That will be what the Future Air Mobility Capability Project will be looking at and we'll have to wait and see what they recommend.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
Those 767 will be over 20 years of age by the time Air NZ retires them in 2016, the existing 757's are about 5 years younger with I'm guessing a lot less hours on them.
Zero Alpha
New Member
Something that came through strongly from the VfM review was heavy criticism of the military owning assets that were essentially civilian in nature (i.e those that offered no military utility). The problem with civil airliners is they don't offer anything you and I couldn't source with a cell phone and a Mastercard. A few years ago I was working with a freight broker to get a 747F from Perth to Ohakea. Even after relocating from the Singapore hub, it was very affordable. You could probably do the flight return trip once a fortnight for less than what the depression on even a second hand aircraft would cost.
Ah yes, thanks for that. I thought that some were newer but that is not the case so not a viable option.
I read the VfM and understood that, however I am looking at it more from the pollies vanity point of view. It could also argued that the aircraft would be a whole of government asset. Also I notice that the UK govt are fitting out a Voyager aircraft for VIP use because they have found it cheaper than using commercial aircraft services for ministerial and VIP transport.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Frankly (please note my distain of politicos, as well as their vanity) from my POV, it seems that a number of "whole of Gov't" use assets are owned/operated by the NZDF, to the detriment of the NZDF.
If the members of Gov't (civil service and/or politicians) want to "show off" by arriving in a jetliner with a Kiwi roundel, how quick would the NZ public be to raise an uproar if such a large, expensive assets were owned/operated by MFAT?
Clearly VIP transport has a place in various militaries around the world, but given the very tight purse-strings that the NZDF has to work with, I do not feel that such a specialty transport role is appropriate. Especially since there is another airlift organization which appears on the list of NZ Gov't organizations.
Honestly, I am not too thrilled with the RAAF maintaining a specialty VIP capability as large as it does either, or for the reasons it does. Namely journos complaining about having to fly commercial to cover stories Gov't is interested in having published, which IIRC is why the A330 MRTT's do not have QC passenger/cargo space.
Zero Alpha
New Member
Everything is considered whole of govt these days (like the slogan says "A Force for New Zealand"). Something smaller would probably have more utility. It could also perform medical transport and potentially a basic surveillance role. Doubt it would be a priority though.
Maybe an A321neo LR, B737-900ER or B737MAX if they bought new. Otherwise pick up a couple of A321s on the market and insert an extra fuel tank for ER capability. But if they went down that path it has to be funded as a whole of government asset, not just defence.
t68
Well-Known Member
Agree to point. I am no fan of the ruling elite abusing the privilege of the VIP flights like a personal taxi service(Julie Bishops recent use of VIP aircraft after a party in Perth then to CBR next morning)as has been done by members on both sides of the house. Office of the Prime Minister is an exception to the rule wether or not that should be an aircraft that can take media with is another matter, but media should not be treating as a free ride either
The big problem is media go very selective in their scrutiny of purchase of wide body aircraft for VIP fleet (so sorry - meant to say "Special Purpose Fleet" as government refer to it). They are far from the fearless guardians of the truth we should expect them to be.
The media virtually hide any info about the purchase or conversion in Australia, so,it is very quietly introduced.
Most likely the same in NZ, I would imagine.
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
I came across this information on another forum(Airliners net, nor does it give a source of infomation) its not the actual airframes hours for each aircraft but a rough estimate across the entire USAF fleet. it also suggests that USAF has an excess of thirty airframes for which congress pushed onto them
An article on the Stuff website today with the mainstream media high accuracy heading Plans to replace Defence Force's 'rusting' Hercules fleet fails to get lift off. The article looks more at the strategic option: C17, A400M and B767. They give a lot of space to Ron Mark and he is just showing his ignorance yet again, regarding NZDF CONOPS, now compared to what they were when he was in over 20 years ago. He and most likely the ones he consulted, retired "countless retired defence personnel", still have the single service mindset of service first and bugger the other two services. They either refuse to, or are unable to, comprehend that defence in NZ has evolved to a joint force with the singles services now being an adjunct to that joint force.
As of SDSR 2015, 14 C-130s will remain with the RAF until 2030 in addition to the 22 A400Ms
.We do know VIP is not the only task the boeings are capable of? In fact is a very small portion of their overall use (unless you consider an economy class seat with 100+ of your mates VIP then ok it bumps up abit
We seem to be talking as if JK and his entourage are the only ones who use this asset and therefore the only justification for its existence, which is not the case at all.
I never once saw even one MP on any of my flights in these (or their pre-desessor 727s) either here or overseas and I did'nt consider myself a 'VIP', just a man needing a fit for purpose ride.
We seem to be talking as if JK and his entourage are the only ones who use this asset and therefore the only justification for its existence, which is not the case at all.
I never once saw even one MP on any of my flights in these (or their pre-desessor 727s) either here or overseas and I did'nt consider myself a 'VIP', just a man needing a fit for purpose ride.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
What would be a max lift for moving troops in the 757, or how much cargo could it handle?
Aircraft Boeing 757-200
Power plant 2 x Rolls Royce RB211535E4/4B turbofans
Length 47.32m
Wingspan 38.05m
Height 13.56m
Basic weight 57,180kgs
Gross weight 15,680kgs
Max payload 22,460 kgs
Max fuel 43,490L
Range 4000 nm (7400 km)
Cruising speed Mach 0.8 (850km/h at 10,675m)
Going by memory it's about 170 - 180 and I think maybe 35 tonne depending upon range. The thing about the B757 or B767 as freighters is that they need equipment for loading / unloading at each end and they are restricted to fields with sealed runways (stand fast Pegasus Field, McMurdo Sound).
yeah, I think about that much too. The old B727 was 122 from memory full pax.
I think the main reason they are letting the B757 go is the load/unload with needing GSE plus range.
The B757 can take 11 pallets in full cargo which is 5 more than the C130.
Maybe another mod like the older globemasters with the underbelly hoist could be a go.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
So any replacement must have a similar lift capability then, which would rule out C130 J in both cases. If its rare that such a plane be used in a VIP role, id rather they chartered one,instead of using scarce airlifters.
I shared one ride on the B727 with Piggy Muldoon when he was PM, so I can truthfully swear that pigs can fly
Actually he wasn't to bad with the average service person in an informal setting. He was once a Corporal and as we all know, if it wasn't for Corporals and Leading Rates, the whole structure and edifice of the armed forces would surely collapse
Any new capability should exceed the one it's replacing by a goodly margin. The C130J is limited by it's internal cargo hull size and it's weight lifting capacity. So it cannot carry large awkward loads that are either to large to fit inside the fuselage and / or exceed it's max lifting capacity of approximately 20 tonnes. In NZs case the NH90s are to large to fit in and the NZLAVs are to heavy. Hence that is a handicap for that aircraft. In the case of the A400, the NH90 will fill but the rotors have to be removed. One NZLAV and maybe it's crew can be carried. With the C17, two NH90 can be carried and the aircraft don't have to be partially disassembled. Also three NZLAV can be carried plus their crews.
Now if the C17s had been acquired or by some miracle are acquired, a mix could be two C17s and five or six C130Js, which would cover our strategic and tactical airlift. If the A400 is acquired then, maybe four or five A400 and six C295s. Again that would cover both our strategic and tactical airlift. As an outlier a large helo like the CH47F Chinook may possibly be acquired in order to give a heavy rotary capability. I know that beagelle favours the USMC CH53K., which would be another choice and would suit NZDF in that I think that it is marinised. However having said that please note that I used the term outlier and the heavy rotary wing capability is something that has only been suggested on here as a possibility.
Last edited: