Royal New Zealand Air Force

[40 deg south]

Australian Defence News | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter

The June issue of Australian magazine Asia Pacific Defence Review has three pages on the possibility of NZ buying C17s. Has some new quotes from Phil Goff and others, although no crucial new insights.

Written by NZ journalist Hank Schouten, who used to work at the the Dominion. Not sure where he is stationed now, but appears to have done an OK job on first reading.

Non-subscribers can read the current issue for free by providing an email address. I had assumed this would be used to spam me with subscription offers, but this hasn't happened to date. Well worth a read for those interested on NZ/Aust defence issues.

Australian Defence News | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter

 

[KiwiRob]

Qatar just signed a deal for 4 C-17, which I think means 3 are left homeless.

Boeing, Qatar Confirm Purchase of Four C-17s

 

[t68]

Qatar just signed a deal for 4 C-17, which I think means 3 are left homeless.

Boeing, Qatar Confirm Purchase of Four C-17s

Wonder if this will leave you guys out in the cold, when's the Air Mobilty Reveiw due for release?

Hope The PM gets his arse into gear to get the remains aircraft if NZ doesn't want them

 

[ngatimozart]

Wonder if this will leave you guys out in the cold, when's the Air Mobilty Reveiw due for release?

Hope The PM gets his arse into gear to get the remains aircraft if NZ doesn't want them

Air Mobility Review is not due out until the end of the year at the earliest. So any NZ C17 acquisition, if it happens, will have to be done without full reference to it.

 

[chis73]

Qatar just signed a deal for 4 C-17, which I think means 3 are left homeless.

Boeing, Qatar Confirm Purchase of Four C-17s

KiwiRob,

I'm pretty sure that now there is only one 'whitetail' left. There were 10 built. Since then there have been the following sales:
2 to UAE
2 to Australia
1 to Canada
4 to Qatar

So that's 9 of the 10 accounted for.

It may be possible to acquire some from USAF stocks (they recently mothballed 16 I think), but you would have to sprinkle some magic pixie dust on the US Congress to get that to happen in my opinion.

At least the Air Mobility Review just got a lot easier.

Chis73

 

[John Newman]

Qatar just signed a deal for 4 C-17, which I think means 3 are left homeless.

Boeing, Qatar Confirm Purchase of Four C-17s

If my maths is correct, I read it as there being only 'one' now still available:

4 - Qatar - (Just announced)
2 - UAE - (Reported in February this year)
2 - Australia - (Due for delivery this year)
1 - Canada - (Already delivered)

That adds up to nine (9), so if all the above is accurate, specifically the UAE order for two, then there is only one still available and I couldn't imagine that the NZ Government would go an order a single aircraft (if still available at that time).

And it would also mean that the RAAF isn't going to end up with ten (10) either, still there is the possibility (when the DWP is announced), that the last white tail could still end up with Skippy painted on the side to make a total fleet of nine.

 

[ngatimozart]

KiwiRob,

I'm pretty sure that now there is only one 'whitetail' left. There were 10 built. Since then there have been the following sales:
2 to UAE
2 to Australia
1 to Canada
4 to Qatar

So that's 9 of the 10 accounted for.

It may be possible to acquire some from USAF stocks (they recently mothballed 16 I think), but you would have to sprinkle some magic pixie dust on the US Congress to get that to happen in my opinion.

At least the Air Mobility Review just got a lot easier.

Chis73

That looks like about it and I will discount getting any from USAF holdings because they will be seen as a strategic national asset. I think that this has worked out best for us because it brings us back to a two fixed wing aircraft capability rather than the possibility of requiring three. Whilst the idea of C17s in NZ service is something nice to have, it's not a necessity. I think that in the long term the A400M is the better option because of lower acquisition and operating costs albeit we will have to buy say five. It's value for money and long term I think that the A400M will give us that more than the C17s would.

 

[t68]

That looks like about it and I will discount getting any from USAF holdings because they will be seen as a strategic national asset. I think that this has worked out best for us because it brings us back to a two fixed wing aircraft capability rather than the possibility of requiring three. Whilst the idea of C17s in NZ service is something nice to have, it's not a necessity. I think that in the long term the A400M is the better option because of lower acquisition and operating costs albeit we will have to buy say five. It's value for money and long term I think that the A400M will give us that more than the C17s would.

Agree if those numbers are correct, A400 seems the logical choice unless they are spooked by the immaturity of the A400. But time is still on Airbus side, would like to see an increase in numbers. I would imagine a split between A400 & C295 is looking better at this time especially if Airbus starters to market the multi role ability of the C295 for MPA work as well as battlefield lifter


Would like to see,
8x A400M
6x C295
4x extra NH-90
5CH-47F for JATF
And if the money can be found a couple of MRTT (with or with out AAR equipment)

 

[40 deg south]

Agree if those numbers are correct, A400 seems the logical choice unless they are spooked by the immaturity of the A400. But time is still on Airbus side, would like to see an increase in numbers. I would imagine a split between A400 & C295 is looking better at this time especially if Airbus starters to market the multi role ability of the C295 for MPA work as well as battlefield lifter

Interesting times indeed. Prospects for the C-17 certainly appear to be fading, if the numbers quoted here are correct.

One thing that concerns me is the public advertisements placed by Airbus for the A-400. That isn't the work of a company confident they have the inside running, more like someone desperate to make a sale.

Once the C-17 is out of contention, it may be harder to extract a favourable deal from Airbus given their only real opposition will be the C130J.

 

[t68]

Once the C-17 is out of contention, it may be harder to extract a favourable deal from Airbus given their only real opposition will be the C130J.

Maybe not if they do away with the smaller options (C295)they maybe able to by pass Airbus and deal with one of the nations who have to buy/build but may want to reduce there order, maybe a tactic to get Airbus to reduce the price as they will be an additional aircraft build, if you know what I mean.

 

[ngatimozart]

Agree if those numbers are correct, A400 seems the logical choice unless they are spooked by the immaturity of the A400. But time is still on Airbus side, would like to see an increase in numbers. I would imagine a split between A400 & C295 is looking better at this time especially if Airbus starters to market the multi role ability of the C295 for MPA work as well as battlefield lifter


Would like to see,
8x A400M
6x C295
4x extra NH-90
5CH-47F for JATF
And if the money can be found a couple of MRTT (with or with out AAR equipment)

Not enough money in the kitty for that at all. Try:
5 x A400M
6 x C295
4 x more NH90
3 x CH47F at an outside chance.
Whilst MRTT would be desirable they are not a necessity and can get AAR kit with the A400M for drogue AAR.

 

[t68]

Not enough money in the kitty for that at all. Try:
5 x A400M
6 x C295
4 x more NH90
3 x CH47F at an outside chance.
Whilst MRTT would be desirable they are not a necessity and can get AAR kit with the A400M for drogue AAR.

That's not bad NG, but the MRTT wasn't really for the AAR side of things more of a VIP-troop-strategic lifter AAR was just a bonus for RAAF or coalition event, as you say you can get that with A400

 

[RegR]

So the C-17 options lapsed (1 is definately a bad idea no matter how you butter it). Good, now concentrate on Airbus A400 and C295 package deal. Airbus still has a few years to rectify it's issues with A400, and no doubt is, before we will see any in NZ colours now so the hercs will just keep on trucking as per the original plan.

Now do we go direct to airbus or via one of the countries on selling to get best price/max frames/better package? They are still expensive so not sure why we keep bumping up the numbers, I think we will be doing particularly well to get one for one considering the perceived upsizing in capability anyway as well as any possible medium lifter to fullfill the long lost andover niche. We still have a few very expensive capabilty replacements to go so honestly if it has'nt already been at least whispered around officially (not just 'wanted') then I can't see any new or enhanced options happening above and beyond current sets.

 

[RegR]

So the C-17 options lapsed (1 is definately a bad idea no matter how you butter it). Good, now concentrate on Airbus A400 and C295 package deal. Airbus still has a few years to rectify it's issues with A400, and no doubt is, before we will see any in NZ colours now so the hercs will just keep on trucking as per the original plan.

Now do we go direct to airbus or via one of the countries on selling to get best price/max frames/better package? They are still expensive so not sure why we keep bumping up the numbers, I think we will be doing particularly well to get one for one considering the perceived upsizing in capability anyway alongside any possible medium lifter. We still have a few very expensive capabilty replacements to go so honestly if it has'nt already been at least whispered around officially (not just 'wanted') then I can't see it happening above and beyond current sets.

 

[Oberon]

That looks like about it and I will discount getting any from USAF holdings because they will be seen as a strategic national asset. I think that this has worked out best for us because it brings us back to a two fixed wing aircraft capability rather than the possibility of requiring three. Whilst the idea of C17s in NZ service is something nice to have, it's not a necessity. I think that in the long term the A400M is the better option because of lower acquisition and operating costs albeit we will have to buy say five. It's value for money and long term I think that the A400M will give us that more than the C17s would.

When Brownlee said a few weeks ago that the C130Hs could be extended another two years to 2022 I thought this probably meant that the C17 in NZ service was not a serious contender. The A400M is more suited to NZ requirements. It can land at many more airfields in the SW Pacific than the C-17. (The RAAF C17 sent to Vanautu recently could only land at Port Vila) .

The extra time would allow the A400 to mature. Of course, this was before the recent crash.

 

[ngatimozart]

So the C-17 options lapsed (1 is definately a bad idea no matter how you butter it). Good, now concentrate on Airbus A400 and C295 package deal. Airbus still has a few years to rectify it's issues with A400, and no doubt is, before we will see any in NZ colours now so the hercs will just keep on trucking as per the original plan.

Now do we go direct to airbus or via one of the countries on selling to get best price/max frames/better package? They are still expensive so not sure why we keep bumping up the numbers, I think we will be doing particularly well to get one for one considering the perceived upsizing in capability anyway alongside any possible medium lifter. We still have a few very expensive capabilty replacements to go so honestly if it has'nt already been at least whispered around officially (not just 'wanted') then I can't see it happening above and beyond current sets.

We'd be better to deal with Airbus D&S direct because that way we get the capabilities we require, not what some other govt has preordained. There could be warranty and servicing issues as well.

 

[John Newman]

We'd be better to deal with Airbus D&S direct because that way we get the capabilities we require, not what some other govt has preordained. There could be warranty and servicing issues as well.

Agree, and the other issue could be that Airbus could refuse to support those 'unwanted' airframes that Germany and Spain don't want if in fact they do take delivery and then try and on sell them to a third party.

The same situation happened when the USAF said it was cutting the C-27J's from service and Alenia was very quick to come out and make it clear that those unwanted USAF airframes would not be supported if procured by a third party.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Agree, and the other issue could be that Airbus could refuse to support those 'unwanted' airframes that Germany and Spain don't want if in fact they do take delivery and then try and on sell them to a third party.

The same situation happened when the USAF said it was cutting the C-27J's from service and Alenia was very quick to come out and make it clear that those unwanted USAF airframes would not be supported if procured by a third party.

Germany and Spain trying to sell off a portion of their A400's is in no way "...The same situation happened when the USAF said it was cutting the C-27J's..."

The US C-27J program was originally for ~145 aircraft, then reduced to something like 70, then further cut to 38, with finally only 21 being acquired with the cancellation of the program. A US secondary sale of their 21 a/c (plus the loss of production on 120 additional) has a significantly greater effect of Alenia's potential business opportunities, than Airbus could possibly see from Germany and Spain's plans to redirect their forecast airplanes.
In fact, the only push back I recall reading concerning Germany and Spain's plans is members of the consortium of nations financing the A400 program is how it will change the distribution of potential economic gain.

 

[Gibbo]

Interesting times indeed. Prospects for the C-17 certainly appear to be fading, if the numbers quoted here are correct.

One thing that concerns me is the public advertisements placed by Airbus for the A-400. That isn't the work of a company confident they have the inside running, more like someone desperate to make a sale.

Once the C-17 is out of contention, it may be harder to extract a favourable deal from Airbus given their only real opposition will be the C130J.

The other possible clue that RNZAF aren't / weren't in the running for C17 is the article suggesting 'sources' said talks were with Middle Eastern & Asian countries - we ain't in either!

Very disappointed C17 seems to have been dropped, but I guess A400 has the inside running now. Trouble is I dare say the Govt of the day that buys the Herc replacements will look at the A400 as a prop driven C17 in terms of capability (it's not) and say we only need 2.

Mutter, mutter, much stomping around in a huff in my house!

Anyway, talk about transports, enjoyed watching 2 foreign Hercs doing circuits following each other low & quick (daren't say 'fast' when talking about a C130) around Whenuapai today for about 90 minutes. They had a different shaped nose & outer wing pylons - USMC KC130 perhaps???

 

[Zero Alpha]

It's not looking good, but the request was a direct government to government request under the FMS scheme. That doesn't necessarily mean it was for new equipment ex-Boeing. Normally requests aren't formally made unless a favourable answer is expected.

For all anybody knows, the request could well have been for a lease or revocable loan. Neither of those would run in to congressional problems with selling off assets that some believe are necessary.