Royal New Zealand Air Force

Rob c · Oct 3, 2019

RegR said:
People have been making this "decision" for quite a few decades considering the B757s replaced the B727 which in turn replaced DC6s so not quite sure what history we have to base this theory off.

From a historical point of view the B727s did not replace the DC6s The DC6s were replaced by C130H numbers 7004 and 7005 in 1968 while 7001 - 7003 replaced the 3 Hastings in about 1965. The B727s did not arrive until the 1980's.
I was at DEF head quarters when the B727's were offered to us by Boeing (they were trade in's for new aircraft at Boeing ) after Piggy had been embarrassed by the Aussie PM over our lack of VIP capable aircraft for him to travel in ( at that time we used a pallet of airline seats in a Herk) so the airforce spotting an opportunity put forward the Boeing offer to Piggy and he pushed it through. Pollies were in the past, good this way as when there ego's are dented and you provide an option available to restore the dented pride you can use this to get what you want
So you could say both Boeing and the airforce made use of Piggies dented ego.
As to the replacement of the B757 my personal view is that while a passenger type can be usefully employed, you can put passengers in a transport type aircraft but you cannot put a helicopter or truck or APC in a passenger type of aircraft, and we simply don't have the number of aircraft to really justify the more specialised passenger type of aircraft .

RegR · Oct 3, 2019

Rob c said:
From a historical point of view the B727s did not replace the DC6s The DC6s were replaced by C130H numbers 7004 and 7005 in 1968 while 7001 - 7003 replaced the 3 Hastings in about 1965. The B727s did not arrive until the 1980's.
I was at DEF head quarters when the B727's were offered to us by Boeing (they were trade in's for new aircraft at Boeing ) after Piggy had been embarrassed by the Aussie PM over our lack of VIP capable aircraft for him to travel in ( at that time we used a pallet of airline seats in a Herk) so the airforce spotting an opportunity put forward the Boeing offer to Piggy and he pushed it through. Pollies were in the past, good this way as when there ego's are dented and you provide an option available to restore the dented pride you can use this to get what you want
So you could say both Boeing and the airforce made use of Piggies dented ego.
As to the replacement of the B757 my personal view is that while a passenger type can be usefully employed, you can put passengers in a transport type aircraft but you cannot put a helicopter or truck or APC in a passenger type of aircraft, and we simply don't have the number of aircraft to really justify the more specialised passenger type of aircraft .

But then again, as you yourself have pointed out, we obviously do have the number of aircraft as it is exactly what we have done for the past 30+ years and in fact looks set to continue as we essentially just bought the same aircraft (knowing full well their limitations) otherwise if it was such a "known deficiancy" (it was/is known) we would have taken up the C17 offer straight away so buisness as usual it would seem. What do we move more by air anyway? Pax or helicopters, trucks and APCs? It's all relative. TBH I can count on 1 hand the number of times I'd seen vehicles moved operationally in 14 years, it's not as common (and therefore required) as we would like to make out it seems as really what is 1 or 2 vehicles realistically going to do?

IMO the rapid movement of the NH90s would/should be more of a priority (due to their use/numbers) but again we passed on that by passing on the C17s in terms of needed vs wanted.

Novascotiaboy · Oct 3, 2019

Like Rob C i too hope that a ramp equipped aircraft is acquired to replace the B757s. Since the timeline is to acquire post 2025 it would be down to two types that have been hashed over here for years. If I were developing the business case I would be seeking two Kawasaki C2's to deal with outsized and wheeled. I would also arrange for a combi to deal with people movement under lease in NZDF colours for seven years. This would be a new build owned and maintained by the contractor but flown by RNZAF pilots and navigators. The aircraft type would have to be in service in NZ with facilities able to do heavy maintenance when required. The lease would stipulate that a second aircraft would be available when the primary is in for maintenance. Colours and markings would not be a concern at this time just availability. Yes there is a cost to this but it would be far less than owning.

RegR · Oct 3, 2019

Novascotiaboy said:
Like Rob C i too hope that a ramp equipped aircraft is acquired to replace the B757s. Since the timeline is to acquire post 2025 it would be down to two types that have been hashed over here for years. If I were developing the business case I would be seeking two Kawasaki C2's to deal with outsized and wheeled. I would also arrange for a combi to deal with people movement under lease in NZDF colours for seven years. This would be a new build owned and maintained by the contractor but flown by RNZAF pilots and navigators. The aircraft type would have to be in service in NZ with facilities able to do heavy maintenance when required. The lease would stipulate that a second aircraft would be available when the primary is in for maintenance. Colours and markings would not be a concern at this time just availability. Yes there is a cost to this but it would be far less than owning.

Whilst the C2 is an "improvement" on the venerable C130 can it move a NH90? If not than what exactly are we achieving by essentially having a bigger transport to complement our not as big transport? If that were the case then I would rather just trade the hercs in and go for all C2 instead of a split fleet of more or less the same type and cut duplication costs.

I can see why we opted for the hercs as the least risky, easier and proven platform ready to go now (at least by the time we need anyway) but I don't really see the point in then buying another similar type unless it covers off the deficiancies of the first by some margin at least, especially considering the overall fleet size.

Ron Mark did say the B757s are not fit for purpose but then he was also the one dead against a C17 purchase so tbh I don't know what he has envisaged for the future composition.

kiwipatriot69 · Oct 3, 2019

RegR said:
Whilst the C2 is an "improvement" on the venerable C130 can it move a NH90? If not than what exactly are we achieving by essentially having a bigger transport to complement our not as big transport? If that were the case then I would rather just trade the hercs in and go for all C2 instead of a split fleet of more or less the same type and cut duplication costs.

I can see why we opted for the hercs as the least risky, easier and proven platform ready to go now (at least by the time we need anyway) but I don't really see the point in then buying another similar type unless it covers off the deficiancies of the first by some margin at least, especially considering the overall fleet size.

Ron Mark did say the B757s are not fit for purpose but then he was also the one dead against a C17 purchase so tbh I don't know what he has envisaged for the future composition.

Well, according to Wikipedia and Kawasaki themselves it can accommodate a UH60 J of similar size and height to the NH90, 5.2 Meters vs NH90s 5.31. UH60. Similar weight too and 3 meters longer than NH90. Haven't been able to find internal cargo height of C2 but on paper it looks capable of ferrying NH90. And it has a great advantage in speed and range, cargo over the Hercules..A400 M now with its issues makes me like many here hesitant to suggest , C2 thankfully hasn't those issues, and in service with Japan a few years already. A few years more of maturity and more numbers in production surely would remove any doubts.

RegR · Oct 3, 2019

kiwipatriot69 said:
Well, according to Wikipedia and Kawasaki themselves it can accommodate a UH60 J of similar size and height to the NH90, 5.2 Meters vs NH90s 5.31. UH60. Similar weight too and 3 meters longer than NH90. Haven't been able to find internal cargo height of C2 but on paper it looks capable of ferrying NH90. And it has a great advantage in speed and range, cargo over the Hercules..A400 M now with its issues makes me like many here hesitant to suggest , C2 thankfully hasn't those issues, and in service with Japan a few years already. A few years more of maturity and more numbers in production surely would remove any doubts.

Uh60 blackhawk similar size and height to a nh90??

Just looked up dimensions and found C2 4×4×16, nh90 width is 4.6m with a height of 5.2m so not quite.

Agreed A400 just has too many bugs to bet the farm on otherwise would of ticked the appropriate boxes.

old faithful · Oct 3, 2019

From what I understand, the C2 dosen't have rough field ability, limited ability to protect it self, no counter measures or very little, and apart from having a slightly wider and higher cargo area than aac130J30, it wouldn't really have much of an advantage over MRTT.
What chance do you KIWI,'s really think of the C2 winning a bid to replace the 757's?

