Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
shanes_world_05
Member
How much worse would tensions with Russia have to get for the access to the Antonov airlift was denied to western aligned nations? Could that be a consideration of parliament in this possible acquisition?
Only if Russia took over the Ukraine. Antonov is a Ukrainian company.
Zero Alpha
New Member
I did a piece of work that included planning for bringing some heavy equipment in to NZ from Perth using a chartered 747 freighter. To bring the aircraft to Perth from Singapore, upload the cargo and deliver it to NZ was around NZ$240,000. Need about 48 hours before wheels up to secure the charter. We ruled out Antonovs because they took a lot longer to secure. Not having any based in the region didn't help.
That was one of the biggest risk JFNZ took moving our NZLAV to Afghan in the 747 freighter, the turrets had to be removed and replaced once on the ground in Bagram no one knew if the connections would work and the turret would operate during the road move to Kiwibase, now if we did have the C-17 it would be drive on drive off bomb up and go cant remember the cost but sure it was at least a $mil +or more.
shanes_world_05
Member
Sorry my mistake, hazards of assumption.
Slight detour. And apologies to flog the horses skeleton. But heard a rumour from someone who possibly might know these things. I think its rubbish and implausible. But a gentleman of rank suggested that some part of government is looking at Super Hornets. Again think its rubbish. Defence budget in to my knowledge would have to be tripled to make it happen in line with other commitments and would be impossible to sell to the electorate.
Please reassure me that this is crap so I can banish this illogical glimmer of hope.
Regarding C-17 could three aircraft be supported with current hangar space or would this require further expense on ground facilities to house them? Or even two for that matter?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I recall Canada used An-124s to move Leo 2s to Afghanistan instead of our own C-17s. It was probably faster to move the 20 German A6 Leo 2s as they could carry at least two tanks and the An-124s were closer to Germany than our C-17s which were likely tasked with other duties anyway. (we should have 8 instead of 5). I don't believe we have used An-124s since.
Last edited:
Shane I wouldn't be too hasty in discounting the rumour. Look at it this way, we all thought that C17 in kiwi colours would be a pipe dream purely because of cost. So who knows. If a senior sir is suggesting this and it is not necessarily NZDF then anything's possible. But let's not hold our breath. As far as the NZDF budget would go, if the NZG decided that the RNZAF was to operate fast jets again, then it would have to supply the funding.
On that thought if we were to once more operate fast jets, I no longer think that strike aircraft of the Shornet / F15 / F16 level of capabilities are what we need. For what we would use combat aircraft for we really need an attack aircraft; something that can loitre around, is twin engined, couple of 25mm cannon, able to carry say 5 - 6,000kg of stores, combat radius of 800 - 1,000nm on internal tanks, two crew, carry 4 x JSM, I/O turret, prob subsonic, some ISR capability and able to data link with the limes of P8, Wedgetails, C3 facilities etc., have radar that can do maritime and overland search and targeting, open system architecture for as much as possible with everything off the shelf, both MOTS and COTS. Would have good low speed handling around the 200 - 250 knot area. Acquisition cost full aircraft flyaway cost: US$40 million or less in 2015 dollars.
What we would probably use it the most for, would be asymmetric warfare, such as campaigns against ISIS, maritime strike and our own airspace policing. If in the future there was a need for an air to sir combat capability then it could be upgraded. However I don't know if such an aircraft exists at the moment.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Textron would like to think the Scorpion fulfills the role you mention. It likely has the right price but I don't have the knowledge to comment on its capabilities. I wouldn't be surprised if there are going to be some very interesting backroom proposals on Superhornets for the export market as there are powerful players in the US that don't want to see the production line close until the F-35 is proven and there is strong domestic opposition to the USN acquiring more SH/Growlers as it will affect F-35 pricing.
We would not get a 3 tier transport fleet (not incl a B757 type anyway) due to cost, multiple types and associated logistical, training and maintainence issues. We are only replacing 7 airframes that fullfill the current combined roles albeit sometimes inefficiently due to size (both too large and small) and to increase the fleet types would actually decrease usable numbers in 1 or 2 of them to even more unviable numbers.
Due to the costs involved we will be better off to go with a 2 tier fleet to get max numbers of each to fit within budget bearing in mind overall numbers would be small anyway. Even the small lifters will cost tens of millions depending on support package therefore added to the heavies and their package will add up.
