Royal New Zealand Air Force

[recce.k1]

That's an interesting possibility (as NZ has bought second hand transport aircraft from the RAF before eg Andovers) but I suspect the NZ Govt wants its C130H's replaced before 2022.

From UK SDSR page 27:
"withdraw the C-130J Hercules tactical transport aircraft from service by 2022, a decade earlier than planned, as we transition to the larger and more capable A400M aircraft".

From recent NZ media reports:
"Two of the country's five Hercules have been upgraded in Canada in the past six years. The other three will be upgraded in Blenheim over the next three years. The fleet will be outdated by 2015, but this issue will be reviewed closer to the time".
Defence plans 'good' for district | Stuff.co.nz

"... the Government believes it is possible that each plane can operate beyond a 10-year target once upgraded. However, Defence Minister Wayne Mapp wants them gone when they reach that point, saying a review due for release shortly forecasts the need for a new fleet".
Radio New Zealand : News : Political : Government prepares to dump ageing Hercules

Apparently the NZ Defence Whitepaper is released tomorrow, which should confirm the Govt's intentions (as the above is suggesting a replacement fleet presumably before 2020)?

 

[ASFC]

That's an interesting possibility (as NZ has bought second hand transport aircraft from the RAF before eg Andovers) but I suspect the NZ Govt wants its C130H's replaced before 2022.

From UK SDSR page 27:
"withdraw the C-130J Hercules tactical transport aircraft from service by 2022, a decade earlier than planned, as we transition to the larger and more capable A400M aircraft".

As Flightglobal noted, from the NAO 2008 report, our J Hercs will start to need work soon. The SDSR might dress it up for the public that we are moving to the larger A-400M, the reality is that if money isn't spent the Hercs would have to go anyway.

RAF faces tough choices over future air transport fleet (About third of the way down the article)

Whilst I agree that they would be considered, are you really sure the RNZAF needs to be going down another upgrade route with Hercules aircraft??

 

[recce.k1]

Whilst I agree that they would be considered, are you really sure the RNZAF needs to be going down another upgrade route with Hercules aircraft??

Considering any NZ air transport fleet will need to last 30-40 years, they ought to buy a new fleet of (whatever) aircraft. So I agree with you.

(Then again ... politicians like spending less instead of more)

 

[icecoolben]

since New zealand has retired its fighter squadrons, if an Australian F-18 , Indian Su-30 mki or japanese F-2 were making long distance training on mid -air refuelling and one of the aircraft violates new zealand air space. how could New Zealand scamble any aircraft to intercept them?
Or if a russian Tu-95 making maritime survilance breaches airspace of one of New Zealand's Islands, How can New Zealand make a proper reponse if there are no supersonic planes?

 

[Todjaeger]

since New zealand has retired its fighter squadrons, if an Australian F-18 , Indian Su-30 mki or japanese F-2 were making long distance training on mid -air refuelling and one of the aircraft violates new zealand air space. how could New Zealand scamble any aircraft to intercept them?
Or if a russian Tu-95 making maritime survilance breaches airspace of one of New Zealand's Islands, How can New Zealand make a proper reponse if there are no supersonic planes?

How would any of these fighter aircraft, apart from an Oz F-18, ever make it that far? Or even a Russian Bear?

NZ is thousands of km from anywhere. Even an F-18 flying from OZ would need droptanks and to be configured for a ferry flight to make the distance, since IIRC it is ~1,200 n miles. The distances from India, Japan and Russia are ~12,000 km, 9,400 km and 13,000 km respectively. Those distances are such as to make difficult non-stop airliner flights between the different countries and NZ, and long-haul airliners have ~10x the range of a fighter aircraft. Only the Bear has a comparable range, but would still fall short ~11,000 km for a round trip.

-Cheers

 

[SASWanabe]

i would personaly like to know why the kiwis would see an Aussie F-18 as a threat

 

[Todjaeger]

i would personaly like to know why the kiwis would see an Aussie F-18 as a threat

The first thing which came to mind is, "what have the AB's been up to, and where are they?"


