Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Royal New Zealand Air Force

Discussion in 'Air Force & Aviation' started by Lucasnz, Jul 17, 2006.

Share This Page

  1. Novascotiaboy

    Novascotiaboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2016
    Messages:
    566
    Likes Received:
    66
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    The C2 and the KC390 have many sinikarities in their respective design and look. The synergies that exist between those two platforms is in itself a huge benefit to future users. The C2 in my opinion has thw opportunity to become a world class widely used aircraft for militaries looking for a strategic lifter now that the C17 is out of production. IMHO Boeing made a big mistake shuttering the C17 production line.
     
    ASSAIL likes this.
  2. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    5,849
    Likes Received:
    761
    Location:
    In the rum store
    They look vaguely similar.
    What synergies?
    Yes the C-2 does have that opportunity, if foreign militaries will buy it. It has to sell first. Boeing couldn't afford to keep the C-17 line open indefinitely and it had to close at some point, so no they didn't make a huge mistake.
     
    swerve likes this.
  3. MrConservative

    MrConservative Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,430
    Likes Received:
    508
    Location:
    Behind a Desk
    Hah. Unconscious bias on my part or is that advancing age. :)

    They also did the Lunar Lander and the wonderful Widgeon seaplane. The 2nd aircraft I flew in after a DH Tiger Moth.
     
    ngatimozart likes this.
  4. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    5,849
    Likes Received:
    761
    Location:
    In the rum store
    Yep, Grumman made some impressive aircraft, such as the TBF Avenger, Hellcat, Bearcat, Tigercat & F-14 Tomcat. The Goose was my third aircraft after Tiger Moth, then Cessna float plane.
     
  5. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,755
    Likes Received:
    224
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Actually I should have said lunar lander not rover. I don’t know which company actually made the rover. Maybe they should make a come back with earth rovers given the interest in electric cars.:)
     
  6. Rob c

    Rob c Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    792
    Likes Received:
    80
    Location:
    Marton NZ
    It was even worse than that, the pollies of the time stuffed defence up big time with total incompetence. Even though a large number of war only service men indicated the would like to continue to serve, the pollies took miles to long to establish the terms of service and then made them as miserable as possible and not even equal between services, so the end result was mutinee's in the navy and strikes in the air force, plus a lot of potential future servicemen simply left at the first opportunity. the handling of the defence forces by the government was a total shambles, which took the defence forces over a decade to recover from. there had been no planning by the government in regard to how to transition from a wartime force to a peacetime force at all.
    in other words the whole thing was tipical of NZ pollies handling of defence for the last 100 years and has not significantly changed
     
    ngatimozart likes this.
  7. Rob c

    Rob c Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    792
    Likes Received:
    80
    Location:
    Marton NZ
    I would have been happy with the originally planned 22 F16's as they where the block 15 version and these ones were the same as a F16 C/D in regard to the fuselage and the engine with the strengthening and larger tailplane for maneuverability and the later F100-PW-220 with DEEC ( digital electronic engine control ) The only thing that made our later block 15's an A/B' was the electronics which would have been changed at a mid life update. the aircraft were built several years after the first C/D's and I assume that this was because that the US did not want the Pakistan air force to have some of the technology in the C/D's. ( Even then Pakistan had close ties to China ) so they were built with A/B avionic but actually on the C/D production line. My change would have been to get all 28 into service.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2019
  8. swerve

    swerve Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,926
    Likes Received:
    60
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire
    Boeing is a commercial company. When it stopped production it had IIRC 10 unsold C-17s on the line, which is a pretty big commitment. Starting to build even more would have been very, very risky: it was brave to commit to the number of unsold aircraft they built, let alone more. Yes, they sold 'em all, but it took a while. There weren't air forces fighting to buy them.

    Commercial companies have duties to their shareholders. Stockpiling aircraft in the hope that they may sell eventually would be a breach of that duty.
     
    Rob c, ngatimozart and MrConservative like this.
  9. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,755
    Likes Received:
    224
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Bloody lucky for Airbus that Boeing canned the C-17 as some of their orders could very well have gone to Boeing due to A400M delays and problems.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2019
  10. Gibbo

    Gibbo Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Auckland NZ
    RNZAF Facebook page has a few photos of the KA350 & one interior shot shows what are most likely AWO training consoles.

    Royal New Zealand Air Force

    Haven't heard any evidence of 2 being set-up with sensors for light MPA, wonder if that has died a death!?!
     
