mxaxai wrote:Ozair wrote:Well nearly new German airframes are a possibility but I would suggest NZ will be hesitant about taking early build A400Ms to ensure they don't burden themselves with non-standard or airframe unique maintenance going forward. They might also benefit from having Malaysia and Indonesia, if they ever sign, as other regional operators.
You had considered this yourself 5 months ago.
I did but I consider partnering different to having operators of the same type in the region.
Would NZ, Malaysia and Indonesia have a common spares pool, a common training program, operating procedures, exchange postings? Doubtful but that is what I would expect from partners.
Having regional operators means asking one of them to borrow a part, having a yearly meeting to discuss how they both use the jet, perhaps even a biannual exercise.
mxaxai wrote:The KC-390 has been meeting all (or most?) of its targets recently and Embraer has decent experience with building jets. One of the largest hurdles for the A400M, the engines, are also standard civilian IAE V2500s on the KC-390.
I still don’t see how you can call a jet that has yet to IOC with its primary customer mature, it doesn’t make logical sense.
mxaxai wrote:Re your other point:
The only true gobal players today are the US, and to a lesser extent but increasingly China (who are not competing here). However, you would agree that military procurements are always connected to politics. The way stats are compared here often makes it seem as if a competitor lost only because it was less capable. The C-130J has...:
- the lowest maximum payload mass
- the lowest speed
- the second-lowest range (only the KC-390 has less)
- not the lowest price (the KC-390 is cheaper)
among the contenders. It cannot reach Antarctica without a point-of-no-return. It's sole bonus is that it needs the shortest runway. If it is chosen the decision is probably 70 % politics, 20 % commonality and 10 % actual unique capabilities. Of course the people at Embraer, Kawasaki & Airbus would be upset. But they're fighting uphill with governments that want the companies to make money yet don't support their export attempts at all.
Looking at the specs is important but we also don’t have a requirement set from NZ to validate them against. hence we can only hypothesis on what we think NZ requires. The important point being that a lower capability aircraft, as the C-130J is compared to some of the other potential options, may be sufficient to meet the requirement set at the price point NZ can afford.
As an aside as posted in the other thread, the C-30J can reportedly do a zero point of no return from Christchurch,
Antarctic operations are crucial to New Zealand and the new model "Super Hercules" has the ability to get to the McMurdo Sound, for crew to assess landing conditions while overhead and if they are too bad return safely to Christchurch. The older model planes' point of safe return was much earlier in flight.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=11932974
I have no idea of what payload that is measured with though so take it with a grain of salt.
Yes politics plays a factor in the selection but not a pivotal one. NZ is not beholden to the US for much and I don’t see political interests overly impacting the selection of a transport plane. The P-8 is a different case given the information and intelligence sharing agreements in place which the P-8 would directly contribute to.