NZDF - Now and the Future.

[KH-12]

The RNZAF really needs some type of strike ability asap. I think gunships would be the best. Does anyone here want to send a letter to the government explaining risks?

I think I would prefer some refurbed A-10's to a helicopter gunship, bigger payload (cheaper probably) more survivable, longer loiter time, faster. I suppose in a tight urban environment a helicopter may be better suited , but its vulnerability also increases (to the likes of RPG's etc)

To be honest I can't see us getting either under the current government.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I think I would prefer some refurbed A-10's to a helicopter gunship, bigger payload (cheaper probably) more survivable, longer loiter time, faster. I suppose in a tight urban environment a helicopter may be better suited , but its vulnerability also increases (to the likes of RPG's etc)

To be honest I can't see us getting either under the current government.

IMHO you can't do better than the A-10 for CAS, not so flash for maritime strike, or any type of strategic stike for that matter.

I can't see attack helos either, even the ability to hang gun and rocket pods off the LUH would be to much to ask!

 

[Padman]

Hawk 200 may be better for NZ. Maybe not in same league as A-10 CAS wise, but has a decent anti-ship and air-to-air capability. There is also commonality with RAAF Hawks, and possibility of joint training.

 

[KH-12]

Hawk 200 may be better for NZ. Maybe not in same league as A-10 CAS wise, but has a decent anti-ship and air-to-air capability. There is also commonality with RAAF Hawks, and possibility of joint training.

Not sure how Hawk would go in the A-to-A role , I know they can sling Sidewinders, but the net overall capability would be less than the A4's we have just sold, if you are going back into the combat role you might as well get some real capability, the Hawk is really only a training platform with the 200 variant an attempt to put out a cheap multi-role aircraft.

Maybe France would supply us with some cheap Rafales :france to make up for past indiscretions.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Hawk 200 may be better for NZ. Maybe not in same league as A-10 CAS wise, but has a decent anti-ship and air-to-air capability. There is also commonality with RAAF Hawks, and possibility of joint training.

I would point out that, technically speaking, the Jet trainers have not yet been 'sold', in that no deposit has been paid and they have not left the country.

 

[Sea Toby]

The New Zealand government has a buyer for the Skyhawks and Aeromacchis, it just hasn't been finalized. I believe they are waiting for US approval, which should come soon. Therefore, one can assume they are gone, just like the cream puff F-16s are gone. With this government, if they can't sell these aircraft, I suspect they would tear them down and sell the parts as a last resort.

I noticed that the New Zealand minister of defence agreed to a joint statement with the Australian minster of defence that New Zealand will upgrade their two Anzac class frigates. However, no funds have been provided to expedite this yet. Considering that this government didn't want the frigates, I have wondered whether they would update them.

Its now July, the new MRV should be about ready to sail to New Zealand and have sea trials off the Netherlands coast. But so far there have been no new news of the MRV recently.

The US Senate has asked the USAF to develop a study to replace its ageing fleet of T-38 Talons, with either the T-45 Hawk or T-50 Golden Eagle. The favored T-50 Golden Eagle is of a South Korean/Lockheed make, more capable and more expensive than a T-45. The going price for a T-50 is around $20 million American each. It has a top speed of Mach 1.45, and the light weight fighter can carry a number of common missiles and bombs. Could this aircraft be the next generation New Zealand fighter/trainer if, and its a big if, the air combat force is brought back?

 

[KH-12]

I quite like the T/A-50, details on its weapons compatibility are limited, not sure how it would go with BVR A-A munitions as the the APG-67 radar is'nt that powerful, apparently it is quite a spritely performer and pilots have been quite impressed with its performance. It is really a modern toned down F-16, should have quite reasonable operating costs, it is kind of like what the F-20 never became. Would need to be compatible with stuff like Maverick , may be Harpoon.

Would be quite a good aircraft to maintain a combat proficiency, would probably need an intermediate step from the CT-4E maybe the PC-21, now that is a sweet looking aircraft:tasty

 

[Whiskyjack]

If only. I would love to seethe T50s or equivalent in RNZAF colours. But lets face it, it isn’t going to happen this decade if at all!

The issues that the NZDF has are as a result of 25+ years of under funding and really go to the roots. I think that the Govt has realised that buying new equipment while needed is no good unless, pay, housing and other infrastructure are built back up as well. Hence the NZ$4.4b (?) over the next ten years to build up the operational side of the budget.

NZ$650m in shiny new LAVs and not enough people to crew them and service them!