Rob c · Oct 4, 2019

RegR said:
But then again, as you yourself have pointed out, we obviously do have the number of aircraft as it is exactly what we have done for the past 30+ years and in fact looks set to continue as we essentially just bought the same aircraft (knowing full well their limitations) otherwise if it was such a "known deficiancy" (it was/is known) we would have taken up the C17 offer straight away so buisness as usual it would seem. What do we move more by air anyway? Pax or helicopters, trucks and APCs? It's all relative. TBH I can count on 1 hand the number of times I'd seen vehicles moved operationally in 14 years, it's not as common (and therefore required) as we would like to make out it seems as really what is 1 or 2 vehicles realistically going to do?

IMO the rapid movement of the NH90s would/should be more of a priority (due to their use/numbers) but again we passed on that by passing on the C17s in terms of needed vs wanted.

What must also be kept in mind is the political situation at the time both the B727 and the B757 where purchased. When the B727 was acquired Piggy was in charge and what Piggy wanted piggy got, but he was not interested in military abilities at all. ( to keep his cabinet under his thumb it iwas strongly rumored and never repudiated that when he appointed a cabinet minister they had to submit an undated resignation letter.) When the B757 was ordered Helen Clark was in charge and again she was totally dominant with her cabinet and again she did not want a true defence oriented defence force but rather a peace keeping for use by the UN. ( possibly lining herself up for the UN Secretary General even at that stage) so her focus was on moving troops to and from peacekeeping missions. The Key government was too busy balancing the books to ever buy a new role for the armed forces. When a friend of mine was invited to meet J Key at a function after he was elected to power. He spoke to JK in regard to defence including restoration of strike wing and was told in no uncertain terms that there would be no new or extended defence roles happening.

RegR · Oct 4, 2019

Rob c said:
What must also be kept in mind is the political situation at the time both the B727 and the B757 where purchased. When the B727 was acquired Piggy was in charge and what Piggy wanted piggy got, but he was not interested in military abilities at all. ( to keep his cabinet under his thumb it iwas strongly rumored and never repudiated that when he appointed a cabinet minister they had to submit an undated resignation letter.) When the B757 was ordered Helen Clark was in charge and again she was totally dominant with her cabinet and again she did not want a true defence oriented defence force but rather a peace keeping for use by the UN. ( possibly lining herself up for the UN Secretary General even at that stage) so her focus was on moving troops to and from peacekeeping missions. The Key government was too busy balancing the books to ever buy a new role for the armed forces. When a friend of mine was invited to meet J Key at a function after he was elected to power. He spoke to JK in regard to defence including restoration of strike wing and was told in no uncertain terms that there would be no new or extended defence roles happening.

In all honesty I cannot see much change in thinking with this lot in the current climate (literally)(pun intended) and expect much of the same ie upgraded but not nescessarily advanced in terms of capability. Capabilities lost is a definite long shot at being returned especially something as financially, operationally and publically "controversial" as an ACF (of old) anyway, way too many other distractions for the current govt to keep pushing before we crack that chestnut.

ngatimozart · Oct 4, 2019

old faithful said:
From what I understand, the C2 dosen't have rough field ability, limited ability to protect it self, no counter measures or very little, and apart from having a slightly wider and higher cargo area than aac130J30, it wouldn't really have much of an advantage over MRTT.
What chance do you KIWI,'s really think of the C2 winning a bid to replace the 757's?

Actually in the Kiwi context, the C-2 would operate in a strategic context so rough field capability per se, is not so much of an issue. I would disagree about it not having much of an advantage over the MRTT, because it's somewhat difficult to drive a heavy vehicle on / off the MRTT or load an A109 / NH90 on / off a MRTT. From what I understand the cargo hold of the C-2 is about the same dimensions of the A400M, and we know that the NH90 fits inside an A400M albeit with some dismantling.

