Royal New Zealand Air Force

t68

Well-Known Member
On another forum I visit there is a chap claiming that the RNZAF C130's don't do the dirt landing caper, for which I know you have but for the life of me I cant find a photo or YouTube clip showing RNZAF C130H landing on a austere airfield. anyone have a link to one by chance?
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
On another forum I visit there is a chap claiming that the RNZAF C130's don't do the dirt landing caper, for which I know you have but for the life of me I cant find a photo or YouTube clip showing RNZAF C130H landing on a austere airfield. anyone have a link to one by chance?
At the start of this Air Force news shows a RNZAF C-130 at Bagram in Afghan which had a dirt strip and was hot and high. Also was a USAF C-130 there as well.

http://www.airforce.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/airforce-news/afn148.pdf
 

Xthenaki

Active Member
My understanding was that the Capability report was to come first followed by the decision on the C 130 H in November. As neither has appeared yet it would appear that the capability report may be the problem. Have the pollies found that there is not enough capability? (we all know this anyway). are they playing games again? (nothing new) or is there a genuine reason for the delay? Maybe the pollies are just more interested in their xmas shopping. But seriously what report on defence ever comes out on time? Once the pollies see the draft they usually require alterations to suit themselves so they don't have to commit to anything.
I think the capability report is the problem because of the now changing political scene. The 2016 Defence review may not be adequate for the tasks needed. As the forum has stated recently the RNZAF need more light - light/medium choppers and I believe upgraded versions of the Chanook. This could alter the mix for our transport and logistics replacements. RNZN need a LHD and will our frigates be able to provide the air protection needed in limited form that would normally be given by an AWD . Finally - the pollies may deliberating how this will now unfold - politically and financially. 2019 will be the earliest.
 

beagelle

New Member
I remember sitting upstairs in my MQ in Kay Cresent at Hobby watching them do touch and goes there. Not actually heard of them doing any beach landings here in NZ. What beaches would be suitable, Dark coloured sand on Auckland west coast more firmer than normal sand ?
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I think the capability report is the problem because of the now changing political scene. The 2016 Defence review may not be adequate for the tasks needed. As the forum has stated recently the RNZAF need more light - light/medium choppers and I believe upgraded versions of the Chanook. This could alter the mix for our transport and logistics replacements. RNZN need a LHD and will our frigates be able to provide the air protection needed in limited form that would normally be given by an AWD . Finally - the pollies may deliberating how this will now unfold - politically and financially. 2019 will be the earliest.
One of the reasons that the FAMC has been delayed by the capability report in my opinion could be that they are looking at the numbers of aircraft required. this could mean a change in the total numbers or a change in the mix of tactical and strategic. for instance, 4 tactical and 3 strategic.
 

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
Rob I tend to agree thst something is up otherwise there would have been the end of November announcement.

Given the loss of US aircraft recently and comments regarding age I would hope that this is factoring into the decision as well. Even though the maintenance received by RNZAF technicians and contractors is commendable these are still half century old machines being asked to perform amazing taskings.

So what aircraft can be fast tracked to get in service to help allieviate the workload? Unless the US is willing to give up productiin slots with LM the timeline for any aircraft will be delayed until the planned inservice times.

Lets hope Santa will drop off the announcement on the 25th.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Given that the Hercules production line has been running for over six decades will great success , IMHO, LM can likely address an urgent tactic lift requirement while at the same time keeping the USAF happy. Only certain commercial jets are in this category. For strategic lift options, the situation isn’t as good.
 

40 deg south

Well-Known Member
Rob I tend to agree thst something is up otherwise there would have been the end of November announcement.

Given the loss of US aircraft recently and comments regarding age I would hope that this is factoring into the decision as well. Even though the maintenance received by RNZAF technicians and contractors is commendable these are still half century old machines being asked to perform amazing taskings.

So what aircraft can be fast tracked to get in service to help allieviate the workload? Unless the US is willing to give up productiin slots with LM the timeline for any aircraft will be delayed until the planned inservice times.

Lets hope Santa will drop off the announcement on the 25th.
Last NZ Cabinet meeting of the year was yesterday, so there will be no further big announcements until early next year (late-ish Jan is the inaugural Cabinet meeting, usually). So no defence goodies under the tree this year.

It is certainly possible that Rob is on the money, and there is some reconsideration of the strategic environment underway.Thay would tally with the Foreign Affairs MInister's recent comments encouraging more US involvement in the Pacific.

Alternatively, it never pays to underestimate the role of chance in delaying processes and decisions. I speak as someone whose Department struggled mightily to get a paper to the last Cabinet meeting of the year (yesterday), but failed because some key people were sick or travelling a month ago when the paper needed to be finalised and submitted. For a small Ministry like Defence, that kind of thing is an ongoing risk.

My own guess is that there will be an order of C130's in the first half of 2019. If there are only 4 or fewer, it suggests there are strategic aircraft on the way (presumably A400?). If the C130 order is for 5 or 6 aircraft, there will be nothing more coming until the B757s are replaced, probably with a civilian-style freighter (767/A330).

My track record on these predications is almost 100% wrong, so in reality anything could happen!
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
One of the reasons that the FAMC has been delayed by the capability report in my opinion could be that they are looking at the numbers of aircraft required. this could mean a change in the total numbers or a change in the mix of tactical and strategic. for instance, 4 tactical and 3 strategic.
Last NZ Cabinet meeting of the year was yesterday, so there will be no further big announcements until early next year (late-ish Jan is the inaugural Cabinet meeting, usually). So do defence goodies under the tree this year.

It is certainly possible that Rob is on the money, and there is some reconsideration of the strategic environment underway.Thay would tally with the Foreign Affairs MInister's recent comments encouraging more US involvement in the Pacific.

Alternatively, it never pays to understimate the role of chance in delaying processes and decisions. I speak as someone whose Department struggled mightily to get a paper to the last Cabinet meeting of the year (yesterday), but failed because some key people were sick or travelling a month ago when the paper needed to be finalised and submitted. For a small Ministry like Defence, that kind of thing is an ongong risk.

My own guess is that there will be an order of C130's in the first half of 2019. If there are only 4 or fewer, it suggests there are strategic aircraft on the way (presumably A400?). If the C130 order is for 5 or 6 aircraft, there will be nothing more coming until the B757s are replaced, probably with a civilian-style freighter (767/A330).

My track record on these predications is almost 100% wrong, so in reality anything could happen!
I would have to agree with both of these ATM. I think that the the capability report delay is due to the deteriorating geostrategic situation and the recent defence climate change report as defence determine new capability requirements and crunch the funding requirements along with Treasury whilst the pollies will decide whether or not such requirements will be funded or not.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
An increase in the strategic numbers in the FAMC at the expense of the tactical numbers would achieve an overall improvement, if the aircraft chosen was either the C2 or the A400 as there is little these aircraft cant do that a C130 J / KC390 can do.
I did read some were recently that the RNZAF was concerned with the speed that they could deliver what was required when required in a crisis. I can't remember were I read it (a case of OTD.(old timers disease)), But that would suggest to me that availability and cruise speed will be important to the air force, but as Ngati has said the pollies have the final say.
 

htbrst

Active Member
Singapore F-15 base scrapped for Ohakea

The Government has scrapped plans to create a base for a squadron of Singaporean fighter jets, citing the excessive costs involved.

However, New Zealand may yet host the country’s fighter aircraft, albeit for short periods, with Defence Minister Ron Mark instructing officials to look into what is possible.

In early 2017, the National government announced it was speaking to Singapore about setting up a permanent training base at Ohakea for one of that country’s F-15 fighter jet squadrons.

But its successor has now confirmed the idea won't get off the ground....
A bigger description of the why nots's is found in the article
 

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
So if a single squadron of foreign fighters can not be accommodated economically then what is the likelihood of an RNZAF super base at Ohakea? I would agree with the sentiments of the author and his observation of lack of funding in the past and currently for base infrastructure. So sad for the NZDF that this has happened as this opportunity could have had great benefits to the military and civilian populations.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
So if a single squadron of foreign fighters can not be accommodated economically then what is the likelihood of an RNZAF super base at Ohakea? I would agree with the sentiments of the author and his observation of lack of funding in the past and currently for base infrastructure. So sad for the NZDF that this has happened as this opportunity could have had great benefits to the military and civilian populations.
Yep, but room could be made at Ohakea by moving all the training to Woodbourne, thus centralising all RNZAF training in the one place. Whenuapai looks like the next base to be for the chop with increased urbanisation (& associated NIMBY's) around it, so it's squadrons will likely move to Ohakea and / or Mangere (Auckland International Airport) especially when the second runway at Mangere is up and running. It also signifies that the current govt is unwilling to spend the money to gain a sound business opportunity because it's defence related.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
So if a single squadron of foreign fighters can not be accommodated economically then what is the likelihood of an RNZAF super base at Ohakea? I would agree with the sentiments of the author and his observation of lack of funding in the past and currently for base infrastructure. So sad for the NZDF that this has happened as this opportunity could have had great benefits to the military and civilian populations.
The use of OIA requests will undoubtably uncover the real truth and numbers. Dollars to donuts I would say that Mr Ron Mark is privately livid that Cabinet did not follow through.