-Cheers

 

[A4kscooter]

Confirmation that the RNZAF will not operate the Aermacchi MB339

New Zealand Jets Will Not Fly Again
By NICK LEE-FRAMPTON
Published: 10 Jan 2011 16:55 Tweet
WELLINGTON - New Zealand Defence Minister Wayne Mapp has admitted the Royal New Zealand Air Force's (RNZAF's) fleet of 17 Aermacchi MB-339 CB trainers, retired almost a decade ago - together with the RNZAF's air combat force of 17 A-4K Skyhawks - are likely to end up in museums or dismantled for spare parts.

In November, Mapp had indicated he was keen to see the Aermacchi jets return to service and that he expected to make an announcement about the aircraft within a few weeks.

Related Topics
Asia & Pacific Rim
Air Warfare
However, there was silence on the matter until Jan. 7, when Mapp said the Aermacchis would not fly again because engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce no longer can provide maintenance for the two-seater jets' Viper engines.

Although the Aermacchis and Skyhawks were formally retired from RNZAF service in December 2001, the former aircraft had been flown occasionally whereas the Skyhawks spent years stored in a leaky hangar until being pushed outside and covered in a latex coating to protect it from the elements.

The Skyhawks would only have flown again if someone had bought them, but as their condition steadily worsened that option seemed increasingly unlikely, according to independent defense business analyst Gordon Crane.

"Many of the original equipment manufacturers of the Skyhawks avionics no longer exist, and it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to restore the aircraft to their former status,' he said Jan. 10.

Successive defense ministers maintained that the aircraft fleets would be sold, but officially that option expired at Christmas.

The A-4K Skyhawks entered RNZAF service in 1970 and the Aermacchis made their debut in 1991. Although the Italian made jet trainers were already serving with other air forces, the RNZAF was the first to use them with Rolls-Royce's Viper 680-43 engines and consequently suffered teething problems with the turbojet.

It is possible that future RNZAF pilots will be trained on RAAF aircraft although no decisions have yet been made.

RNZAF basic pilot training currently is conducted on CT-4 piston engine Air Trainers with more advanced training conducted with twin-engine

 

[MrConservative]

This link was posted on the RNZN thread:

Pilots cross Tasman - politics - national | Stuff.co.nz

Its contents are worth discussing on this thread.

These are the key lines in my view:

"There is a hole and the hole could be filled in a variety of ways," Dr Mapp said. "We could do [an aircraft] lease deal, we could do a [training] deal with Australia, which obviously has some attractions, and we're looking at those options right now."

Dr Mapp said officials were working on a plan for Kiwi pilots to have training time in the Australian jets.

The Cabinet had supported the bid, but there could also be leases taken out on new training aircraft.

"I think you are probably talking about a two-stage approach," Dr Mapp said.

The chatter some months ago if the Macchi regeneration could not workout was for a single engine prop aircraft along the lines of PC-9M, AT-6B or Tucano. I dont think that has really changed as they are cheaper to operate per hour than an advanced jet trainer.

I have a couple of questions for the boys across the ditch since Mapp is kiteflying about a RAAF-RNZAF advance pilot training tie in in which the RNZAF buys time.

1. Is there the current capacity in terms of the Hawks or Tucano's to do this within the current fleet usage rates of the RAAF?

2. What advantages would there be for the RAAF to do this (The RNZAF advantage is that it seems to be a cheaper option)?

With SecDef Fox in NZ from tomorrow I wondered if he bought with him some info regarding the upgraded Hawk T1-A's that might need a home to go to once the T2's are settled into RAF Valley? There are going to be a few decent airframes that will not be needed since the RAF is going on a massive diet over the next few years.

Hawks would be nice to lease and of course some of the ex ACF boys might want to come on home to the shaky isles as QFI's on Hawks.

 

[south]

Answers
1. I believe not much, and they are PC9A's (and getting long in the tooth, there is a replacement project underway)
2. None.

 

[recce.k1]

The second better question would have been "What advantages would there be for the Ausgov to do this"? Seeing western defence forces do what their govt's ask of them, whether said defence forces want to or not!

For the Ausgov, that's a good question, although I don't think the answer would be "nothing", it just depends on what the intended end result needs to be, in terms of the Ausgov's interests etc.

If the intended end result is to shore up support from their friends (eg something the US has always persued) to display unity and to enhance ANZAC capabilities, in the face of possible future dwindling US influence in this region; to show "other" nations that Australia is friendly (but carries a big stick and has support from its near neighbours), then some sort of NZ buy in would be useful.

As always, it may depend on how committed the NZ Govt(s) are and to what extent etc.

In NZ the Quigley reports on defence some 15-20 years ago (i.e. the foundations of the current NZ defence environment in some (but not all) respects), plus defmin Wayne Mapp's utterances some 10-15 years ago; both stated that the future of NZ retaining an air combat capability would need to be tied into some integration into the ADF, be that pilot training, or ultimately combat capabilities (it's to do with economies of scale, in a high-tech/high-investment enviroment of air combat capability etc), then this issue is worth formally persuing by NZ and Aus Govt talks.

Mapp currently (in that link) states there are capability gaps in the RNZAF (the first time a polly has publically said so since the ACF was disbanded in 2001), but he appears to be meaning advanced pilot training. But that's a start, for Mapp could not possibly publically say there was an air combat shortfall at this point in time (for the reasons I mentioned on the RNZN thread).

So it could mean, now that Mapp has confirmed the Macchis have engine issues (although I suspect more money paid to Rolls Royce would counter any issues ... but let's face it the Macchis are 1980's technology and aging despite their low usage), that NZ-Aus re-assess this.

If it means RNZAF obtaining PC-9's for their advanced training (or contributing to a School based in Aus with the RAAF PC-9's), well maybe, so be it.

If it also means RNZAF obtaining ex-RAF Hawks and basing them in Aus and/or NZ, so be it.

If it means that some top RNZAF pilots then have opportunties to fly RAAF F/A-18's then so be it.

If there is to be a framework in place, then an an ANZAC F/A-18 (NZ) contribution in the future could be possible, as the institutional knowledge would have been re-developed, as future geo-political (and funding) circumstances allow, then win-win for the two countries.

NZ Govt needs to redefine NZ air power as a means to protect NZ land and sea deployments to an extent (not NZ Army CAS - as that hasn't happended since the days of RNZAF Venoms and Canberras - the future NZ Army CAS needs to come in the forms of NZDF UAV's and armed UAV's in a Coalition structure), so that's RNZAF/NZDF mix of manned/unmanned aircraft primarily fulfilling maritime strike, land/sea interdiction and air-air (because NZ Army will always deploy alongside other nations, not on their own, who already have a substancial high-tech manned/unmanned CAS structure in place in the area of operation etc. NZ doesn't need to replicate but where possible/if meaningful, integrate). This is the end point, so if the above lead us there in the future then that sounds like a sustainable plan to me. Remember without a clearly defined threat to NZ (and Aus) the Treasury bean counters don't (and previously haven't) supported an indigenous air combat capability. NZ will unlikely do it all on its own...

 

[Todjaeger]

I have a couple of questions for the boys across the ditch since Mapp is kiteflying about a RAAF-RNZAF advance pilot training tie in in which the RNZAF buys time.

1. Is there the current capacity in terms of the Hawks or Tucano's to do this within the current fleet usage rates of the RAAF?

2. What advantages would there be for the RAAF to do this (The RNZAF advantage is that it seems to be a cheaper option)?

With respect to #1, as already indicated the RAAF operate the high performance prop aircraft PC-9/A, and from there transition to the Hawk 127 LIFT. Basic flight training uses the same CT-4 which the RNZAF uses. While I am not as current on usage for the PC-9/A, the Hawk 127 inventory IMO would not be sufficient to support RNZAF personnel receiving training on them as well, unless is was done at a very low rate. I am thinking in terms of perhaps 1 Kiwi ever other training cycle. The RAAF IIRC started with 33 Hawks which was sufficient to meet RAAF fast jet training needs. They have seen some rather heavy usage, with cracks caused by heavy utilization having been found on some aircraft. This is noteworthy because the cracks were found appearing sooner than expected, at least in terms of airframe age, if not flight hours. Additionally, same RAAF Hawks have been damaged which might have reduced the numbers available below 33.

For #2, barring changes, I would expect that including RNZAF personnel in the RAAF fast jet training programme would be to the detriment to the RAAF. Only (current) way which it would not be a negative for the RAAF would be if the Kiwi pilots were seconded to the RAAF and able to be trained in HUG/Shornet use and deployable operationally. With that in mind though, the it would really be up to Government, and not the RAAF/ADF as to what would occur.

I do have some ideas on what could be done in terms of future developments, but that I will put up at a later time.

-Cheers

 

[MrConservative]

Just as I thought Todj. There is far greater enthusiasm for this from Mapp than the AusGov (good point Recce).

I am looking foward to your thoughts Todj on the future RNZAF training requirements.

Just a thought on that - what with Lockheed going into OH and us needing advanced pilot training and that there is a capability gap with fast jets (if that report has been reported with 100% journalistic accuracy - and that is not a complete given knowing the quality of defence reporting in NZ) and that the AusGov may not have the capacity to handle a bunch of Kiwi's:

Then why not turnkey lease a KAI KT-1 & T-50 mix?

After the RSAF deal went west I'd say the Koreans would be keen to get some export runs on the board. A lease & trade offsets arrangement could work. The KT-1 looks quite a good performer and is well priced compared to the Swiss, US and Brazilian offerings in the prop APT market. After time in the CT-4's, then on to the KT-1's pilots could finish off with hours on the T-50. When not used on the APT course they could be tasked for wider NZDF integration training.

 

[recce.k1]

That's a good point there whether Mapp has greater enthusiasm than the AusGov (I actually wasn't making that point, but seeing you have, it's worth thinking about). We don't know what AusGov thinks. If they aren't interested then Mapp's pushing "s---" uphill. If they are then hopefully something might evenuate.

Then again if the AusGov is indifferent, NZ would be better to simply talk to the US (why not, talking to the US in the 1990's saw the F16 proposal and apparently the US has previously offered us some other good second hand kit at bargain prices). The US has the capacity and will to assist, and you might see some type of LM or Kai tie-in etc.

It depends where NZGov wants to strengthen the relationship - Aus or US?

(My preference is still the ADF for commonality and CDR/ANZAC Force reasons, but hey, this is all hypothetical of course).

 

[Sea Toby]

That's a good point there whether Mapp has greater enthusiasm than the AusGov (I actually wasn't making that point, but seeing you have, it's worth thinking about). We don't know what AusGov thinks. If they aren't interested then Mapp's pushing "s---" uphill. If they are then hopefully something might evenuate.

Then again if the AusGov is indifferent, NZ would be better to simply talk to the US (why not, talking to the US in the 1990's saw the F16 proposal and apparently the US has previously offered us some other good second hand kit at bargain prices). The US has the capacity and will to assist, and you might see some type of LM or Kai tie-in etc.

It depends where NZGov wants to strengthen the relationship - Aus or US?

(My preference is still the ADF for commonality and CDR/ANZAC Force reasons, but hey, this is all hypothetical of course).

Any serious relationship with the US akin to the ANZUS pact would require a change in New Zealand's nuclear stand... A price too high to pay for New Zealand politicians... The US may be friends of New Zealand, but are no longer trusted allies....

The former F-16 lease deal was the sweetheart deal of the century. While the fighter jets weren't exactly brand new, they were cream puffs at a price of used worn out jets... The USAF swallowed them whole and the Congress provided the funds to do so without the USAF asking for the funding...

Furthermore, the F-16 assembly line has been geared up for low production runs of the Joint Strike Fighter, F-35... What few F-16s being produced now are expensive as the line is no longer at full production...

 

[recce.k1]

Sure, but there's a difference between strengthening the NZ-US relationship and having a serious relationship (eg Aus-US relationship). NZ can and is strengthening, but it still falls well, well short of where Aus-US is at, and frankly NZ isn't on the same defence path to match the level of the Aus-US relationship in the near or mid future anyway (if ever at all). Strengthening doesn't necessarily mean the anti-nuclear stance is a hindrance, as the US and NZ has resolved now to "work around it".

It's to be noted that in the 1990's that strengthening started, despite the anti-nuclear issue which was alot more sensitive then, and the US was willing to sell NZ F16's (and unverified, from another forum, Bradley BFVS's to replace the M113's). The 2000's NZ change of Govt saw the relationship with the US build, thanks to 9/11, but at the same time that Govt as we saw looked alot towards Europe as well. Nowadays as the US and NZ have set up a new framework to work closer together, I wonder what else will come out of the woodwork in terms of offers and purchases?

After all a deal's a deal and there's money to be made, NZ defence purchases may be much smaller than many other nations, but the US or Euro or Asian or Aus Gov's are always willing to sell, and strengthen that relationship! The UK change of Govt, are re-engaing with the AP region, so we may see some aggressive UK sales pitches thrown into the mix (in terms items signalled for replacement thus far, of MCM/Survey replacement, future Frigates, future naval helos, army vehicle fleets, SF equipment, MPA aircraft or fitouts etc).

 

[recce.k1]

Whenuapai upgrade

Govt announces Whenuapai runway, taxiway upgrade.
beehive.govt.nz - $24m contract brings new life to Whenuapai

Good job (that project was officially mooted in the 2002 LTDP) as it reinforces Whenuapai remaining as an airfield (as its future was in doubt under the previous administration)!
LTDP 2002 Projects avoid risks [Ministry of Defence NZ]

Although it's not clear if that also means the hardstanding areas get replaced as well (unless that's after the runway project)?

 

[MrConservative]

The no nukes thing is settled pretty much and things between NZ and US are looking pretty positive. The Wellington declaration, back inside the 5I's tent, increased training tempo's, and heavy hitters from the Pentagon and State Department visiting with greater frequency. Things are on the right track.

BTW - its the RNZAF's 75th Birthday next year. Would be great to see the Blue Angels down here or the Thunderbirds. Be nice to have the Red Arrows down here as well come to think of it. If they can get that runway upgrade at WP done in time then it would make for a grand opening.

 

[recce.k1]

BTW - its the RNZAF's 75th Birthday next year. Would be great to see the Blue Angels down here or the Thunderbirds. Be nice to have the Red Arrows down here as well come to think of it. If they can get that runway upgrade at WP done in time then it would make for a grand opening.

Actually, you might be onto something, that could have other benefits than simply the public watching a renown jet aerobatic team etc.

Whilst I'm not a "hawk", one criticism I have of this change of govt is, I believe it's too overcautious in its public stance on re-engaging with the US.

So why not kick into a faster gear, by indeed inviting the Thunderbirds or Blue Angels to the RNZAF's 75th next year? Excepting the fact that it might be too late as I'm sure their schedules would be worked out well in advance, but if it were possible, think of the positive public "PR" in having a brief US fast air presence here. The media would love it and go nuts (as in "gush"), and it would open the door in the public's mind to USAF/USN as regular visitors again.

Whether this is coincidental or not, when the USAF used to participate at airshows, 100,000+ public visitors was not uncommon (eg the last that happened was Air Force Day at Ohakea back in '81, in which I was fortunate to go to as a youngster. Since then numbers have been significanty smaller).

Otherwise there are other display teams that should be invited regardless, eg I don't think the RAAF Roulettes have ever been to NZ?

 

[MrConservative]

Actually, you might be onto something, that could have other benefits than simply the public watching a renown jet aerobatic team etc.

Whilst I'm not a "hawk", one criticism I have of this change of govt is, I believe it's too overcautious in its public stance on re-engaging with the US.

So why not kick into a faster gear, by indeed inviting the Thunderbirds or Blue Angels to the RNZAF's 75th next year? Excepting the fact that it might be too late as I'm sure their schedules would be worked out well in advance, but if it were possible, think of the positive public "PR" in having a brief US fast air presence here. The media would love it and go nuts (as in "gush"), and it would open the door in the public's mind to USAF/USN as regular visitors again.

Whether this is coincidental or not, when the USAF used to participate at airshows, 100,000+ public visitors was not uncommon (eg the last that happened was Air Force Day at Ohakea back in '81, in which I was fortunate to go to as a youngster. Since then numbers have been significanty smaller).

Otherwise there are other display teams that should be invited regardless, eg I don't think the RAAF Roulettes have ever been to NZ?

The Auckland Airport Show in 1992 was a ripper and had a huge crowd also. There is an interest in Aviation out there which is great.

If no Angels I would hope that something interesting like a F-22 could make it. That would pull the crowds...