Royal New Zealand Air Force

phreeky

Active Member
I would've thought that the main advantage in having a fast jet in service is exactly that - the ability to scale it up/improve it when needed. That doesn't mean they have no immediate use, however against advanced militaries most cheaper options probably won't count for much.

If that's the goal would it make more sense to have a small number of Hawks? Would having a common aircraft with the RAAF bring much benefit?
 

kiwi in exile

Active Member
'Scaling up/improving fast jets as needed" sounds expensive, time consuming and requires the right political will.

Why fast jets?
A: defend against airbourne threats to NZ- these are unlikely given our isolation, SAM systems are cheaper.
B: maritime strike/deterrent- future MPAs can do this and you dont need to shift funds into an expensive fast jet program. Focus on acquiring standoff PGMs rather than new aircraft. Even with the jets you would still need to acquire standoff PGM to meet this requirement.
C:CAS type role - appropriately equiped helos can do this cheaper and be ship deployed. Focus on acquiring standoff PGMs rather than new aircraft. Even with the jets you would still need to acquire standoff PGM to meet this requirement.
 

Lucasnz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
A: defend against airbourne threats to NZ- these are unlikely given our isolation, SAM systems are cheaper.
SAM systems are cheaper, depending on what you purchase; but not has flexible. If airborne threats are not the issue, then why invest in SAM's.

B: maritime strike/deterrent- future MPAs can do this and you dont need to shift funds into an expensive fast jet program. Focus on acquiring standoff PGMs rather than new aircraft. Even with the jets you would still need to acquire standoff PGM to meet this requirement.
That depends on the type of threat you're facing. Were the threat to include a helicopter based early warning systems let alone VTOL aircraft; any MPA facing an Area Defence Missile equipped ship would be eaten for lunch. From my perspective MPA / ISTAR role (as the P3 / P8 do) are a valuable strategic asset that should not be used in the dedicated strike role, unless a target of opportunity arises in the course of carrying out an assigned mission.

C:CAS type role - appropriately equiped helos can do this cheaper and be ship deployed. Focus on acquiring standoff PGMs rather than new aircraft. Even with the jets you would still need to acquire standoff PGM to meet this requirement.
Your comments mirror the army / navy needs for an air combat force (army - helicopters and navy fast jet). Other than the UK Attack Helicopter force and USMC Marine Corp Cobra I'm not aware of any other attack helicopters capable of operating in a maritime environment (There might be others just can't think of them). Personally upgrading the LUH to have a light helicopter strike capability would be a better option at this stage.

I tend to lean towards an 18 strong air combat force (Whinneary report) for the following reasons:
  • Contingency Response for major international events in NZ (i.e. APEC 1999)
  • Deterrent Value against short notice military challenges that might be for geo-political reasons as well plain old military aggression.
  • Joint Response with Australia to regional threats.
  • Watching the crew of FFV engaged in illegal acts wet their pants
Overall given NZ small size the RNZAF should be maximising the capability inherent in every aircraft it acquires including the Texan.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
'Scaling up/improving fast jets as needed" sounds expensive, time consuming and requires the right political will.

Why fast jets?
A: defend against airbourne threats to NZ- these are unlikely given our isolation, SAM systems are cheaper.
B: maritime strike/deterrent- future MPAs can do this and you dont need to shift funds into an expensive fast jet program. Focus on acquiring standoff PGMs rather than new aircraft. Even with the jets you would still need to acquire standoff PGM to meet this requirement.
C:CAS type role - appropriately equiped helos can do this cheaper and be ship deployed. Focus on acquiring standoff PGMs rather than new aircraft. Even with the jets you would still need to acquire standoff PGM to meet this requirement.

It would be interesting to see if RNZAF will get the P8 Poseidon and use them with a standoff PGM role with either the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) or the AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER (Standoff Land Attack Missile-Expanded Response) which is currently being integrated to the aircraft as part of a package to protect the JATF

Overall given NZ small size the RNZAF should be maximising the capability inherent in every aircraft it acquires including the Texan.
agree with that 100%
 

t68

Well-Known Member
I tend to lean towards an 18 strong air combat force (Whinneary report) for the following reasons:
  • Contingency Response for major international events in NZ (i.e. APEC 1999)
  • Deterrent Value against short notice military challenges that might be for geo-political reasons as well plain old military aggression.
  • Joint Response with Australia to regional threats.
  • Watching the crew of FFV engaged in illegal acts wet their pants
.
Major items to be replaced 2025/35 to enhance a combined NZ task force,
RNZAF
5x C-130H, 6x P-3K2, 2x 757-200, 8x SH-2G

RNZN
2x Anzac class, 2x Naval Logistic Support Force ships (Canterbury Endeavour) 6x OPV/IPV, 1x Naval Diving Support

Army
Upgrade or replace NZLAV, replace Fire support/artillery (L119)

In that time frame every major item in the defence force will be hopefully replaced with either a one for one or the capability expanded, there is no doubt with a JATF combat weight needs to improve dramatically along with the logistical support force, I agree that an ACW would be beneficial in supporting a JATF and would welcome it with open arms from an Australian perspective.

But the way I see it it’s the very same debate in a roundabout way to the naval fixed wing debate in the ADF we can see the need but differ on the capability levels and associated equipment, what do we lose to gain the capability?

By the way do you have a link to this Whinneary report or a working title to find it Google was not much help, thanks in advance
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Currently the NZDF budget stands at $3,087 million NZD or 3 billion or approximately 1, 1% of GDP, what needs to be defined if the defence force was to commit to an JATF as well as funding an Air Combat Wing what does the budget need to be committed to year to year 1.5-2%.

That said come 2035 what are requirements for the JATF inits POE (primary operating environment) Platoon lift- Company lift? And what are the supporting enablers, combat weight is a telling factor in amphibious warfare. It is a complex proposition for the future of NZDF to sort out, as with the ADF we have only dipped our big toe in the water regenerating a fixed wing combat capability from scratch will be extremely difficult as well as the JATF without political will defence has no capability we saw that with Clark government
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
The Whineray report was in 1998 and I can't find an online copy. This is the 2000 review by the then Minister of Defence, Mark Burton, on the axing of the F16s and the ACF. beehive.govt.nz - Review of the F16 Aircraft for the Royal New Zealand Airforce
I dont think it s online anymore but here are the main bits.

Recommendations of the Final Report of the Air Combat Capability Study—October 1998 (The Whineray Report)

This study recommends that the Secretary of Defence (At the time Gerald Henslay who agreed wholeheartedly with the findings):

- Note that this study has confirmed the White Paper requirement for New Zealand to retain an air combat capability.

- Note that an air combat capability has high utility in contributing to New Zealand’s defence strategy of self-reliance in partnership, including low level security challenges to New Zealand sovereignty, our security relationship with Australia, and supporting regional and global security.

- Note that the study has confirmed the three operational roles of Close Air Support, Air Interdiction and Maritime Strike, as the best match with New Zealand’s security requirements.

- Agree that the capability of the A-AK Skyhawk with the upgrades identified in the White Paper, while broadly satisfactory, has a number of operational and policy limitations which will increase as the Skyhawk approaches the end of its life.

- Agree that other broad capability options such as Surface-to-Surface missiles, Long-range Artillery, Fighter-Bomber Aircraft, and Surface Combatants are not suitable for meeting New Zealand’s air combat capability requirements, and should not be considered further.

- Agree that New Zealand should not consider further an Attack Helicopter or Light Attack Aircraft as a replacement for the A-4K Skyhawk. We should also not consider the P-3K Orion as the sole maritime strike capability.

- Agree that the operational performance and policy value of a current production fourth generation multi-role fighter aircraft such as an F-16C/D makes it the only capability option for meeting air combat capability requirements over the longer term.

- Note that an initial production fourth generation multi-role aircraft, such as an F-16A/B, with suitable upgrades, offers opportunities for New Zealand’s replacement of the A-4K.

- Note that the indicative through-life cost of a current production fourth generation multi-role fighter used for the purposes of this study was that of a new F-16C/D at NZ$1.8B.

- Note that consideration should be given to acquisition strategies that introduce the capability at a lower cost, such as leasing or procuring suitable second-hand aircraft.

Cheers MrC


PS:NG - Are you up for my Bill English Hypothetical Challenge?
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
I think if by some miracle we were to venture back into the fast jet game (this is after we have already secured P8, A400, C295, a tanker, 3 frigates, NZLAV upgrade, critical manning, mobility etc etc BTW) we will not have squadrons of Gen 5 fighters as some say we need (we currently have nothing and survive) but more a modest capability, even by todays standards, that is also practical and relevant to what we would actually do with them or commit them to internationally (If they are just to fly laps of NZ then waste of effort).

I would suggest 12 F16C/D for a re-gen 75 Sqn split between CAS, air interdiction and maritime strike specialty roles with another 4 F16Ds for a conversion flight + a spare frame of each for spares, ground training and attrition. I purposely say F16 as I know a certain friend of ours who has literally squadrons parked up looking like our A4s did for all those years right now and they are proven and capable (less hassle). At cost, cheap, free? either way another friendly nation in the sky can only help and they are no good to anyone sitting idle in desert carpark.

We will also need 9 Hawks (Ausshare initial instructors??) as lead ins and limited local 'specialty' roles, adversary etc. I have kept the squadrons at bare mininmum to also minimise outlay, support costs, personnel etc as it all adds up but again if we are going from nothing to even bare minimum we are at least in the game and have a baseline.

Most recent euro nation F16 deployments usually range from 4-6 jets so bar WWIII we should manage (we'd have to actually deploy them now and again however, excercises don't count). On generation if we are going up against an adversary alone that requires F35 type advantages then chances are we wouldn't/should'nt be there in the first place bar all out war and un-avoidable and in that case everyone will have problems not just us (and again still better than our current situation).

NZ scenarios would range from past 99 Timor anti-shipping to CAS for the recently finished Afghan deployment to flying escort in Iraq today but again we would first need the will and commitment of the NZ government to send them on these types of ops, equip appropriately (stand off, guided munitions, sensors) and approve direct action otherwise it is literally a waste of money.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Following on from the Whineray Report came the Quigley Review. Its findings were dismissed by the Clark Government.

Quigley Review - The Lease Of F-16 Aircraft

Review Of The Lease Of F-16 Aircraft For The Royal New Zealand Air Force
by the Hon. Derek Quigley

Summary and Conclusions

1. This review is based on three long-standing defence policy assumptions:
· that balanced forces should be available to enable New Zealand to contribute to alliance operations;
· that air combat capability is an essential part of a balanced force; and
· that the three designated roles for the air combat force, close air support, air interdiction and maritime strike are appropriate for the NZDF's air combat capability.
2. There is no priority-setting mechanism in the NZDF, either within the Services or between them, that effectively and consistently links individual activities or projects to the Government's most pressing national security concerns. Defence is still far too inwardly focused.
3. The NZDF is now in a parlous fiscal position. The pressure is most acute in the capital plan area, with a capital expenditure requirement over the next ten years of more than $5 billion. This figure contrasts with the 20-year capital estimate of $4.4 billion made in the 1997 Defence Assessment (DA97).
4. The NZDF is also experiencing cash-flow problems and will require capital injections (i.e. extra money over and above what it receives from its depreciation fund) in excess of what had been contemplated in DA97. At that time, an extra $509 million was contemplated for the following 10-year period. Today - based on current estimates, which the NZDF cannot guarantee - the figure is approximately $1 billion.
5. The estimate of $1 billion does not however illustrate the extent of the immediate problems if what Defence regards as essential projects, such as upgrading Army communications, acquiring new armoured vehicles, purchasing new light operational vehicles, and the RNZAF Project Sirius go ahead. These four projects alone are expected to require an extra capital injection of around $683 million over the next two to three years, over and above the capital injection required for current capital commitments.
6. It is against this background that the F-16 project needs to be considered.
7. The RNZAF's Skyhawks were scheduled in DA97 to be replaced between 2007/08 and 2010/11 at a cost of $653 million based on 1997 dollars and the then exchange rate.
8. In terms of existing policy, the critical mass for the air combat force is a squadron of 18 aircraft. The deal to replace the Skyhawks with 28 F-16s - on a basis of "take it or leave it" - was approved by the Cabinet in November 1998. Twenty-two are to be flown, and the remaining six used for spares. Delivery is scheduled during the period August 2001 to April 2002.
9. The F-16 contract is a "lease to buy" arrangement which allows either party to exit on 180 days' notice. New Zealand has an option to purchase the planes, which can be taken up at any time during the period of lease, but does not have to be taken up. This option, until exercised, imposes no liabilities on New Zealand, and New Zealand is therefore not locked into the F-16 deal indefinitely.
10. However, assuming the option to purchase is exercised, and the aircraft upgraded, the cost would be $1000 million plus. In contrast, the basic lease and regeneration package provides the RNZAF with aircraft - until June 2009 - for around $363 million. A full upgrade would enable full participation in peace-enforcement missions. If not upgraded, the aircraft would still have the performance and weapons delivery accuracy to participate in lower order peace support operations.
11. Even at $1000 million, the deal is a good one. Net present value calculations for nine different scenarios contrasting the F-16 A/B package with new F-16 C/Ds ranging in price from US$30 million each down to US$12.5 million (both excluding spares and upgrades), give a positive benefit in favour of the F-16 A/Bs from $342 million to $21 million.
12. The F-16s New Zealand has contracted to acquire are vastly superior in performance - even before upgrading - to the RNZAF's current Skyhawks. Their acquisition could also enable the current fleet of A-4K Skyhawks to be sold.
13. The F-16s come at a cost in terms of NZDF finances. Capital is now required earlier than the scheduled Skyhawk replacement date. Estimated operating costs are also higher than for the Skyhawks. The capital impact in particular, means that there are less funds for other NZDF projects, particularly over the next two or three years. 14. If the F-16 contract were cancelled, officials estimate that $154 million would be freed up for other NZDF capital projects. This figure, however, does not include the cost of replacing the Skyhawks as they were scheduled to be replaced between 2007 and 2011.
15. Advice from the Treasury following a recent visit to the United States, suggests an exit cost of approximately $11million. This could be affected up or down by unwinding the Debt Management Office hedging arrangements on the F-16 contract. A one cent movement in the value of the $NZ makes a difference of ±$5 million.
16. Cancellation, however, implies one of two things: either accepting the risk of a higher replacement cost for the Skyhawks in the future, or losing the air combat capability.
17. The F-16 contract needs to be seen in a wider context. Although it creates immediate cash-flow difficulties and impacts on funds otherwise available for other projects, it is symptomatic of a much deeper problem. The NZDF is attempting to fund a full range of capabilities with insufficient money and without having determined specific priorities.
18. The solutions are:
· more money, or
· setting new priorities for capital and operating expenditure, by either - downsizing one or more of the existing capabilities, or
- eliminating one or more of them.
19. There would be substantial operating and capital savings if the F-16 project were cancelled and the existing air combat force disbanded. Operating savings could be as high as $140 million per annum, but would take time to achieve. On the capital side, the Treasury memorandum accompanying this report shows net capital injection savings through to 2008/09 of $85 million to $180 million, depending on the sale price achieved for the Skyhawks, the Macchis and an airbase.
20. The abandonment of the Air Combat Capability would be a fundamental departure from existing policy and would have major implications on an NZDF-wide basis. There would also be diplomatic issues involved. This issue should therefore - in my view - only be considered as part of a wider review.
21. Viewed from New Zealand's point of view, there are benefits in having well-trained and well equipped Defence Force personnel. New Zealand would lose a great deal across all three services if the level of access to leading-edge military professionalism and experience were reduced. The F-16 contract provides an opportunity to build on the NZDF's present level of professionalism.
22. The Skyhawks have now been in service with the RNZAF for 30 years but represent a 1950s design. In the words of the Whineray Report, they are no longer adequate as an air combat capability in the modern world. This is largely due to the limits of their ageing airframes, lack of speed and manoeuvrability.
23. They will require extensive capital expenditure (approximately $35 million) over the period 2002 to 2005 to maintain reliability and supportability - effectively just to keep them going. Further upgrades costing around $70 million would be required to enable them to operate in other than a benign environment. There are doubts within NZDF whether it is worth spending this latter sum in view of their age. On the basis of information received during the review, it would be better to sell them now while they retain a reasonable value.
24. In contrast, the F-16A/Bs are virtually unused and have a full airframe fatigue life of up to 30 years. They unquestionably offer a significant improvement in capability over the Skyhawks and even without upgrades could be deployed to lower-order peace support operations. Upgraded, they would be able to participate in full peace enforcement activities and easily integrate into an air wing within a coalition force. This would provide the Government with a wider range of NZDF deployment options than it currently has.
25. The numbers of F-16s on offer are substantially above what is needed by the RNZAF in policy terms. Indeed, the RNZAF operated 14 Skyhawks for more than a decade from 1970. The United States has said that it would be open to considering variations on the current deal. Indicative information supplied during the review suggests that 14 F-16s operating from one base (Ohakea) would save approximately $30 million annually and provide capital savings of approximately $200 million.
26. In my view the possibility of acquiring a reduced number of F-16s should be explored to maintain expertise and to preserve an operational capability that may need to be expanded should strategic circumstances deteriorate significantly at some point in the future. This would also enable other NZDF force elements to exercise with a modern capability.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the Government consider approaching the United States Government with a view to renegotiate the current F-16 package to include a lesser number of aircraft.
2. That all Defence projects be reviewed as a matter of urgency, on a project by project basis, with a view to prioritising and funding them on the basis of their capacity - judged from an NZDF-wide perspective - to advance New Zealand's national interests.
3. That steps be taken to implement as soon as practicable all those aspects of the 1998 National Real Estate Consolidation Strategy that are already agreed by NZDF, and that decisions be taken on the remainder.
4. That those parts of the 1991 Review of Defence Funding that have not yet been implemented, be urgently considered and where relevant adopted.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
I think if by some miracle we were to venture back into the fast jet game (this is after we have already secured P8, A400, C295, a tanker, 3 frigates, NZLAV upgrade, critical manning, mobility etc etc BTW) we will not have squadrons of Gen 5 fighters as some say we need (we currently have nothing and survive) but more a modest capability, even by todays standards, that is also practical and relevant to what we would actually do with them or commit them to internationally (If they are just to fly laps of NZ then waste of effort).

