Royal New Zealand Air Force

[John Fedup]

Well, here’s an example of what may only be the beginning of interesting minimally used commercial jets that could be considered for the 757 replacement. It is the 787-9 units not the MAXs in this example.

United sells 22 jets for leaseback including 787s

United Airlines is selling six Boeing 787-9s and 16 737 Max jets in a leaseback deal with the US division of Singaporean lessor BOC Aviation. BOC Aviation has disclosed the details of the transaction to the Hong Kong stock exchange. It states that the transaction covering the 22 aircraft is ...

www.flightglobal.com

 

[ngatimozart]

Yep. I thought that your illustrious great leader would've bought the Mexican presidential B787 VIP BBJ that's been on the market. Trudeau 1.

 

[John Fedup]

Yep. I thought that your illustrious great leader would've bought the Mexican presidential B787 VIP BBJ that's been on the market. Trudeau 1.

With all the unused jets piling up, waiting to replace VIP jet makes little sense now for any government. Besides, with all the massive subsidies governments are providing, that Mexican VIP jet will be heavily discounted in a few more months. Hell, Boeing recently discounted a new 787 by 55% to prevent a cancellation ( link in my earlier post mentioned this). With cheap fuel, maybe the world’s billionaires will spend cash on wide body VIP conversions, cheaper and faster than mega yachts.

 

[Lucasnz]

Speaking of unused planes Air NZ might have some surplus ATR's for the complimentary MPA role. Wouldn't be a bad idea, but they are a bit short of range for the Pacific (but the VIP's will have an improved level of comfort). Some standard C-130J with roll on / off capability would overcome that and provide more flexibility for the NZDF.

 

[Gibbo]

With all the unused jets piling up, waiting to replace VIP jet makes little sense now for any government. Besides, with all the massive subsidies governments are providing, that Mexican VIP jet will be heavily discounted in a few more months. Hell, Boeing recently discounted a new 787 by 55% to prevent a cancellation ( link in my earlier post mentioned this). With cheap fuel, maybe the world’s billionaires will spend cash on wide body VIP conversions, cheaper and faster than mega yachts.

In a general sense yes, but in NZ's case we need a strategic reach pax/freight combo if we go down the ex-airliner route... we don't specifically need a VIP aircraft, that should only ever be a natural outcome of it's broader pax transport capability...eg current 757.

I know it's tempting to pick-up a near new airliner but to meet priority requirements they'd need mods that may well be untried and it all gets potentially expensive & messy - eg: 787...can you safely (long-term) cut into a carbon fibre fuselage to whack in combi door? Is their floor cargo-strengthened? I'd rather NZ gives serious thought to a KC-46 or an A330MRTT (only if it can come with cargo strengthened floor off the assembly line = non standard AIUI). Agreed however that some ex-airliners may suit more than others.

 

[Gibbo]

Speaking of unused planes Air NZ might have some surplus ATR's for the complimentary MPA role. Wouldn't be a bad idea, but they are a bit short of range for the Pacific (but the VIP's will have an improved level of comfort). Some standard C-130J with roll on / off capability would overcome that and provide more flexibility for the NZDF.

Using the ex-AirNZ F27's back in the 80s / 90s as an example this isn't a silly idea, however caution would be needed with respect to them having a fair bit if use under their belts already, and the need to keep mods to a manageable size & cost. As we're likely to see shortly, the KA350 have, it seems, been fairly easily set up with systems that will allow SAR and light-MPA taskings (weapons capability not required nor should it be tried with an ex AirNZ a/c due to cost of mods).

The only role I could envisage for them however is on 42sqn to complement their KA350 fleet. The latter are all fairly new aircraft so I wouldn't chuck them out, however as I do see 42sqn needing more legs with it's new AWO role (which is forecast to be 35% of their flying time) then why not add 3-4 ATR's or Q300's ex-AirNZ to the fleet at fairly modest cost and let them assist relatively unmodified with current 42sqn roles (AWOT, MEPT, light pax/freight transport) where appropriate and enable 42sqn to be able to stretch their footprint up into the Pacific Islands as part of the 'Pacific Refresh' (which so far seems light on actual action).

When I say light transport I'm thinking (in terms of pax) NZDF & civilian emergency services personnel...not so much VIPs, although to a degree the latter is a valid use of such a/c. The ATR or Q300 have the range to hop up into to the Pacific and once there could spend a week or so at a time doing their thing... whether it be helping the Island Govts or just an extension of 42sqn training roles (there's a lot of crossover in the 2 anyway).

I think the RNZAF lacks a 'holden ute' - a sort of Andover type niche. The KA350 sort of offer that role but they're a little too small & there aren't enough of them, the ATR or even Q300 could do that at modest cost. I know we'll hear the argument that the RNZAF doesn't need to get lumbered with another cast-off, but post-COVID means there will be zero chance of getting a brand-new shiny a/c to expand the current fleet and at the same time the market will be awash with fairly good quality 2nd hand a/c of a suitable type to act as that 'holden ute'.

It's probably unlikley to happen, but in relation to the possible use of ex-AirNZ aircraft it's probably the only practical use for them (IMHO).

 

[t68]

I know it’s a tad large but wouldn’t a second hand 747 Combi be worth the investment or even a pure freighter version with folding nose

 

[ngatimozart]

Speaking of unused planes Air NZ might have some surplus ATR's for the complimentary MPA role. Wouldn't be a bad idea, but they are a bit short of range for the Pacific (but the VIP's will have an improved level of comfort). Some standard C-130J with roll on / off capability would overcome that and provide more flexibility for the NZDF.

Back when the RNZAF operated the Fokker F27 Friendship, they installed external fuel tanks on the wings. Not sure if they were A-4K or C-130H tanks. So that's one option.

Using the ex-AirNZ F27's back in the 80s / 90s as an example this isn't a silly idea, however caution would be needed with respect to them having a fair bit if use under their belts already, and the need to keep mods to a manageable size & cost. As we're likely to see shortly, the KA350 have, it seems, been fairly easily set up with systems that will allow SAR and light-MPA taskings (weapons capability not required nor should it be tried with an ex AirNZ a/c due to cost of mods).

The only role I could envisage for them however is on 42sqn to complement their KA350 fleet. The latter are all fairly new aircraft so I wouldn't chuck them out, however as I do see 42sqn needing more legs with it's new AWO role (which is forecast to be 35% of their flying time) then why not add 3-4 ATR's or Q300's ex-AirNZ to the fleet at fairly modest cost and let them assist relatively unmodified with current 42sqn roles (AWOT, MEPT, light pax/freight transport) where appropriate and enable 42sqn to be able to stretch their footprint up into the Pacific Islands as part of the 'Pacific Refresh' (which so far seems light on actual action).

When I say light transport I'm thinking (in terms of pax) NZDF & civilian emergency services personnel...not so much VIPs, although to a degree the latter is a valid use of such a/c. The ATR or Q300 have the range to hop up into to the Pacific and once there could spend a week or so at a time doing their thing... whether it be helping the Island Govts or just an extension of 42sqn training roles (there's a lot of crossover in the 2 anyway).

I think the RNZAF lacks a 'holden ute' - a sort of Andover type niche. The KA350 sort of offer that role but they're a little too small & there aren't enough of them, the ATR or even Q300 could do that at modest cost. I know we'll hear the argument that the RNZAF doesn't need to get lumbered with another cast-off, but post-COVID means there will be zero chance of getting a brand-new shiny a/c to expand the current fleet and at the same time the market will be awash with fairly good quality 2nd hand a/c of a suitable type to act as that 'holden ute'.

It's probably unlikley to happen, but in relation to the possible use of ex-AirNZ aircraft it's probably the only practical use for them (IMHO).

I agree in that the ATR would be the better option of the two. I think that the B350 are ideal for AWO and MEPT training and should be kept as such. The ATR could be used as a ute but unlike the Andover doesn't have the rear ramp. However anything requiring that can be done with the Hercs. This all presupposes that Air NZ will divest itself of some ATR. They are going to be a domestic focused airline in the near to medium term.

In a general sense yes, but in NZ's case we need a strategic reach pax/freight combo if we go down the ex-airliner route... we don't specifically need a VIP aircraft, that should only ever be a natural outcome of it's broader pax transport capability...eg current 757.

I know it's tempting to pick-up a near new airliner but to meet priority requirements they'd need mods that may well be untried and it all gets potentially expensive & messy - eg: 787...can you safely (long-term) cut into a carbon fibre fuselage to whack in combi door? Is their floor cargo-strengthened? I'd rather NZ gives serious thought to a KC-46 or an A330MRTT (only if it can come with cargo strengthened floor off the assembly line = non standard AIUI). Agreed however that some ex-airliners may suit more than others.

The A330MRTT is probably the better option than the KC-46 at the moment. Airbus has the A33OF freighter, so a freight floor is no biggy. We could also go with a B777 Combi too, although it may be a tad large.

I know it’s a tad large but wouldn’t a second hand 747 Combi be worth the investment or even a pure freighter version with folding nose

One night after a rum or two, I did start wondering if a NH90 would fit in the freighter version with the swing nose. But my concern is can we really justify such an aircraft? If I had the choice between an A330MRTT and that, I would go with the A330MRTT without hesitation.

 

[swerve]

...
The A330MRTT is probably the better option than the KC-46 at the moment. Airbus has the A33OF freighter, so a freight floor is no biggy. ...

Since the A330MRTT is based on the A330-200, & the A330-200F freighter is available new-build, I think you're right. I don't know how much work it'd take to adapt the MRTT-specific features for the -200F, but I find it hard to believe it'd be a lot.

 

[A4kscooter]

The problem with the 757, KC46 etc is all the additional ground support equipment required to operate the aircraft whereby if they had purchased the
2 x C17 the aircraft could have been operated with very little support.
Maybe the larger C2 or A400 would still be a better alternative than a converted airliner?
In addition something like the C295MPA would a nice aircraft to supplement both the P8 and C130 because it uses a palletised mission systems it can be configured for MPA or transport missions and would be considerably cheaper to operate

 

[ngatimozart]

The problem with the 757, KC46 etc is all the additional ground support equipment required to operate the aircraft whereby if they had purchased the
2 x C17 the aircraft could have been operated with very little support.
Maybe the larger C2 or A400 would still be a better alternative than a converted airliner?
In addition something like the C295MPA would a nice aircraft to supplement both the P8 and C130 because it uses a palletised mission systems it can be configured for MPA or transport missions and would be considerably cheaper to operate

We know that and it's been thrashed to death on here, so you're preaching to the full choir of the converted.

However reality beckons and the current health and economic crisis is throwing a hugh large spanner in the works. We can't plan for 12 months ahead financially at the moment, with any degree of certainty because we don't know what the state the economy will be in. Yes it will be sick, but how sick? Secondly, there's an election in 5 months, so we don't know what the make up of the govt will be then. Thirdly, regardless of political stripe our pollies are notoriously stingy when it comes to defending the realm.

 

[A4kscooter]

The purchase of new transport aircraft etc isn't just about "defending the realm" it is about protecting the population of NZ.
Humanitarian missions are becoming more commonplace as the climate changes & it is probably more important now to have a modern fleet of decent transport aircraft, helicopters, support ships etc.
We have the same problem here in the UK with politicians "who know the price of everything but the value of nothing" who were very quick to cut defence spending but have found that in the current Coronavirus crisis that military support is a necessity

 

[Brucedog]

The purchase of new transport aircraft etc isn't just about "defending the realm" it is about protecting the population of NZ.
Humanitarian missions are becoming more commonplace as the climate changes & it is probably more important now to have a modern fleet of decent transport aircraft, helicopters, support ships etc.
We have the same problem here in the UK with politicians "who know the price of everything but the value of nothing" who were very quick to cut defence spending but have found that in the current Coronavirus crisis that military support is a necessity

Please cite hard evidence of climate change. Take that nonsense somewhere else.

 

[John Fedup]

Please cite hard evidence of climate change. Take that nonsense somewhere else.

Try looking at time lapse photos of glacier fields! It is more than enough evidence.

 

[Wombat000]

Please cite hard evidence of climate change. Take that nonsense somewhere else.

This forum places great emphasis on "Defence Pros".
The same respect is entitled for scientific subject discipline specialists, and the scienfic authoritve understanding.
Lets not pretend we know more than them, and yes, this is not the forum for scientific denialist posturing.

 

[Rob c]

The purchase of new transport aircraft etc isn't just about "defending the realm" it is about protecting the population of NZ.
Humanitarian missions are becoming more commonplace as the climate changes & it is probably more important now to have a modern fleet of decent transport aircraft, helicopters, support ships etc.
We have the same problem here in the UK with politicians "who know the price of everything but the value of nothing" who were very quick to cut defence spending but have found that in the current Coronavirus crisis that military support is a necessity

While you do have valid points regarding humanitarian missions, the simple reality is that if you fail to "defend the realm* when required you wont be carrying out any humanitarian missions and in a world with an increasingly deteriorating strategic outlook brought on by climate change, unrestrained population growth, fundamentalism and possibly fallout from the upcoming world depression it would be extremely unwise to assume that you will not have to *defend the realm."
I think the the depression we are entering could cause a further deterioration the world order as due to the effects of climate change and unrestrained population growth and a depressed economy will lead to in some areas, desperate populations allowing despotic leaders gaining power as happened in Germany in the 1930's. While the Versailles treaty has been blamed for this I believe that it was the great depression that tipped the balance and had the depression not occurred we may not have had WW2.
It is notable that the Nazi party did not do well until the great depression and it is doubtful that Japan would have tried anything on without Europe being distracted, as they would have had to deal with the full force of both Europe and the USA.

 

[OPSSG]

Please cite hard evidence of climate change. Take that nonsense somewhere else.

Banned for month, for your third attempt to derail a thread. Further, you are prohibited from going off topic again or discussing any climate related topic (due to complaints by other members about your behaviour).

 

[OPSSG]

Lets not pretend we know more than them, and yes, this is not the forum for scientific denialist posturing.

General guidance to all but directed at no one in particular.

While there is ample evidence that both weather patterns and the climate is shifting around the globe, DT makes no judgement on the degree of change or causes. This is because DT is not the appropriate forum for such discussion at either a scientific or socio-political level.

Being a defence forum, DT is only interested in impact of climate change when it affects defence, including increased geopolitical and military competition (or military cooperation, as the case maybe), relating to scarce natural resources or extreme weather patterns. We expect that some of these changes or perceived changes to environments can impact defence procurement or even result in greater investment in defence facilities — which would then make them relevant to the discussion.

 

[CheeZe]

it is doubtful that Japan would have tried anything on without Europe being distracted, as they would have had to deal with the full force of both Europe and the USA.

This seems quite a stretch since it ignores a very important historical fact: the Japanese had been interfering in China since 1895 and continued to do so until 1945. From '31 to '41, Europeans and Americans sat by and watched, unwilling or uninterested to be involved. I dread to think what Asia would look like if Japan had successfully annexed China as the Europeans and Americans watched.

Had the Japanese successfully puppeted China without a European war, they would have only gained confidence from the fact that the British, French, and Americans really had not lifted a finger. I suspect they would have only continued their slow expansion southwards since the military had very strong imperialist ideas. Just as Hitler grew bolder with each round of appeasement, so too would Japan as it gobbled up Asia. This gets into the realm of what-ifs, though.

On the main topic, I was wondering why the NZAF doesn't operate Chinooks as a pair would be a good addition to their transport capability.

 

[Takao]

The purchase of new transport aircraft etc isn't just about "defending the realm" it is about protecting the population of NZ.
Humanitarian missions are becoming more commonplace as the climate changes & it is probably more important now to have a modern fleet of decent transport aircraft, helicopters, support ships etc.
We have the same problem here in the UK with politicians "who know the price of everything but the value of nothing" who were very quick to cut defence spending but have found that in the current Coronavirus crisis that military support is a necessity

Trying to bring this back on-topic...

@A4kscooter hits on, what for me is, the actual strategic use of air power. Historically speaking, airpower has, by itself, achieved real strategic impact once, maybe twice. In every other theatre of war and diplomacy air power has been an enabler and, while costing more, could have been negated with no real impact on the final result.

The once was the Berlin Airlift (no other force could have kept Berlin out of Soviet hands and it had dramatic immediate and long-term strategic impacts), the maybe once is Operation Nickel Grass (I go back and forth on this one - at the moment I think it counts). Critically, both are airlift related.

To my view, as much as the RNZAF has become less shooty shooty over the time period, the reality is that air lift offers the greatest strategic impact for an air force - so to remain relevant it's probably the best choice for AFHQ to follow. It would offer NZ significant options and influence as well as fit nicely within (a) their government budgets and (b) FVEY force structure. MPA might work for NZ, especially noting its air-sea rescue zone, but I think that in a constrained budget there may be other options across their 'joint' force.

The only pity is that the solution is not going to be as useful as C-17!