Royal New Zealand Air Force

[MrConservative]

The NZDF have wanted a light tactical transport / coastal patrol aircraft since the Andovers went over a decade ago - its just that finally the penny has dropped and that they have a minister that is now at least listening. I have said all all along the two vital gaps in the RNZAF were no Andovers and not enough helicopters to meet tasking.

Though I think the the CN-235 would be a wonderful asset if they went with ex ANZ Q300's that were retro fitted with an adequate search radar, had an enlarged rear cargo door installed and were able to be fitted with roro mission package modules and with ER capability, then it would be quite a lift in capability and I would be pleased with the outcome. With the simulator it would be a great multi-engine trainer. The conversion from a commuter class commercial airliner to a light military transport aircraft could be all done in house at ANZ/SAFE. It would also prop up the job crisis in the local aviation engineering industry. It is a familiar aircraft to us and would provide a great basis for the step up in the Air Force Reserve that AVM Lintott wants to build on.

So in the short term I would hope they plumb for 5 'militarised' Q300's' for LTT/CP/VIP/MEPT ex AirNZ who are upgrading to Q400's, 5 new A-109's (because it is just plain common sense) and - 8 MB339's bought back with Batch II OTS upgrades put back into service for AJT and wider NZDF training tasks. The Macchi and the Q300 have great synergies for a beefed up Air Force Reserve component in the RNZAF - providing an offset for the short term need for pilot hours, experience and groundies. Also there is the current SAFE contractual connection to look after the on the ground side as well.

That is 18 more aircraft back into RNZAF service for under NZ$300m spread over 4-5 years if they got onto it today. If the government seeks an improved cost benefit -capability quantum that really sorts things out over the short term, meets the tasking requirements, takes the strain off the operational side, builds and of course in other areas widens or recaptures lost training capability all for the price of 3 new NH-90's then that is the way to go. I just wish they stopped shagging around and get on with it. It is not brain surgery. It is very do-able in fact it should be must do and do now!!

 

[riksavage]

The Kiwi's should select a core group of potential pilots and send them to the UK for flight training before converting to the future F35B. They can then take part in an extended long look alongside UK RAF and Fleet Air Arm Pilots getting used to flying from carrier and land based airstrips. They could also provide CAS support to the NZ/UK SAS operating together in A-STAN. Under the existing Five Powers Agreement the UK is obligated to defend NZ , which for historical and hereditary reasons it would do without question. An attack against NZ would be similar to an attack against the Falklands in the average UK civi's eyes.The Kiwi assigned UK group could then either operate from improvised airstrips on land or from one of the QE's in defence of the country. A similar arrangement could be done with Aus, a core group flying SH's. Win, win situation - the UK gets pilots, NZ gets operationally experienced crews without having to build up any supporting infrastructure.

Should NZ ever decide to go for an indigenous airwing then they should buy a combination of counter insurgency prop light aircraft and the latest generation Hawks, both can be armed to undertake basic CAS/CAP and both represent basic/lead-in jet trainer aircraft. Fit the Hawks with the latest glass cockpits, similar in configuration to the Gen 4.5 aircraft and then in a worst case scenario NZ can lease SH's / Typhoons or F35's at short notice to deal with any impending threat following pilot conversion.

Doing a similar deal with RSAF is an option, but they won't get any operational exposure, other than flying CAP over Sing.

Reactivating the Skyhawks is a complete waste of time and energy unless you are up against Fishbeds, go with an airframe your allies fly thus allowing for leverage on overseas flight training.

 

[Twickiwi]

The Kiwi's should select a core group of potential pilots and send them to the UK for flight training before converting to the future F35B. They can then take part in an extended long look alongside UK RAF and Fleet Air Arm Pilots getting used to flying from carrier and land based airstrips. They could also provide CAS support to the NZ/UK SAS operating together in A-STAN. Under the existing Five Powers Agreement the UK is obligated to defend NZ , which for historical and hereditary reasons it would do without question. An attack against NZ would be similar to an attack against the Falklands in the average UK civi's eyes.The Kiwi assigned UK group could then either operate from improvised airstrips on land or from one of the QE's in defence of the country. A similar arrangement could be done with Aus, a core group flying SH's. Win, win situation - the UK gets pilots, NZ gets operationally experienced crews without having to build up any supporting infrastructure.

Should NZ ever decide to go for an indigenous airwing then they should buy a combination of counter insurgency prop light aircraft and the latest generation Hawks, both can be armed to undertake basic CAS/CAP and both represent basic/lead-in jet trainer aircraft. Fit the Hawks with the latest glass cockpits, similar in configuration to the Gen 4.5 aircraft and then in a worst case scenario NZ can lease SH's / Typhoons or F35's at short notice to deal with any impending threat following pilot conversion.

Doing a similar deal with RSAF is an option, but they won't get any operational exposure, other than flying CAP over Sing.

Reactivating the Skyhawks is a complete waste of time and energy unless you are up against Fishbeds, go with an airframe your allies fly thus allowing for leverage on overseas flight training.

Its an intersting idea and I endorse the concept of increasing the cooperation and interoperability of the five powers, but I see a few problems.

1) What's in it for Blighty? The UK has some serious short term budgetary issues and no shortage of pilots. The UK would have to really change its defence posture in the Pacific to want to become so entangled with NZ.

2) And by the time F35B is operational, A-stan will be just another military footnote scarred backwater of misery, rather than the central focus western military effort it is now. They are already using back-channels to see if they can get together a plurality of reconcilable Taliban to exclude the Irreconcilables.

3) In any major multi regional military engagement or a situation where there is a Pacific conflict and another closer to Europe conflict, there will be a divergence of strategic focus between NZ and the UK. Even in WWII Churchill had an Europe first leading him into direct conflict with Oz. NZ fell into line back then, but are less likely to now.

4) NZ pilots on UK operations are hostages to political fortunes. NZ and UK do not always agree on International affairs: NZ tends to peacenikdom and as a small country places more faith in the processes of the UN. Having a squadron of their most advanced and highly trained stike aircraft unavailable because 60 vegetarian NZ MPs need another UN resolution isn't what the Admiral had in mind.

I genuinely liked your idea when I read it, but reading back over this submission I realise how negative I've been. I actually think there is more scope for integration of RNZAF personnel in the RAAF and RSAF, for instance a Kiwi wing of RAAF 36 Sq. if NZ stumps up for 1 more C-17, or for NZ buying 6 or so F/A-50s to integrate into the T-50 training of RSAF (assuming LM wins the contract). I think the issue is how to convince NZ to spend just a little bit extra, be a little bit more engaged with allies. I just need to see more strategic convergence between the UK and NZ before I could endorse a RAF(NZ) squadron.

 

[JJC]

Can anyone give me a little more info or experience on what it is like to be an air security specialist?

Thanks

 

[riksavage]

Its an intersting idea and I endorse the concept of increasing the cooperation and interoperability of the five powers, but I see a few problems.

1) What's in it for Blighty? The UK has some serious short term budgetary issues and no shortage of pilots. The UK would have to really change its defence posture in the Pacific to want to become so entangled with NZ.

2) And by the time F35B is operational, A-stan will be just another military footnote scarred backwater of misery, rather than the central focus western military effort it is now. They are already using back-channels to see if they can get together a plurality of reconcilable Taliban to exclude the Irreconcilables.

3) In any major multi regional military engagement or a situation where there is a Pacific conflict and another closer to Europe conflict, there will be a divergence of strategic focus between NZ and the UK. Even in WWII Churchill had an Europe first leading him into direct conflict with Oz. NZ fell into line back then, but are less likely to now.

4) NZ pilots on UK operations are hostages to political fortunes. NZ and UK do not always agree on International affairs: NZ tends to peacenikdom and as a small country places more faith in the processes of the UN. Having a squadron of their most advanced and highly trained stike aircraft unavailable because 60 vegetarian NZ MPs need another UN resolution isn't what the Admiral had in mind.

I genuinely liked your idea when I read it, but reading back over this submission I realise how negative I've been. I actually think there is more scope for integration of RNZAF personnel in the RAAF and RSAF, for instance a Kiwi wing of RAAF 36 Sq. if NZ stumps up for 1 more C-17, or for NZ buying 6 or so F/A-50s to integrate into the T-50 training of RSAF (assuming LM wins the contract). I think the issue is how to convince NZ to spend just a little bit extra, be a little bit more engaged with allies. I just need to see more strategic convergence between the UK and NZ before I could endorse a RAF(NZ) squadron.

The reason I push for the UK option is that under existing recruitment rules NZ citizens can join the UK military, and there are a quite a number currently serving in UK infantry line regiments. Plus the old Skyhawk pilots were offered positions in the RAF on disbandment, which many took up. The UK and NZ military maintain a very close working relationship regardless of the nuclear politics issue, particularly the two SF units, who have worked hand in glove in A-Stan from almost day one. The regimental structure, officer and NCO set-up is the same and senior NZ staff undertake regular long look exercises in the UK. Intelligence is shared at the highest level, particularly reference to the current asymmetrical terrorist threat.

