Royal New Zealand Air Force

[ngatimozart]

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.

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.

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.

 

[MrConservative]

1. However, if the C17 can operate from the ice runway at McMurdo then the B767 most definitely can.

The distribution of the limit loads among the wheels of the landing gear may have a role though when comparing a lifter like the C-17 and a commercial B767.

I wonder how serious this really was. Probably more an investigation into options than anything else. Probably many knew that it would not be suitable and went through a process to officially prove it so - so as to bury it.

 

[KiwiRob]

Malaysia is not in the Pacific. It is strictly Asia. However it is part of the wider Asia - Pacific region.

I wrote quite clearly Pacific Rim, which Malaysia is part of.

NZ has excellent relations with Malaysia, we have a Free Trade Agreement with them, we are both Commonwealth Nations, and we have military links to Malaysia through the Five Power Defence Arrangement. I would imagine if we bought A400 (which IMO we will) some kind of link up with Malaysia would happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Rim

A region comprised of countries that border the Pacific Ocean. Pacific Rim countries include Australia, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam.

 

[ngatimozart]

Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Rim

A region comprised of countries that border the Pacific Ocean. Pacific Rim countries include Australia, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Wikipedia is not an authoritative source and I have studied the South East Asian region as part of my degree in geography. My definition of the Pacific Rim is those nations bounded by the Pacific Ocean, which does not include the South China Sea or the bodies of water to the west of Indonesia or the Philippines. A more precise definition would state that it is those nations bounded by the plate boundaries of the Pacific tectonic plate, but that is more of a geological definition. Yes I know it's semantics, but these things can be important. I have a background in science so definitions of phenomena do hold importance to me and when it is a significant part of your training from day one at uni, it sticks, much like ingrained habits from days in the armed forces.

 

[Rob c]

The distribution of the limit loads among the wheels of the landing gear may have a role though when comparing a lifter like the C-17 and a commercial B767.

I'll just to add to this. It is in fact very complex when you get to aircraft of this size. It depends on the ICAO PCN rating for the runway and the configuration of the aircraft which is expressed as a number. Used together in a maths formula it will tell you at what all up weight of a particular aircraft that can be landed on a particular runway. As I don't have either of these figures in this instance I would not comment on the outcome.

 

[t68]

I'll just to add to this. It is in fact very complex when you get to aircraft of this size. It depends on the ICAO PCN rating for the runway and the configuration of the aircraft which is expressed as a number. Used together in a maths formula it will tell you at what all up weight of a particular aircraft that can be landed on a particular runway. As I don't have either of these figures in this instance I would not comment on the outcome.

Bloody hell, would have thought it was something like this X high amount of concrete and Y amount of steel within concrete should handle z amount of tonnage.

But I suppose it has something to do with length, I find I can drive a 79t road train across certain rd and bridges but friends of mine can't use the same roads with a b'doubles at 68t due to axle spacing between trailers, weird

 

[Rob c]

Bloody hell, would have thought it was something like this X high amount of concrete and Y amount of steel within concrete should handle z amount of tonnage.

But I suppose it has something to do with length, I find I can drive a 79t road train across certain rd and bridges but friends of mine can't use the same roads with a b'doubles at 68t due to axle spacing between trailers, weird

Cannot make it to simple, otherwise to many people would understand it, that could lead to redundancies in the government backroom boy's, can't have that now can we.

 

[swerve]

Bloody hell, would have thought it was something like this X high amount of concrete and Y amount of steel within concrete should handle z amount of tonnage.

But I suppose it has something to do with length, I find I can drive a 79t road train across certain rd and bridges but friends of mine can't use the same roads with a b'doubles at 68t due to axle spacing between trailers, weird

Not weird at all. It's to do with how much weight is on the bridge as a whole, or a particular spot.

Think of someone wearing stiletto heels standing on your foot. Then think of someone the same weight standing on your foot in moon boots. Which one's going to hurt, & maybe leave a hole in your foot?

Then think of a plank spanning a hole in the ground. A 100 kg person stands on it with feet spaced out, one above the hole & one where it's resting on the ground. A 75 kg person stands on it with both feet together, above the hole. Which is most likely to break the plank?

 

[STURM]

NZ has excellent relations with Malaysia

There is a bilateral army exercise, Ex-Taiha Tombak, which is held alternately in Malaysia and New Zealand. Both navies also have their own exercise called Ex-Malzeal. In the past Malaysian ships have deployed to New Zealand for the exercise. Throughout its time in Afghanistan, a Malaysian detachment [consisting mainly of a medical team and a security detail] were based at the New Zealand Provincial Reconstruction Team's base in Bamyan. Not sure if this is still the case but up to the 1990's there were New Zealand army officers based at the Malaysian army's Jungle School in Johore.

NZ, Malaysian Troops Team Up In Afghanistan
[Radionz, 21 June 2010]

Malaysia is making its first deployment to Afghanistan and has chosen to team up with New Zealand forces. Forty Malaysian medics will join about 110 New Zealand personnel in the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Bamyan province, the sector New Zealand has been responsible for since 2003.The Malaysian staff will provide a huge boost to New Zealand's four medical staff based there. They will share the camp, accommodation, canteen and logistics such as stores. Malaysia's defence attache to Wellington, Lieutenant Colonel Ahmad Faiezzelan, says New Zealanders are doing a fine job in Afghanistan.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

The distribution of the limit loads among the wheels of the landing gear may have a role though when comparing a lifter like the C-17 and a commercial B767.

