John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The Konsberg site seems to indicate that both the NSM and JSM are proceeding as planned. The NSM is a ship launched weapon. Konsberg's (Norway's) JSM is a major investment in the JSF program by Norway.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
Gracie1234
Well-Known Member
NZ Herald A400M advertisement
Has anyone else read the NZ Herald today. Airbus have a 3/4 page add for the A400M. I guess they are getting nervous about how excited everyone is on this forum about the potential of a C17 in the RNZAF. This makes me think an announcement must be close.
Has anyone else read the NZ Herald today. Airbus have a 3/4 page add for the A400M. I guess they are getting nervous about how excited everyone is on this forum about the potential of a C17 in the RNZAF. This makes me think an announcement must be close.
From a common lift and logistics sharing capability with other 5I's partners I can't see the logic in the A400M
certainly from a tender evaluation process perspective and from what I've seen in defining evaluation parameters for a number of platforms, I'd be walking away faster from the A400 than walking towards it.....
Zero Alpha
New Member
Don't be so sure. The types of risk for both options are different. They're not necessarily miles apart from an acquisition perspective. Product lifecycle is an obvious one, with the A400 being at one end, and the C-17 being at the other. There are risks at both ends of the platform maturity spectrum.
Personally I'd be accepting the risks associated with an older platform, but I'm not sure what the upside risk is of the newer design is. That may well change the balance.
Zero Alpha
New Member
THere's a tender up at the moment to replace the P-3K2 satcom gear. Looks like they didn't replace the Inmarsat system when the rest of the comms suit got replaced.
Was wondering when they were going to start their campaign, think they messed up bigtime not bringing that A400 over while it was in Australia while our pollies were still high on C17.
I was looking at it from the perspective of the weighting applied to interoperability with principle allies....
then again, no idea how NZ would apply the weighting in their own evaluation matrix....
They've been putting them in there on and off for the last few weeks, here's a link to a twitter feed with a copy of the ad from March 17th for those that haven't seen it
https://twitter.com/errolwi/status/577931487326011392
Agree with ZA, both have pros and cons for NZ just in differing areas at the moment but that's the risk with any 'new' capability I suppose, it's the degree of which is acceptable and manageble that is the billion dollar decision.
We all have C130 but other than sharing the odd general part and knowing where the toilet is is it actually that big of a deal breaker? A plus with C17 and Aus being so close is that we can share their maint plan but that is also due to it not really being viable for us due to such a small fleet, even they still have to send theirs stateside for deep maintanence however. A400 is not as prevelant in our region (yet?) and there would be that requirement for us to be somewhat more self-sufficient to a degree, again pros and cons both ways.
Some hard choices coming up shortly, not an easy pick.
Cheers ht, had'nt seen those, airbus pushing the tin while the capabilities in the spotlight and stirring the pot.
t68
Well-Known Member
Well according to Janes the NZ AIr Mobilty Reveiw won't be ready till the end of year, but that doesn't mean squat if the goverment is pushed to make a deal sooner rather than later, maybe they are banking on using the two of the four that AUS put their hand up for.
Would rather see RAAF make a Squadron (12)level commitment since this is the end of the line.And with an additional buy of C27J of another 10 airframes 6x cargo (if possabile fitted with a refueling probe) for the spec warriors & 4x MC 27J Praetorian( t refueling probe)
Would rather see RAAF make a Squadron (12)level commitment since this is the end of the line.And with an additional buy of C27J of another 10 airframes 6x cargo (if possabile fitted with a refueling probe) for the spec warriors & 4x MC 27J Praetorian( t refueling probe)
that's why I've put in the caveat that I have no idea of the weighting that NZG and RNZAF apply to allied interoperability in her combat capability scenarios.....
t68
Well-Known Member
For those who may not have seen this it's an ANO report on the C27J selection and some of the criteria that warranted the C27J over the C295.
http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/File...4/Audit Report 3/AuditReport-2013-2014_03.pdf
http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/File...4/Audit Report 3/AuditReport-2013-2014_03.pdf
Zero Alpha
New Member
There isn't a standard NZ government weighting. Normal practice is for evaluation criteria to be agreed by the business owner (or executive sponsor, depending on scope) as part of the project procurement strategy.
