Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Sea Toby]

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.

We are dealing with a two edged sword. Australia wants to build up and sustain a military industrial complex with one hand, but with the other hand the government wants equipment built to specs. Sometimes the two don't mix, so compromises have to be the order of the day...

If the government decides to play Uncle Scrooge, not only will the military industrial complex company fold costing hundreds if not thousands of jobs, the military won't have the equipment they ordered... Its hard to draw a line to B from A when you are erasing A...

 

[t68]

We are dealing with a two edged sword. Australia wants to build up and sustain a military industrial complex with one hand, but with the other hand the government wants equipment built to specs. Sometimes the two don't mix, so compromises have to be the order of the day...

If the government decides to play Uncle Scrooge, not only will the military industrial complex company fold costing hundreds if not thousands of jobs, the military won't have the equipment they ordered... Its hard to draw a line to B from A when you are erasing A...

If AD is correct then i see it as justifiable, you cannot deliberately make a false statement in your contract talks to get the contract and when its found out to be false not to be hit with penalties or contract cancelled, in the case of Eurocopter they have fundamentally made a false statement to win the contract. It’s not like Wedgetail where the government has taken the risks as it was building first of type with cutting edge tech.

 

[aussienscale]

Nh90

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

FYI, The so called critical report from the German army on the NH90 was during the development and testing phase of the project and was rectified during that stage and is not an issue for production models, pretty typical of reporter's to try and dig up any info they can to make an article

 

[t68]

It seems there is a bit of a groundswell of support for an air combat wing again, with submission to the government with a review on multi role fighter jets for the RNZAF.

Return of air force combat wing backed - national | Stuff.co.nz

A former Skyhawk pilot recommends ex RAAF F18 Hornets not sure if he means the legacy Hornets or a deal of getting the Supers one there time is up.
If Australia was to on sell legacy Hornets with put them thru a CBR process that Australia intended to do would it be worth will NZ doing or would it be better for them to purchase new build Super Hornets and tag onto the maintenance support in Australia.
If Super’s are too pricey for the NZ government what other types would be feasible, would they be better of with some thing like a Hawk 200 or a FA-50.

A-50 Light Combat Aircraft

Hawk Trainer / Light Combat Aircraft - Air Force Technology

If funding is approved how long realistically would it take to become a reality again and how many fast jet pilots from the Skyhawk era are still with the RNZAF?

 

[moahunter]

^Dumb, UAV's would provide a much bigger bang for buck (given the amount of training and support that would go into flying F18's). Strike capable UAV's would also be more useful to compliment Allies like Australia (who already have a combat air arm).

 

[meat_helmet]

It seems there is a bit of a groundswell of support for an air combat wing again, with submission to the government with a review on multi role fighter jets for the RNZAF.

Return of air force combat wing backed - national | Stuff.co.nz

A former Skyhawk pilot recommends ex RAAF F18 Hornets not sure if he means the legacy Hornets or a deal of getting the Supers one there time is up.
If Australia was to on sell legacy Hornets with put them thru a CBR process that Australia intended to do would it be worth will NZ doing or would it be better for them to purchase new build Super Hornets and tag onto the maintenance support in Australia.
If Super’s are too pricey for the NZ government what other types would be feasible, would they be better of with some thing like a Hawk 200 or a FA-50.

A-50 Light Combat Aircraft

Hawk Trainer / Light Combat Aircraft - Air Force Technology

If funding is approved how long realistically would it take to become a reality again and how many fast jet pilots from the Skyhawk era are still with the RNZAF?

It wouldn't really seem a good move IMO to buy the legacy Hornets, even after the CBR how long would they get out of them? 15 years - less?

It would be nice for them to grab the Super Bugs when we are done with them, but for fighers that advanced wouldn't they really require advanced trainers to train the pilots up? Otherwise they might halve their fleet after a few green pilots get in them. Although if this were to ever take place I guess they could pay a bit to get training with the RAAF.

 

[recce.k1]

It wouldn't really seem a good move IMO to buy the legacy Hornets, even after the CBR how long would they get out of them? 15 years - less?

It would be nice for them to grab the Super Bugs when we are done with them, but for fighers that advanced wouldn't they really require advanced trainers to train the pilots up? Otherwise they might halve their fleet after a few green pilots get in them. Although if this were to ever take place I guess they could pay a bit to get training with the RAAF.

What's the chances of NZ joining this project and what's its status (seeing it's 2010)?

Australian Defence Organisation: Defence Materiel Organisation

The pollies here don't seem to think its a priority, but the important thing is the door is still being left open by them (albiet they are wanting to turn around) for a solution once and for all, one way or another.

But they might take kindly to a prod from like minded friends to get them on the path, eg buying into the F18 HUG if it is feasible (and not a white-elephant) by chipping in for two or three pilots (and 2-3 airframes). If it is deemed a priority by all to get things under way - it's now or never, this is the pollies last and final chance. So perhaps the 10-15 year timeframe isn't an issue (and that leaves time to assess options eg F18SH or ....).

Are there other solutions? Assume too late to buy in to the Hawk production line for 2-3 airframes (and useful for NZDF sea/land training support).

So does Macchi training get shut down in NZ once and for all, in favour of RAAF training schemes involving PC9/Hawk? Might be a worthwhile option in the scheme of things?

Anyway they just need perhaps 3 good examples of why this should be done that the public could digest.

Eg perhaps history, or maritime economic secuirty or what else, trade route and resource protection? Serving with a deployed army again?

 

[MrConservative]

The options are endless for a component of air combat capability but they have to be integrated into the overall acquistition and geo-strategic framework.

To rebuilt an air support capacity to assist both naval and land force training, whilst providing a cadre of operational air combat skills the minimum credile number needs to be six airframes, for what ever aircraft is purchased/leased/loaned.

One thing that has come out of the defence review submission is that a multi-role platform is the better option for undertaking the roles we need covering. Single role combat air support platforms such as Attack helicopters for land operations are beyond us due to their logistical footprint, and by retrofitting a Harpoon II capability on the P-3K2's would mean that they would operationally lifespan on the airframe would last just 10 years . It is likely that a UAV option for LRMP will follow the P-32K in the middle of the next decade anyway with the likely platform being the RQ-4 (with manned CN-235/Q300's aircraft doing MRMP as part of the prefered two tier approach). With these considerations in mind and the far more effective use of time, money and resources, no wonder logic prevailed in the minds of many and a restored multi-role air combat capability is being called for.

Moahunter raised the UCAV idea also and it should not be discounted. In fact the NZDF have kept a watching and see position in this regard. What is interesting to note however is that the anti-defence / tin foil hat types at Global Peace and Justice and their trendy lefty ilk, are begining to loathe UCAV's or what they call "death drones" even more than they do the traditional fixed wing combat aircraft. I am still yet to see an operational UCAV that would be able to be sufficently multi-role so as to cover CAS/Interdiction/A-Shp required by the NZDF. It also should be realised that at present the initial gaping hole as pointing out to the minister during his visits to Waiouru and DNB was air support training so as to make the two combat services (Army-Navy) combat ready require us to have operational verisimilitude with those we are likely to work alongside - they will for sometime fly fixed wing combat aircraft. UAV's wont give us that verisimilitude. That said I do like the Avenger C and if it developed into a viable multi-role variant which included maritime attack & survelliance capability it'll worth a good look.

Just to cover off other points raised. Hawks - nup - the F/A-50 is the only option for a new build and if we are starting again. It has many synergies from the operational, economics and political perspective and possibly a few more synergies if certain deals are made elsewhere that can 'älign the stars' so to speak.

As for getting involved in the HUG programme well they had better get their skates on. The question is where to source the airframes anyway. F-18's at AMARC are there for a very good reason and will stay there, it will be some time before a spare half a dozen RAAF F-18's are up for grabs and the only country I can think of that has stored F-18's right now are the Canadians. I think they have 20 hidden away somewhere probably at Mountain View or Cold Lake. Would they part with them for pocket change? Are they worth doing a CBR on? We'd want the B model so would they have 6 decent B's tucked away?

Of course their is the Macchi II option, which on paper is the low cost option at NZ$5m an upgraded airframe. It can do all the training roles needed but, when it comes to the crunch it can't do the real job. To do the real job would mean a F/A-50 which are estimated to cost $35m Kiwi. I understand that the F/A-50 team at KAI are integrating the AMG-65 so it will have A/Shp. So it really is the full package, very much a grandchild of the F-5 and the A-4.

And lastly of course their are aging F-16's.....

 

[recce.k1]

The options are endless for a component of air combat capability but they have to be integrated into the overall acquistition and geo-strategic framework.

Totally agree with your statements. I don't believe there is a "one fit for all solution" out there for the NZDF. Eg the answer isn't soley it will be either reformed air combat capability, or either UCAV's, or either arming the P-3's or either arming the transport helos. The answer has to be a mix of 2 or possibly 3 of these options (of course the ideal is all 4 of the above but for a small defence force on a limited budget that isn't realistic ... and certainly not only one option as despite being small, NZ can do better than that).

