If a world conflictv happened or something arised in the pacific, I am sure New Zealand may build a combat air force. I do not think it would be a hard job. They could send 34 proposed pilots to the USA to train up and then while they are training, buy the planes. I do not have much experience in this area, therefore, how much would it cost to buy 34 new fighters? in NZ prices and start an air combat fleet. Thanks
Price to build an airforce
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
captphill666
New Member
You also have to look at the support staff for the planes. I.e you have to train the ground crew how to start - maintain - repair the planes. Also what type of planes would the USA send ? i don`t think the US would make planes and give them to new zealand, as the time it would take to make them.
The us would prob re-activate some moth-balled planes ( F4 phantoms, F5 etc..) and give them to new zealand and the latest planes would be given to US front line units.
P.s My first post but not my last
The us would prob re-activate some moth-balled planes ( F4 phantoms, F5 etc..) and give them to new zealand and the latest planes would be given to US front line units.
P.s My first post but not my last
Brand new F-16 Block 50 aircraft run in the neighborhood of US$40 million each, with spares and support possibly US$60 million each. If New Zealand purchased 24, they would run around twice the American price in New Zealand dollars, or NZ$ 80 million each and with spares and support NZ$120 million each.
NZ$80 million times 24 aircraft equals NZ$1.92 billion.
NZ$120 million times 24 aircraft equals NZ$2.882 billion.
Think in terms of of NZ$2 billion for 24 F-16 Block 50 and NZ$3 billion with the spares and support package.
Adding 12 or so new trainers, such as Hawk aircraft at NZ$30 million equals another NZ$360 million. Of course, if the Aeromacchis sale had been cancelled, New Zealand could save that cost. The Aeromacchis are still good trainers.
The longer New Zealand waits to rebuild the fighter force, the higher these costs will be. These numbers are approximate, I could be a little bit high or a little bit low, but you'll comprehend how much a fighter combat force costs.
NZ$80 million times 24 aircraft equals NZ$1.92 billion.
NZ$120 million times 24 aircraft equals NZ$2.882 billion.
Think in terms of of NZ$2 billion for 24 F-16 Block 50 and NZ$3 billion with the spares and support package.
Adding 12 or so new trainers, such as Hawk aircraft at NZ$30 million equals another NZ$360 million. Of course, if the Aeromacchis sale had been cancelled, New Zealand could save that cost. The Aeromacchis are still good trainers.
The longer New Zealand waits to rebuild the fighter force, the higher these costs will be. These numbers are approximate, I could be a little bit high or a little bit low, but you'll comprehend how much a fighter combat force costs.
I would say anywheres from 2 to 5 years if starting from scratch. And yes it would be a hard job because the building and training of the support infrastructure alone is a daunting task. I used to remember what the requirements were, manpower-wise, to support aircraft on alert but forgot it. It is a big number believe me.
This reminds me of a argument I had with a guy at work who thought it would be easy to maintain the levels of fighters on alert to intercept any and all problems in American airspace, using some imaginary type radar he thinks we can build and operate. Anyway the jist of my argument was that he had no concept of the support requirements needed to keep a dozen fighters on high alert. I remember being on huge air bases with thousands of people assigned all in some way supporting a couple of dozen B-52s on hot alert.
NZ doesn't even have an air force right? So yeah, while they wouldn't be starting from scratch any conflict in the Pacific would be long over before they could have a couple of squadrons of F-16/F-18 level airplanes and supporting infrastructure built and trained.
This reminds me of a argument I had with a guy at work who thought it would be easy to maintain the levels of fighters on alert to intercept any and all problems in American airspace, using some imaginary type radar he thinks we can build and operate. Anyway the jist of my argument was that he had no concept of the support requirements needed to keep a dozen fighters on high alert. I remember being on huge air bases with thousands of people assigned all in some way supporting a couple of dozen B-52s on hot alert.
NZ doesn't even have an air force right? So yeah, while they wouldn't be starting from scratch any conflict in the Pacific would be long over before they could have a couple of squadrons of F-16/F-18 level airplanes and supporting infrastructure built and trained.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Once RNZAF operations consolidated are to Ohakea it will be nigh on impossible, its not the biggest airfield around even with the planned mods, I believe once completed re-establishment of Combat Airwing will be nigh impossible without opening a new base which well just adds to the expense not to mention where to put it... If it was feasible I do ot see why Kiwi pilots could not be put through RAAF trainer school before beginning Aircraft familaristaion training, surely a extra 4-5 pilots are class wouldn't overstretch the RAAF training program, it would only need to be the lead in fighter as the RNZAF still operates there Trainers for the Big birds.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
NZ still operates basic fixed wing training capacity, to train pilots for it's fixed and rotary wing based Air Force. The most immediate way to gain a combat capability would be to arm their P-3K's with an appropriate weapon. Harpoon or SLAM-ER would probably be the easiest missiles to integrate.
This would provide significant anti-shipping capacity, with a significant standoff and land attack capability if SLAM-ER were chosen. I cannot imagine a scenario in the South Pacific where a fixed wing, fast jet combat force would be required by NZ.
An armed reconaissance helicopter (such as an armed A-109E Power or armed EC-635) would probably be more useful and FAR less costly in the types of scenario's NZ could be reasonably expected to face in the South Pacific.
It would also have the benefit of likely commonality with the training/light utility helicopter NZ IS tendering for at present and would provide very useful recon and fire support capabilities for the NZ Army, capabilities which are sorely lacking at present. It would also be FAR easier and far quicker to introduce both of these capabilities into NZDF service.
IF funding were found and the politicians could be convinced (probably the BIGGEST hurdle for any such "offensive" capabilities to be introduced int NZDF service) of the need for both projects, they could be implemented very quickly, particularly once the LUH helo is in-service.
If NZ were to become involved in a war further afield, only then would they truly require a fast jet capability. It would be a slow, costly and tedious process however and would have to start with significant infrastructure enhancements and the re-building of corporate knowledge of fast-jet operations within NZDF.
This would probably mean posting a number of RNZAF officers / maintenance personel within foreign militaries to become qualified fast-jet pilots and maintainers and then return to RNZAF once the infrastructure projects (a suitable air base, with maintenance, fuel, logistical, electrical power etc facilities existed) were completed.
The introduction of a fast jet trainer would be the next step, something like the former Air Macchis or Hawk jets for RNZAF to become familiar with operating fast jets again. A fast jet trainer with basic weapons capability like the RAAF Hawk Mk 127's (Mk 82 bombs, 30mm cannon and Sidewinder AAM's) could provide some interim A2G weapons and a basic air intercept capability in the meantime and give back to NZ, SOME ability to control it's airspace.
Once this capability was well established could acquisition of a modern fighter type truly be considered. Second hand options such as ex-USAF or "European" air force F-16's (ex-Netherland for example) would probably provide the greatest "bang for buck". The Netherlands for instance recently offered Chile 16x additional F-16 MLU aircraft for US$160m.
These aircraft are basically of a reasonably advanced F-16C/D standard and are BVR/WVR capable as well as Maverick/LGB/HARM generation weapons capable.
Further MLU upgrades would be needed for them to become "J" series weapons compliant, plus they'd probably need an EWSP and targetting pod capability, upgrade as a minimum.
With the required weapons and sensor package needed for an effective and modern capability, plus acquisition costs of even 16, IF NZ could get the same price (seem to be offered at "mates rates" to Chile because they already purchased 12), NZ would probably still need at least US$500m (NZ$746m) for the intial acquisiton alone. On-going costs would probably double this.
The costs to even get to that stage would probably far exceed this...
Rich said the right thing.
The important part is the logistics and support structure, the planes are of secondary importance, the ability to operate them is all important. If nothing else have a dozen of Hawk trainers, so you can train the crews and airbase personel. In this case you will have the capability to expand should the need arise.
Secondly: See to it to have connections/alliances so you can buy weapons WHEN you need them. I'm leaning towards the conclusion, that Denmark was occupied during WW2 based itself in the fact that modern weapons were not obtainable neither for love nor money.
The important part is the logistics and support structure, the planes are of secondary importance, the ability to operate them is all important. If nothing else have a dozen of Hawk trainers, so you can train the crews and airbase personel. In this case you will have the capability to expand should the need arise.
Secondly: See to it to have connections/alliances so you can buy weapons WHEN you need them. I'm leaning towards the conclusion, that Denmark was occupied during WW2 based itself in the fact that modern weapons were not obtainable neither for love nor money.
The cost of going from no combat aircraft to a squadron of aircraft is much MUCH more than the purchase cost of the aircraft.
Double, tripple or even quadruple the amount of the purchase price would be required. Thats a good 10 billion bucks that New Zealand doesn't have.
There is no point in spreading your money thinly into each part of the military if you have very little to spend. The only approach it to eliminate parts of the military completely so that their is enough money where its needed.
New Zealand does not need any fighter aircraft, its not like Australia that has potential enemies within striking distance.
New Zealands P-3 and C-130 aircraft are perfect for their needs. They can transport their troops for peace keeping missions and control the sea's around them. An upgrade to these aircraft is all that they require. This would leave enough money to actually equip the army troops well enough to equal that of the best in the world, which is important as they will be the only New Zealand force to actually see combat use.
We always compare our forces to the benchmark set by the larger countries. This can be a good way of measuring any area's we are lacking, however this doesn't take into account that the country has a completely different requirement.
Double, tripple or even quadruple the amount of the purchase price would be required. Thats a good 10 billion bucks that New Zealand doesn't have.
There is no point in spreading your money thinly into each part of the military if you have very little to spend. The only approach it to eliminate parts of the military completely so that their is enough money where its needed.
New Zealand does not need any fighter aircraft, its not like Australia that has potential enemies within striking distance.
New Zealands P-3 and C-130 aircraft are perfect for their needs. They can transport their troops for peace keeping missions and control the sea's around them. An upgrade to these aircraft is all that they require. This would leave enough money to actually equip the army troops well enough to equal that of the best in the world, which is important as they will be the only New Zealand force to actually see combat use.
We always compare our forces to the benchmark set by the larger countries. This can be a good way of measuring any area's we are lacking, however this doesn't take into account that the country has a completely different requirement.
Fighter Jets are NOT basic military capabilities.
New Zealand cant afford advanced military capabilities.
If New Zealand had 5 billion dollars to spend, the last thing would be fighter jets. You then have the dumb ass's who will think "oh wow lets buy new fighter jets because it makes us look like we have an advanced military"
You cant judge the US military by the number of F-22's and aircraft carriers it has. Its the infrastructure, combat experience and supply chain that makes a military good.
5 billion dollars could buy some C-130J's and upgrade the P-3's to Australian spec. Putting money into these aircraft would allow their operational capability rate to reach as close to 100% as possible. The more aircraft available allows a certain number of aircraft to do more work.
Improved armoured vehicles and equipment for the front line soldiers would also be a high priority. Both Australia and New Zealand cannot support their deployed troops. Australia relies on the US and New Zealand relies on both Australia and US.
Australia should aim for supporting their troops without US support, so C-17 transporters and in theatre close air support. New zealand should try and increase its airlift and equipment to the point where Australia is now.
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I disagree with that. The relatively large GDP for NZ (per capita), the size of their current budget and SOME of the capabilities they currently operate and will operate soon (ie: NH-90, Javelin ATGW, radar cued Mistral SAM's, SINCGARS radios and specwarops capability) tend to dispute this.
The only reason they "can't" is that the "greenie" politicians they have in power at present are refusing to open the purse strings.
How then can NZ possibly afford to invest in levels of transport capacity to match that which Australia is obtaining? $2b for 4 C-17's, plus another $1.5b for through life support. $1b for 12x C-130J-30's and another $1b for TLS. $750m for intra-theatre lift capacity, plus another $750m for TLS.
The list goes on. $2b for RAN LHD's +TLS, $2b on A330-30's + TLS, another $500m or so for additional C-130J-30's to replace the remaining 6 "H" model Hercs (if RAAF goes that way. It'll cost more if they go the A400M route).
This level of capability is FAR beyond NZ's resources, even if they devoted their entire current surplus to it.
What they most definitely CAN afford is advanced capability in certain "niche" areas.
I agree that NZ does not currently "need" an advanced tactical fighter, but the ability to control their own airspace is a glaring hole in their capability. As is a lack of ANY over-land aerial reconaissance capability (beyond the UH-1H Huey / Mk 1 "eyeball" combination) and any form of aerial fire support (or long ranged fire support) for deployed forces.
The longest ranged fire support capacity within NZDF is the SH-2G/Maverick combination. The 2nd are the 5 inch guns on the ANZAC's, followed distantly by the L119 105mm artillery guns and 81mm mortars of the NZ Army.
This lack of support and lack of recon capability is a more pressing issue than tactrans capacity, IMHO. The MRV will become the primary deployment option for NZ forces with C-130 and B-757 conducting troop transport and limited re-sup operations.
For the time being, this would seem to be a sufficient enhancement to transport capability. If more funding becomes available, I'd advocate additional C-130 purchases to boost numbers. 12 or Second hand RAAF C-130H's will be available over the next few uears and could be put through NZ's upgrade program to extract the maximum remaining life from the aircraft. An additional 3 -5 , would make a HUGE difference to RNZAF's transport capacity...
Aussie Digger Australia does not have C-17 or C-130J's now. Bit of a misunderstanding.
