Because the RNZAF will still get plenty of use out of them and AirNZ has enough on their plate so are likely very unwilling to committing resources to what is after all a seasonal, part-time operation.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
True but they still don't contribute to our defence when we are missing so many capabilities and the government flight is an option. AirNZ would do it if it was proffitable just as the service RNZAF aircraft for a proffit and have done so for decades. To me the oversized roundel speaks of ego being involved.
Something like the Kawasaki C2 would be more useful, can carry cargo and is reputed to have low levels of noise in the cabin similar to an airliner, so palletised seating could be used. the down side is that the PM arriving on an official in a C2 visit does not look as good..
Last edited:
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
There is no reason why you couldn’t fit palletised seating to a C-130J and give any passengers noise cancelling headsets if they don’t already own their own.
Does a ski setup exist for the C130J that could be fitted when necessary?
There is no reason why Government ministers couldn’t fly on Chartered Air NZ aircraft when going overseas. It might cost more per trip, but probably save money overall.
How often do ministers travelling inside New Zealand need the seating capacity of an A320 size airliner?
Aluminium Hail
Member
Ministers traveling within NZ do not use the 757. They normally travel economy like the rest of us (no airline offers domestic business class in NZ). So does the Governor General.
Occasionally they use the King Airs for domestic travel.
Aluminium Hail
Member
The purchase price would also probably be higher. It also needs to be remembered that Japan has not exported military equipment before, and considering how risk averse our procurement has become I doubt proposals for either the C-2 or A400m would get past the decision makers due to risk.
Having said that both aircraft would offer NZ a lot.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Actually now that the Airbus 321 XLR has been decided on i can see the logic in it, as we can get parts a lot more easily than a C2 or A 400 M as our commercial airlines use them. So does Austrailia. Don't they also use them for Antarctic flights too? And its not uncommon for other airforce to use them German Luftwaffe for instance.
I suggest that you take a look at the latest proposed seating arrangements (not reconfigurable I believe) in this recently released OIA document (link), see last page in particular. 8 "boardroom" seats, 8 lie-flat sleeper seats, 20 premium economy (the above all together take up 50% of the cabin volume), and just 80 economy seats for the plebs. An oversized toilet to allow changing room. These planes prioritize the VIP mission and non-defence missions (ie trade delegations). Pretty much what I expected - the politicians looking after themselves. This is most definitely the Luxon Vanity Project in my opinion. I would go so far to say that, in my opinion, it's almost theft from the Defence budget. A large chunk (say 50%) of the money for these should be coming out of the Dept of PM & Cabinet and Foreign Affairs & Trade (note that the Antarctic programme comes under them as well), not Defence. There is no military value in these planes. So glad Judith Collins is moving on - a competent Defence Minister would never have signed off on these (again, just my opinion). On top of that, they should be just leasing these, no point in buying them, for me.
Exactly, the money would be better spent on something that can actually be part of our defence ability, not a gloryfied ego boost for pollies. We are short of everything in defence, these are not essential.
Last edited:
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
It's amazing how things are reinterpreted in a negative light here, sometimes, if not "adjusted" outright!
Firstly, if we look at the criteria for the FAMS (Future Air Mobility - Strategic) replacement it outlines 3 key functions:
It is a B757 replacement. Nothing more and nothing less. It's not to move outsized cargo, instead pax, complimenting the C-130's.
(If Boeing had designed a replacement for the B757 i.e. another long-range narrowbody jet, then the RNZAF (and other military 757 derivative users like the USAF) would have likely have obtained this aircraft. But Boeing didn't, so here we are.
As to the A321XLR's internal configuration for troop carrying, the trop movement capacity will be 100 (20 PE + 80 economy ... no doubt Army Officers will claim PE)!
In the OIA that Chis links to (thanks for the link Chis), curiously it appears (IMO) that the Govt could have been looking at having the boardroom and lie-flat seats combined (to reduce the VIP fit-out footprint)? Sure I could be wrong but I'm basing this on the redacted comment 7 and the follow up unredacted comment 8 which states "This was accepted by the Government who accept that the eight board room seats will not be lie flat". Hence possibly why a lie-flat section was added?
Further in the document it states that for crew rest, plus supernumerary aircrew, they will get to use the lie-flat and boardroom seats (not just VIP's).
I think comments on this being a "vanity project" is misplaced. Because compared to the RAAF's new VIP B737 BBJ's we are still the "poorer cousin" as the RAAF's B737 BBJ "only" carries a total of 34 passengers (no doubt the VIP interior is akin to the many pictures of roomy/multi functional interiors of 737 BBJ's one can find online). ; )
Finally as Gibbo mentioned recently these aircraft will be well used for their intended roles - we are located thousands of miles from our neighbours and operational areas of interest and need to get troops there quickly and efficiently (with a fast turn around). Recall last year it took "several days" for a C-130 to transit/stop over to reach the Middle-East. If we had the A321XLR there probably would have been only one stop over (eg Darwin or Singapore).
