New Zealand invasion

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I don't even think New Zealand could afford South Korean T-50 Golden Eagle light fighter/trainers, the aircraft I prefer for New Zealand. At least they are supersonic, much better than any Hawk aircraft. Twelve to eighteen of them should be all their air force needs or requires. That is if they want some sort of air combat force, which by the way is not affordable with current defence spending policy.

Once the F/A-50 hits production that is going to be a handy little piece of kit; supersonic, relaxed stability, 9 hard-points +1 for EO/IR Targeting pods, BVR capable, perfect for a nation like NZ. I have no doubt Wellington could afford 24 of those puppies, but unfortunately the threat simply isn't there.

 

[MrConservative]

I don't even think New Zealand could afford South Korean T-50 Golden Eagle light fighter/trainers, the aircraft I prefer for New Zealand. At least they are supersonic, much better than any Hawk aircraft. Twelve to eighteen of them should be all their air force needs or requires. That is if they want some sort of air combat force, which by the way is not affordable with current defence spending policy.

They can afford it Toby. Its just that they want to keep on spending 0.7% of GDP on Defence for as long as they can get away with it.

Your right about the KAI T-50 family. The F/A-50 is the one to go for. A brilliant concept really. A fairly cheap 2nd tier quality built OTS light fighter-attack aircraft that can be used as a trainer as well, thus saving millions in conversion. Does all the CAS, Interdiction roles and will do A/Ship eventually. All that the RNZAF once did and all that it still needs to do.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

They can afford it Toby. Its just that they want to keep on spending 0.7% of GDP on Defence for as long as they can get away with it.

Your right about the KAI T-50 family. The F/A-50 is the one to go for. A brilliant concept really. A fairly cheap 2nd tier quality built OTS light fighter-attack aircraft that can be used as a trainer as well, thus saving millions in conversion. Does all the CAS, Interdiction roles and will do A/Ship eventually. All that the RNZAF once did and all that it still needs to do.

I don’t think the proper F/A-50 will be able to fulfil the training roll. It will be a dedicated light multirole aircraft. Only one seat, EL/M-2032 (you could probably upgrade to EL/M-2052 AESA down the track), 9 hard-points and all the bells and whistles (RWR/EWSP, BVR weapons ect) make it a fair dinkum fighter. While the family could fulfil your whole requirements you couldn’t use the combat platforms in the training roll unfortunatly. Much like the Hawk 200.

But I agree the F/A-50 is an excellent idea, it’s the West's JF-17. Does pretty much everything an F-16 does (just less well) for somewhere in the $20 mil ballpark (half the price of a modern attack helo).

 

[MrConservative]

I don’t think the proper F/A-50 will be able to fulfil the training roll. It will be a dedicated light multirole aircraft. Only one seat, EL/M-2032 (you could probably upgrade to EL/M-2052 AESA down the track), 9 hard-points and all the bells and whistles (RWR/EWSP, BVR weapons ect) make it a fair dinkum fighter. While the family could fulfil your whole requirements you couldn’t use the combat platforms in the training roll unfortunatly. Much like the Hawk 200.

But I agree the F/A-50 is an excellent idea, it’s the West's JF-17. Does pretty much everything an F-16 does (just less well) for somewhere in the $20 mil ballpark (half the price of a modern attack helo).

Plans for the single seater F-50 have been dropped. The F/A-50 is now ro be based on the T/A-50 using the EL/M-2032 instead of the APG-67 and adds Link 16. The AESA wont happen until the F-16 shuffles off into retirement. Then it will be probably all go.

 

[yogi4ACF]

QUOTE=MrConservative;184427]Plans for the single seater F-50 have been dropped. The F/A-50 is now ro be based on the T/A-50 using the EL/M-2032 instead of the APG-67 and adds Link 16. The AESA wont happen until the F-16 shuffles off into retirement. Then it will be probably all go.[/QUOTE]

While the t-50 idea has some merit remember we still have the macchis. It would be far more cost effective (because cost would be the only reason to buy t-50s over f16's or a similar fighter surely) to simply reinstate them. Then at least we will once again have that basic infrastructure which to build on....

Realistically if the RNZAFwas going to reinstate the ACF wouldnt you guys think it would be better to purchase a fighter/bomber that would be supplementary to our close allies such as australia? I just dont see the t-50 as being capable enough to fit into that bracket.

This is stuff i've already discussed with a bunch of ppl far more in the know than me here's the link if anyone is interested Wings Over Cambridge - what...IF...(ideal fighter aircraft for RNZAF)

 

[StevoJH]

Any idea how much it would cost to make a normal Hawk 100 series into a fully combat capable fighter, like say a two seat version of the Hawk 200.

That way it can still carry out the trainer duty's, but is fully combat capable in addition. Could you fit a Selex AESA in the nose and integrate the sensors needed for dropping precision guided munitions into the Aden gun pod?

Hawk with ASRAAM, AMRAAM, Paveway, Brimstone etc.

How capable would it be for the cost?

 

[yogi4ACF]

Any idea how much it would cost to make a normal Hawk 100 series into a fully combat capable fighter, like say a two seat version of the Hawk 200.

That way it can still carry out the trainer duty's, but is fully combat capable in addition. Could you fit a Selex AESA in the nose and integrate the sensors needed for dropping precision guided munitions into the Aden gun pod?

Hawk with ASRAAM, AMRAAM, Paveway, Brimstone etc.

How capable would it be for the cost?

Interesting idea but I dont see how it could be worth the time money or effort

Like I said we already have the macchis (so far anyway) it would be cheaper and more logical to simply update the avionics in them since we already own them. What would the advantage of a hawk be over a macchi?

Also would you really want to take a hawk or a t-50 into a warzone? If i was flying one of those things in a super hot zone I would be feelin like this:shudder these are "light fighter training aircraft" very capable in their own right and ok for support perhaps in a pinch but I cant see the logic in going to all that effort to buy and extensively upgrade a hawk when it would probably cost a similar amount to buy f-16s with superior off the shelf capability. I mean we arent that poor haha. The money is there its just a matter of getting old john to commit to the idea of reinstatement of the acf
I do believe our 9 (I think) NH90s were close to the billion mark, or at least will be by the time they become operational (feel free to correct me if I am wrong). That isnt exactly chump change.

 

[StevoJH]

I do believe our 9 (I think) NH90s were close to the billion mark, or at least will be by the time they become operational (feel free to correct me if I am wrong). That isnt exactly chump change.

It is chump change compared to purchasing a modern fighter aircraft and maintaining it in service. Remember the 24 F-18's Australia purchased will cost 6 billion over 10 years and that is only enough for a single squadron and a small OCU to convert pilots to the type.

It averages out as 25 million per year per aircraft for 10 years. 600 million per year for the fleet. Of course if they were kept longer then 10 years the yearly costs would be lower. However it goes to show just how much a modern fighter costs to keep in service.

Compared to that, a Hawk 200 class fighter F-50 or Macchi costs nothing to run, and the Hawk 200 derivative like I suggested above would be more capable then the Macchi and probably comparable to the F/A-50.

Oh, and both would be more capable then the A4's NZ used to operate. Plus with a Hawk 100/200 hybrid you would not need a lead in fighter trainer, whereas if you are flying F-16's or F-18F's, you probably do.

 

[battlensign]

I am wondering why the concern about NZ being invaded when we now have the statistics to prove what we already knew.....the secret kiwi invasion of Aus has already begun.

Keep out Kiwis, says Labor MP Thomson - Yahoo!7 News

Permanent Residency up from 16400 in 02/03 to 47800 last financial year apparently.

Dear God! Potentially millions of subversives - indentifiable only by their overuse of the colloquialism 'bro' and an hereditary anger about the cultural theft of the pavlova!

Brett.

 

[MrConservative]

Interesting idea but I dont see how it could be worth the time money or effort

Like I said we already have the macchis (so far anyway) it would be cheaper and more logical to simply update the avionics in them since we already own them. What would the advantage of a hawk be over a macchi?

Also would you really want to take a hawk or a t-50 into a warzone? If i was flying one of those things in a super hot zone I would be feelin like this:shudder these are "light fighter training aircraft" very capable in their own right and ok for support perhaps in a pinch but I cant see the logic in going to all that effort to buy and extensively upgrade a hawk when it would probably cost a similar amount to buy f-16s with superior off the shelf capability. I mean we arent that poor haha. The money is there its just a matter of getting old john to commit to the idea of reinstatement of the acf
I do believe our 9 (I think) NH90s were close to the billion mark, or at least will be by the time they become operational (feel free to correct me if I am wrong). That isnt exactly chump change.

It is pretty clear that the officials and policy planners in the Ministry just want the whole former air combat force to disappear. It is likely for that to happen over the next 6 months.

No you would not take a T-50 into a war zone but a F/A-50 would do well. It is developing into the main second tier fighter-attack aircraft that once was the job of the A-4, F-5, T-37.

 

[exported_kiwi]

In a way, a serious potential threat would be a good thing. It'd be the catharsis for some serious reinvestment in a viable and sustainable defense establishment including 4 frigates, serious airdefense and antiarmour, better artillery, more modern air transport, maritime survelillance and a nominal but viable ACF. Just my opinion guys.

 

[yogi4ACF]

It is chump change compared to purchasing a modern fighter aircraft and maintaining it in service. Remember the 24 F-18's Australia purchased will cost 6 billion over 10 years and that is only enough for a single squadron and a small OCU to convert pilots to the type.

It averages out as 25 million per year per aircraft for 10 years. 600 million per year for the fleet. Of course if they were kept longer then 10 years the yearly costs would be lower. However it goes to show just how much a modern fighter costs to keep in service.

Compared to that, a Hawk 200 class fighter F-50 or Macchi costs nothing to run, and the Hawk 200 derivative like I suggested above would be more capable then the Macchi and probably comparable to the F/A-50.

Oh, and both would be more capable then the A4's NZ used to operate. Plus with a Hawk 100/200 hybrid you would not need a lead in fighter trainer, whereas if you are flying F-16's or F-18F's, you probably do.

Yes. But my point was we bought 9 Nh90s for 800 odd million dollars. They were about 70 mil each thats horrendous for a helicopter.hwell and i'm assuming the rest of the price was the logistics and support etc.
We could have bought 9 gripens for much the same price of course they are going to be expensive to maintain over 10 years (but no where near as expensive as an f-18!) however I was only considering initial purchase and making the point we can afford it if we want to and if we are going to lay down a billion dollars for fighters they may as well be the real deal, a hawk may be more capable than a macchi and skyhawk but we already have the macchi. If we were to buy hawks in reality they would only ever be used as trainers and then we would have to buy proper fighters anyway.
We just have to bite the bullet

1. Upgrade the macchi to a more modern configuration so it's effective as a current day trainer
2. Get a proper ACF

 

[StevoJH]

Actually, what I found funny about the MRH-90 purchase by NZ is that the 9th airframe was purchased to be used as spares.

 

[yogi4ACF]

Actually, what I found funny about the MRH-90 purchase by NZ is that the 9th airframe was purchased to be used as spares.

You know how we like to tinker....

 

[Todjaeger]

Yes. But my point was we bought 9 Nh90s for 800 odd million dollars. They were about 70 mil each thats horrendous for a helicopter.hwell and i'm assuming the rest of the price was the logistics and support etc.
We could have bought 9 gripens for much the same price of course they are going to be expensive to maintain over 10 years (but no where near as expensive as an f-18!) however I was only considering initial purchase and making the point we can afford it if we want to and if we are going to lay down a billion dollars for fighters they may as well be the real deal, a hawk may be more capable than a macchi and skyhawk but we already have the macchi. If we were to buy hawks in reality they would only ever be used as trainers and then we would have to buy proper fighters anyway.
We just have to bite the bullet

1. Upgrade the macchi to a more modern configuration so it's effective as a current day trainer
2. Get a proper ACF

Something to keep in mind regarding NZ defence purchases... The numbers are not always quite what they seem to be. IIRC and from re-reading some of the early posts in the RNZAF thread, the ~NZ$800 million was for a total of 8+1 spare NH-90 TTH helicopters, as well as 6 LUH.

At the time, the sale of individual NH-90s was estimated to be roughly US$15 million apiece. Part of what seemed to be a cost increase for the NH-90 was due to an apparent failure to take into account possible fluctuations in exchange rates preceeding a 13% decline in the value of the Kiwi dollar. IIRC though, a very significant part of the cost were estimates on the cost of supporting the helicopters through a 20-30 year service life. As has been observed, the cost of providing support to an aircraft for its entire service life can easily match the intial acquisition cost.

As some members are doubtlessly aware, I am not a fan of how NZ calculates or publishes most of the NZDF budgetary allocations. The numbers almost always seem to be higher than what is actually being spent in a given year. To my mind, it almost seems as though the numbers have been deliberately manipulated to make the ordinary Kiwi, who most likely would not be inclined to actually sit down and examine the numbers, think that more is being spent on defence than is actually the case. The other part of which I personally dislike is how pols further confuse the issue by stating dissimiliar numbers for differing projects.

Take for instance a comparison of the NH-90 acquisition and the Project Protector fleet. As commonly mentioned and thought, the NH-90s are to cost NZ$800 million for 8 helicopters. OTOH the Project Protector fleet is NZ$500 million for a total of 7 ships... With that sort of comparison in place, it does seem that the Project Protector was much better run, and a more efficient use of limited Kiwi resources. In reality though the Project Protector cost was essentially the initial aquisition cost and did not include through-life support which could have easily doubled the cost.

What I would like to see the NZDF start doing, it come up with cost estimates calculated in real dollar amounts for both the intial purchase of equipment, as well as the operating through-life costs. Once this is done, then the NZDF needs to stick with this methodology and reporting consistantly. IMO this also needs to be done for the annual budget for the NZDF as well, so that the average Kiwi can see what they are getting in terms of defence, as well as an honest picture of how much (or more accurately, how little) is being spent.

-Cheers

 

[stoker]

Yes. But my point was we bought 9 Nh90s for 800 odd million dollars. They were about 70 mil each thats horrendous for a helicopter. and i'm assuming the rest of the price was the logistics and support etc.
We could have bought 9 gripens for much the same price of course they are going to be expensive to maintain over 10 years .

I can certainly envisage ( for N.Z. ) many scenario's where the NH 90's will prove vital, but, I cannot forsee a scenario ( for N.Z. ) where Gripen fighters will prove vital or even necessary.
Military hardware is expensive, you items buy to fulfill a need, I cannot see what benefit N.Z. would gain spending a large amount of their budget on fighter aircraft they will never use or need..

There is no nation that is going to launch an attack on N.Z. over the next millinium. Also they would have had to beat Australia/USA first.

I think NZ should just abandon its army all together LOL. By the time any opposing force landed on NZ it would be all over already. It should instead convert the army personnels into navy and airforce.

This suggestion isn't as silly as it sounds.

Actually I could see a benefit for N.Z. military in to becoming a Purple combined Force. You don't need a seperate Airforce, the P3's could go to the Navy, and the C130,s could go to the Army, and even more realistic to combine the whole lot under the Navy, with the Army also becoming a 'Marine' division under a Navy structure similar to the U.S. Marines.

I don't think the Generals and Air Commodors in N.Z. are going to be very happy about it though.:duel

 

[MrConservative]

One thing that is patently clear is that from now on the Office of the Auditor General will be monitoring the Min Def closely. This is a good and necessary move. There have been aspects of the defence organisation in NZ clearly not up to standard.

Every major purchase has had issues surrounding the financial side of the procurement process commented on by the AG or a major report completed in which serious flaws have been exposed.

I have been reading Ron Crosby’s excellent book this morning - ‘NZSAS the First 50 Years’. A recent CO of 1 NZSAS Group Col Andrew Martin spells out the loss in operational terms of no longer possessing an air strike component in the RNZAF. An excellent read that I must recommend you all buy yourself for Christmas.

 

[StevoJH]

There is no nation that is going to launch an attack on N.Z. over the next millinium. Also they would have had to beat Australia/USA first

Why should we spend we spend several billion dollars a year on our defense so New Zealand can slack off and let us defend them if anyone attacks? Thats not how it works my friend.

:duel

 

[gf0012-aust]

Why should we spend we spend several billion dollars a year on our defense so New Zealand can slack off and let us defend them if anyone attacks? Thats not how it works my friend.

:duel

It does for NZ. they factor pretty deeply into what we do and plan for.

 

[yogi4ACF]

Yes. But my point was we bought 9 Nh90s for 800 odd million dollars. They were about 70 mil each thats horrendous for a helicopter. and i'm assuming the rest of the price was the logistics and support etc.
We could have bought 9 gripens for much the same price of course they are going to be expensive to maintain over 10 years .

I can certainly envisage ( for N.Z. ) many scenario's where the NH 90's will prove vital, but, I cannot forsee a scenario ( for N.Z. ) where Gripen fighters will prove vital or even necessary.
Military hardware is expensive, you items buy to fulfill a need, I cannot see what benefit N.Z. would gain spending a large amount of their budget on fighter aircraft they will never use or need..

There is no nation that is going to launch an attack on N.Z. over the next millinium. Also they would have had to beat Australia/USA first.

I think NZ should just abandon its army all together LOL. By the time any opposing force landed on NZ it would be all over already. It should instead convert the army personnels into navy and airforce.

This suggestion isn't as silly as it sounds.

Actually I could see a benefit for N.Z. military in to becoming a Purple combined Force. You don't need a seperate Airforce, the P3's could go to the Navy, and the C130,s could go to the Army, and even more realistic to combine the whole lot under the Navy, with the Army also becoming a 'Marine' division under a Navy structure similar to the U.S. Marines.

I don't think the Generals and Air Commodors in N.Z. are going to be very happy about it though.:duel

you missed my point entirely. Next time read the entire post dude.