NZDF - Now and the Future.

[Markus40]

Yes, the two engine approach for a bigger payload would sound plausable, however there is a flip side to this argument for a twin engine jet, and that is with its maintenance costs. Thats why a single engine will keep the costs down. So it would seem to me a better option for this penny pinching government to stay with a single engine variant.

Forget about a JSF, and UCAVS, they are for the big boys with deep pockets. NZ needs to have an intermediate ability to carry out smaller but effective cover for our own armed forces in the field.

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.

 

[Markus40]

Yes, this fits somewhat into my argument. However, when National do get back into power, im sure they will find the necessary funding for the Hawke as a good option for the RNZAF. You are right about Labour as i have previously mentioned and you should be as political as you like.! After all the NZDFs have been pushed and shoved and carowled around the NZ political system, and neglected to its fullest extent.

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.

 

[Markus40]

As much as i like the Gripen, i personally believe it is possible to start our air combat squadron from a Trainer/combat aircraft such as the Hawke. With some funding for a fleet of 20 aircraft up front and with infrastructure and spares in place would kick start our air force once again. It is fully possible to start a pilot training scheme with instructors from abroad, and to slowly integrate the Hawke into the RNZAF service.

So this would be from the bottom up approach and would give the government a less expensive option than to run a full combat fighter force, when this basically and realistically isnt needed. However a trainer and combat aircraft that does both jobs is a cost saving measure. It comes down to political will and choice and i can only see this happen in a national led government.

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!

 

[Whiskyjack]

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.

The issue I have is not reliability but the ability to deploy a single or twin stike platform into the region. The radius of the F-16, Gripen, F18E, JSF etc is around 1,000 kms on a strike mission, Fiji, the Cooks etc are around 2,000kms away. What are we using this strike force for?

In a coalition operation where the US is involved they have Strike to burn, what they don't have is Infantry and enough ISTAR assets to go around. I read recently that the US has more strike aircraft than it does infantry squads!

 

[KH-12]

As much as i like the Gripen, i personally believe it is possible to start our air combat squadron from a Trainer/combat aircraft such as the Hawke. With some funding for a fleet of 20 aircraft up front and with infrastructure and spares in place would kick start our air force once again. It is fully possible to start a pilot training scheme with instructors from abroad, and to slowly integrate the Hawke into the RNZAF service.

So this would be from the bottom up approach and would give the government a less expensive option than to run a full combat fighter force, when this basically and realistically isnt needed. However a trainer and combat aircraft that does both jobs is a cost saving measure. It comes down to political will and choice and i can only see this happen in a national led government.

I would prefer just to get on with it and buy/lease the front line operational A/C (I could never figure out why we had so many AerMachhi for 18 operational A4's), it is not like modern aircraft are difficult to fly, the hard part is learning to master the weapon systems / threat enviroment etc, the purchase of some good simulators would be the solution here. Maybe get a smaller number (6 or so ) turbo-prop lead-in trainers (eg PC-21) to bridge between the CT-4's. If you went with Hawks you would never get the real thing.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Forget about a JSF, and UCAVS, they are for the big boys with deep pockets. NZ needs to have an intermediate ability to carry out smaller but effective cover for our own armed forces in the field.

JSF I agree, but UCAVs? Why would NZ not be able to explore the use of 8-10 of these assets for specialist strike assets within the region? An integrated ISTAR capability has ramifications not only for defence but also customs/policing which has an economic benefit to the country. We are talking ten years out here not tomorrow.

To ignore this will be exposing the country to far more risk in the economic/criminal issues, which are far more likely than armed conflict in this region.

As for cover for our armed forces, where in the last 10 years has NZ deployed forces in a coalition operation where they have not had air cover? Fundamentally I have no issues with strike, but not at the expense of an armed force that is not capable of dealing with issues with it's own region.

I am thinking coups in Fiji in the 80s, the Skyhawks were useless, what was missing was lift both air and sea, and to aid this an ISTAR capability so that the Govt can keep on top of what is happening on the ground (although HUMINT was very good).

 

[KH-12]

The issue I have is not reliability but the ability to deploy a single or twin stike platform into the region. The radius of the F-16, Gripen, F18E, JSF etc is around 1,000 kms on a strike mission, Fiji, the Cooks etc are around 2,000kms away. What are we using this strike force for?

In a coalition operation where the US is involved they have Strike to burn, what they don't have is Infantry and enough ISTAR assets to go around. I read recently that the US has more strike aircraft than it does infantry squads!

I have to admit you make sense here , having a kick-A@#$ UCAV recon platform would give us some unique capabilities in a coalition operation, would be even better if we developed one ourselves (spend money in NZ), Endurance/Range would be the key to enable large oceanic patrols, would be an interesting project, would want to be cheaper than A/C such as Global Hawk.

A good concept would be a system with interchangable sensor modules eg SAR / IR / Optical , could then tailor the payload to the mission.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I have to admit you make sense here , having a kick-A@#$ UCAV recon platform would give us some unique capabilities in a coalition operation, would be even better if we developed one ourselves (spend money in NZ), Endurance/Range would be the key to enable large oceanic patrols, would be an interesting project, would want to be cheaper than A/C such as Global Hawk.

Australia is looking at a UAV like Globalhawk or Mariner to monitor its sea lanes and northern coast, NZ should look at this project very closely, the possibility to leverage off it may be to good to pass up.

It also be far more $$ than we are willing to pay.

 

[KH-12]

Australia is looking at a UAV like Globalhawk or Mariner to monitor its sea lanes and northern coast, NZ should look at this project very closely, the possibility to leverage off it may be to good to pass up.

It also be far more $$ than we are willing to pay.

I would be keen for a much cheaper platform, really the sensors should be the most expensive part of the system, the airframe itself does not have to be that sophisticated , should just have a long range and the ability to operate at say 60,000 ft (that's well above any commercial traffic).

 

[Whiskyjack]

I would be keen for a much cheaper platform, really the sensors should be the most expensive part of the system, the airframe itself does not have to be that sophisticated , should just have a long range and the ability to operate at say 60,000 ft (that's well above any commercial traffic).

i think that the NZDF prefer to buy OTS, so I would be looking at something like the Mariner, which seems to be much cheaper than the Globalhawk and operates for 48hrs at around 45,000ft.

Don't get me wrong there are many issues that need to be solved, I am just saying that NZ has the time to plan this properly and even integrate it with Australia.

About 5 years ago a US Admiral visiting here thought that NZ should put time and energy into operating niche UAVs that could contribute to coalition operations. Leveraging of a reasonably high education and tech base that NZ has.

 

[Markus40]

I think we have been round this circuit before on this issue and i am standing firm on the stance that NZDFs structure should be built around a single jet engine strike aircraft to cover all our service needs for the NZDFs.

I dont discount the fact of the UCAV/UAV as having a good survellance option, but really i am of the belief that 3-5 UCAVs or UAVs for that matter would have a better role as a replacement for the P3. Having a stable and endurance platform and cover the wider maritime and operational fields. Its far better suited here. Again in line with a BAE Hawke squadron or similar this would work well together.

i think that the NZDF prefer to buy OTS, so I would be looking at something like the Mariner, which seems to be much cheaper than the Globalhawk and operates for 48hrs at around 45,000ft.

Don't get me wrong there are many issues that need to be solved, I am just saying that NZ has the time to plan this properly and even integrate it with Australia.

About 5 years ago a US Admiral visiting here thought that NZ should put time and energy into operating niche UAVs that could contribute to coalition operations. Leveraging of a reasonably high education and tech base that NZ has.

 

[KH-12]

i think that the NZDF prefer to buy OTS, so I would be looking at something like the Mariner, which seems to be much cheaper than the Globalhawk and operates for 48hrs at around 45,000ft.

Don't get me wrong there are many issues that need to be solved, I am just saying that NZ has the time to plan this properly and even integrate it with Australia.

