Royal New Zealand Air Force

[t68]

i'm sure the mb-339's were sold together with the skyhawks to a private company in the US.

I knew that they were for sale, but was under the impression that all turned to custard and the A4 were to go to museum or gate guard duty, not sure what the go was with the MB-339.There was talk of reactivating them at one stage but that was a long time ago.

 

[kiwi in exile]

One positive of having battlefield UAV's for strike is that they can offer persistent battlefield ISR. I imagine (somewhat optimistically) that as technology improves acquisition/operating costs should come down. Satellite bandwith is an issue though.

The idea of being able to operate something like a Fire Scout or a160 Hummingbird from one of our boats on a pacific operation seems like a cheaper, more verastile solution than deploying a bunch of fast jets. This would offer ISR, close air support and logistic support with underslung loads. Of course this would depend on it being an uncontested airspace environment.

I see this this way: either we would be in contested or uncontested airspace.
If we were in uncontested airspace, UAVs have advantages over fast jets (Cost, versatility, persistence). Or a role-on-roll-off package for a C27/C295 is another option.
If we are in contested airspace we would need to spend up large to have a credible ACF. China, india, vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia operate Su 27 variants. Even if their pilots were poorly equiped/trained, I would still wouldn't want to be taking them on in a late model F16.

 

[ADMk2]

UAVs aren't the be all to end nor the holy grail that some make them out to be. The Reaper probably costs as much if not more than a late model F16 and nowhere near
near the same versatility. You still have to train people to fly, mainatin and sustain the Reapers, plus the cost of wideband satellite data coms. Me, I prefer the aircraft and the pilot with the brain & MK1 eyball. You don't have the same lag in response to a very quickly changing situation as you have with the Reaper.

Actually an MQ-9 Reaper purchase is going to be nowhere near the cost of an F-16 Block 52 (current production model) acquisition.

Consider Italy's DSCA request for 4x MQ-9 Reaper:

http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2008/Italy_08-60.pdf

Now it's horses for courses, you'll pay more for a squadron of F-16's than a squadron of MQ-9's but you'll get far more multi-role capability from a squadron of F-16's as well.

For an armed force of 4-5x MQ-9 Reapers, a weapons package (Hellfire and Paveway II / Enhanced Paveway II) plus an initial 5 year support package, you'd be looking at about $350m - $400m.

You're not going to get much F-16 capability for that...

Alternatively a "Funny looking King Air" capability based on an armed King Air 350-ER could provide much of the ISR capability of the Reaper and as shown in Iraq and elsewhere, can provide a similar light strike capability when Hellfire or air to ground rockets are added to the airframe.

I'd imagine the King Air 350-ER would be well suited to the inshore maritime patrol role as well...

Won't happen I know, but one can dream...

 

[ngatimozart]

Actually an MQ-9 Reaper purchase is going to be nowhere near the cost of an F-16 Block 52 (current production model) acquisition.

Consider Italy's DSCA request for 4x MQ-9 Reaper:

http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2008/Italy_08-60.pdf

Now it's horses for courses, you'll pay more for a squadron of F-16's than a squadron of MQ-9's but you'll get far more multi-role capability from a squadron of F-16's as well.

For an armed force of 4-5x MQ-9 Reapers, a weapons package (Hellfire and Paveway II / Enhanced Paveway II) plus an initial 5 year support package, you'd be looking at about $350m - $400m.

You're not going to get much F-16 capability for that...

Maybe so but I just feel you have far more options with an F16. It's the F16F Block 60 thats the best at the moment as there have been some improvements and the AESA with a WSO.

Alternatively a "Funny looking King Air" capability based on an armed King Air 350-ER could provide much of the ISR capability of the Reaper and as shown in Iraq and elsewhere, can provide a similar light strike capability when Hellfire or air to ground rockets are added to the airframe.

I'd imagine the King Air 350-ER would be well suited to the inshore maritime patrol role as well...

Won't happen I know, but one can dream...

The King Air is odds on favourite for doing EEZ maritime patrol. Whether it's the B350ERMPA or the B200 using Mk 1 Eyeball is another story, as they started a new lease for 5 B200s in July 2012. The difference was that they didn't extend the previous lease with a third party for B200s and the current lease is directly with Hawker Beechcraft. If the arming of the B350 has already been done then it could be an option for the light MPA. The P3K2s have the ISR capability so I don't know if the NZG would buy the King Air B350ERMPA with ISR. It's extra money that the pollies would rather put to alternative & higher priority use like subsidised meals & booze in Parliament and overseas jaunts.

 

[recce.k1]

Consider Italy's DSCA request for 4x MQ-9 Reaper:

http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2008/Italy_08-60.pdf

Now it's horses for courses, you'll pay more for a squadron of F-16's than a squadron of MQ-9's but you'll get far more multi-role capability from a squadron of F-16's as well.

For an armed force of 4-5x MQ-9 Reapers, a weapons package (Hellfire and Paveway II / Enhanced Paveway II) plus an initial 5 year support package, you'd be looking at about $350m - $400m.