Of course NZ cant afford the airlift that Australia plans on getting, however increasing their airlift to the level of Australia's current Herc fleet would be ideal, purchasing ex RAAF C-130H's would also be a good option as you pointed out.
If New zealands could have up to 20 C-130's it would be a very good thing.
That would allow New zealand to play a much larger role in any regional conflict, probably more than any other purchase for the same money.
A larger fleet does not always mean increased maintenance costs either. Each aircraft will be flying fewer hours so their will be more time between overhauls. Also if you spread maintenance manpower across a larger fleet then the percentage of available aircraft will of course drop. However half of the fleet could be unavailable and there would still be more operational aircraft than the current fleet. Then when needed in war time it wouldn't take long until all aircraft would be operational.
I can also see Australia's C-17's clocking up their flight hours very quickly. Look at the UK's lease of C-17's they are flying more than double the rate they expected. If Australia flies its C-17's too much they will end up having to be replaced much sooner than expected. As the C-17 production line is closing and their may not be a C-17 type aircraft to purchase in the future we should definitely order more C-17's.
This will also help NZ as Australia's C-17's can be used for their international airlift.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Australia does have C130Js 12 of them and they ahve been operational for a couple of years, and well the C-17 wait 2 months. 20 C130 is a outrageous number for the RNZAF in a relative peacetime enviroment, 10-12 would be more than sufficent with current op tempo, remebering NZ can only deploy 1 reinforced battalion at a time, 10 to 12 would have a dramatic increase of lift abilities, yet still would require additional basing capabilites just for the 12.
birdofprey
Banned Member
Australasia where New Zeland is located is a very peace full reagion, and i cant imagine these countries fighting over each other..
takling of building New Zeland air force under a limited buget, certian things have to be taken under consideration..
an air force to inhance New Zeland's coastal patrol ability??
help its allies over seas fight terrorism/axis of evil?
I think the given buget $3-4billion seems to be little less for the air force to stand up alone in today's conflicts. Australia on the other hand who enjoys a good relation ship with Kiwis should have a military pact, accourding to my knowledge i dont think they have one yet. RAAF already has a plan to modernize its air force with mainly F-35, with a very high prise tag of $120 million per unit!In my opinion New Zeland should hop in the program with Australia, with atlest 20% share...
takling of building New Zeland air force under a limited buget, certian things have to be taken under consideration..
an air force to inhance New Zeland's coastal patrol ability??
help its allies over seas fight terrorism/axis of evil?
I think the given buget $3-4billion seems to be little less for the air force to stand up alone in today's conflicts. Australia on the other hand who enjoys a good relation ship with Kiwis should have a military pact, accourding to my knowledge i dont think they have one yet. RAAF already has a plan to modernize its air force with mainly F-35, with a very high prise tag of $120 million per unit!In my opinion New Zeland should hop in the program with Australia, with atlest 20% share...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Rjmaz1, I never said we HAVE C-17's. I said we have invested in them. We don't have A330's yet either, though I said exactly the same thing about them...
The first C-17 in RAAF roundels is expected next month...
We have operated C-130J-30's from Richmond since 1997... Interestingly enough the very FIRST C-130J production aircraft was a RAAF aircraft...
As to NZ's operation of our C-130H's, articles I have read have indicated that at least 4x of RAAF's current C-130H's are so worn out as to be virtually impossible to continue to operate and un-economic to upgrade.
If true, NZ could select no more than 8 of these aircraft to take on board. Quite away from the 20 you propose, which I think in any event is unlikely.
A fleet of 8-10 would be about the most I would expect to see in RNZAF service...
Aussie Digger mentioned a glaring hole in capabilities.
That is exactly the point.
Let's say New Zeeland does not have a clealy defined defence scenario - which probably is the case - this scenario will eventually come up. Tibet tried to have a country so unattractive that nobody would make war with them - that tactic did not work as China occupied them and is still exploiting them in the most vicious way.
During the cold way the official Danish defence budget was very low because the Nato partners were very interested in the continued existence of the country - after the cold war our defence expenditure has gone UP.
So let's make one thing perfectly clear: In order to remain a nation there must be the ability to defend yourself when the need arises - otherwise New Zeeland will end up as another Northern Terrirtory of Australia at some point in time - which may or may not be the desireable, that is for New Zeeland to decide.
If continued independence is a goal, there is a minimum requirements that at all times must be met.
A nation must have the ability to formate the necessary armed formations within the time limit of the strategic warning time.
As seeing much further than 10 years into the future is budgeting with the aid of God - which any accountant will tell you is the safest way - to disaster.
Secondly the 10 year period is the period need from decision to invest in say a new fighter - till that fighter is operational in every sense of the word.
