Royal New Zealand Air Force

[ngatimozart]

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.

You are right. It is a construct of NZs extreme strain of neoliberal economic and social policies. Both of the major pollie parties (National & Labour) have taken it to heart. The Labour party introduced neoliberalism to NZ in 1984 and it's become holy writ now. The Labour party used to be the left wing working mans party, but now its centre right, with the National Party moving further right. The biggest problem NZDF has is that defence policy and decisions are made soley in Cabinet and that is how Clark got rid of the ACF in 2001. We have a unicameral Parliament. It used to have two houses but after the Second World War a National Party Prime Minister managed to get the Upper House agree to voting itself out of existence. So there is a lack of Parliamentary checks and balances upon the Cabinet, which over the years has accumulated a lot of power to itself. With NZs neoliberalism being fairly extreme, Treasury has managed to gain a lot of power and say, and it would now be second most powerfull institution behind Cabinet.

 

[ASSAIL]

The biggest problem NZDF has is that defence policy and decisions are made soley in Cabinet and that is how Clark got rid of the ACF in 2001. We have a unicameral Parliament.

Sorry to remain off topic (excuse please mods) but that is the danger in a unicarmel parliament - we have one in the NT.

The Senate in Oz has been famously described by one Paul Keating as that "worthless (I forget the exact adjective) swill" but it does provide oversight of the executive particularly in the many committees in general and the Senate Estimates Committees in particular www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Senate_Estimates

 

[Abraham Gubler]

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.

It was a lot more than that and a lot of money in the end wasn't spent. The $6 billion also included all the personnel costs for 10 years plus weaponry and new building construction. Because at the time the Super Hornet Wing was expected to be concurrent to the initial stand-up of the F-35 which without the Super Hornet acquisition was to use the personnel allotment of the F-111 force. The actual aircraft and their unit procurement (initial spares, training, non-recurring support equipment) only cost around $3 billion.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The Senate in Oz has been famously described by one Paul Keating as that "worthless (I forget the exact adjective) swill"

“Unrepresentative swill” because of the federation the Senate gives equal representation to each state. So 500,000 Tasmanians elect the same number of Senators as 7.2 million New South Welshmen. Which results in Senators from Tasmania often representing very marginal interests that wouldn’t get the same level of political clout nationwide. And when you need one or two votes to pass a bill and you have to make the ‘Man-Goat Love Association’ senator happy to get his support… well things get a bit messy.

but it does provide oversight of the executive particularly in the many committees in general and the Senate Estimates Committees in particular www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Senate_Estimates

Which results in stuff all apart from a few interesting headlines. The Senate is totally captured by the political parties so offers nothing much other than a chance for minor parties to get a voice via proportional representation who otherwise can’t get elected via local seats in parliament.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Anyway the RNZAF is in no position to talk about strike fighters even if the NZ Govt. was willing to fund it. They would need a lead in fighter trainer (Hawk like) and 5-10 years of flying before they even had a workforce able to convert to a strike fighter. Be much quicker to get an attack helicopter or light attack (Super Tucano like) capability in service for an air combat force.

 

[RegR]

Anyway the RNZAF is in no position to talk about strike fighters even if the NZ Govt. was willing to fund it. They would need a lead in fighter trainer (Hawk like) and 5-10 years of flying before they even had a workforce able to convert to a strike fighter. Be much quicker to get an attack helicopter or light attack (Super Tucano like) capability in service for an air combat force.

The RNZAF is'nt, its just a few of us dreamers on here with our versions of what the air force should be, trust me they have enough problems without an ACF.

 

[Hoffy]

The RNZAF is'nt, its just a few of us dreamers on here with our versions of what the air force should be, trust me they have enough problems without an ACF.

It's ok to dream boys , you never know what the future holds.
Please keep up the speculation , because sooner (or later) things will actually change and NZ will once again put fast air in place.

Unfortunately it's true that this will take quite a few years to get back to the point where things are operational again.

 

[kiwi in exile]

It's ok to dream boys , you never know what the future holds.
Please keep up the speculation , because sooner (or later) things will actually change and NZ will once again put fast air in place.

Unfortunately it's true that this will take quite a few years to get back to the point where things are operational again.

Given the scale of the task in time and $$ I cant imagine any pollie committing.
They cant see past the next election cycle and I imagine that fighters are only going to get more and more expensive.
Look at how much a f35 costs for what is essentailly spossed to be a 5th gen f16/f18 replacement as part of a hi/lo mix with the f22. (I know this is probably the worst example you could pick of an over cost project)

 

[ngatimozart]

Given the scale of the task in time and $$ I cant imagine any pollie committing.
They cant see past the next election cycle and I imagine that fighters are only going to get more and more expensive.
Look at how much a f35 costs for what is essentailly spossed to be a 5th gen f16/f18 replacement as part of a hi/lo mix with the f22. (I know this is probably the worst example you could pick of an over cost project)

Yes the pollies think in three year electoral cycles and votes. What I feel is needed is a long term view of defence by all the pollies. I think a cross party strategem on defence needs to happen and some of the power in defence spending, capability decisions etc., being transferred from the Cabinet to say a cross party defence committee of a select committee. IIRC they have a security committe which is made up of govt & opposition people and I think the same should be done for defence. One thing I strongly feel that needs to be stripped from cabinet is the ability to get rid of a strategic assett or important capability so that 2001 & the ACF isn't repeated.

