If NZ gets fighters again, what should we get?

[chrishorne]

I'd love to see some fast jets back in the RNZAF but I'd like it to be affordable and to meet certain operational roles than just to have them.

I was a little bit disappointed when it came out that nz was going to replace the skyhawks with f-16a's - nicer airframe, more 'dumb' weapons load but how much extra attacking ability were they over the a4-ks their f-16a avonics fit. It didn't make sense to me then.

NZ needs a true multirole aircraft that can do lots of things well, perhaps not the best at anything. It also needs the ability to play well with others, especially Australia's armed forces. Lets face it, NZ is small and is very limited in what we can do by ourselves BUT we can and should support our Big brother across the Tasman with ensuring the peace of the area in which we live.

I would love for the RNZAF to have a Squadron of Gripen-Ds (no single seaters), CFTs fitted as standard. Minimise the weapons fit but have the ability and training (simulators?) to ensure that the aircraft is qualified for a wide range of our allies weapons. Reccon pods should be purchased from the start. Main roles - Reccon, Marine Attack, Attack and Air Attack/Defense.

I'm unsure about the training aspect, for a single squadron I'd probably prefer if the Aussies could train our fast jet pilots. Actually how do the nz 757 pilots get trained at the moment?

 

[EnigmaNZ]

I mentioned in another thread somewhere that we could have brought attack helos from Singapore quite cheaply. They were the 20 Eurocopter AS550U-2 Fennec (Anti-armour x 10 & Recon x 10) They would have been useful for close airsupport for our forces deployed overseas without blowing the defence budget.

 

[Burncycle]

Is Hawk in the running?
From what I understand, the Hawk 200 has the potential to employ AMRAAM if someone wanted to go that route, although maybe not since it hasn't been done yet....

The ground attack varient would be able to employ PGM's, and obviously there's the commonality with trainers.

The F-16 would obviously be the more capable choice if they can afford it, but if they're looking for the cheapest available platform that can still employ AMRAAM and PGM's, the Hawk seems to be as basic as it gets.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

Never seen it mentioned, we still have the Mackie 339's in storage, the Shyhawks still have 10 years life in them, and the F-16 is the only fighter that has been costed out, about $NZ650 mil for 12 and about a billion for 18 late c/d's, about the limite of our budget at present.

 

[nz enthusiast]

chrishorne, thank you for ebing the person to finally realise that the gripen is good for NZ. The hawk was considered at the time of the F-16 purchase, it was actually the Hawk 200 not the 127 or 128 used by Australia. The problem was that firstly it was to slow, would be idfficult to ar, with anti shipping missile and would have bad manuverability and would have short range.

Finance packages that fighter exports are offering have improved alot over the years. I know with the gripen that you can lease it off them for 10 years, they will countinually upgrade it without charging you and over that period you like payments so at the end of the 10 year less you actually own them. There are few conditions such as if you crash one you have to pay its retail price but it is still a very good scheme. Both Hungary and Czechoslovakia are getting 14 gripens each this way.

I believe the NZ airforce receieves assistance from Air New Zealand with the 757s. Air NZ also have maintaince contracts with the RNZAF.

 

[chrishorne]

I wouldn't consider armed helicopters as a valid alternative to a multirole jet. They don't have the range, can't respond quickly to threats and worst of all would be unable to project power (as much as nz can). they also would be unable to perform the crutial role of maritime attack.

The Hawk 200 are nice aircraft, quite amazing what Bae have done with them but do they offer much over a A4K? The avonics are a bit better but the weapons load is restricted, there is the advantages of being able to use AMRAAM and Sea Eagle (1) missiles but if you are buying a new aircraft do you buy something that is only a bit better than what you have currently? Especially if it has to last 30 years . . . .

The Gripen on the other hand is starting its active life, can carry two of the excellent RBS15F Antiship missiles (possibly harpoon?), and can carry a variety of air to air missiles including AMRAAM, IRIS-T, AIM-9X, A-Darter, ASRAAM, Python 4, Python 5, Derby.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I agree, a fighter would be a far better choice for NZ for air defence, strike/maritime strike missions, I just don't see it on the cards. I was trying to be a little bit realistic and propose a way NZ could get an aerial fire support/recon asset that wouldn't break the bank and "might" be politically acceptable... The ex-Singaporean armed Fennec's sound EXACTLY what I had in mind...

Something like this http://www.army-technology.com/projects/as550_fennec/images/AS550fennec_1.jpg

would provide a useful fire support boost, but shouldn't prove too expensive...

 

[nz enthusiast]

but i want gripens, they are just so cool, I reckon they would be the best single engine aircraft in service apart from the F-16 block 60.
The air combat review stated that the Hawk is a good trainer aircraft but if NZ is going to bother with air combat capability they should go for a proper front line fighter jet.
New Zealand has this thing now with not buying used equipment we want stuff that could last 30 years or more if needed. There is only one a few pieces of eguipment in the force now that are used that i can think of they are: a few of the hueys and the survey vessel which was essentially knew when we got it off the US navy.

 

[Jason_kiwi]

If NZ is going to get its Air combat force back in 5 years or so I think F-16D's would be ideal and Hawks to be used as light/training.

 

[abramsteve]

This might sound a bit off, but why does New Zealand need to have fighter/attack aircraft? Maybe they would be better off buy more P-3s and perhaps another ANZAC for the navy. Why waste money on equiptment that they wouldnt use for anything more than assisting the traing of RAAF pilots. If they were to get fighters than surley the F-16 would be the way to go, parts are readily available and they are cheap enough to run. They could also form an effective part in joint operations with Australia.

 

[abramsteve]

Sorry about the spelling errors!

 

[Aussie Digger]

This might sound a bit off, but why does New Zealand need to have fighter/attack aircraft? Maybe they would be better off buy more P-3s and perhaps another ANZAC for the navy. Why waste money on equiptment that they wouldnt use for anything more than assisting the traing of RAAF pilots. If they were to get fighters than surley the F-16 would be the way to go, parts are readily available and they are cheap enough to run. They could also form an effective part in joint operations with Australia.

ANZAC frigates or P-3 Orions can't provide air defence for NZ or for deployed NZ forces. They can't provide close air support options for NZ forces, and are limited with regard to their Maritime strike capabilities even if they were equipped appropriately for this mission (which they aren't) given the threat levels they would face in this type of warfare. An F-16 armed appropriately is of course far more survivable than a lumbering P-3.

An additional ANZAC frigate would be useful for NZ, but the time has past for NZ to acquire another one. They could of course acquire another TYPE of frigate, but upgrading the capabilities of the present ones is a far more pressing issue at present than acquiring another frigate and far less costly....

 

[abramsteve]

ANZAC frigates or P-3 Orions can't provide air defence for NZ or for deployed NZ forces. They can't provide close air support options for NZ forces, and are limited with regard to their Maritime strike capabilities even if they were equipped appropriately for this mission (which they aren't) given the threat levels they would face in this type of warfare. An F-16 armed appropriately is of course far more survivable than a lumbering P-3.

An additional ANZAC frigate would be useful for NZ, but the time has past for NZ to acquire another one. They could of course acquire another TYPE of frigate, but upgrading the capabilities of the present ones is a far more pressing issue at present than acquiring another frigate and far less costly....

Thats true. But when would NZ deploy its forces overseas without them already being protected by their allies who would undoutably be more capable of providing air defence for them. Increasing their Ability to patrol and protect their maratime borders would be a far more usefull asset to them and us. They are ulikely to be engaged in any sort of naval confrontation on their own/if at all, so Maratime servailence would be far more usefull in a the modern fight against terrorism

 

[abramsteve]

If NZ is only going to aquire 20 odd F-16/ equivalent aircraft, then surley they would be stretched to send any of them overseas, and wouldnt such a small deployment be a waste of time?

 

[EnigmaNZ]

Interesting site on the price of fighters.

http://www.richardaboulafia.com/shownote.asp?id=50

Interesting
"The first JAS39 was handed over in 1994, and the type was declared operational in September 1997. In that same year planning began for a mid-life update, to be introduced from 2010 onwards. The options are believed to include thrust-vectoring (which might eliminate the need for a vertical tail), a development of the Ericsson PS-05/A pulse-Doppler radar with an electronically-scanned antenna, a helmet-mounted display, a more powerful auxiliary power unit, a reduced radar signature, and advanced weapons. "

http://www.armada.ch/00-3/001.htm

I like the Gripen, but would the government of the day go for a swedish aircraft, Labour would buy it if it had to purchase a new fighter as they have similar philospical beliefs to the swedish and are more anti the US. National is more likely to favour the F-16 being US so as to get in the US's good books.

 

[chrishorne]

Balancing different resource requirements will always be tricky, the topic of the thread is if nz gets fighters what should they be. To be perfectly honest if it came down to it I would prefer a better martime survailance/attack option and another frigate/large multirole craft (a miliary specification of mpv perhaps with full weapons system) and an excellent maritime aircraft with antishipping abilty - a super p3 (or in my dreams Nimrod MR4s). the US MMA just scares me for some reason - a 737 based aircaft at low level

If we do get fighter it still would be hard to go past a Nato version of the gripen - ie JAS39C/D. It would play nicely with the aussies F-18s (even use almost the same engine) and even better the wedgetails, and have the advantages of being designed to be easy to maintain, have a excellent simulator for reduced training costs etc etc Life cycle costs would almost certainly be better than an f16. In the end either of these aircraft would be very nice, although if it had to be an F16 I'd go with the F16I.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Thats true. But when would NZ deploy its forces overseas without them already being protected by their allies who would undoutably be more capable of providing air defence for them. Increasing their Ability to patrol and protect their maratime borders would be a far more usefull asset to them and us. They are ulikely to be engaged in any sort of naval confrontation on their own/if at all, so Maratime servailence would be far more usefull in a the modern fight against terrorism

It's unreasonable to expect your allies to provide coverage for such basic capabilities as air defence for your forces, simply because you're politically and philosophically opposed to the idea of airpower. NZ IS capable of acquiring, supporting and maintaining an air combat capability. It has always done so since such capabilities became widely available. The current Government is simply unwilling to do so.

Expecting your allies yto stretch their own scarce resources to cover your shortfalls is hardly being a good international citizen. IN Bosnia for instance, NZ had to go cap in hand to the the UK to provide it with forces for air defence AND anti-tank capabilities to protect the NZ troops, plus the usual comms etc because their equipment was so antiquated as to be in-compatible and actually useless for a modern peacekeeping role.

How can you justify this as being acceptable? Why bother deploying troops in the first place? Does any political benefit accrue from the embarassment faced by asking other Nations to provide capabilities at their expense that YOUR forces need?

A surveillance capability, without a response capacity is also useless. What's the point of detecting potential terrorists, let alone a military threat if you lack the ability to respond to the threat? At the very least NZ should include an air to surface attack capability to go with it's P-3K surface surveillance upgrade, other I think the money is being wasted.

 

[chrishorne]

While Politics does have a certain impact of defense spending and what is purchased from who, NZ really has to stand by a courses for horses policy. These days the americans buy highly specialised systems that depend on force multipiers - ie tankers, aew aircraft etc etc Such systems while being the envy of the world do not always or even often make a good system for other countries. case in point the C-17, it is big, expensive and lots of airforces would love to have them but its not going to happen, even Canada couldn't afford them. The A400m is going to do well I think (and find its way in Australias and New Zealands Air Forces I would imagine - it offers just too much ability to ignore). Also think of maritime airacraft like the orion, the US are going to replace it with the 737 Based MMA and Unmaned aircraft like the global hawk.

The Gripen while its not US based contains (mostly) US tech provided by US based companies, while its not as nice Politically as say a F16 it does provide income to mostly US companies, Sweden and the British (Bae) which isn't a bad thing. Better than buying french. Buying Amraam and perhaps getting harpoon certification would make the US happier I would imagine, hell the Australians would be happy that we had any abilty back and a Gripen would be a much harder opponent than a f16.

 

[abramsteve]

It's unreasonable to expect your allies to provide coverage for such basic capabilities as air defence for your forces, simply because you're politically and philosophically opposed to the idea of airpower. NZ IS capable of acquiring, supporting and maintaining an air combat capability. It has always done so since such capabilities became widely available. The current Government is simply unwilling to do so.

Expecting your allies yto stretch their own scarce resources to cover your shortfalls is hardly being a good international citizen. IN Bosnia for instance, NZ had to go cap in hand to the the UK to provide it with forces for air defence AND anti-tank capabilities to protect the NZ troops, plus the usual comms etc because their equipment was so antiquated as to be in-compatible and actually useless for a modern peacekeeping role.

How can you justify this as being acceptable? Why bother deploying troops in the first place? Does any political benefit accrue from the embarassment faced by asking other Nations to provide capabilities at their expense that YOUR forces need?

A surveillance capability, without a response capacity is also useless. What's the point of detecting potential terrorists, let alone a military threat if you lack the ability to respond to the threat? At the very least NZ should include an air to surface attack capability to go with it's P-3K surface surveillance upgrade, other I think the money is being wasted.

I do fully agree with you about NZ's military capability problems, but lets be real. NZ does not deploy their forces in active combat roles, NZ itself is unlikley to come under direct air attack and terroist dont come to your country in a carrier battle group.

Like I've said before they are only talking about purchasing 20 or so aircraft, so they would they deploy them with their troops, especially when
their troop deployments are so small in size.

So what I'm saying is save the money that would be spent on Fighter aircraft and instead spend it on upgrading ground anti air defences, increasing the capability of the P-3's and just generally increase the all round capability of their defences.

I'm also sorry about carrying about somthing thats probably a vit off topic

 

[nz enthusiast]

The current labour government wants to be able to delpoy 1000 troops for six months or 500 troops for a year. You can't delpoy that number of troops without giving them some form of air support capability even if it is only attack helicopters.
There has actually been situations were it looked like we may delpoy fighters. When it looked like Indonesia was going to go into East Timor, New Zealand sent skyhawks to Malaysia. During the Falklands conflict New Zealand offered to send skyhawks but the UK said naval ships would be more helpful, so we sent 'canterbury' a leander class frigate. During the First Gulf war, our skyhawks were ready to go if needed, but with the US and its other close allies winning they were they decided it would be better not to. So there have been situations in which we could have and have deployed our air combat capability. It is just a cause of us countinueing to have it in the event that they may actually be needed, relying on allies for air cover is rathewr selfish in my opinion when we are capable of providing it ourselves.
Some of you seem to doubt the size of the NZ governemnts budget, we are actaully in the best financial state possible at the moment. The government in a few years is actually going to have no debt what so ever, unlike Australia. The F-16s were going to cost $1.2billion for 24 or so brand new F-16c/ds which actually included new air to air missiles, since the ones on our skyhawks won't work to well with the F-16, and it was believed were running short also. Now with a government suplus this year of $NZ7.5 billion, F-16s are actually relatively cheap and....we were told we could pay over a numer of years, which means we could have payed $120mil for 10 years. Thee above was the alternative to the lease we were offered.

In conclusion, we can afford, they would be helpful, they are needed and a smart government will realise that. The only problem is recruiting the numbers required to use the new F-16s or an alternative fighter such as the saab 39 gripen.