They'll get more than two. They aren't that stupid and do know that more than two A400Ms are required just to get the current C130 level.
The two USAF C130Hs flying around Whenuapai at the moment are Combat Talon aircraft.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
The two USAF C130Hs flying around Whenuapai at the moment are Combat Talon aircraft.
So what you are saying is that the possibility exists that the NZG may have requested a lease of x number of aircraft ex USAF for example. Which I suppose makes sense. However would that not be expensive over a long period of time?
Or maybe they finally realised that for the cost and potential numbers we would actually get that C-17 is in fact not in NZs best interest and may not serve us into the future efficiently or effectively. Govt has quoted like or better replacement(s), a wholescale cull of the main fleet is neither, regardless of individual increased capacity, as then another known factor inevitably comes into play, availability.
Aqquisition of a medium lifter will somewhat alleviate the problem but not completely solve it considering we have the problem now with the current fleet of 7 heavies.
Zero Alpha
New Member
All I'm saying is without knowing exactly what the govt to govt request was, we can't rule anything out.
Price is always negotiated. Remember F-16s at $120,000 each to lease?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
It does indeed look like time has run out for a C-17 option and the A400M will be NZ's choice. NZ had better keep the option of getting a couple of C-130J tankers as well if there is a requirement for air refueling of helicopters. The modifications required for the A400M to allow this are unlikely to happen anytime soon, if ever.
I would like to see Canada purchase the last C-17 but that is unlikely given the glacial pace of military procurement in Canada.
I would like to see Canada purchase the last C-17 but that is unlikely given the glacial pace of military procurement in Canada.
At the present point in time we don't have any requirement for helo AAR. The NH90s can self deploy to Australia with extra tanks, which unfortunately arrived from France damaged. It would be a long slow haul in a NH90 across the ditch between here and australia especially heading from here because it would be flying against the prevailing winds. 1200 - 1500 nautical miles at 160 knots makes for a long day, especially if it's against a 40 or 50 knot wind. The Tasman sea isn't the most placid piece of water and airspace in the world.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Agreed, that 1200-1500 nm would be a pretty ugly ride.
Interesting article in the herald yesterday about Airbus being in the running to purchase Safe-Air.
Airbus in running to buy Safe Air unit - Business - NZ Herald News
I wouldn't think Safe Air would be much use to Airbus unless it was a quid pro quo for buying the A400
Airbus in running to buy Safe Air unit - Business - NZ Herald News
I wouldn't think Safe Air would be much use to Airbus unless it was a quid pro quo for buying the A400
t68
Well-Known Member
Doesn't Safe -Air do more of the general day to day maintenance of the RNZAF fleet, if so it's another revenue stream for Airbus
They did the C130H(NZ) LEP after the US contractor fell over, plus they have worked on Chilean Navy P3s so they do some offshore work as well. I think that they could be a good little earner for Airbus if handled right, especially considering Air NZ is getting out of engineering from the looks of things.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I would have thought that with the RNZAF's important air assets having a great deal of US technology (eg P-3, SH-2G, C-130 etc), wouldn't then Airbus potentially buying Safe Air not really be in the NZDF's/NZ Gov's long term interests?
But I see the article states that Airbus support's the RAAF's P-3, C-130 etc - can anyone say how that is working out?
But I see the article states that Airbus support's the RAAF's P-3, C-130 etc - can anyone say how that is working out?
t68
Well-Known Member
I thought Qantas defence service did that, which was also sold to Northrop Grumman
Northrop Grumman in Australia
Just a curiosity guy's, but why the obvious leaning towards the C-295 over say the C-27J ? is it purely price/budgetary driven ?
I would have thought with the C-17 out of the picture (don't think it was ever really there) an A400 buy was and is the most logical to replace the Hercs.
So from an Australian/NZ POV for operations, HADR in the SW Pac etc the combination of heavy lift with RAAF C-17, NZ A400 and the commonality of a C-27J Fleet will have pretty much anything covered.
The C-27 goes further, carry's more, has better cabin dimensions for bigger sized loads, and also has multi mission payloads.
Cheers
I would have thought with the C-17 out of the picture (don't think it was ever really there) an A400 buy was and is the most logical to replace the Hercs.
So from an Australian/NZ POV for operations, HADR in the SW Pac etc the combination of heavy lift with RAAF C-17, NZ A400 and the commonality of a C-27J Fleet will have pretty much anything covered.
The C-27 goes further, carry's more, has better cabin dimensions for bigger sized loads, and also has multi mission payloads.
Cheers
I think cost is the biggest factor...not only is it cheaper to start off with, but a bulk Airbus buy of a400 + c295 could also mean additional discounts. A secondary factor is that the c295m is ready to go as a lightweight MPA whereas the c27 for the USCG is apparently far from mature.
Richo99 pretty well nails it. C295 is also cheaper to operate (important for the maritime patrol role). The multi-mission payloads were also developed by Airbus / CASA themselves eg. in the Portuguese C295M (although the USCG led the HC-144A project for the CN-235). For the C-27J, it is the USCG who are developing it, not Alenia. As I understand it, USCG are still at the point of having a few operating as transport-only aircraft.
Another consideration would be potential civilian use, NZ has a few air freight & minor airline operators (currently running aircraft such as the Convair 580 & the Fokker Friendship) who could put the C295 to good use - it seems more passenger friendly than the C-27J.
Chis73
Dollars to spend makes perfect sense, pretty much figured that was the case.
Alenia are actually developing their own multi mission versions, and the Italian Air Force is also developing an Electronic Attack version which is along the lines of the EC-130H
The USCG is all on their own with what they are doing, AFAIK it is being developed for their own use and not intended for export etc, hence why Alenia are developing their own solution, couple of links below for info
Cheers
MC-27J Praetorian - Alenia Aermacchi
Airborne Electronic Attack Efforts Gain Momentum | AWIN content from Aviation Week
Then again in the long term RNZAF may very well have a overall larger euro flavour with a pendulum swing in an Airbus direction in the heavy/med air transport role. Aqquiring Safe air is a smart move by Airbus and will actually be another feather in the cap for any A400 purchase and off shoot could also pave the way for some Malaysian A400 maintainence as well.
Now if Airbus also had a viable contender for P8 and possibly B757 we could very well have a one stop shop and would become an even more attractive proposition.
As you say with C17-A400-C130 mix covering the widest range of the heavy regional air transport spectrum and being able to tailor tasks more efficiently to required loads a C27-C295 mix could do the same in the small-medium taskings range ie C27 could conduct the freight/supply tasks into cyclone damaged islands whilst C295 covered the pax in/out and aero-med evac side again covering a wider gambit of roles.
Interaoperability does not always mean having the exact same equipment it also means working effectively together to achieve common goals through combined generic SOP/TTPs etc. While having the same gear has obvious benefits in some areas having tailored equipment also has advantages especially in a task complex/changing environment.
They do, the closest alternative to the B757 is the A321LR NEO.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The A321 might be an alternative to the B757, but Airbus does not currently have any alternative to the P-8, aside from a C-295 in MPA configuration. Not exactly what I would consider a peer in terms of capability.
It is also questionable whether another civilian-based jetliner with the capabilities of a B757 would really make sense for the RNZAF. We have had the discussion here before, one really needs to ask, what missions does the B757 perform well at, why, at what cost, and are there other aircraft or methods to meet those same missions at lower cost and/or to a greater degree.