Like, say 10-20 year old Boeing 757s ? I would like to hope we've learnt at least something from acquiring second hand old gear during all this time regardless of where it comes from? You pay for what you get and "short term" fixes inevitably cost more in the long run, which as the NZDF has proven could well be 30-50 years...
I was reading our local paper and it was reported that the major problem with the RNZAF aircraft are that the Air force simply does not have the spares that are needed for reliable operations. This would be a budget and treasury problem. The VP of the US still uses a B757 without problems and there are still a number doing satisfactory service with airlines, so this could be true and the aircraft it self is not the major part of the problem, but rather the rules governing expenditure, set by treasury.
Oh I have no doubt the 757 is a great aircraft, and great for us in terms of range, capacity, role etc (hard to find the perfect plane), in fact I've even suggested the replacement for the 757, is a 757 (obviously newer ish..) but Im not sure that would go down too well nowadays with all that has gone on. Agreed there are still a good number of 757 users out there, even amongst military, so I would be interested in their serviceability/operational rates just for comparison if nothing else. I do suspect age (as with anything) is just creeping up on things, unfortunate but inevitable, and not nesscessarily major problems either, but with high air force standards enough to create issue and pull the safety card which is to be expected. We have proven time and time again we can operate aged equipment safely past its LOT but then have to put up with the inevitable "chip lights" when they do occur, still happens in new builds just the frequency of is lessened. I can believe the parts problem plays a, part (pun intended) in all this and obviously they cannot carry a whole host of every spare everywhere they go so overseas breakdowns especially become an issue regardless. We are also probably past the acquiring a 3rd frame (ala the 727s) as a direct source of spares phase at this stage as the replacement debate is well and truely sparked now so would look like a waste of good money after bad to the ever scrutinizing public. I do however like the idea in general (spares frame) as has been shown with the NH90s especially just seems to give us that extra breathing room and instant soloution to cover unforseen issues with less of an impact on the operational fleet and if it comes in under cost of buying everything separately anyway then all the better!
I suspect it is a combination of issues. IIRC the RNZAF B757's were acquired 2nd hand, after something like 17 years of operation. I had previously (in a post dated from 2010) speculated that the B757's would be due for replacement some time between 2021 and 2027 due to the age of the aircraft.
The last B757 came off the production line in 2004, so the youngest/newest B757 would be about 20 years old at this point. Or to put it another way, if a new (to NZ that is) B757 were to be sought are like for like replacements, the 'best' available aircraft would be older now than the B757's that NZ acquired as the B727 replacements were at the time. Given that it has been 20 years without Boeing creating a new/replacement design in that specific size/range/capacity class, it would sort of seem that other combinations would be more appropriate for such ops.
Yes Boeing made no direct replacement for the 757 so we would either have to go with the shorter ranged 737 or larger 767 (which are also on their last legs) to maintain cargo/pax capability otherwise go 787/777 which pose other issues such as lack of deck cargo. Point being, there is no actual true replacement for the 757 in our specific role as it stands without some kind of further compromise on range, capacity, size, cargo deck etc. The closest actual replacement option is ironically from Boeing's rival in the airbus A321XLR which is still in the sign off process as is so doubt a cargo door will be high on their priority list just yet so again, a compromise on the current capability.
I think NZ needs to realistically look at what the needs and wants are for jet transport, as well as what or how much coin NZ is willing to spend. From my POV the entire B757 acquisition itself has been a bit of a waste/mistake. Yes, it was done to replace the aged B727 with the aircraft Boeing developed as a replacement, but the 'new' aircraft NZ purchased for the replacement was already out of production when NZ bought them. Any time someone is purchasing 'new' kit intended for use, which is already out of production, one is pretty much automatically looking at long term cost and serviceability issues. Even more so if the 'new' kit has already seen some fairly significant service by others.
Unlikely to see MRTT in RNZAF service as the AAR capability would be virtually wasted. It would also be very difficult for the crews to maintain currency without regular access to aircraft with the ability to act as a receiver from a tanker. More likely to see an aircraft that is a combi configuration.
Agree, crews need to perform AAR to keep current. Working with the RAAF along with refueling NZ’s new C130Js would help. Not sure if the NZ P-8s can do AAR from the MRTTs. I guess a combo A330 would be less expensive but AAR would be a useful feature to assist your number one Allie.
Yea sensible but also might be perceived as conflict of interests/cronyism. No surprises for this govt.
Very true, but this Govt is very spending shy, in saying that they are very cosy with China as they want to borrow lots of money for their roads.
The thing is charters and leasing have not actually proven to be any cheaper, its just that they are paid for funded and sometimes maintained in a different way ie long term funding vs short term outlay and you still pay a premium if not more in the long run just with more restrictions on use and modification, which is not always ideal for military assets. The RAAF recently found this out when their 700s came up for renewal in that it was actually cheaper to buy the replacement 800s outright than lease again as originally planned.
You are right, the reason leasing is attractive is that it does not incur the capital charge and this also happens in business. It makes the bean counters happy , but achieves little. It is just part of a large money go round which keeps the bureaucrats happy as it allows them to control things that they have no idea about.
Exactly, looks good on paper and the figures are not as scary at a glance and that's more because they are just moved around, spread over time and accounted for in other ways but ultimately it is still being paid for and now your paying for the middle mans services as well, on top of and instead. A false economy sometimes dependant on your position to fund, operate and maintain it and what deals can and cannot be negotiated. I've seen it before and inevitably costs more with the only good points being a better turn over rate in equipment as replacements are able to be factored in at the end of lease otherwise renegotiated, at cost of course..
Another factor against lease is the lessor is unlikley to allow (esp. with respect to insurance) the leased aircraft to go anywhere near an area that might have heightened threat scenarios and that threshold would fall well below what we'd consider a 'combat zone' as far as an insurer is concerned. Therefore a leased aircraft would likely only be able to perform civvy-level duites ...that's fine in the greater scheme of things but the RNZAF has a miniscule transport fleet (& miniscule budgets) therefore it needs as much flexibility from every platform it operates.
Noting that the A330MRTT is based on the A330-200 which is now available as a freighter, one would assume maybe it has just been a lack of customer interest that has stopped a combi offering. Qantas has recently just had a couple of its 330-220's converted to freighters, in theory existing MRTT's could similarly be converted.