Oh so if it's at the point of cabinet decision then yes I'd say a decision has been made. Wonder what the short-list is / was!?!
An announcement either way should be imminent.
ope
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
An announcement either way should be imminent.
ope
I must have way lower expectations than most. Here though is my humble contribution:
Maritime Patrol / ISR:
4 x P8
4 x Beech B350 ER
Rotary:
8 x NH90 TTH
5 x AW109 LUH
8 x SH2G(I) (To be replaced with 5 x Romeo's)
5 x UH-1 leased (To be replaced with 5 x Sierra's)
Transport:
4 x A400M
4 x C27J
Training:
8 x Beech T-6C Texan II
3 x Beech B200 leased (MEPT/VIP)
3 x AW109 Power as (Rotary PT / VIP)
Strike:
The only Strike we are ever likely to get are the ones organised by the teachers and the wharfies. I would rather see our precious funding go towards a circa 13000 - 15000 tonne LHD to replace the CY and that we make sure we still get the 2 high end surface combatants on the DWP/10 first.
I have said on previous ocassions - the only way back towards a credible strike capability would be acquire a short squadron of Shornets airframes and then to have an arrangement with the ADF where by we would need to fund training and support, with a long look down the track to being able to realistically contribute to a deployable joint Anzac squadron. To do that would need locked-in bi-partisan political support within Wellington, Canberra and Washington. That in itself is not without significant political risks as their is still a very real untrust towards some elements within the NZ political scene by Canberra and Washington. For us the numbers game is - money and our inherent reluctance to spend it on defence - alas for the old ANZUS partners it is - 1986 and 2001.
Maritime Patrol / ISR:
4 x P8
4 x Beech B350 ER
Rotary:
8 x NH90 TTH
5 x AW109 LUH
8 x SH2G(I) (To be replaced with 5 x Romeo's)
5 x UH-1 leased (To be replaced with 5 x Sierra's)
Transport:
4 x A400M
4 x C27J
Training:
8 x Beech T-6C Texan II
3 x Beech B200 leased (MEPT/VIP)
3 x AW109 Power as (Rotary PT / VIP)
Strike:
The only Strike we are ever likely to get are the ones organised by the teachers and the wharfies. I would rather see our precious funding go towards a circa 13000 - 15000 tonne LHD to replace the CY and that we make sure we still get the 2 high end surface combatants on the DWP/10 first.
I have said on previous ocassions - the only way back towards a credible strike capability would be acquire a short squadron of Shornets airframes and then to have an arrangement with the ADF where by we would need to fund training and support, with a long look down the track to being able to realistically contribute to a deployable joint Anzac squadron. To do that would need locked-in bi-partisan political support within Wellington, Canberra and Washington. That in itself is not without significant political risks as their is still a very real untrust towards some elements within the NZ political scene by Canberra and Washington. For us the numbers game is - money and our inherent reluctance to spend it on defence - alas for the old ANZUS partners it is - 1986 and 2001.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Crikey Strike Eagles, aside from political will & conservatively an annual operating budget of $150-500M/annum depending on numbers and level of capability required by Defence and Govt) perhaps one way Strike Eagles could ever eventuate is if NZ partnered up with Singapore and the US! (Gets around "ship" problems too)!
If I were the NZG post-Afghanistan, focusing more on Asia-Pacific, I'd be re-strengthening/ boosting our commitement to our ASEAN friends and allies to ensure discussion and international law is upheld in terms of these growing disputes in the SCS (the economic consequences to NZ's economy, trade, severing of refined fuel supplies would be disasterous etc).
One approach could be a boosted NZ air defence component, and that leaves the rest of the NZDF including RNZAF to support existing commitments including joint amphibious force collaborative efforts. Of course Vote Defence would need additional funding (and not funded from within the existing budget via cuts elsewhere). There's bound to be some other greater-good financial spin-off's that the PM could work on both whilst in Govt (and post-Govt in the future)
If I were the NZG post-Afghanistan, focusing more on Asia-Pacific, I'd be re-strengthening/ boosting our commitement to our ASEAN friends and allies to ensure discussion and international law is upheld in terms of these growing disputes in the SCS (the economic consequences to NZ's economy, trade, severing of refined fuel supplies would be disasterous etc).
One approach could be a boosted NZ air defence component, and that leaves the rest of the NZDF including RNZAF to support existing commitments including joint amphibious force collaborative efforts. Of course Vote Defence would need additional funding (and not funded from within the existing budget via cuts elsewhere). There's bound to be some other greater-good financial spin-off's that the PM could work on both whilst in Govt (and post-Govt in the future)
Already explained before. Go back and read the previous posts.
Post Script:
Lebanon iirc recently paid around US$8m per airframe for a tranche of six new Huey's which included a training and support package. Why would we want to spend a quarter of a billion dollars on 4 more NH-90's when we could essentially buy 4 or 5 Huey's for just one NH-90 to do MAOT jobs in which the Huey is perfect for and the NH-90 uneconomic? It is like a dairy farmer buying a Cayenne as a runabout when all he needs is a Hilux ute.
Last edited:
I included the F15Es because I liked them and what they offered, but realistically the F16F Block 60 would be the better option in NZ eyes.
I hold a very strong opinion that the pollies and the great hairy unwashed see Defence per se, as something nice to have, but something that is not an absolute necessity, until the manure hits the turbofan. They also fail to comprehend, let alone understand, the strategic security, economic, military and logistics problems that NZ Inc face.
I agree that Vote: Defence would need a substantial increase in funding from the General Account but that could be done over a period of time because there would be more than two financial years from the time of the order placement and contract signing to IOC. IIRC the 2010 DWP states that NZ economic interests are up there with NZ security etc., (Mr C will correct me if I'm wrong) and for a govt that worships economic recovery, one would think that they would be wanting to ensure that their goods got to market safely. It's not as though we are advocating NZDF acquire a Carrier Battle Group. We are just advocating a viable, capable and reasonable NZDF.One approach could be a boosted NZ air defence component, and that leaves the rest of the NZDF including RNZAF to support existing commitments including joint amphibious force collaborative efforts. Of course Vote Defence would need additional funding (and not funded from within the existing budget via cuts elsewhere). There's bound to be some other greater-good financial spin-off's that the PM could work on both whilst in Govt (and post-Govt in the future)
Thanks for the short and sharp reply.
But seeing as this is just a wish list, and seeing that the NZDF is moving to a marine deployable force, I thought it would make sense to have assets that could be deployed if nessesary. Having a cheap chopper that is useful for humanitarian releif is all good, unless where you are helping desends into chaos, which is a possible/probable risk in our AO. (south pacific).
Anyway, I doubt if NZ will get any more than you have on order anyway, so its a moot point.
Endevour replacment is more important, and it will probably have a sprite or 2 anyway.
I thought about the Hueys but moving them around the flight deck of Canterbury in sea state 4 or 5 wouldn't exactly be an easy proposition because of the skids. I am aware that they have dollies to move them with. However if 6 Sqn techos reckon they could do it then US$48 million for a tranche of six would be ideal. At todays rate US$48 million is NZ$59.81 million which is less than what two SH2Gs are. I realise that they won't be on Canterbury a lot if at all but the probability has to be allowed for.
Thats the thing. Everyone thinks that our AO is just the South Pacific and that its benign. As recent history in Fiji, PNG, Timor Leste & the Solomon Islands show, it can be anything but. Our AO also includes the Indian Ocean, Red Sea and the Malakka Straits because that is where our imported oil and refined fuels come from, just to name a few.
Thats my point exactly. Things can turn to mud quickly. Thats why I think NZ would be better off operating 12 NH90,s than a mixed fleet of deployable choppers and some to practice with at home. If Canturbury deploys with 4, Endevour / replacment with 1 or 2 that leaves you with 2-3 airframes at home, if they are in maintanance that leaves you with a few 109,s. And no platforms for replacment crews to work up for rotation with, or rotation troops to famil with. 8 NH 90,s is not enough for the NZDF in 2012. I would consider 12 a minimum. Bugger the expence, you are not running an fighter force, the funds for 4 more NH90,s are there.
Yes I can see the logic of your argument, but the same premises support my argument for an Air Combat Force and that has to take priority. When the manure hits the turbofan, an ACF is not something NZ can get at the last minute, like it did with lend-lease in WW2 and the US could deliver combat aircraft reasonably quickly. It has been suggested that the A400 will have A2A refuelling capability, but from what I understand the prices of the A400 and the KC30MRTT are similar at the moment, so it would make sense to buy three MRTTs rather than extra A400s.
With reference to Mr Cs comments about US and Australian trust and doubts re: NZs committment to defence; standing up an ACF plus three KC30 MRTTs would, IMHO, help alleviate some of those very valid concerns. So I would say bugger the expense and standup 24 x F16F Block 60s and three KC30 MRTTs, because in the long run the money invested will provide an excellent return diplomatically and in many other ways. Not only will it show the US and Australia that NZ is serious about defence, but it will also state the same to our friends in Asia and in the FPDA.
Last edited:
kiwi in exile
Active Member
I think there are probably more useful economic ways to show our allies and neighbours that we mean business. I'd rather that the money be invested in maritime capability- 3 rather than 2 ANZAC replacements or amphibious capability.
Last edited:
Agreed. Amphib would be prefable to ACF, with the amphib, the rotor force would need to be enlarged, slightly, perhaps another 4 NH 90,s
I appreciate the arguments for 12 NH-90's and I wish that we had 12 in the inventory. Who knows we may be able to buy some a bargain prices when some of the Euro zone nations need to start culling back on their own fleets? But as it stands it is not going to happen.
Though NZ is moving to an improved deployable force this does not mean that the NZDF have abandoned their responsibilities to s5 and s9(1) of the Defence Act 1990. In fact in the CHCH relief and recovery effort those MAOT tasks undertaken by the RNZAF reinforced the critical role that defence plays to aid civil administration and in simple PR terms helped hugely in the public's appreciation of the NZDF.
The rationale a small tranche of essentially NZ based cheap dogsbody Huey’s (as a platform example) is for that important MAOT tasking first and foremost – any additional back up use in the islands say for a reconstruction / supply effort post a disaster is a useful bonus. This then allows for the NZDF’s main deployable rotary assets the NH90’s and to a lesser degree the 109LUH to be available for those directed taskings. What has happened in the past is that when 3Sqd deployments have happened, a number of MAOT tasks get post-phoned or even cancelled – which means there are flow on effects to other NZ Govt departments which relied on them. With fewer actual airframes in the RNZAF inventory this will compound. The same can be said to a number of NZDF activities that cannot be undertaken due to aircraft needed elsewhere. Operating 8 Sprites rather than 6 will help alleviate tasking pressure for MAOT, but they like the NH-90 are a heck of a lot more expensive per hour to operate.
The problem with the extra four NH-90's is that the $250m that they will cost, is the sort of money that they need to finish the Pokeno-Waitakaruru SH2 upgrade which has stalled or fund an extension on parental leave. As someone who has been professionally familiar with many of NZ's Polly's over the years - faced with a choice of Roads or choppers if $250m of new spending was released, the Tory's will say %#$* the choppers give me the new road and the Socialists will go - what do you need choppers for you war-monger, sell them and then I can double the paid patrental leave bill I'm working on.
Last edited:
Agreed Mr C, for us at the moment 4 cheaper B212 types would better serve us(and be more acheivable) than 4 more 90s. Everyone seems to think every task NZ partakes in requires large numbers of the biggest gucciest option with every sensor under the sun and a defensive/offensive suite to take on a small army when in actual fact most tasks are alot more benign and are borderline plain boring and small. People need to understand we are not going to be constantly deployed in any great numbers so why we need to send large numbers of NH90s anywhere is beyond me.
We deployed to ET in 99 with the largest force we are probably ever going to send in our current state(Bn+ group) and we sent 6 hueys initially dropping to 4 as the operation shook out and the Battalion got its footing. The whole point of the 90s was their increased capacity therefore we would not need to send 6 90s to acheive the same. Using a NH90 for every task would be like picking up the milk in a LAV when a hilux would do the same job probably easier as well.
Airmobile insertions are great but generally barring us invading a country(not really our thing) then large numbers of helos are not required alot and if they were then as in ET we will combine with our allies to move large numbers quickly. At the most I would see 3 NH90s and maybe a A109 to support the same type of op as 99 Timor, current Timor was supported with 3 Aus blackhawks in the end. Just because the Canterbury can accomodate 4 NH90s does not mean we will send 4 NH90s everywhere, could be a mix of up to 4 NH90s, A109s or seasprites.
When our 2 Hueys bolstered the Blackhawks for a period they were seen to fill a niche as they were not as large, created less downwash(important around poorly built villages) and would be more appropriate for something such as single per medevac, recce, mail run etc so there obviously there is a place in any orbat for a huey type. In NZ their role would be even more obvious as most civi taskings a smaller in nature and also alittle less priority therefore cost dependant, however still good to do for govt support and even varied training.
We deployed to ET in 99 with the largest force we are probably ever going to send in our current state(Bn+ group) and we sent 6 hueys initially dropping to 4 as the operation shook out and the Battalion got its footing. The whole point of the 90s was their increased capacity therefore we would not need to send 6 90s to acheive the same. Using a NH90 for every task would be like picking up the milk in a LAV when a hilux would do the same job probably easier as well.
Airmobile insertions are great but generally barring us invading a country(not really our thing) then large numbers of helos are not required alot and if they were then as in ET we will combine with our allies to move large numbers quickly. At the most I would see 3 NH90s and maybe a A109 to support the same type of op as 99 Timor, current Timor was supported with 3 Aus blackhawks in the end. Just because the Canterbury can accomodate 4 NH90s does not mean we will send 4 NH90s everywhere, could be a mix of up to 4 NH90s, A109s or seasprites.
When our 2 Hueys bolstered the Blackhawks for a period they were seen to fill a niche as they were not as large, created less downwash(important around poorly built villages) and would be more appropriate for something such as single per medevac, recce, mail run etc so there obviously there is a place in any orbat for a huey type. In NZ their role would be even more obvious as most civi taskings a smaller in nature and also alittle less priority therefore cost dependant, however still good to do for govt support and even varied training.
Ok, according to the Beehive website the US Sec Def Leon Panetta, will be visiting NZ towards end of next week for talks with NZG Leon Panetta, will be visiting NZ towards end of next week for talks with NZG (beehive.govt.nz - US Secretary of Defense to visit). Wonder what we'll get out of it besides a whole lot of yapping. An ACF would be nice (I know your answer Mr C but we can but live in hope, however faint it is). So I would think that it would a politically opportune / astutue time too announce the advanced training aircraft decision especially if the AT6 is the one they go for.
the concerned
Active Member
if the NZ's where going to get some sort of strike capability i'd put my faith in the Reaper uav not a strike aircraft.Why start pilot training again when they could look towards uav or even ucav's in a few years time.
UAVs aren't the be all to end nor the holy grail that some make them out to be. The Reaper probably costs as much if not more than a late model F16 and nowhere near
near the same versatility. You still have to train people to fly, mainatin and sustain the Reapers, plus the cost of wideband satellite data coms. Me, I prefer the aircraft and the pilot with the brain & MK1 eyball. You don't have the same lag in response to a very quickly changing situation as you have with the Reaper.
t68
Well-Known Member
Cost of ownership of UAV such as MQ-9 reaper or Mantis type UCAV might be the comparable to a F16, but using a UCAV negates the need for LIF aircraft and the associated cost, with the pilot’s not actually needing flight training before becoming operators, operators need not have an Air force background but can also come from either Army or Navy. With UCAV endurance of between 12 and 24hrs over the AO how many F16 would be needed to match this plus ground crew support.
Don’t get me wrong I would love to see a reconstituted ACF using fast jet, but even your pollies gave the go-ahead today realistically you will not see any aircraft till 2015 at the earliest no LIF program in place, you still have the MB-339 at least that’s a start( or have they been sold?) , least with UCAV you can have an operational Squadron within 5/6 years unlike the fast jet being 10 years at the earliest.
UAV Pilots
the concerned
Active Member
i'm sure the mb-339's were sold together with the skyhawks to a private company in the US.Like i said if they are going to regain a strike capability then the Ucav is definetly the better option ,what do you need a fighter for you have no enemy to chase out your airspace and lets be honest NZ is never likely to engage in combat in on its own so develop a capability thats needed.