Royal New Zealand Air Force

[t68]

I know its old news regarding trying to resurrect an ACF with fast jets like F18/F35, but NZ has always tried to bring a niche capability to the table, a what if moment is RNZAF have 2 Squadrons of the either A10 Thunderbolts/Super Tucano in close air support, aerial reconnaissance role something which the ADF rely on with either Tiger ARH or F18 Hornets, fair enough the A10 might be a little too aggressive for the government to think about but surly Super Tucano should be in the realms of doable not only for the Air force but Army as well they too have needs for training JTAC personnel.

With the future of the NZDF going the way of a Joint Amphibious Task force, which would most likely bring together assets of the ADF/NZDF. Now depending what is to be achieved by said task force if by chance it is something similar to ET but with a low to medium intensity warfare involved, once a secure airfield is established using a combination of ARH/A10/Super Tucano to support the troops on the ground, with assets from both sides of the ditch working together complementing each other strength and weakness.

Proposed A-10 cuts total 29% of inventory - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times

RNZAF - Exercise WILLOH

http://www.milcis.com.au/milcis2011pdf/2.5b.pdf

 

[RegR]

The fact it keeps being brought up so long after the point shows its still a sore thumb.
Even though our Govt would probably not even spend money on an ACF if it was given to us for free I do think we could probably put some of the planned retired jets to use rather than see them go to waste.

A good example would be if we had a squadron of the retired jets then we could provide our own top cover and response in Afghanistan as well as for coalition partners and releive pressure off allies such as the US. All we need is a govt willing to commit them which we did'nt have before(ET seemed like a prime use for our skyhawks at the time however.....) as no combat pilot wants to train just to do laps around NZ and watch out for speedy rouge fishing trawlers.

I personally would prefer the multirole F16s in lieu of A10s as they would give us more options both there and at home but we would need a tucano type any way for training so there's our CAS. A squadron of tucano types with a half squadron of machhi replacements and a squadron of F16s would set us up nicely thanks America although we would also need a year or 7 to regain skillsets before we would be of use to anyone in the likes of Afghan, Libya, Waiouru etc. What else is the US parking up that we could 'rent'??? herc replacements? frigates? MRAPS? The list could be a long one.

Anyway free dreams and dream defence force are all another world away.

 

[recce.k1]

Sounds like a nice ideal, the A-10 could be a nice niche capability eg RAAF provide top cover with their fast air, their future Growlers provide the standoff jamming and the A-10 could provide on-call CAS in an uncontested environment.

The problem with this ideal however is, the NZG would never fund the A-10's capabililties & MLU's properly (since when have they ever over the decades?), would never fund enough airframes (or squadrons), personnel and logistics to provide round the clock cover. In other words defence expenditure would be inadequate to sustain this - it would only end up as a coalition poor cousin capability. I'm also not sure that the NZ Army, as primary end-user, would support this capability, knowing that RNZAF couldn't provide round the clock over and knowing that if operating in a coalition environment someone else will be better positioned to provide a full range of support anyway etc.

Probably better that the RNZAF gets into more helos (transport, recon and gunships) to support NZ Army on deployment (in uncontested environments) and arm the Orions & naval helos with new gen stand-off weapons to support the JATF and Navy in local/SWP/SEA waters etc.

Then again if NZG turned mongrel and jets were ever to reappear then something multi-role (F-16 etc) rather than A-10 or better still something that could plug into the RAAF training and logistics train, eg NZ purchase a short squadron of compatible 4.5 or 5 gen aircraft

 

[aussienscale]

Would have thought something along the lines of the BAE Hawk 200 would be a realistic option for NZ if they were ever to get back into the game ? Very versatile and flexible aircraft with possible flow on savings with a lot of commonality with the RAAF 127's

Just a thought

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBOapCTnebs"]RMAF Hawk Mk108 Mk208 - YouTube[/nomedia]

Cheers

 

[Goknub]

I'd agree that a Sqn of 24 x Hawk 200 would be the best option for NZ.

