As would a scheme with the RAF / RN FAA if they have one. Given Brexit the UK HMG may see fit to be of assistance in helping NZ expedite its return to fast jet ops. It may be that in order to quickly obtain sufficient numbers (geopolitical situation dependant), we would have to avail ourselves of more than one scheme simultaneously.
If the frontline capability were based on a mature type (ie: indicative F-16 / Super Hornet or perhaps Gripen) I'd suggest an IOC capability similar to that achieved by the RAAF wouldn't be out of the question, ie: 3 years...
I did say besides the World War's, but would be interesting to see if which service got majority of the money for all the other times such as Korea, Borneo , Vietnam and the height of the Cold War. A flash point can occur at anytime one only has to look at the Cuban Missile Crisis to see how fast the strategic situation can change.*
Problem with that is the strategic stituation can change over a matter of weeks or months, no time to increase capabilty in that time. But say they do get the fright and open the purse strings in readiness for the next situation.
Rules may well be bent, given the situation, as we saw in the Falklands with HMS Conqueror with the rule book being placed on top of EO with the blessing of the CO, but fundamentally the CONOPS will be defined by the original limitations of the budget force planning parameters.
Yep as I said rules can be bent or broken subject to the strategic situation.*
Thanks for the reposted links 40South. The above confirms to me that the C-17 x 2 is clearly the best solution over the next 30-40 years for stratlift, with a leased B73 BCF-800 in light of synergies with hopefully a P-8 fleet in the bits and bobs taskings.
The use of an overseas provider is attractive given you don't have to come up with the capital costs straight up, but the provider will include his capital costs recovery and such things as instructor training costs etc in his charge out rate so as you are probably dealing with a higher wge economy, over a period of time you could wind up spending more than if you do it yourself. Not forgetting that they will want to make a profit from the deal. The real decisions are do you want to spend the money up front or do you want to spread the payments out. Do you want an increased combat ability and do you want to spend your money in your own economy or in someone else's.
The problem on time is simply building up the the leadership group with the necessary training and experience. and there is no real substitute to time on the job when building up experience. For example, when i was in 75sqn it took abouty 10- I2 years for a pilot to reach flight leader status (a lot never made it) and that was in a fully operational environment I think that using overseas training would be essential otherwise the time needed to get to the required level could easily balloon out. The other option would be to contract in the leadership from overseas, wether by exchange or hiring retired suitable pilots from other air forces. For example the RAF dropped 160+ pilots about 5 years ago. If used these would need refresher courses, but this would be a lot quicker than starting from scratch.
As the papers id not discuss other options and types I think it is a little premature to say that this is the best choice The C17 would be a good choice but a slightly smaller aircraft, A400/C2 in greater numbers, say 3, would give greater flexibility. The RFI on the strategic freighter seem to be moving away from an airline type aircraft , but there is still a long way to go with this procurement. and I would expect the above aircraft to full this role.
The A400M and C2 were discussed in the document from clause 50 noting that they were at that time 2015 still undeveloped along with other options with the clear resonation being capability in the Antarctic role. Looking at role outputs required across the wider NZDF / NZG - 2 x C-17 and a single leased 73-BCF would provide greater output flexibility in totality than just simply a strategic freight role - with the C-130J in the tactical role that output in totality is amplified across the fleet spectrum. This is not to say that the C-2 and the A400M wont do the job - it is that the C-17 + leased BCF is a safer and more synergetic bet, due to logistical support, a wider tasking spectrum and particularly within the context of integrating with close partners over the long term.
MrC
I agree with 40degS. My gut feeling is that the opportunity for more than one C-17 has well and truly past. If the C-17 option was still in play;
There is no doubt that the C-17 has fallen somewhat but it was only knocked off by the short term political expediency of achieving a budget surplus by the 2016 target. Basically I am hoping that common sense or intelligence in the cognitive sense has a miraculous second coming within the stolid craniums of some people in WLG. Possibly asking for to much there ....
Chris. I am going to let you work out why or scroll back into the thread to see how I think it is a better choice for us in the years ahead over the Beechcraft rather than just tell you. See Post 4398 July 8 and Post 4704 August 24.
Rob thinking at our age is only dangerous if there is no medicine handy. For clarification medicine is defined as beer + rum and / or whiskey. This definition was my fathers who was RNZAF Pacific WW2.
I think that the RFI is out now because of the limited production run on the P8 and the synergies they are after between the FAMC and FASC. One item that did tweak my interest, is that Boeing is the contractor for the P3K2 ASW upgrades and I read somewhere that some of the P8 systems will be utilised in the upgrade. I'll have to try and find that article again.
I will also add wine to the medicine list, I think you are right regarding the upgrade and as the other systems in the K2 are ahead of anything on any other P3 it would make the K2 a fairly formidable beast. That would also explain the cheap price.
You would if you were the sole customer for such a solution, but the Canadian NATO Pilot Training scheme (NATO is included in the name, but is open to Canadian allies, with Saudi and UAE pilots also trained under this system) has been operating for years and the capital costs I would suggest have been amortised across many users already. I don't doubt that CAE make a profit out of this exercise (or it wouldn't work) however compared to the start up costs of building your own training fleet, the 'profit cost' of such a scheme are a veritable drop in the ocean.
With more customers they would need more aircraft / facilities/instructors so your part of the capital/operational costs remains similar though scale would increase efficiency and if the ta/fa 50 solution was chosen you eliminate operational type conversion and the purchase costs and infrastructure would be common to both types . There is no doubt if we went down the ACF parth we would need significant help Again you need to decide do you want your money to boost someone else's economy or your own.