As to the chance, it really depends on what bunch pollies are in charge, and what has happened between now and when the decision is made and the contract is signed.

ngatimozart · Oct 4, 2019

Rob c said:
What must also be kept in mind is the political situation at the time both the B727 and the B757 where purchased. When the B727 was acquired Piggy was in charge and what Piggy wanted piggy got, but he was not interested in military abilities at all. ( to keep his cabinet under his thumb it iwas strongly rumored and never repudiated that when he appointed a cabinet minister they had to submit an undated resignation letter.) When the B757 was ordered Helen Clark was in charge and again she was totally dominant with her cabinet and again she did not want a true defence oriented defence force but rather a peace keeping for use by the UN. ( possibly lining herself up for the UN Secretary General even at that stage) so her focus was on moving troops to and from peacekeeping missions. The Key government was too busy balancing the books to ever buy a new role for the armed forces. When a friend of mine was invited to meet J Key at a function after he was elected to power. He spoke to JK in regard to defence including restoration of strike wing and was told in no uncertain terms that there would be no new or extended defence roles happening.

I knew pigs could fly because I shared a plane with piggy twice. He gave corporals a bad name and the mongrel stole our superann fund to fund gwad knows what, probably the pollies perks fund. I don't think that JK was ever that serious about defence. If he was he would've acquired the 2 C-17 white tails and not delayed other defence acquisitions.

KiwiRob · Oct 4, 2019

ngatimozart said:
I knew pigs could fly because I shared a plane with piggy twice. He gave corporals a bad name and the mongrel stole our superann fund to fund gwad knows what, probably the pollies perks fund. I don't think that JK was ever that serious about defence. If he was he would've acquired the 2 C-17 white tails and not delayed other defence acquisitions.

The Superfund was only 37 weeks old when Muldoon canned it, I doubt there was much in it at that point. The 75 election was all about the Superfund, National campaigned on terminating it, voters back then agreed and Labor took a hammering at the polls.

MrConservative · Oct 4, 2019

ngatimozart said:
I don't think that JK was ever that serious about defence. If he was he would've acquired the 2 C-17 white tails and not delayed other defence acquisitions.

He was more interested in solving the GFC and getting NZ out of the recession he inherited and paying for the CHC earthquakes and meeting an election promise from the 2008 election to get NZ into surplus by FY 2016.

Since Holyoake the only NZ PM reasonably interested in Defence was a woman, Shipley. Three Anzacs at DNB and 2 Squadrons of F-16's on the flightline at OH would have been her legacy. If she had a 2nd term or even 9 years in the like Clark did, knowing her commitment to NZ putting in a solid showing into the regional security umbrella borne out through our contribution to Interfet and good relationships with other Five Eyes leaders it would have been a very different NZDF today.

The C-17's were at Cabinet during April 2015 but they were too complacent thinking that out of the 5 remaining whitetails at least a couple would be still available a year or two later. No one expected that tiny Qatar 2 months later in June 2015 would want as many C-17's as the RAF and the RAAF.

Ocean1Curse · Oct 4, 2019

MrConservative said:
He was more interested in solving the GFC and getting NZ out of the recession he inherited and paying for the CHC earthquakes and meeting an election promise from the 2008 election to get NZ into surplus by FY 2016.

So reducing public employment and reducing public services = manufacturing a surplus. Interesting.

That did not happen and is off topic and is enough to make me think that your ability to post here at DT is quickly drawing to a permanent end based on the quality of your posts over recent times.

Ocean1Curse · Oct 5, 2019

Ocean1Curse said:
That did not happen and is off topic and is enough to make me think that your ability to post here at DT is quickly drawing to a permanent end based on the quality of your posts over recent times.

Iv lost count the number of services that had been privatised. Is NZDF still using private caterers? New Zealand Defence Force Manawatu Hub | Spotless

It seems that private contractors are indistinguishable from the total number of NZDF personal.

