They are a lot younger than the Hercs. During their time as commercial jetliners the important metric would have been cycles; one cycle being one take off and one landing followed by the flight hours. In RNZAF service they would have had far less use. The incident in Antarctica has no bearing on the current issue, because it was a weather related issue not a structural or mechanical issue.
Very well put, These aircraft would have done far less cycles than their commercial counterparts and they don't do the military type flight's such as low level , sort field ops and rough field ops which has chewed up fatigue life of the herk's at a heavy rate.I don't think their life expectancy is a problem but they have been criticized as lacking flexibility( they need specialist gear to unload bulk etc) and this I think is the main driver for their replacement , plus their technology is not very adaptable to electronic updating. In other words they are not fully fit for purpose.
True, but consider what half a dozen of F/A-50 could do for New Zealand defence. F/A-50 armed with a pair of anti-ship missiles will have far greater reach than the ANZAC frigates. F/A-50 armed with smart munitions will be able to give New Zealand army an organic air support that can reach much further and possibly faster than their artillery.
They also state that whilst the PM was in Laos for the East Asia Summit last month the B757 on that trip fell over and then had to be flown to Guam for repairs.
Then Audrey Young of the Herald in an opinion piece states that Key should be seething over Air Force breakdown claiming that the RNZAF are at fault and that: "The break down was unforgivable. ... It is not just one of those things that should be accepted an unavoidable. Every breakdown can be avoidable just as every crash is avoidable. The Air Force has failed at the absolute basics, to keep its planes in reasonable working order." I am given to understand that she is a journalist, not a highly qualified and respected aeronautical engineer. If she is the latter she should've been able to have solved the problem and had the aircraft serviceable in short order instead of whining like a Rolls Royce Dart engine.
I actually agree with ADMk2 on this. It would not be the optimal solution, however having said that if it was the only option then it is better than what we have now.
Yes I agree it is not the optimal solution, but at least it is a solution though I think the numbers are a bit light. What we must keep in min is the question, how often do the NZ armed forces get the optimal solution. If the get the correct gear it is usually in too a small number, or they get the cheep option.
Consider what half a dozen Gripens, F-16's or Super Hornets could do over and above the capability that a LIFT brings...
Maybe if Singapore and NZ swapped geographical positions, maybe the question would be the other way around, "why does Singapore struggle to maintain fast jet capability?"
What exactly is the purpose of the boeings that they are not particularly suited to? The 757s and the C130s are different beasts better suited to different theatres and therefore used accordingly or in conjunction. I have seen a B757 being unloaded onto the back of a truck just as I have seen a C130 being unloaded in the same fashion, whilst alittle more technically difficult not at all impossible. Oversized and heavy bulk cargo still requires some level of support regardless of how it got there and the vast majority of airfeilds we go to have more than adequate cargo handling procedures and facilities anyway.
A couple of points, NZ is only going to face a modern air threat from nations that have significant aircraft carriers and they are thin on the ground, the FA50 would be for local defence purposes they would be employed mainly on strike or interception of transport type aircraft. In regard to training you would not only need LIFT but also operational conversion as well and I don't know of many air forces that contract out both as you lose to much control of the finished product (the pilot) In the case of the FA 50 you could do both in the same aircraft . In the end it will largely depend on how much money is available. An other point is that quickly raising an ACF is not an option unless you employ foreign pilots for your senior positions, that is why we cannot what to raise an ACF until forced too, because we will always be to late. The air force's time to achieve a fully capable sqn was 15 years and they are the experts who should know. During my deployments to Singapore I watch the SAF in their endeavors to create an AFC over the years with the help of the RAF and from that experience have no reason to doubt the 15 year figure. We would need to start simple before upgrading. The old adage that you need to learn to walk before you learn to run is very true in this case.
Air New Zealand aircraft (in fact any commercial airline) still have technical difficulties which can cause grounding and even cancellations so unsure why RNZAF would be exempt. I think Audrey is being alittle naive if she thinks all equipment will never have issues so long as you "maintain" them, especially older equipment.
Most of what has come out from the press, the TV and the pollies has been absolute rubbish, showing a large amount of ignorance. The tv1 aviation expert had it right when his basic theme was that it was quite normal. Ron Mark finally got one thing wright when he said that the replacement needed longer legs. Out side that it has all been a load of over emotive rubbish. If we had a larger fleet there would have been a spare aircraft to take over in 4-6 hours and all would have been well.
Are we? Are we really? Where are our areas of interest and who do we have defence agreements with? Where does our navy, army air force deploy operationally? Where are our SLOC? What I am doing is trying to get people to thing beyond the NZ homeland. That is always our big failing with regard to defence - a myopic view of our security situation that stops at the 12nm limit; sea and air blindness.
The adage maybe true however we can shortcut the system by not acquiring LIFT and having that phase done on contract overseas with a 5i's nation. Then we only need to acquire the combat aircraft. As far as potential ACF senior leadership goes I am sure that we could attract suitably qualified personnel again from 5i's nations. It's been done by us before. Yes as far as standing up an ACF again and getting it FOC, we have to crawl, walk, run and it doesn't happen overnight. However I think that we could achieve IOC in 5 years and possibly FOC within 10 years given the appropriate political will and resources.
I would expect the rationale for their (or any ACC usage) if we indeed go down that route would have to be a little wider than local defence / interception.
Try Uncle Sam. In fact I would not do anything without him right down to airframe selection, training and support package et al. The FA-50 will need LM success in the T-X bid anyway if you wanted it to actually work.
Yep. That would inform ones options from F-16V's / FA-50's at the low cost spectrum up through to the more expensive F-18F / JSF.
The 15 year figure was the most pessimistic one offered and factored in a wholly solo re-establishment effort on the RNZAF's part of an ACF of around late 1990's size from LIFT through to a deployment of an OLOC Strike package.
The Singa's for many years have had great service from their turnkey contract based at USAF Luke AFB. Training methodology has changed in the last 30-40 years.
I would say that without contracting into an offshore training and support package, ideally US we would never even get off our knees let alone walk.
The new build F16V is on the same level as a new build F18E/F both being 4+ generation aircraft. The F35 JSF is a whole tier ahead of the F18E/F; it is like saying the capabilities of the post Kahu A4K are similar to that of the F16V, when in fact the F16V is far more advanced than the post Kahu A4K A4K ever was. The only similarity between the F-18F / JSF will be the projected flyaway cost of the F35A being around US$80 million in 2019. The F18F flyaway cost is around US$78 million for FY2018.
Ah... Low cost spectrum. I was just being too economical in my reply. Added the missing word cost.
On the contrary my friend. Neither Iraq nor Hungary operate a LIFT as of right now and both operate frontline fighter jets in the form of F-16 in Iraq's case and Gripen in Hungary's case.
To be honest NG I am sceptical with respect to General Bogdan's claim that the A model with its F135 engine will ever become available for just USD$80m.
I'm not holding my breathe on it either, but he has put LM on notice about it and from what I've seen and read he's not afraid of them. So we'll wait and see.