Royal New Zealand Air Force

[ngatimozart]

I like the C-2, this along with the P1 would make a nice buy for NZ, as the Japanese are itching for an export order for both types we'd probably get a good deal.

Yep, I quite like the C-2 as well and it's of a similar price to the A400M. I think that the C-2 would be a less risky acquisition compared to the A400M. Regarding the P-1, my own opinion is that the P-8 is a better acquisition, however the P-1 appears to be no slouch either.

From the political point of view, a Japanese acquisition could be quite attractive, because it will help with trade negotiations, sending a diplomatic message to Japan about our seriousness regarding our relationship with Japan and I think that it will help on the defence diplomacy front with Japan. Whilst a trade agreement with the EU would be good, I think that a trade agreement with Japan is of higher importance because they are a big market and we will most likely have more to do with Japan as time progresses.

 

[KH-12]

Yep, I quite like the C-2 as well and it's of a similar price to the A400M. I think that the C-2 would be a less risky acquisition compared to the A400M. Regarding the P-1, my own opinion is that the P-8 is a better acquisition, however the P-1 appears to be no slouch either.

From the political point of view, a Japanese acquisition could be quite attractive, because it will help with trade negotiations, sending a diplomatic message to Japan about our seriousness regarding our relationship with Japan and I think that it will help on the defence diplomacy front with Japan. Whilst a trade agreement with the EU would be good, I think that a trade agreement with Japan is of higher importance because they are a big market and we will most likely have more to do with Japan as time progresses.

The C2 also has a better speed/range which will give better return options on the Antartic support flights

 

[Lgjonesxjs]

Yep, I quite like the C-2 as well and it's of a similar price to the A400M. I think that the C-2 would be a less risky acquisition compared to the A400M. Regarding the P-1, my own opinion is that the P-8 is a better acquisition, however the P-1 appears to be no slouch either.

From the political point of view, a Japanese acquisition could be quite attractive, because it will help with trade negotiations, sending a diplomatic message to Japan about our seriousness regarding our relationship with Japan and I think that it will help on the defence diplomacy front with Japan. Whilst a trade agreement with the EU would be good, I think that a trade agreement with Japan is of higher importance because they are a big market and we will most likely have more to do with Japan as time progresses.

I agree, the c-2 meets the needs of the RNZAF with the possible exception of inability to handle unprepared airstrips, There are conflicting reports on this. A website which says it can operate from unprepared runways is military today, however flight global says it cannot. If someone can clarify this point that in it self will be helpful. The a400m on the other hand absolutely can operate from unprepared strips and is slightly larger. However the c-2 is faster and has greater range. I also thought it was going to be cheaper than an a400m. It should be especially if it is bundled with a P1 purchase. Like you though for ease of interoperability I favour the P8. Maybe there would be enough left in the kitty to finance a pair of used a330 MRTT conversions (I am sure the Australians would approve that purchase when on joint exercise) Regarding the ACF are the Australians going to gift us FA18's? or sell them to us at give away pricing. The thing that might kill that from a government perspective will be their operating cost which is more than $US12, 000 P/Hour. Twin engine really drives up the operating cost per hour that's why we ended up with A-4's and not F-4's and why the Australian's Paid half the o/c of the said A-4's to be based at Nowra for training with the RAN. A cheaper alternative might be the latest export Gripens costing $US30-60 million each but an o/c of may be $US3, 000 P/Hour.
Your thoughts please.

 

[aussienscale]

Just my two cents, putting aside all the "ifs and butts" re ACF, but any talk of old 18's if just a waste of time and money if it was an option, as I believe is any talk on the 16's as well.

If you want an ACF, you need to look as something that is not only reasonably new/ish in not only airframe hours, but design. More importantly survivable as well. While I also understand the talk on a Hawk 200 or T 50 it really would only be a capability in name only, for the sake of it for lack of a better description. As was the A4 at the end of its life.

Once again just my thoughts, but would something along the lines of the Gripen be more suitable and applicable for NZ ? I do realise there is a lot more to it than that, but as a bit of a reality check ?

Cheers

 

[John Fedup]

Given the budget restraints, buying used is apparently the only way a ACF can proceed. Used airframes seems reasonable as the goal is to develop/restore the necessary skills to get back in the ACF arena. Down the road new Gripens would be a reasonable and affordable choice for NZ.

 

[MrConservative]

Regarding the ACF are the Australians going to gift us FA18's? or sell them to us at give away pricing.

If it happens it would be a commercial transaction and transfer. We will know the ballpark figure when the Canadian offer is publicly released.

The thing that might kill that from a government perspective will be their operating cost which is more than $US12, 000 P/Hour. Twin engine really drives up the operating cost per hour that's why we ended up with A-4's and not F-4's and why the Australian's Paid half the o/c of the said A-4's to be based at Nowra for training with the RAN. A cheaper alternative might be the latest export Gripens costing $US30-60 million each but an o/c of may be $US3, 000 P/Hour.
Your thoughts please.

Gripens are not a cheaper alternative. Look into the proposed Botswana deal to find the true acquisition cost of eight older JAS-39 C/D's at $725m with an option for either 4 or 8 more. Gripens have a quoted low cpfh but the measurement of that matrix can be very inconsistent - USD$3000 would hardly cover an hours fuel burn. The Danish fighter run-off which has been one of the more comprehensive recent fighter evaluations had the Gripen CPFH somewhat more. Some report have stated USD$7700 CPFH which seems realistic enough other USD$4700. The cost of the capability is a better measure.

Lets say the JAS Gripen average cost per flight hour is AUD$5000 (very generous - the A4K cost NZD$15000 CPFH in 2001) and the aircraft flies 170 hours per year. With a short Squadron of 8 airframes flying 1360 hours per year that would cost AUD$6,800,000. But these aircraft realistically cost USD$90.6m each or USD$725m for 8. That is a lot of money to simply rebuild a capability to get from CRAWL to WALK and who knows if it is the right capability for us in the medium term. I frankly do not think it is.

The operational cost of the 71 legacy RAAF Hornets are $189m per the official OZ 2017 budget. It is obviously a fairly comprehensive calculation and I would suggest that would hold greater accuracy in establishing true costs that a desktop review by Janes. The difference is that the ADF measures the cost of the capability and not the costs involved in operating the individual aircraft. The flight or mission profile dramatically changes fuel burn for example.

The RAAF F/A-18's cost AUD$2.8m per airframe to operate each year ($189m divided by 71 airframes) as a capability buy. Flying the same number of aircraft 8# as the Gripen example noted above - the same number of annual hours would mean it would cost AUD$21.2m per year - however the actual acquisition cost of the F/A-18's will likely be dramatically less than the USD$90.2m for the Gripen. As a MDE article when they were bought new in the late 1980's their book value was around US$27m - chances are that with current book value with depreciation may be a fraction of that. The potential legacy Hornet buyers list under US ITAR's is also restrictive. Over the last 12 months the legacy Hornets have flown 16000 hours costing an output of AUD$189m - this would put the capability cost at AUD$11,812 CPFH.

In the mid 1980's the RNZAF bought 10 ex RAN Skyhawks for NZD$24m plus another NZD$16m in spares, manuals, documentation, hand over and transfer, weapon stocks. The cost of the legacy Hornets per unit will in my view likely be in single digit millions. Even with a C+ style SLEP they will still be a fraction of other options.

And Sweden is a long way to go for a training detachment which with the Hornets could mean that at least a couples of years potential 2OCU time at Williamstown learning off the current owners - a huge advantage.

 

[Rob c]

If it happens it would be a commercial transaction and transfer. We will know the ballpark figure when the Canadian offer is publicly released.



Gripens are not a cheaper alternative. Look into the proposed Botswana deal to find the true acquisition cost of eight older JAS-39 C/D's at $725m with an option for either 4 or 8 more. Gripens have a quoted low cpfh but the measurement of that matrix can be very inconsistent - USD$3000 would hardly cover an hours fuel burn. The Danish fighter run-off which has been one of the more comprehensive recent fighter evaluations had the Gripen CPFH somewhat more. Some report have stated USD$7700 CPFH which seems realistic enough other USD$4700. The cost of the capability is a better measure.

Lets say the JAS Gripen average cost per flight hour is AUD$5000 (very generous - the A4K cost NZD$15000 CPFH in 2001) and the aircraft flies 170 hours per year. With a short Squadron of 8 airframes flying 1360 hours per year that would cost AUD$6,800,000. But these aircraft realistically cost USD$90.6m each or USD$725m for 8. That is a lot of money to simply rebuild a capability to get from CRAWL to WALK and who knows if it is the right capability for us in the medium term. I frankly do not think it is.

The operational cost of the 71 legacy RAAF Hornets are $189m per the official OZ 2017 budget. It is obviously a fairly comprehensive calculation and I would suggest that would hold greater accuracy in establishing true costs that a desktop review by Janes. The difference is that the ADF measures the cost of the capability and not the costs involved in operating the individual aircraft. The flight or mission profile dramatically changes fuel burn for example.

The RAAF F/A-18's cost AUD$2.8m per airframe to operate each year ($189m divided by 71 airframes) as a capability buy. Flying the same number of aircraft 8# as the Gripen example noted above - the same number of annual hours would mean it would cost AUD$21.2m per year - however the actual acquisition cost of the F/A-18's will likely be dramatically less than the USD$90.2m for the Gripen. As a MDE article when they were bought new in the late 1980's their book value was around US$27m - chances are that with current book value with depreciation may be a fraction of that. The potential legacy Hornet buyers list under US ITAR's is also restrictive. Over the last 12 months the legacy Hornets have flown 16000 hours costing an output of AUD$189m - this would put the capability cost at AUD$11,812 CPFH.

In the mid 1980's the RNZAF bought 10 ex RAN Skyhawks for NZD$24m plus another NZD$16m in spares, manuals, documentation, hand over and transfer, weapon stocks. The cost of the legacy Hornets per unit will in my view likely be in single digit millions. Even with a C+ style SLEP they will still be a fraction of other options.

And Sweden is a long way to go for a training detachment which with the Hornets could mean that at least a couples of years potential 2OCU time at Williamstown learning off the current owners - a huge advantage.

The Aussie F18 represents a logical way of progress at a reasonable cost, while I would like a new aircraft like the FA50, the probable low capital cost (including depreciation and capital charge) involved with the F18, would counter the higher operating costs over the likely life of the aircraft. What we must remember is that we are talking about a TRANSITIONAL phase so keeping this in mind there is no requirement for a high end fully combat capable aircraft at this time, rather something that we can relearn the art and may be useful in a low to medium threat environment. We are not at this stage wanting the end product, but something to start the ball rolling at an affordable cost.

 

[t68]

Also using the ex RAAF aircraft they certainty wont be an orphan fleet, I believe the Swiss and Spaniards are planning on replacement aircraft in the 2025/30 timeframe, so there may be some limited future upgrades still to come yet

 

[Shanesworld]

Also using the ex RAAF aircraft they certainty wont be an orphan fleet, I believe the Swiss and Spaniards are planning on replacement aircraft in the 2025/30 timeframe, so there may be some limited future upgrades still to come yet

With the mention of SAABs products, we could look at a purchase and integration 9f the Arexis pods. That would certainly enhance the survivability and usefulness of these platforms.

 

[Gibbo]

P8's

Hmmm, after reading this I'm now far from convinced National buying the P8 was by any stretch a certainty National leaves Labour with a $20 billion bill

I seem to remember a comment on a forum somewhere (maybe here!?!) that Oz got wind of Clark's Govt toying with the idea of not replacing the P3 with similar capability and made noises about reserving the right to fly fully armed anti-sub patrols across our airspace (don't quote on that though). I certainly think Oz would be quick to say something now if that was suggested.


p.s. sorry link won't post properly

 

[MrConservative]

Hmmm, after reading this I'm now far from convinced National buying the P8 was by any stretch a certainty... http://politik.co.nz/en/content/politics/1241/National-leaves-Labour-with-a-$20-billion-bill-Defence-capital-expenditure-budget-Grant-Robertson-Steven-Joyce.htm

I seem to remember a comment on a forum somewhere (maybe here!?!) that Oz got wind of Clark's Govt toying with the idea of not replacing the P3 with similar capability and made noises about reserving the right to fly fully armed anti-sub patrols across our airspace (don't quote on that though). I certainly think Oz would be quick to say something now if that was suggested.

p.s. sorry link won't post properly

They were going down that route (The partnership optics to do so are very significantly favourable and the opportunity cost not to do so are exponentially more costly than the US1.4B buy over time) - it was all about the timing of paying the money over as keeping the books looking good is nearly the be and end all just like the C-17 f-up. Ideally the Nats did not want to 'borrow' to buy - same issue. The years 2020/21 are the crunch point - the C-130 replacement and having to bring forward the P-8 into that fiscal timeframe. The surpluses envisaged during that period were always going to pay for it.

Joyce is now turning the knife on Labour / putting pressure on NZ First to walk the talk regarding defence. Labour this week came out as saying the the $20 billion spend was a key aspect of the coalition deal. It is all a National plan to paint the current government into a corner. The P-8 is long term grown up policy stuff - giving a years tertiary education to middle class 18 year old is not.

Joyce saying that the money was not there is part of the BS spin - of course we do not have $20B already tucked away (no government does) - of course their is not precision spending in detail. The $20B are costed estimates which have been around for a number of years in Cabinet papers and since Wayne Mapp overhauled the defence acquisition system and introduced more accurate business case funding models more recent NZDF acquisitions have been far more accurate.

The opposition are out to paint the current Government as amateur virtue signallers with no idea of international relations or maintaining the value of security partnerships.

 

[John Newman]

And Sweden is a long way to go for a training detachment which with the Hornets could mean that at least a couples of years potential 2OCU time at Williamstown learning off the current owners - a huge advantage.

Mr C,

Beyond the obvious first steps of the NZG deciding to re-establish an ACF, and coming to an agreement with the Australian Government for X number of Classic Hornet airframes, spares, simulators, etc, etc.

I certainly have questions in regard to the timing for such a thing to happen, questions such as when will enough F-35A airframes be in RAAF service to even consider 'releasing' part of the Classic Hornet fleet for possible resale (regardless of if NZ or Canada or both wanted to procure those airframes).

I'm certainly happy to see the Classic airframes find a new home with either or both of our Kiwi or Canuck cousins, but 'not' until we are finished with them, and I especially would like to see the 'best of the best' airframes stay in Oz until the end of the transition too.

As I understand it, the production/delivery schedule of F-35A airframes to the RAAF is as follows:

* 2 - (2014) – AU-1 and -2 to the training squadron in the US
* 8 - (2018) – six airframes to join -1 and -2 at the US training Squadron, and two direct to Australia by end of 2018
* 8 - (2019) – Direct to Australia
* 15 - (2020) – Direct to Australia
* 15 - (2021) – Direct to Australia
* 15 - (2022) – Direct to Australia
* 9 - (2023) – Direct to Australia (and by end of 2023 the 8 US based airframes used for training to also arrive in Australia).

To go a step further, the distribution of F-35A airframes, by years end between 2018 and 2023, is as follows:
* 2018 - 2 in Australia - 8 in US
* 2019 - 10 in Australia - 8 in US
* 2020 - 25 in Australia - 8 in US
* 2021 - 40 in Australia - 8 in US
* 2022 - 55 in Australia - 8 in US
* 2023 - 72 in Australia

My understanding is that the order of transition for the 4 RAAF Classic Hornet Squadrons is, 3Sqn, 2OCU, 77Sqn and lastly Tindal based 75Sqn. IOC is planned for 2020 and FOC by 2023.

I can't find the dates that each of the Squadrons start their transition, but you would expect that sometime next year (2018) we might hear the news that 3 Sqn will 'park' its Classic airframes to start the transition process.

It was also my understanding that those parked airframes would go into the 'pool' of airframes available for use by the remaining Squadrons until the transition was completed.

So this is the question, at what point does the RAAF have enough F-35A airframes in its possession (and at what level of operational use), before it can comfortably start to allow Classic Hornet airframes be released for resale??


Maybe I'm being a bit 'conservative' here, but looking at the delivery schedule of the F-35A airframes to Australia, and the transition order of the four Squadrons, I don't know that I would be too happy to see the Australian Government 'offloading' Classic airframes until late 2021 or so at the earliest.

Maybe I'm being a bit over cautious, but in the past the RAAF has not disposed of the 'replaced' airframes until after all of the new fleet is delivered.

From memory, none of the Mirage airframes left Australia until all the new Classic fleet was in service, and going back even further, I don't think any of the Sabre fleet left Australia until all of the Mirage were delivered too.

Again, maybe I'm being a bit conservative and over cautious, happy to see NZ re-establish an ACF, I just don't want to see the RAAF get caught short, if there are any issues arising from the transition (not that I'm expecting any either).

Cheers,

 

[koala]

Mr C,

Beyond the obvious first steps of the NZG deciding to re-establish an ACF, and coming to an agreement with the Australian Government for X number of Classic Hornet airframes, spares, simulators, etc, etc.

I certainly have questions in regard to the timing for such a thing to happen, questions such as when will enough F-35A airframes be in RAAF service to even consider 'releasing' part of the Classic Hornet fleet for possible resale (regardless of if NZ or Canada or both wanted to procure those airframes).

I'm certainly happy to see the Classic airframes find a new home with either or both of our Kiwi or Canuck cousins, but 'not' until we are finished with them, and I especially would like to see the 'best of the best' airframes stay in Oz until the end of the transition too.

As I understand it, the production/delivery schedule of F-35A airframes to the RAAF is as follows:

* 2 - (2014) – AU-1 and -2 to the training squadron in the US
* 8 - (2018) – six airframes to join -1 and -2 at the US training Squadron, and two direct to Australia by end of 2018
* 8 - (2019) – Direct to Australia
* 15 - (2020) – Direct to Australia
* 15 - (2021) – Direct to Australia
* 15 - (2022) – Direct to Australia
* 9 - (2023) – Direct to Australia (and by end of 2023 the 8 US based airframes used for training to also arrive in Australia).

To go a step further, the distribution of F-35A airframes, by years end between 2018 and 2023, is as follows:
* 2018 - 2 in Australia - 8 in US
* 2019 - 10 in Australia - 8 in US
* 2020 - 25 in Australia - 8 in US
* 2021 - 40 in Australia - 8 in US
* 2022 - 55 in Australia - 8 in US
* 2023 - 72 in Australia

My understanding is that the order of transition for the 4 RAAF Classic Hornet Squadrons is, 3Sqn, 2OCU, 77Sqn and lastly Tindal based 75Sqn. IOC is planned for 2020 and FOC by 2023.

I can't find the dates that each of the Squadrons start their transition, but you would expect that sometime next year (2018) we might hear the news that 3 Sqn will 'park' its Classic airframes to start the transition process.

It was also my understanding that those parked airframes would go into the 'pool' of airframes available for use by the remaining Squadrons until the transition was completed.

So this is the question, at what point does the RAAF have enough F-35A airframes in its possession (and at what level of operational use), before it can comfortably start to allow Classic Hornet airframes be released for resale??


Maybe I'm being a bit 'conservative' here, but looking at the delivery schedule of the F-35A airframes to Australia, and the transition order of the four Squadrons, I don't know that I would be too happy to see the Australian Government 'offloading' Classic airframes until late 2021 or so at the earliest.

Maybe I'm being a bit over cautious, but in the past the RAAF has not disposed of the 'replaced' airframes until after all of the new fleet is delivered.

From memory, none of the Mirage airframes left Australia until all the new Classic fleet was in service, and going back even further, I don't think any of the Sabre fleet left Australia until all of the Mirage were delivered too.

Again, maybe I'm being a bit conservative and over cautious, happy to see NZ re-establish an ACF, I just don't want to see the RAAF get caught short, if there are any issues arising from the transition (not that I'm expecting any either).

Cheers,

This actually might be an ideal time to start bringing our Kiwi cousin pilots and maintainers over and start them on there transition and training on the F18 classics whilst our team is transitioning to the F35, could be a win win

 

[south]

I see a lot of comment on here about getting Pilots from the 5 eyes community. Be prepared for the RNZAF to either pay plenty of $$$ for it or be disappointed. The RAF, RAAF, RCAF and USAF are all suffering from a shortage of fighter pilots. There are plenty of references to this online if you are prepared to search.

Additionally- the RAF and RAAF have very little to no spare training capacity both on hawks and frontline types. They are busy training their own guys to fill the above shortage. Further - 2OCU are out of the Classic Hornet business in 2020 (see link)- I would suggest there isn’t enough time to get a single Kiwi through before then, assuming they have to perform a LIF course. (https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=b2b1ed75-dc16-447a-a878-b8670edb674d&subId=254100). There may be slots available st the NFTC in Canada for Hawk students.

 

[Todjaeger]

I see a lot of comment on here about getting Pilots from the 5 eyes community. Be prepared for the RNZAF to either pay plenty of $$$ for it or be disappointed. The RAF, RAAF, RCAF and USAF are all suffering from a shortage of fighter pilots. There are plenty of references to this online if you are prepared to search.

Any idea on how long the pilot shortage is projected to last? If the time frame is expected to be several years (5+), then this could provide a mutually beneficial opportunity.

 

[Lgjonesxjs]

Any idea on how long the pilot shortage is projected to last? If the time frame is expected to be several years (5+), then this could provide a mutually beneficial opportunity.

Further to that we are making an assumption that these pilots will want to return home. The only reason we are discussing it is because we have a defence Minister that supports it and that as we know is far from the natural state of things with the NZ Labour party. But look at the opportunities the potential pilot has in moving to NZ, 1 of 10-20? pilots competing to fly 8-10 airframes of a type that while still capable is obsolete. While if he stays in the RAAF there is the possibility of flying Super Hornet or growlers or even F35's. RAF pilots would be flying Tornado's but these are/have been phased out in favour of the Typhoon, reputably one of the most agile fighters in the world, also F35's. Thats just the fun side what about career opportunities. Assume you got ex RAAF and RAF pilots at say Flying officer rank, what is the potential for advancement for an ACF with 8-10 airframes? 2 squadron leaders 4 Flight Lieutenant's and the rest assorted Flying officers and even Pilot officers. In short a very competitive field for advancement. So in short this doesn't look like a wonderful career move for a young aviator still near the start of his/her careers.

 

[Todjaeger]

Further to that we are making an assumption that these pilots will want to return home. The only reason we are discussing it is because we have a defence Minister that supports it and that as we know is far from the natural state of things with the NZ Labour party. But look at the opportunities the potential pilot has in moving to NZ, 1 of 10-20? pilots competing to fly 8-10 airframes of a type that while still capable is obsolete. While if he stays in the RAAF there is the possibility of flying Super Hornet or growlers or even F35's. RAF pilots would be flying Tornado's but these are/have been phased out in favour of the Typhoon, reputably one of the most agile fighters in the world, also F35's. Thats just the fun side what about career opportunities. Assume you got ex RAAF and RAF pilots at say Flying officer rank, what is the potential for advancement for an ACF with 8-10 airframes? 2 squadron leaders 4 Flight Lieutenant's and the rest assorted Flying officers and even Pilot officers. In short a very competitive field for advancement. So in short this doesn't look like a wonderful career move for a young aviator still near the start of his/her careers.

Honestly I never considered F/A-18 A/B Hornets viable for the RNZAF.

What might be viable (with a whole pile of if, ands, & buts) would be for some Kiwi pilots to get seconded to other air services like the RAAF, RAF, RCAF, USAF, or USN FAA for multi-year deployments, perhaps 3-5 year periods. They would remain RNZAF personnel, but be operating in various needed roles for the service they were attached to. Operating in this cooperative fashion could help fill some of the gaps in friendly & allied services while giving Kiwi personnel access to training and at least as important operational experience. If this is done on a rotating basis, it could gradually build up a core group of Kiwi pilots who would have many skills needed for an ACF.

But this would likely be gradual work, which could be problematic after any changes in gov't.

 

[MrConservative]

I see a lot of comment on here about getting Pilots from the 5 eyes community. Be prepared for the RNZAF to either pay plenty of $$$ for it or be disappointed. The RAF, RAAF, RCAF and USAF are all suffering from a shortage of fighter pilots. There are plenty of references to this online if you are prepared to search.

Additionally- the RAF and RAAF have very little to no spare training capacity both on hawks and frontline types. They are busy training their own guys to fill the above shortage. Further - 2OCU are out of the Classic Hornet business in 2020 (see link)- I would suggest there isn’t enough time to get a single Kiwi through before then, assuming they have to perform a LIF course. (https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=b2b1ed75-dc16-447a-a878-b8670edb674d&subId=254100). There may be slots available st the NFTC in Canada for Hawk students.

If Mr Mark wants to get that short squadron of ten legacy Hornets that he is proposing that is exactly what he would have to do - hand over cash.

I am aware of the fast air pilot amongst 5 Eyes nations shortage - and it may well be one of the benefits of getting the RNZAF back into that business. Certainly better that all 5 are generating pilots numbers if their are shortages elsewhere.

If that does not happen the solution would be to put out an RFI to industry to search the world for a handful of Hornet QFI's plus a maintainers group from 5 Eyes countries who want to earn top coin in NZ under a commercial contract to supply the necessary services through a limited liability company to build up the capability over the interim with the NZDF/RNZAF.

Of course with the F-15's from Singapore likely to be arriving at OH on a permanent basis there is also an option to see where mutual benefit could be explored.

 

[MrConservative]

What might be viable (with a whole pile of if, ands, & buts) would be for some Kiwi pilots to get seconded to other air services like the RAAF, RAF, RCAF, USAF, or USN FAA for multi-year deployments, perhaps 3-5 year periods. They would remain RNZAF personnel, but be operating in various needed roles for the service they were attached to. Operating in this cooperative fashion could help fill some of the gaps in friendly & allied services while giving Kiwi personnel access to training and at least as important operational experience. If this is done on a rotating basis, it could gradually build up a core group of Kiwi pilots who would have many skills needed for an ACF.

But this would likely be gradual work, which could be problematic after any changes in gov't.

Have you also thought about the the RSAF option who are going into this business right here in NZ.

 

[Gibbo]

Have you also thought about the the RSAF option who are going into this business right here in NZ.

Has the Labour party ever made any public declaration in support of the RSAF proposal? I'm not aware of any - I know the local MP (Labour) before the election was very keen but until an official statement is made I won't hold my breath. I'm not doubting you MrC, just curious as to what support, or otherwise, the current Govt might have.