Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Maybe this could be seen as a kick in the ass for pollies and those involved to get a move on with their replacement! before my earlier prediction comes true and they actually have a crash and casualties on their hands.
It's just a generator fault and they go u/s (unserviceable) every now an then, with this one being repaired if it's not written off due to fwt (fair, wear & tear). There is no need to be melodramatic about Kiwi Hercs falling out of the sky, because aviation crashes have many and varied causes, with the apparent age of the aircraft as only one possible contributing factor.
t68
Well-Known Member
Agree, but hopefully it might just be the kick in the pants they(gov) need to get a move on.
The NZG have released the documentation around the proposed C17 acquisition. The proposal put to Cabinet was for the last white tail and was submitted in April of this year. After due consideration:
So now we know that the C17 is off the list.
If they start thinking about the B767-2C now then they might just make a decision 2029 when the KC-46 finishes production for the USAF.
They were caught with their pants down last June regarding the C-17.
"Ultimately, Ministers decided not to pursue this option at this time." Ha! How ironic and moronic.... is there ever going to be another time?
But no - the goldfish bowl mentality that believes achieving an arbitrary budget surplus for purely political short term points scoring was a better option.
We were all set for 2 C-17's and had the green light with ADF assistance. The approach was made to the US Govt / USAF. But they were beaten to the line.
Last edited:
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Actually it might not be quite off the list!?? Regarding "Ministers decided not to pursue this option at this time". What does "at this time" actually mean, because even the very last document titled "Draft Cabinet paper C-17 Acquisition Options (18 March 2016)" was still pursuing the acquisition of the last Whitetail. Presumably then if Cabinet rejected that proposal in April (I might have missed it - was there a doc that said Cabinet rejected it outright?), if one looks at the docs it does mention the possibilities of leasing or acquiring existing C-17's (the US is mentioned on more than one occasion, although interestingly Australia is also mentioned at one stage! NZDF wouldn't have mentioned that line without there being some sort of top level discussion between the two countries, surely? It's by the by anyway now seeing it was only mentioned once).
I read the full docs earlier but am now (due to having to be in a hurry) having trouble locating the relevant parts, but I thought it was mentioned that any decisions on the USAF releasing some of its existing C-17's wouldn't be known until 2018??
Then if we go back to last week's discussions on when other DWP docs were released, which mentioned like-for-like replacements of the C-130's and Boeing 757's, in some of the docs were charts that had something new in there which didn't seem to be picked up by discussions here at the time. (And sorry I don't have time to revisit the docs at the moment to confirm what I'm about to say - hopefully someone else can or I will tomorrow), but as well as the circa 2020 C-130/757 Strategic/Tactical airlift replacements, there was a new category called something like "Heavy Airlift" project which was circa 2018 I think.
What I'm guessing that means is, and probably from lessons learnt by NZDF/MOD (and DefMin Brownlee - hats off to him) valiantly attempting to fast-track an attempt to acquire two C-17 Whitetails ahead of the Future Air Mobile project study conclusion and ahead of the planned retirement dates of the C-130/757's in the 2020's ... as revealed by the release of these latest C-17 docs ... it was probably hard work trying to convince Cabinet and importantly Treasury (ref the last C-17 doc in the list) due to the need to make variations in the current airlift fleet (in order to cut operational costs) so that funds could be diverted to acquire C-17(s) ahead of time. As per that last C-17 doc Treasury seemed unconvinced.
So the optimist in me thinks that although the C-17 acquisition has been set back for now, the inclusion of the new "heavy airlift" category around 2018 for the DCP... could possibly line up with a potential lease from existing US stocks (that's IF the USAF does actually retire some). If this is the case then like I mentioned above, kudos to NZDF/MoD and the DefMin for forcing this change and perhaps this is why the MoD website statement says "Ministers decided not to pursue this option at this time"?
If this is the case then the info released last week makes better sense, which is, and to simplify the airlift project funding case perhaps ... like-for-like C-130/757 replacements and potentially 2x additional "heavy-lift" aka C-17 acquisitions (and if the C-17 falls through, then it's onto A400M and even the Kawasaki YCX gets a mention in these latest C-17 docs).
If this happens this could be a better outcome for the NZDF because not only would they retain current airlift numbers (5+2), they may potentially acquire 2 additional heavy lift aircraft!
