Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Air Force & Aviation

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures




Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence








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 t68 I wonder how advanced the talks are about ex USAF airframes, could that include our Kiwi ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 13 votes, 3.62 average.
Old 4 Days Ago   #6061
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,592
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
I wonder how advanced the talks are about ex USAF airframes, could that include our Kiwi mates?
US relations are complicated currently. The US C17 fleet has seen significant use as well, I wouldn't treat it as a done deal.

As much as I would like to see a joint ANZAC C17 fleet I think that time has passed. Australia might be able to meek out an additional air frame to help it manage it's fleet life.

IMO the A400m makes a lot of sense for NZ, and in the future, perhaps Australia. If Australia can't get any more C17's, it will need another plan.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Days Ago   #6062
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
KH-12's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 304
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrConservative View Post
The C-2 is really an outsider. The design requirements set down in 2001 were for all airstrips in Japan and capable of the C-1 and C-130's of which the shortest is 800m and in an urban area close to Nagasaki. All Japanese outlying islands both civilian and military are all serviced with concrete or asphalt runways - there are no grass strips - the Japanese don't do grass other than golf courses or sport fields. That is the problem as the C-2 remains untested on rough terrain and Kawasaki will not fund further testing.

In an article by Tadayuki Yoshikawa in Aviation Wire 30/6/16

According to the aeronautical staff officials, "If demand comes out, we will think about improving capacity, but now it is a blank sheet of paper, so far it has not been taken up as a consideration for consideration"

川崎重工、空自に新型輸送機C-2納入 43年ぶり、最大の国産機

Snow and Ice landing obviously because Hokkaido and much of northern Honshu is covered in the stuff for months each year.
I remember reading somewhere that the JASDF did not require the C2 to be operated from unprepared strips but it was designed by KHI to be able to, so I guess they won't spend the money to certify it for those conditions unless someone shows some serious interest, the short field capabilities are however pretty good, possibly better than the KC390, hopefully the Japanese will bring an example to NZ at some stage.
KH-12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Days Ago   #6063
Super Moderator
Brigadier General
MrConservative's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Behind a Desk
Posts: 1,802
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KH-12 View Post
I remember reading somewhere that the JASDF did not require the C2 to be operated from unprepared strips but it was designed by KHI to be able to, so I guess they won't spend the money to certify it for those conditions unless someone shows some serious interest, the short field capabilities are however pretty good, possibly better than the KC390, hopefully the Japanese will bring an example to NZ at some stage.
I hope they do as well. The C-2 is essentially a scaled down C-17 and could be viewed as part of the strategic solution of the FAMC down the road and like the C-17 have some tactical attributes.

The GE CF6-80C2 on the C-2 is used on the KC-767 and 30% of the C2 uses COTS American supplied parts - and a way of mitigating concerns over a 3rd airframe as being part of the FAMC solution. Recce with his 'like for like +' outlook is a plausible approach to consider. What ever happens in the short term to cover the FAMC tactical side of things there is a solution down the track - it just may mean rigidity surrounding the two platform - like for like approach may well have to be jettisoned.
MrConservative is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Days Ago   #6064
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Marton NZ
Posts: 514
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrConservative View Post
I hope they do as well. The C-2 is essentially a scaled down C-17 and could be viewed as part of the strategic solution of the FAMC down the road and like the C-17 have some tactical attributes.

The GE CF6-80C2 on the C-2 is used on the KC-767 and 30% of the C2 uses COTS American supplied parts - and a way of mitigating concerns over a 3rd airframe as being part of the FAMC solution. Recce with his 'like for like +' outlook is a plausible approach to consider. What ever happens in the short term to cover the FAMC tactical side of things there is a solution down the track - it just may mean rigidity surrounding the two platform - like for like approach may well have to be jettisoned.
From what I have read, the RFI itself and some rumors from Ohakea ,your thoughts that "like for like" may a have been jettisoned is very possible or at least modified, hopefully just to be of a aircraft to carry out a similar task .
Rob c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Days Ago   #6065
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Auckland NZ
Posts: 618
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
US relations are complicated currently. The US C17 fleet has seen significant use as well, I wouldn't treat it as a done deal.