What's in it for the UK? Pilot training costs money, the NZ Government would fund there own pilot training and pay their salaries when attached to the UK RAF. The pilots would most likely end up mutually supporting NZ and UK's common interests in providing CAS support in A-Stan. What's in it for NZ, a cadre of trained fighter pilots with operational combat experience in an organisation similar to there own.

 

[recce.k1]

Interesting...

I endorse Rik's foresights and his logic that the RAF-RNZAF's long standing connections and history could make this possible.

But I can also see that Twickiwi's realism (of NZ politics) means these other factors would count against this happenning.

But let's take Rik's viewpoint first. Firstly alas, there's most likely no NZ political will to send pilots to the UK for RAF fast jet training and conversion onto the F35 (or Typhoons currently) to support mutual UK-NZ foreign policy interests eg CAS in Afghanistan. But let's step back a moment and question this. What is the cost to the NZ Govt to deploy an Army company to A-stan for a period of a few years (and also the toll on the NZDF in having to rotate in essence the members of its two battalions over time to support this one company? The answer is having a company currently in A-stan and recently a company in Timor is stretching the Army to almost breaking point. Plus the cost of establishing a third regular force battalion seems to be considered too high so there won't be any relief from that direction) versus the cost to train up say 6-10 pilots (ages ago it was said a pilot costs $1M to train up), put them in the RAF flying fast jets and sending them on rotation to A-stan? Seeing the UK Govt will be footing the operational costs for deploying and maintaining a RAF squadron over there etc (whereas NZ basically pays the NZ pilot's wages), I'd say this would be relatively cheap for the NZ Govt in comparison (especially if the Army could be saved for other Govt taskings closer to home) and the NZ Govt of course gets kudos for being a good international citizen etc. So perhaps this ideas of Rik's is worth thinking about.

Ok, the second issue could then be political - prove to the NZ public that NZ will derive some direct benefit (rather than simply foreign policy benefits, which would be over most people's heads and be mercilessly counter-attacked by the Greens etc). Rik provides the answer again - the NZSAS has been on the ascendancy since Timor and 9/11 etc, and they used to train with the Skyhawks to direct targets etc, hence in light of greater UKSAS/NZSAS co-operation, this idea of NZ pilots flying with the RAF in support of the UK/NZ SAS does make sense.

However I would suggest an impedient to this ... or put it another way, a greater RAF presence in NZ might make people more supportive of this concept except .... the reality is the last time RAF fast jets were ever in NZ was decades ago with a Vulcan bomber attending airshows (1950-60's) bar the RN fast jets on aircraft carrier visits of the early 70's and the Sea Harriers of 1982 etc. In other words I'd suggest UK foreign policy would need to under-go a seismic shift in thinking and actually send aircraft here regularly to get NZ poltical and public buy into this concept. So despite the numbers ($$$) probably being in NZ's favour, it would have to take an effort from the UK behalf to get the ball rolling. What's the chance of this?

(Well maybe a new Conservative Govt and L-D coalition, whereby NC is a EU-crat and perhaps could be persuaded to support greater EU/UK co-operation down under to counter the rising diplomatic influence of the China/Taiwan bidding wars with the Island nations? Surely good goverenance is what the C/L-D coalition wouldn't want to see undone? Ok, just a stretched possibility on my behalf)!

Without wishing to sound negative, the point I (and I think Twickiwi) was getting at a couple of weeks ago when we posted to the RN thread is that the UK lacks visible presence over here. Eg I can't seem to recall when a RN Frigate last visited, somehow the ill-fated Nottingham comes to mid circa 2002? Hopefully I'm wrong! The subliminal intent of my RN post if anyone had wanted to call me on it was, rather than complain that the RN (and perhaps the RAF) fighting force is being knocked back, is to say if the UK forces could spend more time around here then maybe that might assist in retaining numbers (of Frigates etc). I know the RN Frigates undertake constabulary duties in the Carribean, well why not undertake such constabulary roles in the South/West Pacific again? I think the UK Govt underestimates how much their former colonies, ahem Commonwealth, down this way look at the UK with some nostalgia and pride (I sometimes read about pacific tribes waiting decades for royalty to visit! Similarly in NZ there's debate amongst Maoridom for NZ not to become a republic one day because of the historical connections between the UK and NZ a la Treaty of Waitangi etc).

Ok I'd better get of my tangent and stick with the RNZAF/RAF. Why would the UK Govt send Typhoons down here? It's a long way to go to drop practice bombs with the NZ Army when it's easier to invite the RAAF (or RSAF and one day again, the USAF) over? This is where we need to put our thinking caps on. Howabout the Falkland Islands? Could it ever be possible that a group of South American countries could deny the UK the ability to deploy fighter/bombers via air-air refueling (and assuming the UK carriers either weren't operational yet or perhaps not available for some other reason)? It's some 8.5K km from the air to reach the Falklands from NZ, and then back again, could this be done or practiced logistically (eg stationing of air-air refueling aircraft in French Polynesia or Easter Island etc)? Then again South Africa is only some 6K km's away from the Falkland's but how supportive would their Govt be to allow the RAF to base themselves there? Anyway just some random thoughts, need to think of some better reasoning to attract the RAF here if this idea is to work etc! :idea2

Or how about this? NZ/Australia/France practice annual naval/land force exercises in the South Pacific. Perhaps the UK could contribute a Frigate, or OPV, or Bay Class, backed up with some RAF fast jets?
The French seem to be regular visitors to our shores. Surely if French paratroopers are relevant, then so could the RAF (and host them in NZ)? It would give the RAAF some interesting opposition for a change!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/3695545/French-eagles-flock-together-with-kiwis

 

[MrConservative]

Interesting ideas and arguments. I thought twik's musings sounded the better though Riks creative ideas are appreciated. However, I cannot see the Brits reversing 40 years of pretty much staying out of our pond. In the early 70's they exited from SEA and went and joined the Europeans. With British finances and fortunes the way they are I cannot see a desire to be down here anytimesoon. I think NZ has since matured into its relationships with its like minded neighbours and defence allies. Singapore and Australia, and increasingly France on a Pacific level. Our relationship with the US is getting back on track. I believe that within a decade it will be fairly much business as usual between us. The balance of world power and wealth is shifting into the asia pacific rim. Resource rich democracies are in the box seat. However maybe the Brits might see the light and ditch their new Euro mates and want an ''in'' to the economic action in our region and hang out with their old mates the Kiwi's, Aussies and the Singapore boys from time to time. Moving back to the general thrust of this proposal by Rik and getting RNZAF pilots with CAS (and I might add A/ShpM) it is best done the way Twik considered. If LM/KAI get the RSAF contract and base the KAI T-50's in Ohakea and we work out a deal / offset with KAI/RSAF/LM to dovetail a purchase/ training / support package involving say eight F/A-50's and time access to four T-50's for conversion then that may be a very interesting option to persue. Now at this stage details on what A/Shp capability will the F/A-50 possess is unknown by me and that may be the downfall in the end. Because I am of the view that if we are to purchase again an air combat component it has to be a platform that can do both A/Shp and CAS. There will not be money for both.

 

[recce.k1]

Yeah pretty much agree with your viewpoints there Mr C.

With the UK (permanent basing) out of SEA nowadays this idea wouldn't get off the ground politically in NZ. Now if the RAF were to base themselves in SEA again (UK political will willing), then like back in the 50's-60's the UK could again ask for a NZ contribution, which in today's climate could mean the pilot training idea of Rik's being quite viable IMO. But again, this would have to be a UK initiative, NZ wouldn't be remotely interested in instigating this (those days of NZ pushing the UK to do more are long gone, since the fall of Singapore in 1941 I'd say)!

The SEA nations have matured politically, militarily and economically and are capable of handling regional issues themselves (with oversight and protection from the FPDA and USA etc).

I agree that NZ has matured its defence and economic relationship with Australia and Singapore (and appears to be doing ok with Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia etc) and is co-operative with the French and increasingly again, the USA. Hence I'd doubt even Singapore would necessarily want the RAF back due to lack of airspace etc (mind you that's just my uninformed opinion, Rik and OPSSG would know for sure).

But in terms of the future, I wouldn't go so far as suggest the UK ditch the EU, what I would suggest is (and this should help the UK's balance of payments surely), is also enhance efforts re-engage with the Asia-Pacific region where there is massive economic growth (I'd doubt that similar growth will come from within the EU?) eg how about entering into the AP regional Free Trade Agreements with NZ, Australia, Singapore, China, Chile even and so on. By sharing in the prosperity perhaps the UK might have some good justifications to step up its presence in the wider region again, which could only be a good thing for the UK's armed forces and military industry etc.

In the meantime the answers (to NZ ever having fast jets for training or combat again) are closer to home. An arrangement with the RAAF would be the most logical, for pretty much the same reasons Rik suggested would apply to the RAF/RNZAF, plus the political will could be found easier. Except that it seems that the RAAF/ADF probably doesn't have the capacity to include the kiwis unless NZ actually stumped up money and bought some additional jets themselves eg Hawks etc (rather than simply pay the piots wages) and this is probably where the problem lies ... lack of NZ political will right now due to other NZ defence priorities after some two decades of neglect (plus the Aussies have been burnt before by NZ eg pulling out of the Norwa agreement ahead of time, would should the Aussie pollies trust the NZ pollies again etc)?

On the other hand an arrangement with Singapore would be win-win as Singapore needs the airspace here (and NZ could piggy-back on a potential T-50 deal), so this is still a good option except there is so much inherent risk eg the arrangment doesn't eventuate etc.

Really the only realistic way NZ would get fast jets again is to talk turkey with the US (the US has said it will help NZ if it just asks). If the F16 deal hadn't been cancelled in 2000 the US-NZ relationship would have been alot stronger. But politically things have changed again and if this Govt remained in power after the next 2011 election (so far the Govt has maintained a 50%+ approval rating and the opposition is still in disarray) then politically here, it wouldn't be out of the question. The NZ Govt (publically since 2005 anyway) has asked for greater US co-operation and involvment in the Pacific again and perhaps this would be the price to pay. Trouble is the current NZ Govt needs to signal an allowance for this in its forthcoming defence whitepaper. If it doesn't a future change of Govt could come along and say this wasn't allowed for in the DWP and thus re-prioritises/eliminates this idea. This happened in 1998 or so where the ACF was not scheduled for replacement until the mid-late 2000's and thus when the suprise F16 deal was announced after a defence review was prioritising other areas for funding, naturally the then Oppostion had good reasons to pull the plug on the F16 deal. I do hope National has realised that it can't mis-handle this again and this time it needs to be transparent and signal any intentions in advance i.e. when the DWP is released.

 

[MrConservative]

Just as an aside Recce I see that the Romanians are getting 24 used F-16 C/D's from the US for around US$1.3B for that they will get a turnkey Nato ready fleet including upgrade, 10yr support and training. The aircraft are late 80's era I understand. However the Swede's desparate to win the contract offered 24 new C/D Gripens with an equal package and low interest financing over 15 years for a total package of 1B euro's. Also a turnkey Nato ready fleet. The Romanians took the F-16 deal.
if it was me the Gripens do sound tempting. I wonder if they could the same deal for us except that we'd take twelve. Where is this guy when we need him > :xmas !

 

[recce.k1]

The answer to your question: where is this guy when we need him = Santa aka Uncle Sam!

The answer to a NZ Govt then: Obtain/lease a few second hand F16's dirt cheap for Army/Navy training support purposes, a la Macchi training reactivation idea (i.e. without the bells and whistles the Romanians need as presumably this will be their front line fighter) thus keeping costs down even further ....

Contract LM in to support them ....

(Maybe do a further deal with the Singaporians & LM if their T/50 training plan eventuates i.e. to allow both nations access to both types in NZ, for training/conversion purposes ..... )

Then towards the mid/end 2010's when finances will allow, either upgrade or replace if NZ then wants a proper functioning ACF again with decent sensors and capabilities etc ....

Simple (insert politician here :smash)!

Solves the A/Shp weapon issue if NZ were to decide to upgrade them later for these purposes etc.

 

[MrConservative]

The answer to your question: where is this guy when we need him = Santa aka Uncle Sam!

The answer to a NZ Govt then: Obtain/lease a few second hand F16's dirt cheap for Army/Navy training support purposes, a la Macchi training reactivation idea (i.e. without the bells and whistles the Romanians need as presumably this will be their front line fighter) thus keeping costs down even further ....

Contract LM in to support them ....

(Maybe do a further deal with the Singaporians & LM if their T/50 training plan eventuates i.e. to allow both nations access to both types in NZ, for training/conversion purposes ..... )

Then towards the mid/end 2010's when finances will allow, either upgrade or replace if NZ then wants a proper functioning ACF again with decent sensors and capabilities etc ....

Simple (insert politician here :smash)!

Solves the A/Shp weapon issue if NZ were to decide to upgrade them later for these purposes etc.

There is one country that has quite a few early Block 10 F-16's A's and B's lying around on active duty. Israel. They are geared up for AD though and I think underwent an inhouse upgrade. So they are a little unique.

For the Israeli's unloading them has been a bit of a problem per the rock and a hard place. The countries who would really want them can't get past the US approval regime and the countries who would get past the US politically would find them somehow politically tainted. That probably included us. Would not worry me one jot though.

They were offered early in the piece to the aforesaid Romanians at bargain basement prices. However they were not considered in the end as they would have not been turnkey for a country wanting to get into the Nato scene. Anyhow they were said to have offered "dozens" of Netz versions of the F-16 of an early to mid eighties vintage for USD$150m back in 2005 when the Romanians first indicated to get out of their Soviet era Migs.

 

[Sea Toby]

New Zealand ten years ago passed on literally new F-16 cream puffs for a sweetheart deal of the century from the US. They were new aircraft that were embargoed from Pakistan over their nuclear development... A year or so later the Labour government of New Zealand eliminated its air combat force to save over ten years NZ$ 700 million in operating costs...