Lately the MoD has been using MCDA methodology at a much more sophisticated level than many (possibly most) government departments, to their credit.
Interoperability is place on a spectrum that ranges from interchangeable to incompatible. Having comparable procedures and interchangeable handling equipment is probably sufficient.
In the DMRR the wording around air transport talks about capabilities complimentary to allies. A400 is a nice fit between C-17 and Herc.
I wouldn't be surprised if the French station a pair of A400s in this part of the World.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Airbus boosts plane's profile as alternative to Hercules - Business - NZ Herald News
The Herald has now written an article about the A400 advertising.
Interesting comment from the Airbus rep. No doubt he is hoping for a drawn-out decision, as that would probably remove the C-17 option.
The Herald has now written an article about the A400 advertising.
Interesting comment from the Airbus rep. No doubt he is hoping for a drawn-out decision, as that would probably remove the C-17 option.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Perhaps the Airbus rep should have chosen his words more carefully as "It's a moment of truth" is probably the last phrase in the world this Govt wants to hear (after the phrase was used in the run up to the 2014 general election by certain people wheeling in international support to destabilise and demonise the Govt)!
A drawn out decision may suit Airbus but I'd be surprised if a drawn out decision is actually what the NZDF and NZG want. With a 2022 FOC date for the RAF's A400's (7 years from now!) I wouldn't be surprised if NZ wants a proven solution in service as soon as practically possible (i.e. 2016/17/18-ish).
With the RNZAF 757 flights to Antarctica now being canned, with the C-130H's unable to deploy the NH90's overseas quickly (and with the UH-1's being retired recently) it seems to me that the Govt must be realising the country is in a vulnerable position in terms of defence, whole-of-govt and HADR tasking support, which no doubt the recent Vanawatu tropical cyclone has highlighted in terms of providing NZDF rotary assets in a timely manner?
In terms of Airbus' advertisements, as the article suggests, that's smart thinking (will be interesting to see if Boeing undertake anything similar), however it still craws me that because of NZ's tyranny of distance issue, an A400 can carry only 1x LAV3 whereas the C-17 can carry 2-3 LAV3's depending on distance etc. For the A400 this is no different to the C-130H's only being able to rapidly deploy 1x M113 APC to hotspots like East Timor at a time. It just doesn't make efficient use of scarce RNZAF resources to be able to deploy only one heavy Army vehicle at a time many thousands of miles when needed urgently, when heavy airlift would also be required for a multitude of other tasks to support rapid Army (or HADR) deployments etc.
t68
Well-Known Member
Yep I hear what you are saying. it's like the RAAF and the Abrams MBT C17 can move one and the most logical way is via the LHD, but 6x (10 future?)C17 gives us the ability to put a troop level deployment into a land locked nation if needed same as NZ LAV 3x C17 a troop and all the stores needed
Zero Alpha
New Member
Both the Herald and the Airbus rep appear to be making the assumption that there will be a tender process. Unlike a lot of countries, there isn't any legal requirement to run a tender process in NZ. Nor is there any requirement to wait until a white paper is published.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I see Ron Mark (former soldier), current Defence spokesperson for the NZ First party, has offered up another opinion piece in the MSM. With the NZ First party poised to possibly gain an extra seat in Parliament in tomorrow's by-election (and if that happens it could make for "interesting" potential coalition/confidence and supply musical chairs scenario with the other smaller parties flexing their muscles to keep NZF out ... or potentially for NZF to reach their own C&S agreement with Govt and have some influence .... or then again not if perhaps NZF decides to remain on the Opposition cross benches etc), and Ron Mark's semi-occasional sniping against Govt defence planning, what do people make of his latest thoughts?
For the RNZAF in particular, he is suggesting leaving strategic lift taskings for the Navy only, via 1x Sealift vessel, HMNZS Canterbury (but no mention of acquiring a second vessel to be available when Canterbury is undergoing maintenance or on another deployment etc. Although good to see he favors a more capable future replacement for Canterbury).
He (thus NZ First) are against a potential C-17 acquisition (although I notice he always talks about the money as being for a one-for-one replacement of the C-130H hence to count against such an acquisition, public perception/funding wise, when more realistically presumably the NZG are considering 2-3, possibly at a stretch 4x, C-17 (or A400) airframes backed up with a few C-27/CN-295 or maybe C-130J tactical airlifters). For NZF, even the A400 appears to be seen as a "possibility" (but that's not necessarily a given).