As much as I would like to see a joint ANZAC C17 fleet I think that time has passed. Australia might be able to meek out an additional air frame to help it manage it's fleet life.

IMO the A400m makes a lot of sense for NZ, and in the future, perhaps Australia. If Australia can't get any more C17's, it will need another plan.
Agree pretty much with the sentiments above - A400 probably has better understood history than C2 and C17 surely isn't an option now. I know in theory we can't discount ex-USAF C17s possibly being offered... but by who? They are owed by USAF, not Boeing... so it couldn't be Boeing that offer them to us surely? The simply aren't theirs to offer... or am I being incredibly naive!?!
Gibbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Days Ago   #6066
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Auckland NZ
Posts: 618
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob c View Post
From what I have read, the RFI itself and some rumors from Ohakea ,your thoughts that "like for like" may a have been jettisoned is very possible or at least modified, hopefully just to be of a aircraft to carry out a similar task .
Just some idle thoughts....

I'd like to think some common sense is likely to come into play and a pure 'like-for-like' option per se isn't what eventuates. But just how closely is Govt likely to listen to the various arguments for the various platforms?

Clearly from the RFI they appear very keen on the VIP / PAX aspect for the strategic option and after they got a little embarrassed with the B757 issues on the way to India they probably realise a single one of type may not be ideal... so then do they also in addition get a larger heavy-lift type (A400; C2; 2nd hand C17)... can't see Gov agreeing to what would effectively be 4 strategic a/c.

That brings me to my next 'devils advocate' question... we here all understand the need for a heavy-lifter with better range & cargo dimensions, but will the Govt be convinced the need is there? RNZAF has managed reasonably comfortably without a heavy-lifter for a long time and would they be likely to drop that if a choice had to be made!?!

There seemed to be plenty of interest when the C17 was being looked at, but it wasn't pursued and I wonder how much of that might have been doubts over the true need for it. Now I put my hand-up right here & now stating that I certainly do NOT think the need is un-proven, but I'm trying to think of how the Govt might see this... they wear a different set of rose-tinted glasses to anyone on this forum.
Gibbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Days Ago   #6067
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,549
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
Yes I belive the USAF requirements for a C130 replacement was about the size of A400M,
Back in the 1970s, the C-130 replacement was supposed to be about 100 tons or a bit more, i.e. between C-130 & A400M, with a stress on short T/O & landing (see YC-14 & YC-15). That was dropped, & instead the C-17 (which resembled a scaled up YC-15) was developed for strategic lift & C-130 kept for tactical.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Days Ago   #6068
Super Moderator
Brigadier General
MrConservative's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Behind a Desk
Posts: 1,802
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
Back in the 1970s, the C-130 replacement was supposed to be about 100 tons or a bit more, i.e. between C-130 & A400M, with a stress on short T/O & landing (see YC-14 & YC-15). That was dropped, & instead the C-17 (which resembled a scaled up YC-15) was developed for strategic lift & C-130 kept for tactical.
The YC-14 looked as though it was often hit with the ugly stick during its design .. probably the designers white cane. The YC-15 looked way better.
MrConservative is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Days Ago   #6069
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,026
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrConservative View Post
The YC-14 looked as though it was often hit with the ugly stick during its design .. probably the designers white cane. The YC-15 looked way better.
Yep, and Boeing should have noted that when designed its JSF candidate. It was so ugly I don't think it could have won even with much better performance.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Days Ago   #6070
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,549
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrConservative View Post
The YC-14 looked as though it was often hit with the ugly stick during its design .. probably the designers white cane. The YC-15 looked way better.
True. And John's right about the X-32. Neither really fits the maxim that if it looks right, it probably is.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Days Ago   #6071
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,592
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibbo View Post
Agree pretty much with the sentiments above - A400 probably has better understood history than C2 and C17 surely isn't an option now. I know in theory we can't discount ex-USAF C17s possibly being offered... but by who? They are owed by USAF, not Boeing... so it couldn't be Boeing that offer them to us surely? The simply aren't theirs to offer... or am I being incredibly naive!?!
I would imagine it would be a deal from the USAF with congress approval.
It isn't a straight forward deal, its not like they are just selling them. The USAF bough them and put them in storage after using them for a bit. Now the production line is closed, they are likely to want to keep air frames.