I wonder how serious this really was. Probably more an investigation into options than anything else. Probably many knew that it would not be suitable and went through a process to officially prove it so - so as to bury it.

Surprised govt would show an interest in a nearly twenty yr old commercial plane that's been put through the wringer ,so to speak. It would only wind up being an expensive short term solution, as it would need modifications to its interior obviously, and probably a lep in ten yrs if its still fit to fly! Preferably id like to see new build and mil spec. Let the pollies charter one.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

Some amateur footage of an NH90 carrying an ISO to White Island. The footage is a bit shaky but the NH90 made it look like easy work https://youtu.be/dGQp22Q-eMg

Mod Addition
The container is for an emergency shelter on White Island, which is an active volcano.

 

[KiwiRob]

Surprised govt would show an interest in a nearly twenty yr old commercial plane that's been put through the wringer ,so to speak. It would only wind up being an expensive short term solution, as it would need modifications to its interior obviously, and probably a lep in ten yrs if its still fit to fly! Preferably id like to see new build and mil spec. Let the pollies charter one.

You can still buy new 767's. No need for the govt to purchase a 20 year old aircraft. Btw id you were refering to Air NZ's 767 fleet, it's down to 3, the 4th went to Icelandair a few weeks ago.

A decent replacement for the 757's would be A321LR's, its a modern fuel efficient aircraft with an established user in NZ. Contracting out maintenance to Air NZ would surely save dollars?

 

[ngatimozart]

You can still buy new 767's. No need for the govt to purchase a 20 year old aircraft. Btw id you were refering to Air NZ's 767 fleet, it's down to 3, the 4th went to Icelandair a few weeks ago.

A decent replacement for the 757's would be A321LR's, its a modern fuel efficient aircraft with an established user in NZ. Contracting out maintenance to Air NZ would surely save dollars?

Or B737-800 MAX. Would have compatibility with the P8. Speaking of contracting out maintenance, this was on GETS yesterday.

The New Zealand Defence Force intends to undertake an open competitive procurement process for intermediate and depot-level maintenance and associated support services for the Royal New Zealand Air Force.

Our preference is to establish a long-term strategic relationship with an organisation(s) capable of supporting current and future air platforms.

Industry briefings will commence in late 2016. These briefings will provide information on the proposed procurement process, the scope of services required and indicative process timeframes. Industry will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed procurement approach and timings following the briefings.

A formal notice of industry briefing days will be published on GETS. Organisations wishing to be advised when the notice is available are requested to email [email protected] with “Air MRO” as the subject.
https://www.gets.govt.nz//NZDF/ExternalTenderDetails.htm?id=17767569

 

[RegR]

You can still buy new 767's. No need for the govt to purchase a 20 year old aircraft. Btw id you were refering to Air NZ's 767 fleet, it's down to 3, the 4th went to Icelandair a few weeks ago.

A decent replacement for the 757's would be A321LR's, its a modern fuel efficient aircraft with an established user in NZ. Contracting out maintenance to Air NZ would surely save dollars?

Pretty sure the 767 was evaluated along with the 757 when we replaced the 727 and I would say the same reasons would therefore still apply in terms of selection for this particular capability at least in most part. It's the specific type not where we get them from ie 767 not air NZ 767, there are more "younger" examples around the world on the commercial market (as well as new builds).

The 767 (regardless of pax capability) is still larger than a 757 therefore if a 757 is seen as large most of the time for NZDF then a larger still aircraft only enhances this. 767 is to 757 what 757 is to 737 and I think we will need a valid reason and purpose to therefore go for the bigger type. There is'nt exactly a direct one for one replacement for the B757 on the market and are more either side of ie 767/787 or 737/A320. If boeing still made the 757 then an ER version would be the go but alas no.

 

[KiwiRob]

. There is'nt exactly a direct one for one replacement for the B757 on the market and are more either side of ie 767/787 or 737/A320. If boeing still made the 757 then an ER version would be the go but alas no.

It's kinda nuts really, Boeing called time on the 757 due to complete lack of interest from the airline market, they couldn't keep the line open for love or money. Fast forward a decade and Airbus are flogging A321NEO's at a rate which Boeing could never match with the 757, Airbus have sold more A321NEO in a couple of years than Boeing sold 757's in several decades. A321LR can do pretty much any route a 757-200 can do but more efficiently with the same payload.

 

[vonnoobie]

If the 757 is considered too large most of the time for use then I don't iamgine they would go larger as pointed out by RegR.

Also if they want to get benefit's from aircraft in use by Air NZ then the 767 is already out of the question as they plan to retire the last of theres next year.

Logical choices are either the 737 or A320 (and there variants).

Both are around the same price and comparable capabilities. Difference is Air NZ operates the A320's allowing the RNZAF to tap into there supply line while the 737 is also the basis for a number of valuable military aircraft, for NZ specifically the P-8.