So if you take the NZ$4.4b extra over the next 10 years it is hard to see additional capital injections going in that are outside those already announced in the LTDP. So that leaves around NZ$300m a year in depreciation to fund additional assets. So say NZ$3b? Can’t see any fast movers coming out of that, as it would require more money to go into operational spending to maintain the capability.

 

[Sea Toby]

You never know what a change in government and a new defence review white paper can accomplish. The USAF favors this aircraft to replace its T-38 Talons over the T-45 Goshawk. Its not a F-16, but its better than nothing! At $20 million each, its more expensive than the Goshawk, which is now running $15 million each. These are US dollars. At NZ $40 million each, 20 could be acquired for NZ $800 million. Increase the acquisition budget $100 million a year, and you'll have them, the GDP increase in defence spending would be approximately .2 percent. From 1.0 to 1.2 GDP.
Some specs for the T-50 Golden Hawk from an airforce website:
Length 12.98m
Height 4,78m
Wingspan 9.11m
Wingspan including missiles 9.17m
Empty weight 6,263kg
Maximum take-off weight without external payload 8,890kg
Maximum take-off weight with external payload 11,974kg
Type 1 x General Electric F404-102 turbofan
Engine length 4,030mm
Engine diameter 880mm
Engine dry weight 1,035kg
Take-off power rating 78.7kN (17700 lbs)
Maximum level speed Mach 1.45
Maximum altitude 14,500m
Manoeuvrability +8g to -3g
Max. climb rate 201 m/s
Time of climb
To 10000 ft 56 sec
To 20000 ft 74 sec
To 30000 ft 102 sec
Takeoff distance 345 m
Landing distance 707 m on a standard day
Range 2600 km, clean, with external tanks and 10 per cent reserve
Typical mission duration 146 min, with 74 min in the air work area.
Service life 8300 h


COCKPIT: The aircraft has digital fly-by-wire controls and HOTAS (Hands On Throttle And Stick). The cockpit displays include two 127mm full colour Honeywell multifunction displays, Honeywell instrumentation displays and a Head Up Display (HUD) supplied by BAE Systems.
The full authority digital flight control system and avionics were developed by Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Division at Fort Worth. The flight equipment includes a navigation / attack system, a Honeywell H-764G embedded global positioning / inertial navigation system and HG9550 radar altimeter, Rockwell Collins VIR-130A integrated VOR / instrument landing system and ARN-153V advanced digital tactical aid to navigation, and Raytheon ARC-232 VHF radio.
The AN/APG-67(V)4 multi-mode radar, supplied by Lockheed Martin, is installed in the nose of the LIFT version.
The two crew, tandem stepped cockpit is fitted with an onboard oxygen generating system (OBOGS) and ejection seats supplied by Martin Baker of Uxbridge, UK.

WEAPONS: The aircraft has seven external hardpoints for carrying weapons, one on the centreline under the fuselage, two hardpoints under each wing and an air-to-air missile launch rail at the two wingtips.
The wingtip launch rails can carry AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles. The underwing and centreline hardpoints can carry rocket pods, air-to-surface missiles or air-to-air missiles according to the mission requirements, e.g. AGM-65 Maverick missiles or Mark 82/83/84 bombs or rocket launchers.
In November 2005, the A-50 successfully test-fired an AIM-9L air-to-air missile.
A 20mm General Dynamics Armaments three-barrel M61 cannon is installed internally on the A-50 LIFT version. The gun is mounted behind the cockpit and carries 205 rounds of ammunition in a linear linkless feed system. The A-50 LIFT can carry electronic warfare pods and a radar warning receiver.

ENGINES: The aircraft is powered by a single General Electric turbofan engine, type F404-GE-102, with FADEC (Full Authority Digital Electronic Control). It is a derivative of the 402 with additional improvements in the turbine and afterburner. The engine has twin side mounted air intakes on either side of the fuselage under the wing.
The engine, with a three-fan stage and seven axial stage arrangement, is equipped with full authority digital engine control and generates 78.7kN with afterburn.
The aircraft has seven internal fuel tanks, five in the fuselage and two in the wings, which can carry 2,655L of fuel with the option of three additional 570L external fuel tanks.
The aircraft is fitted with an Argo-Tech fuel system. The power generator is supplied by Hamilton Sundstrand.