As an example of relative cost we could get a bare minimum fleet of either:
A. 2 C17s and 3 C27J (alongside 4 P8 and 2 C27J MPA)+UAV
B. 3 A400 and 4 C295 (alongside 4 P8 and 3 C295 MPA)+UAV
C. 4 C130J and 3 C27J (alongside 4 P8 and 2 C27J MPA)+UAV
I would discount option C straight away as it does not cover off a number of known deficiancies from the get go and does not move us forward enough into the future, whilst still better then current just not enough ie NZDF outsize loads.
We could mix and match heavy/medium types however we would then lose other benefits in regards to package deals, FMS, spares source etc and each would have their own perceived cost savings such as commonality with allies and market deals and also possible pitfalls as in unproven types, operating costs and less capable for all possible tasks.
To me A400 is not on par with C130 but more sits midway between a C130 and C17 in terms of capability afforded therefore comparing a C130 to a A400 is like compareing a C17 to a C5, two different beasts with similar attributes but definitive roles and operating envelopes.
I guess if so this would be again a possible initiative coming from our friends across the ditch in that maybe we take on a Sqn or so of their Shornets therefore freeing them up to take on more F35s? Could still be crystal ball gazing as be awhile before they get all their F35 squadrons operational just yet.
Ngati, sounds like a A10 type? With the USAF recently contemplating mothballing squadrons in an effort to cut costs and the recent ISIS conflict re-affirming their unique abilities perhaps a deal could be struck with our ally whereas we take on this capability. Would mean alittle more punch than training in Iraq but contributing nonetheless.
On facilities all the hercs, boeings and orions cannot fit in 40 and 5 squadrons hangers respectively at once anyway (I think only 3 each all comfy) so either way 1 or 2 would sit out in the Auckland sunshine.
Possibly the gentleman concerned is thinking in terms of the 12 RAAF SHs without Growler wiring? The thinking may be that with the RAAF becoming a long term operator of Growlers and presumably retaining some SHs for training and support roles after the F-35s are delivered, that there would be surplus aircraft NZ could pick up for a good price and also an established logistic and training system they could hook into across the Tasman, making the entire thing much more affordable and achievable.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
However, I'm pretty sure that most of the AN124s were built in parts of the USSR outside Ukraine.
More to the point, many of the current operators of commercial AN124 services are based inside Russia. This includes major operator Volga-Dnepr Airlines, who delivered NZ's NH90's from France. (You can see the markings in this video clip).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y39ag8IfYY0
It would certainly be possible to locate AN124s based outside of Russia, but the pool would be quite a bit smaller.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
I'd keep that glimmer of hope well and truly buried, as it will only lead to further disappointment down the line!
The thing is, we all knew that the air transport fleet needed renewing, the training fleet needed replacing etc. These have been signaled in White Papers and planning documents for over a decade. The only surprising thing is that the government appears likely to fund higher-end replacements than we dared hope a few years back. (Mind you, they haven't actually spent the real money yet).
Nowhere has there been any official discussion about getting back into fast jets. So I think it is highly highly highly (etc) unlikely. Perhaps the unaccustomed novelty of a ride in a C-17 if giving people a rush of blood to the head!
Just my uninformed 2 cents worth.
I would think RAAF could use the 12 non wired for training, support, and as a wild thought, 4 to replace the PC-9 FAC aircraft?
Zero Alpha
New Member
Parliamentary Question Time today - NZ First asked questions about Cycle Pam response.
Minister replied that 1) He was concerned about the state of the RNZAF airlift fleet and 2) Canterbury and Sea Sprites would be sent to provide assistance. It sounded like they've been waiting for an invitation to go for a while....
Also a statement that NH90s not suitable for operating from Canterbury
Update: Link to Media Release and Link to the Video
Minister replied that 1) He was concerned about the state of the RNZAF airlift fleet and 2) Canterbury and Sea Sprites would be sent to provide assistance. It sounded like they've been waiting for an invitation to go for a while....
Also a statement that NH90s not suitable for operating from Canterbury
Update: Link to Media Release and Link to the Video
Russia did a forceful acquisition of antonov last year - supposed to be ukrainian but is now owned by the russians and is one of the issues of contention
OK thanks for that. I was looking at the Antonov website.
I got the impression that he said not suitable for operating in the situation which I find a bit strange. They are not yet certified for operating off Canterbury from what I understand. They aren't yet FOC so maybe reason why not being deployed. They could self deploy which would possibly be quicker than waiting for Canterbury.
Zero Alpha
New Member
They aren't fitted with the heavy-duty landing gear, which means they can really only operate form a ship if the sea is calm.