About 5 years ago a US Admiral visiting here thought that NZ should put time and energy into operating niche UAVs that could contribute to coalition operations. Leveraging of a reasonably high education and tech base that NZ has.

Pity about the OTS, would be a great opportunity to develop our own tech and maybe export potential, at 45,000 ft you could be having some close encounters with 777's ! , the Mariner is pretty much a tweaked Predator, interesting that they hav'nt gone with a pure Jet solution and put the platform at a higher altitude, must be leaving that domain for Globalhawk. The Mariner looks like a good solution for monitoring a specific area (eg a coastline), surely we would want a platform that covered larger areas (more in line with Globalhawk mission capabilities.

 

[Markus40]

UAVs/UCAVs are not cheap. However, they would be good as a replacement for the P3s. Supplement them with 2 squadrons of BAE Hawkes and you now have an Air Force.

I would be keen for a much cheaper platform, really the sensors should be the most expensive part of the system, the airframe itself does not have to be that sophisticated , should just have a long range and the ability to operate at say 60,000 ft (that's well above any commercial traffic).

 

[Markus40]

I think we would need more than 6 Turbo prop lead in trainers. As mentioned before its way better to buy the aircraft that will do both jobs. IE Training and Front line air strike. Its cheaper. Simple.

I would prefer just to get on with it and buy/lease the front line operational A/C (I could never figure out why we had so many AerMachhi for 18 operational A4's), it is not like modern aircraft are difficult to fly, the hard part is learning to master the weapon systems / threat enviroment etc, the purchase of some good simulators would be the solution here. Maybe get a smaller number (6 or so ) turbo-prop lead-in trainers (eg PC-21) to bridge between the CT-4's. If you went with Hawks you would never get the real thing.

 

[Markus40]

I can see Australia looking at this option for a number of reasons and makes perfect sense to me why they would want to purchase the UCAV/UAV. First, is due to the huge expansive coastline. This coupled with the time it takes to travel over such distances.

The other is the Immigration issue with refugees coming through from Paupa and Indonesia.

Another aspect would be for counter terrorism and anti pirate operations through the trade routes that Australia relies on. Not to mention the flareups in regions like the Solomans and ET. So to integrate the UCAV/UAV into the AWACS system that Australia are now in the process of operating would give them a long arm reach into places that they wernt able to operate at any great length before. NZ doesnt need the same, BUT, as a replacement for the P3s this would be a great step in the right direction, for our own fisheries and boarder patrol and military operations when called upon.

I would be keen for a much cheaper platform, really the sensors should be the most expensive part of the system, the airframe itself does not have to be that sophisticated , should just have a long range and the ability to operate at say 60,000 ft (that's well above any commercial traffic).

 

[Markus40]

Has anyone got any further information on the progress of the NH90 and the LOH?

 

[KH-12]

Has anyone got any further information on the progress of the NH90 and the LOH?

No news everything seems to have gone quiet, not sure why the process takes so long, will send an email to Phil Goff

 

[Whiskyjack]

No news everything seems to have gone quiet, not sure why the process takes so long, will send an email to Phil Goff

Funny most of the media reports named July as the month....I guess there was no indication of year tho.

 

[KH-12]

Would be surprised if there is an annoucement this month, in the original timeframe the Training / Utility helicopter was supposed to be in service by now, probably don't want to make any foreign capital expenditure with the state of the trade deficit , thats why we have to make our own UAV patrol systems

 

[Stuart Mackey]

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.
snip

Well untill money changes hands they are still ours..

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?

Nice thought, but I dont think so. We cannot properly patrol our ocean territory, nor can NZ send an army unit anywhere and keep it in a medium level combat situation. I bring up the airtrainers because the army needs to be able to train, in NZ, in as close to realistic sitautions as possible, and the air trainers {assuming they are not sold} would be one way to do that.

As to brining back a proper combat arm, what for? If NZ is in a situation that requires fastmovers we will be in it with Brits/US/Aussie who can perform that role a lot better than we could, so we need to be able to work with their airpower. All of that is moot if we cannot get what we have, where we need it and keep it supplied.