Even if the USAF wants to give them up, they would have to work out a way to do that. Of course, when you start doing that, another q forms.Who gets an offer. What price etc.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Days Ago   #6072
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Auckland NZ
Posts: 618
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
I would imagine it would be a deal from the USAF with congress approval.
It isn't a straight forward deal, its not like they are just selling them. The USAF bough them and put them in storage after using them for a bit. Now the production line is closed, they are likely to want to keep air frames.

Even if the USAF wants to give them up, they would have to work out a way to do that. Of course, when you start doing that, another q forms.Who gets an offer. What price etc.
Yes exactly, it wouldn't be a straight forward sale by any stretch & USAF are unlikely, in my view, to be involved in any 'pitch' to NZ - it'll be private enterprises responding to RFI / RFP. The only (outside) possibility is Boeing does a buy-back, re-furbs them, and offers them to NZ... very unlikely IMHO.
Gibbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Days Ago   #6073
Super Moderator
Brigadier General
MrConservative's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Behind a Desk
Posts: 1,802
Threads:
For quite a couple lengthy periods during the year including WinFly the USAF ties up two C-17's from McChord and 160 personnel as part of operation Deep Freeze flying out of CHC to MacTown. Around 400 hours of flight time is involved.

That in itself is a discussion starter for both the US Govt and NZ Govt to find the most efficient use of resources to mutually benefit each other.
MrConservative is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Days Ago   #6074
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Auckland NZ
Posts: 618
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrConservative View Post
For quite a couple lengthy periods during the year including WinFly the USAF ties up two C-17's from McChord and 160 personnel as part of operation Deep Freeze flying out of CHC to MacTown. Around 400 hours of flight time is involved.

That in itself is a discussion starter for both the US Govt and NZ Govt to find the most efficient use of resources to mutually benefit each other.
Yep and hence the decision on C17 should've been made & made earlier... but that's gone now. I suspect Govt feels the new RNZN tanker will assist and with both it's fuel & TEU capacity that is true to a certain extent, but even that is dependent on the US - the tanker won't get thru without a (US) icebreaker going thru first.

What I cannot ascertain from the public domain is just how critical the NZDF / RNZAF sees the need for the FAMC options to be able to get to Antarctica & back without landing if weather closes in... they cope without the ability currently, but will it become mandatory at some point or does each country make their own choice!?!

Publicly available specs suggest the A400M will do a return but only with a small payload. The other option is an A330-MRTT or KC46 type which is fine for the ice flights (because it's possible to base specialised loading equipment down there) and fine for B757 type pax/combi taskings, but useless for carrying large equipment (esp. vehicles & NH-90).

Damn....wish my crystal ball was working!
Gibbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Days Ago   #6075
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
t68's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,598
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibbo View Post
Yep and hence the decision on C17 should've been made & made earlier... but that's gone now. I suspect Govt feels the new RNZN tanker will assist and with both it's fuel & TEU capacity that is true to a certain extent, but even that is dependent on the US - the tanker won't get thru without a (US) icebreaker going thru first.

What I cannot ascertain from the public domain is just how critical the NZDF / RNZAF sees the need for the FAMC options to be able to get to Antarctica & back without landing if weather closes in... they cope without the ability currently, but will it become mandatory at some point or does each country make their own choice!?!

Publicly available specs suggest the A400M will do a return but only with a small payload. The other option is an A330-MRTT or KC46 type which is fine for the ice flights (because it's possible to base specialised loading equipment down there) and fine for B757 type pax/combi taskings, but useless for carrying large equipment (esp. vehicles & NH-90).

Damn....wish my crystal ball was working!
Don't forget Australia has a new icebreaker you are not entirely depended on the US, it's a wonder that NZ hasn't got one.
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:48 AM.