  11. RegR

    RegR Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Messages:
    962
    Likes Received:
    55
    Location:
    In Transit
    Where was it stated that the B757 replacements are meant to undertake all outsize freight movements? I must have missed that quite important point and if so then that actually means we did in fact miss out by not acquiring the proven C17 when we had the chance to.

    As has been pointed out the J option is literally the easiest safest option with the path of least resistance but in saying that also STILL leaves us with many (actually most) of the same deficiencies identified with the current hercules, it is after all, still a hercules at the end of the day. Improved yes but nothing dramatic even with the extra plug.

    Let's face it the reason we will go with more C130s is purely risk aversion as literally none of the other contenders are anywhere near the state of operation we require to commit such a nationally important asset to for the next 50 years.

    Whilst beneficial transiting to a "similar" platform in terms of speed, training and infrastructure this is not necessarily improving the capability vs merely replacing it as it is more the decades of operational use rather than technical use that is important ie skillset not toolset. Transport aircraft are transport aircraft, maritime maritime, helos helos, people adjust to new systems it's what we do with those systems and how we employ them that is the key. Imagine if we followed that mantra with the huey replacement and just bought new hueys? Would have been a whole lot simpler, easier and quicker but overall capability improvement would have been drastically reduced compared to the NH90 leap.

    Whilst commonality is good the thing we need to remember is all our fellow operators have multiple types already so hercs are but a portion of their overall transport fleets, this will be our transport fleet, so they already have options, we will not and this will be it. All of our allies are actively looking at C130 replacements in the short-mid term future now and just because the US is still buying them just means their reserves will eventually get them earlier so is actually no big deal to them anyway (in terms of buying new build "old" tech) as again they have options to cover.

    Not a bad thing as the mighty herc has served us well for the last 50+ years but what I am saying is will it necessarily for the next 50+? We could be left behind and wanting before we even begin otherwise. If we were to get essentially just another larger cargo transport to replace the boeings to then supplement the C130 cargo transports in the fleet then wouldn't we just get more of either one that ticks the most boxes (as in best hammer) and make inevitable sacrifices either way?

    If we do go C130s which is looking most likely then yes agreed hopefully we go with the recommended 8 to remedy those related issues at least. 5 j-30s and 3 SOFs would be a suitable compromise or stump for 5 a400s, anything less then we are starting off with known problems IMO.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2019 at 1:22 PM
    Rob c likes this.
  12. ren0312

    ren0312 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even if New Zealand raises its defence budget to 2 percent of GDP, about where Australia is, that is only still about 4 billion USD a year, is that enough to buy two dozen F-16Vs or F-35, and 4 Type 26 or FREMM frigates? Given that from what Slovakia paid, a single F-16 with AESA seems to be in the 150 million range including supports and spares? Maybe the problem is that New Zealand's population is too small and its GDP too small to support a military where all branches are armed with the most advanced weapons systems that are capable of operating against the PLAN and PLAAF, a point that Helen Clark must have understood as well?
     
  13. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,755
    Likes Received:
    224
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Our NZ colleagues no doubt can offer better insight as to what an increase to 2% GDP can actually accomplish and if it is politically possible. NZ has been out of the fast jet business for some time now, unfortunately this is unlikely to change short of a mega deterioration in the geopolitical situation. Numerous posts here have emphasized the SLOC issue and the need for a better frigate fleet. Certainly a 2% GDP budget would go a long to making a 4 frigate fleet possible and preferably T-26s to better address the Asia Pacific submarine proliferation threat.
     
  14. Novascotiaboy

    Novascotiaboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2016
    Messages:
    566
    Likes Received:
    66
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Gentlemen the RNZAF will likely remain as it is regarding capabilities for the forseable future until something dramatic occurs on a worldwide scale. And then it will be too late to correct the failings of a governments preparedness.

    Lets hope that additional transports, with ISR capability, can be funded to substitute for the lack of P3s and the resulting four P8s.

    Ren0312 any government desire for fighter aircraft in the RNZAF have flown on a path following MH370. Never to be seen again.

    Funds need to be directed to capabilites that can be supported and provide the least amount of backlash.
     
  15. kiwipatriot69

    kiwipatriot69 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2014
    Messages:
    498
    Likes Received:
    23
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Ha, the last several budgets has posted billion dollar surpluses for Nz, our debt management is actually lower than some countries in the OECD as a result.GDP growth for Nz was refered to as a 'rockstar economy' our unemployment sits at 3.9 % too. We have wasted billions a year on social policies, Kiwibuild Housing and first term Tertiary education just two of many that has sucked up money and not had a positive result. The money's there for defence, govt just doesn't want to prioritise it.

    The Billion dollars a year we spend on Pacific aid I think could be better spent on defence acquisitions as we are going to be sending them there every time there is a conflict or disaster, there has been reports of those countries squandering that money ment for infrastructure builds on luxury cars and helicopters for God's sake, aid money hasn't been monitored to see if it's being distributed or spent properly. At least with the military we know it's been accounted for.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2019 at 9:53 PM
    Gomer and John Fedup like this.
  16. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,755
    Likes Received:
    224
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    @Novascotiaboy ...beat to it regarding the geopolitical ramifications!:D

    I feel your pain, Canada under junior pi$$es away money on the same crap, the difference is, unlike NZ, Canadian tax revenues don’t cover his BS social and foreign “feel good bleeding heart” programs.
     
    kiwipatriot69 likes this.
  17. Xthenaki

    Xthenaki Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2017
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    Auckland, NZ
    Back to this incomplete post - Hope the C130J if chosen as the tactical replacement is looked as either a part tactical acquisition (longer term) and not a total replacement to cover another 50 years. To leave the door open to a further purchase covers advanced technical improvements and if absolutely necessary more C130J's as a last resort. Other aircraft such as the Kc390 may be viable improved options
     
  18. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    5,849
    Likes Received:
    761
    Location:
    In the rum store
    @RegR have you been reading what I and some others, such as Mr C have been posting about what has been stated in the FAMC RFI? We've actually read the document, plus the attachments to it, and some of us have copies of it as well which we keep referring to. You will also note reading our past posts, that Mr C and myself have been quite scathing of the failure of the Key govt to buy the two C-17A white tails. that was a colossal blunder on their part, because the decision was made purely on flawed political ideological reasons.
    It's nothing to do with the old mantra of replacing a Herc with a Herc. It's about what's the best platform to meet NZ's tactical air lift capability requirements and at present the C-130J meets those requirements. I agree 8 would be a good number, but given the history of NZ acquisitions and the current govts attitude towards defence, it would be a very remote outside chance at the best. I wouldn't even bet Winston's starboard dangler on it. Having a two tier military transport fleet comprised of aircraft with ramps is ideal, because one component is tactical, whilst the other is strategic, hence a C-130J and A400M / C-2 fleet makes sense.
    Helen Clark didn't cut defence for the reasons you stated, she did what she did for pure mid - far left wing ideological reasons and the fact that she was / is anti US and anti Australia. I looked at at the Slovak price and it does appear to be very expensive indeed, so there are other factors in that contract that are not normally included in such arrangements, or the amount quoted is a misprint. Bear in mind that the amount quoted is not the final value and is generally the upper limit.

    At 2% GDP NZ can afford a Naval Combat Force of 4 frigates, a LHD etc. An Air Combat Force of say 14 - 18 strike aircraft, Air Surveillance Force of 10 - 15 aircraft (6 x P-8, 3 x BAMS, 6 x KA-350 with sensors), 12 NH90, more naval helos, more A109 in a variety of roles, 8 x C-130J, 3 C-17A / C-2 / A400M, 3 KC30 / KC46. Upgrade the NZ Army LAV and artillery, plus introduce SPG, SAM and AAA. To get to that the NZG would have to inject capital of about NZ$25 - 30 billion over 10 - 15 years over and above the 2%GDP per annum. NZ can afford that even if it means increasing govt spending in the medium term by $3 -5 billion per year, whilst retaining current spending.

    NZ is not going to take the PRC or Russia on its own in war. We will always be part of an alliance or coalition and as such will contribute forces to such. However, it is the makeup of that contribution, it's professionalism it's seamless integration into larger forces, and its ability to be self sufficient in all aspects that is important, with the last being critical, so that it is not a drain on alliance or coalition forces. Unfortunately our politicians and Treasury officials either don't grasp or refuse to acknowledge that.
     
    ozrock62, recce.k1, Xthenaki and 3 others like this.
  19. kiwipatriot69

    kiwipatriot69 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2014
    Messages:
    498
    Likes Received:
    23
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Given that those Turbofan engines the C2 uses have a commonality among commercial aircraft that could be convenient for us too.More so than the turboprop ones A400 M uses.
     
  20. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    5,849
    Likes Received:
    761
    Location:
    In the rum store
    Not only that, but the C-2 is not built using new ground breaking technologies, but current MOTS and COTS technologies, so in that area it is less riskier. The real risk with it from a NZ pov, is it's lack of foreign buyers and low production numbers.
     
    ozrock62 and Cadredave like this.