In reality NZ doesn't need much if anything. I think "a minimum level of air intercept and joint/OpFor training" is just about right. If NZ were to get a full blown fighter jet it would probably be a waste of money, as its not like NZ will be doing hardcore dogfights or anything. Air interception will probably be at the most. As a force that approached NZ with hostile intentions would probably be prepared anyway and a couple of fighters won't be able to stand in there way if they are that prepared. So yes... probably best to go with an advanced trainer, will help us (aus) as well if we can get the kiwi's back doing opfor.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Such a capability would still be a significant gain over what the NZDF currently has.
The corollary to the above argument that an RNZAF ACF is not likely to engage in dogfights is that AFAIK the RAAF fighter force has not engaged in dogfights or air combat with enemy fighters since Korea... By this argument it could taken that the RAAF could drop an air to air combat capability, but I do not think anyone would seriously suggest the ADF do that.
Now, I am about to bang on about something which I have done before, because it is still as true today as when I first did it. Everyone keeps on going on about things not being worthwhile because NZ is so far away, etc. Seriously, people need to stop thinking in such short, small and limited terms. Yes, NZ is far away, which does help defend against many threats directly against NZ. At the same time, those who can actually have the distance to NZ for a strike are sufficiently powerful and capable for Kiwi efforts to be almost meaningless. I have posted before, and unfortunately I am sure I will at some point be posting again, that direct attacks against NZ are the least likely, but by no means the only way which in which Kiwi interests can be harmed.
The NZDF needs to be reasonably capable of conducting military and naval operations in support of Kiwi interests, and the both means being trained to cooperate with coalition partners and use their capabilities, but also to provide some of those capabilities to coalition partners if and when needed. The fact that the NZDF essentially needed to 'borrow' some RAAF Hornets and pilots so that Kiwi troops preparing for a deployment would have training and experience working with and making use of air support highlights a significant and potentially fatal gap within the NZDF.
In addition, an area of major importance in maintaining the safety and security of NZ is maintaining the safety and security of major Kiwi friends, allies and partners. The closest major one of course being Australia, but as it stands, if some incident or event occurred and Australia needed to call upon NZ for help covering a temporary gap in ADF capabilities, NZ would be hard pressed to do so except for loaming HMNZS Canterbury to cover an ADF sealift shortfall. While I do not expect that Kiwi fighters would be needed to provide air intercept over parts of Australia, or maritime strike or some other similar mission, it would be nice if such options were in the tool chest.
-Cheers
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,163
I tend to agree NZ doesn't need much and from that perspective an modified version of an early 80's defence force would be ideal.
I agree mostly with Todjaeger's post that the defence of NZ doesn't mean that NZ interest can be harmed further afeild and therefore NZ intervention maybe required overseas. However any defence equipment must focus on the security of NZ first. I consider the security of NZ is the primary consitiutional role of the NZDF and other matters are secondary to that. I do however accept that the meaning of security is wider today for most defence forces than has traditionally been the case.
If you define the role of the ACF in light of recent history. In the case of the Rainbow Warrior (Its recent for me). It was said a French Carrier Group was in the Indian Ocean and a Sub did sail from New Caledonia. In the case of operations in East Timor and Afganistain Close Air Support was a requirement.
On that basis I woud list the priority for any ACF as
- Maritime Strike with secondary Air Defence. Given however that most fighters today are multirole you'd end up with both anyway. Even if we can't make air equality in numbers we can at least make them wet their pants.
- Close Air Support and on that basis I would suggest slower training aircraft such as the MB-339 (Lets just pay RR the 20million for ongoing support or re-engine).
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Absolutely, the NZDF needs to look after the security of NZ first. Unfortunately from my perspective, much of that looking appears to have been only out as far as the edge of the EEZ. Having done that and not seen any real threats, then choices were made to have the NZDF re-roled from defending NZ against 'non-existant' threats to having a peace-keeping/constabulary force for UN deployments. Keep in mind I do not feel this shortness of vision is the fault of NZDF personnel, but more members of Gov't who would be responsible for making decisions on policy.
