Okay, here is my rough outline on how the RNZAF could potentially re-introduce an ACF and/or a fast-jet training programme. Please keep in mind, while I do indeed believe that the NZDF does need to have at least a basic ACF, I am cognizant of the fact that the NZDF has limited resources available to it, and many other demands for these same limited resources. Therefore this post is not one of me advocating for the RNZAF to take the actions I have specified, rather it is a possible plan should Government/the NZDF/RNZAF decide to restore the ACF.
I would expect that it would take ~ 10 years from the time of programme initiation until FOC is reached.
Once it is decided to proceed towards an ACF/fastjet capability, an RFI would be placed to evaluate suitable aircraft. My personal preference would be the KAI T/A-50 (or is it F/A-50?) Golden Eagle, but other possible contenders are the Aermacchi M-346, the Aero Vodochody L-159B, or a BAE Hawk variant combining the features of the Mk 128 and Mk 203/208/209. An initial order for ~12 aircraft would be placed, with the possibility of additional orders for another ~12-24 aircraft to be placed in the future. Yes, I am aware that at first glance, the RNZAF operating ~36 examples of a fastjet trainer & light attack aircraft might seem a laughable idea, but I am going somewhere with this idea...
Simultaneously, a new recruiting drive should be launched to swell the number of RNZAF personnel since the RNZAF is going to see an increase in personnel demands due to the additional aircraft entering service. Even if just a dozen aircraft are purchased, I would estimate that at least an additional 50 personnel would be required to for manning the unit without stripping personnel from other units. Failure to start this drive early could result in a similar situation which the RNZN has been concerned about with the Project Protector fleet, which there are more ships in service requiring personnel than are available to crew them.
End of Year 1.
Assuming that the decision on which aircraft is made within a year, I would then send an initial detachment of RNZAF personnel to the nation/air force/manufacturer of the chosen design for training. I would imagine that this initial detachment would total approximately two dozen personnel, divided between pilots and ground crew drawn from experienced RNZAF personnel. Initial training and utilization for the aircraft could likely be completed within ~6 months, but I would imagine that a 12 or 18 month training regime would allow the RNZAF detachment sufficient time to build up the necessary expertise on the aircraft so that these personnel could then act as trainers within NZ.
End of Year 2.5
At this point, roughly half of the RNZAF pilot detachment would return to NZ to setup the unit at Base Woodbourne on South Island, along with the trained ground crew and an initial batch of aircraft. They would then work to reach IOC with however many aircraft are included with the initial delivery (likely 2-4 aircraft). As part of this, training would commence within NZ to pass on the ability to operate and maintain the aircraft.
At the same time, the other half of the RNZAF pilot detachment would be posted to a training centre(s) in Australia/the UK/Canada/USA to allow these pilots to gain the piloting and planning skills needed for CAS, strike/maritime strike and (limited) air to air missions. This would be intended to only build up sufficient skill for the RNZAF pilots to then train and pass on the skills to other RNZAF pilots and personnel. I would be mistaken, but I believe this too would take ~12-18 months and then the detachment would return to NZ.
End of Year 4.
Following the return of all RNZAF personnel engaged in overseas training, the trainers would begin a programme to cross-train each other in the various skills which they have developed, as well as slowly increasing the numbers of trained fastjet pilots and ground crew. At this point, the unit (at least if 12 aircraft are ordered) should have reached full manning pilots and ground crew.
End of Year 5.
Training would now begin to allow the RNZAF ACF to rebuild the strike and CAS capability to the degree it was prior to the ACF being disbanded. At the same time, there would be a low level of training conducted to pass on the fastjet and basic ACF skills to the rest of the fixed wing pilots within the RNZAF. This would likely take ~ 5 years to reach the same degree of skill and FOC.
End of Year 10.
Now, onto costs.
I estimate that the initial costs for the aircraft, simulators, pilot and ground crew uptraining, etc. would likely run ~US$700 million for ~12 aircraft, spread out over the first three years. If additional aircraft and related ancillary equipment (sims, etc) were ordered, that would likely cost ~$US600 million per dozen aircraft. Additionally, if there was a stocking order placed for weapons, that would likely run between US$50-100 million, but of course being very dependent on the weapons and quantities desired.
In terms of ongoing training and operational costs, I would expect would be on the order of ~NZ$100 million per dozen aircraft annually starting at around Year 4.
Now, for the explanation of why NZ might wish to purchase as many as 24 or 36 fastjet trainers... As I have mentioned before (at least twice IIRC) there is the possibility of some nation creating a flight training centre to provide advanced and LIF training in the ASEAN/South Pacific Region. By getting appropriate agreements in place with various potential client-states, such a training centre could allow for economies of scale which would be otherwise difficult for the various nations to achieve, were they to operate their own advanced training centre. IMO the two nations in the region best able to setup and operate such a facility are Australia and New Zealand, both being advanced nations with comparatively sizeable economies, and also possessing significant airspace available for training flights. I am certain that from an economic and technical perspective Singapore could also operate such a facility, but IMO it lacks sufficient ground & air space to do so properly.
I look forward to others thoughts on this, please comment on any areas of ambiguity or where corrections are needed.
-Cheers