A true combat jet would be too expensive and of little use considering any deployment would be into a coalition environment where that capability would already be provided. And any aircraft would need to be able to be stored with minimal ongoing costs.

One of the Lessons Learnt from the Libya Air War was the value of having low cost aircraft available to reduce the financial burden of extended combat ops.

I would much prefer the RAAF standup a light strike sqn of its own but that will never happen so having NZ bring that to the table would be very useful.

 

[MrConservative]

I'm also not sure that the NZ Army, as primary end-user, would support this capability, knowing that RNZAF couldn't provide round the clock over and knowing that if operating in a coalition environment someone else will be better positioned to provide a full range of support anyway etc.

Probably better that the RNZAF gets into more helos (transport, recon and gunships) to support NZ Army on deployment (in uncontested environments) and arm the Orions & naval helos with new gen stand-off weapons to support the JATF and Navy in local/SWP/SEA waters etc.

Yep. We actually need half a dozen cheap choppers like the Bell Huey II that can do the dogsbody or low-end stuff that is also in great and growing demand. Even with 8 NH-90's and 5 LUH's (plus 3 more training variants to eventually arrive) and the Super Sea Sprite I's also looking likely, there is both sound economic and operational reasons for half a dozen current Huey's to stay on a while longer within the NZDF for a further couple of years and be replaced with fairly minimal drama with Huey II's - the Toyota Hilux of choppers.

 

[Goknub]

While the horse has well and truly bolted, I believe a fleet of Super Hueys would have been a far better option than the NH90s & LUHs.

 

[MrConservative]

While the horse has well and truly bolted, I believe a fleet of Super Hueys would have been a far better option than the NH90s & LUHs.

And ironically we could have bought dozen UH-60L's effectively replacing all the then operational UH-1's and still have a couple of bucks change to lease 28 F-16's for the money we spent on the NH-90's.

I take it you don't currently serve within the NZDF as your above words don't match the official songsheet. The unofficial song sheet had it that the ideal operational specs for MUH acquisition were based around a certain fashionable Euro and as then uncosted prototype helicopter and the subsequent plywood mock-up testing at Whenuapei marveled over its roominess and suitability - over a certain US helicopter with an aggressive sounding name which some woman with a very deep voice was not particularly enamored with even if it was under half the unit cost.

Or so the cynics say.

 

[Goknub]

Nope, some other army. I think that is a disease that affects all nations. Everyone wants the latest sexy knew toy.

The biggest problem is that with only a handful it doesn't take much to suffer a significant hit to capability.

 

[ADMk2]

Nope, some other army. I think that is a disease that affects all nations. Everyone wants the latest sexy knew toy.

The biggest problem is that with only a handful it doesn't take much to suffer a significant hit to capability.

And what were the RNZAF requirements that the NH-90 and UH-60M met, that the Huey II didn't?

I can think of a few just off the top of my head. Electronic warfare self-protection, a FLIR system, 18 troops in crashworthy seats and so on.

Add any single one of those systems (nevermind that the number of required troops can't even fit into said Huey II) and there goes your available payload in a Huey II...

A much better option if you HAVE to re-use the Huey airframe would be the UH-1Y, but then your costs start to approach what RNZAF had to pay for it's new airframes anyway, but they would have been stuck operating a far larger fleet of helicopters to meet the same lift requirement.

And they couldn't afford that...

 

[Goknub]

I should have clarified but yes, I was talking about the UH-1Y.

I would favour a larger quanitity of aircraft in order to allow for larger sustainable deployments. For aircraft that have a good chance of taking a few hits in any conflict more aggressive than Timor that should be an advantage.

Obviously it comes at the price of capacity per bird but I would see that as a tradeoff worth taking. In coalition environments I think NZ should be aiming to bring capabilities that are less catered for already.

If it means half get stuck in a hanger as a NZAF Reserve then that would help reduce costs.

But that is all well and truly past, NH90s aren't going anywhere.

 

[MrConservative]

I would favour a larger quanitity of aircraft in order to allow for larger sustainable deployments. For aircraft that have a good chance of taking a few hits in any conflict more aggressive than Timor that should be an advantage.

Obviously it comes at the price of capacity per bird but I would see that as a tradeoff worth taking. In coalition environments I think NZ should be aiming to bring capabilities that are less catered for already.

If it means half get stuck in a hanger as a NZAF Reserve then that would help reduce costs.

I do not disagree on the need for extra numbers of helicopters for the RNZAF however I must make clear the where and what for. Deployments??? Not likely as that is the role of the NH-90 and to a lesser degree the LUH's under more benign ops. The missing capability is essentially within NZ, its EEZ islands and at times it dependencies - to do the donkey jobs. Jobs that a 109 is too small to do and jobs that the NZ$18000 pf/h NH90 is overkill for when a NZ$2350 pf/h Huey could do quite happily.

There is more to the RNZAF, NZDF and wider NZG rotary requirements than a pure focus on military orientated deployments abroad. (MAOT) Multi Agency tasking as an aid to civil authority is a biggy that in recent times is being squeezed. Police, DOC, NZ LandSAR, NZARP, MFish, Customs, Landcorp, CRA, LGNZ et al as well as a capacity for HumSupt and aid to civil authority in the SoPac Dependencies - all have pressing needs - small amounts each on a per department basis - that collectively add up when measured accross the whole of Govt. The agencies contracting out these taskings to a private contractor(s) does not achieve the required level of service deliver nor cost benefits that the RNZAF can provide its paymaster. There is about 900 - 1200 annual flight hours that have gone begging in recent times. All very unsexy but neccessary within the context of MOAT clients and the NZDF as a service provider to the NZGovt. There is also the realisation that 8 NH-90's and 5 LUH's (Note - the extra 3 circa 2017 will likely be standard 109 Power versions) will have an excessive workload post 2015 as the airframe numbers requirement were modelled in 2004/05 on pre 2003 data. The optimum/ideal 10 MUH / 8 LUH mix was not sought and in hindsight will probably be even too light by 2020.

Cost reduction? NZGovt is (always) looking at ways MOAT tasks can be costed more equitably with respect to Defence as part of its investigation in over-all defence funding models. Air Force Reserve expansion to cover manpower shortfalls (the report isstill on the CAS's desk since 2008 I gather) that hamper MAOT tasking (which has suffered in the last 3 years though there is a unavoidable backlog that is starting to politically pressurize) and capability funding models such as wet leasing and contracting in ground support are further ways around dealing with the pitfalls of operating a slightly enlarge fleet.

 

[ngatimozart]

In an ideal world this is what I think the RNZAF should operate.

Strike Force
24 x F16F Block 60 (Tandem twin seat with AESA).This would be the cheapest.
or
24 x F15E Strike Eagles
or
24 x F18F although I think the F15E is far better aircraft. However it would give us a great deal of commonality with RAAF and the USN.

My reason for going with US aircraft only is that it will be easier & reliable sustainment because we would be able to tap into USAF / USN logistics train. Also I prefer a two seater to single seater because it gives more capability, but more importantly it spreads the workload between the pilot and a weapon systems operator.

Maritime Patrol / ISR
6 x P8
6 x CN235MPA or 6 x Beech B350 I ER (stingy pollies)
This is an article on smaller MPA for tight budgets and has a brief look at what is available at the moment Smaller Maritime Patrol Aircraft Built for Tight Budgets | Defense News | defensenews.com.

Rotary Wing
8 x NH90
8 x A109
9 x SH2G(I) replaced by 9 x MH60R or its successor
6 x UH60
Reason for Blackhawks is because it has been noted by Mr C that there are taskings which are to small for NH90 and to big for the A109, but would suit the UH1 or similar. Also the USSOCOM has a bolt on weapons package for their UH60s that turn them into a very effective & nasty gunship. Finally if we were to get the MH60R then there is commonality of airfcraft not only within RNZAF / RNZN but also with the ADF.

Transport
4 x A400
6 x C27J or C295 if can get a really good deal from Airbus Military. But the C27J gives us a common aircraft with the RAAF.
3 x KC30
The KC30 are expensive but, they give the NZDF air refueling capability, bring three more tankers to the South Pacific and enable the movement of large numbers of personnel in one aircraft similar to what happens with the B757 now. So it would be money well spent.

Training
9 x Beech T6
6 x KAI TA50

However, unfortunately we do not have the pollies with the brains, foresight, nor intestinal fortitude to implement such a program.

 

[Lucasnz]

However, unfortunately we do not have the pollies with the brains, foresight, nor intestinal fortitude to implement such a program.

Vote for me and I'll give you a defence force to droll over - But alas I'll have to introduce a Capital Gains tax. Realistically its the only way given the commitment to Social Spending and Muldoon's flawed universal super scheme that defence could hope to achieve any significant increase in funding. I would however reduce the arts budget by 250 million and give it back to defence for the purpose of reinstating the ACF, though I think the army / navy need to sort out the Fixed Wing / Attack Helicopter issue.

I'd probably buy more A400 at the expense of the K300 to help reduce training and logistics costs. I have to agree on the Helicopters but I'd probably go back to 5 P8 and increase the C27/C295 by one or two.

 

[Lucasnz]

On another note as anyone heard anything about the advanced training aircraft project. Its been removed from the projects list on the MOD website.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Unfortunately NZ doesn't have the money either.

Or the need re the fighters
Why invest in 24 x teen series fighters as people are beginning to transition to 5th gen. If i was going to re-establish an ACF I would go with Saab Gripens. I read somewhere that they have a lower aquisition and running cost and are very easy to maintain. Therefore easily deployed. . But for me an ACF is quite a way down the list. Our geographic isolation is our best airdefence and buying/maintaining and then deploying fast jets would cost to much.

Helicopters:
If it proves itself I would go with the NH90 as the seasprite replacement. I know that means we loose interoperability with AUS/US but it would mean less types for us, and I think it's probably a more versatile platform for a small navy.

Are you thinking of picking up 2nd hand blackhawks or new builds?
Operating both the NH90 and blackhawks seems like having two types that are too similar. Rather than the blackhawks I would argue for the AW139. maybe a civilian/non-milspec version as this would largely be tasked with NZ govt agency work. Maybe cheaper to operate too.

I imagine eventually there will be bolt on weapons applications for the NH90, especially given the naval versions and the assymetrical littoral threats. This is probably the cheapest form of CAS we could get. Would also mean not having to deploy 2 types of aircraft.

Potentailly we may see air-air refulling capability on the A400m.

what about UAV's. useful for maratime patrol. Useful for persistant in theatre ISR. maybe CAS too. I know we have the Kahu, but where are we headed with UAVs?

 

[ngatimozart]

On another note as anyone heard anything about the advanced training aircraft project. Its been removed from the projects list on the MOD website.

It could mean one of three things:
1. Decision has been made upon the aircraft type and number to purchase with announcement to come at some politically oportune moment.
2. Decision made to defer project because of cost.
3. Project has been cancelled because of cost.

 

[ngatimozart]

Unfortunately NZ doesn't have the money either.

Or the need re the fighters
Why invest in 24 x teen series fighters as people are beginning to transition to 5th gen. If i was going to re-establish an ACF I would go with Saab Gripens. I read somewhere that they have a lower aquisition and running cost and are very easy to maintain. Therefore easily deployed. . But for me an ACF is quite a way down the list. Our geographic isolation is our best airdefence and buying/maintaining and then deploying fast jets would cost to much.

No way NZ can afford to go 5th gen but we do have a critical need for an indigenous CAS and that is reason for fast jets. Not pure fighters. At present we bludge off RAAF and allies for air defence and CAS, pure and simple. Reason I did not go with non US fast jets is because of sustainment and compatibility with ADF and USN / USAF because that is who we'll work the most with. I strongly believe that those who accepted Uncle Helens disbandment of the ACF and oppose the reestablishment of an ACF in the RNZAF, are following a politically correct agenda set by some who'se aim was to castrate NZDF. Arguments of affordability are politically manure, in that the NZG has not explored all avenues of revenue gathering. If push came to shove money could be found to to stand up and sustain an ACF. It is the political will and intesinal fortitude that is lacking.

Helicopters:
If it proves itself I would go with the NH90 as the seasprite replacement. I know that means we loose interoperability with AUS/US but it would mean less types for us, and I think it's probably a more versatile platform for a small navy.

Are you thinking of picking up 2nd hand blackhawks or new builds?
Operating both the NH90 and blackhawks seems like having two types that are too similar. Rather than the blackhawks I would argue for the AW139. maybe a civilian/non-milspec version as this would largely be tasked with NZ govt agency work. Maybe cheaper to operate too.

I imagine eventually there will be bolt on weapons applications for the NH90, especially given the naval versions and the assymetrical littoral threats. This is probably the cheapest form of CAS we could get. Would also mean not having to deploy 2 types of aircraft.

Again reason I chose Blackhawk is because of compatibility and long term sustainment. I did think of the AW139, but if we go down the Blackhawk / Seahawk road we will only have 3.5 types in the end instead of four. The bolt on weapons for the Blackhawk is the MH60L DAP with the weapons on wing stubs that bolt on. Apparently doesn't take long to set up. Again I would surmise that the Blackhawk is a lot cheaper to operate than the NH90. Purchase costs would be significantly less too. It's not much point buying a helo for NZDF that is not combat capable regardless of whether or not it is used for multi agency tasking. The point being is that some time it has the probability of being in a comat zone. With the three extra A109s that have been bought they will be used for training only. The other five are armoured. With regard to the NFH90 I have been given to understand that it might be to large for the ANZAC frigates and most definitely would not fit on the OPV flight decks.

Potentailly we may see air-air refulling capability on the A400m.

what about UAV's. useful for maratime patrol. Useful for persistant in theatre ISR. maybe CAS too. I know we have the Kahu, but where are we headed with UAVs?

Yes the A400 may have A2A refuelling but I was looking at wider issues such as having an organic or indigenous A2A refuelling capability, moving large numbers of pax and the strategic capability of three more tankers in the South Pacific which would be of benefit not just to NZ but to the ADF and the USAF / USN /USMC. It's a long term outlook.

The JATF document signals that UAVs would be looked for maritime patrolling but you still need to have humans in aircraft as well. UAVs are not the be all to end all and now the USAF are finding that they are expensive to operate and the sensors do not have the same resolution as those on the U2. They are good for some missions but not all. The P8 is more than an ASW aircraft and a UAV cannot do anywhere near what it or the P3K2 is capable of. Also to fly the UAVs, AFAIK, you need dedicated wide bandwidth satellite broadcast capability which NZDF doesn't have and is highly expensive. IIRC there was talk of NZDF having its own satellite but that died because of cost.

I can't remember who suggested it, whether it was here or elsewhere, but it was suggested that maybe NZDF invest in a JORN setup which would probably be cheaper than satellite surveillence in the long term and it could be intergrated into the ADF one. From what has been publicly stated JORN is quite capable of detecting targets out to IIRC 1500nm (or is it 1500km) at sea level, so it would mean that the MPA could be more efficient.

 

[Gibbo]

It could mean one of three things:
1. Decision has been made upon the aircraft type and number to purchase with announcement to come at some politically oportune moment.
2. Decision made to defer project because of cost.
3. Project has been cancelled because of cost.

Oh dear, I have no idea how far the project had progressed but given the current fiscal outlook & demands on NZDF to 'cut its cloth' (hell it'll be a g-string shortly!) - I think it's either 2 or 3 (my pick is 2 - deferral).

It'd be hard to convince Treasury etc that RNZAF need new APT's when they've used the B200's for a decade. You know & I know we desperately need an effective APT, but those holding the purse-strings don't understand non-financial benefits (intangibles).

I'm sure there'll be some form of announcement shortly.

 

[MrConservative]

I'm sure there'll be some form of announcement shortly.

Was put down for a Cabinet decision (rubber stamping) this month. Decision one way or the other will eventually come as I'd say it has already been made and essentially will come down to timing.