Time will tell.

Regards, Matthew.

 

[RegR]

It's kinda nuts really, Boeing called time on the 757 due to complete lack of interest from the airline market, they couldn't keep the line open for love or money. Fast forward a decade and Airbus are flogging A321NEO's at a rate which Boeing could never match with the 757, Airbus have sold more A321NEO in a couple of years than Boeing sold 757's in several decades. A321LR can do pretty much any route a 757-200 can do but more efficiently with the same payload.

I think other factors more specific to our military rather than purely from an airliner perspective also come into play. The freight combi, airfeild requirements and performance envelopes all put the 757 out of range (pun intended) of other contenders in terms of what it can do, where it can go and how it goes about its buisness. The take off distance at MTOW is alot better, one of the upgrades was improved thrust, rated floor, stronger landing gear etc etc along with its physical footprint all add up to make our best suited platform for our needs. Yes, very unfortunate IMO boeing discontinued the line instead concentrating efforts on its slightly larger and smaller stablemates as a compromise instead. Either way I don't think we will gain a direct like for like replacement and compromises will need to be made up or down purely due to what's available.

Whilst efficiency and economy is always good a aircraft in this type of use would never acheive the profit driven gains of a commercial use airliner due to the more haphazard taskings, routes, loads, fleet etc (hence the seemingly high $$/PFH) but agreed the newer tech involved in say todays A321 vs yesterdays B757 would still add up to savings overall but again IMO just below in options in comparison so ultimately improved?

As has been said will be interesting to see what path the powers take and which option their logic will follow as not as clear cut as first thought (especially considering they were/could still be, on the chopping block up until a couple of months ago).

 

[Rob c]

I think other factors more specific to our military rather than purely from an airliner perspective also come into play. The freight combi, airfeild requirements and performance envelopes all put the 757 out of range (pun intended) of other contenders in terms of what it can do, where it can go and how it goes about its buisness. The take off distance at MTOW is alot better, one of the upgrades was improved thrust, rated floor, stronger landing gear etc etc along with its physical footprint all add up to make our best suited platform for our needs. Yes, very unfortunate IMO boeing discontinued the line instead concentrating efforts on its slightly larger and smaller stablemates as a compromise instead. Either way I don't think we will gain a direct like for like replacement and compromises will need to be made up or down purely due to what's available.

Whilst efficiency and economy is always good a aircraft in this type of use would never acheive the profit driven gains of a commercial use airliner due to the more haphazard taskings, routes, loads, fleet etc (hence the seemingly high $$/PFH) but agreed the newer tech involved in say todays A321 vs yesterdays B757 would still add up to savings overall but again IMO just below in options in comparison so ultimately improved?

As has been said will be interesting to see what path the powers take and which option their logic will follow as not as clear cut as first thought (especially considering they were/could still be, on the chopping block up until a couple of months ago).

Form left field, I remember when the C17 was being talked about, it was mantioned as a strategic replacement. So why not get 2 A400's or C2's to replace the B757 and replace the C130 with like for like as per DWP. I am sure a comfortable VIP pod could be arranged to keep the pollies somewhat happy.

 

[RegR]

Form left field, I remember when the C17 was being talked about, it was mantioned as a strategic replacement. So why not get 2 A400's or C2's to replace the B757 and replace the C130 with like for like as per DWP. I am sure a comfortable VIP pod could be arranged to keep the pollies somewhat happy.

Guess it all comes down to how much fuding the pollies are willing to throw at the replacements and what they actually want to gain out of said replacements. Personally I feel the A400 and C130J are just too similar (overall) and instead of a split fleet essentially doing the same job I would rather more of either (if it had to be) and all A400 (covers majority taskings vs C130).

Whilst some consider the 757 type a waste of resources, for us, I still see a niche for the type, be it owned, leased or contracted as from experience not everything NZDF (or NZ) is military, freight or military freight but merely pax and personal kit, in fact quite alot is pax orientated within NZDF. Just my opinion though.

 

[Rob c]

Guess it all comes down to how much fuding the pollies are willing to throw at the replacements and what they actually want to gain out of said replacements. Personally I feel the A400 and C130J are just too similar (overall) and instead of a split fleet essentially doing the same job I would rather more of either (if it had to be) and all A400 (covers majority taskings vs C130).

Whilst some consider the 757 type a waste of resources, for us, I still see a niche for the type, be it owned, leased or contracted as from experience not everything NZDF (or NZ) is military, freight or military freight but merely pax and personal kit, in fact quite alot is pax orientated within NZDF. Just my opinion though.

My personal choice would be ,assuming they are developed to a satisfactor level, 2 C2 and 5 kc390. These aircraft could do every thing that a airline type could and do the freight thing too. The pax cmfort thing is simply a matter of interiour set up regared to sound insulation,seating and enviroment control. As I have done heaps of c130 passenger time including 13hours Dawin direct to Ohakea I know that just being shoved into a freight hold for a long period of time has it's chalenges. When I was on 75sqn the only time I missed out on the 727 after they were introduced to our oversea's movements. I got an Andover to Butterworth .This was no accident.