That is rather interesting, I'm reading the release is saying purchase and support costs as being up to (NZ?) $400m over 5 years, that's $80m year (plus other internal operating costs) ... versus cost to purchase or lease 1-2 dozen manned fighters (hundreds of millions) plus the usual (for NZ) operating budget of $150-250m year.

Although would there be other significant UCAV operating costs eg network/bandwidth etc?

 

[t68]

One should take the Australian experience of 6 Billion over ten years for 24 Super Hornets (not including Growler), that’s purchasing the aircraft, maintenance and training. I would imagine the Kiwis would be looking at those sort of numbers for F16 as well, but realistically would also have to stand up from scratch a compete training program and lead in fighter aircraft program to the equation, plus all the extra like aircraft shelters etcetera.

It’s doable, but you need a large injection of capital.

 

[ngatimozart]

One should take the Australian experience of 6 Billion over ten years for 24 Super Hornets (not including Growler), that’s purchasing the aircraft, maintenance and training. I would imagine the Kiwis would be looking at those sort of numbers for F16 as well, but realistically would also have to stand up from scratch a compete training program and lead in fighter aircraft program to the equation, plus all the extra like aircraft shelters etcetera.

It’s doable, but you need a large injection of capital.

The only thing stopping said cash injection is the lack of political will to do so and neoliberal economic theory. Six billion over 10 years is not a lot per year and funds could be found to fund that. Its not like a single hit out of the budget at once. It works out at 600 million per year. Yes it would take time to standup the squadrons but we aren't going to get the F16s the next day. There are aircrew out there sun as ex-RAF, or soon to be ex RAF, who could train and mentor, plus I am sure the RAAF and US would help with training. It'd be in their own interest too. We also may still have a some in the service who were 2 & 75 Sqn.

 

[t68]

The only thing stopping said cash injection is the lack of political will to do so and neoliberal economic theory. Six billion over 10 years is not a lot per year and funds could be found to fund that. Its not like a single hit out of the budget at once. It works out at 600 million per year. Yes it would take time to standup the squadrons but we aren't going to get the F16s the next day. There are aircrew out there sun as ex-RAF, or soon to be ex RAF, who could train and mentor, plus I am sure the RAAF and US would help with training. It'd be in their own interest too. We also may still have a some in the service who were 2 & 75 Sqn.

That would mean an increase in air forces budget of about 90%, RNZAF got a larger slice of the pie this year of jumping from 670 to 790million NZD out of a total budget of 2.9Billion NZD. 600million is nothing to sneeze at.

Slight Reduction in New Zealand’s 2012-13 Defense Budget | Defense News | defensenews.com

unless its supplemental funding not sure how defence can accommodate this.

 

[t68]

Just checking up on spending compared to GDP, Australia spending is at its lowest since 1938 at approximately 1.5% of GDP which equates to 24.2 Billion (2012) AUD. New Zealand is 1% of GDP or 2012/13 budget is 2.9 Billion, increasing that to 1 .5% GDP should come out at about 4.3 Billion or an extra 1.4 billion each year, at 600 million you plans can be achieved by the increase with an extra 800 million split between Army/Navy.

Now to just get the pollies to follow thru, me thinks needs a miracle.

 

[Todjaeger]

Just checking up on spending compared to GDP, Australia spending is at its lowest since 1938 at approximately 1.5% of GDP which equates to 24.2 Billion (2012) AUD. New Zealand is 1% of GDP or 2012/13 budget is 2.9 Billion, increasing that to 1 .5% GDP should come out at about 4.3 Billion or an extra 1.4 billion each year, at 600 million you plans can be achieved by the increase with an extra 800 million split between Army/Navy.

Now to just get the pollies to follow thru, me thinks needs a miracle.

Something to keep in mind with respect to the NZDF budget. While there does appear to be a somewhat separate ledger for new/capital acquisitions, the Capital Charge and GST also end up eating into the budhet, usually to the tune of 30% - 40%. In other words, while the NZDF budget might look like 1% GDP, in real terms, it is usually closer to 0.63% GDP.

-Cheers

 

[Kiwigov]

"Miracle"? It would actually take a war.
This whole topic has been hashed and re-hashed on this forum, as even a noob like me can see. There is clearly no financial or political way - short of a major armed conflict threatening Australia - that any NZG would invest the roughly NZ$1 billion needed to re-establish a credible ACF.

Quite apart from the training and capital expenses for an ACF (bearing in mind, as noted, the need to be competitive with the proliferation of advanced Su-27 variants in the Asia region), the assumption that NZ forces would be operating in a truly contested environment would imply a whole range of associated upgrade expenses for the Army (air defence) and Navy (frigates).

As has been ably pointed out, the most likely role for armed airpower in the NZ context would be via the existing missile armament on the SH-2(G)s, and (possibly) LGBs on the P-3K2s.