The deal was so good the USAF gobbled up those aircraft for a song... To good for Congress to balk... While used F-16s may be found today, they won't be bought for a lesser price...

The air threat to New Zealand hasn't gotten worst in the last decade either. Only a few nations are capable of having their fighters and/or bombers reach New Zealand with either carrier support or tanker support... New Zealand is a lucky nation that does not have to worry about a threatening air threat. They are one of Earth's most isolated nations. Lucky for the nation, but not so lucky for an air force...

 

[recce.k1]

Cheers Mr C (and Sea Toby too). Any idea of the sensor/weapon fit out of the Israeli F16's (and indigenous systems v std US for the F16 etc)?

Talking quite hypothetically of course, assuming the sensors etc were relevant to NZ's needs (and/or could be upgraded to systems that were relevant), I know what I'm about to say is only my opinion .... but assuming US/Israeli sale approval could be given .... I don't see an issue because:

* NZ contractors (SAFE Air I think, but ex-RNZAF) have previously been sent to Israel to work on refurbishing their A-4's.
* NZ bought their mini-typhoon stabalised naval gun system (under the Labour Govt with no issues).
* As you know the National Govt has stepped up diplomatic ties with Israel.
* PM has made an effort to talk to their senior politicians whilst on engagements overseas.
* The small but vocal anti-Israel lobby (the same group that are anti US and anti Western etc) should be happy that NZ is taking firepower off them!

Again, if acquired cheaply (without std modern NATO type systems etc) could be useful for those Army/Navy training tasks in the interim ...

 

[MrConservative]

Cheers Mr C (and Sea Toby too). Any idea of the sensor/weapon fit out of the Israeli F16's (and indigenous systems v std US for the F16 etc)?

Talking quite hypothetically of course, assuming the sensors etc were relevant to NZ's needs (and/or could be upgraded to systems that were relevant), I know what I'm about to say is only my opinion .... but assuming US/Israeli sale approval could be given .... I don't see an issue because:

* NZ contractors (SAFE Air I think, but ex-RNZAF) have previously been sent to Israel to work on refurbishing their A-4's.
* NZ bought their mini-typhoon stabalised naval gun system (under the Labour Govt with no issues).
* As you know the National Govt has stepped up diplomatic ties with Israel.
* PM has made an effort to talk to their senior politicians whilst on engagements overseas.
* The small but vocal anti-Israel lobby (the same group that are anti US and anti Western etc) should be happy that NZ is taking firepower off them!

Again, if acquired cheaply (without std modern NATO type systems etc) could be useful for those Army/Navy training tasks in the interim ...

Just a guess but that maybe the sticking point Recce per the weapons fit and sensors regarding the Netz F-16's. I believe they have been configured for AD which was the point Toby was making. I think who ever took them over would be looking at having to undertake quite a complex reconfiguration per the weapons fit and sensors. We would need a bird which would be able to deliver ground attack and A/Shp.

Actually A/Shp is an interesting point when you consider that our Orions which will now be with us for a further 15 years will need an expensive and time consuming upgrade to be able to deliver Harpoons. I personally am against an Orion upgrade to Harpoons. I prefer another platform - a better flatform and not too beat around the bush - a more expendable platform. A Harpooned up P-3K2 is just over egging the basket. An aging F-16 that has enough systems moxy to cope would be better. It has the advantage of being a platform for other needed capabilities.

Toby is right about the sale of the century being passed up. However there are still some options and I believe that they can still be achieved without breaking the bank. It comes down to what we would need as a operational baseline for training. A full size squadron? No. If F-16's would we be after the A model or B. I'd say the B. What roles would be required? We know where the gapping hole in capability is. CAS, Interdiction and A/Shp. So basically the capability of the A-4K Kahu's.

So Recce - this is an off-the-cuff idea. Because I enjoyed the general thrust of your proposal.
Lets say the NZDF/NZ Govt trade-leased about 10 midlife F-16B's out of ARMAC. Then formed a small 'Squadron' even smaller in personnel than the old 2 Sqd (which had only 60 ), that would have 6-8 birds good to go on any given day. Essentially a small operational flight geared to Defence Force training support needs and a small conversion unit. By trade lease I mean that their could be an offset whereby we "give" 17 A-4's as part of the lease deal for instance (whereby also solving one outstanding problem). The Harppon upgrade and its $$ outlay that maybe intended for the P-3K2 could be steered into the F-16B's.

