Mapp: Previous govt to blame for Hercules woes

Email
Print

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 5:35p.m.

C130 Hercules

C130 Hercules

By Charlotte Tonkin

Defence Minister Wayne Mapp is blaming the previous Government for the bungled Air Force Hercules upgrade programme, which is costing 100 Blenheim engineers their jobs.

The project has proved too complicated, and that wasn't surprising, given that modern systems were incompatible with 44- year-old technology.

The upgrading of the Air Force's five C130 Hercules was meant to be a cheaper way of keeping competitive in the military market. The planes were to gain an extra 15 years of service.

"You'd have to say, to have one aircraft out of service for five years and then only get another five, six or seven years out of it, doesn't look terribly sensible," says Dr Mapp.

He says Labour's 2004 decision to upgrade old aircraft rather than buy new was always going to be problematic.

The project has been crippled by delays. The Canadian company which won the contract has folded. Its parent company, L3 Communications, has taken over the upgrade of two of the five planes. The air force can't afford to have any of the other three out of action until at least one aircraft is overhauled successfully, but new software isn't working.

"The software is specifically designed for our particular aircraft," says Dr Mapp. "You only need five copies of it, there are only five aircraft involved. It's got to be designed almost from the ground up, so it seems to be a recipe for problems."

Last month, Dr Mapp sent a project manager to Texas to troubleshoot the problems. He has been assured the first plane is now due in July – two-and-a-half years late - but it's a promise Dr Mapp has heard before.

Air New Zealand says as far as it knows the project is still delayed indefinitely and the jobs at Safe Air will still go.

3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

20 Feb 2010 10:13p.m.

Kim wrote:

I must apologise again robert it seems like you are saying we are a state of australia and should pay our share?
And that the military manupulated the govt into giving it wat it wanted? oh and that the NZ public wanted the govt to spend a couple of hundred million on useless fighter jets..Aww stuff it you win.. i carn't argue with a zealot

20 Feb 2010 03:13p.m.

RobertM wrote:

The whole story of the Hercules update and Project Protectors technical design really reflects a lack of professionalism by the Clark administration, Kim. Clark relied on few trusted personal advisers in defence and other areas rather than listen to the military or informed commentators or anybody independent. Clark really dosen't believe in a military at all because she is really a pacifist(despite denials)and does not really want NZ involved in violence. However as Obama made clear in his Nobel prize acceptance speech, violence and killing are sometimes necessary to defend freedom. To me if the military desposes of somebody hand to hand, it is just as great as violence as zapping him or her with gunfire from a Skyhawk or F-16 or dropping a bomb. Why the left so demonises fighter aircraft is beyond me.Obviously the main purpose of NZs armed forces is to help defend Australia. That is very largely what there for and is why we have the Orions, frigates and even project protector. Even in the time of Clark the military managed to exercise enough control , veto and selective action to ensure that the purpose of NZ defence continued to be to help Australia, with which I agree.
The political classes of course are appalled by F-16s but they and the Skyhawks had considerable public support, 45% of the public supported the F-16s only 5% suported the Anzac frigates. I think it unlikely a strike force will be reestablished but I have actively worked to get the Aermacchis reactivated and armed.

20 Feb 2010 09:39a.m.

Kim wrote:

@robertM
I'm sorry robert but i am finding it quite hard to decipher what you just siad but if i have it right you are saying that labour was wrong to put family support, working for families and health above defence. And that we really needed those F16 in case australia invades?
Or are you saying we needed them in case australia wanted to use them?
As far as needing transport in Afghanistan, If the yanks want to use our troops they can damned well transport them around thier war themselves.
The labour govt of the day decided to spend its limited defence budget on equipment for peacekeeping not war as that is what the world looks (or looked at the time) to New Zealand for.
Maybe you need to move to America where you can indulge in using high tech equipment to hunt down and kill people.

19 Feb 2010 08:47p.m.

RobertM wrote:

Kim I can see you are of the left and 25 years ago I was a bit more leftish. Spending on family support, working for families and health compete for money available for defence and would have been priorities for Helen and a different trade off have to be made from time to time. Nobody was thinking of F-16s as going to defend New Zealand but they were newer planes than the Australian F-18s and possibly more capable and might have proved useful to Australia as its F-18s are 25 years old and will not be replaced by ordered Joint strike fighters until 2022 and those JSFs are proving to have a very difficult development. Australia may in fact have only the 24 super hornets ordered by Brendon Nelson. In point out that defence forces ultimately are about using lethal force to defend western interests I was not thinking about NZ defending ourselves but situations like Afghanistan were the current surge with strictly restricted rules of engagement is not going well and many nations refuse to have their forces engaged in combats. New Hercules would have been useful for both transporting soldiers and their equipment and disaster relief.

19 Feb 2010 04:35p.m.

Kim wrote:

@RobertM
Yea well if you supported throwing 100's of millions of dollars away on F16's its no wonder they didn't consider you worth talking to.
New Zealand could spend its entire tax take for 10 years on defence and we wouldn't have a chance against any nation powerful enough to invade this country.
What good would those f16 been to us?
Now i agree with the comment about the lav's that was just silly.
Your post sounds like sour grapes to me.

19 Feb 2010 04:29p.m.

Oli wrote:

I would just like to point out that it becomes more expensive to keep old planes flying because parts become harder to get and the aircraft needs twice as much fixing and maintanance thus cost's more!!! in the long run it would have been cheaper to buy new planes. and yes we do need to insure we are not overspending in one section such as the military. but we do still need to give them what they need to do the job and at the end of the day that is to protect and serve us......right now they need new kit bad we are flying 40-50 year old aircraft!!!

19 Feb 2010 03:45p.m.

kim wrote:

Jim
This govt could do with listening to the odd expert about education, Race relations, Welfare, ACC, Health, tax (well no forget tax experts) and just about everything they have done. But above all that they need to start listening to the people that they are suppose to represent. Remember they are there to run the country for US not themselves. They are paid employees not the owners of the country.
(don't get me wrong Labour was nearly as bad ) this country needs to get back to democracy which has been sadly lacking in the last 20-30 years.

19 Feb 2010 11:06a.m.

RobertM wrote:

Kim, whether the Government listened to expert opinion on defence is debatable/ They certainly didn't listen to the views of the Navy, AirForce or Mod figures on many issues. No Labour figure ever consulted me, even though I did the most authorative work on the nuclear ships issue, Nuclear Visitors, Jan/Feb l985 International Review (NZIIA). I also was the person Nicky Hager contacted to congratulate the day after the Anzac ships project was stopped in NZ and Aus after Shipleys decision to scrap the 3rd Anzac and order the F-l6s which I supported to a degree. I judge I did more to prepare the ground for Project Protector than anybody in the country, yet Clark never contacted me after l985.On the issue of the Hercules there would have been plenty of money if the money now wasted on refit on 44 year old aircraft had been spent more wisely, if somewhat fewer than 105 Lav3s had been ordered and if $900 million had not been spent on Unarmed NH105 Transport helicopters which are hardly what an airforce is for. Certainly you need transport and helicopters but in the end defence is about the need to stop lethal opponents with armed power and infantry will not be enough and sometimes entail to much pain and casualties on our own army. There is a case for an Air Force.

19 Feb 2010 10:34a.m.

Jim wrote:

Dan - We could have had some expert Pilots if not for Ms Nanny state.
Kim - Experts, thats all labour did was spend money on Consultants, Advisors and still got nothing done. And remeber Mr Cullen couldn't even keep $10 billion he was arrogantly spouted off about, good savings!!!

18 Feb 2010 10:37p.m.

Dan wrote:

@Lightseed: Well Mr.Know it all since I have no clues how about you enlighten us all on what mr.keys/national govt. has planned for us? U keep harping they said this, they did that, they promised this, nothing has materialized in favour of the common man mate! I challenge you to prove that they have done anything to enable Air New Zealand's subsidiary to retain all 100 Staff!