Royal New Zealand Air Force

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
could the BAE Hawk be used in a cas role?
The hawk has a centre line gun pod and has 2 hard point's for misslie admitily it was for sidewinder.i don't know if they could be used for air to ground or not.
Of course the Hawk can do CAS. However we are talking about an aircraft that is a generation behind the F/A-50 and the M-346. Also the it is less capable for the money some 18m sterling per unit - that is why it fell out of favour with the UAE. The other significant point is NZ has hitched its trade sail to an Asian mast - from now on I think we will see more defence spending from NZ within the Asian region and not Europe. Asia is where all the future action is regarding technology and money. A Korean aircraft that has a Lockhead tie in using a generic proven engine is more attractive than a British aircraft in a political sense.
 

bruceedwards

New Member
... So is $499.8m affordable? Is $75m p.a affordable?
Frankly we dont need F-16 Block 60's at double/triple the cost or that level of capability.

And that $499.8m payment would be spread out over a number of years. Im pretty sure between, Treasury, the Reserve Bank and John Key's moneyworld contacts a 10 year finance spread could be sorted out. So could we afford $50 million a year to pay for these things? It is less than what we spend on 1 day of welfare ($53m).

Can we afford the $75m operating costs on top of this? Thus $125m p.a in total? Of course - that is millions less than the nonsense called the capital charge the NZDF has to pay back each year! Two and a half days of welfare or let me put it another way about a 6.6% increase in current gross defence spending or even better still - $100 a year or $2 a week or 30cents a day in extra taxes for every working adult taxpayer between 18-65. How about less than 8 cents a day for every man woman and child? Can NZer's afford 14 F/A-50 aircraft at 8c a day? Its a no brainer!
Wow, you break down the costs in a realistic and convincing manner.

Actually, breaking costs down over a ten or fifteen year period sounds very similar to how the LTDP operated - allowing the government to have it's cake and eat it to by announcing they were spending 'billions' on new hardware, whilst splitting it up over ten years in a seperate budget item so it would get lost in the shuffle on the budget breakdown.

It's interesting you comment about the Capital Charge. Is this still in existence? After excluding it, is anyone aware what New Zealands actual GDP spend on defence is?
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Wow, you break down the costs in a realistic and convincing manner.

Actually, breaking costs down over a ten or fifteen year period sounds very similar to how the LTDP operated - allowing the government to have it's cake and eat it to by announcing they were spending 'billions' on new hardware, whilst splitting it up over ten years in a seperate budget item so it would get lost in the shuffle on the budget breakdown.

It's interesting you comment about the Capital Charge. Is this still in existence? After excluding it, is anyone aware what New Zealands actual GDP spend on defence is?
The capital charge still applies to all government entities. This document though a few years old explains it well.

http://www.victoria.ac.nz/css/docs/Strategic_Briefing_Papers/Vol.1 Dec 1999/NZDS.pdf
 

bruceedwards

New Member
The capital charge still applies to all government entities. This document though a few years old explains it well.

http://www.victoria.ac.nz/css/docs/Strategic_Briefing_Papers/Vol.1 Dec 1999/NZDS.pdf
Thanks - that's quite informative.

Although if it does strike me as a strange way to measure performance.

Surely, this could mean that if defence (or any other gov. department) cannot meet it's outputs (e.g. because of budgetary issues, for example) it could wind up further penalised and create a never ending cycle of capital repayments? The fact that this hasn't happened yet probably means I'm just missing something though :confused:

Does anyone know if the NZDF is now allowed to depreciate it's equipment? AFAIK in times past it was unable to do this.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Thanks - that's quite informative.

Although if it does strike me as a strange way to measure performance.

Surely, this could mean that if defence (or any other gov. department) cannot meet it's outputs (e.g. because of budgetary issues, for example) it could wind up further penalised and create a never ending cycle of capital repayments? The fact that this hasn't happened yet probably means I'm just missing something though :confused:

Does anyone know if the NZDF is now allowed to depreciate it's equipment? AFAIK in times past it was unable to do this.
Actually, I believe that the NZDF has been penalised and had to make Capital repayments. IIRC that was one of the reasons why there had been some discussion on closing some of the bases and selling the real estate...

As for the other question, what % of GDP NZ actually spends on defence, I believe the figure is somewhere between 0.6 to 0.71% GDP, compared to a spending claim of 1% GDP, or a historical figure of 1.8% GDP.

As from the Capital Charge, IIRC there is another similar sort item where the NZDF has a budgeted amount which it is then charged for by the government. GT comes to mind, but I am uncertain.

-Cheers
 

t68

Well-Known Member
You have got me lost on this capital charge.
So i take it is like a gst on the budget for defence or lets say it's a visa card and the merchant dealer takes his 2/3% on money borrowed on the card ?
So when they say they had x amount in the budget less capital charge. thats crazy!!
 

alexz

New Member
What is the latest news about the Skyhawk and Aermacchi sale to the US? I heard that it is finally cleared for import into the US, but nothing more since.
 

greenie

New Member
What is the latest news about the Skyhawk and Aermacchi sale to the US? I heard that it is finally cleared for import into the US, but nothing more since.
Hello again
Been a long time I know but dutie calls.

Silly idea time.....I was reading the lastest Janes D/Weekly today and see the RAF are staring down the barrel of disposing of aircraft ( Harriers and Tornadoes) , pilots ? and groundies. Up 10,000 pers. Along with Base closures.
Perhapes we (NZ) could make an offer to lease a Sqn of Tornadoes and employ the whole pilot through groundie support for the Sqn . Killing two birds with one stone. We could have a Sqn of A/C set up with trained pers over night. Not to mention helping the RAF.

Silly I know ...just an Idea.
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
You have got me lost on this capital charge.
So i take it is like a gst on the budget for defence or lets say it's a visa card and the merchant dealer takes his 2/3% on money borrowed on the card ?
So when they say they had x amount in the budget less capital charge. thats crazy!!
Think of it like capital gains tax, except they are paying based on a decrease in value rather then an increase.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Think of it like capital gains tax, except they are paying based on a decrease in value rather then an increase.
Actually I believe the Capital Charge is (or was) intended to demonstrate how effectively or efficiently government services were delivered.

For example, the Project Protector fleet was ordered with the expectation a certain number of days of sea patrolling would be conducted. Whatever that number was (I am too tired/lazy to bother looking it up right now...) would be assigned a certain value in NZ$'s. Now, if the Protector fleet was not able to deliver the required number of days of sea patrolling, then they (or rather the NZDF as a whole) would owe a balance against the Capital Charge.

There are IMO at least three significant problems with this approach. For starters, who assigns the value for a particular service/operation? I can easily see how for political or idealistic reasons, such numbers would be subject to manipulation. Secondly, to my understanding of the Capital Charge, it gets treated as something in which the NZDF cannot have a balance owed in... This could (and perhaps has) lead to a sale of assets, which could then have a further negative impact on the NZDF's ability to perform required tasks. This could in turn lead to further negative balances with respect to the Capital Charge and therefore further sales of NZDF assets to get back into 'the black' but with even less assets... In other words, it can create a recursive loop. Thirdly, I find the notion that if the NZDF is able to perform all tasks required to meet the Capital Charge and more, there will be a reward in assets (or a balance owed to the NZDF) unlikely.

As many know, or perhaps can tell, I am not a fan of the Capital Charge, as it muddles the issue of just how much NZ actually spends on defence. Taking the period from 2008-2009, it appears that the actual Capital Charge for that period was ~NZ$400 million. Given that the total stated income for the NZDF for the same period was only ~NZ$2.1 billion, the value for service to fufill the Capital Charge represents about 20% of the NZDF 'income' as opposed to actual currency available to purchase capabilities or conduct training and operations with.

I would prefer that NZ eliminate the Capital Charge from the budget of the NZDF, along with other items which distort the level of real funding the NZDF has available to it. To my mind other, non-dollar metrics, are more appropriate for determining if the NZDF meets the government requirements for service. Particularly in light of how often various governments have parsimoniously treated the NZDF, purchasing the cheapest equipment to fufill a role, as opposed to what best can fufill a role.

-Cheers
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
What is the latest news about the Skyhawk and Aermacchi sale to the US? I heard that it is finally cleared for import into the US, but nothing more since.
Last month reps from TAS test flew a couple of the Macchi’s. So now it is negotiation time. The Govt position is basically all or nothing. e.g Both the A-4’s and the Macchi’s go as a job lot. TAS have the position that the A-4’s must be regenerated into an operational condition and that the NZ Govt must pay. Estimates are that this will cost around $30-35m.

Questions are: Does TAS have the money or the financing to buy the aircraft in a US recession? Will NZ be able to regenerate them as - 1) Safe are very busy – all their A-4 people are working on the other critical RNZAF upgrades and - 2) the rest of the former ACF technicians are working in greener pastures?

Most people who are following this sordid saga are betting that the deal on the table will either will go through next to zero – basically give the old ACF away and be done with them or the deal will fall over due to lack of buyer financing. Most people think that this is the last genuine deal that the Govt will get for these aircraft.

My personal opinion is that I hope the deal falls over. I want them to be a monument to the monumental stupidity undertaken on the 13th of December 2001. Which means we will be stuck with them and the Govt will have to revise its game plan.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
This is the latest news on this saga.

Govt considers other options for fighter planes - Yahoo!Xtra News

There has never been the money. The whole deal has been a farce.

This is the interesting line:

"The Aermacchis could be reintroduced to train pilots, although selling them separately was also a possibility as it did not require US approval."

Considering that they have had 8 years of attempting to sell them - a sale is very unlikely. I think that the only response from is the response that should have happened years ago - upgrade the the analog cockpits to digital and include the IFF that was never fitted and get them used as the advanced training aircraft they are. All RNZAF pilots prior to 1999 did 75-80 hours advanced training on the MB-339CB before moving onto their specialist squadrons.
 

Lucasnz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #833
This is the latest news on this saga.

Govt considers other options for fighter planes - Yahoo!Xtra News

There has never been the money. The whole deal has been a farce.

This is the interesting line:

"The Aermacchis could be reintroduced to train pilots, although selling them separately was also a possibility as it did not require US approval."

Considering that they have had 8 years of attempting to sell them - a sale is very unlikely. I think that the only response from is the response that should have happened years ago - upgrade the the analog cockpits to digital and include the IFF that was never fitted and get them used as the advanced training aircraft they are. All RNZAF pilots prior to 1999 did 75-80 hours advanced training on the MB-339CB before moving onto their specialist squadrons.
If you put this in the context of the current fiscal state of the government, the suspension of the King Air replacement project it's probably more cost effective to reintroduce the MB339, than acquire a new aircraft, even with the upgrades you propose.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Thankfully other options are being looked at if the sale falls through although only one offers a glimmer of hope i.e. the reintroduction of the Macchis. Hopefully public and group submissions to the Govt's Defence Whitepaper have forced the new Govt to think about this. Despite other competing defence equipment priorities, the cost to regenerate a Macchi training squadron is affordable. The Macchi's are still in a hanger at Ohakea thus hanger space is still available etc.

Similarly there's no reason why the TA-4's and a few A4's couldn't be regenerated too for further advanced NZDF training esp. Naval/Army self-defence, with the better on-board radar system etc. (And the other operational capability the RNZAF has lost, apart from CAS, FAC, interdiction & maritime strike etc, is that of the P-3's searching for/co-ordinating/vectoring the A-4's to attack maritime surface targets. This was a major aspect of the P-3's and A-4's joint training both within NZ and on overseas exercises etc. This also means now surely that the P-3's have lost this capability to such an extent the P-3's may not be able to work with other allied or friendly air combat forces in similar roles etc. What an absolute waste of potential considering the state-of-the-art anti-surface and overland sensor upgrades the P-3K's are now getting via L3).

After all, if it is to cost NZ $35 Million to regenerate all or most of the A4's and Macchis for a US training company, then surely the NZ Govt could afford to regenerate some of these aircraft types to train the NZDF for overseas deployments etc. Of course other money would be needed for additional personel, but in these economic times I wouldn't think there would be an issue getting some former service people to re-enlist (or come back in as Reservists. After all we're talking about basic steps i.e. training, not a full-on ACF with overseas deployments at the moment etc). In fact it certainly won't hurt recruiting in terms of school leavers, eh.

Either way a sensible Govt would keep some basic level of capability for these uncertain and changing times. Only a foolish Govt would dispose of such potential, both main political parties should think ahead several years to see how history would be portraying those that disbanded and then those that didn't rebuild this capability whilst it was still possible. Not a nice way to be remembered if one thinks of the likes of Chamberlain - forever condemned by history, even here in NZ etc.

(BTW - Dom Post link http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/politics/3140976/Skyhawks-may-end-up-as-spare-parts)
 
Last edited:

jchan77

New Member
Got this from another website

Air Force:


Combat : ( ~$6bil [not including options])

36 Modern Western Fighter Aircraft ( F-35 or Eurofighter)
18 Light strike/training jets (BAE Hawk)
6 Armed Attack Helicopters (Tiger ARH)


Maritime Patrol:

6 Maritime strike aircraft (P-8 Poseidon - long range and payload)


Fixed-wing Transport:

8 eavy transportation aircraft (8 A400Ms)


Rotary Transport:

12 Medium sized helicopters (NH90 - Great for heavy lift)
16 light helicopters (A109 - Cheap and versatile)


Light Aircraft:

12 Turbo prop with light strike capability (Brazilian Super Tucano - Perfect for light strike and surveillance. The Brazilians currently use them to patrol the vast Amazon)


Unmanned Aerial Vehicles:

6 remote controlled reconnaissance UAVs (MQ-1 Predator - Armed with AGM-114 Hellfire missiles and in use since 1995, has seen combat over Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq, and Yemen.)


The air force is the force that will be the biggest change. To re-establish the combat capability, an order of the light/training jets will be placed and negotiations with Britian will take place. While this is happening, a base will be constructed in Auckland. A British commander will be recruited to be the Chief of air force and will be the base commander at Auckland, as currently no one in New Zealand is capable of this. Negotitions for training by British pilots will be undertaken, and 36 new pilots will be sent Britian with their new commander to train. Once trained, they will come back and the 36 fighters will be purchased.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Air Force:


Combat : ( ~$6bil [not including options])

36 Modern Western Fighter Aircraft ( F-35 or Eurofighter)
18 Light strike/training jets (BAE Hawk)
6 Armed Attack Helicopters (Tiger ARH)


Maritime Patrol:

6 Maritime strike aircraft (P-8 Poseidon - long range and payload)


Fixed-wing Transport:

8 eavy transportation aircraft (8 A400Ms)


Rotary Transport:

12 Medium sized helicopters (NH90 - Great for heavy lift)
16 light helicopters (A109 - Cheap and versatile)


Light Aircraft:

12 Turbo prop with light strike capability (Brazilian Super Tucano - Perfect for light strike and surveillance. The Brazilians currently use them to patrol the vast Amazon)


Unmanned Aerial Vehicles:

6 remote controlled reconnaissance UAVs (MQ-1 Predator - Armed with AGM-114 Hellfire missiles and in use since 1995, has seen combat over Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq, and Yemen.)


The air force is the force that will be the biggest change. To re-establish the combat capability, an order of the light/training jets will be placed and negotiations with Britian will take place. While this is happening, a base will be constructed in Auckland. A British commander will be recruited to be the Chief of air force and will be the base commander at Auckland, as currently no one in New Zealand is capable of this. Negotitions for training by British pilots will be undertaken, and 36 new pilots will be sent Britian with their new commander to train. Once trained, they will come back and the 36 fighters will be purchased.


Can you supply a link for this or is this someone's wish list from another forum.
 

Marc 1

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Air Force:


Combat : ( ~$6bil [not including options])

36 Modern Western Fighter Aircraft ( F-35 or Eurofighter)
18 Light strike/training jets (BAE Hawk)
6 Armed Attack Helicopters (Tiger ARH)

Possibly just a tad ambitious and optimistic in the costings. The 24 SuperHornets Australia has just bought cost $6Bn Aussie dollars to purchase and operate for the first 10 years You are proposing 60 airframes here - maybe they could be purchased for $6Bn NZ dollars (?) but how do you guys intend running the damn things? Your defence budget would have to have a massive increase - not sure that's possible.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Combat : ( ~$6bil [not including options])

36 Modern Western Fighter Aircraft ( F-35 or Eurofighter)
18 Light strike/training jets (BAE Hawk)
6 Armed Attack Helicopters (Tiger ARH)
Frankly, this to me looks like just another Christmas wishlist some people might have for the RNZAF. I say this because again it largely consists of just a list of equipment, without any explanation of where the equipment would fit within NZDF needs, why the particular kit would be selected, the basis for the numbers to be purchased, or over what timeframe the equipment would be purchased. Perhaps even more importantly, there is no mention of how the RNZAF is going to afford to purchase the equipment, nevermind the ongoing operational costs.

Take the 60 aircraft listed for the ACF, a price of $6 billion is listed for 36 JSF or Typhoons, 18 Hawk variants and 6 Tigers... Given that neither the curreny or year of purchase is listed, that figure sounds too low to be anything other than the fly-away cost in Kiwi dollars. Even then, NZ$6 billion might not be enough. To keep things in perspective, Government has allocated ~NZ$600 million annually over a decade (IIRC part of the LTDP) for the purchase of new and replacement kit, across the entire NZDF. In effect, the 60 combat aircraft would consume an entire decade of the NZDF equipment budget without leaving any funding left for any other equipment purchases across the entirety of the NZDF. It also ignores all the extra personnel and support services which would be required if the number of fixed wing aircraft within the RNZAF tripled.

Care to explain where this funding will come from, or how the NZDF will afford to operate the equipment listed if/when they enter service? I will not even bother to address the other pieces of kit listed, as what has been touched on so far should be sufficient to illustrate how far from reality the wishlist is, barring some as yet unmentioned but very good explanation.

Now, onto the final paragraph.

The air force is the force that will be the biggest change. To re-establish the combat capability, an order of the light/training jets will be placed and negotiations with Britian will take place. While this is happening, a base will be constructed in Auckland. A British commander will be recruited to be the Chief of air force and will be the base commander at Auckland, as currently no one in New Zealand is capable of this. Negotitions for training by British pilots will be undertaken, and 36 new pilots will be sent Britian with their new commander to train. Once trained, they will come back and the 36 fighters will be purchased.
I would be very interested to see the source for the list, as it appears given the first sentence, to be just a part of a larger plan to change the NZDF...

Moving right along then. What reason would there be for NZ to start negotiations with the UK for anything? The only reason that makes sense to me would be if (big IF) the ACF was to be restarted and Hawk trainers and/or light attack aircraft were to be ordered as part of an equipment order. However, there are other aircraft which can fufill the same role(s) and perhaps would be a better choice in terms of cost and/or capability for the RNZAF.

As for building a base at Auckland, why would that be necessary? Per the RNZAF site, Base Auckland already exists and includes Whenuapai airfield. Additionally, there is a separate facility at what had been Hobsonville airfield which also is considered part of Base Auckland.

Now, what explanation can be provided as to why a British commander needs to be recruited for the post of Chief of Air Force? The RNZAF already has a CAF, and a brief bio is available here. If (again, big IF) the ACF is re-started, why would a Kiwi officer not be suitable for the post of CAF? The CAF should not be personally conducting combat missions, or for that matter be base commanders either. The CAF's role is to lead the entire RNZAF and deal with all that entails.

As for the Kiwi pilots being trained by the UK... It would largely depend on which aircraft end up being selected, but given the aircraft numbers and types listed IMO the RNZAF should be able to conduct training domestically once a small number of pilots get trained to use the new aircraft, and then qualified to be trainers on for these new aircraft. The RNZAF already has its own flight training programme, what would be required is training to transition pilots into a fast jet environment and then have them rated for whatever type aircraft they would serve with. Sending everyone to the UK for training would really only be required if the RNZAF did not have its own training establishment.

When I get a chance, I will outline what I think would be the most sensible method for the RNZAF to re-establish an ACF if the NZDF desired to do so. It will probably be a few days before I get to do so, but I will attempt to cover the number and types of aircraft, where they would be based, the timeframe required for them to enter service, as well as what the startup and ongoing cost estimates would be.

-Cheers
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Air Force:


Combat : ( ~$6bil [not including options])

36 Modern Western Fighter Aircraft ( F-35 or Eurofighter)
18 Light strike/training jets (BAE Hawk)
6 Armed Attack Helicopters (Tiger ARH)


Maritime Patrol:

6 Maritime strike aircraft (P-8 Poseidon - long range and payload)


Fixed-wing Transport:

8 eavy transportation aircraft (8 A400Ms)


Rotary Transport:

12 Medium sized helicopters (NH90 - Great for heavy lift)
16 light helicopters (A109 - Cheap and versatile)


Light Aircraft:

12 Turbo prop with light strike capability (Brazilian Super Tucano - Perfect for light strike and surveillance. The Brazilians currently use them to patrol the vast Amazon)


Unmanned Aerial Vehicles:

6 remote controlled reconnaissance UAVs (MQ-1 Predator - Armed with AGM-114 Hellfire missiles and in use since 1995, has seen combat over Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq, and Yemen.)


The air force is the force that will be the biggest change. To re-establish the combat capability, an order of the light/training jets will be placed and negotiations with Britian will take place. While this is happening, a base will be constructed in Auckland. A British commander will be recruited to be the Chief of air force and will be the base commander at Auckland, as currently no one in New Zealand is capable of this. Negotitions for training by British pilots will be undertaken, and 36 new pilots will be sent Britian with their new commander to train. Once trained, they will come back and the 36 fighters will be purchased.
Is this the same ill-informed website you were quoting a couple of months back? Isn’t this some rehash of a Bebo webpage?

What is it with these letter to Santa lists of flash and fantastical air force equipment? A couple here and there are okay, but this is getting into Aspersers territory.

What total rubbish about no one in the RNZAF can properly run our Air Force and the need to bring in someone from the RAF to improve the situation is somehow a great idea. It’s a crap idea. Potential CAF contenders Gavin Howse and Steve Moore, both ex 75th Sqd knucks, are amongst the best officers that any air force has had period and their reputations as strike pilots in their younger days are well known in FPDA circles. They are well and truly capable of leading the NZDF not just the RNZAF. Current CAF Graham Lintott likewise, a first class leader, well respected by all who have dealt with him and has done a fantastic job of moving the RNZAF forward after political neglect. Whoever writes that stuff does not know what they’re talking about. Any problems that the RNZAF has had over the last few years has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of its serving and former personnel.

Why is the CAF also the Base Commander at Whenuapei? Why is an Air Vice Marshal doing a Wing Commanders job running an air base as well as running what is now after your big spend up a reasonably large and complicated organisation. How does that work in the real world.

Why is the CAF 500km away from the other Service Chiefs and the Minister? It is so laughable – it’s actually a bit tragic. Displaying a certain level of cognitive deficiency.

What on earth is all this sending 36 pilots to the UK to train on Hawks? Hang on a minute - so your saying if we buy 36 fighters we are going to need instantly 36 fighter pilots. Sorry mate it does not work out like that. If we are sending 36 pilots to RAF Valley which is the most logical place, would there be room for them and spare QFI’s? Looked pretty tight last time I was in the Holyhead district in 2005. In fact why buy our own 18 Hawks if you reckon that someone can whip up a bit of the old AJT in Blighty. Yeah Right! In fact I even think the Hawk is the wrong AJT for NZ operationally and politically.

Since you agree with the ‘website persons’ viewpoints since you bothered to post it (again) and defend it (again) I must point out that it does not make sense. Though I realise some others have pointed this out to you before. That shopping list costs well over $10 Billion and does not make sense. I could not be bothered counting it up.

The NH90 is a medium utility helicopter so how the hell can it be great for heavy lift.
Why just six Tigers if you are going to spend money on a form of rotary Air Combat Support. Wouldn’t it be better to have a few more? Do you in fact know why you would need to have quite a few more to make operational sense?

Is the Eurofighter appropriate or sensible? Does it represent the right tool for the job that the NZDF requires? Even the F-35 might not be appropriate for NZ’s needs. 36 fighter jets that would be purely flightline show ponies most of them not used or needed. It is the insane nutbar redneck stuff like this that is more counter-productive to a sensible debate on what is actually required than some of the do-gooder peacenik proposals. At least they the peaceniks have some fiscal restraint.

The P-8 is not a maritime strike aircraft. It might have strike capabilities but that’s not what NZ would need it primarily for which is maritime surveillance. The P-8 at NZ$330m each is rather a large price tag to be put in harms way - if we were in such a serious situation that required a couple of harpoons to be let go from a P-8, I hope that we had being reading the intel tea leaves correctly over the previous couple of years and beefed up a cheaper and more expendable alternative.

Why are we buying the Tucano on this list when we are already buying the Hawk for advanced training? Why are we buying the COIN version of the Tucano you have the ARH Tiger listed, I’m sure it could cope - if you buy more than six. You have bought 6 Predator B's anyway.

Eight A400M’s. Will probably be OK – for those European nations who will have to buy it. We don’t live in Europe – more and more of our trade is in the pacific rim. I am a bit sceptical about it the A400M making much headway sales wise in the Pacific Rim – ASEAN zone. If we bought it - it would not be as seemless into the ANZAC Airlift concept under discussion - This is a C-130 – C17 part of the world. If the A400 gets a sale around these parts – the sale might be as ‘legally interesting’ as the Hawk sale to Jakarta a few years ago and the Euro would have to weaken quite a bit also to make it price competitive in this part of the world anyway.

The last bit of advice is - please no more Santa lists of aircraft without thinking through the process. Not even from some halfwits website you found on the web.

Sorry to be blunt about the flaws in your post - but it is the Christmas season after all.
 
Top