New Zealand Armed Forces

Old but i love it

With a couple Mistrals, we could actually invade NZ.

yeah, hope they don't stationed some anti-ship missiles in position xD

PG could easily deal with that and their pathetic navy.

they have more like a costal gourd not a navy

but still some modern good positioned and at good timing shot anti-ship missiles could blow up any sea assult operation, im not a fan of big ships i wrote my theory of modern ship use in the odern battlefield up in the mistral deal thread.

so or so it quit bad in a war for new zealand

Actually instead of suggesting invasion of New Zealand what Russia should be doing is giving our military a call and asking them if they want to buy some Il-476s and even perhaps some An-70s before they enter production for the Russian AF.

Adding more airframes now to the order should reduce the costs of tooling up for production and will make the aircraft made cheaper. Increased numbers will also improve the spares situation as another country will be buying spare parts which should also reduce their costs as well.

At the moment New Zealand operates the C-130, which is a tactical transport aircraft not really optimised for long range flights. In our past we have sent C-130s to various places only to have them break down on the way. Its low speed and low ceiling means a fairly uncomfortable ride and currently our standard armoured vehicle is a marginal load for it. This is not normally a problem because when we deploy armour it is normally by ship as it is much cheaper and ensures when the armour arrives it arrives together ready for use rather than piecemeal a few at a time.

With Il-476s you get much higher flight speeds, a more comfortable flight above the weather and real strategic range that is only possible with a C-130 with a very light load.
Il-476s would be more versatile and give us the option of airlifting a light armoured unit if we wish without the horrendous cost of the C-17.

Of course the real problem is that our military will say no and even if they like the idea our politicians will say no.

We will get updated C-130s, probably C-130Js which are warmed over C-130s which are tactical transports, when what we really need are strategic transports because of our isolation from the rest of the world.

Another thing you might want to talk to us about is access to Antarctica. Right now and for some time the US has had a military base at Christchurch airport that is used to support the US presence in Antarctica. To improve your access to Antarctica perhaps you could ask for a similar base at Dunedin airport to support your operations in Antarctica too? (Nothing to do with me wanting a Russian base here, or to see Russian transport aircraft or anything like that .... OK it is a lot like that!)

Dunedin airport is modern and would offer excellent access to Antarctica that should allow Russia to reduce its costs in supporting Antarctic operations.
You could add to that a scientific base in Central Otago perhaps for supporting your satellites in the Southern Hemisphere, we have an area there called the Mount John Observatory that is being put forward as a World heritage area because of the low light pollution that makes it ideal for space observation. Central Otago could offer similar locations as it is south of this region (and therefore further away from the populated north of the country).

I guess it is a bit like the Sukhoi offer to Australia to make Su-35s and Su-34s to replace the Hornets and F-111s respectively and to work on a new long range AAM. Would have been wonderful for the Australian aviation industry, but instead they went American and got to go to Iraq and Afghanistan...

Why on Earth are you flying C-130's?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_C-2

That plane would get you better fuel mileage, ability to fly with commercial air traffic, greater speed, greater airlift, cheaper parts, lower maintenance....

Plus I bet you could get a super sweet deal with Japan right now to get them.

Did you really give a boat with a gun on it to Palau? WTF?

They almost got ran over by a fishing boat....what were you thinking? Maybe a Ultralight with a RPG to keep fishing boats away...that would have been even more comical. You New Zealand boys sure bring smiles to the world.

The myth of the medium strategic transport...

The C-130 is junk... I totally agree.

At max payload it can't even get to Australia from NZ and we often send several on operations in anticipation of one breaking down.

Low speed, and no pressurisation in the cabin so no high altitude ops without oxygen... and flying through the weather instead of over it.

When we send armour anywhere we send it by boat anyway.

Personally I think a half dozen Il-476 aircraft would make much more sense... especially considering our isolation... plus they will be much more useful for operations in Antarctica.

The realistic view however is that the C-17 is way out of our reach financially so we will likely eventually replace our C-130s.... with C-130s... and continue to operate a tactical light transport as a strategic light transport.

GarryB wrote:The myth of the medium strategic transport...

At max payload it can't even get to Australia from NZ and we often send several on operations in anticipation of one breaking down.

I absolutely LOVE Australia's military. They flew their C-130's a very very long ways and I was there to unload them. The pilot walked up to me and started talking to me like I was his best friend..every other word was a "F" word....apparently there was a big pacific storm they had to fly around and they flew for many many hours. He was HAMMERED! Drunk off his keister and he still landed that plane.

Well I was amused so off to unload his plane....1 pallet of gear....1 pallet of beer....1 pallet of gear.....1 pallet of beer.....my God....did I ever get born in the wrong country.

I've met Russian pilots drunk as a skunk landing AN-124's...but the Australians beat them drinking hands down...merely by the amount of booze they were carrying. And you certainly taught the Thai military well...boy do they like booze on planes too.

For a drinking mans plane I think the C-130 still reigns supreme. Maybe that's why no one's gone with something like the Japanese Kawasaki C-130 copy with 2 turbines.....too fast to fly when yer drunk.

Don't get me wrong... the C-130 is an excellent plane for what it was designed for.

A light tactical transport.

The problem is that we use it as a strategic transport which is simply isn't.

I would have the same criticism if we were flying the Soviet equivelant in the An-12. Nice aircraft but for NZ not much good.

BTW my brother was in the RNZAF for a while and the reason most are alcoholics is they use their planes to bring in duty free booze all the time. A jug of rum and coke was 80c at a little get together I went to.

why the hell you think that NZ need strategic transport aircrafts, only reason is real to be independent in supporting logisticaly "overseas" and overseas only deployments of troops and equipment if NZ plans to be USA's conflicts human resource donator further like in afghanistan

overall new zealand don't need any "strategic transport capabilities" for ther big army

Well let me put it this way... what use are transport planes that don't have the flight range with a full payload to get to the nearest country to us?

A fully laden C-130 of the type we operate has a flight range of 950km at full payload.

Even with a very strong tail wind that wouldn't get us to Australia in one hop.

We use transport aircraft in the same way everyone else does... transport troops and then supply those troops.

Having a transport plane that can barely reach Australia is a joke, but the even bigger joke is that we are in mericas camp so we can't consider anything but a warmed over C-130 which has the same basic problems, or we could look at the C-17. We couldn't afford to buy any, but we could look at them.

Buying Il-476s would be a huge step up for us, and would make operations much easier with fewer stops on the way and higher transit speeds. The extra weight capacity also means fewer flights needed.

We have a base in Antarctica which we could actually fly to and properly support with Candids which would make us less dependent on the US.

Our physical location demands long range aircraft, and our wish to remain independent of the US means we need these sorts of aircraft so we don't become dependent on the US or anyone else.

BTW NZ troops were not in Afghanistan to support US troops. They were there to help the Afghans. Just like NZ troops were in all sorts of other places to help with rebuilding and demining and other things the US forces don't seem to have money for.

Do what Japan/Israel did.


Get 2 US C-130 Airframes, gut them and modify them how YOU want them. You could rip the 4 turbo props off and put 2 jet turbines on the C-130..since you don't have to operate in sand and want longer distance.

Who cares if the modified plane needs an extra 150 feet of runway. The runways are being lengthened for the new Boeing 787....and your modified C-130+ would have enough speed to fly Commercial Airtraffic routes....something the C-130 can't do.


You don't have to plop down big money to buy the C-130's right away. The Pentagon uses it's budget to LOAN countries money to buy military hardware....you just make payments.

The parts you rip off the C-130's like the TurboProps and avionics could be resold right back to the US for parts. With inflation of the US dollar.....say a turbo prop engine is $2 million....you sell it in 12 months back to the US for more than you even paid for it.....err...financed it for.

Where to get the 2 new jet engines? Call up Japan and ask if they'd finance the sale of engines from the Kawasaki Air Cargo Plane. Japan wants clean food since their food supply is irradiated...a good deal could be struck for some New Zealand Lamb every year as payment. Or get your hands on the some of the 747/737 excess planes from the collapse of Commercial Air in America.....hack the engines and controls off those planes into your modified C-130...the avionics could be put into the C-130's as well to get it upto Commercial Air Travel legal requirements.

It's not rocket science and it's not really expensive to do. Aren't you CHARGING foreign militaries to come to your areas of control...for military exercises? That's how "allies" make money. Have silly little rules like YOU have to service their needs when they come....charge them for it....fund your military.

Use the planes to tell the Tuna boats where the fish are...for a fee......maybe even tell Japan where to find the whales...for a fee....

Such a modified C-130 could also end up getting tanks on its wings to refuel fighters......now there's a money maker supporting the US Navy for it's air refuel need as well.

A jack of all trades high speed air cargo plane/refueler.....special forces air dropper.......even make a retractable towed array and sonar buoy discharger to use it for sub hunting missions....at others cost if you get my drift.

You could do it cheaper.....your location gives you the cost savings of providing support in YOUR area of the world at a lower cost to someone with $$$ and a need.

I'd get 2 Israeli financial moguls and 2 german aerospace engineers to put it all together.....you could have two modified C-130's for probably NOTHING.

The 2 Israeli's would cost you more than the 2 fully modified C-130's....ha ha ha!!

Let me remind you we have skyhawks sitting in hangars costing us 12 million a year to keep in flying condition because they are American property and they wont let us sell them to just anyone.

Upgrading a C-130 is a huge risk for such an ancient airframe and at the end of the day we could be stuck with a white elephant again.

It would be much cheaper overall to simply put in an order for 6 Il-476s plus a large spare parts pool. Perhaps if we bought 10 they would consider opening Russian service and support centre here at Dunedin airport. The Russians might be able to lease some land near the airport and use it for a base to support their operations in Antarctica.

Regarding tuna finder fees... I think the RNZN would not be happy about that and whale hunting Japs are not welcome in our waters. We already have Orions for maritime patrol.

The longer range, higher speed, larger capacity transports would greatly improve support for Army operations overseas and distribution of men and material.

Even with much more powerful engines I doubt the straight winged C-130 could fly at commercial airliner speeds efficiently.

Most importantly when we are not using these aircraft we can rent them out to NATO and UN forces and make serious profits.

With a decent DIRCMs system fitted like MANTA it could even be used in danger areas with relative safety too.

GarryB wrote:

Even with much more powerful engines I doubt the straight winged C-130 could fly at commercial airliner speeds efficiently.

The F4 proved a brick could fly if you put enough thrust behind it! ha ha ha ha


The best military tactic is to get hardware without cost. The Russian airlift planes would require lots of money. New Zealand can't afford them.

You could scrounge and build your own 2 or 3 transport planes pretty cheap. They're just flying school buses. Drive a forklift with cargo into those Russian airlift planes and it looks like it's going to fall through the floor...the floor bows down so bad. I am amazed every time I see one fly loaded up. Another down side to the Russian cargo planes is it takes more time to load them and to unload them. The amount of time it takes the Russian Cargo pilot to get out of his plane....is how long it takes to load up an American cargo plane.

Russia's airlift theory should have adopted the US roller system for pallets. Maybe the new iL-476's entering service in Russia in 2012 may have this update?

The F4 proved a brick could fly if you put enough thrust behind it! ha ha ha ha

To an extent that is true, but there is a reason why modern commercial airliners don't have straight wings and to develop a higher speed swept wing C-130 would be expensive, though keeping the straight wing would mean either much lower flight speed or a lot more fuel per km of flight... all of which is unsatisfactory.

The best military tactic is to get hardware without cost. The Russian airlift planes would require lots of money. New Zealand can't afford them.

First of all there is no such thing as a free piece of a$$... you always end up paying a price.

Currently relations with the US are pretty good, but not good enough to get us free C-17s or C-130Hs.
Buying Russian Il-476s is likely out of the question, but buying Ukrainian Il-476s might not be out of the question...

Drive a forklift with cargo into those Russian airlift planes and it looks like it's going to fall through the floor...the floor bows down so bad. I am amazed every time I see one fly loaded up.

NATO seems happy to lease Russian transport aircraft often enough.

Another down side to the Russian cargo planes is it takes more time to load them and to unload them. The amount of time it takes the Russian Cargo pilot to get out of his plane....is how long it takes to load up an American cargo plane.

Russia's airlift theory should have adopted the US roller system for pallets. Maybe the new iL-476's entering service in Russia in 2012 may have this update?

The Soviets have been using transport planes with roller floors and built in cranes and pallet based loads for decades. In fact the first transport plane to use modern fly by wire flight control systems was the An-124.


Anyway... even with new engines... like the C-130J it is still a tactical light transport.
An Il-476, or An-70 has much larger payload, much longer flight range, and higher speed.

When we are not using them they will likely be useful to allied military forces... they would be a much better investment of military funds than Skyhawks and airmacchis ever were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_New_Zealand_Air_Force


Apparently the New Zealand Skyhawks were sold long ago to a private buyer. For some type of jet training over the US.


So New Zealand has no fighter jets?

From the link you provided:

In late 2005 the government announced that the surviving A-4Ks and Aermacchi MB-339Cs, 17 of each type, (not counting A-4s in museums), were to be sold to US company Tactical Air Systems for use in jet training, subject to the US government approval. Tactical Air Systems announced RNZAF colour schemes would be preserved, "out of respect for the history and traditions of the RNZAF". The US State Department expressed concerns about having two squadrons of combat jets operating over the US in private hands so the aircraft were put into storage at Woodbourne. The Aermacchi fleet is still in flying condition but the A4K fleet was covered in protective latex and moved to outside storage in 2007 to make way for the C-130H upgrade. It is most likely that the A-4Ks will be donated to museums or remain at RNZAF Base Woodbourne for training purposes for RNZAF Technicians, as the cost of refurbishing them (estimated at $34 million) was deemed to expensive by the government. As of September 2010 a buyer was still to be found for the remaining A-4Ks and MB-339Cs.

Should mention that Tactical Air Systems is a company made up of former USAF personnel that wanted to bid for a contract as opposing forces training with the USAF.

And they remain in storage...

a few videos I found about the embaressing demise of of most of the NZ armed forces. WARNING: might piss off the kiwis here  

It'd only really be embarrasing if they had someone keen on trying to blow them up. The only people I can think of are those who believe they're partly culpable for Peter Jackson's movies. With no real threat, and defense agreements with others, why waste money on maintaining a high-tech military?

This doesn't mean I will refrain from twisting Garry's tail, however

Pissed off?

Perhaps that you believe this stuff.

We had M113s... they were obsolete and needed replacing.

We had Skyhawks that we didn't actually use for anything except airshows and flying low and fast at NZ and Aussie naval vessels to simulate cruise missiles for air defence practise.

We were spending a small fortune every year on Skyhawks we didn't need.

We were spending a small fortune on Aermacchi lead in fighter trainer aircraft we also didn't need to train the skyhawk pilots we didn't need and have never used.

The reality is that our so called Air Force was sucking funds that would be much better spent on our Army.

So we cut the Skyhawks and Aerimacchis and cancelled the silly F-16 purchase and spent the money on light armoured vehicles we actually might find useful.

Of the competing designs, as much as I like the BTR-80 it was never seriously considered for two main reasons... it is not very well armoured and its armament had serious limitations. A BTR-82 would have been much better choice had it been available at the time, or a BTR-90M, but then it would have lost the advantage of low cost.

The rear ramp door of the LAV is a huge advantage, and the lack of amphibious capability is not a huge drawback for New Zealand. We are not going to be using these vehicles to patrol our EEZ, they are to transport troops. We will generally operate them in places where the roads are pretty good as that will suit their wheeled configuration.

Russia prefers amphibious vehicles because it has an enormous number of rivers and lakes that need crossing moving from east to west or west to east.

An upgraded M113 wouldn't have the firepower of the LAV III very simply because it has a fully stabilised 25mm cannon (my nephew used to command a LAV unit and he gave me a 3 round belt of fire shells...) and nice modern thermal sights to be able to effectively use them.

I do think that a nice modern BTR-90M with Catherine thermals and a stabilised 100mm rifled gun and 30mm cannon, plus a 30mm grenade launcher at the back of the turret should offer much better fire performance, though the issue of carrying troops and only having side entry/exit hatches and roof hatches might be a problem.

My solution is for the Russian IFV makers to send immediately to me a BTR-90M with full fuel tanks and ammo magazines so I can drive up to Waiouru and run rings around their pathetic LAV-IIIs and make them realise their mistake. In fact if you really want to rub their noses in it, send me a Boomerang-25 with a 45mm gun and Kornet-EM ATGMs.

Based upon what I've observed, the New Zealand people are peace loving and really friendly. A stark contrast to their big bully brother, that sees other Asian countries as a massive threat to its sovereignty.

I think New Zealand should buy some Russian fighter planes to break away from the mould of other "British descendent" white contries(who are all now heavly relied on US arms). And of course as a deterrent towards any aggressive Aussie invasion in future(you never know).

We had A4 Skyhawks and all we did with them was display them at air shows and pretend to be antiship missiles for our navy and the australian navy.

Terrible waste of money.

Though if we did have to buy new planes a dozen Yak-130s would be nice.

Would love to see us adopt Russian small arms, but that wont happen either.

GarryB wrote:We had A4 Skyhawks and all we did with them was display them at air shows and pretend to be antiship missiles for our navy and the australian navy.

Terrible waste of money.

Though if we did have to buy new planes a dozen Yak-130s would be nice.

Would love to see us adopt Russian small arms, but that wont happen either.

Does NZ view Russia with the same eye as the US/Aus?

If no, then why not buy few Su-35S and order FGFA in future, just to break away from the traditional mould?

Does NZ view Russia with the same eye as the US/Aus?

They do.

A bit of a shame really as we could do a lot more trade with them and I think they would be very interested in some of our farming technology. We could also offer them a low crime area for their GLONASS stations to improve the accuracy of their satellite navigation system, and also offer a basing area close to Antarctica.

There is zero chance of buying an Su-35, just as there is zero chance of buying an F-35.

It is over 1,000km to our nearest neighbour Australia... what possible use would we put fighter aircraft to?

What we should do is buy some Lada-M submarines and hunt Japanese whaling ships..