Taking my Nostradamus view I get the feeling the Shornets will stay on alongside the Growlers until something new comes along to replace them, that isn't the JSF...
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
t68
Well-Known Member
If NZ is after a cabilty to contribute as-well as stratigic home island stuff, I mentioned in the replace hornet thread for Canada, could the legacy Hornets be refit with CBR and what sort of airframe life could they get out of them?
Besides as GF said about ITRS issues which I imagine legacy hornets will have the same issues if we gift the those and NZ put them through CBR, or would it be cheaper just to buy Rhino straight off the production line?
Besides as GF said about ITRS issues which I imagine legacy hornets will have the same issues if we gift the those and NZ put them through CBR, or would it be cheaper just to buy Rhino straight off the production line?
any FMS artefact is referred back to the USG (State Dept) after its been retired from the original user. Disposal, ITARs artefact stripping or refurbishment is then determined via State after approp discussions with any US Executive requirements
Its not negotiable
If NZ wanted ex Shornets/Hornets they would have to trigger a request separate to anything involving RAAF ownership and retirement. State via the USG may well be happy for decomm'd RAAF FMS articles to be repurposed into RNZAF but the disposal and management is managed by the USG. RAAF cannot do a direct transfer to another party just because we retire them etc....
Disposal and transfer issues are not just a US specific req, other countries also have similar processes and controls in place. Sure there is likely to be less administrative odium involved with a theoretical transfer of ADF to NZDF, but the provisions still exist and have to be adhered to as part of the original FMS contract obligations.
There is no magical fast track solution to this
Last edited:
The other problem would be that even if they started tomorrow the RNZAF would not be-able to field enough well experienced and suitably qualified pilots to fill the command structure of an operational squadron for at least 10 to 15 years. so I think something as expensive and sophisticated as a shornet is of the cards for at least 10 years after a physical start is made to restore an air combat force. the start will need to be simple and then build on that in a step by step manner, ensuring that each step has achieve its goals before moving on.
Oh we know all very well about US kit and the hold the US state department has over it even after death which is why we essentially funded a grounded A4 squadron for 10+ years and could not on sell the M113s in a usable state. Possibly a consideration the government is aware of in terms of purchases of late? Perhaps not.
I don't even think hornets are the best platform for us to get back on the horse with anyway (at least initially) as we would essentially be starting from scratch pretty much and the costs will be a major deciding factor anyway as it was a major deciding factor in its demise in the first place along with 'complexity', therefore the cheaper (yet still functional) the better. Twin engine does not just mean it has 2 engines it means it uses 2 engines therefore twice(+) the cost to run, maintain and service, a price increase we have found going from the hueys to the 90s (required for lift, performance, safety etc) that needs to be contemplated as if it was deemed 'uneconomical' then and did'nt get the nod then then definately would not now as nothing has changed and in fact is worse (we have nothing). There are complete squadrons of simpler (for want of a better word) F16s parked up in a desert in the US now ready to go and assumedly markedly cheaper to aqquire, operate and maintain so if we have to deal with the US anyway then why not cut out any middle man/second party and go straight to the source including training, spares and time up/experience as some other nations already do now. If F16s were assesed as good enough for us then (along with the sweet deal) then has that much changed for what we would do? (we would not be going toe to toe with the worlds elite in a dogfight). Countries are still buying this platform today as well as being one of the most prevelant multi- roles fighters out there, including amongst friendly nations, so must be a reason(s). Any plan needs to serve us first and foremost.
Some seem to think we need top if the line straight off the bat (there is no way we will get F35) but considering we have absoloutly nothing now even putting weapons on the T6s will be a leap. We also need to consider what we (NZ) would do with any re-genned ACF and for a big clue we just need to look at what we did with the skyhawks (or did'nt do to be honest). I would like to think if govt was serious about re-instating any kind of force then their attitudes towards their likely, probable and possible employment will have also moved forward at least alittle otherwise their justification will again be pointless and deemed a waste of resources, manpower and more importantly funding.
I don't even think hornets are the best platform for us to get back on the horse with anyway (at least initially) as we would essentially be starting from scratch pretty much and the costs will be a major deciding factor anyway as it was a major deciding factor in its demise in the first place along with 'complexity', therefore the cheaper (yet still functional) the better. Twin engine does not just mean it has 2 engines it means it uses 2 engines therefore twice(+) the cost to run, maintain and service, a price increase we have found going from the hueys to the 90s (required for lift, performance, safety etc) that needs to be contemplated as if it was deemed 'uneconomical' then and did'nt get the nod then then definately would not now as nothing has changed and in fact is worse (we have nothing). There are complete squadrons of simpler (for want of a better word) F16s parked up in a desert in the US now ready to go and assumedly markedly cheaper to aqquire, operate and maintain so if we have to deal with the US anyway then why not cut out any middle man/second party and go straight to the source including training, spares and time up/experience as some other nations already do now. If F16s were assesed as good enough for us then (along with the sweet deal) then has that much changed for what we would do? (we would not be going toe to toe with the worlds elite in a dogfight). Countries are still buying this platform today as well as being one of the most prevelant multi- roles fighters out there, including amongst friendly nations, so must be a reason(s). Any plan needs to serve us first and foremost.
Some seem to think we need top if the line straight off the bat (there is no way we will get F35) but considering we have absoloutly nothing now even putting weapons on the T6s will be a leap. We also need to consider what we (NZ) would do with any re-genned ACF and for a big clue we just need to look at what we did with the skyhawks (or did'nt do to be honest). I would like to think if govt was serious about re-instating any kind of force then their attitudes towards their likely, probable and possible employment will have also moved forward at least alittle otherwise their justification will again be pointless and deemed a waste of resources, manpower and more importantly funding.
The US wasn't resistant to selling the A4's or the M113s. Its about who the buyer is - thats no different from a lot of Euro manufacturers.
I'd argue that the A4 and M113 issue was due to dithering - as both were sellable items - and the M113's would have been zeroed so come back to a client as new
I don't see any reduction in US gear that NZ buys - especially small army.
Quite frankly, NZ's problems are internal politics, a southern hemisphere version of canadas grief.
and not to put too fine a point on it, NZ gets a lot of undeclared US assistance that never hits the public domain. This was happening even in the so-called US nuke exclusion days (and NZG was happy to do so even they never talked in the open about it)
Last edited:
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I think its more than a distinct possibility that the Super Hornets will still be in RAAF service close to 2030.
Looking at the recently published DWP, the Government clearly states at paragraph 4.42:
And from the DIIP, paragraph 5.11:
The way I read all of that is that the Super Hornets will still have a role to play with the RAAF until at least 2030, certainly not ending in the early 2020's.
And if they are replaced by that 'fourth' operational squadron of F-35A's (or something else, such as the mentioned 'yet to be developed UCAV'), then there are certainly a number of possibilities for those 24 twenty year old 'F' airframes.
All 24 could be returned to the USA, all 24 could be broken down and used as a source of spares for the 12 Growlers, the 12 'pre-wired' could possibly be converted to Growlers to increase the Growler fleet size, or those 12 pre-wired could be held in reserve as 'attrition' replacement airframes for the 12 new build Growlers, and there are certainly a whole range of other possible uses (subject to US approval of course too).
So even if NZ was looking to get back into the 'fast jet' game, I just can't see how the RAAF's 24 Super Hornets would be in the picture as a possibility, until at least 2030 at the earliest, by which time the airframes will be 20 years old.
Its the Growlers which are making RAAF sit up and take notice, as they are adding some significant punch to Plan Jericho and will be a clear multiplier when used with JSF, E7, P8, the elint SBJ's.
by 2030, there will be greater clarity around an unmanned squadron - which was initially considered for 2025 (but has realistically slipped right)
Its all academic.
There is zero advantage to getting ex RAAF fixed wing, it will be easier faster and has greater spinoff benefit potential if NZG went direct
and as I have repeatedly said, the FMS and ITARs constraints about decommissioning and transfer preclude any of this happening without some form of necessary political embuggerance.
Its not multiple choice anyway no matter how many scenarios are postulated in here.
The FMS provisions set the constraints.
I think it somewhat disingenuous to blame the USG for NZG failures. The NZG would have, or should have, been fully conversant with the USG ITARS disposal requirements. If they weren't then they need to have their heads handed to them on a plate.
I think that you need to read wider. Up until 2001 RNZAF ACF pilots were quite comparable in air to air combat skills with any other of the ABCA air forces. The skill levels were kept high despite the fact that we could no longer attend US exercises such as RIMPAC or Red Flag. IF it is decided that an ACF is to be reactivated, then appropriate platforms will be investigated and one or two types eventually approved. If this decision was made tomorrow then the Shornet acquired via FMS from Boeing would IMHO be most likely the logical decision because it is in service with the RAAF and the USN. Regarding twin engine Vs single engine - it's not just about cost. If you want to look at cost what is the more expensive option -operational costs for a twin enginef aircraft or having to replace the aircraft because of engine failure? That argument is valid and a reason why the USN prefer twin engined aircraft. Look at the wider connotations besides the simplistic cost view. Addressing your F16 comment, most of the F16s in the Boneyard that are able to be economically made airworthy are destined for the QF16 target drone program replacing the QF4s. They are also mostly A and B models requiring significant funding for regeneration and upgrading. The USAF is currently keeping it's F16C & Ds in service at IIRC the Block 50 standard.
Eventually we will have to regenerate an ACF and if you are going to spend a significant amount of national treasure doing so, you do want to acquire platforms that will perform the capabilities required well and cost effectively. We will need to look at platforms that give us the best bangs for bucks and that has the range and endurance that we need.
The A4s were not used in any conflicts because of NZG unwillingness or inability to send them to Gulf War 1 - we actually sent the minimum that we could get away with. We didn't get an invite to the Falklands and they were constructively kept out of East Timor. Historically we have used air power outside of World War for national purposes with 14 Squadron operating Venoms in Cyprus and 75 Squadron operating Canberras on bombing missions in Malaya. Holyoake refused to send the Canberras to Vietnam or put the RNZN on the gun line. I think if it was a British war he would've been in like Flynn.
We were caught in 1937 - 39 with a very obsolete and run down Air Force and Army. Back then it took millions of pounds sterling and three years to bring them up to strength. However with the RNZAF modernisation it wasn't until 1942 that it had modern fighters in NZ and the Pacific albeit it P40s. Today it takes billions of dollars and many years to regenerate an Air Combat Force with pilot training measured in years rather than months. This is what we face.
This discussion needs to be had and bought out into the light of day from the closet. It needs to be outed and wrestled back from the pc brigade and those in the media who have ties with the left wing, anti defence brigade who control the discourse at the moment and give it a biased slant.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Agree about the zero advantage of NZ getting the ex RAAF Super Hornets, especially since it appears that they will still be in service till around 2030 (according to the current DWP), and if NZ was going direct and obviously earlier too.Its the Growlers which are making RAAF sit up and take notice, as they are adding some significant punch to Plan Jericho and will be a clear multiplier when used with JSF, E7, P8, the elint SBJ's.
by 2030, there will be greater clarity around an unmanned squadron - which was initially considered for 2025 (but has realistically slipped right)
Its all academic.
There is zero advantage to getting ex RAAF fixed wing, it will be easier faster and has greater spinoff benefit potential if NZG went direct
and as I have repeatedly said, the FMS and ITARs constraints about decommissioning and transfer preclude any of this happening without some form of necessary political embuggerance.
Its not multiple choice anyway no matter how many scenarios are postulated in here.
Not wanting to pollute this thread about FMS and ITAR constraints in relation to current RAAF assets obtained from the US, but it does appear that at times the 'goal' posts have been moved.
A couple of examples I can think of, is the transfer to NZ of the A-4G's after their retirement by the RAN (I'd imagine that wasn't the 'original' plan for those airframes).
And more recently when the RAAF retired the C-130H and we 'gifted' some and sold others to Indonesia (with US approval), was not that a change too?
And would it not be a possibility to keep some of the 'pre wired' airframes as potential attrition replacements for the Growlers, along the same lines as a number of USAF F-111's were kept as attrition replacements for the 'C' fleet?
yep, all were subject to compliance with FMS disposal and/or transfer provisions.
ie not decisions made by australia without US impimatur.
I would imagine that depending on the joint ISR/C5 footprint of the time, that sufficient spares and frames would be retained.
the force structure changes will start to become clearer in 2025+
don't get me wrong - the US is not going to be resistant to transfer of FMS constrained ex Australian assets to another 5I's partner - but it literally just does not make sense.
Its an arse about way to do business if NZG wants to restructure and rebuild their fixed wing fast mover capability
shanes_world_05
Member
Totally agree. Except that we will invest appropriately in Defence after we needed it. And there are quite alot of the Block 30A F-16 at AMARC but they are the small inlet ones so not sure if they realise the full grunt from the larger output engine option (I can't remember if its the GE or the P&W motor). But I reckon at a guess they would still be the flogged ones. Our chance probably came and went with the Pakistani ones and I reckon 28 would have been a sensible long term number.
As a question could you stand up an ACF with just a single type of front line fighter say F-16 one and two seaters or Grippen's and forgoe the LIFT? Is that asking for trouble? Just get more of the twin seaters and maybe derate them for training use?