Instead he/NZF are in favour of more tactical C-130's (new or second hand reading between the lines) or possibly the Embraer KC-390 (an unproven design).
He talks about restoring an air combat force (but no details are given, although it is policy on their 2014 election website), however I last recall when NZF was last in Coalition Govt (2005-2008 with Labour) NZF never talked about an ACF at all, let alone do anything proactive!
However I do recall when NZF were last in Coalition Govt with National (1996-1998) they were primarily responsible for killing off the then 3rd-new ANZAC Frigate acquisition by not supporting the acquisition at Cabinet level. Does anyone recall what NZF thought of the then F-16 acquisition at about the same time, which was signed-off (by National - sans NZF?), before a change-of-govt killed it off?
But back to the current situation & NZF policy, what are people's thoughts on the RNZAF (apart from being ACF capable) not having strategic airlift in an era when NZ is pretty much fully co-operating again with its traditional strategic partners, a host of strategic SE Asian partners, even NATO and since 1999/2001 has been in sustained combat operations (since the 60's Vietnam War)? Particularly also when the Army has acquired heavier armoured & protective vehicles (presumably since his old soldiering days of the Landrover and M113 etc)?
Personally I think there is a place for some form of RNZAF strategic (heavy) airlift for the environment we are in (I don't agree with NZF's view of none at all), but seeing NZF are/will be shaping the MSM/public viewpoints, perhaps it's best that we articulate the pros and cons because the MSM will lap up "controversial views" from the likes of NZF to beat against the Govt etc.
Also some of Ron Mark's views seem to be off, he criticises the NH90's for not being corrosion proof enough but as far as I can recall, when Labour ordered them they were intended to be transported via sealift to their intended destination (and flown off to support the Army on land), not operated off HMNZS Canterbury per se in a maritime environment. So are his "corrosion" claims a real or imagined issue?
Finally his claims of the Army yelling "bullets, bullets" etc, I thought that was somewhat historic (eg some 20-30 years ago when budgets were cut etc) and not reflective of the contemporary environment?
For the RNZAF in particular, he is suggesting leaving strategic lift taskings for the Navy only, via 1x Sealift vessel, HMNZS Canterbury (but no mention of acquiring a second vessel to be available when Canterbury is undergoing maintenance or on another deployment etc. Although good to see he favors a more capable future replacement for Canterbury).
He (thus NZ First) are against a potential C-17 acquisition (although I notice he always talks about the money as being for a one-for-one replacement of the C-130H hence to count against such an acquisition, public perception/funding wise, when more realistically presumably the NZG are considering 2-3, possibly at a stretch 4x, C-17 (or A400) airframes backed up with a few C-27/CN-295 or maybe C-130J tactical airlifters). For NZF, even the A400 appears to be seen as a "possibility" (but that's not necessarily a given).
Instead he/NZF are in favour of more tactical C-130's (new or second hand reading between the lines) or possibly the Embraer KC-390 (an unproven design).
He talks about restoring an air combat force (but no details are given, although it is policy on their 2014 election website), however I last recall when NZF was last in Coalition Govt (2005-2008 with Labour) NZF never talked about an ACF at all, let alone do anything proactive!
However I do recall when NZF were last in Coalition Govt with National (1996-1998) they were primarily responsible for killing off the then 3rd-new ANZAC Frigate acquisition by not supporting the acquisition at Cabinet level. Does anyone recall what NZF thought of the then F-16 acquisition at about the same time, which was signed-off (by National - sans NZF?), before a change-of-govt killed it off?
But back to the current situation & NZF policy, what are people's thoughts on the RNZAF (apart from being ACF capable) not having strategic airlift in an era when NZ is pretty much fully co-operating again with its traditional strategic partners, a host of strategic SE Asian partners, even NATO and since 1999/2001 has been in sustained combat operations (since the 60's Vietnam War)? Particularly also when the Army has acquired heavier armoured & protective vehicles (presumably since his old soldiering days of the Landrover and M113 etc)?
Personally I think there is a place for some form of RNZAF strategic (heavy) airlift for the environment we are in (I don't agree with NZF's view of none at all), but seeing NZF are/will be shaping the MSM/public viewpoints, perhaps it's best that we articulate the pros and cons because the MSM will lap up "controversial views" from the likes of NZF to beat against the Govt etc.
Also some of Ron Mark's views seem to be off, he criticises the NH90's for not being corrosion proof enough but as far as I can recall, when Labour ordered them they were intended to be transported via sealift to their intended destination (and flown off to support the Army on land), not operated off HMNZS Canterbury per se in a maritime environment. So are his "corrosion" claims a real or imagined issue?
Finally his claims of the Army yelling "bullets, bullets" etc, I thought that was somewhat historic (eg some 20-30 years ago when budgets were cut etc) and not reflective of the contemporary environment?
Ron Mark & NZ First.
This is the Ron Mark opinion piece in the Dominion. He talks about replacing the five C130s with five C130s ignoring the issues with them. IMHO he is stuck in the 1980s when he was an Army officer, when the three services were three separate services each with their own fiefdom, when joint meant a funny cigarette. I actually thought that he would be a real asset to NZDF in Parliament but he is not because of his dinosaur thinking and attitudes. He doesn't understand that defence and defence thinking has changed and that we have moved on.
NZ First in the person of its great leader, Winston, did rail against the third ANZAC frigate and I think the F16 deal, but I am not 100% sure about that. That was around the time that the great leader was removed from Cabinet by the then National govt for his failing to abide by the coalition agreement. I am writing this from memory, but he does have a history of this behaviour. So he would be against such things purely because he could and because his ego had been bruised.
The main problem with Marks piece is that the trendy lefties in the MSM will leap it as being gospel when in fact it is not, being riddled with errors. Unfortunately NZs MSM is largely populated by left wingers who have lost the art of journalistic research in ensuring that what they write and publish is factually accurate. To whit, most of the MSM in reporting HMNZS Canterbury's arrival in Vanuatu, have labelled it a frigate. Funny looking frigate.
However, having said that Mark does get stuck into Labour over their stuff up in the NH90 acquisition by their not having it capable for shipboard use at sea. He also mentions that Canterbury should be replaced by an LPD, which is good. He really let's himself down though by stating that instead of buying 5 x C17s the NZG should buy 5 x C130s and use the difference to standup an ACF. Well he clearly doesn't understand the costs of combat aircraft and their support and sustainment. And that's the trouble with Marks piece - he doesn't understand modern defence and it shows.
This is the Ron Mark opinion piece in the Dominion. He talks about replacing the five C130s with five C130s ignoring the issues with them. IMHO he is stuck in the 1980s when he was an Army officer, when the three services were three separate services each with their own fiefdom, when joint meant a funny cigarette. I actually thought that he would be a real asset to NZDF in Parliament but he is not because of his dinosaur thinking and attitudes. He doesn't understand that defence and defence thinking has changed and that we have moved on.
NZ First in the person of its great leader, Winston, did rail against the third ANZAC frigate and I think the F16 deal, but I am not 100% sure about that. That was around the time that the great leader was removed from Cabinet by the then National govt for his failing to abide by the coalition agreement. I am writing this from memory, but he does have a history of this behaviour. So he would be against such things purely because he could and because his ego had been bruised.
The main problem with Marks piece is that the trendy lefties in the MSM will leap it as being gospel when in fact it is not, being riddled with errors. Unfortunately NZs MSM is largely populated by left wingers who have lost the art of journalistic research in ensuring that what they write and publish is factually accurate. To whit, most of the MSM in reporting HMNZS Canterbury's arrival in Vanuatu, have labelled it a frigate. Funny looking frigate.
However, having said that Mark does get stuck into Labour over their stuff up in the NH90 acquisition by their not having it capable for shipboard use at sea. He also mentions that Canterbury should be replaced by an LPD, which is good. He really let's himself down though by stating that instead of buying 5 x C17s the NZG should buy 5 x C130s and use the difference to standup an ACF. Well he clearly doesn't understand the costs of combat aircraft and their support and sustainment. And that's the trouble with Marks piece - he doesn't understand modern defence and it shows.
Last edited: