1. I agree with the article on the age and the number of cycles / hours of the aircraft, and the other criteria about gravel strips etc. However, if the C17 can operate from the ice runway at McMurdo then the B767 most definitely can. Also the pax numbers cited are a somewhat misleading as well, because the B757 and the B767 have similar pax seating numbers. In RNZAF service the B757 is in a multi role configuration so its pax numbers can vary significantly, therefore if the B767 was chosen then the same would apply.A couple of points:
1. More grist for the mill on the strategic airlifter debate from Lloyd Burr at Newshub, post C-17 rejection. Air NZ 767-300s studied & rejected as well. Interesting for the reasons given.
Old Air NZ planes could've had new air force life | Politics | Newshub
2. Ngati, I think if you look at the defence budget figures, it looks like the Seasprites are already paid for. Note the expenditure bump in the defence equipment category of Vote Defence: $286m (2014) - $400m (2015) - $216m (2016) - $261m (2017, forecast).
So, I would postulate that the forecast $20b doesn't include the Seasprites. It probably includes infrastructure (perhaps $1.7b) and maybe increased operating expenditure though.
2. Regarding the Sprites I am talking about the current fleet of SH2G(I) not the retired feet of SH2G(NZ) which are no longer in NZ.