NZDF General discussion thread

[ngatimozart]

Good question, but I'm sure Defence could come up with some ideas.

(Although GF hit the nail, keep some as low cost attrition/spares).

When we were last discussing these extra Seasprites, I wondered whether some could support the Army on land operations (a la coalition naval helos in A'Stan) due to their sensor and weapon fitout? NZ may not have Apache's or Tiger's but would a SH-2G(I) and A109 recon/cmd& control helo combo work to provide the land forces and NH90's some hefty self-protection? Could they be trialled in Timor to provide an eye in the sky on events on the ground?

Good idea. It would be a good buy and say fly 8 with A109 as recon /cmd & control to support Army and protect NH90s. The other 3 use as spares for cannibalisation. And they are marinised so we know that we can use them operation as ship board helos. Yep I can see bean counters liking this, but will the politicians buy into it? To much logic & common sense for them.

@ dave_kiwi the RNZAF are either in process of or have replaced all M60 MGs with FN MAG58 7.62mm MG which is about time.

 

[Rob c]

The problem is that there is no clear and present danger to NZ to justify the raising of an ACF in the public's or politicians eyes. Whilst us people on this forum have some understanding of defence and security issues, it is not something that is in vogue in mainstream society nor will it be until a direct threat probably appears on the horizon. I for one would like to see an air combat force but in the present political, social and economic climate it can be no more than a pipe dream. We have to deal with realities and the reality is that there is no obvious clear and present danger to NZ at the moment the necessitates a big spend up on a ACF.

If you wait for a clear present danger before you do anything you will be to late. In the last 100 years there has never been a country that has been threatened and been able to re-arm in time to meet that threat. to wait until you see a threat has a 100% failure rate.Basically you will have to meet a threat with whatever you had before you recognised the threat.

 

[recce.k1]

If you wait for a clear present danger before you do anything you will be to late. In the last 100 years there has never been a country that has been threatened and been able to re-arm in time to meet that threat. to wait until you see a threat has a 100% failure rate.Basically you will have to meet a threat with whatever you had before you recognised the threat.

Ok, there are words of wisdom in there, and I (and no doubt alot of others here) would agree with you it was extremely disappointing, if not scandalous, that the previous Govt canned both the F-16 lease/purchase and then went further and actually chopped the ACF (whilst the first bit was in their election manifesto the second bit wasn't), and that the current Govt are relucant to increase defence spending to rectify the problem. It's something I believe needs to be rectified in some form or another (be that fast air, UCAV's, missile laden P-3's, attack helos etc?), and as you say, if a future Govt decides its needed again it may very well be too late (as it will take years to build up the capability).

Changing the subject to Seasprites, and whether to buy the ex-RAN units and if so, how many etc? If the money is there, to me it would make sense to acquire all 11. Whatever the final sensor fitout, these 11 will have the glass cockpits (whereas the -G(NZ) model doesn't and the rest of the RNZAF is fastly becoming glass cockpit only, especially bearing in mind the new training A109's and advanced pilot training a/c procurement), that would allow 5-7 to be potentially all at sea (2x ANZAC, 2x OPV, 1x Canty, possibly 2 for the new support ships coming?) meaning there are ample airframes for training, managed fight hours/rotations, maintenance cycles, attrition and spare parts etc.

Seeing the G(NZ) model was to be subject to a mid-life upgrade soon, the money could be diverted to acquire these 11 ex-RAN ones instead. The G(NZ) models with analogue cockpits could simply be retired and be used for further spares. But unsure though whether ditching the G(NZ) models is entirely wise as might cause additional downtime for the RNZN as they get acquainted with the ex-RAN models (eg new flight controls, likely new avionics, and Maverick live fire re-certification etc. Mind you the UH-1/NH-90 transition is being similarly managed (i.e. both types will operate concurrently for a period of time), except the Seasprite is vastly more complex. Existing 6 (Seasprite) Sqn personnel would be extemely pressured (unless they are allowed to grow their personnel numbers etc)?

 

[Rob c]

Ok now you're starting to make the case rather than rant at the situation etc, can you give us some thoughts on what would be required for a "basic form of air defence"?

You said you were on 75Sqn, so would appreciate some informed discussion.

When were you on/what era etc?

My main thrust was that the DWP was flawd, The concept that you need not do any thing until your situation deterorates has never worked. In modern history no nation has ever foreseen a threat in time to re-arm to meet that threat.The concept when put to the test has a 100% failure rate. The only reason it apears to work on a year by year basis is due to satistical probability . In otherwords , the probibility of one country being attacked on any one year is very low. However combine enough years together and this rises. This failed consept is still used as the basis of our current policy, why?
Another problem we may face is that should some country wish to take over Australia, it is more than likely that they would want to neutralise NZas we are the natural jump off point to retake Australia due to our ports, airfields and transport infrastructure. So not only at direct threats to our selves, but we must be aware of the implications of our location relitive to Australia.
The reason for an aircombat ability is that aircraft can cover the large area that is NZ and its surounding waters quickly. They can cover in one hour what would take the Army or Navy several days to cover. The Army is too small to be able to make a significant contribution to NZ's defence with only 1 combat soldier for ever 5 to 10 km of coast, 2 frigates are not going to do it either. But combat aircraft make it possible.
Another consideration is risk. When you comit the army to combat there is a high risk of high casualties, The navy still puts significant numbers at risk, but with combat aircraft you put a low number of people at risk with an expectation of a high return.
Deployment is also a problem as to deploy a batalion any distance takes significant time and logistics. The navy can deploy as a self contained unit , but is slow. Aircombat aircraft can deploy quickly and over long distances with little problem.

 

[Rob c]

My main thrust was that the DWP was flawd, The concept that you need not do any thing until your situation deterorates has never worked. In modern history no nation has ever foreseen a threat in time to re-arm to meet that threat.The concept when put to the test has a 100% failure rate. The only reason it apears to work on a year by year basis is due to satistical probability . In otherwords , the probibility of one country being attacked on any one year is very low. However combine enough years together and this rises. This failed consept is still used as the basis of our current policy, why?
Another problem we may face is that should some country wish to take over Australia, it is more than likely that they would want to neutralise NZas we are the natural jump off point to retake Australia due to our ports, airfields and transport infrastructure. So not only at direct threats to our selves, but we must be aware of the implications of our location relitive to Australia.
The reason for an aircombat ability is that aircraft can cover the large area that is NZ and its surounding waters quickly. They can cover in one hour what would take the Army or Navy several days to cover. The Army is too small to be able to make a significant contribution to NZ's defence with only 1 combat soldier for ever 5 to 10 km of coast, 2 frigates are not going to do it either. But combat aircraft make it possible.
Another consideration is risk. When you comit the army to combat there is a high risk of high casualties, The navy still puts significant numbers at risk, but with combat aircraft you put a low number of people at risk with an expectation of a high return.
Deployment is also a problem as to deploy a batalion any distance takes significant time and logistics. The navy can deploy as a self contained unit , but is slow. Aircombat aircraft can deploy quickly and over long distances with little problem.

My military history is 20 years in the Airforce 12 at Ohakea broken by 3 at Def HQ

 

[recce.k1]

Rob, thanks for the thoughtful and thought provoking post/reply.

You've hit it on the head, it's NZ contribution to the defence of Australia (the possible glittering prize in a future world of population overload/displacement and the resultant pollution and enviromental degradation and food shortages as land becomes cleared etc), not an invasion of NZ, that was one of the primary reasons for NZ to have an ACF etc. Yes, I agree, in this context, a NZ ACF should be seen as a priority. The world is changing in many ways, and whilst a future (10-20 years out) ADF or NZ ACF may not be used to defend Australia from invasion, it could very well be needed to flex muslcle or be a deterrant to reduce instability to the north of Aust's borders and into SE Asia.

If we can slap the pollies into reality and get them to match the rhetoric of NZ Defence Policy (the defence of NZ and Aust - ha ha), all I ask is they actually increase defence spending to ensure NZ fast air is well supported and is fit for combat deployment eg fit the appropriate ECM, targeting/data links and smart weaponry. (Eg as GF discussed (maybe on the RNZAF thread) a year ago NZ ACF wasn't really needed for ET in 99 despite them being on standby, I suppose the reason was the RAAF were much more capable). In my mind that means a tie in with the ADF (F/A-18F's, JSF) or the USAF (mind you I like those Singaporian Strike Eagles, they appear more suitable for isolated NZ's needs i.e. optimised for sea/land/air interdiction and maritime strike would have me drooling**. But I still think supporting the Army in land deployments should not be a ACF's primary mission anymore*, as the UAV technology and the fact they work alongside coalition forces means they have other options that can give them pretty much 24/7 protection. If NZ were to do this we would need 2 - 3 Sqn's, one deployed with the Army, one for maritime duties and a 3rd for cover and that's not likely).

* Sure deploy say 3 a/c and use them for precision strike with Army JTAC's, but rely more on helos or UAV's for most on-call CAS.

**Drooling over F-15E / SG range more than anything eg appears could fly NZ-Fiji-NZ "mission" with 1 air refueling top up. However F/A-18E/F carries a wider range of ordanance that seems better suited to NZ maritime & ground support needs etc.

 

[Rob c]

Rob, thanks for the thoughtful and thought provoking post/reply.

You've hit it on the head, it's NZ contribution to the defence of Australia (the possible glittering prize in a future world of population overload/displacement and the resultant pollution and enviromental degradation and food shortages as land becomes cleared etc), not an invasion of NZ, that was one of the primary reasons for NZ to have an ACF etc. Yes, I agree, in this context, a NZ ACF should be seen as a priority. The world is changing in many ways, and whilst a future (10-20 years out) ADF or NZ ACF may not be used to defend Australia from invasion, it could very well be needed to flex muslcle or be a deterrant to reduce instability to the north of Aust's borders and into SE Asia.

If we can slap the pollies into reality and get them to match the rhetoric of NZ Defence Policy (the defence of NZ and Aust - ha ha), all I ask is they actually increase defence spending to ensure NZ fast air is well supported and is fit for combat deployment eg fit the appropriate ECM, targeting/data links and smart weaponry. (Eg as GF discussed (maybe on the RNZAF thread) a year ago NZ ACF wasn't really needed for ET in 99 despite them being on standby, I suppose the reason was the RAAF were much more capable). In my mind that means a tie in with the ADF (F/A-18F's, JSF) or the USAF (mind you I like those Singaporian Strike Eagles, some RNZAF one's optimised for sea/air interdiction and maritime strike would have me drooling. But I still think supporting the Army in land deployments should not be a ACF's primary mission anymore, as the UAV technology and the fact they work alongside coalition forces means they have other options that can give them pretty much 24/7 protection. If NZ were to do this we would need 2 - 3 Sqn's, one deployed with the Army, one for maritime duties and a 3rd to cover and that's not likely).

the deterent affect of an aircombat unit would far exceed the rest of NZ,s Armed Forces and in the words of JFK the defence dollar you dont have to use (because it has detered the enemy) is far beter spent than the one you do have to use ( because it failed to deter )

 

[Rob c]

Ok, there are words of wisdom in there, and I (and no doubt alot of others here) would agree with you it was extremely disappointing, if not scandalous, that the previous Govt canned both the F-16 lease/purchase and then went further and actually chopped the ACF (whilst the first bit was in their election manifesto the second bit wasn't), and that the current Govt are relucant to increase defence spending to rectify the problem. It's something I believe needs to be rectified in some form or another (be that fast air, UCAV's, missile laden P-3's, attack helos etc?), and as you say, if a future Govt decides its needed again it may very well be too late (as it will take years to build up the capability).

Changing the subject to Seasprites, and whether to buy the ex-RAN units and if so, how many etc? If the money is there, to me it would make sense to acquire all 11. Whatever the final sensor fitout, these 11 will have the glass cockpits (whereas the -G(NZ) model doesn't and the rest of the RNZAF is fastly becoming glass cockpit only, especially bearing in mind the new training A109's and advanced pilot training a/c procurement), that would allow 5-7 to be potentially all at sea (2x ANZAC, 2x OPV, 1x Canty, possibly 2 for the new support ships coming?) meaning there are ample airframes for training, managed fight hours/rotations, maintenance cycles, attrition and spare parts etc.

Seeing the G(NZ) model was to be subject to a mid-life upgrade soon, the money could be diverted to acquire these 11 ex-RAN ones instead. The G(NZ) models with analogue cockpits could simply be retired and be used for further spares. But unsure though whether ditching the G(NZ) models is entirely wise as might cause additional downtime for the RNZN as they get acquainted with the ex-RAN models (eg new flight controls, likely new avionics, and Maverick live fire re-certification etc. Mind you the UH-1/NH-90 transition is being similarly managed (i.e. both types will operate concurrently for a period of time), except the Seasprite is vastly more complex. Existing 6 (Seasprite) Sqn personnel would be extemely pressured (unless they are allowed to grow their personnel numbers etc)?

In my opinion the scrapping of the ACF was the worst defence decison I know of and the second worst is the failure to rectify the worst

 

[Rob c]

Seems like the answer then is to have ex-military and diplomat's etc, to stand for political office? Well why don't they come forward then?

As for Mike Moore he's currently NZ Ambassador to the US, so now is the time to bend his ear again ...

Trouble is the argument for an ACF to counter a NZ invasion I suggest would even ring about hollow in Moore's ears nowadays (that may have been so in the times of Sukarno's Indonesia - you still haven't said who will invade NZ?), but I hazard a guess Moore may be interested in the collective defence, relationship and economic well-being angle of an ACF? Or something else, what would be politically and publically acceptable rationale nowadays in your opinion, seeing that defence spending would have to rise (because I wouldn't want to see any current capabilities removed to accomodate the cost from within)?

Mike did not always agree with me but he had a logical reason why not, another surprise was Jenny Shipley who also gave a reasoned reply (reasoning may not have been to the same standard as Mikes ) Helen Clark Ignored any counter debate and gave out her line without supporting facts

 

[MrConservative]

In my opinion the scrapping of the ACF was the worst defence decison I know of and the second worst is the failure to rectify the worst

I think most people here would agree with that Rob. Your dissatisfaction has been made clear - something that has been made by numerous people both here on DT and elsewhere over the years.

Just a couple of housekeeping things to be aware of. Firstly single sentence posts are frowned upon so it pays to avoid that. Secondly we have an intro thread where you can tell everyone about who you are, what you have done and what you are doing now.

 

[Rob c]

the deterent affect of an aircombat unit would far exceed the rest of NZ,s Armed Forces and in the words of JFK the defence dollar you dont have to use (because it has detered the enemy) is far beter spent than the one you do have to use ( because it failed to deter )

I agree that 3 sqn's is not practical in our case and that front line strike would at the best be 20 to 30 aircraft. Maritime strike would be our niche with a secondary land support role. It is interesting to note that in the 1990's when a new RN frigate was exercising with Australian and NZ forces the rated 75 sqn as the most difficult they had delt with and said the only weakness was the lack of a secure data link.

The main problem facing NZD is simply a lack of will by politicians leading to a lack of finance. In the 1960's the NZ def budget was 2.5% of GDP, it is now around 1% as every time there has been belt tightening by a new government, defence spending has been slashed. During the 60's decade when spending was high the following was purchased over a ten year period. C130's, P3B's, over 30 helicopters for the navy, army and airforce, 4 Frigates, APC's, Light field guns, M41 tanks additonal centurions, new rifles, machine guns and submachine guns. Some of it with us today. In those days the process to buy new equipment was far shorter, but we had a reputation around the world for smart buying. Now that we have far complex system to try to get best bang for our buck, we have in fact wound up with more lemons.

We would always have some constraints on spending but the current levels are too low and the reason the politicians get away with it is that defence is not debated enough and when it is debated it is on a emotional base not a factual basis.

 

[ngatimozart]

A couple of things. This is a link to the DefenseNews report on AU-NZ Defence Ministers talks yesterday with a couple of things to note. Australia and NZ Expand Defense Cooperation - Defense News One being that they are highlighting the AU-NZ Airlift agreement and that they are teaching English to regional militaries starting with Vietnam. Personally I think that is a good thing because it encourages communication and contacts between forces that might not normally happen. Also the work with training the Cook Islands in maritime surveillance.

This is a paragraph from an article that I come across today that we could place in the NZ context minus the carrier option. Chilean Naval Aviation upgrade, a pressing operational need? | Navy News at DefenseTalk

Modern navies have demonstrated that embarked aviation has much to offer to help preserve and strengthen international security in the difficult and uncertain circumstances of our world today. However, from a local perspective, it is important to note that within the generation of current congressmen in Chile there is not a single member ever to serve in the Armed Forces, therefore their views and understanding of international conflicts and threats is at best… quite limited. As a result, placing urgency in the acquisition of new and costly weapon systems for the navy, it is not a major concern. We recognize that economical problems and funding will be major issues before acquiring a small aircraft carrier, but pursuing the acquisition of a modest embarked fighter force should not. Since Harriers can take off and land from small ships, the Chilean navy can take them on board of its frigates and destroyers when going at sea, adding tremendous firepower, tactical mobility and playing a major role in the activation of a fighter force ready to protect its economic interest beyond territorial waters.

I am of the opinion that what the writer states is equally valid for NZ although I think the purchase of ex UK Harriers would not be wise for us given that they will have been well used and that we would more than likely be looking at replacement say within 10 years.

Rob C
The main problem facing NZD is simply a lack of will by politicians leading to a lack of finance. In the 1960's the NZ def budget was 2.5% of GDP, it is now around 1% as every time there has been belt tightening by a new government, defence spending has been slashed. During the 60's decade when spending was high the following was purchased over a ten year period. C130's, P3B's, over 30 helicopters for the navy, army and airforce, 4 Frigates, APC's, Light field guns, M41 tanks additonal centurions, new rifles, machine guns and submachine guns. Some of it with us today. In those days the process to buy new equipment was far shorter, but we had a reputation around the world for smart buying. Now that we have far complex system to try to get best bang for our buck, we have in fact wound up with more lemons.

We would always have some constraints on spending but the current levels are too low and the reason the politicians get away with it is that defence is not debated enough and when it is debated it is on a emotional base not a factual basis.

Pizarro's article "Chilean Naval Aviation upgrade, a pressing operational need?" does in my opinion fully support Rob C's argument presented above and I would suggest that some of the causative factors are similar with regard to public perceptions of defence and the political factors.

 

[Rob c]

A couple of things. This is a link to the DefenseNews report on AU-NZ Defence Ministers talks yesterday with a couple of things to note. Australia and NZ Expand Defense Cooperation - Defense News One being that they are highlighting the AU-NZ Airlift agreement and that they are teaching English to regional militaries starting with Vietnam. Personally I think that is a good thing because it encourages communication and contacts between forces that might not normally happen. Also the work with training the Cook Islands in maritime surveillance.

This is a paragraph from an article that I come across today that we could place in the NZ context minus the carrier option. Chilean Naval Aviation upgrade, a pressing operational need? | Navy News at DefenseTalk

​

I am of the opinion that what the writer states is equally valid for NZ although I think the purchase of ex UK Harriers would not be wise for us given that they will have been well used and that we would more than likely be looking at replacement say within 10 years.



Pizarro's article "Chilean Naval Aviation upgrade, a pressing operational need?" does in my opinion fully support Rob C's argument presented above and I would suggest that some of the causative factors are similar with regard to public perceptions of defence and the political factors.

The public percepyions may not be as bad as some believe. I remember a poll taken around the year 2000, in it the resondents where asked 1. should the NZ defence budget be increased and 2. should NZD maintain an air combat ability. On question 1 the answer was 45% said it should be increased 30 % felt it was about right about 10% did not know and the rest wanted it cut On question 2, 73% wanted the Strike Wing retained the rest either didnt know or wanted it scrapped. Unfortunately the anti defence sector tend to get a lot of publicity and give the impression they are a lot stronger than they are and the silent majority tend to hide from this as they feel overawd
To change this pro defence needs to find away of generating significant amounts of positve factual publicity and debunk any emotive or non factual publicity how this can be done I am not sure (in other words haven't a clue) But has a good idea that is cheeppass it around it may be worth a try

 

[Kirkzzy]

Say NZ did retain its ACF, what then? I know people have talked about Super Hornets for commonality with the RAAF, but the RAAF won't have them for very long before handing them back to the US.

What type of aircraft should NZ go with based on its current budget constraints? Anyone thought of the Gripen?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Say NZ did retain its ACF, what then? I know people have talked about Super Hornets for commonality with the RAAF, but the RAAF won't have them for very long before handing them back to the US.

NZG could lease them - its an emerging trend. and for the next 15+/- years there would be some training, logistics and "other" synergies

What type of aircraft should NZ go with based on its current budget constraints? Anyone thought of the Gripen?

If we're trying to lower mutual raise, train (some), and sustain costs, then going Gripen would be anathema to the concept.

still, Gripen would provide some DACT options.....

 

[Rob c]

Say NZ did retain its ACF, what then? I know people have talked about Super Hornets for commonality with the RAAF, but the RAAF won't have them for very long before handing them back to the US.

What type of aircraft should NZ go with based on its current budget constraints? Anyone thought of the Gripen?

It would be many years after the decision to reinstate an air combat ability before combat aircraft would be required It has been estimated by the Airforce that it would take up to 15 years to get back to the level we where at prior to the scaping of Strike Wing. This because not only do you need to train the pilots but they then have to be trained and biuld up experience to become secion leaders who have to get experience and training to become flight leaders and so on to become squadron leaders. So you have build up a completely new experence and leadership base. I saw the SAF go through the same process and even with a lot of help from the RAF it took a very long time to be fully operational. The start point for us would be using the jet trainers we own. there are issues with these but they should be alright for 3 to 5 years while they are either re-engined and brought up to date or an alterative is arranged . It is only after proficencey is achieved with these aircraft that full combate aircraft are needed

 

[MrConservative]

It would be many years after the decision to reinstate an air combat ability before combat aircraft would be required It has been estimated by the Airforce that it would take up to 15 years to get back to the level we where at prior to the scaping of Strike Wing. This because not only do you need to train the pilots but they then have to be trained and biuld up experience to become secion leaders who have to get experience and training to become flight leaders and so on to become squadron leaders. So you have build up a completely new experence and leadership base. I saw the SAF go through the same process and even with a lot of help from the RAF it took a very long time to be fully operational. The start point for us would be using the jet trainers we own. there are issues with these but they should be alright for 3 to 5 years while they are either re-engined and brought up to date or an alterative is arranged . It is only after proficencey is achieved with these aircraft that full combate aircraft are needed

The Macchi's won't be coming back - no suitable replacement powerplant and an upgrade would take too long according to a Polly mate of mine who was briefed. That means then we would have to look at rebuilding step by step (If we choose to go down that route). First would be an advanced trainer. Very highly likely to be a Tucano/PC-9 type considering the money available over the next few years. Secondly, we would also have somehow lure back ex ACF guys whilst some still have their hair - it is ten years now.

IIRC there are only a handful of people left who have had the requisite flying and institutional knowledge of running an ACF. Two of them are A/CDRES and another I think has possibly just retired after a stellar 50 years service to the RNZAF. We would also have to get the agreement from the ADF per access to their Hawks for AJT or their help if we to lease and operate a small number of AJT's, not to mention the US on side. I am optimistic that if a component of Air Combat Capability was seriously being entertained we would get help I am sure.

However, there are also, changes in how we are going to fund future defence acquisitions are to be factored in, and related to that is how we pay for the ongoing support and squadron ops. So leasing combat aircraft is really the only option and it would have to be as turnkey as much as possible. Plus the money has to come from somewhere else in the defence budget even if we do increase it to around 1.5% of GDP p.a.

I can't see us operating anything more than a "short" NZ based Squadron of Shornets sometime in the future due to WOL costs. That short Squadron would never operate beyond NZ shores as a stand alone entity but as part of a what is really only a flight component intergrated into a larger unit (75th Anzac Sqd anyone?? - there is a bit of fortune in that - has a certain ring to it). A short Squadron would be enough to cover the local requirements imv - a full Squadron of Shornets is impossible unless a Billionaire like Graeme Hart was to underwrite it. Most people I have talked with reckon that we could get to OLOC in about 8-10 years - that however was based on a Squadron of F-16 MLU's as was a while ago.

 

[ngatimozart]

It would be many years after the decision to reinstate an air combat ability before combat aircraft would be required It has been estimated by the Airforce that it would take up to 15 years to get back to the level we where at prior to the scaping of Strike Wing. This because not only do you need to train the pilots but they then have to be trained and biuld up experience to become secion leaders who have to get experience and training to become flight leaders and so on to become squadron leaders. So you have build up a completely new experence and leadership base. I saw the SAF go through the same process and even with a lot of help from the RAF it took a very long time to be fully operational. The start point for us would be using the jet trainers we own. there are issues with these but they should be alright for 3 to 5 years while they are either re-engined and brought up to date or an alterative is arranged . It is only after proficencey is achieved with these aircraft that full combate aircraft are needed

Fifteen years would be about right so going with re-engining the AerMacchies would be a viable option because they would still have reasonable amount of life left on the airframes plus you are only having to purchase new engines rather than a complete new aircraft. The Aero India 2011 Air Show Aero India 2011: Live coverage from Aero India 2011 has quite a bit of info on what is around at the moment. Given the RAAF use of the Super Hornet synergies and logic would dictate that the Super hornet would the aircraft of choice, but it is heavy and relatively slow because it is built for carrier ops. Boeing have further upgraded the Super Hornet enhancing its stealth capabilities with a stealthed conformal weapons pod for internal weapons and conformal stealthed fuel pods, plus some upgrading of electronics.

However Eurofighter are developing a navalised Typhoon which will require little modification for carrier ops provided that it is not catapulted. The naval version of the Typhoon will be able to launch from a carrier using the ski jump with both a full fuel and weapons load. For landing they are installing a vector thrust system and the Typhoon is already fitted with an arrestor hook. Also from what I have read the navalised Typhoon would be a better buy for the RNZAF because of its agility and multi role capabilities especially with the thrust vectoring ability. 15 years would be long enough to have any gremlins sorted out and it is not a major rework of the aircraft.

Added after see Mr Conservatives comment.
Ok no Macchis. Oh well the Typhoons looked good because they have everything we wanted in a single airframe. I can live with F16's because the marks available now are leaps ahead than what was offered 1998. With regard to purchase is in blocks or tranches because can stretch costs over longer time.

 

[SASWanabe]

theres always a chance you could hop into bed with the indonesians+SK in the KF-X programme, probably be a bit expensive for the NZG taste.

would give the RAAF some good agressor training tho

 

[Rob c]

the Airforce at one stage quoted a sum of $90m to get the Macchi's back into a sustainable flying condition, What was covered by that I am not sure but it was after RR pulled the pin on that model of engine. However there are still spare engines and the engines in the fleet are not time X yet so it would still be possible to fly a limited number of macchi's (say 6 to 10 ) for a significant period of time while you got things moving.