IMO one option does have to be UAV's and ultimately UCAV's - but as you point out, there is no one fit for all UAV/UCAV solution for NZ needs. In the meantime though I would suggest starting of with UAV's for long range maritime patrolling to supplement the P-3's (but not replace them, one critical success factor of the P-3 for the pollies and public is the ability to drop supplies to missing yachties etc. This public service benefit has helped keep the P-3 capability on the books so to speak. Also in the meantime the Army needs UAV ISR capabilities on the battlefield. So these two options, if it were up to me, need to get fast-tracked in the upcoming Defence Whitepaper. This will require some investment (IMO around $300-500M)?

IMO a second option of arming the P-3's with stand-off weaponry should progress also (which would be relatively cheap anyway eg sub $100M), because NZ has invested alot into the P-3's capabilities, are the sorts of aircraft that would be deployed to SEA and the Gulf, and frankly lack any modern fire-power to back up the new ISR capabilities. Unless NZ were to reform a proper functional ACF to work in with the P-3 (eg P-3 vectoring in the fast jets to targets) then arming the P-3's could be dismissed (but as well as a functional ACF we'd need long range air-air refueling tankers etc, so all of this wouldn't be viable just right now because of other budget priorities etc). So go ahead with arming the P-3's now and then by the 2020's when the P-3's need to be retired NZ could maintain this capability with armed UCAV's etc.

IMO a third option does have to be some multi-role platform fast manned jets. In accepting that the economic situation and other defence priorities means we cannot restore a proper functional ACF in the interim, I, like most of us here, accept the need then for a few airframes to conduct pilot training, naval and army support training. The options here as you say are varied eg F16's, TA50's, maybe just maybe some F18's with the RAAF if feasible etc. IMO NZ does need fast jets - UAV's/UCAV's cannot do all these army/navy training roles and frankly the army/navy will find themselves in situations where they need to defend against both UAV's and fast air - so again IMO so manned jets is still important for NZ. And as said before, in time, as finances allow, this role could be expanded if there is a proven need etc.

IMO armed helos - not critical. Yes I do like the way that the A109LUH can be up-armed with air-ground & air-air missiles, rockets and MG pods, but realistically will the A109LUH ever be deployed in the battlefield? I doubt it. The NH90 would of course be deployed, but we have so few and need them critically for troop transport. If we had 2-3 times more NH90's we could have capacity to up-arm some but we don't have that many. The NH90 has the usual door guns anyway. But would could be nice one day is some sort of stabalised MG for greater accuracy in support of ground forces etc.

As for the peaceniks scaremongering with UCAV's - let's not worry about them, they would be worried about anything that can carry weaponry anyway. I'd say they are merely taking advantage of public lack of awareness of exactly what UAV's/UCAV's are anyway, hence a simple public information campaign on the various abilities and roles they play, in support of the NZDF on deployment and for EEZ patrolling would counter them.

 

[shanes_world_05]

How about?

are Gripens an option? The swedes are reducing down to I think 60 operational frames. So they may have some C/D frames for sale and I think I read that most the aircraft is almost modular allowing easier (not to be confused with easy) upgrade and there seems to be a planned development future for it. Or is it too much compared to F/A 50 (cash) and too little compare to hornet ( logistical and training synergies)? They I think were about 70 mill kiwi but that mght be spread over 30 years of use.
And if say it were viable with Gripen, is it possible to just dedicate to an all Gripen fleet with a large no of two seaters and forgo the lead in trainer? Nobody else does but with F/A slash T-50 being a supersonic high roll and turn rate capable aircraft are the differences that great between say Gripens and lead in trainers?
UCAVS present a slight problem and I dont know if its a major but there hasn't been a state on state conflict of high intensity where we might glimpse the capabilities of full spectrum signals warfare. UCAV's are autonomous to a point but to retain control still need monitoring and secure links. They probable are designed with this in mind but we just havent seen them proven yet in high tempo high intensity conflict yet. Just dont know if I would want to throw my eggs in that basket yet in case that basket gets tipped over.

 

[t68]

Six airframes might be the minuim buy for NZ to support the army/navy but twelve might be the optimum number for the RNZAF, if deployed overseas 4 airframes would be the minuim need that leaves eight on the home front for training and maintenance

New Zealand needs to be true multi role just like Australia limited budgets and personnel available. The aircraft will have to remain in service for twenty to thirty years and have to remain relevant for that period. The USN is planning for the Super Hornets to still be going strong in the late 2030 maybe into the 2040 time frame with upgrade planned for them continually till they are retired, Australian Hornets are planned to be handed back in the 2020’s which would rule these out for NZ,IMO new build Super Hornets would best meet the needs of the RNZAF into the late 2030/40 time frame these as you know are a 4.5 gen aircraft multi-role able to perform all tasking required of it to meet the operational needs of the NZDF from maritime strike, close air support to precision bombing it also has the ability to undertake the tactical airborne tanker role.

With the c130 fleet need to be replaced in the near future and the need for multi role IMO RNZAF needs to have two KC-130J tanker in the fleet to support the defence force on the ground and in the air, it has the ability to refuel the hornets on long operational flights and distributed POL needs directly on the ground, also with the fitment of Harvest Hawk it bring ISR capability with the ability to support the ground forces when Super Hornet is not in theatre or down for maintenance.

KC-130J Super Tanker | Lockheed Martin

KC-130J tanker to pack punch with new weapons - MarineCorpsTimes.com

 

[recce.k1]

Some great sounding options out there, from UAV's, Gripens to KC-30J's etc.

About those KC130J's, could they be optionally configured to carry instead of fuel on occassions, other substances like water (for fire fighting) and chemical oil dispersant (to drop on some off-shore future oil and gas rigs around the coast)? If that could be done then the NZDF could get buy in from fire service and enviorment protection agencies to get these birds funded as whole of government service. Cos they would be useful force multipliers (even for coalition support).

My coments on A109's never deploying is conjecture in absence of informed commentary, I don't know what the NZDF OrBat has in mind for the A109's, but I suppose one possibility of 1 or 2 of them being deployed to an overseas trouble spot could be an armed-scout/recon role for the NH90's troop carriers. Then again this is where UAV technology is making in-roads - maybe the NZDF get the funding to deploy both A109's (eg buy additional airframes) and UAV's to work out the strength's and weaknesses in light of issues concerning signals warfare etc. They are pretty much doing so now with indigenous solutions but it's time the NZDF got up there with the big boys in terms of supporting ground forces with these new maturing UAV intelligence gathering systems - we need to be at that table observing pronto, in order to make informed decisions on the mix of manned/unmanned vehicles for the future NZDF (eg we don't want a repeat LAVIII one-solution-to-fit-everything type solution situation again).

Anyway the curious thing about the RAAF F18 suggestion is that as per the Stuff article link, the suggestion came from Graham Bethell, 75 Squadron Association president, presumably he would know something (that we here necessarily wouldn't) because of his presumed contacts in the ADF etc? So would NZ buy some airframes (sourced from where?) and pay for the HUG upgrade, if so, presumably it would make sense to train alongside Aussie support infrastrucutre in OZ itself? Makes sense to fit into a future F/A-18F capabilitiy if future events warranted that etc. Where does that leave the realistic alternatives - Gripen, T/A-50, F-16 etc?

 

[t68]

C130 fire fighting capability,
Factsheets : Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System

C130 Hercules, Jack of all trades but a master of none.
Quite interesting what the old Hercules can do, i wonder if A400M will ever get to be like the old Hercules time will tell.

 

[Sea Toby]

I still believe Brazil's Embraer KC-390 could be the better aircraft replacing the venerable C-130 Hercules. if Brazil can produce them at half the price Lockheed can build Hercs, buying them would be a no brainer. Similar cargo lift, similar short take offs and landings, similar tanking capacity, and much more speed at half the price.... Since New Zealand has forgone the ASW upgrades for the Orions, the KC-390 will probably be as good at ocean surveillance as well...

One aircraft doing three tasks better and quicker than the two aircraft they use currently... At half the price.... Go for it.... Considering New Zealand's most likely trade of a number of NZLAVs for American Strykers, the Strykers can be airlifted by the KC 390s... True, the NZLAVs can't be airlifted by the KC-390s but the Canterbury is more than able to ship them...

There is no need to copy Australia, there is no need to buy more expensive P-8 Poseidons, there is no need to buy more expensive and slower new C-130s. Buy more economical to operate KC-390s...

 

[recce.k1]

Well the Govt here has hinted that the "strategic" airlift component needs replacement - but as yet are to indicate timeframes and what types etc (although it appears the C130J is a likely candidate ... again). They also wish to have the C130H LEP completed, which if it is, might possibly suggest a new acquistion is approx post 2015 (to 2020 etc). Then again if the C130H LEP doesn't work out as planned the pressure for new acquisitions might mean bringing any purchases forward etc (C130J? Or purchasing some medium transporters eg CN295 pronto to relieve stress on the C130H's).

I see the KC390 IOC date is approx 2015, my conjecture only but this could pose headaches for the Govt in terms of the KC390 being on schedule, being a new type (and all the associated issues surrounding new types entering service) and seeing who else buys them.

The KC390 sure looks nice and would be quite a useful asset but personally I'd like Govt/Defence take less risk with new types (as happened under the last administration eg new type LAV's, NH90's & Project Protector naval) and go for proven and mature technology. The Govt's Public Submissions document on defence released last week suggests the Govt is taking note of enhancing inter-operability with Australia, especially for joint-ANZAC deployments, so this could be the critical factor in what type is chosen.

(Personally I would suggest the Govt order 2x C17's pronto and that would ensure the NZDF could deploy any asset anywhere anytime and be inter-operable with its coalition partners etc, also provide immediate relief to the current legacy C130's seeing only 3 are operational. That would allow a good period of time to evaluate the remaining C130 replacement be they KC390's, A400's or C130J's etc).

Whatever happens, we will finally get to know in September!

 

[t68]

I still believe Brazil's Embraer KC-390 could be the better aircraft replacing the venerable C-130 Hercules. if Brazil can produce them at half the price Lockheed can build Hercs, buying them would be a no brainer. Similar cargo lift, similar short take offs and landings, similar tanking capacity, and much more speed at half the price.... Since New Zealand has forgone the ASW upgrades for the Orions, the KC-390 will probably be as good at ocean surveillance as well...

One aircraft doing three tasks better and quicker than the two aircraft they use currently... At half the price.... Go for it.... Considering New Zealand's most likely trade of a number of NZLAVs for American Strykers, the Strykers can be airlifted by the KC 390s... True, the NZLAVs can't be airlifted by the KC-390s but the Canterbury is more than able to ship them...

There is no need to copy Australia, there is no need to buy more expensive P-8 Poseidons, there is no need to buy more expensive and slower new C-130s. Buy more economical to operate KC-390s...

KC 390 is an impressive aircraft being half the price of a C130J and being capable of most operations currently achieved by the Hercules, but it appears Embraer is having technical problems that from Embraer own CEO say “ not a realistic aircraft and could not fulfil the mission”, more studies definition study were going to take place. They were talking about first flight in 2012 but this article being over twelve months old i do not know where the program is up too.

Embraer Launches KC-390 Tanker/Transport

I guess it all depends on when the current fleet of C130 aircraft are to be replaced (2017 according to one article) with the upgraded taking place not long ago the stars just might align for the replacement aircraft and if Embraer can sort out the problems.

Upgraded RNZAF C-130 Flying

 

[RegR]

Due to financial constraints I find it very difficult to beleive we would splash out on C-17s to augment the current hercs as we should replace them first and I even doubt we would get new J models the way this governments pulling on the purse strings, they're still clinging to the LEP dream, hope for credibilities sake it works out.
I would also doubt they would go for another unproven A/C type depending on how the
NH90s come through for us as you can only get so much egg off your face.
As for these ACF re-generation notions, I think we have more pressing problems that would need to be sorted long before we even entertain the idea of a fast jet return- new helo(s) introduction and bedding, C130 modding (or replacing), Q300/CN235??? transport/trainers, orions and maritime patrol all need to be sorted (and properly). And this is just the air forces problems, we still have issues within army and navy that need addressing.
Until BP plugs that hole and forces the oil to pop up off the east coast, a huge mineral deposit is found under some of our most picteresque scenery or we have the worlds biggest sausage sizzle then there will just not be enough peanuts to share around. We don't just want to throw funds around and go back to having a force that looked good on paper tasking and equipment wise if all those tasks are realistically not used or usable and equipment generally obsolete, stick to something we do good and can add purposefully to a coalition and fund and equip properly first time round, no more stretching short cuts to make the ends meet.

 

[Aussie Digger]

C130 fire fighting capability,
Factsheets : Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System

C130 Hercules, Jack of all trades but a master of none.
Quite interesting what the old Hercules can do, i wonder if A400M will ever get to be like the old Hercules time will tell.

I think that is something more likely to come out of an Airbus marketing release, than a realistic comment on the venerable Herc. It has been doing it's thing better than anything else for over 50 years now, credit where credit is due...

C-130 is more like a jack of all airlift trades and master of all...

 

[Twickiwi]

Due to financial constraints I find it very difficult to beleive we would splash out on C-17s to augment the current hercs as we should replace them first and I even doubt we would get new J models the way this governments pulling on the purse strings, they're still clinging to the LEP dream, hope for credibilities sake it works out.
I would also doubt they would go for another unproven A/C type depending on how the
NH90s come through for us as you can only get so much egg off your face.
As for these ACF re-generation notions, I think we have more pressing problems that would need to be sorted long before we even entertain the idea of a fast jet return- new helo(s) introduction and bedding, C130 modding (or replacing), Q300/CN235??? transport/trainers, orions and maritime patrol all need to be sorted (and properly). And this is just the air forces problems, we still have issues within army and navy that need addressing.
... We don't just want to throw funds around and go back to having a force that looked good on paper tasking and equipment wise if all those tasks are realistically not used or usable and equipment generally obsolete, stick to something we do good and can add purposefully to a coalition and fund and equip properly first time round, no more stretching short cuts to make the ends meet.

NZ is at a turn in the road where despite fiscal constraints, the government will have to dole out real money just to keep the current capabilities. There is a lot of evidence that the current capabilities are not sustainable in the sense of MFA policy outputs let alone outcomes. Policy failure of tactical and strategic airlift is potentially quite visible and embarrassing, if there is a Pacific environmental disaster that NZ is unable to respond to or a Herc disappears en route to the Ice.

For that reason, I would anticipate that the Kiwi govt will bite the bullet and invest. Whether this precludes a reactivation of the ACF is another matter. If the govt wants a stand alone airlift capability it will go for a single type of A/C at a time, and if 2017 is the procurement horizon then there is very little time to acquire- suggesting a mature tech A/C.

My personal preference would be for 2x C-17 attached to the RAAF, and 6x KC390, BUT THAT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

We are looking at probably 4x C130J eventually (2020) and maybe 4x C295 to plug gaps quickly. Inshallah, the govt won't do something crazy (AKA think outside the box) and try to acquire 2nd hand C130Hs or Antonovs (don't snigger- I used to work at the Treasury).

 

[recce.k1]

As stated C-17's were simply a personal opinion, they're the only aircraft capable of airlifting any current and future NZDF pieces-of-kit to staging posts in Northern Australia (and thus onto Timor or beyond) eg LAV's, new recovery support vehicles, NH90's, etc (and how about future containers - eg pre-fitted command and control or mobile hospital etc - it's about time the NZDF were "wired" up and ready to go ... rather than use tents and boxes (i.e. the time to unpack and establish operational readiness etc). Could also be A400's, once publically toted by the NZDF but not so much nowadays. Whatever it may finally be, C130J included, the money will be found for capital expenditure - that's a different game in which the pollies get to sit at the big tables, and trade deals discussed etc. The ongoing operating costs will be the key (and could thus rule out the likes of the C-17 just looking at the comments on the RAAF thread recently), even the LEP Hercs operating costs (with legacy engines and poor fuel economy compared to the J, will hopefully see them retire around 2020 if not sooner depending on replacement timing (and hopefully not see any second hand H's bought etc).

As for ACF, I'm not saying ACF (that's either long term or never again), I'm saying "training" to prepare the 3 services for their deployments and other (so yes, we can put aside F/A-18 HUG's, F/A-18F's, Grippens) .... if the Govt does agree to this (it's being mooted) then the options in the interim (i.e. under present budgetary environment) would be using existing aircraft that are in storage eg Macchis. But also a wild card in the medium term could potentially be LM and their TA50 or F16 depending on what external events kick into play. Or of course no more jets once and for all, the pollies prefered choice, but that depends on how well Defence make the case. I'm being postive on this last comment - 10 years on Defence is thinking "jointly", the Navy knows (always knew anyway) what it is "missing" (as they have always inter-operated with allies and fast jets) and the Army, thanks to A-stan, now realise the importance of what was lost. I'd say for the Army, their future is already here, and they are in amongst it - non-state-on-state/irregular conflict, concerted international/coalition efforts and air-power backing it up. They need to communicate with their coalition partners/air power ... or else not bother turning up for the gig and stay at home or peace-keep the Pacific - somehow I doubt Army only want the latter!!!

In the short term, the other likely RNZAF acquisition could be the short-medium range transport/patrol, and there's been speculation on more A109 type helos (which has to be a given due to the number already bought - 5 verses the various roles expected of them, cheaper to operate than NH90's so at a guess this makes Treasury happy. UAV's will be the interesting development to watch.