Now if one reads the C-17 docs in comparison, originally to fast track the C-17 Whitetail purchases come 2016 etc, the NZDF, due to having to fit in with existing budgets (and savings made from deferring the new naval capabilities), the RNZAF would either have had to give up 1x or both 757's and/or 1x C-130. A reduced airlift fleet is never a good idea (especially in this day and age of medium-high tempos) as that reduces NZ's ability to sustain operations and deal with concurrent or additional unexpected demands etc.
Well Recce. I hope your optimism prevails. That at a later date ex USAF C-17's become available. All it takes is a new President or changed political circumstances in the US to turn such hope and prayers with crossed fingers on its head. They will need to have a commitment by the end of the year that future 2nd hand C-17's are available.
Credit to Big Jerry. I gather he really felt that the NZDF needed the C-17. He is absolutely right. They need to be thinking about strategic/heavy lift requirements between 2030-2040 just as much as the next few years.
One thing they the NZG had better start getting their head around is that a HRC White House will be more hard nose than an Obama White House. She does not play golf either and only smiles and waves when the camera's are around.
Credit to Big Jerry. I gather he really felt that the NZDF needed the C-17. He is absolutely right. They need to be thinking about strategic/heavy lift requirements between 2030-2040 just as much as the next few years.
One thing they the NZG had better start getting their head around is that a HRC White House will be more hard nose than an Obama White House. She does not play golf either and only smiles and waves when the camera's are around.
Excellent analysis there - certainly hope you're right in your long term optimism! I tend to be ever the pessimist... clearly the C17 is currently the only real suitable option and regardless of the clear proof of a significant capability gap, and a clear desire by many to purchase it would seem, the 'do nothing' option has been taken!
I wouldn't be overly happy with a reduction of C130 & B757 fleets as 2 x C17 is a logical addition but given NZ's typical approach of buying more capable equipment and reducing fleet sizes this idea isn't surprising. Yeah and I get it that the $$$ is a very important consideration but the budget is supposedly allocated & it's a unique set of circumstances (particularly with respect to availability & timing).
I didn't pick-up on a specific heavy airlift project, just that the requirement may be reviewed again come 2018 midpoint. That sort of seems to me more like a 'where's the A400M at now?' check-point. Frankly the latter is probably our only hope now but I suspect come 2019 the newly arrived naval MSC will become the key focus for meeting Antartic JLP heavy lift - and hey presto, suddenly heavy airlift is deemed unnecessary.
Strategic airlift is clearly defined as a separate capability which is at least something, but I can't get over the fact that the FAMC is apparently still under developement yet they've simply decided, this far out, that a 'like for like' replacement will go ahead - the apparent trade-off for getting other enhanced capabilities (esp. naval). A sorely missed opportunity to enhance the fleet.
I guess it's not impossible that we could see a 'like for like' replacement include a slight increase in fleet size to allow for the lessons of the last 50 years with our heavy reliance on a small C130 fleet. Ideally 5 x C130H replaced by 6-7 C130J... but then what indication have Govt ever given they wouldn't take their normal approach of prising open the purse just enough for loose change to drop out!?!
Frankly reading those MinDef docs does my head in after a while - countless repitition & a degree of waffle but I might need to have a re-read to see if I can pick-up on what you've reckoned.
I disagree with your assessment regarding C17s. There are too many unknown variables dependant upon any possible acquisition now of any C17s, be they lease or whatever. There has been no indication whatsoever that the US would consider parting with the aircraft and the term that the NZG use is "Ministers decided not to pursue this option at this time", knowing full well that C17 production is already history. Come US Presidential Inauguration Day next January, it will be a different ball game and if HRC wins, she plays hard ball. She is not her husband and is definitely not the incumbent. If DJT wins then all bets are off because who knows what way US defence and foreign policy will go. Hence I believe that given the available evidence, C17s in Kiwi colours are no longer viable.
With regard to the rest of your post I do agree with the sentiment and concur that a reduced airlift fleet is not a viable option. In fact I would go on to say that it would be a bloody stupid decision, but given that they are pollies nothing surprises me when it comes to stupidity. Their handling of the whole FAMC saga so far proves that.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The US is years away from even considering a C-17 replacement and with their debt and political issues, storing C-17s makes sense and reduces the USAF's annual operating costs. More importantly strategic lift for the future will be available when the budget for new kit is minimal. I don't think the US will offer any surplus C-17s to NZ or any other airforce. NZ and Canada both often delay military procurement beyond what is reasonable. In Canada's case the C-17 acquisition was a welcome exception.
I know this is going to sound likes its from way out in left field, but assuming they're serious about getting a heavy lift capability at this point, is the C-17 the only option?
Understand its obviously the preferred choice, but would a C-5M(the new upgraded model) be out of the question. They're dumping the older models and upgrading some of them into the M variant(new engines/avionics/glass cockpit etc) with 30+ years life expected of them, larger, heavier loads than the C-17. Just not quite as short runway friendly as the C-17.
If the C-17's end up not being made available, the C-5's could be gone through, take the best frame or two available and throw them into the upgrade queue?
Preparing to be harpooned...
Understand its obviously the preferred choice, but would a C-5M(the new upgraded model) be out of the question. They're dumping the older models and upgrading some of them into the M variant(new engines/avionics/glass cockpit etc) with 30+ years life expected of them, larger, heavier loads than the C-17. Just not quite as short runway friendly as the C-17.
If the C-17's end up not being made available, the C-5's could be gone through, take the best frame or two available and throw them into the upgrade queue?
Preparing to be harpooned...
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
C-5s that are not being upgraded to C-5Ms were simply worn out to the point that made upgrading unfeasible. IIRC, NZ needs a lifter that can land in Antarctica which I don't think has been done and there are likely many destinations that lack the runway length needed for the C-5.
Yes tend to agree C5 is a non-starter.
Is anyone aware if there is any talk of eventually limiting Antartic access only to those aircraft that have the range for a 'point of no return' above the ice itself?
C-5's were a regular mode of transport down to MacTown before the C-17's from McChord took over.
The actual physical airframe was never the problem as many were deemed as having 80% of their airframe life left in them - but the A and B models were considered as very unreliable with respect to the avionics and engines - a real weakness. The A model eventually required over 40 ground hours per 1 hour flight time and therefore cost over tens of thousands an hour to operate.
Even though the refurbished C-5M has possibly dealt with the reliability issues and is in fact a lot cheaper to buy than a C-17 - I would assume it would also be exponentially more expensive to operate per hour than a C-17 let alone a B767 or A400M.
Also it is huge - the biggest hanger at OH with modification would have been able to take a C-17. A C-5M would need so much more ground support including a supersized hanger. We would need to have at least 2 due to service life issues.
Of course it could swallow up a couple of full size TCU's, 6 LAV's or 3 NH-90's and a couple of A-109's tucked in with them and fly them pretty much to any reinforced 2500m runway but it just seems more capability than we would ever fully utilise.
I doubt if it was even considered. That possibly that they would even be too embarrassed to ask about it,
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Any A models converted to Ms or was it just the Bs? Forty hours of maintenance for one hour of flight time is horrendous, almost as bad as the RCAF's fifty year old SeaKings.
My understanding, one A model was converted to an M. I think it had just recently had a rebuild due to damage. Forty man hours per flight hour for an aircraft of that vintage is not too bad. For example when we were looking for a Canberra replacement one of the reasons the A4 was selected over the F4 was that the F4 required 52 manhours per flight hour against 15 for an A4. It must be remembered that the man hours quoted would include, depot level maintenance, reconditioning of engines, instruments, systems etc, plus normal flight line maintenance, which would only be a small part of the hours tallied. For an aircraft the size of a C5 forty hours is not too bad. Other issues with the C5 would be its runway loading requirements and length needed which would be far in excess of a C17. My understanding in regard to the remaining life left in the C5s was that the fleet as a whole had 80% life left and even the A's had well in excess of 50%.
A possibility could be to tie in with the RAAF in terms of strategic airlift with us providing a couple of C5s and they do the smaller runways with the C17s.
Last edited by a moderator:
the running costs for a galaxy as opposed to the c17's would be horrendous, they'd kill your sustainment budgets
While the overall costs would be higher, it must be remembered that both the range and the payload of a C5m are a lot, lot, bigger. For example the C 5 m can carry almost 50 tonne more than a C17 across from NZ to Auz. While I dont have the figures I was lead to believe that the C5m was cheaper per tonne nmi than the C17.The down side is that the C17 can be used both Tactically or strategically and therefore is far more flexible, while the C5 is definitely only strategical, due to it's runway requirements. For example a max weight C5m could not use RNZAF base Auckland.