Price to build an airforce

[Aussie Digger]

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?

If the Government "threw" the budget out the window and devoted virtually unlimited resources to it, maybe...

I'd say yes to the jet trainer/light strike capability within 5 years, but not necessarily with an operational jet fighter, unless they chose the F/A-18 or similar and ran their entire force as a duplicate of an existing force...

It would mean virtually EVERYONE would have to be trained by a foreign force, something which is largely out of NZ's control.

 

[Whiskyjack]

If the Government "threw" the budget out the window and devoted virtually unlimited resources to it, maybe...

I'd say yes to the jet trainer/light strike capability within 5 years, but not necessarily with an operational jet fighter, unless they chose the F/A-18 or similar and ran their entire force as a duplicate of an existing force...

It would mean virtually EVERYONE would have to be trained by a foreign force, something which is largely out of NZ's control.

AD I agree with the direction of your first post above, the NZDF needs to look at arming the P-3 for strike, plus the armed util helos.

I would add from another thread that if NZ was looking at CAS out into the Pacific then my preference would actually be the AC-130. The threat is negligible compared to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the AC would provide the balance of fire power and persistence needed out into the Pacific, while being an asset for coalition and UN missions. However brand new we are talking close to $nz1 billion for two airframes!

With regards to the comments above, lets not forget that there are a few Kiwi's flying and serving as ground crew for the RAF, RAAF etc. that might come back the NZ to help build an air strike capability in a hurry if required. But while it may be flying in 3-5 years it will take 10-15 years IMHO before it catches up with the level of experience the RNZAF had disbanded on them in 2000.

 

[Big-E]

But while it may be flying in 3-5 years it will take 10-15 years IMHO before it catches up with the level of experience the RNZAF had disbanded on them in 2000.[/COLOR]

No doubt, the proficieny the RNZAF pilots had acquired was in a class of it's own. Now it is lost. This topic has really be one of posterity because it has been revisted every week since I signed up.

 

[Aussie Digger]

AD I agree with the direction of your first post above, the NZDF needs to look at arming the P-3 for strike, plus the armed util helos.

I would add from another thread that if NZ was looking at CAS out into the Pacific then my preference would actually be the AC-130. The threat is negligible compared to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the AC would provide the balance of fire power and persistence needed out into the Pacific, while being an asset for coalition and UN missions. However brand new we are talking close to $nz1 billion for two airframes!

With regards to the comments above, lets not forget that there are a few Kiwi's flying and serving as ground crew for the RAF, RAAF etc. that might come back the NZ to help build an air strike capability in a hurry if required. But while it may be flying in 3-5 years it will take 10-15 years IMHO before it catches up with the level of experience the RNZAF had disbanded on them in 2000.

I agree, I was referring to a possible timeframe for an IOC if you will. Genuine operational capability would take 10-15 years at least...

 

[Sea Toby]

Yes, it would take up to twenty years to train proficient fighter pilots if the process was kept in house. But there is another method in the corporate world which could be used to hire proficient fighter pilots and mechanics: Outsourcing! Simply hire them from abroad.

While I prefer the in house route, in a squeeze, outsourcing worked wonders for the British in the Battle of Britain.

 

[Ths]

The problem is not so much training a couple of high wage taxidrivers, but to get an air station with maintainence shops and the lot organised, get the airpower dimention into the staff planning and use the synergies.

To take an example from my own village (I'm beginning to sound like Miss Marple): There is a need for one test-pilot in Denmark - each generation. The rub is that when you need one, the one on the preceeding project has moved on and become a colonel in charge of an airstation.

Back when the F-16 was the hottest thing in town, Sven Hjort was the Danish testpilot on the project, when the Merlin started coming along he was in charge of Værløse Air Station (I don't know where he is today) - this kept some sort of continuity - just.

How dangereous the loss of continuity can be can be illustrated by the 1950'ies when the airforce was to be rebuild from scratch (and the only pilot with staff college background (Group Captain Kaj Birksted) was pushed aside by the incompetent old boys network (as far as I know). The accident rate for the F-84 Thunderjet was appaling - so terrible, in fact, that if you survived you were almost certain to make colonel - I've seen a few colonels whose only qualification was that they had not gotten themselves killed. Muxolls intimate relationship with the bottle kept him from the broad stripes - just, but he stayed colonel. In the end they had to hire a british air commodore just to clean up workshop procedure!