 

[t68]

Something to keep in mind with respect to the NZDF budget. While there does appear to be a somewhat separate ledger for new/capital acquisitions, the Capital Charge and GST also end up eating into the budhet, usually to the tune of 30% - 40%. In other words, while the NZDF budget might look like 1% GDP, in real terms, it is usually closer to 0.63% GDP.

-Cheers

I really cannot get my head around this capital charge, from my understanding money from the crown (Gov) is used by a Government department (defence) it has to pay the Crown a % to use its own money?

 

[t68]

"Miracle"? It would actually take a war.
.

Well that's the problem, if it’s going to take war for the guys up on the hill to properly fund a balanced defence force, the war will be over by the time you’re ready to fight it.

 

[Todjaeger]

I really cannot get my head around this capital charge, from my understanding money from the crown (Gov) is used by a Government department (defence) it has to pay the Crown a % to use its own money?

To my understanding (and those who can correct me, please do so...) the Capital Charge is essentially an accounting charge which was created to show if Gov't equipment has been providing service, in much the same way that capital equipment in use by businesses have a deprecation charge to reflect the wear & tear of use reducing the value of the capital equipment.

Basically the Crown/Gov't looks at the NZDF (and possibly other depts as well) and essentially goes, "You have NZ$NN bil. worth of kit, with these various pieces of kit each being work NZ$nn mil. and therefore the NZDF should be getting NZ$xx mil. worth of service from the kit this year. It has been my impression that the NZDF is not the one who determines the amount of the Capital Charge the NZDF is responsible for each year, or the value of the various services the NZDF provides each year.

IIRC there have been times since the implementation of the Capital Charge where the NZDF was facing a shortfall in terms of service outputs, and ended up having to sell assets to make up the difference. It has also been this need to get service outputs from the NZDF that led to the RNZN using an ANZAC-class frigate to ship wood to Chatham Island at extraorbitant cost, instead of making a rational and economical decision to ship the wood on a freighter.

-Cheers

 

[RegR]

I really cannot get my head around this capital charge, from my understanding money from the crown (Gov) is used by a Government department (defence) it has to pay the Crown a % to use its own money?

And there is probably an administration fee for making this money go around in circles, yet more wasted funds, our govt is not known for its efficiencies or decision making ability.

 

[t68]

To my understanding (and those who can correct me, please do so...) the Capital Charge is essentially an accounting charge which was created to show if Gov't equipment has been providing service, in much the same way that capital equipment in use by businesses have a deprecation charge to reflect the wear & tear of use reducing the value of the capital equipment.

Basically the Crown/Gov't looks at the NZDF (and possibly other depts as well) and essentially goes, "You have NZ$NN bil. worth of kit, with these various pieces of kit each being work NZ$nn mil. and therefore the NZDF should be getting NZ$xx mil. worth of service from the kit this year. It has been my impression that the NZDF is not the one who determines the amount of the Capital Charge the NZDF is responsible for each year, or the value of the various services the NZDF provides each year.

IIRC there have been times since the implementation of the Capital Charge where the NZDF was facing a shortfall in terms of service outputs, and ended up having to sell assets to make up the difference. It has also been this need to get service outputs from the NZDF that led to the RNZN using an ANZAC-class frigate to ship wood to Chatham Island at extraorbitant cost, instead of making a rational and economical decision to ship the wood on a freighter.

-Cheers

Shear lunacy. If you don’t want to commit that spending why give it them in the first place. :hitwall:hitwall:hitwall

 

[ngatimozart]

Shear lunacy. If you don’t want to commit that spending why give it them in the first place. :hitwall:hitwall:hitwall

Pollies see, not much upstairs.

We all know that Airbus Military make the KC30 MRTT but I found that they also do an A310 MRTT. This would be much cheaper than the KC30 MRTT. The Luftwaffe & Canadians use them. Airbus A310 MRTT Multi-Role Tanker Transport - Airforce Technology But unfortunately production has been terminated.

 

[recce.k1]

Capital charge (and more) is explained here Charging for Capital | State Services Commission

 

[ngatimozart]

Capital charge (and more) is explained here Charging for Capital | State Services Commission

The pollies giveth on one hand and taketh away with the other. If NZDF has $400 million in cash then thats around $50 million they have to payback, money which goes into the General Fund. It's a tax and the rate is far to high. Betchya they pay GST (grab & swindle tax) on that capital charge which is a further $7.5 million @15% GST. So thats $57.5 Million that NZDF could use for something worthwhile.

 

[ASSAIL]

Enterprises use a capital charge in their accounts so they don't get a false view of their profitability, ie there is an opportunity cost of using money invested in capital.
ROCE (return on capital employed) is the best measure of profitability.
The ramifications are obvious; eg. if you have an old car delivering papers and you decide to buy the latest coupe, your profitability declines because all the capital tied up in the fancy car is doesn't add to the bottom line.

To apply this to a Defence Force than doesn't deliver any tangible "service" that can be costed or substituted is utter nonsense IMHO.