Royal New Zealand Air Force

Kiwigov

Member
Hardly a glowing endorsement.

Airbus says 'new deal on A400M' with buyers will limit future losses (by removing and delaying capabilities)

I find this thread to be an interesting read on the state of A400...

A400M

Personally if it did what it said it could on the sales brochure I think it would be a great fit for NZ.

I’m just not sure that it is all that it is sold as.
No doubt this is covered on the RAF thread (?), but I imagine their use of the A400 could sway political and service opinion (e.g. deployments to Mali to support the French effort), not to mention the RAF flew an A400 to Ohakea in Feb 2017. Me and my lad were quite impressed by the British personnel handing out branded Frisbees and sunglasses..
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I beg to differ Swerve. On objective grounds the physical size of Qatar, a geographically tiny peninsula country with the population of Greater Brisbane and a 1/3rd less land area, has as many long range heavy strategic transport aircraft as the RAAF and the RAF is to me highly questionable.

However, the cynic in me when turning to the subjective (ir)rationale the eight Qatari C-17's it all make perfect sense when considering the personal rivalry and jealousy amongst Royal families of the Gulf states that has emerged over the last 2 decades - the UAE and Qatar in particular. In other words Qatar feeling it needed 8 C-17's reeks of keeping up with the "Al-Jabiri's" had quite a bit to do it when UAE had eight as well.

The answer would be no - because the question you pose is a double non sequitur.
I think the point being missed here is that geographical area does not determine such things. In the 17th century the Netherlands was tiny - so why did it build a huge fleet, & how could it afford it? How could it establish colonies around the world, from such a tiny base?

It was rich. Qatar is rich. Per head very rich, enough that despite its small population its economy is surprisingly large & its government has a very large proportion of that money in its hands. I think it wants to build influence far outside its borders, & whether that's a well-thought-out strategy or not (& I don't think it is), strategic transports are a fairly logical tool for it, as is the instant navy it's buying from Italy.

The non-sequiturs were deliberate. I thought you would see why.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
I think the point being missed here is that geographical area does not determine such things.
Geographical determinants are a factor and I am not arguing that it is a causal singularity - geo-political considerations are always multi-factorial and often there are conflicting reasons for a nation state and its leadership to act in certain ways. I am simply questioning the motives of Qatar's 'vanity' symbolism by acquiring a disproportionate of number of C-17's for what clearly is a very small nation.

In the 17th century the Netherlands was tiny - so why did it build a huge fleet, & how could it afford it? How could it establish colonies around the world, from such a tiny base?
It was rich. Qatar is rich. Per head very rich, enough that despite its small population its economy is surprisingly large & its government has a very large proportion of that money in its hands. I think it wants to build influence far outside its borders, & whether that's a well-thought-out strategy or not (& I don't think it is), strategic transports are a fairly logical tool for it, as is the instant navy it's buying from Italy.
I don't disagree with that. There are perfectly valid reasons for them to to do so. I just question why the hell they had to buy eight of the bloody things. Six of them would have been enough, which would have least left a couple for us to put into very productive use over the next 40 years.

The non-sequiturs were deliberate. I thought you would see why.
Now that is a non-sequitor. Was that deliberate? ;)

Furthermore I hope they get thrashed at the World Cup in 2022! Am I bitter ... nah..yeah
 

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
Geographical determinants are a factor and I am not arguing that it is a causal singularity - geo-political considerations are always multi-factorial and often there are conflicting reasons for a nation state and its leadership to act in certain ways. I am simply questioning the motives of Qatar's 'vanity' symbolism by acquiring a disproportionate of number of C-17's for what clearly is a very small nation.

I don't disagree with that. There are perfectly valid reasons for them to to do so. I just question why the hell they had to buy eight of the bloody things. Six of them would have been enough, which would have least left a couple for us to put into very productive use over the next 40 years.