The army had their problems after the occupation: There were a bit to many officers that had followed the governments goading to join the Wehrmacht. This meant the officer corps was a lot of senile fogeys and inexperienced highschool kids. Then they had to recruit among the resistance fighters: Brave and resourcefull men no doubt at all; but the sharp end of the resistance (after the odd communists had been pruned) wasn't known for their strategic insight. This created considerable tension in the army and a pensioning off the resistance fighters as commanders in the HomeGuard. The positive was that these ex-resistance fighters - whatever military shortcomings they might have - created a solid popular support for defence - so solid that even the idiocies of the army could not destroy it. It did create general respect when a major general could defend a captain of modest social backgroud by saying: " As he himself had toted dead bodies in a concentration camp he would not place to much importance on a captain making a living flipping burger; but on the results he created."

The Navy got through the occupation in better shape than the 2 other branches: They had been sitting in the ports untill they littarely pull the plug on the entire navy - and skipped off to Sweden - which kept the officer corps reasonalbly intact. Among them Commander Kjølsen that was instrumental when Denmark joined Nato.

That the Danish armed forces survived was in no small measure due to the massive aid (not only of weapons) from our Nato allies.

That it why I think disbandment of major parts of services should only be done with the greatest caution - it could mean the end of your country.

 

[Waylander]

In the end it is nearly unimportant how many soldiers you train.
A small country will always have problems defeating a bigger one which is eager to invade it.
What should NZ do with their jets?
Armed P-3s are the best if it comes to patrol the huge sea areas of NZ.
You should not just waste money for the prestige of having a real air force.

 

[Ths]

Waylander.

There are three tings all nations must have in working order:
1. Trained personel
2. Reasonably modern weapons
3. Intact command structure

In 1914 we had all three, which dissuaded both England and Germany from invading.

In 1940 - in my view - the real problem was that we did not have modern weapons and could not buy them, as everybody else were rearming the best they could, and could not spare any weapons for others. Hence it did not serve any purpose to train soldiers on bows and arrows.

During the cold war we got a commandstructure and access to modern weapons, so we trained adequate personel - just.

Small nations survives because an invasion and occupation by a large nation cost the large nation more than the small nation is: worth to them plus give the other large nation(s) disadvantage.

A small nation can do little to influence the larger geopolitical issues; but can do a very large difference by the amount of trouble the give an agressor.

Britain made a huge mistake when they refused the Danish request for aid/alliance in 1938. Had we been in a position to delay the German march for Norway by just a few days, operation Weserübung would have collapsed - it was risky enough as it were - and to all intends and purposes put the German Navy out of action for about a year.

 

[Waylander]

Jup that's right.
The goal has to be to make an invasion too costly for a bigger country and be a bigger pain in the ass than the bigger country is willing to accept.

NZ is a very special small country. Du to its geographical position it is one of the unlikeliest places ever to be invaded by a bigger country (If the Aussies not turn mad over a lost cricket game ).
Many people are always talking about China for example.
But if you are realistic you see that China would first have to fight its way through the whole of south-east asia and there much more interesting and important hotspots for China than NZ.

The main task for an NZ air force is sea patrol and coast guard duties.
This is done most effectively and cost effective by using overhauled and armed P-3s (Maybe later a new model) and U(C)AVs.

 

[Imshi-Yallah]

Eeeeek, this topic is so familiar to me.
Except it's normally about the Irish Aircorps attaining a genuine combat aircraft ( the last true combat jet in service was the DeHavilland vampire which retired in the early 1970s and was only operated in training colours and comically small numbers 4-6 I think).

Generally speaking the consensus in the more reasoned discussions on this topic is that while the (re) establishment of an air defence/fast jet capability is desireable it is fairly far down the list of priorities for our military needs.

At the moment NZ is far ahead of us in these vital areas (Tactical transport helicopters, strategic resupply capability and MPA capability) so be grateful for what you've got.

Who knows, someday you may overtake us in the reverse arms race.

 

[Ths]

Waylander:

At the moment You are right - and You might be right in the long run as well.

The questions is:
If the world changes so much, as to have New Zealand develop a realistic defence scenario, then it is very much a question if New Zealand is relevant as a national entity. Something like the old joke: If Russian were able to see into the future they wouldn't understand it anyhow, as it would be in Chinese.