look to the future in that context. Hence my own belief is that the A400M would be the best fit because it can fill both the strategic and tactical roles, remembering that two C17s would only be acquired if they are acquired. Therefore there needs to be something capable of undertaking strategic lift as well as tactical lift when the C17s are otherwise engaged. Whilst I think aircraft capable of undertaking VIP / medivac / pax tasking along the lines of the B757s may be desirable, they are not a necessity in the overall air mobility scheme of things.
Last edited:
The savings gained in synergies and commonalities, logistics wise between the C130J and C27J being in NZDF service would be negated many times by the extra costs imposed on NZDF from the limitations of the cross section of the cargo hold of the C130J, plus it's obsolescence in 40 or 50 years time with it having not been manufactured for decades and its replacement well emplaced in USAF service. Next as pointed out already an A400M only fleet would also impose many extra costs upon NZDF, far more than the acquisition of the C27J / C295. Strategic lift is albeit a very important part of NZDF air mobility, but tactical lift is also an important part and you neglect one at your own peril.
t68
Well-Known Member
The battle between A400/C130J will be dictated by the C-17 purchase, you won't get the A400 on price alone if the C17 goes ahead. By all accounts LM is expecting orders for C130J out till 2020's
https://www.stateone.com.au/downloa...une_2014_Qrtrly_ADH_18_Aug_2014.pdf&a=preview
Your issues about obsolescence is a valid point but it also cuts both ways,
It's a difficult choice for the AF know that whatever it chooses will most likly be in service for 40 odd years and if they don't get it right it will have implications across the board for the NZDF
Last edited:
Zero Alpha
New Member
Cost assumptions
Interesting to read through this thread and the backwards and forwards over similar points.
It occurs to me that operating cost is constantly trotted out as a reason why X or Y platform won't be acceptable, or needs a complimentary smaller aircraft.
In reality, I don't think we've actually seen any data on how much maintenance each of the perceived options needs.
There are two types in service currently, one with 2 turbans and one with 4 turboprops. We can probably assume that all things being equal, maintenance and costs on a new aircraft will be less (design improvements, reduced fuel burn).
What we probably need to know is where the support costs currently fall. How much is engine maintenance? How much is flight control surfaces? Landing gear, electronics, window washing, etc etc.
The VfM Review published comparable costs per flight hour of the Hercs to Australian J models. Js were substantially less (but obviously a larger fleet has more efficiency up to a point).
You could assume that new aircraft will have higher depreciation and capital charge rates, based on age and value of the asset. However, the current transport fleet effectively had a half billion dollar recapitalisation, so those charges will be relatively high already.
Food for thought.
Interesting to read through this thread and the backwards and forwards over similar points.
It occurs to me that operating cost is constantly trotted out as a reason why X or Y platform won't be acceptable, or needs a complimentary smaller aircraft.
In reality, I don't think we've actually seen any data on how much maintenance each of the perceived options needs.
There are two types in service currently, one with 2 turbans and one with 4 turboprops. We can probably assume that all things being equal, maintenance and costs on a new aircraft will be less (design improvements, reduced fuel burn).
What we probably need to know is where the support costs currently fall. How much is engine maintenance? How much is flight control surfaces? Landing gear, electronics, window washing, etc etc.
The VfM Review published comparable costs per flight hour of the Hercs to Australian J models. Js were substantially less (but obviously a larger fleet has more efficiency up to a point).
You could assume that new aircraft will have higher depreciation and capital charge rates, based on age and value of the asset. However, the current transport fleet effectively had a half billion dollar recapitalisation, so those charges will be relatively high already.
Food for thought.
Assuming two or three C-17s are acquired the question I have is how often will the extra capability of a C-130J over that provided by the C-27J actually be required? Do the C-130s fly half empty, or alternatively are extra flights required to conduct a particular mission because they run out of space?
Australia cancelled an extra pair of Hercs in favour of an additional C-17 yet pushed through with the Spartan buy. I anticipate that in the long run we will regret not buying even more C-17s and will definitely acquire additional C-27Js while the Hercs will fade away. Why fork out the extra money required to support an additional type in service when you already have all the bases covered?
Australia cancelled an extra pair of Hercs in favour of an additional C-17 yet pushed through with the Spartan buy. I anticipate that in the long run we will regret not buying even more C-17s and will definitely acquire additional C-27Js while the Hercs will fade away. Why fork out the extra money required to support an additional type in service when you already have all the bases covered?
Ocean1Curse
Member
Not trying to be disrespectful. I noticed a C-17 was used to transport two fallen soldiers from Afghanistan to Wellington.
My my question is. Why use a C-17?
It's an aspect of load out that puzzles me if the argument is one of not sending a huge plane for small loads.
It may have already been in theatre
Australia looked very closely at acquiring C-141 Starlifters in the late 60s for casualty evacuation and repatriation of fallen personnel. While very versatile and capable the C-17, when available, is highly suitable for that mission and perhaps more respectful than using or chartering a commercial flight.
part of the argument for getting the C-17's was that we could save lease costs on commercials
when you go through the gate review you have to demonstrate where you are realising savings for extant capability costs. in the case of C-17's it was about no longer needing to lease commercials for milk runs and no more dependency on the fat Antonovs
t68
Well-Known Member
How often did RAAFlease the Antonov and does NZ still lease them or do they take advantage of RAAF C17 for all outsize loads?
That's correct GF It was in country, empty and they offered to bring our KIA home for that NZDF was very grateful it meant that the escorts could stay with the deceased all the way back to NZ.
t68
Well-Known Member
Any Idea how far in advance you have to book the aircraft(Antonov) also knew NZ had used RAAF C17 in the past really was just wondering how often you guys used the Russian aircraft
there was some noise at one point of NZ tagging onto RAAF C-17 buys so as to take advantage of a cost break.
The Ant costs are enormous - which is why RAAF didn't get a lot of resistance when they sought C-17's and pointed out the savings in lease costs
t68
Well-Known Member
GF do you know if we have ever still used the Russian aircraft since C17 was in service?