Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Air Force & Aviation
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

F-35_launches_Joint_Strike_Missile.jpg

us-south-korea-drill.jpg

this-year-12700-us-troops-are-participating-alongside-many-more-south-korean-soldiers.jpg

the-us-routinely-dedicates-an-extremely-large-contingent-of-soldiers-and-marines-to-the-drills.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Royal New Zealand Air Force

This is a discussion on Royal New Zealand Air Force within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by recce.k1 Tut tut, everyone here is sooo naughty. We should always accept and believe what politicians say ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 8 votes, 4.00 average.
Old November 11th, 2007   #376
Ship Watcher
Brigadier General
Tasman's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 1,940
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by recce.k1 View Post
Tut tut, everyone here is sooo naughty. We should always accept and believe what politicians say without question (any & all politicians). They speak the truth and they know what is right whilst we the public must accept their wisdom.

For example: NZ defence minister at the time of the announcement of NZ's C130H upgrade (& C130J cancellation) said the C130J is far too expensive - over $1000m for 5 aircraft (clearly Norway are getting 1:2 half size scale model replicas at $300m for 4 aircraft) and the C130J has recognised operational shortfalls (clearly Australia made a bad decison to buy 12+ C130J's).

It's true ... I read it here
Do I detect just a little bit of cynicism in your post Recce?

Obviously the NZ Defence Minister knows things about the C-130J that countries like the USA, UK, Australia and others do not!

I don't necessarily think NZ should buy the C-130J but, as others have said, it is a lot of money to be spent on old aircraft. IMO, your neighbours across the Tasman have started to run into problems from keeping some aircraft in service too long. The upgrade programs for the F111C and Hornet seemed like good ideas at the time but, with the benefit of hindsight, earlier replacement with new aircraft may have been better options. NZ could learn from this. Like AD, I believe the option of a more austere life extension program, just sufficient to take them through to the A-400M being available, may have been a better approach.

Tas
________________
Learn from the past. Prepare for the future
Tasman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2007   #377
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,479
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Investigator View Post
Are you suggesting that no country should fly a C130H or below because it has 1950's lift capacity or is this just an "Australia is better than NZ" insult? (I had thought you were better than that - but i've been wrong before)
I suspect that you've misunderstood AD's pitch. The way I read it was a questioning of value for money - which incidentally is a common theme for a lot of us. If you have a look at the history of comment from people like AD, AGRA, Magoo, barra, McTaff, myself etc... the willingness to criticise our own procurement processes on some platforms is clearly in the open.

IMV, AD was exercising the same robust interrogation that is required in this kind of debate.

edit.

just read the other posts, so mine is probably redundant!
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2007   #378
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 103
Threads:
Comments deleted.

Last edited by Investigator; April 25th, 2008 at 05:16 PM.
Investigator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2007   #379
Super Moderator
Major
MrConservative's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Behind a Desk
Posts: 1,014
Threads:
It will only be $520 million if ALL of the extensive add on options are purchased and fitted later if the Norwegians so wish. For the standard and extremely capable C-130J-30 it is in the US$300-350 range.

Your only justification for the C-130 patch up job is that its cheap eh!

This is not about shiny guns. This is a Transport aircraft which is probably one of the most useful and necessary pieces of NZDF equipment there is.

We are all waiting for your views on Defence. I hope you have at least some imagination to go beyond your political bias and come up with something that doesn't just parrot Labour Party press releases.
MrConservative is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2007   #380
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 103
Threads:
Comments deleted.

Last edited by Investigator; April 25th, 2008 at 05:15 PM.
Investigator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2007   #381
Super Moderator
Major
MrConservative's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Behind a Desk
Posts: 1,014
Threads:
So your telling us that you have the same view of Defence as the NZ military. Yeah right!

I think you will find on a personal level that the vast majority of NZDF uniformed members and even civvi staffers, privately hold candid views somewhat at variance to yours. Views based on real knowlege, real experience and the professionalism that the career brings.

I still want to see from you a Defence plan! Don't avoid it. Be constructive. Put your thoughts out there Investigator.
MrConservative is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2007   #382
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Investigator View Post
I gave my view. That my view is also the view of the NZ military does not make it wrong. If we had taken the cut down option you would be whinging about that as well - if Labour ordered it. You talk about my political bias yet call yourself MrConservative.
If the view of the NZDF is to upgrade the aircraft, why bother employing a private contracting firm to assess whether new aircraft should be bought, or old aircraft upgraded?

Being the cynical and suspicious person I am, I wonder if perhaps this independent contracting agency could have been L-3 Spar by any chance?

In any case you are still missing the point. Your C-130H fleet is becoming increasingly obsolete due to the size of the cargo hold, the size of it's fuel tanks, the efficiency of it's engines and general design.

The upgrade addresses none of these issues and what you will get is an airlift capability identical to now, but slightly more reliable.

With a quick glance at your other defence acquisitions, the platforms being acquired to provide mobility, protection and firepower for your land forces are not designed for air transportability in a C-130 and therefore you are spending a large amount of money on a project that delivers very little capability enhancement.

It's akin to Defmin Nelson's off cited example of upgrading an EH Holden with modern Commodore components. At the end of the day, it's still an EH...

On top of which your sums are wrong. At the current US-NZ exchange rate according to universal currency converter, US$304m equates to NZ$402m and this is the price Norway is paying for it's fleet for 4x C-130J-30's. The capability of that fifth C-130 must be KILLER at more than $600m for a single trash hauler. I don't think a C-17 even costs that much...

Try dividing NZ$402m by 40 years and see what the yearly rate works out to. Significantly less than $5m per year I think you will find...

I'm not advocating this for NZ mind you, the C-130J-30 doesn't improve on the C-130H's ability to lift heavy loads, it just allows the C-130J-30 to lift the maximum weight it was intended to lift , nor is it's payload / range specifications in the league of the A400m, let alone the C-17, however it is a large improvement over the C-130H.

I would not at all be surprised to see that 4x C-130J-30's offer greater sortie rates than your upgraded C-130H's will and when combined with range and cruising speed increases, I'm sure even you can see that it's the better airlifter, despite what your Defmin might have stated about it...


  Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2007   #383
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
t68's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 1,221
Threads:
Quote:

Q. What will happen to the option to purchase C-130 ‘J’ model aircraft?

A. New Zealand has the option to purchase new C-130J aircraft as part of a contract that Australia has with the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin. New Zealand will be declining that option. Five replacement aircraft would cost over $1 billion. They are a new aircraft and have a number of recognised operational shortfalls. They are not an appropriate investment at this time, given that upgrading the current C-130H fleet is both feasible and affordable


And what are the recognised operational shortfalls of this aircraft acorrding to the defmin ?


REGARDS
TOM

Last edited by gf0012-aust; November 12th, 2007 at 04:35 AM. Reason: layout fix
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2007   #384
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 103
Threads:
Comments deleted.

Last edited by Investigator; April 25th, 2008 at 05:14 PM.
Investigator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2007   #385
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 346
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Investigator View Post

Unlike other so called NZers on this board I do not accept being insulted over the capability of the NZ defense force. I'm proud to be a New Zealander and do not spend my time running our country down.

Why are you even posting on this thread if you only provide sarcastic, non constructive comment?
If any one should be insulted on this forum its those of us who are from NZ get you repeatedly questioning our loyalty to our nation because we exersize our right to freedom of expression when that expression differs from your own. Disagreeing with government policy is not disloyalty, this is something that was thrashed out centuries ago, hence the concept of 'Her Majesties Loyal Opposition'.
Stuart Mackey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2007   #386
Super Moderator
Major
MrConservative's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Behind a Desk
Posts: 1,014
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Digger View Post
If the view of the NZDF is to upgrade the aircraft, why bother employing a private contracting firm to assess whether new aircraft should be bought, or old aircraft upgraded?

Being the cynical and suspicious person I am, I wonder if perhaps this independent contracting agency could have been L-3 Spar by any chance?

In any case you are still missing the point. Your C-130H fleet is becoming increasingly obsolete due to the size of the cargo hold, the size of it's fuel tanks, the efficiency of it's engines and general design.

The upgrade addresses none of these issues and what you will get is an airlift capability identical to now, but slightly more reliable.

With a quick glance at your other defence acquisitions, the platforms being acquired to provide mobility, protection and firepower for your land forces are not designed for air transportability in a C-130 and therefore you are spending a large amount of money on a project that delivers very little capability enhancement.

It's akin to Defmin Nelson's off cited example of upgrading an EH Holden with modern Commodore components. At the end of the day, it's still an EH...

On top of which your sums are wrong. At the current US-NZ exchange rate according to universal currency converter, US$304m equates to NZ$402m and this is the price Norway is paying for it's fleet for 4x C-130J-30's. The capability of that fifth C-130 must be KILLER at more than $600m for a single trash hauler. I don't think a C-17 even costs that much...

Try dividing NZ$402m by 40 years and see what the yearly rate works out to. Significantly less than $5m per year I think you will find...

I'm not advocating this for NZ mind you, the C-130J-30 doesn't improve on the C-130H's ability to lift heavy loads, it just allows the C-130J-30 to lift the maximum weight it was intended to lift , nor is it's payload / range specifications in the league of the A400m, let alone the C-17, however it is a large improvement over the C-130H.

I would not at all be surprised to see that 4x C-130J-30's offer greater sortie rates than your upgraded C-130H's will and when combined with range and cruising speed increases, I'm sure even you can see that it's the better airlifter, despite what your Defmin might have stated about it...

Yep, the A-400 is the ideal platform but has the drawback in that if we ordered the aircraft today we would be at the end of a long and growing line, which would see delivery only in the second half of next decade. But the damage has been done yet again, because even though with the advice of serving defence planning staff - who under convention cannot complain to the media or public as they are servants of the Executive, we will have to muddle through as usual.

Another flaw in this C-130 refurbishment programme was that there is already a significant capability gap in that we currently dont have enough airframes. This programme could have picked up at least one more additional C-130H from any number of sources and ran it through the upgrade to get six. That would help. That would lift things up from survival mode.

This programme adds nothing to the capability of the RNZAF and NZDF. It is not an example of a sustainable Defence policy.

Buy the way. AD not only knows more about the ADF than Investigator and no doubt the current Norwegian C-130J procurement background. He knows more about the NZDF as well but is probably too modest to say that here.
MrConservative is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2007   #387
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 346
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Investigator View Post
snip

The Hercules do not need to move the other assets. The MRV was purchased to move the larger items. Otherwise we could pay to use another air force's spare capacity as we have done in the past when it was considered better use of funds.

Notice I said pay (in a forlorn attempt to stave off the inevitable "bludging" comments).

snip
If there is some kind of emergency that requires we move items by air, what makes you think anyone will have spare capacity?. One of the reason that Australia and the UK have purchased C17's is because the US did not have spare air lift capacity, in particular during the Boxing day Tsunami, when they needed it.
Furthermore, if we do pay to use another nations capacity, in any medium, did it ever occur to you that they might resent this, as we are using their equipment to carry out our foreign and Defense policies? We might pay for the gas, but that will never recoup the mileage on their equipment, so yes, when we do that, we are bludging.
Moreover, its hardly a constructive sign of an independent nation when we reliant other nations gear to carry our our policies.
Stuart Mackey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2007   #388
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 346
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrConservative View Post
Yep, the A-400 is the ideal platform but has the drawback in that if we ordered the aircraft today we would be at the end of a long and growing line, which would see delivery only in the second half of next decade. But the damage has been done yet again, because even though with the advice of serving defence planning staff - who under convention cannot complain to the media or public as they are servants of the Executive, we will have to muddle through as usual.

Another flaw in this C-130 refurbishment programme was that there is already a significant capability gap in that we currently dont have enough airframes. This programme could have picked up at least one more additional C-130H from any number of sources and ran it through the upgrade to get six. That would help. That would lift things up from survival mode.

This programme adds nothing to the capability of the RNZAF and NZDF. It is not an example of a sustainable Defence policy.
snip
Given the lack of numbers and capacity with RNZAF airlift and the timeframes on getting a replacement, I wonder if getting a pair of C17's (soonish) would be a good idea? Yes they would cost a lot, but it would give NZ the distance and lift to cover operations of current size, allow the use of the Hercs in utility roles for longer periods, reduce the strain on the C130's and buy time for their eventual replacement.
Stuart Mackey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2007   #389
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 103
Threads:
Comments deleted.

Last edited by Investigator; April 25th, 2008 at 05:13 PM.
Investigator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2007   #390
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 103
Threads:
Comments deleted.

Last edited by Investigator; April 25th, 2008 at 05:11 PM.
Investigator is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:51 PM.