Now what does Uncle Sam get out of this? Well, Uncle Sam wins by having a friendly small Pacific power get back into an enhanced position of combat capability, that helps shore up and strengthen regional security alliances in the South Western Pacific region. That NZ regains some support training capability per Navy and Army would be a positive benefit for them. It also would helpen to again deepen and mature the formerly strained relationship. It also sees a 2nd tier air combat asset that would not ordinarily be required by the high technical levels of current US air power. However a platform that is indirectly achieving and improving security synergies for Uncle Sam indirectly anyway. We would be operating a platform that by closing our own capability gaps enhances not just our defence position but that also of the US led alliance of democratic like-minded countries. A platform that would probably in a general context just sit under the sun at DMAFB. It enriches us both by us flying them you could say.

Now for the issue of pilots. New pilots (there would not be that many) could be converted over on a handful of Macchi's bought out of storage (or 5 withdrawn from 'sale" out of the stored 17 for this purpose). The Macchis as they are mind you, because digital trainers won't be required on 25 year old F-16B's. LM could do the support out of their new support facility at Ohakea with ex Safe guys subcontracting in specialist support roles and keeping the small Macchi fleet running). Ex USAF pilot instructors could be contracted to LM and seconded to support interim type transition instruction. It will soon be 9 years following the demise of the ACW. Now some of those guys maybe ready to return home in the next while after having done their bit for the RAAF and RAF. They could be a godsend in helping to revive what they saw destroyed back in 2001. Think of all that potential experience that could come home. So there we have it Recce. Something to mull over with quiet beer or two.

 

[Norm]

NH90 Engine issues

This week has seen publicity break about one of Australia's 11 delivered to date MRH90's suffering engine compressor failure in one of its twin engines back in April ,a few links by way of example:

Engine issue casts shadow on choppers - National - NZ Herald News

Engineers investigate grounded MRH90s

Defence | The Australian


NZ Herald article reports the first RNZAF NH90 will be handed over for training in December with the rest following throught to April 2012

 

[recce.k1]

Just to digress on the F16 "what if" issue for a further bit...

Agree with your off the cuff idea Mr C., seems affordable, logistically doable and simply out right sensible.

Also I obviously need to go off and do some homework on the Netz F16 issue but my initial impressions are this....

I did note they were configured for air defence. I would say that is a good thing for NZ ! Why? Because I would assume they would also have the original wiring and systems in place to carry the standard ordanance of the time circa early/mid 1980's. Now the RNZAF apparently still has its Skyhawk ordance, which would again be mainly early-mid-late 80's ordance eg the early LGB's, Mk 82's & Mavericks - all interoperable ... so I am wondering whether for current NZDF training purposes these F16's would actually be compatible?

(Note: again I am thinking for Navy/Army training purposes! For operational roles obviously they would need a substancial upgrade and alot more money to get to that level of capability etc i.e. IMO this would be something to aim for in the future once the initial training capability has been proven etc).

Now in terms of their AD role, which I assume would mean they have more recent systems installed, that would be an added bonus.

For the NZ Govt, the message to the public would be that they are also being acquired (i.e. on top of Navy/Army training roles) for AD or CAP functions .... a most obvious gap in NZ's homeland security since 9/11. As you know during the 81 Springbok tour a Cessna type aircraft dropped flour-powder 'bomb's on the players. With RWC around the corner (let alone a future APEC type meeting etc) one doesn't want to think about the carnage that could result if someone with 'terrorist' type intentions flew a Cessna into a stadium. In other words the public would understand in plain language why the Govt is investing in an aircraft with AD capability. (In reality because of time factors, NZ might have to contract in the RAAF - presumably the Oz Govt would be sympathetic in helping knowing that NZ is going to pull its weight in terms of future events eg F16's - or better still train alongside them. Any GA type aircraft airborne at the time of the games would be watched and intercepted if they deviate from their flight-path. Remember the upgraded P-3K2's should be operational by then and apparently will have reasonably good air (and over land) survellience capabilities. Perhaps we could even see the RAAF Wedgetails here too etc). NZ needs some type of AD response ... the day when something bad happens - and if we didn't have these particular F16's etc - the public and media would want to know why the Skyhawks, with outdated but reasonable AD system themselves were in storage doing nothing etc. But better to look at other options seeing restoring the Skyhawk isn't feasible anymore i.e. not worth the costs as parts are hard to obtain etc).

In terms of the political response, well Labour has bought Israeli systems so they can't complain. Of course the Greens and the Minto's would to but the fact is these are AD aircraft not the sort that bombed Israel's surrounds therefore again the Govt and thus the general public would be more accepting of the facts rather than the rhetoric from any protest types etc.

 

[swerve]

Just as an aside Recce I see that the Romanians are getting 24 used F-16 C/D's from the US for around US$1.3B for that they will get a turnkey Nato ready fleet including upgrade, 10yr support and training. The aircraft are late 80's era I understand. However the Swede's desparate to win the contract offered 24 new C/D Gripens with an equal package and low interest financing over 15 years for a total package of 1B euro's. Also a turnkey Nato ready fleet. The Romanians took the F-16 deal.

The Romanian Prime Minister has said that the decision was political: the Romanian government wants the F-16s because they are being supplied by the USA.

This would rule out F-16s from other sources, as well as other types.

 

[Kiwigov]

Is the NH-90 a major risk?

NZ Herald article reports the first RNZAF NH90 will be handed over for training in December with the rest following throught to April 2012

This has got to be causing some heartburn at the RNZAF, especially given consistent German media reports of serious problems with EADS helicopters - not just the NH90, but particularly the Tiger ARH - none of which are yet in operational service.

The RAAF also has significant problems with their Tigers (can another forum member clarify?).

It would be very interesting to know of the logic in the 2001 Cabinet paper which stated a preference for an unproven European design over a well-known US product (presumably the UH-60), particularly as the RNZAF copped a lot of criticism in the 1990s for choosing the Aermacchi trainers as a 'launch customer'. I can see a rationale for consistency with Australia (which is now getting the MRH-90 into service), though the fiascos they have experienced with their Seasprites - and Tigers - must indicate serious procurement and management problems.

Another, technical and wholly uninformed query - is there data on the degradation rates of composite airframes in high-UV environments, such as Aust and NZ?

 

[Aussie Digger]

This has got to be causing some heartburn at the RNZAF, especially given consistent German media reports of serious problems with EADS helicopters - not just the NH90, but particularly the Tiger ARH - none of which are yet in operational service.

The RAAF also has significant problems with their Tigers (can another forum member clarify?).

RAAF don't operate helicopters, the Australian Army does. Yes, they have had some problems with their Tiger and now MRH-90 helos. but to be fair, Tiger is built by Eurocopter and NH-90 is built by NH Industries, both are part of EADS, but they are separate entities...

Tiger has mainly been in relation to schedule and operating costs, not so much technical issues with the helicopter itself. Eurocopter flat out lied about the support costs for the Tiger during the competition and it was on this basis that the Tiger was chosen over the Apache...

Since choosing it, we've had production issues and had to re-negotiate the support contracts for the aircraft, to something a bit more realistic and the cost "bargain" is now not so much...

Of course it's our own fault, but still, we could have had Apaches in-service for years now, but we are STILL waiting for IOC for the Tigers, more than 6 years after they were ordered...

The MRH-90 is not proving to be much better, but being even newer than the Tiger there are quite a few technical glitches with the platform that need to be ironed out, the most serious of course being an as yet unexplained catastrophic engine failure recently. The helo survived and got back to base on it's remaining engine, but experts from Europe have come out to help out with the investigation, of an extremely unusual event.

Of course our entire fleet is grounded in the meantime...

It would be very interesting to know of the logic in the 2001 Cabinet paper which stated a preference for an unproven European design over a well-known US product (presumably the UH-60), particularly as the RNZAF copped a lot of criticism in the 1990s for choosing the Aermacchi trainers as a 'launch customer'. I can see a rationale for consistency with Australia (which is now getting the MRH-90 into service), though the fiascos they have experienced with their Seasprites - and Tigers - must indicate serious procurement and management problems.

No brainer there. You can find fault with almost every single DMO project, including the so-called "off the shelf" projects. M1A1 Abrams for instance. Forget to include Satellite Comms capability, so BFT is not operational...

New HF radio system for RAN. Forgot to include WGS capability etc. The list goes on and on....

Why the UH-60M wasn't chosen for Australia is anyone's guess. Army Aviation recommended it. I guess someone thought they knew better...

 

[t68]

No brainer there. You can find fault with almost every single DMO project, including the so-called "off the shelf" projects. M1A1 Abrams for instance. Forget to include Satellite Comms capability, so BFT is not operational...

New HF radio system for RAN. Forgot to include WGS capability etc. The list goes on and on....

Why the UH-60M wasn't chosen for Australia is anyone's guess. Army Aviation recommended it. I guess someone thought they knew better...

Don’t get me wrong i don’t know if it true, but it seems that they did not what to be seen as only an American military buyer. Treasury only see the bottom line not what’s the best long term.
Walks like a duck talks like a duck yep it a duck!!!

So why cant the Aus Gov hold Eurocopter to the contract, if that’s what was in the contract to supply then tough luck to Eurocopter or better still breach of contract knowing making a false statement hand back the helos with full contract money returned, hit em where it hurts.