My point about having kit available to use with/for allies was more along the lines of forces available for deployment away from NZ to keep SLOC open. It would be rather difficult for an enemy to cut the SLOC to NZ, since there is such open approaches to NZ. To do so, a concentration of forces hard up against NZ would be needed. Or alternately, the SLOC could potentially be cut at chokepoints on the other end or somewhere in-between. If NZ had forces which could be used to aid in keeping open, or re-opening closed chokepoints, or be able to provide a covering force to allow an allow to take action at the chokepoint. Not unlike how the RNZN took up some slack from the RN, allowing the RN to re-deploy a vessel during the 1982 Falklands War.
-Cheers
Tod , a perfect summary , well said.
NZ needs to consider how it can contribute to regional actions if need be.
Events far from NZ shores can have a massive effect domestically. This is the key point.
Make a meaningful contribution with allies. It's not about whether or not NZ is ever going to be invaded.
NZ needs to consider how it can contribute to regional actions if need be.
Events far from NZ shores can have a massive effect domestically. This is the key point.
Make a meaningful contribution with allies. It's not about whether or not NZ is ever going to be invaded.
Todjaeger, sorry I should have made the financing clear, I wasn't expecting the the USG to pick up the tab but to facilitate the financing with the NZG paying in full over time. I totally agree with regard the KIA TA50, but I mentioned the Hawk T2 because it would appeal to the baser nature of Kiwi polis - cheap.
If I can go back to the DWP of 2010, it list a series of core NZ defence policies in order of priority.
1. To defend NZ from attack etc.
2. To treat any attack on Australia as an attack on NZ and to go to Australia's immediate aid.
If the RNZAF has an ACF that say was like 75 Sqn & 2 Sqn which were specialists in CAS and maritime strike, then it is a role that can slot in with the RAAF and any other allied force. Kiwis forget that 95% of our trade is maritime and the perception is that we might be a long way from any potential enemy. That perception is a fallacy because modern weapons systems have a long reach. Our first line of defence is not the EEZ, it is as far north of Darwin as we and the Australians can make it. To the east it is Rapa Nui (Easter Island). To the west it is the far side of the Indian Ocean, South Africa. To the south it is Antarctica. That is IMHO why we need a ACF that is as good as, if not better than, what 75 Sqn and 2 Sqn were before Helen Clark castrated the RNZAF in 2001.
If I can go back to the DWP of 2010, it list a series of core NZ defence policies in order of priority.
1. To defend NZ from attack etc.
2. To treat any attack on Australia as an attack on NZ and to go to Australia's immediate aid.
If the RNZAF has an ACF that say was like 75 Sqn & 2 Sqn which were specialists in CAS and maritime strike, then it is a role that can slot in with the RAAF and any other allied force. Kiwis forget that 95% of our trade is maritime and the perception is that we might be a long way from any potential enemy. That perception is a fallacy because modern weapons systems have a long reach. Our first line of defence is not the EEZ, it is as far north of Darwin as we and the Australians can make it. To the east it is Rapa Nui (Easter Island). To the west it is the far side of the Indian Ocean, South Africa. To the south it is Antarctica. That is IMHO why we need a ACF that is as good as, if not better than, what 75 Sqn and 2 Sqn were before Helen Clark castrated the RNZAF in 2001.
With the A4Ks I think we had all up about 15 at a guess so maybe 15, 20 at the very outside. They would have to be CAS so strictly air to air is no good. F35 is way out of the picture. Shornets would be ideal for more reasons than 1 but cost would be huge factor. Having said that the advantage of the shornet is the logistics and support side because of the RAAF setup and the USN supply train. Things like 100 hour maintenance checks etc., can be contracted out. Personally I like the navalised Typhoon but that would not be practical.
t68
Well-Known Member
This is one area that I believe Australia should endeavour to help our Kiwi brother regain ACF.
If the Kiwi government was to be serious about returning the ACF, getting some additional Hawk LIF second hand from the RAF even as a short term gap filler to expanded the RAAF LIF program, with additional Hawk aircraft, the Kiwis can have the same training and time in a Hawk LIF to the RAAF counterparts.
This if adopted now will be in by the time when Australia starts moving to F35A, will in turn hopefully lead the Kiwis transitioning to legacy hornets as short term gap filler then once the RAAF is ready to hand back the Super Hornets move on to those. Move two squadron’s of legacy hornets over to RNZAF once RAAF begin transitioning to F35A these hornets would have been stood down anyway, giving them away to the Kiwis I have no problem with that. At the start it is all about reintegrating and training to gain the skill set lost. For the cost of six refurbished ex RAF Hawk LIF aircraft now and maintenance for 24 legacy hornets then buy the 24 Super Hornets over fifteen to twenty years I do not think it will break the bank for the Kiwis.
It would be nice if they could also move into F35A and have access to the Australian maintenance train but with the USN flying Super hornet out till the late 2035ish will still have a cheap and ready suppler of parts in the greater pacific area, with an aircraft capable of provide the full spectrum of ACM from CAS to Maritime strike and have the ability to integrate fully with the RAAF with the added ability to provide cover for the egress route and refuel F35A aircraft if it was not safe for a tanker to safely operate in, just like HMNZ Endeavour is called the RAN third tanker, RNZAF Hornets will be Australia right flank squadrons.
Yes it will be expensive to maintain the legacy hornets at first but will be cheaper than buying 30 F/A50 aircraft and the logistic train that goes with it and having a aircraft not compatible with the nearby Australian/ USN logistic train, but once into the Super Hornet the aircraft should be cheaper to maintain again.
If the Kiwi government was to be serious about returning the ACF, getting some additional Hawk LIF second hand from the RAF even as a short term gap filler to expanded the RAAF LIF program, with additional Hawk aircraft, the Kiwis can have the same training and time in a Hawk LIF to the RAAF counterparts.
This if adopted now will be in by the time when Australia starts moving to F35A, will in turn hopefully lead the Kiwis transitioning to legacy hornets as short term gap filler then once the RAAF is ready to hand back the Super Hornets move on to those. Move two squadron’s of legacy hornets over to RNZAF once RAAF begin transitioning to F35A these hornets would have been stood down anyway, giving them away to the Kiwis I have no problem with that. At the start it is all about reintegrating and training to gain the skill set lost. For the cost of six refurbished ex RAF Hawk LIF aircraft now and maintenance for 24 legacy hornets then buy the 24 Super Hornets over fifteen to twenty years I do not think it will break the bank for the Kiwis.
It would be nice if they could also move into F35A and have access to the Australian maintenance train but with the USN flying Super hornet out till the late 2035ish will still have a cheap and ready suppler of parts in the greater pacific area, with an aircraft capable of provide the full spectrum of ACM from CAS to Maritime strike and have the ability to integrate fully with the RAAF with the added ability to provide cover for the egress route and refuel F35A aircraft if it was not safe for a tanker to safely operate in, just like HMNZ Endeavour is called the RAN third tanker, RNZAF Hornets will be Australia right flank squadrons.
Yes it will be expensive to maintain the legacy hornets at first but will be cheaper than buying 30 F/A50 aircraft and the logistic train that goes with it and having a aircraft not compatible with the nearby Australian/ USN logistic train, but once into the Super Hornet the aircraft should be cheaper to maintain again.
well we had 17 A4s, and more before they kept crashing + the 17 macchis and the plan was for 28 f-16s. so i would imagine 24 (2 squadrons) would be ideal and probably another squadron of advanced trainers. but in saying that its unlikely to happen when the current defence minister was saying in the 90s they we cant afford our own acf and should work a deal with the aussies
chrishorne
New Member
I guess it comes down to capabilities vs cost - NZ is a martime nation with hardly any threats. What NZ does need is the ability to project its influence on its pacific neighbours and also 'Support' its Allies. Thus Fighters and attack craft don't make much sense. Advanced trainers with limited air and ground attack would be useful but not at the cost of frigates, advanced martime patrol or airlift capacity. (Although I'm very interested who will be doing air policing during the rugby world cup - anyone?)
Given all that I see its far more likely helicopters will get close air support roles - Wonder if the Super Seasprites are capable to launch the laser version of maverick. Easiest way to gain some abilities is to get more A109s and enable the A109 fleet to be armed, maybe some even capable of guided missiles - Helfire or even better the new 2.75" laser guided ones.
I wouldn't be surpised either if the anzac replacements are much bigger - capable to host 2 large/medium Helicopters - ie NH90. Normal use maybe 1 x NH90 Naval and a UAV but could instead carry 2 x NH90 Utility or 2 x A109s
The days of RNZAF being able to stand up immediately an operationally deployable fighter/attack squadron are well and truly gone. The ACF used to consume about 1/4 of the defence budget iirc. There are other priorities (even within the Airforce) that need that money more. I think the Airforce should look to refocus.
A more feasible goal that I would like to see the Airforce aim at would be to produce pilots sufficiently trained in jet fighter aircraft that they would be able to slot straight into an operational conversion aircraft (of say a 4th generation fighter).Thus giving us the ability to generate a squadron of fighter pilots within 6 months, should the strategic situation deteriorate.
We would only need a small number of aircraft that would train pilots to LIFT level. I see great potential for say the KAI T/A-50 here.
A couple of questions that I have about the KAI T/A-50: how suitable would it be to double-up on the advanced jet trainer role of the T-50 (or say, the Aermacchi)? Would it be too complex to handle initial jet training? It's similar to an F-16B or Gripen in weight, perhaps a little inferior in performance, but 50% heavier than a Bae Hawk.
If the T/A-50 could handle the roles of both the Aermacchi & a LIFT aircraft, and do duty as RNZAFs fighter, then perhaps we could get away with not much more than 10 jet aircraft total (replacing 17 A-4s and 17 Aermacchis).
In terms of jets, we don't need nothing, but we do need nothing much.
I'd like to see all pilots get experience with jet aircraft to the advanced trainer level.
Now, I wish there was a decent way to rationalize the CT-4, Pilatus & Kingair type roles.
Chis73
A more feasible goal that I would like to see the Airforce aim at would be to produce pilots sufficiently trained in jet fighter aircraft that they would be able to slot straight into an operational conversion aircraft (of say a 4th generation fighter).Thus giving us the ability to generate a squadron of fighter pilots within 6 months, should the strategic situation deteriorate.
We would only need a small number of aircraft that would train pilots to LIFT level. I see great potential for say the KAI T/A-50 here.
A couple of questions that I have about the KAI T/A-50: how suitable would it be to double-up on the advanced jet trainer role of the T-50 (or say, the Aermacchi)? Would it be too complex to handle initial jet training? It's similar to an F-16B or Gripen in weight, perhaps a little inferior in performance, but 50% heavier than a Bae Hawk.
If the T/A-50 could handle the roles of both the Aermacchi & a LIFT aircraft, and do duty as RNZAFs fighter, then perhaps we could get away with not much more than 10 jet aircraft total (replacing 17 A-4s and 17 Aermacchis).
In terms of jets, we don't need nothing, but we do need nothing much.
I'd like to see all pilots get experience with jet aircraft to the advanced trainer level.
Now, I wish there was a decent way to rationalize the CT-4, Pilatus & Kingair type roles.
Chis73
I have it on good authority that an approach has been made to the PRC because they aren't playing in the cup so won't be side tracked. The US and Russia are both in the cup.
I disagree with your assessment regarding threats. You must always work to a worse case scenario and we are open to maritime threats. With regard to the naval element I have left a detailed comment on the RNZN forum page. I haven't yet figured a number for the P8 but I feel a minimum of 4 backed up by say 3 - 4 marine patrol modules that can fit into the C295/C27 Spartan. With regard to the fixed wing fast movers my preference would be for F16 / shornets but being fiscally prudent possibly the KAI TA50 with pilots going on to be qualified on RAAF shornets & F35s. That way there is an immediate trained and qualified backup for the RAAF. So my thinking is 15 - 20 TA 50s. For basic training my suggestion would be:
1. Get rid of the piston engines for training. Use turbo prop and glass cockpit.
2. Maybe PAC can come up with a trainer based on the Cresco 750.
3. Probably more feasible go with a purpose built turbo prop trainer with glass cockpit and bang seats.
Speaking of Cresco 750 I see that there is an armed version developed for counter insurgency and battlefield intel gathering for a US Army competition. It was shortlisted but wasn't awarded the contract. It has a long loitre time for a lot less cost than rotary wing. Maybe this is something that NZDF needs to look at. Would definitely be a worthwhile asset.
I sent a letter to the Minister of Defence last year suggesting that we arm the A109s. I got a very polite reply back saying that he was told that the technicians said it was too hard. Interestingly enough there is an armed LUH version being offered by Augusta. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agusta_A109"]AgustaWestland AW109 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Agusta-A109-001.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Agusta-A109-001.jpg/300px-Agusta-A109-001.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/1/10/Agusta-A109-001.jpg/300px-Agusta-A109-001.jpg[/ame] I know Wikipedia not the best source but only one available at moment. IMHO arming the A109 (note in Wikipedia NZ name maybe "Mako") would be logical and the crux of my letter was because of the low unit cost that buying & arming a number, say 15, A109s would make military and fiscal sense. I would think flying them of ships require "marinising" but if was practical maybe buy 20.
Last edited:
If you want an attack helo just say so.
: Although its not a bad idea... i dunno about hellfires and them being a big part of the NZ army.. although I guess you could compare them to Australia's Bushranger Gunships.I'd suggest the Minister was being VERY "polite" with such a response. Now I admit I don't fully understand the loading of the aircraft, the conditions it is flying in nor the training given to RNZAF A-109 LUH pilots so I cannot comment with authority, but certainly Agusta Westland doesn't think it too technically hard to arm the A-109 LUH...
AGUSTAWESTLAND
What may be "hard" is getting past the political ideology that regards aerial fire support as inherently "bad" or somehow undesirable, or ensuring that RNZAF has sufficient resources available to it, to ensure that the an armed LUH capability is operationally deployable and therefore actually useful...
There is a large range of options for arming the A-109's and equipping them with adequate sensor/fire control and EWSP systems that would appear to be quite useful in the roles that NZ may actually undertake, even in "peace-keeping" and in conjunction with a decent tactical UAV system and a maritime strike equipped P-3K Orion would seem to fulfil most of the potential combat roles the RNZAF is likely to face in the foreseeable future.
An air intercept capability based on an armed jet powered (or fast prop) trainer would seem to be the icing on the cake as far as NZ is concerned, but I wonder if any of these ideas will actually eventuate...
With the number of Warbirds flying in NZ they probably don't need an air combat capability. Just re-arm all the Corsairs, P-40's, Mustangs, Spitfires, Yaks etc and they'd have the largest COIN air combat capability in the world!I'd suggest the Minister was being VERY "polite" with such a response. Now I admit I don't fully understand the loading of the aircraft, the conditions it is flying in nor the training given to RNZAF A-109 LUH pilots so I cannot comment with authority, but certainly Agusta Westland doesn't think it too technically hard to arm the A-109 LUH...
AGUSTAWESTLAND
What may be "hard" is getting past the political ideology that regards aerial fire support as inherently "bad" or somehow undesirable, or ensuring that RNZAF has sufficient resources available to it, to ensure that the an armed LUH capability is operationally deployable and therefore actually useful...
There is a large range of options for arming the A-109's and equipping them with adequate sensor/fire control and EWSP systems that would appear to be quite useful in the roles that NZ may actually undertake, even in "peace-keeping" and in conjunction with a decent tactical UAV system and a maritime strike equipped P-3K Orion would seem to fulfil most of the potential combat roles the RNZAF is likely to face in the foreseeable future.
An air intercept capability based on an armed jet powered (or fast prop) trainer would seem to be the icing on the cake as far as NZ is concerned, but I wonder if any of these ideas will actually eventuate...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I appologize in advance, there are a number of different items in posts by different people that I wished to respond to. Therefore this might be rather long, and/or I might accidentally include things not referenced, or possibly deleted.
With regards to MPA... Unfortunately due to costs I doubt that the NZDF would be able to purchase more than 4, at least initially, but that should be the absolute minimum number purchased, to allow aircraft and crew rotations and also deep cycle maintenance. Do not forget, that the RNZAF currently has MPA patrol responsibilities for a number of friendly South Pacific nations, so the P-3K Orions patrol more than just the Kiwi EEZ. Having 3-4 smaller, mid-ranged MPA based upon the CN-235 or C-295 airframe could be quite helpful. Whethat that means the RNZAF gets dedicated CN-235MPA aircraft (at ~USD$23-24 mil. per) or a more modular aircraft which has MPA sensors mounted but a mission module with can be added and removed, allowing lift as well as MPA missions depending on needs... Someone would need to make decisions as to what they want, and what they are willing to spend on it. My personal preference would be for the RNZAF to have somewhere upwards of a dozen MPA to provide coverage of NZ and the EEZ/approaches. In addition, I would like NZ to have some land-based, long-ranged EEZ or air/surface surveillance radar. Given the vast areas NZ should be watching over, and the relative paucity of patrol assets, anything which can improve the ability to monitor should be looked into. I also acknowledge that such systems might not be viable or cost-effective for NZ, particularly due to NZ's potential for tectonic activity, which could shift elements of such systems out of alignment and spec.
The other area I potentially disagree with is scrapping or replacing the piston-engined aircraft with more advanced ones. The CT-4 Airtrainer is just a basic training aircraft, as such, switching it out for more powerful and advanced aircraft, particularly to just teach basic flying, might not only be more expensive, but also result in more accidents and losses during training. Keep in mind, the ADF has advanced prop trainers, LIFT and training helos and multi-engines. Before a pilot gets into any of these aircraft though, they would have been taught basic flight training in a CT-4 Airtrainer owned by a company that has been contracted by the ADF to provide basic flight training.
Now, once a decision is made on whether the RAAF SHornets are kept in service, the RNZAF might want to express interest in those if the RAAF is not going to keep them. Those aircraft at that point should still have 20-30 years of flight time remaining in their airframes at that point, but some form of RNZAF ACF/fast jet unit would need to get off the ground first (yes, the pun was deliberate).
-Cheers
I would suggest a slight modification here, namely that in planning, one plans for reasonable worst-case scenarios. Absolute worst-case scenario would involve situations which virtually no amount of planning or defence spending and NZDF build-up could achieve victory against.
With regards to MPA... Unfortunately due to costs I doubt that the NZDF would be able to purchase more than 4, at least initially, but that should be the absolute minimum number purchased, to allow aircraft and crew rotations and also deep cycle maintenance. Do not forget, that the RNZAF currently has MPA patrol responsibilities for a number of friendly South Pacific nations, so the P-3K Orions patrol more than just the Kiwi EEZ. Having 3-4 smaller, mid-ranged MPA based upon the CN-235 or C-295 airframe could be quite helpful. Whethat that means the RNZAF gets dedicated CN-235MPA aircraft (at ~USD$23-24 mil. per) or a more modular aircraft which has MPA sensors mounted but a mission module with can be added and removed, allowing lift as well as MPA missions depending on needs... Someone would need to make decisions as to what they want, and what they are willing to spend on it. My personal preference would be for the RNZAF to have somewhere upwards of a dozen MPA to provide coverage of NZ and the EEZ/approaches. In addition, I would like NZ to have some land-based, long-ranged EEZ or air/surface surveillance radar. Given the vast areas NZ should be watching over, and the relative paucity of patrol assets, anything which can improve the ability to monitor should be looked into. I also acknowledge that such systems might not be viable or cost-effective for NZ, particularly due to NZ's potential for tectonic activity, which could shift elements of such systems out of alignment and spec.
The other area I potentially disagree with is scrapping or replacing the piston-engined aircraft with more advanced ones. The CT-4 Airtrainer is just a basic training aircraft, as such, switching it out for more powerful and advanced aircraft, particularly to just teach basic flying, might not only be more expensive, but also result in more accidents and losses during training. Keep in mind, the ADF has advanced prop trainers, LIFT and training helos and multi-engines. Before a pilot gets into any of these aircraft though, they would have been taught basic flight training in a CT-4 Airtrainer owned by a company that has been contracted by the ADF to provide basic flight training.
Umm... No. Not happening. Given the skills needed to be trained up and then honed regularly, if a situation were to suddenly start to deteriorate, a squadron of pilots could not be trained up to operate fighters within six months. Assuming that the pilots were reasonably competent, they could certainly undergo conversion training into a fighter aircraft in that time, but they would NOT be ready to undergo missions in whatever combat aircraft they were transitioned to. From memory, the estimates I had come across were that if NZ did decide to standup a fighter squadron again, once said squadron resumed flight operations and training again, it would likely take ~5 years before the skill was rebuilt to 1999/pre-scrapping the ACF levels. Now, the ACF when it existed was considered very competent, but it does illustrate that a great deal of training, is needed to make a fighter force effective.
The financing, whether it was direct military aid from the US, or aid in the form of being able to make graduated payments to the US or LockMart... Either way, I am not certain that would be feasible or palatable, given some of the budgetary wrangling and political fights going on, or prepping to begain.
Honesly, I would oppose any move to gift or sell ex-RAAF HUGs to the RNZAF. In terms of electronics and avionics, they are rather good. Unfort, in terms of the airframe/flight hours lifespan, they are shagged. It looks like enough hours and airframes remain to keep the force flying until the F-35 deliveries begin. Once that starts, I expect the RAAF to start retiring the least airworthy/most shagged Hornets, which the RNZAF would have no responsible business being interested in.
Now, once a decision is made on whether the RAAF SHornets are kept in service, the RNZAF might want to express interest in those if the RAAF is not going to keep them. Those aircraft at that point should still have 20-30 years of flight time remaining in their airframes at that point, but some form of RNZAF ACF/fast jet unit would need to get off the ground first (yes, the pun was deliberate
).-Cheers
In their last fiscal year of operation FY00/01, the ACF cost around NZ$150m p.a of which operations for the 75th Sqd A-4K's were NZ$90m. Thus the ACF represented about around 10% of the NZDF Defence Vote not a quarter as someone earlier alluded to. That was running a 34 aircraft fleet spread across 2 types of aircraft and basing in Nowra and Ohakea. Half of which were elderly and required a lot of TLC, with the other half beset with a few gremlins courtesy of the Mk680 Viper. The old A-4's were indeed quite expensive on a per hour operating cost when compared to the F-16A/B which was to replace it.
Comparitively speaking running just a single and cheaper platform in fewer numbers such as the T/A-50 would be operationally cheaper. The recently announced Indonesian sale by KAI for US$400m for 16 aircraft gives a rough guideline. This version I believe carries the AN/APG-67v4 radar so seems to be the T/A-50 version as that was what the Indonesian LIFT specs required. Basically it dooes all that the A-4K's could do in the attack role. M61 20mm, AIM-9, AGM-65 and Mk80. Probably would be half the operating cost per hour than what the A-4K's delivered.
However It is all just a moot pouint. As others have pointed out there are a number of projects the RNZAF needs to do first before even thinking about this. All outlined on the DWP/10. This includes the Advanced Pilot platform. Which would be the only hope for us to see such a fine and capable aircraft as the T/A-50 in RNZAF colours - as an advanced trainer (with extra benefits that would solve a number of other current inadequacies). Nice to have - but not going to happen whilst we have a major city to rebuild. Events of Feb 22 shot in the butt any chance of any creative solutions regarding defence acquistitions for some time. The only game changer is a burgeoning oil and gas industry and/or the wider strategic picture begining to look gloomy later in the decade. We are more likely to see the KT-1 from Korea in the advanced training role (as it is you guessed it is cheaper than the PC-9 or Super Tucano) than the T/A-50 I am afraid.
Comparitively speaking running just a single and cheaper platform in fewer numbers such as the T/A-50 would be operationally cheaper. The recently announced Indonesian sale by KAI for US$400m for 16 aircraft gives a rough guideline. This version I believe carries the AN/APG-67v4 radar so seems to be the T/A-50 version as that was what the Indonesian LIFT specs required. Basically it dooes all that the A-4K's could do in the attack role. M61 20mm, AIM-9, AGM-65 and Mk80. Probably would be half the operating cost per hour than what the A-4K's delivered.
However It is all just a moot pouint. As others have pointed out there are a number of projects the RNZAF needs to do first before even thinking about this. All outlined on the DWP/10. This includes the Advanced Pilot platform. Which would be the only hope for us to see such a fine and capable aircraft as the T/A-50 in RNZAF colours - as an advanced trainer (with extra benefits that would solve a number of other current inadequacies). Nice to have - but not going to happen whilst we have a major city to rebuild. Events of Feb 22 shot in the butt any chance of any creative solutions regarding defence acquistitions for some time. The only game changer is a burgeoning oil and gas industry and/or the wider strategic picture begining to look gloomy later in the decade. We are more likely to see the KT-1 from Korea in the advanced training role (as it is you guessed it is cheaper than the PC-9 or Super Tucano) than the T/A-50 I am afraid.
From Peter Greener's excellent summary of the 80's and 90's "Timing Is Everything", cost of the ACF was 14% of the NZDF budget, citing the Nov 1998 Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000 report. So, yes, a quarter was a little on the high side.
Chis73
Chis73
The Malaysian army has been looking at arming its 11 A109s with a Giat 20mm and a Zeebruge 70mm rocket pod. I'm not sure if the A109 has been cleared to carry other gun and rockets pods but it shouldn't be a problem if a customer wanted to.The Malaysian A109s were delivered with sights fitted on the starboard side, for firing rockets. The only problem I have with arming light helicopters such as the A109 with weapons is that they are very vurlnerable to even small arms fire and using them in an attack role would be very risky.
Last edited: