Royal New Zealand Air Force

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Or, we just keep doing what has been working for the past 65 years? There is no reason the new hercs will not keep flying south just the same as the old hercs...if it was that much of an issue we would have stopped C-130 flights into Antarctica decades ago.

Unless we are going to fly a escorting KC down with every trip at added cost then what exactly is the point? Even the US does not do this, and they actually can.
Just because we have been doing it that way for 65 years doesn't mean that it is effective or efficient. Using tthat logic one could argue that the army could still use the No 4 Mk 1* rifle because they have been using the Lee Enfield bolt action for years and there's nothing wrong with it. While we're at it we'll stay with the WW2 battle dress uniform as well.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: t68

RegR

Well-Known Member
Just because we have been doing it that way for 65 years doesn't mean that it is effective or efficient. Using tthat logic one could argue that the army could still use the No 4 Mk 1* rifle because they have been using the Lee Enfield bolt action for years and there's nothing wrong with it. While we're at it we'll stay with the WW2 battle dress uniform as well.
Well obviously it is, it's what they just did and considering they just penned the deal for new C-130s is what they will do for the next 50+ years again, so someone at least in the know is using the logic...
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
There's no reason why two or three KC-130J cannot be acquired at some stage. We wouldn't need to go Harvest Hawk because the USMC operate KC-130s and I believe that they either have or are moving to the KC-130J. Of course we'd have to modify our J-30s to take probes.
Out of interest, what is the difference in distance from Hobart-Wilkins compared to Christchurch-McMurdo? The RAAF flew a C-130J fitted with external fuel tanks last year to Wilkins. They indicated that it could in the future carry a larger load than the test load it took down. Cheers. Hercules on ice: RAAF C-130J flight to Antarctica

Just found the below article that indicates they also had extra fuel in the cargo compartment, it doesn't say how much though. Hercules makes historic landing on the ice | Defence News
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Out of interest, what is the difference in distance from Hobart-Wilkins compared to Christchurch-McMurdo? The RAAF flew a C-130J fitted with external fuel tanks last year to Wilkins. They indicated that it could in the future carry a larger load than the test load it took down. Cheers. Hercules on ice: RAAF C-130J flight to Antarctica

Just found the below article that indicates they also had extra fuel in the cargo compartment, it doesn't say how much though. Hercules makes historic landing on the ice | Defence News
It's 2100nm to Pegasus Field from Christchurch. From memory I think the actual distance is 2080nm. So the Christchurch - McMurdo distance is 300nm longer. Of course the RNZAF also has significant institutional knowledge about operating on the ice given it's long history of operating there.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
It's 2100nm to Pegasus Field from Christchurch. From memory I think the actual distance is 2080nm. So the Christchurch - McMurdo distance is 300nm longer. Of course the RNZAF also has significant institutional knowledge about operating on the ice given it's long history of operating there.

Does RNZAF have the extra wing tanks & plumbing available for use like the RAAF?


You guys got a lot of gratitude from the US for the flight

New Zealand Media and Entertainment (pressreader.com)
 

Rob c

Well-Known Member
Yep we have the external tank capability? Think we've had that right from the start.
`On both C130 E and H the external tanks were a standard fit from new. The question will be will they make them available to the J's when we get them. I would not think that they would remain on during normal operations as they do increase the fuel burn significantly and the J without them goes further than an H anyway. During major servicing's back in the late 60's early 70's I was involved in the removal and refitting of the external tanks and from memory it took a couple of days including a fare amount of swearing.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
`On both C130 E and H the external tanks were a standard fit from new. The question will be will they make them available to the J's when we get them. I would not think that they would remain on during normal operations as they do increase the fuel burn significantly and the J without them goes further than an H anyway. During major servicing's back in the late 60's early 70's I was involved in the removal and refitting of the external tanks and from memory it took a couple of days including a fare amount of swearing.
@Rob c I am shocked, mortified even that you would subject the ears of impressionable young baggies to such uncouth language. I suppose that you introduced them to the demon drink, and the pursuit of loose women as well. Shocking, shocking indeed. :p
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
`On both C130 E and H the external tanks were a standard fit from new. The question will be will they make them available to the J's when we get them. I would not think that they would remain on during normal operations as they do increase the fuel burn significantly and the J without them goes further than an H anyway. During major servicing's back in the late 60's early 70's I was involved in the removal and refitting of the external tanks and from memory it took a couple of days including a fare amount of swearing.
The RAAF generally flies their C-130J's without external tanks. They've only been fitted to a couple over the last couple of years mainly for trials. Cheers New tanks add to C-130J Hercules' fuel capacity | Royal Australian Air Force
 

At lakes

Active Member

The current issue of the Asia Pacific Defence reporter has an article that NZ defence spending will be focused on Maritime Patrol and Transport. To that end the reporter has made a comment that the Air Force is expanding its fleet of P8A patrol aircraft. Is this just bad journalism on the part of the reporter or is something actually happening that this journalist knows that n0 one else does including the air force. The article is quoting some data from an organisation Rouble, Aerospace & Defense Analyst at GlobalData,
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

The current issue of the Asia Pacific Defence reporter has an article that NZ defence spending will be focused on Maritime Patrol and Transport. To that end the reporter has made a comment that the Air Force is expanding its fleet of P8A patrol aircraft. Is this just bad journalism on the part of the reporter or is something actually happening that this journalist knows that n0 one else does including the air force. The article is quoting some data from an organisation Rouble, Aerospace & Defense Analyst at GlobalData,
I would countenance a lot of caution about that article. There is nothing to suggest that the current government will increase the size of the P-8A fleet. We have a Minister of Defence who is continually MIA and a government that is somewhat allergic to defence spending. They love to talk the talk when there is a photo op involved.
 

Hone C

Active Member

The current issue of the Asia Pacific Defence reporter has an article that NZ defence spending will be focused on Maritime Patrol and Transport. To that end the reporter has made a comment that the Air Force is expanding its fleet of P8A patrol aircraft. Is this just bad journalism on the part of the reporter or is something actually happening that this journalist knows that n0 one else does including the air force. The article is quoting some data from an organisation Rouble, Aerospace & Defense Analyst at GlobalData,
I think that journalist has probably got 'expanding' and 'acquiring' confused. Words are hard.

The article mentions EEZ patrolling, keeping SLOC open, and South Pacific commitments, which realistically require far more than 4 P-8. It would be great to have a P-8 fleet twice the size of the current order, but it's not going to happen, especially with the current government.
 

Shanesworld

Active Member
Could we start a campaign of self fulfilling prophecy? Start a rumour that labour and greens due to sudden and startling reports of chinese nuclear attack subs surfacing in our waters have prompted them to contact boeing and order a further 8 p-8s. Just keep repeating it, building on it until due to sheer exhaustion they give in and order 4 more. The nuclear subs were male crews only, non inclusive and had frightening co2 emmissions. Chinese coastguard sailing within 20 kms of chatham islands with no facemasks and no vaccination records. So on and so on
 

Rob c

Well-Known Member
. It would be great to have a P-8 fleet twice the size of the current order, but it's not going to happen, especially with the current government.
This would be great but wont happen. Normal government criteria for the NZ Armed forces is for them to do the impossible with very little and if the crap hits the fan carry on and do miracles with almost nothing. Sadly that's the way NZ governments work in regard to Defence, however I would love to be proved wrong on this.
 

Jellybeen

New Member
Can the community please tell me when the P8 line is due to close for good ?.As a lae person to me most if the cost has been spent in the first tranch of aircraft ,along with the infrastructure . Surley to add one or possibly two more as the last two aircraft to come off the line would be a huge benefit
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
From memory Boeing needs 2 years to order long lead items, so once it stops ordering those long lead items that will signify the ending of the production line.
 

Gibbo

Active Member
I think that journalist has probably got 'expanding' and 'acquiring' confused. Words are hard.

The article mentions EEZ patrolling, keeping SLOC open, and South Pacific commitments, which realistically require far more than 4 P-8. It would be great to have a P-8 fleet twice the size of the current order, but it's not going to happen, especially with the current government.
Yeah nothing but a shallow puff-piece highlighting a few obvious priorities in the last DCP which we have been told to expect to be revised some this year... largely deferment from what press have reported. There's no way an increased P8A fleet will happen... they have the 'EMAC' project that would complement the P8A to enable the latter to focus on more sharp-end taskings by (EMAC) taking over the more civvy based roles (SAR, fishery patrols etc). However I suspect the EMAC project will be deferred first.
 
Top