Stalled partnership with Singapore 7 months overdue | Scoop News

At present the scale of incompetence is breathtaking.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
One has to wonder about what the adult 5-eyes think about NZ and Canada. There must be days where the concept of 3-eyes looks to be better.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
One has to wonder about what the adult 5-eyes think about NZ and Canada. There must be days where the concept of 3-eyes looks to be better.
If you are looking at that using a perspective of political competence then I am afraid with May and Trump I am sure the temporary political mismanagement and stupidity of Justin's and Jacindarella's administration are regarded as what they are - temporary and stupid with plenty of that to go around. They will be gone, as will Trump and May and Australia will likely get a Shorten cabinet. I am sure that these political sideshows that politicians wander into is well factored in.
 

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
If you are looking at that using a perspective of political competence then I am afraid with May and Trump I am sure the temporary political mismanagement and stupidity of Justin's and Jacindarella's administration are regarded as what they are - temporary and stupid with plenty of that to go around. They will be gone, as will Trump and May and Australia will likely get a Shorten cabinet. I am sure that these political sideshows that politicians wander into is well factored in.
I've got no doubt you're right about political (clown?) sideshows being factored in but the damage done by some of those clowns has had ramifications for many years thereafter... eg. in NZ's case the loss of ACF & reduction in frigate force. I don't think I'd consider Canada as much a defence basket case as NZ is now.

With almost 30 years of significant under-funding of defence NZ has now jumped beyond that side-show status and is firmly now in the 'new normal' of a dumbed down defence force and at a Govt level a complete & utter lack of understanding of the nature of defence relationships & how they are part of that 3 legged stool (the other 2 legs being foreign affairs & trade). NZ is almost at the point, if not already there, of irrelevancy in the defence space. Hey we're tiny & insignificant in the new world order of globalisation...maybe we should just accept that! Well I won't!

Being a small player NZ should always aim for quality over quantity - but cutting corners (eg: P3K2 without self-defence systems, Frigates without surface to surface weapons such as Harpoon) and so on have consistently dumbed down the quality component. if the 4 P8A are armed 'properly' and Frigate replacements meant 3 vessels with a SSM then we could start to move back into the 'quality' side of the equation but alas I'm not going to hold my breath.

There has been a systematic rundown of defence by every single Govt in the last 30 years and the $20Bn supposedly on the table was little more than catch-up & maintaining status quo - if indeed it ever actually materialised. I'm quietly confident there is a slow dawning in NZ of the folly of the last 30 years however I doubt that is going to translate to any significant increase in funding, it'll take some nasty scares and making of some very awkward decisions to turn this attitude around. Unfortunately I also foresee the Greens ascending again and that won't be great for defence.

I dare say the grown-ups in 5-eyes have pretty much moved on from taking us too seriously. I guess P8A & SAS could take up (very) small niche roles on the periphery of any significant conflict but alas we don't have the ability to sustain such deployments. The reality is we will only ever get tame side-show roles, we play on the edge of the sandpit whilst the big-boys play in the middle, but it is in fact ourselves who have cast ourselves to the edge of that sandpit.

I dare say costs were indeed a major factor in the Singaporean decision due to the decades of run-down and that should clearly flag just how unlikely it is we will ever see a NZ ACF re-established in peace time. Given RSAF were to provide the a/c NZ only had to pay a share of infrastructure costs. If NZ were to look at it's own ACF it would have a massive cost of a/c; own personnel plus those same infrastructure costs to fund, so I forthwith say here & now, the next time I see a 'dream-list' of combat a/c with supposed shelf prices etc I will bloody-well scream!

Bah-humbug, nasty xmas pressie!
 
Top