Luckily for you guys you have the option and availability of using C17 and now C27 (in numbers) so therefore have a range of platforms to cover so the old adage of if it ain't broke don't fix can still apply as the C130 in well and truely still a relevant asset. Us on the other hand need to be more selective as both type (singular) and numbers play a vital part in our overall thinking.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
Luckily for you guys you have the option and availability of using C17 and now C27 (in numbers) so therefore have a range of platforms to cover so the old adage of if it ain't broke don't fix can still apply as the C130 in well and truely still a relevant asset. Us on the other hand need to be more selective as both type (singular) and numbers play a vital part in our overall thinking.
There is an interesting artical in the September APDR regarding the NH 90 which appears to say that most of the problems have been resolved and gives a customer by customer status. Interestingly it says that the RNZAF achieves the greatest availability of any operator.
Asia Pacific Defence Reporter : APDR September 2018, Page 1
Asia Pacific Defence Reporter : APDR September 2018, Page 1
The two links may appear the same but are different pages.
Asia Pacific Defence Reporter : APDR September 2018, Page 1
Asia Pacific Defence Reporter : APDR September 2018, Page 1
The two links may appear the same but are different pages.
Last edited:
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
I wonder if Air Nz purchase of Airbus A320 to replace their commercial fleet, could influence RNZAF to purchase the A400 M, could this mean a more favourable deal for us having already made such a significant purchase with them? Is there some compatibility between the two airframes that could be advantages for us if we went ahead with A400 M?
Last edited:
No compatibility between the two apart from the manufacturer. The only compatibility that the A400M has with any of the Airbus airliners is in the cockpit where the cockpit is slightly modified version of the A380 cockpit.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Spain and Korea are in talks of trading A400s for Kai50 trainers. Spain has a surplus of A400 over requirements according to Defence Aerospace.
Another possible source of the A400 for NZ.
Another possible source of the A400 for NZ.
South Korea and Spain seek deal to swap trainer jets for airlifters
Hopefully, they can pull this off as it would be great to have the Koreans flying the A400M as they are a growing regional security ally of New Zealand. It would give the NZDF MoD confidence in having a reliable major player in the Asia-Pacific become part of the A400M group.
MARKMILES77
Well-Known Member
Knew that Maritime Patrol aircraft could carry Torpedoes and Anti-Ship Missiles but didn't realise the P3 could act as a long range bomber carrying dumb bombs.
Presumably can also carry Laser Guided Bombs (SDBs as well?).
If they can carry LGBs, their very long endurance would make them useful for persistant Close Air Support.
Does the P8 have the same capability?
If so how many bombs can it carry?
Presumably can also carry Laser Guided Bombs (SDBs as well?).
If they can carry LGBs, their very long endurance would make them useful for persistant Close Air Support.
Does the P8 have the same capability?
If so how many bombs can it carry?
I believe that one of the reasons they drop the Mk-82s is to keep their skills honed in dropping depth charges etc., as well as retaining the capability of dropping bombs. When the ACF was deep sixed the Mk-83 was removed from the RNZAF inventory as well. AFAIK, the NZDF does not have LGB in it's inventory, however that capability could be introduced quickly if required. I am unaware of the P-8 capability for bomb carrying.
FoxtrotRomeo999
Active Member
It looks like the Boeing_P-8_Poseidon can carry free fall bombs:
From Wikipedia (sorry, tried the Boeing site but no luck)
Weapons on the multimission maritime aircraft
The integral bomb bay can carry free-fall bombs, Raytheon Mark 54 torpedoes and depth charges. Air-to-surface missiles are installed on the underwing hardpoints.
Note that from the Wikipedia entries, the P-8 has a useful load of 9,000 kg which is roughly one third that of the P-3 (useful load of 26,400 kg).Armament
5 internal and 6 external stations for AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER, AGM-84 Harpoon, Mark 54 torpedo, missiles, mines, torpedoes, bombs, and a High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon system
From website P-8A Poseidon Maritime Surveillance Aircraft - Naval Technology5 internal and 6 external stations for AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER, AGM-84 Harpoon, Mark 54 torpedo, missiles, mines, torpedoes, bombs, and a High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon system
Weapons on the multimission maritime aircraft
The integral bomb bay can carry free-fall bombs, Raytheon Mark 54 torpedoes and depth charges. Air-to-surface missiles are installed on the underwing hardpoints.
Have a great day, FR
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I would have to question those pay load figures between the P-3 v P-8, I suspect the figures for the P-3 is difference between empty and Max Take off Weight, and the P-8s is only the max Weapons load. I just find it very difficult to believe the P-3 can carry 3 times the Pay Load of a P-8
The Wikipedia page for the P-3 says
Empty weight 35,000 kg
Loaded weight. 61,400 kg
Max T/O weight 64,400 kg
So yes, 26,400 kg is the difference between empty & loaded. It therefore includes fuel, crew & everything else, not only weapons. Capacity of bomb bay & external hardpoints is given as 20,000 lb, i.e. 9000 kg.
The P-8 empty & max T/O weights are given as 62,700 & 82,800 kg, but this is puzzling, as the empty weight of the basic 737-800 is only 41,400 kg. The P-8 might weigh more, because it's modified from a higher weight 737-800ERX (can't find empty weight), & it has extra equipment, but over 20 tons more, when max T/O weight is only 3 tons more? And all the passenger-specific stuff which wouldn't be carried (seats, lockers, food, drink, galleys etc.) has to be offset against the extra stuff.
The difference between empty & max T/O weights is less than the weight of a full fuel load for the basic 737-800, but the 737-800ERX should have more fuel capacity, & the P-8 at least as much. The Wikipedia P-8 empty weight isn't credible.
The US Navair site says the P-8's max T/O weight is 85,800 kg, but even that isn't enough extra for the Wikipedia empty weight to be credible.
Aha! The Naval Technology site says that the P-8 has extra fuel tanks in the hold allowing it to carry 34,100 kg of fuel.
I think it's probably best to accept the US Navair max weight. That gives 51,700 kg less max fuel. I'd guess that it has about the same weapons capacity as the P-3, & empty weight is only a few tons more than the 737-800.
Empty weight 35,000 kg
Loaded weight. 61,400 kg
Max T/O weight 64,400 kg
So yes, 26,400 kg is the difference between empty & loaded. It therefore includes fuel, crew & everything else, not only weapons. Capacity of bomb bay & external hardpoints is given as 20,000 lb, i.e. 9000 kg.
The P-8 empty & max T/O weights are given as 62,700 & 82,800 kg, but this is puzzling, as the empty weight of the basic 737-800 is only 41,400 kg. The P-8 might weigh more, because it's modified from a higher weight 737-800ERX (can't find empty weight), & it has extra equipment, but over 20 tons more, when max T/O weight is only 3 tons more? And all the passenger-specific stuff which wouldn't be carried (seats, lockers, food, drink, galleys etc.) has to be offset against the extra stuff.
The difference between empty & max T/O weights is less than the weight of a full fuel load for the basic 737-800, but the 737-800ERX should have more fuel capacity, & the P-8 at least as much. The Wikipedia P-8 empty weight isn't credible.
The US Navair site says the P-8's max T/O weight is 85,800 kg, but even that isn't enough extra for the Wikipedia empty weight to be credible.
Aha! The Naval Technology site says that the P-8 has extra fuel tanks in the hold allowing it to carry 34,100 kg of fuel.
I think it's probably best to accept the US Navair max weight. That gives 51,700 kg less max fuel. I'd guess that it has about the same weapons capacity as the P-3, & empty weight is only a few tons more than the 737-800.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I think the whole problem here is using Wikipedia as a source, not considered to be overly credible and should be treated with some scepticism.
Or you could look at it the other way and ask why so many Euro nations are looking to offload A400/purchase additional C-130.
France, Germany, Spain....
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
From the sounds of all the media reports so far, the issues were what, faulty gearboxes, composites in the fuselage, weight issues, and a flight control issue with the software, leading to a seriously crash, being the main cause of grounding the planes while the problems were now fixed?
All new technology has teething problems just look at the massive cost overruns and issues facing the F35, comparitivly, Airbus got off lightly. The main issue those customers are cutting orders are delays to meeting their demand.
Fortunatly New Zealand doesn't have major Nato commitments to fill, a 2025 replacement for the 757 would be doable under the current build rate.
id imagine Nz govt would be hesitant to order more than a few for a Strategic role anyway, given the cost.
France and Germany because of the length of time that it is taking to achieve FOC, creating significant problems because of existing platform (Transall C-160) unavailability, due to obsolescence, plus the continual increasing A400M development costs. Spain's issues are purely cost related based on increasing affordability due to a poor economy.
If NZ were to order some tomorrow, the first manufacturing slots aren't available until 2022. However, if some were bought off the Luftwaffe, we'd could acquire some some sooner.
IMHO, 3 x A400M and 6 x KC-130J would fit the bill and if the first A400M was acquired along with the first two KC-130J these could be inducted and introduced in 2021, starting the process to phase out the C-130H(NZ), with the other 4 x 130J being delivered by 2023 followed by the 2 x A400M in 2024 - 25. Expensive yes, but necessary.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
How far through the tender process for tactical lift are we by now? Seems to me we are running out of time before real issues with the hercules arises.
Wikipedia is very useful, as long as one is sensible. Academic studies show that on most topics it's pretty good, & articles with problems are usually marked as such quite quickly.
But like any other source, it should not be accepted uncritically. The sources used by the Wikipedia authors should be checked, for example.
The process is at Cabinet level for the decision on which tender is accepted. The Minister said earlier in the year that a decision was to be made in November, and that he was bringing it forward because of the problems with the Hercules, well it's now Armistice Day and no decision yet.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
NZDF begins annual airlift support for Antarctic research
The 2018 Antarctic summer season kicks off. I'd forgotten that Italy is also a member of the shared NZ/USA joint logistics pool.
In other news
Royal New Zealand Air Force
here is a great shot of the outgoing and incoming light twin-engine fleet. Still one more B350 in the paint shop, from the look of things.
The 2018 Antarctic summer season kicks off. I'd forgotten that Italy is also a member of the shared NZ/USA joint logistics pool.
In other news
Royal New Zealand Air Force
here is a great shot of the outgoing and incoming light twin-engine fleet. Still one more B350 in the paint shop, from the look of things.