Mod edit: Off Topic, non-defense related content deleted, member Perm banned since warnings and a prior temp ban didn't change posting behavior.
-Preceptor

<content snipped>
One such serious issue is making NZDF minders promise that these very expensive tools (as some would like to moralize them as) not being directed at civilians. In hindsight that guarantee could not be made. Y'know there's an inquiry going on about this very matter right now correct?

I'm reluctant to go in hard on the NZDF because the NZDF is important to a 21st century New Zealand economy and the prosperity that stability brings to business owners and people who've got aspirations to climb the property ladder.

<content snipped>

Y'know and that requires a 21st century NZDF that is consistent with the whole values and record of a New Zealand who have been accepting foreign (civilian) immigrants for the past 40 years and they will not tolerate those "tools" (as they're so called) being directed at civilians.

<content snipped>

htbrst · Oct 11, 2019

From a reputable source on Wings over New Zealand. The article mentioned will have been published in NZ Aviation news: Home | Aviation News

Post by tbf25o4
There will be two KA350s fitted with a permanent external sensor pods (From my article on "The New Breed" NZ AVNEWS) - . For the AWO role there are two configurations, one with two student consoles with fully simulated systems and one where the AWO consoles are integrated into real-life onboard sensors. For the latter tasks two of the fleet will be fitted with a permanent underslung pod containing an Infra-red/electro-optic camera and forward-looking multi-mode radar. The first of these two airframes will be delivered in October 2019. Allowing for phased servicing for each aircraft every 200 hours, aircraft availability will be based on three aircraft at any one time. The two airframes with permanent fite will be NZ2351 and NZ2352

P3K2 Orion Replacement | Wings Over New Zealand

ngatimozart · Oct 14, 2019

htbrst said:
Ouch; NZDF has 20 days to appeal the ruling

Whenuapai airbase loses Environment Court noise complaint

RNZAF 1 NIMBY's 0

'National security': Defence Minister overrules Whenuapai noise ruling

Finally, common sense.

ngatimozart · Oct 16, 2019

This article has appeared in Aviation Week. Unfortunately I can't get at it because I don't have a subscription.

New Zealand Enters Transition Phase For Military Fleet

pea032 · Oct 21, 2019

Couple of things of interest from the above article.

In regards to the Hercs - "the MOD has submitted a request for “up to five” aircraft". I had been hoping we might have been able to increase the fleet to 6 but i guess that was wishful thinking when they said like for like replacement. The bit that worries me is the "up to" part.

The Seasprites - "it is unlikely that this will result in a “like-for-like replacement” of the existing fleet" and "there will also be a range of ship classes requiring different kinds of helicopter support. Some will need combat helicopters, and others utility helicopters" - makes sense I was thinking there was no way we would get 9 fully equipped replacements.

kiwipatriot69 · Oct 22, 2019

pea032 said:
Couple of things of interest from the above article.

In regards to the Hercs - "the MOD has submitted a request for “up to five” aircraft". I had been hoping we might have been able to increase the fleet to 6 but i guess that was wishful thinking when they said like for like replacement. The bit that worries me is the "up to" part.

The Seasprites - "it is unlikely that this will result in a “like-for-like replacement” of the existing fleet" and "there will also be a range of ship classes requiring different kinds of helicopter support. Some will need combat helicopters, and others utility helicopters" - makes sense I was thinking there was no way we would get 9 fully equipped replacements.

So does that mean navy will end up with two or three different types to replace the Seasprites? Seems like a headache to me compared to one maritime helicopter type.Eight helicopters and one spare for parts currently is still small considering the number of ships that will be embarking them, the range we patrol , unless they too are being underutilized, like the IPV?

What's the point then of ordering 2 larger LPD with the stated helicopter capacity to replace HMNZS Canterbury if we don't have enough helicopters to fly off
them? And combat helicopters? Are we going to be developing a new capability?

Royal New Zealand Air Force

The Bunker Group

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

The Bunker Group

The Bunker Group

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Member

Member

Active Member

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

New Member

Active Member