Now that is a non-sequitor. Was that deliberate? ;)

Furthermore I hope they get thrashed at the World Cup in 2022! Am I bitter ... nah..yeah
Honestly I'd agree with novascotia boy on Nz defence budget having champagne purchases on a beer budget, though we could have afforded two C17 and had replaced our hueys with more blackhawks for less than the cost of NH 90, without the issues they have given us.
 

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
The time is soon running out on a decision by months end. Heres hoping Santa Clause brings a gift certificate from LM or Airbus or Boeing / Embraer for a fleet of new toys. At this point I just want a decision to be announced. Once it happens then we can start a fresh on the errors that the elves made .
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Geographical determinants are a factor and I am not arguing that it is a causal singularity - geo-political considerations are always multi-factorial and often there are conflicting reasons for a nation state and its leadership to act in certain ways. I am simply questioning the motives of Qatar's 'vanity' symbolism by acquiring a disproportionate of number of C-17's for what clearly is a very small nation.

I don't disagree with that. There are perfectly valid reasons for them to to do so. I just question why the hell they had to buy eight of the bloody things. Six of them would have been enough, which would have least left a couple for us to put into very productive use over the next 40 years.

Now that is a non-sequitor. Was that deliberate? ;)

Furthermore I hope they get thrashed at the World Cup in 2022! Am I bitter ... nah..yeah
I second that motion put by the hesteemed member of the Wheel Tappers and Shunters Coommitteeeee
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Geographical determinants are a factor and I am not arguing that it is a causal singularity - geo-political considerations are always multi-factorial and often there are conflicting reasons for a nation state and its leadership to act in certain ways. I am simply questioning the motives of Qatar's 'vanity' symbolism by acquiring a disproportionate of number of C-17's for what clearly is a very small nation.

I don't disagree with that. There are perfectly valid reasons for them to to do so. I just question why the hell they had to buy eight of the bloody things. Six of them would have been enough, which would have least left a couple for us to put into very productive use over the next 40 years.

Now that is a non-sequitor. Was that deliberate? ;)

Furthermore I hope they get thrashed at the World Cup in 2022! Am I bitter ... nah..yeah
Yes, eight is rather over the top, just like the recent fighter buying spree.
Isn't the rest of the world hoping they get thrashed at the World Cup? ;)
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Yes, eight is rather over the top, just like the recent fighter buying spree.
Isn't the rest of the world hoping they get thrashed at the World Cup? ;)
Same group as Australia, Japan or ROK and cop a 5-0 thrashing would be fine by me:)
One question I have to ask about countries like Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia is do they fully understand the importance of backing up these buys with Maintenance, Trg and Logistic programs?
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Same group as Australia, Japan or ROK and cop a 5-0 thrashing would be fine by me:)
One question I have to ask about countries like Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia is do they fully understand the importance of backing up these buys with Maintenance, Trg and Logistic programs?
In recent years they seem to have significant support contracts from the mainly US vendors including personnel support that can run into the billions in some cases if you take a look at the contracts going through the US State Departments Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

The shareholders and directors of Boeing and LM must be really happy with these 'valued' customers.
 

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
In recent years they seem to have significant support contracts from the mainly US vendors including personnel support that can run into the billions in some cases if you take a look at the contracts going through the US State Departments Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

The shareholders and directors of Boeing and LM must be really happy with these 'valued' customers.
Between Airbus and Boeing, LM, who do do think is more established here in terms of infrastructure and investment, that would be the frontrunner in such a decison for our Airforce?
 

swerve

Super Moderator
In recent years they seem to have significant support contracts from the mainly US vendors including personnel support that can run into the billions in some cases if you take a look at the contracts going through the US State Departments Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

The shareholders and directors of Boeing and LM must be really happy with these 'valued' customers.
And BAE, Dassault, Airbus & Alenia.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Between Airbus and Boeing, LM, who do do think is more established here in terms of infrastructure and investment, that would be the frontrunner in such a decison for our Airforce?
Do you mean in terms of their corporate footprint in NZ? Airbus and Boeing have close associations with Air NZ, Airbus now owns SAFE, LM and the RNZAF go back decades, they all have their strengths and weaknesses. However new infrastructure and investment will be required for the new capabilities so there is an element of 'greenfields' to what happens next irrespective of past performance.
 

Kiwigov

Member

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
Found this interesting article comparing metrics for the C-130J to earlier versions in USAF use, and in our AOR. Note the "can carry 9,000 pounds more cargo" reference -
US airmen in the Pacific transitioned to the C-130J this year. How is the new model faring?
Weren't we involved in that disaster relief mission in Indonesia recently,with our C130? I remember seeing that on the 6 pm news. Oh well, lets see what RNZAF gets approval for this Xmas then.


Edited by the spelling police.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Weren't we involved in that disaster relief mission in Indonesia recently,with our C130? I remember seeing that on the 6 pm news.
Yes
Oh well, lets see what RNZAF gets approval for this Xmas then.
Well it originally the decision was supposed to be made in November (which has gone). Then the Minister said that the matter was so urgent that he was bringing the decision forward, then nothing more was heard. Maybe he didn't say which November. We still await with bated breathe, although I would like to see the RNZAF C-130H(NZ) replaced before my 4 year old grandson is eligible to collect his pension. He only has 61 years to wait to qualify under the present rules.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yes
Well it originally the decision was supposed to be made in November (which has gone). Then the Minister said that the matter was so urgent that he was bringing the decision forward, then nothing more was heard. Maybe he didn't say which November. We still await with bated breathe, although I would like to see the RNZAF C-130H(NZ) replaced before my 4 year old grandson is eligible to collect his pension. He only has 61 years to wait to qualify under the present rules.
My understanding was that the Capability report was to come first followed by the decision on the C 130 H in November. As neither has appeared yet it would appear that the capability report may be the problem. Have the pollies found that there is not enough capability? (we all know this anyway). are they playing games again? (nothing new) or is there a genuine reason for the delay? Maybe the pollies are just more interested in their xmas shopping. But seriously what report on defence ever comes out on time? Once the pollies see the draft they usually require alterations to suit themselves so they don't have to commit to anything.
 
Last edited:

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
Yes
Well it originally the decision was supposed to be made in November (which has gone). Then the Minister said that the matter was so urgent that he was bringing the decision forward, then nothing more was heard. Maybe he didn't say which November. We still await with bated breathe, although I would like to see the RNZAF C-130H(NZ) replaced before my 4 year old grandson is eligible to collect his pension. He only has 61 years to wait to qualify under the present rules.
RNZAF personell involved in keeping them C130 H flying must be among the best there is to do so for so long, i read somewhere they the oldest serving hercules in existance. I couldnt imagine if a commercial airline like Air Nz would expect its customers to fly on planes decades past their use by date, doing expensive short term refits to buy another ten years use.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
My understanding was that the Capability report was to come first followed by the decision on the C 130 H in November. As neither has appeared yet it would appear that the capability report may be the problem. Have the pollies found that there is not enough capability? (we all know this anyway). are they playing games again? (nothing new) or is there a genuine reason for the delay? Maybe the pollies are just more interested in their xmas shopping. But seriously what report on defence ever comes out on time? Once the pollies see the draft they usually require alterations to suit themselves so they don't have to commit to anything.
Yep always the way. :mad: :rolleyes:
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
Whilst 5 C130Js would be a an improvement it would not be an advancement so infact we will just be repeating the past in terms of capability, deficiencies and all, especially again if we only get 5 when it was recommended way back when ideally 8 hercules would be the optimal number for our needs. But then again I guess history has shown that we don't really operate in optimums rather minimums and just make it work, no choice really.
 

A4scooter

New Member
There are plenty of operators still using the B and E models but I doubt many flown as many hours as NZ's aircraft.

I personally think you will get C130J-30s when a mix of something like the C295 & A400 will probably better suit its needs but unfortunately NZ is a nation with a champagne requirement with a beer - sorry I meant lemonade budget
 
Top