Australia already has more sheep than we do.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
You are straying into politics here and that is best well steered clear of.
Totally agree, I would add to this that also in addition to the first duty is to protect their citizens , they also have the duty to protect their countries sovereignty and in our case our democracy and our citizens freedom.
Including your Pacific Island Protectorates.
Ron Mark jumped right into the job and was highly effective, Henare has no military experience, the link to his uncle, which is often mentioned, is pretty tenuous at best.
NZ uses about 2% of the water that falls as rain or snow, we do not have a water problem nationally, we have a water problem in some locations, the water isn't always where we need it. This is a tremendous resource for NZ but we need to charge for it, at the moment both main parties have a similar stance, nobody owns water.
Last edited:
Right getting back to your obsession about the F-35. Her is one reason why the NZ government would NOT acquire the F-35. Its LCC (Life Cycle Costs) and when they are at such a rate that the USAF cannot afford to acquire the full 1763 that it ordered because of, I will use the article authors term "exorbitant LCC". To put it plainly this is what the USAF acqusition chief Will Roper said:
“I think the F-35 program is a long way from being at a sustainment point that we need. I think it’s a long way from being an affordable fighter that we can buy in bulk,” he told reporters today. “That’s the reason why Next-Generation Air Dominance is so important to the Air Force,” he said. “It doesn’t just represent a next-generation fighter with bells and whistles that we will need in warfighting. It doesn’t just represent a completely different acquisition paradigm. It also represents a chance to design an airplane that is more sustainable than the F-35 if, in fact, the F-35 cannot get its cost-per-flying-hour down.”
For a similar amount of money we could acquire the F-15EX and its CPFH is 60% more that the F-18F. Whilst I personally prefer the F-15EX and believ that it's a far better platform than the Shornet F, our pollies are not going to go with a platform that is going to have high LCC. Now if the USAF cannot afford to acquire their full order of F-35A because of the LCC then why do you think the NZG is going to go down that road? Which makes me wonder how Australia is going to afford the LCC of their F-35A fleet of the fleets life.
Roper Hints NGAD Could Replace F-35; Why? Life-Cycle Costs - Breaking Defense
The NGAD program "represents a chance to design an airplane that is more sustainable than the F-35, if in fact the F-35 cannot get its cost-per-flying-hour down," said outgoing AF acquisition head Will Roper.
breakingdefense.com
EDIT: F-35A CPFH US$44,000.00 (2018)
F-15EX CPFH US$29,000 (2020)
F-18F CPFH US$18,000 (2019)
Last edited:
Yes but the F-15EX and the F-18E will die pretty quickly in a 2030s environment (noting they are not low observable). So they don’t end up being that cost effective.Right getting back to your obsession about the F-35. Her is one reason why the NZ government would NOT acquire the F-35. Its LCC (Life Cycle Costs) and when they are at such a rate that the USAF cannot afford to acquire the full 1763 that it ordered because of, I will use the article authors term "exorbitant LCC". To put it plainly this is what the USAF acqusition chief Will Roper said:
“I think the F-35 program is a long way from being at a sustainment point that we need. I think it’s a long way from being an affordable fighter that we can buy in bulk,” he told reporters today. “That’s the reason why Next-Generation Air Dominance is so important to the Air Force,” he said. “It doesn’t just represent a next-generation fighter with bells and whistles that we will need in warfighting. It doesn’t just represent a completely different acquisition paradigm. It also represents a chance to design an airplane that is more sustainable than the F-35 if, in fact, the F-35 cannot get its cost-per-flying-hour down.”
For a similar amount of money we could acquire the F-15EX and its CPFH is 60% more that the F-18F. Whilst I personally prefer the F-15EX and believ that it's a far better platform than the Shornet F, our pollies are not going to go with a platform that is going to have high LCC. Now if the USAF cannot afford to acquire their full order of F-35A because of the LCC then why do you think the NZG is going to go down that road? Which makes me wonder how Australia is going to afford the LCC of their F-35A fleet of the fleets life.
Roper Hints NGAD Could Replace F-35; Why? Life-Cycle Costs - Breaking Defense
The NGAD program "represents a chance to design an airplane that is more sustainable than the F-35, if in fact the F-35 cannot get its cost-per-flying-hour down," said outgoing AF acquisition head Will Roper.
EDIT: F-35A CPFH US$44,000.00 (2018)
F-15EX CPFH US$29,000 (2020)F-18F CPFH US$18,000 (2019)
Not necessarily. As the actress said to the Bishop, it's not how big it is but how you use it. What's the point of having the flashest toy on the market if you cannot afford to use it?
AN/ASG-34 will go a long way to mitigating that young Julian. And the likely evolution of it over the next decade.
Let's hope the Air Forces that do have F - 35 never have to use it in all out war. If they do, I'm sure they'll find the money pretty quickly. In the meantime, they'll work within their budgets. Either way, it's good too know that if ever needed, the F 35 is one of the options Air Forces have, if they are fortunate enough to have them.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
Stealth fighters are not the be all and all. The A4 wasn't technically a fighter it was a Light Attack... While they were also used in the fighter role... it was a Light Attack Aircraft... and being ex navy (RADAR) I know how while they carried out that role...
In New Zealand's case I don't think the F-35 would even be considered and I don't think it would actually meet the countries needs especially when you add in the initial cost and LCC, there are other options as suggested, ie; F-15EX, F-18E, Saab JAS 39 Gripen, Dassault Rafale etc. Each have their pro's and each their con's initial cost vs capability vs LLC vs blah vs blah vs blah vs blah
In New Zealand's case I don't think the F-35 would even be considered and I don't think it would actually meet the countries needs especially when you add in the initial cost and LCC, there are other options as suggested, ie; F-15EX, F-18E, Saab JAS 39 Gripen, Dassault Rafale etc. Each have their pro's and each their con's initial cost vs capability vs LLC vs blah vs blah vs blah vs blah
aviation_enthus
Member
Same would have been expected of the Mig-21’s the Indian Air Force ran in “Cope India” back in the early 2000’s. The Indians scored up to 9:1 kill ratios in some exercises, the USAF “underestimated their tactics”.
“The Flanker wasn’t the only aircraft that the Eagle’s drivers faced in mock air-to-air combat: “The two most formidable IAF aircraft proved to be the MiG-21 Bison, an upgraded version of the Russian-made baseline MiG-21, and the Su-30MK Flanker, also made in Russia,” Snodgrass explained to AW&ST.”
Cope India: when India's Russian jets achieved a surprising 9:1 kill ratio against U.S. F-15s
According to Indian media an air exercise held ten years ago "highlighted the innovativeness of Indian fighter pilots, the impact of Russian jets and the
www.google.com.au
Older equipment used well still presents a threat even to western air forces.
t68
Well-Known Member
No point having any toys if you are not serious having an asset that is more capable across the spectrum until it retires in the late 2060's. hence the main reason why the RAAF preferred choice is an all F35 fleet and the F18F fleet are due to be retired around 2035ish which would be around the same time RNZAF would be reaching IOC for a regenerated ACF if aircraft arrive around 2030/2. As an interim if by what NG thinks they could have a fleet buy 2025(?) Its my opinion that if RNZAF wants a cheap aircraft until it regenerates enough corporate knowledge then ex USAF F16 out of AMARG and built up to block 72 standards then moving onto the F35 around 2035/40 would be the right thing to do. I still dont think it could be done by then either but you never know
In USAF terms the F35A is a replacement for the F-16 Falcon, where as the F22 was more of a replacement for F15C, but because of economics which limited the F22 line which was a purpose built air superiority fighter, F15EX is more about supplementing the ageing F15C fleet because of the knock on effect of low F22 numbers
But what's the point of having the F-35 when its CPFH is US$44,000 and the chief USAF acquisition head says that it is unsustainable and that LM will never get it down to a sustainable level? They think that they might get it down to US$36,000 CPFH, which is twice that of the F-18F. How's the RAAF going to afford to sustain a fleet of 100 F-35A if the USAF can't afford to acquire and sustain their full intended fleet?
It's not just about LO. You have been on here long enough to know that the F-35 is far more than just being LO, because LO is just one capability in its long list of advanced capabilities, many of which are finding their way onto other US combat aircraft. It's all about a system of systems and you know that.
You also know that the F-35 is just one tool in the box and that it doesn't suit every country. Since you don't seem to understand this concept you should think carefully about it. You don't understand the NZ scene as much as you like to think you do. You aren't privy to a lot of what happens here.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Given the economic consequences of COVID and some pretty stupid policies amongst Western governments, military kit will likely be impacted. The CPFH for the F-35 is quite appalling if accurate and if LM can’t address this, they and their customers are going to suffer. The UK, Euro, and Japanese future jets likely aren’t going to fare any better. I don’t think limited numbers of very expensive albeit capable jets will stand up well, especially if a significant quantity of the “limited number” are taken out in a surprise missile attack.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Perhaps a separate thread is needed for concerns about CPFH wrt state of the art fighters.
Th
We will just have to see. I would not be surprised if CPFH decreases as the aircraft matures in service.
Is there any alternative to LO as a requirement for a 5th or 6th generation fighter? If there is, then the Russians, Chinese, and Europeans would not be integrating stealth features into their 5th and 6th generation fighters? Since all of their designs include LO features. Will a 5th or 6th generation fighter even be competitive without stealth, there must be some reason that Israel or Japan chose the F-35 over the Eurofighter, Grippen, or Superhornet. OK maybe New Zealand can do OK with 4th generation fighters, or 4.5 generation? Is AESA radar a must for any fighter aircraft acquisition for NZ?