I reckon the increase in MPA numbers and a large number of warshots of SLAM-ER is the way to go (in the unfortunate situation we sit) though. Build on an existing platform by adding numbers and breadth with added capability.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
From my POV, there would be little point to NZ getting surplus fighters from AMARC, unless they could be had for very little cost, and with very low flight hours. In essence a repeat of the deal in 2001 for the F-16 deal which was not done.
In order to really be useful now and especially into the future, a fighter would need modern avionics and be wired/cleared to utilize the current PGM's and targeting pods. If a fortune needs to be spent to rebuild aircraft into flyable condition, and/or update the avionics, then it would likely be money better spent purchasing new aircraft with longer available service lives that are already able to deploy what is needed.
As for the merits of getting ex-RAAF F/A-18F's... IMO there are some advantages, if it could be worked out. However there are significant external hoops which would need to be gone through (FMS/State Dept. clearance, if/when they would become surplus to RAAF needs, etc.) which means IF a decision is made to get back into the ACF game, it would likely be better to make a direct purchase of new fighters.
The real area of opportunity IMO would be for the RNZAF to start increasing the size of their pilot base, with some of the newer pilots embedded with/seconded to the RAAF, USAF, USN/USMC FAA, RCAF or RAF to become fighter pilots and then serve in operational fighter squadrons. This could permit NZ pilots to begin to rebuild the lost corporate knowledge that the ACF had, before treasure would need to be spent on LIFT and/or fighter aircraft. It could also shorten the timespan between when Kiwi fighters are purchased, and a fighter squadron reaches IOC. However some prep work and policy commitments would need to be made by Gov't.
Yeah, except that the US application of ITARS rules is capricious. Sometimes, it's extremely co-operative, & no reasonable request is refused. At other times, a transfer will be blocked for no apparent reason. Being fully conversant with the requirements isn't always enough.
There are also cases of sales of non-US weapons incorporating US technology being obstructed while a US firm tries to sell a similar weapon to the same customer, but that shouldn't affect NZ.
The RNZAF A-4s couldn't have been used in the Falklands. Nothing within range they could have flown from.
We could'nt sell them to an american company back then at a favourable price then ended up selling it to an american company now for alot less after a decade of cost, what changed exactly? Not American enough? I think we know well enough after all these years of being allies not to on sell combat specific equipment to the 'enemy'. Would have actually worked out better for us to give them back to the US govt to store with the restand sell as they saw fit.
Our M113s were not zeroed they were as is, an australian collector wanted to buy them but again not approved so scrapped instead. Surely 70 clapped out M113s would not pose a threat to the US from the australian outback? I see why they would not want a fighter jet over US soil out of defence hands (ironically eventuated anyway) but then a 70s era APC half a world away is alittle different.
I see it more as US looking after US interests. They sell/donate/lend these and alot more from within their stockpiles on a daily basis and yet when we try to move on equipment once every 50 years we get nothing but roadblock after roadblock.
NZ wanted to sell the skyhawks, US said no, how exactly is that NZs fault?
Yes I understand govt would have known exactly what was entailed in the skyhawk deal, they would'nt have purchased without in depth contracts, clauses, and understandings over their lifetime including the end but how could they possibly 30 years into the future and see that the state department will block the sale?
Not sure how we got onto the calibre of our pilots? I am in no way doubting that in fact am well aware of how we did (and do) punch above our weight with whatever equipment we get, especially when not what the big kids have, the skyhawks were a prime example giving their counterparts a run for their money right up until the end. We have always generally got the equipment a step behind our allies or at least lacking in numbers due to our budget but we adapt and overcome and ultimately make it work. Whilst every man and his dog understands the value of funding defence capabilities adequately to acheive max potential I think you give this govt too much credit and I'm still not sure why? history speaks.
I can pretty much guarantee we will never get the latest, fully equipped fighters in sufficient numbers with all the options unless our government essentially changes tact completely, we did'nt follow Aus in ACF back then when we had the chance and we had an ACF and the fact we have nothing now obviously shows we are on different wavelengths in this regard. We could have got hornets instead of skyhawks or hornets to replace the skyhawks but we did'nt on both counts and I bet they were assesed both times and regardless of Aus getting them we still did'nt. They did their assesments and concluded that was best for them and we did ours, nothing has/will change in that respect despite what you or I think. End of the day our pollies are more financially aware than defence focussed, sometimes good sometimes bad rarely ideal.
I merely state F16 as it is the simpler, cheaper, widely available multi role fighter that would still allow us credible entry into the ACF world within our peers but more so the tier rather than the specific type. There are currently stored, mothballed and entire squadrons being parked up in the US and other friendly nations, not too many F18 or other modern fighters however as these countries will still be using in lieu of said parked up F16s. This all adds to savings and deals more likely to be made as again we do not want to spend anything at the moment so why would we then go all out all of a sudden? baby steps not tier 1. I'm just being a realist as our govt always has aqquired bare minimum to mid as it is deemed adequate for our needs ie our range and endurance (for ACF) has not changed from the days they picked the A4s or selected the F16 otherwise we would have got F18 then as NZ has not moved or expanded.
The reason we have no ACF is pure and simple, actual cost vs perceived need so the 'cheaper' the option in all respects that can adequatly do the job envisaged (or at least closest to) the more likely and even then a hard sell at best, as is the case, which is why we still have no ACF.
the FMS provisions didn't allow a sale to private buyers. Its spelled out in the docs.
one was to a private air combat contractor - one to a private collector.
when armour is sold to state actors they are zeroed. never said they would be zeroed from NZ
if people can't read the FMS contracts and then wonder why the sale is rebuffed.... then not much can be said to defend them
as for sending them back stateside - well thats why most countries under aviation FMS provs let them go back to AMARC to reduce the nurofen events
i've never had problems dealing with FMS returns, the US allows Oz companies with prior FMS involvement to even dispose and destroy on their behalf.
t68
Well-Known Member
when we buried the F111, would that have been under US approval, and how does that effect gate guards same as needing US approval?
FMS sensitive and deemed critical components are removed at decommissioning.
The disposal orders would list what needs to be pulled and after that the destruction docs would have been the equiv of "knock yourself out" re the rest.
eg on the Orion upgrades to the AP3 version, there was an obligation to sign off on the fact that the old harnesses were disposed of as per the provisions. ie they trusted us to destroy the harnesses so that some of the milspec issues were protected
as a sidebar to that, the contractor had this coincidental increase in requests from indian and chinese middlemen seeking to buy "scrap" wire or oddly enough, brokers who were responsible for mainting Coots and Mays asking whether the looms could be onsold.
the disposal process required the "identified" bits to be incinerated and witnessed. If we'd failed to do so and were caught then we would have been subject to the flow on from the legal processes that accompany handling and management of said FMS and ITARs identified articles.
and I'd reinforce again that the complaints about the FMS provisions being some kind of odious US action and constraint are not unique to the US, other Euro countries and Nordic countries exercise the same restrictions re onsale of their material. Notionally the Russians do the same but with somewhat less verve and vigour
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Gents
A fascinating discussion conversation over the last few days; I have learnt a few things and have much to think about.
I normally try to keep politics out of this forum, and apologise in advance for linking to a political blog. For the non-kiwis, the author of Kiwiblog works closely with the National Party, our current governing centre-right party.
2014 NZ Election Study on the issues | Kiwiblog
If you click the link, look carefully at the first table. It lists a number of policy areas, and looks at whether the public want NZ to spend more, less or the same on them. At the top of the 'spend more' list are health and education, while welfare (ironically) is on the 'spend less' list.
For defence, polled members of the public generally want to spend the same, with those in favour of spending more and less equally matched on 19%. Incidentally, the table doesn't quite add up here, presumably because of errors in rounding to whole numbers.
Of course, not one in a thousand of those polled would be able to say whether NZ defence spending as a percentage of GDP was 0.9%, 1.9% or 9.9%.
The reasons why politicians aren't enthusiastic about spending more on defence couldn't be more clearly demonstrated.
A fascinating discussion conversation over the last few days; I have learnt a few things and have much to think about.
I normally try to keep politics out of this forum, and apologise in advance for linking to a political blog. For the non-kiwis, the author of Kiwiblog works closely with the National Party, our current governing centre-right party.
2014 NZ Election Study on the issues | Kiwiblog
If you click the link, look carefully at the first table. It lists a number of policy areas, and looks at whether the public want NZ to spend more, less or the same on them. At the top of the 'spend more' list are health and education, while welfare (ironically) is on the 'spend less' list.
For defence, polled members of the public generally want to spend the same, with those in favour of spending more and less equally matched on 19%. Incidentally, the table doesn't quite add up here, presumably because of errors in rounding to whole numbers.
Of course, not one in a thousand of those polled would be able to say whether NZ defence spending as a percentage of GDP was 0.9%, 1.9% or 9.9%.
The reasons why politicians aren't enthusiastic about spending more on defence couldn't be more clearly demonstrated.