Royal New Zealand Air Force

[htbrst]

I think all the 737's have found homes, plus they have been well flogged with poretty high cycles. The 4 remaining will be gone by September this year.

The early A320-200's which ANZ used for short haul international are coming up for replacement, these would be better than shagged 733's.

Not sure about the AirNZ 737's but there were a whole lot of the Jetconnect -400s (NZ based subsidiary of Qantas) floating about for a while. 7 have recently been picked up by Airwork after going through a freight conversion http://www.aeronautical-engineers.c...rwork_7_Conversions_PR_Oct24_2014_FinalV1.pdf

Sadly it will probably mean the end of the old Carvairs still flying

Anyway, if fitted with hold fuel tanks could the A320 fly to Antartica and back without problems unlike the 737, or would it be too heavy for the runway?

 

[Volkodav]

As I see it the C-17 can literally do everything a C-130 or A400 can and a lot they could never hope to, while the C-27J or C295 can cover off everything you wouldn't want to use a C-17 for more efficiently than a Herc ever could, as well as having a smaller footprint permitting operations to and from austere strips that would challenge the larger types. When you have C-17s, types like the C-130s and A400s seem to become a nice to have while smaller, tactical lifters become a very sensible complement to the strategic lifters. If you can only afford one type for transport then it is very hard to go past the Herc, but once you have the game changing strategic capability of the C-17 you can go smaller for your complementary tactical capability.

Just a thought on the VIP capability, the BAE146 was used as a regional airliner, VIP transport, freighter and most recently as a interim tactical lifter. The type is now out of production but it's configuration does remind me of the Embraer KC-390, what would be very interesting is if Embraer were to develop a VIP interior for it. This would provide the RNZAF with all the capabilities of the C-130 as well as covering the VIP role currently filled by the 757s. A second string VIP capability could be filled by a ultra long range business jet based multi-mission aircraft acquired as a supplement to the Orions.

A possible balanced fleet I could see NZ developing could be two C-17, two KC-390, four to six C-27J or C295, replacing the 757 and C-130 and possibly several multi-mission Gulfstream, Challenger or Embraer supplementing the transport and Maritime patrol fleets. I know it might seem strange that I am suggesting the KC-390 while rejecting the C-130J and A400, but this is only because of it's potential to fill the VIP role as well, it is the same story with my suggestion of a bizjet based multi-mission aircraft. I could be wrong but my (limited) reading on the topic suggests that the tactical lifter requirement is actually seen as a much delayed replacement for the Andover and as such a supplement to the current capability rather than a replacement for any of it.

 

[Oberon]

C-17 and VIP transport

Would NZ get sufficient use from a potential C-17 purchase given its large capital cost and $ 20K per hour operating cost? I know it can transport the NH90 with ease but how many hours per annum would it be required to do so?

Also, in respect to the VI P transport requirement there may be one or two ex-RAAF Boeing BBJs available soon plus they have the range for Antartica as well.

 

[ngatimozart]

Would NZ get sufficient use from a potential C-17 purchase given its large capital cost and $ 20K per hour operating cost? I know it can transport the NH90 with ease but how many hours per annum would it be required to do so?

It's what the C17 can and would do other than just humping NH90s around. For example the B757s were acquired as strategic air lifters.

Also, in respect to the VI P transport requirement there may be one or two ex-RAAF Boeing BBJs available soon plus they have the range for Antartica as well.

Yes, they might have the range for Antarctica, but they don't have the range to do a holding orbit and return flight without refuelling. That is why the B757s are reportedly not doing the Ice flights now. Secondly a BBJ for Antarctic ops is not a sound utilisation of aircraft because its limited load capability compared to that of the B757.

 

[aussienscale]

Is there a specific breakdown of the funding and how much will go towards each capability ?

Cheers

 

[ngatimozart]

Is there a specific breakdown of the funding and how much will go towards each capability ?

Cheers

Doubt it at the moment because the study hasn't been completed. The C17 acquisition possibility has only arisen because of the closure of the production line and the White Tail availability.

 

[Zero Alpha]

I like the irony of the C-27 being selected. Back when the Andover purchase was made, the G222 was being considered as a contender for the role.

 

[Zero Alpha]

Would NZ get sufficient use from a potential C-17 purchase given its large capital cost and $ 20K per hour operating cost? I know it can transport the NH90 with ease but how many hours per annum would it be required to do so?

The 757s cost $31,000 per hour to operate.

Large aircraft will be used. As capacity to transport larger elements improves, exercise opportunities become available that weren't previously viable. A wider range of operational roles also become feasible.

 

[Volkodav]

The 757s cost $31,000 per hour to operate.

Large aircraft will be used. As capacity to transport larger elements improves, exercise opportunities become available that weren't previously viable. A wider range of operational roles also become feasible.

So assuming the $20k/h figure for the C-17 is correct, buying a pair of them would not only see a dramatic increase in capability but apparently also a reduction in operating costs of $11K/h. Looking at it that way its a bargain as well as a quantum leap in capability.

 

[KiwiRob]

The 757s cost $31,000 per hour to operate.

Are you sure that's correct, I fail to see how a twin can be more expensive to operate than a quad.

 

[Zero Alpha]

Are you sure that's correct, I fail to see how a twin can be more expensive to operate than a quad.

That's the figure quoted in the VfM review. The comparative for the Herc was $18,800/hr or $10,200 for a J model.

Most of those figures will be heavily impacted by small fleet sizes.

 

[htbrst]

Are you sure that's correct, I fail to see how a twin can be more expensive to operate than a quad.

As Zero says, the fleet size and utlilisation can skew things wildly - plus you never know quite what's missing from some figures.

Time magazine obtained some data from the USAF which they provide in an excel document here: http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/afcap-data-for-2008-2012.xlsx

Some relevant 2012 USAF service cost per flight hour:

737-700(C-40): $11,270ph
C-130J: $13,644ph
C-130H: $18,507ph
C-27J: $19,380ph
C-17: $23,279ph
757 (C-32): $42,918ph

The C-27J figures are probably skewed by just coming into service but the others will have been in service a while. When you consider the C-17 can carry much more than a C-130 and faster, you can see some operational cost advantages in the long run assuming they do not just fly about empty

 

[pkcasimir]

As Zero says, the fleet size and utlilisation can skew things wildly - plus you never know quite what's missing from some figures.

Time magazine obtained some data from the USAF which they provide in an excel document here: http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/afcap-data-for-2008-2012.xlsx

Some relevant 2012 USAF service cost per flight hour:

737-700(C-40): $11,270ph
C-130J: $13,644ph
C-130H: $18,507ph
C-27J: $19,380ph
C-17: $23,279ph
757 (C-32): $42,918ph

The C-27J figures are probably skewed by just coming into service but the others will have been in service a while. When you consider the C-17 can carry much more than a C-130 and faster, you can see some operational cost advantages in the long run assuming they do not just fly about empty

These numbers are total nonsense. They are allegedly based on figures provided to a defense critic by the USAF but are meaningless without context. And just what precisely to the cost figures include? Fuel, personnel, maintenance, original cost of the airplane?

Come on already! It only costs $4,000 an hour more to fly a C-17 as opposed to a C-27? It costs twice as much to fly a 757 as opposed to a C-17? More to fly a B-52 than a B-1B?
Sorry. I think the USAF just palmed off a bunch of nonsense on a gadfly.

 

[Volkodav]

757 is an aging platform, long out of production, used in extremely limited numbers by militaries and in this region. C-17 is a couple of generations newer, still in production, in service in large numbers and is subject to a comprehensive multi-user maintenance program, introducing significant economies of scale. The 757 is nearing the end of its life and has already been retired by many airlines in favour of more modern and economic types. These figures are believable.

 

[RegR]

It is also at the end of the day a commercial airliner built to fly regular routes consistently to gain maximum efficiency and return as airlines inevitably do. RNZAF flies them completely different to their civi cost based buisnesses but mil and civ ops are also completely different in nature and execution. The fact we only operate a small unique fleet also does not help.

Don't those figures take into account everything proportionally from salaries (of everyone involved in operation incl support staff) to fuel to maintanence to upgrades etc therefore are also somewhat dictated by the end user and their operation of?

 

[shanes_world_05]

That's the figure quoted in the VfM review. The comparative for the Herc was $18,800/hr or $10,200 for a J model.

Most of those figures will be heavily impacted by small fleet sizes.

I thought I read on here that the RNZAF Herc's were $40,000 NZD an hour. The reason for the comparison I think was a comparison made against the Seasprites which I think everyone hashed out in the end that the Seasprites were being thrashed and the harsh environment. That being several years ago.

So I think USAF fleet size would be strongly contributing to those figures.

 

[pkcasimir]

Don't those figures take into account everything proportionally from salaries (of everyone involved in operation incl support staff) to fuel to maintanence to upgrades etc therefore are also somewhat dictated by the end user and their operation of?

We don't know what they include and that's exactly the point.

 

[pkcasimir]

757 is an aging platform, long out of production, used in extremely limited numbers by militaries and in this region. C-17 is a couple of generations newer, still in production, in service in large numbers and is subject to a comprehensive multi-user maintenance program, introducing significant economies of scale. The 757 is nearing the end of its life and has already been retired by many airlines in favour of more modern and economic types. These figures are believable.

Rubbish.

Mate, please avoid the use of one word responses, there is a similar caveat around the use of one liner responses, but some largesse can kick in where context might apply - one word responses accord no flexibility

gf.

 

[Trackmaster]

There's a story today in Defense News quoting a Boeing spokesman saying there are still five C-17s available.
Buy two and plug into the enhanced support system being developed at Amberley.


Boeing: Five C-17As Still for Sale


By Nigel Pittaway 6:51 p.m. EDT April 23, 2015

MELBOURNE, Australia — Boeing said it still had five C-17A Globemaster transports for sale following confirmation that the Royal Australian Air Force would take another two.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced April 10 the purchase of the two strategic airlifters at RAAF Base Amberley, southwest of Brisbane. The two aircraft will bring the total number of C-17s in Australian ownership to eight.

Minister for Defence Kevin Andrews said that AUS $1 billion (US $777 million) would be spent on acquiring the two aircraft, including $300 million of infrastructure works at Amberley.

"Australia has worked closely with the United States Air Force to acquire the first aircraft within six months of the initial order and the second aircraft within 10 months of the delivery of the first," the minister said.

"This will mean that the ADF will gain additional operating capability within a short timeframe."

Last October, former Australian Defence Minister David Johnston forecast the acquisition of the two additional aircraft and said the Australian government was also requesting pricing and availability data from the US government for a further two.

"On 3 October 2014, the government commenced the process of purchasing two additional C-17A aircraft, and requested pricing and availability data for two further aircraft," a Defence spokesperson said.

"The [forthcoming] Force Structure Review will consider two further C-17A aircraft [a 9th and 10th C-17A]."

However a Boeing spokesman denied knowledge of any options and said that five of the 10 "white tail" aircraft it has privately funded remain for sale.

"There are no options, all five are currently available for sale," the spokesman said.

In addition to the Australia pair, Canada has purchased one aircraft and two have been sold to an undisclosed customer in the Middle East.

New Zealand is another country linked to a potential C-17 purchase, having recently launched its Future Air Mobility Capability program to replace its 50-year-old Lockheed Hercules fleet.

Email: [email protected]

 

[Volkodav]

Rubbish.

Really, what part of what I have written is not true? If you have an issue with my statement please elaborate on what the problem as single word posts are completely pointless and add nothing to the discussion, besides also being in violation of forum rules.

No problem with you disagreeing, especially if you are prepared to explain why and contribute to the discussion in doing so, very big problem if all you are doing is shutting down posts that don't fit your, so far, unsupported beliefs.