NZFF

Article in this mornings NZ Herald...full of errors as usual and why the emphasis on the VIP travel??? ..any new aircraft to replace the King Airs, the major use will be advanced flight training and if CN-235s are bought (which I think would be the best option) then tatical transport will also come into play as they have a rear loading ramp. The article also alludes to their eventual use in MP/SAR ....hopefully only to supplement the Orions and not fully replace them - IMV we should be getting a small fleet of 737ASWs later in the decade for longer range work.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/defence/news/art...jectid=10643230

Recall the dis-used , well old aged F27 ANZ falling into RNZAF hands for liasion/SAR and general dog body duties , one thing in the eighties they had a good engineering base to maintain the aircraft , personally ...... i,d prefer the types were doors open up mid-flight with the possible chance of our PMs and dig digna dignatory.. money hungry yappers to fall out .

If they do end up buying some new aircraft I would think they would choose the Q300 because of Air Nelsons fleet and maintenance here. However I don't think Bombardier produce the Q300 anymore, meaning they would have to pick up some second hand models. If they do end up replacing the King Airs with one of these types, it does seem like quite a big step for newer pilots. I wonder if some light twins would also be purchased? Otherwise the step from the CT-4 to the new aircraft would be pretty big.

Yeah I heard this on the news this morning. I sort of hope they go for a Q300, just because I'm a fan of them and always had good, comfortable (and speedy) flights on them in and out of NZNP. On the other hand, the CN-235 looks pretty cool, like a mini-Hercules.

The Q300 is out of production so I guess it would be a second hand model, Air Nelson took delivery of the last one made in 2008.

Naki wrote:

QUOTE (Naki @ May 7 2010, 12:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Article in this mornings NZ Herald...full of errors as usual and why the emphasis on the VIP travel??? ..any new aircraft to replace the King Airs, the major use will be advanced flight training and if CN-235s are bought (which I think would be the best option) then tatical transport will also come into play as they have a rear loading ramp. The article also alludes to their eventual use in MP/SAR ....hopefully only to supplement the Orions and not fully replace them - IMV we should be getting a small fleet of 737ASWs later in the decade for longer range work.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/defence/news/art...jectid=10643230

I agree Naki, the Boeing P-8 will be online soon, and i think i read somewhere that lockheed have plans to upgrade the P-3 into something completly new, so maybe a combination of those two.
The CN-235 would be nice as well....a good back stop for the Hercs (as the andovers were) The hercs of course should be J's, and throw in a squadron or two of the new F-18"s and some Hawks for the jet training......a few for PC-21's for the ab-initio role.....and away you go .
I wonder why the RAAF did'nt consider the CN as a Caribou replacement? Maybe NZDF could look at getting a couple of the Anz 73'S when they finally get phased out in favour of the french things.

You got me thinking now.........lets rebuild the whole armed services....budget unlimited.......nice thought

Getting the Dash 8's wouldn't be a smart idea. I've already spoken to someone in the know about this a year or two ago and apparently the Dash 8 is only good for loitering and general on-station surveillance - it's not very good at all when you throw in some tactical flying. No rear door or side-door opening in flight for para-drops or quick troop insertion.

Compare this to the CN-235 which is a dedicated military aircraft which has proven usability by military forces around the world - both in transport and maritime surveillance roles and it quickly becomes obvious which aircraft they should be choosing.

Using 737's for either of these roles seems ridiculous, except obviously in the case of the P-8. What you have to realize here is that the P-8 doesn't fully replace the Orion, and that it actually needs to be supplemented by either UAV's for long range patrol, or at least have some sort of smaller aircraft to help support it in the roles it doesn't do very well.

In my mind it's a shame they didn't also include the Kawasaki C2 in the lineup - but I guess they were probably looking for turboprops to make training easier. And as a side note you might want to take a look at the Kawasaki P-1 if you're going to talk about possible P-3 replacements.

redkiwi wrote:

QUOTE (redkiwi @ May 8 2010, 10:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Getting the Dash 8's wouldn't be a smart idea. I've already spoken to someone in the know about this a year or two ago and apparently the Dash 8 is only good for loitering and general on-station surveillance - it's not very good at all when you throw in some tactical flying. No rear door or side-door opening in flight for para-drops or quick troop insertion.

I agree with you there. The Australians have them for Search and Rescue i believe. As an aside I have heard of Dash 8 used for sport skydiving where they jumped out of the baggage door cutout

I think they might end up going Q300, but I'd like to see the CN-235 personally.

They each have their benefits, but I think the CN-235 has more benefits - it's a purpose built military aircraft, it's still currently in production, etc etc. The CN-235 is proven in lots of countries (not Australia or New Zealand though). So basically, what redkiwi said.

I'd like to see the CN-235 just for something a bit different, and based on what's been said above it seems like it might be the better choice purely from an aircraft capability point of view, but the fact that the Q300 already has an established presence in NZ might skew the vote in its favour somewhat.

Anthony wrote:

QUOTE (Anthony @ May 8 2010, 11:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think they might end up going Q300, but I'd like to see the CN-235 personally.

They each have their benefits, but I think the CN-235 has more benefits - it's a purpose built military aircraft, it's still currently in production, etc etc. The CN-235 is proven in lots of countries (not Australia or New Zealand though). So basically, what redkiwi said.

Here's a photo of a FANC (French Air Force New Caledonia) CN-235. A very nice wee aircraft.


They could also look at the C-27J Spartan. At least it uses a varient of the engine used on the Herc and P3, which would save on spares.

Trev

CN-235 or HC-144 USCG to me is a nice aircraft and excellent for self defense force and domestic SAR it's a real PIA to fly lacking tactical maneuvering and multi role as opposed to the C-27J. This is why the C-27J is a front runner and winner in Canada and Australia. The C-27J can be missioned orientated. They can server many roles including a gun ship role similar to the AC-130. Also if I want to survive a crash I'll go with the tough C-27J. As for the Q300 they make a excellent navigational trainer.

Anthony wrote:

QUOTE (Anthony @ May 8 2010, 11:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The CN-235 is proven in lots of countries (not Australia or New Zealand though). So basically, what redkiwi said.

What makes you say that? The FANC are here almost every year to do flying in and around our country and are in frequent attendance at Exercise Skytrain among other things.

Trev wrote:

QUOTE (Trev @ May 8 2010, 01:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They could also look at the C-27J Spartan. At least it uses a varient of the engine used on the Herc and P3, which would save on spares.

Don't know why I didn't mention the C-27 myself - it's got the T-56's which are common to the Herk and Orion, and the cockpit is equivalent to what either of the larger airframes use which makes it a very viable training platform. Furthermore the C-27 takes the same size pallets as a C-130 so you don't have to restrict pallet size or face repacking cargo from a C-130 to redistribute locally on the C-27.

It's interesting though that it was only 12 years ago that they got rid of the Andovers because "we didn't need them" and now they are seeking a replacement to fill the gap which they left.

CN-235 is a proven military aircraft and would suit the capability gap and cause it looks sexy in my opinion

redkiwi wrote:

QUOTE (redkiwi @ May 9 2010, 04:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't know why I didn't mention the C-27 myself - it's got the T-56's which are common to the Herk and Orion, and the cockpit is equivalent to what either of the larger airframes use which makes it a very viable training platform. Furthermore the C-27 takes the same size pallets as a C-130 so you don't have to restrict pallet size or face repacking cargo from a C-130 to redistribute locally on the C-27.

It's interesting though that it was only 12 years ago that they got rid of the Andovers because "we didn't need them" and now they are seeking a replacement to fill the gap which they left.

Guys the C-27J is powered by Rolls-Royce AE2100-D2A turboprops which are common to the C-130J not the C-130A to H so there is no commonality to our C-130s unless we get the J model...Ill think you wil find the C-27J will be just too expensive anyway (and a bit too big) - especially since we have to replace the C-130Hs in ten years.

Naki wrote:

QUOTE (Naki @ May 9 2010, 07:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Guys the C-27J is powered by Rolls-Royce AE2100-D2A turboprops which are common to the C-130J not the C-130A to H so there is no commonality to our C-130s unless we get the J model...Ill think you wil find the C-27J will be just too expensive anyway (and a bit too big) - especially since we have to replace the C-130Hs in ten years.

I stand corrected on the powerplant side of things. Pretty sure the new glass cockpit going into our C-130's at the moment is more or less 'J' spec.

i know that the aussies are having problems with their 737's the radar is not performing as specked, and i hate to say it, but RNZAF will proberly never get c130j's until they are run into the ground second hand models, it is such a shame, as for smaller a/c i would be very surprised to seem them move from something that was not tried in the pacifc region, i would think that the dash 8 (second hand) will proberly be the choice. it seems that the armed services in nz suffer from a what do we need right now mind set, mind you the RNZAF needs new everything, i know some people are amazed that we keep a 45+ year airframe flying.

As far as a replacement for the caribou, the RAAF never found a modern aircraft that would fit the role, none of the a/c on offer today would carry the same amunt of cargo into the spots a caribou would get into and out of. it amases me that no one today with all the supercomputers and such can design an aircraf that could perform as well as the bou, espically considering it was designed using a slide rule and paper.

i thought i read somewhere that the glass cockpit upgrade was not going ahead. i know the us version has been scrapped, because of cost overruns and major technical challenges.

I would love to see the cost of each upgrade performed, and the cost of keeping the old hercs in the air, compared to say the buy price of a new bird and it's maintence, i would say the new one would proberly be cheaper over say ten years even with upgrades.

jastheace wrote:

QUOTE (jastheace @ May 10 2010, 03:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i know that the aussies are having problems with their 737's the radar is not performing as specked, and i hate to say it, but RNZAF will proberly never get c130j's until they are run into the ground second hand models, it is such a shame, as for smaller a/c i would be very surprised to seem them move from something that was not tried in the pacifc region, i would think that the dash 8 (second hand) will proberly be the choice. it seems that the armed services in nz suffer from a what do we need right now mind set, mind you the RNZAF needs new everything, i know some people are amazed that we keep a 45+ year airframe flying.

As far as a replacement for the caribou, the RAAF never found a modern aircraft that would fit the role, none of the a/c on offer today would carry the same amunt of cargo into the spots a caribou would get into and out of. it amases me that no one today with all the supercomputers and such can design an aircraf that could perform as well as the bou, espically considering it was designed using a slide rule and paper.

i thought i read somewhere that the glass cockpit upgrade was not going ahead. i know the us version has been scrapped, because of cost overruns and major technical challenges.

I would love to see the cost of each upgrade performed, and the cost of keeping the old hercs in the air, compared to say the buy price of a new bird and it's maintence, i would say the new one would proberly be cheaper over say ten years even with upgrades.

Theres a chance that the C-130 upgrade will be cancelled but it may be too late...the Air Force will have no choice as I understand it, is that in ten years the Herc will have to be replaced as they willl be completey worn out...the upgrade seems a bit of waste IMV with only ten years of life left in them...they should just replace them now with J models.

I am betting the RAAF wil get C-27Js.

Naki wrote:

QUOTE (Naki @ May 10 2010, 10:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am betting the RAAF wil get C-27Js.

I checked one off these display at Avalon .... it went up , i mean it went up then it came down this was worse than up this was near vertical , it then did a very hi-g turn just to finish off , damn thing scoots in and dose a barrel roll , now if any trooper in the back forgot his camo , he would have jumped in a natural green , least the way he would looked after a ride like that !

Naki wrote:

QUOTE (Naki @ May 10 2010, 09:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Theres a chance that the C-130 upgrade will be cancelled but it may be too late...the Air Force will have no choice as I understand it, is that in ten years the Herc will have to be replaced as they willl be completey worn out...the upgrade seems a bit of waste IMV with only ten years of life left in them...they should just replace them now with J models.

I'm interested to see how the A400M performs, either way it's certainly looking that they will need to build in some load sharing capability whatever they buy. 42sqn used to have 10 Andovers... at the peak of operations but I doubt they will get that many airframes unless the are definitely needed and the government can afford to spend the money.