To be fair the A321XLR wasn't my first choice when it was being discussed by commentators here over recent years, but it is what it is, and I'm happy to "move on" as the longer range of the A321XLR is a very useful complimentary addition to the air transport fleet. The RNZAF will soon have greater flexibility to carry out it's Govt mandated outputs.
In the longer term I still think RNZAF/NZDF are being smart here because the shortfall in cargo carrying flexibility (that the 757 offered) opens the pathway for an additional future project to acquire a heavier mil-spec airlifter. That though will be driven by endusers particularly the Army, to support its regeneration as an integrated ANZAC component). Because air lift needs both - the current complimentary medium airlift and pax capability and a future heavy lift capability ...
Firstly, if we look at the criteria for the FAMS (Future Air Mobility - Strategic) replacement it outlines 3 key functions:
This is what the chosen A321XLR will deliver.
It is a B757 replacement. Nothing more and nothing less. It's not to move outsized cargo, instead pax, complimenting the C-130's.
(If Boeing had designed a replacement for the B757 i.e. another long-range narrowbody jet, then the RNZAF (and other military 757 derivative users like the USAF) would have likely have obtained this aircraft. But Boeing didn't, so here we are.
As to the A321XLR's internal configuration for troop carrying, the trop movement capacity will be 100 (20 PE + 80 economy ... no doubt Army Officers will claim PE)!
In the OIA that Chis links to (thanks for the link Chis), curiously it appears (IMO) that the Govt could have been looking at having the boardroom and lie-flat seats combined (to reduce the VIP fit-out footprint)? Sure I could be wrong but I'm basing this on the redacted comment 7 and the follow up unredacted comment 8 which states "This was accepted by the Government who accept that the eight board room seats will not be lie flat". Hence possibly why a lie-flat section was added?
Further in the document it states that for crew rest, plus supernumerary aircrew, they will get to use the lie-flat and boardroom seats (not just VIP's).
I think comments on this being a "vanity project" is misplaced. Because compared to the RAAF's new VIP B737 BBJ's we are still the "poorer cousin" as the RAAF's B737 BBJ "only" carries a total of 34 passengers (no doubt the VIP interior is akin to the many pictures of roomy/multi functional interiors of 737 BBJ's one can find online). ; )
Finally as Gibbo mentioned recently these aircraft will be well used for their intended roles - we are located thousands of miles from our neighbours and operational areas of interest and need to get troops there quickly and efficiently (with a fast turn around). Recall last year it took "several days" for a C-130 to transit/stop over to reach the Middle-East. If we had the A321XLR there probably would have been only one stop over (eg Darwin or Singapore).
To be fair the A321XLR wasn't my first choice when it was being discussed by commentators here over recent years, but it is what it is, and I'm happy to "move on" as the longer range of the A321XLR is a very useful complimentary addition to the air transport fleet. The RNZAF will soon have greater flexibility to carry out it's Govt mandated outputs.
In the longer term I still think RNZAF/NZDF are being smart here because the shortfall in cargo carrying flexibility (that the 757 offered) opens the pathway for an additional future project to acquire a heavier mil-spec airlifter. That though will be driven by endusers particularly the Army, to support its regeneration as an integrated ANZAC component). Because air lift needs both - the current complimentary medium airlift and pax capability and a future heavy lift capability ...
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Buying 1-2 whitetail C-17s was the best option but your pollies couldn't figure that out (like our pollies who wouldn't fund additional C-17s to ease the wear and tear on the 5 we have). The A321XLR is a decent fallback option for now.
Actually I do believe it is 'less than' a B757 replacement as the loss of a main deck cargo floor is a definite reduction in flexibility & more concerning a loss of B757's AME capability even though there is a stretcher loading capability shown... where exactly do they place those once inside!?! The seating is less than the current B757. I'm still confident the RNZAF will get good use out if these but I certainly hope there aren't any restrictions on using all seats on board when not doing VIP. Better range is however a significant bonus. I'm thinking that maybe the maxm touted range might not be do-able on a max-pax + max-fuel load (ie: Antartica)
Modular systems | Knight Aerospace - Knight Aerospace
Knight Aerospace is a leading manufacturer of custom roll-on/roll-off modules – DV/VIP/transport modules and military medical modules.
knightaerospace.com
in lieu of the a321 for the pollies use the Herc as Knight Aerospace from Texas do make a Head of State modular insert for the C130J looks very comfortable and you would be forgiven if you said it was not in the C130J
Last edited:
The negativity I have towards this project is that our defence force is incapable of defending NZ in it's current state and there are no realistic plans to alter this situation, so spending on expensive items that cannot contribute to improving our ability to defend our sovereignty and freedom when we are so short of capability is not in our defences best interests.