This means: A nation has to have the ability to formate operational indenpendency within 10 years. This means:
Army: An Army Corps within 10 years.
Navy: A Fleet with same period - that is at least 3 mutually supportive ships operating indefinately.
Air Force: Full line within 10 years. Transport, fighter/attack/recce, patrol, Sam.
Thsi means You have to have the trained experts, that are to train the new recruts to. From 1933 to 1939 it took Germany 6 years to accomplish the jump of one organisatorial level - though 2 should have been done, as their problems with logistics showed.
This means every major arm has to be represented at at least the lowest comanding level:
Army: A company.
Navy: A frigate, a patroller, a MMB to mention some.
Air Force: A flight.
As we are talking air force here: The minimum requirement is:
A squadron of aircraft with a flight each of attack, fighter and recce.
A squadron of other fixed wing: a flight of transports, one of patrol.
A Squadron of rotary wing: Flight of SAR, Flight of transport and a flight of combat helicopters.
If we are talking of a capability maintainence it is not essential it is the latest model.
Where you may skimp is on the equipment: As long as you can train
That is exactly the point.
Let's say New Zeeland does not have a clealy defined defence scenario - which probably is the case - this scenario will eventually come up. Tibet tried to have a country so unattractive that nobody would make war with them - that tactic did not work as China occupied them and is still exploiting them in the most vicious way.
During the cold way the official Danish defence budget was very low because the Nato partners were very interested in the continued existence of the country - after the cold war our defence expenditure has gone UP.
So let's make one thing perfectly clear: In order to remain a nation there must be the ability to defend yourself when the need arises - otherwise New Zeeland will end up as another Northern Terrirtory of Australia at some point in time - which may or may not be the desireable, that is for New Zeeland to decide.
If continued independence is a goal, there is a minimum requirements that at all times must be met.
A nation must have the ability to formate the necessary armed formations within the time limit of the strategic warning time.
As seeing much further than 10 years into the future is budgeting with the aid of God - which any accountant will tell you is the safest way - to disaster.
Secondly the 10 year period is the period need from decision to invest in say a new fighter - till that fighter is operational in every sense of the word.
This means: A nation has to have the ability to formate operational indenpendency within 10 years. This means:
Army: An Army Corps within 10 years.
Navy: A Fleet with same period - that is at least 3 mutually supportive ships operating indefinately.
Air Force: Full line within 10 years. Transport, fighter/attack/recce, patrol, Sam.
Thsi means You have to have the trained experts, that are to train the new recruts to. From 1933 to 1939 it took Germany 6 years to accomplish the jump of one organisatorial level - though 2 should have been done, as their problems with logistics showed.
This means every major arm has to be represented at at least the lowest comanding level:
Army: A company.
Navy: A frigate, a patroller, a MMB to mention some.
Air Force: A flight.
As we are talking air force here: The minimum requirement is:
A squadron of aircraft with a flight each of attack, fighter and recce.
A squadron of other fixed wing: a flight of transports, one of patrol.
A Squadron of rotary wing: Flight of SAR, Flight of transport and a flight of combat helicopters.
If we are talking of a capability maintainence it is not essential it is the latest model.
Where you may skimp is on the equipment: As long as you can train
Its not that New Zealand isn't desireable, its the fact that no country has the ability to attack it on short notice.
You cant compare the country to Tibet, which shares land borders with other countries.
Very few air forces have the ability to even reach NZ. A naval attack would be the only possibility, they'd have plenty of warning if this was the case.
You cant compare the country to Tibet, which shares land borders with other countries.
Very few air forces have the ability to even reach NZ. A naval attack would be the only possibility, they'd have plenty of warning if this was the case.
But - and this is the point - You have to predict the threat in 10 years!
You can do that with some assurance; but the threat in 25 years????
If You look at the Baltic nations. They are building a defence from scratch - with all the help in the world. They have been doing this for 15 years; but they are at least 10 years from having a real effective defence.
You can do that with some assurance; but the threat in 25 years????
If You look at the Baltic nations. They are building a defence from scratch - with all the help in the world. They have been doing this for 15 years; but they are at least 10 years from having a real effective defence.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #20
I think the RNZAF could do it in a much shorter time. From what you have said, I think they should build a new base and buy some super tucanos (or similar). Once the pilots excell in these air craft, a light jet should be purchase (16-22). This should give NZ some strike capibility. It would allow for a pilot and support training to set up. Then when the structure is flowing, they could purchase 28+ second hand fighters. This could be done in under 5years if the money is put straight in and the government backs it. Agree?