Well that answers my question on a new 787 cost. The RCAF would want two jets so we are looking at roughly a half billion for flying junior around (one used and one new in CDN dollars). Even junior will realize this won’t fly politically.
You hope
Depends upon how big the ego is. I know of one senior pollie in NZ who would give this very serious consideration, whilst claiming that they weren't tempted by the baubles and symbols of office. In fact I can think of three
Actually the need is real as the current A310s are pretty old (acquired from bankrupt WardAir I believe). Anyone other than junior could do a replacement and it would be acceptable. Having junior flying off in a 787 to embarrass the country (again), not so acceptable.You hope
Great that we could spare the helicopters to assist, but shame we couldn't supply our own heavy air transports to deploy them. Maybe events like this will be the push the govt needs to get the wallet out?
The unfortunate reality though is that there really are not too many options available in terms of lift that could fit an NH90. With the C-17 no longer being available unless an ex-USAF C-17 is made available, there are really only two other choices in production. OTOH if the RNZN had more vessels able to embark/support NH90-sized helicopters, that could have been more of an option too.
There are ... were only a couple of options for the AirForce at the time... one a missed opportunity a few years back with the C-17 Whitetails and the A400m which in reality is behind schedule and has had a few mishaps along the way.
Well... it so happens that, according to the DCP 2019 ... lol
For all intents and purposes the NH90 is too large for the FFH hangar. The phrase I have heard used to describe the situation was, "not enough room to swing a bee's d*ck," which I take to basically be a no.
I agree... and has been something I have have been saying for along time... that we need to be able to take our own equipment anywhere on a strategic level. And this need s to be part the buying equipment stragedy
The C-2 is capable and more comfortably so than the A400M. I was given some aircraft hold data a while back and haven't found my record of the source details for it yet, but it is legit.
Defence Capability Plan 2019 says the current plan is for an RFT in 2024, Introduction to Service 2028. The 757s entered commercial service in 1993, RNZAF service in 2003 (link). So roughly 27 years old presently.
Chronological age is of little importance to an aircraft like the 757 and the main life limiting criteria for them will be the number of flight cycles and flight hour they have done and will do. The 757 was designed for 24000 cycles or 45000 hours, which I would suspect that our aircraft will never come close numbers. I cannot remember the hours they had when bought but they were only ten years old and are usually tasked with about 600 hours per aircraft per year so there is no fear of them being worn out. Other reasons will de dictating their replacement as was the case for their predecessors the 727's which had a noise problem which meant as more airports introduce noise restrictions, it became increasingly difficult to fulfill their functions.
Excellent point. Most military operators do not fly their commercial derivatives any where as often as an airline would. However, as commercial airlines start to retire their 757s, which is happening now, maintainability will start to become an issue as parts supplies and technical support start to dry up. If you had unlimited parts and a good solid crew of maintainers you could fly those planes another 20 years before they wore out.
I'm just recalling a time in 2019 when the 757 plane Broke down in Townsville and the replacement was delayed, forcing her to take a commercial flight home. Ironically the meeting was about the deportation of kiwis from Australia And not the first time this has happened either. What worries me is how much commercial hrs it had done prior. to Nz getting them.Hopefully any replacement won't be second hand.
Complex mechanical items such as aircraft from do break down from time to time and I remember a problem in 1969 with a 2 year old C130 (04 or 05 ) putting it out of service for a couple of weeks requiring a scramble over 3 days to finish the servicing of another herk to replace it. The reason we get these problems is simply the small size of the fleet as when one has a problem with a 757 we lose at least 50% of the fleet and when the other is in servicing that rises to 100%. this is always going to look bad, In my opinion we will always have this problem due to our small size, but that is life and it gives the juno's something to pretend that they are earning their pay
It does, and not to trivialize it, but the fact that NZ has such good allies with such capabilities, who are willing to make them available, makes it a bit less of an issue, in peace time anyway.
Here's a nice little video of the unloading process: NZ Defence Force on Twitter
Yes but what if those RCAF or RAAF in the future aren't available in the future with an increased tempo or HADR or conflict to respond to, that's a likely scenario.Doesnt really follow the Defence whitepapers pledge to be a 'force enabler to our regional allies' Bit like being invited to a social function or dinner where all your mates chip in their share, and your the own always coming up short changed.After a while charity wears thin. Bad enough for an individual, but for a countries reputation?
You do have to remember that NZ can deploy the NH-90 via sea, HMNZS Canterbury could have taken all 3 in one hit, HMNZS Will soon be able to deploy them and I am sure the when the SOPV and 2nd Enhanced Sealift vessel will all be able to.