 

[KH-12]

Sounds good to me , how many should we get ? , I have often seen as quoted that 18 aircraft is a minimum fleet size for the RNZAF to maintain an air combat force, not sure how this was arrived at, being 2 seaters I would have thought a sqn of 12 would be good with maybe a couple of attrition airframes, will the T-50 be qualified for AMRAAM ?

As it stands the South Korean Air Force is the only customer, with the planned production numbers as they stand the SK government must be picking up the development costs.

 

[Sea Toby]

A number of countries are interested in buying the T-50, the South Koreans hope to sell several hundred abroad. Its the newest, fastest, and best trainer/light fighter available. Many nations flying the F-5s and A-4s as light fighters should be interested. New Zealand used to fly A-4s. Israel and many other nations still do. South Korea intends to replace their F-5s with them. The T-50s have the same engine as the Hornet and Gripen.

The USAF flies over 500 T-38 Talons as its trainer, very similiar to the F-5s. The US Senate is concerned that the T-38 costs twice as much to operate as the Navy's T-45s on top of a proposed T-38 life extension program. In the long run buying a new trainer will be cheaper, the T-38s being 40 years in age.

While its spilt milk now for New Zealand, the cream puff F-16s were cheaper and better aircraft. All the information I have seen says Sidewinders, not AMRAAM. But the T-50 can carry the Maverick missiles. Since South Korea is targeting A-4 customers, one can conclude that the T-50 must be better than the A-4s.

 

[Markus40]

Seems interesting that the subject of a Air Combat squadron should be brought up again, when only some time ago many of us were shooting down the concept of having a combat force in the NZDF.

However, as an avid believer in the RNZAF having a strike squadron back in its armoury its good to see that more of us are willing to look at this approach in a positive and informative light. Its a well known fact that the governments of the past have left the state of our armed forces in a no win situation and have neglected the upgrading and replacements that were desperatly required over the past decades. Then to top it off to have a Clark government that put a bullet into maintaining and keeping our Air combat wing.

A reinvestment in a limited strike capability is what NZ should be looking for, and we should look at, at least 20 Aircraft plus spares to make this a reality. The BAE Hawke 100 series is a good option because of its ability to carry a wide range of weapons and would cost less than an F16.

The T-38 Talon is an old aircraft and shouldnt be considered as a operational aircraft. The T50 might be a better option, but i think the Hawke would give NZ a good commonality with Australia as well.

 

[mug]

Seems interesting that the subject of a Air Combat squadron should be brought up again, when only some time ago many of us were shooting down the concept of having a combat force in the NZDF.

Agreed. Although if we were to reconstitute an air combat capability, would it be better to do it by way of a 'top down' or 'bottom up' approach?

What I mean by that is:

i) do we initially acquire a 'trainer' capability such as the T50/Hawk/etc with a view to ultimately adding Gripen/Rafale/F35/etc at a later date? This would be a lot more feasible/acceptable in budgetary (and political) terms but I can't help but think that such an acquisition would simply preclude any further acquisitions of the more advanced aircraft, or:

ii) do we go straight for the Gripen/Rafale/F35/etc option and do something like contract out the training and/or develop some sort of joint training facility with Australia?

Hence, the question is perhaps more of a budget/political nature than military or operational.

Edit: did anyone see "Snotties" on TV2 on Tuesday night? 10 episodes on RNZN JOCT. Good quality entertainment!

 

[Sea Toby]

Yes, its a decision that has to be made in a future white paper whether to do both trainer and fighter. But since the fighters are approaching $40 million plus in US dollars, the Hawk at $15 million, and the T-50 at $20 million, I wonder whether New Zealand can afford to do both.

If the only affordable aircraft is a light fighter/trainer, then the supersonic T-50 is a better aircraft, its of current technology, unlike the Hawk which is not supersonic and of a 1980s technology. You might as well as buy the best, that is if your thinking in terms of light fighter/trainer aircraft only. But yes, the Hawk will suffice.

Frankly, I wonder whether New Zealand can afford a light fighter, much less a true fighter. As it is the T-50 will cost around twice as much as the cream puff F-16s which were cancelled. Having one airframe will considerably reduce funding for spare parts.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Okay guys before you get to excited:

• 18 T50s @ US$20m each = US$360m
• Spares, Weapons, Training 30%? = US$108m Maybe as high as 50% US$180m
• Totally reconstituting the Structure, including plant, facilities, men etc NZ$200m?
• Running it each year NZ$200m? per year.

So expenditure over the next 10 years taking a 30% stance for point 2. and an exchange rate of .63. is approximately NZ$2.5b, on top of NZ$4.4B, plus any other capital needs.

To be honest I think I am being light on the costs here.

So while I would like to see it, at what expense? Because it will be at the expence of something, unless the strategic situation changes and at that point the T50 will not be the aircraft NZ will be looking at.

 

[Sea Toby]

Labour killed the air combat force to save $70 NZ in operational costs each year. That includes all of the air combat force, using old A-4s. The T-50 is supposed to have half the operational costs of a T-38 Talon, probably similar to an A-4. Yes, spares and other equipment will probably have to be purchased. I'm not really sure whether this cost figure of $20 million US includes spares and support. Any reconstituting of the air combat force is going to involve labor costs increases.

However, if this aircraft can't be afforded, neither can the Hawk. If you can't afford South Korean built trainers, you can't afford fighters either. Yet, Labour claims to have already spend over $3 billion for capital improvements for the NZDF, but somehow the total expenditure for the NZDF each year goes up less than $100 million NZ. Please explain? Is Labour counting their capital buys with funds already in the budget? While I don't like to get political, I'm sure a National goverment could easily find $ 200 million NZ to cut in the entire budget.

 

[KH-12]

Wow that brought things back to reality , if you were considering reconstituting a combat wing it would probably be better to go with something like the Gripen which will be compatible with such weapons as Meteor and has good data-linking ability, could probably even do a deal where we lease the surplus aircraft that Sweden has (promise we wont scratch them), they could even lone us some IP's to get us going, might even work out cheaper than purchasing new gear like the T/A-50, that capital cost is a killer. Why could we not go with a smaller force size say 10 SS and 2 DS, its not like combat aircraft fly around in large squadron formations anymore, more likely flying missions in 2 or 4 ship formations.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Labour killed the air combat force to save $70 NZ in operational costs each year. That includes all of the air combat force, using old A-4s. The T-50 is supposed to have half the operational costs of a T-38 Talon, probably similar to an A-4. Yes, spares and other equipment will probably have to be purchased. I'm not really sure whether this cost figure of $20 million US includes spares and support. Any reconstituting of the air combat force is going to involve labor costs increases.

However, if this aircraft can't be afforded, neither can the Hawk. If you can't afford South Korean built trainers, you can't afford fighters either.

I don't disagree.

I think the issue for NZ is that to rebuild an airstike capability now will be costly and it will also hurt other operational areas.

IMHO NZ really needs to start focusing on ISTAR capabilities. NZ is responsible for operating in a very large area of the planet and it really has no ability to monitor what is going on in it's own door step. There I no point IMO to having an air strike capability that is not backed up by the ability to search, find and define a target. Given that NZ does operate in such a large geographic area small single engine aircraft are not ideally suited to deliver weapons out into the region. Also given the strategic environment NZ does not require a high tempo of sorties.

I know I am rehashing my old arguments here but what does NZ need to accomplish in the region? Worry about that fist IMO as that is what our allies are expecting from us.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Wow that brought things back to reality , if you were considering reconstituting a combat wing it would probably be better to go with something like the Gripen which will be compatible with such weapons as Meteor and has good data-linking ability, could probably even do a deal where we lease the surplus aircraft that Sweden has (promise we wont scratch them), they could even lone us some IP's to get us going, might even work out cheaper than purchasing new gear like the T/A-50, that capital cost is a killer. Why could we not go with a smaller force size say 10 SS and 2 DS, its not like combat aircraft fly around in large squadron formations anymore, more likely flying missions in 2 or 4 ship formations.

It as an option, but as I said above is the traditional single seat fighter applicable to our region? Might we not want to look at UCAVs, which will provide greater range and can literally be stored in containers until needed? Linked with other ISTAR UAVs etc..

Time to think outside of the sqaure, can still use OTS technology to keep the risk level down. The Strategic situation in NZs region allows NZ the time to plan and budget.

 

[KH-12]

So you would suggest some long-range high altitude UCAV recon platforms that don't break the bank, I guess this sort of asset would complement the P-3K force quite nicely, would be great if we could design and build something like this in NZ (the airframe that is, would need to purchase SAR systems, Optical IR sensors etc), could probably build the platform entirely in composites. A straight recon platform would be alot cheaper than something with an offensive capability like Predator, you could also pre-task it without having to remote pilot via satelite link.

A think most single engine combat aircraft are faily reliable these days, the chances of dropping an engine while over water are reasonably slight, after all the JSF will be single engine and carrier based. The real advantage for 2 engines would be superior payload capability.