 

[aussienscale]

Anyway the RNZAF is in no position to talk about strike fighters even if the NZ Govt. was willing to fund it. They would need a lead in fighter trainer (Hawk like) and 5-10 years of flying before they even had a workforce able to convert to a strike fighter. Be much quicker to get an attack helicopter or light attack (Super Tucano like) capability in service for an air combat force.

Or as I have suggested before, kill 2 birds with one stone and look at Hawk 200's ?

 

[ngatimozart]

Or as I have suggested before, kill 2 birds with one stone and look at Hawk 200's ?

How about a combination of the Hawk 128 T2 and Hawk 200s? That definitley would kill two birds with the one stone so to speak. Wonder how much BAE charge for them. The other thing is that would fit in with RAAF and since the USN flies the Goshawk as a trainer would have cpmatibility there too. The other thing is that if want to buy F16s or whatever can wait until have a good corp of trained aircrew. The Hawk 128 T2 has glass cockpits and wouldn't be surprised if new built 200s were the same.

 

[aussienscale]

How about a combination of the Hawk 128 T2 and Hawk 200s? That definitley would kill two birds with the one stone so to speak. Wonder how much BAE charge for them. The other thing is that would fit in with RAAF and since the USN flies the Goshawk as a trainer would have cpmatibility there too. The other thing is that if want to buy F16s or whatever can wait until have a good corp of trained aircrew. The Hawk 128 T2 has glass cockpits and wouldn't be surprised if new built 200s were the same.

Or if you look at it from a dollar POV, and not harping on about ADF combatability, rather than the cost of having trainers and the seperate fleet of 200's and the cost of raising and maintaining both, would it not make more sense for the RNZAF to back onto the RAAF LIFT program, then the pilots make a straight transition to the 200's, so from a dollar aspect it could be a very good way to get back into the game for not a massive outlay ?

 

[swerve]

Or as I have suggested before, kill 2 birds with one stone and look at Hawk 200's ?

Hawk 200 is no longer in production: the last delivery was about 15 years ago. It's based on an old model of Hawk, no longer built. BAe could modify the current Hawk 120 LIFT series to produce a modernised Hawk 200 (Hawk 220?), but that would incur some development cost. It shouldn't cost a huge amount, but I think it might not be viable for a handful of aircraft.

 

[aussienscale]

Hawk 200 is no longer in production: the last delivery was about 15 years ago. It's based on an old model of Hawk, no longer built. BAe could modify the current Hawk 120 LIFT series to produce a modernised Hawk 200 (Hawk 220?), but that would incur some development cost. It shouldn't cost a huge amount, but I think it might not be viable for a handful of aircraft.

Thanks for that, did not realise it had been so long, but as you have mentioned could still be possible, but unfortunately the political will to do it is the real issue with NZ

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks for that, did not realise it had been so long, but as you have mentioned could still be possible, but unfortunately the political will to do it is the real issue with NZ

Also the economic side of things as well. The Hawk 200-series was a single-seater subsonic, lightweight fighter/attack. The prep pilots to fly Hawk 200's, especially into a threatened or hostile environment, would likely also require some sort of LIFT.

Given that some of the quoted prices for the S. Korean T/A-50 Golden Eagle are approximately the same as Hawk 100- or 200-series, but capable of performing both training and light fighter/attack roles, it would seem that the S. Korean offering would be a better option.

-Cheers

 

[t68]

Also the economic side of things as well. The Hawk 200-series was a single-seater subsonic, lightweight fighter/attack. The prep pilots to fly Hawk 200's, especially into a threatened or hostile environment, would likely also require some sort of LIFT.

Given that some of the quoted prices for the S. Korean T/A-50 Golden Eagle are approximately the same as Hawk 100- or 200-series, but capable of performing both training and light fighter/attack roles, it would seem that the S. Korean offering would be a better option.

-Cheers

Would the t/a 50 be suitable as a new lift aircraft for the RAAF once hawk needs to be updated for conversion training to F 35A.

With an order taken for RAAF for LIFT and the more advanced aircraft multi role for NZ

 

[Todjaeger]

Would the t/a 50 be suitable as a new lift aircraft for the RAAF once hawk needs to be updated for conversion training to F 35A.

With an order taken for RAAF for LIFT and the more advanced aircraft multi role for NZ

IIRC there are essentially four different versions of the Golden Eagle. I am too tired to be bothered looking them all up right now, but IIRC they are a training-only version, a training/attack version (which is the T/A-50), another which is an attack/fighter version, with the last being primarily a lightweight fighter.

If the Golden Eagle is still in production when the RAAF needs to replace the Hawk 127 LIFT's, especially if the Golden Eagle, or an Americanized version of it ends up as the US replacement for the T-38.

Given a choice though, I would rather the RAAF get the more advanced trainer with attack capabilities, just in case... Also it could allow training using live munitions/PGM's but at a lower flying cost than a frontline fighter would be. This could also open up potential for a joint buy with the RNZAF which could a cadre of fastjet trained RNZAF pilots and aircraft.

Apart from the training opportunities for the pilots, or the resumption of a degree of attack & fighter/interceptor capability within the RNZAF, it could allow the NZDF to conduct more elements of combined arms/joint operations training with less dependence on allies.

That I personally think many people underestimate the value of, or perhaps just fail to understand. Yes, NZDF personnel are unlikely to ever deploy to a hostile area away from NZ without it being as part of a coalition. That means that NZDF personnel should be able to call upon support from coalition partners, be it arty support, CAS, strike packages, or whatever. What did recently (within the last two years or so) get demonstrated was that a lack of attack/strike aircraft within the NZDF inventory led to NZDF personnel not having the necessary skills to safely make use of the air support available over Afghanistan. This was fortunately able to be remedied by a pair of RAAF Hornets being sent to NZ to participate in some Kiwi exercises.

While I am glad that it occurred, both to upskill NZ personnel who were readying for a deployment, and as a continuing example of the mateship between the Aussie and Kiwi cousins. What concerns me though, is the question of what will happen next time? If NZDF personnel need training with RAAF fighters flying CAS/strike packages in support, what happens when ADF commitments require those RAAF fighters elsewhere?

Something to consider at least.

-Cheers

 

[aussienscale]

Also the economic side of things as well. The Hawk 200-series was a single-seater subsonic, lightweight fighter/attack. The prep pilots to fly Hawk 200's, especially into a threatened or hostile environment, would likely also require some sort of LIFT.

Given that some of the quoted prices for the S. Korean T/A-50 Golden Eagle are approximately the same as Hawk 100- or 200-series, but capable of performing both training and light fighter/attack roles, it would seem that the S. Korean offering would be a better option.

-Cheers

Yeah definately agree, I probably did not make my comments clear at the begining, but was suggesting a "Hawk 200" Style for the RNZAF, my idea behind the Hawk was the potential ability for the RNZAF to back onto the RAAF Lift thus reducing their costs and outlay, so the T/A 50 is a potential for them as well, I am sure they could also use their LIFT program to train as well.

If we are to look at and discuss realistic possibilities, this type/style of aircraft I believe is possible, I don't see F15, f16 or even F18 etc as being even remotely palatable to NZ

Cheers

 

[t68]

Looking into the Golden Eagle, the ROKAF has placed an order for 20 F/A 50 at 600 Million it does fit into the budget estimates for the initial outlay if the NZG where to get rid of the Capital charge no need for increase in the current budget. But in saying that ROKAF already have the aircraft in its supply chain, so its introduction will not be the same as our Kiwi friends they would still have an form an ACF from scratch all the better if RAAF bought some as a replacement for Hawk, which won’t be any time soon with Hawk getting a 25 million upgrade soon.

Seoul Orders 20 FA-50 Attack Aircraft In a $600 Million Deal | Defense Update Portal

Upgrade for RAAF

 

[kiwi in exile]

The FA 50 looks pretty good as a light fighter bomber/trainer. It might also be worth looking at how the Aermacchi M-346 Master (based on the YAK 130) develops.

However, why do we need fighters. What missions would the realistically serve and in which context? There is little point in having jets for the sake of having jets. NZ's national defence needs would be better met via capably equiped and armed naval combat force and MPAs. I'd rather spend the money there.

If we do decide that we need fighters, buying low-end, upgraded trainers is a waste. If we were in contested airspace, they may be more of a liability than a asset. Look at the proliferation of Su27 variants around the asia pacific region. In 10 years time 5th gen may be the norm (Russian exports).

If we were operating under an allied umbrella of air superiority there would be other capabilities that we could offer that I imaging would be cheaper (and more politically acceptable to many NZers) than deploying and operating a group of fast jets to drop bombs. Close air support needs could be met more practically and economically by upgrading our helos or adopting some of the role-on-roll-off packages available for C295/C27s. They would likely allready be deployed for their transport capabilities and therefore would be an organic part of a deployed force. Or something like a Super Tucano which would be cheaper.

I wouldn't want to have a bunch of light fighter bombers at the expense of having a credible naval combat force. If the gov't did put up the money, I feel that that would entail cuts somewhere else. If tensions continue to grow in the the asia pacific and it looks like we do need an airforce, I'd rather that we had a more credible air combat force that more closely matched the capabilities of our (potential) adversaries. I realise that this would cost heaps and there probably wouldn't be the budget or will (until TSHTF) but I wouldn't want to have to go up against a Sukhoi or 5th gen fighter in something based on a trainer. You may as well still be in a skyhawk.