Agree, C17 has the capability to meet both Strategic and tactical lift. But with cost and limited number C17 would most likely only fill the Strategic lift for large, oversize or time critical long distance loads
Agree, I have said on many occasion since the conversation turned to a speculative buy of C17 (over 12 mths ago) 3x aircraft should be the minimum as sooner or later they have to go back to the US for deep maintenance. That was compelling reason RAAF were able to gain extra aircraft after number 4 to keep the same level of tasking whilst undergoing deeper level of maintenance
Agree to a degree in that C17 would take on the role of 757(except VIP) but not all roles of C130, I don’t see RNZAF using C17 in a tactical environment unless forced to do so because of cost factors and loss of capability of possible damage to the aircraft on austere airfields
Until we get a better picture of the budget from the Air Mobility Review numbers will always be speculative especially with a high-low ration, a number of post over last few day is pure speculative over narrative from member of the government over dual use between air mobility and ISR functions. Cross over of functions can be incorporated within the Air Mobility Review and funding incorporated for actual capability at a later date (C4ISR pallet) when P3 is due for replacement. As an example 12 of the original 24 Super Hornets have been wired on the production line for a possible future fit-out as EA-18Gs, something like this could be incorporated into the light battlefield lifter for ISR/MPA
Mr. C has incorporated a number of possible different combinations for the Air Mobility Review for which to be honest is quite intriguing, he certainly doesn’t suffer fools. Air Mobility Replacement group project has a lot of options to put before government and Mr. C certainty has got the debate going in a good direction
Yes I am not speculating the actual roles per se but more the size of our current transport fleet and the realistic proprtions in terms of numbers and workload that any C17 purchase would 'replace'. IMO to think we would replace 2 757s with 2 C17s and then replace the 5 C130 on top of that with 5 A400/5 C130J is alittle optimistic not to mention grossly expensive. 5 C295/C27 would be more likely after such an aqquisition and all I'm saying is if this is nesscessarily the right mix considering the numbers of actual airframes we could realistically acheive balanced with availability, servicebility, usual taskings etc?
We are replacing not expanding unless the touted smaller lifters replace the original andovers and not in lieu of current C130/B757 capability/capacity, so we are not nescessarily getting 10 aircraft to replace 7 and neither is the funding limitless so we are not just going to get the biggest baddest transport out there just because our mates have them and they can look after them or we can 'borrow' theirs from a pool, not as easily done as some think especially in a pinch. We all had/have C130 but we don't share actual airframes, we help eachother when it's mutually beneficial and effective loadwise but that's pretty much it, other forces have their own requirements to work around not just us.
While I think C17 is an amazing lifter for the number of times we would utilise its max to even mid potential and for the numbers we would get it just would not be the right option for us considering how much of the budget they would consume now and for the next 50 years. I cannot see us getting C17 and A400, one or the other but not both and better anyway to get more of one type then limited numbers of each for training, logistical and infrastructure purposes, and because numbers will be small anyway (we are struggling now with 5) I think the best compromise would be A400 as it still lifts what the current fleet is deficiant in, NZLAV and NH90, and we can get more for the same price (even if it's only 1 more frame still more flexible options wise).
1 C17 is bluntly pointless considering the costs involved and limitations support wise, 2 C17 is only slightly better and the more acceptable 3 is now out of our reach (unless the US comes to our rescue).
Now hopefully the touted lighter lifter will be considered in the reveiw of overall transport but more outside the scope of the current fleet funding wise, ie replace the lost andovers not part of the 5 C130/2 757 replacements as such otherwise numbers would be even smaller. Therefore I would like to see
For 40 sqn
* 4-5 A400 (2-3 C17)
* 2 737 combis
* 4 C295 (3 C27)
5 sqn
* 4 P8
* 3 C295 MP(3 C27 MP)
+ future UAV option
I included an alternate C17 option in brackets to highlight what I consider the minimum workable/acheivable numbers for each in terms of price (and considering current capability) and because A400/C295 should gain at least deal options from airbus and C17/C27 should be better suited to work in unison (pallets, support etc) as in euro/US options. Since there is no direct contender to the P8 for our current P3 replacement IMO then the B737 platform is my pick for commonality, training and logistics. If the A319 MPA had have been an actual viable option then along with A320 combis an all euro fleet across both squadrons could have been a possibility with surely a great deal from airbus to match.
Yes agree until the reveiw finally comes out then we are merely speculating (all still interesting though), we could be mildly disappointed or treasury could come out in a santa hat all smiles. Whilst I think we do have some valid ideas on here as these deficiancies have been known for decades now as have the available options and trends we will just have to wait to see the final path to be taken, I guess not an easy task considering the timeframes and timespan involved.