I would suggest 12 F16C/D for a re-gen 75 Sqn split between CAS, air interdiction and maritime strike specialty roles with another 4 F16Ds for a conversion flight + a spare frame of each for spares, ground training and attrition. I purposely say F16 as I know a certain friend of ours who has literally squadrons parked up looking like our A4s did for all those years right now and they are proven and capable (less hassle). At cost, cheap, free? either way another friendly nation in the sky can only help and they are no good to anyone sitting idle in desert carpark.

We will also need 9 Hawks (Ausshare initial instructors??) as lead ins and limited local 'specialty' roles, adversary etc. I have kept the squadrons at bare mininmum to also minimise outlay, support costs, personnel etc as it all adds up but again if we are going from nothing to even bare minimum we are at least in the game and have a baseline.

Most recent euro nation F16 deployments usually range from 4-6 jets so bar WWIII we should manage (we'd have to actually deploy them now and again however, excercises don't count). On generation if we are going up against an adversary alone that requires F35 type advantages then chances are we wouldn't/should'nt be there in the first place bar all out war and un-avoidable and in that case everyone will have problems not just us (and again still better than our current situation).

NZ scenarios would range from past 99 Timor anti-shipping to CAS for the recently finished Afghan deployment to flying escort in Iraq today but again we would first need the will and commitment of the NZ government to send them on these types of ops, equip appropriately (stand off, guided munitions, sensors) and approve direct action otherwise it is literally a waste of money.
Disagree if by chance there was movement on this front unless NZ can entice qualified pilots from overseas you are starting from scratch, interim aircraft can be at the suggestion from nagti of T/A 50 LIF trainer aircraft which if ordered today would not arrive till 2017/18 and then training begins in earnest.Then once up to a level can either continue to train the other pilots or exchange with the RAAF and train on either F35 or Super Hornets id estimate that it would be the mid 2022/3 until a 1st tier aircraft would be ordered new build Super Hornets line would be long gone, the Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale may still be open well we know JSF will be open

FOC of an RNZAF ACW would not be till 2030, in 2030 do you want a 4th gen aircraft or 5th gen? And have a common supply chain the RAAF, USAF/USMC and perhaps RAF.

Would be nice to see the Kiwi on the side of JSF but unless budget projections increase would rather see an increase in helicopter support through NH-90 and AH-64E something that will be deployable from hopefully your next gen LPD/LHD
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
I would suggest 12 F16C/D for a re-gen 75 Sqn split between CAS, air interdiction and maritime strike specialty roles with another 4 F16Ds for a conversion flight + a spare frame of each for spares, ground training and attrition. I purposely say F16 as I know a certain friend of ours who has literally squadrons parked up looking like our A4s did for all those years right now and they are proven and capable (less hassle). At cost, cheap, free? either way another friendly nation in the sky can only help and they are no good to anyone sitting idle in desert carpark.

We will also need 9 Hawks (Ausshare initial instructors??) as lead ins and limited local 'specialty' roles, adversary etc. I have kept the squadrons at bare mininmum to also minimise outlay, support costs, personnel etc as it all adds up but again if we are going from nothing to even bare minimum we are at least in the game and have a baseline.

.
I note and agree with you priviso"s made in your longer post above.

There are simply 2 options if we are hypothetically going to entertain this;

1. A shared Joint Anac Squadron using some of the F/A-18F's as discused previously or;
2. Revisiting the recommendations of the Whineray / Quigley reports and seeking a plausible deal with the US DoD for F-16"s.

Whatever there is - there going to have to be be some hand holding by either the US or OZ governments to do it. It will have to somehow be affordable, economical and yet operationally valid.

So examining the hypothetical Option 2 further. It would have to be 16 airframes plus 2 for spares. I would look to having LIFT done overseas either through the ADF on a pay per seat arrangement or via the USAF - again on a pay per seat arrangement. It would cut out the up front costs and the fiscal mangement of it would be more advantageous. (no cap charge yada yada - maybe that is the advantage of leasing) In fact type conversion / OCU could even be done abroad if it was more economical - the USAF / USAFR will be flying the Viper for many years to come). I also would have in place an exchange programme where by experienced USAF Viper knucks would be posted to Ohakea and ours Stateside - which help us no end. It used to happen in the past and was a very valuable arrangement.

Under DoD interpretation of the Arms Export Control Act, the United States can provide excess military aircraft to foreign countries at a no cost lease if they have flown more than 75% of their original envisioned life. In the case of the F-16 A/B was was around 3000 hours.

With a MLU and LEP regeneration (if the airframe is in good condition) that airframe / engine can be life extended considerably. Pretty much this is happenning right now with the Indonesian deal for 24 "free" F-16 Block 25 airframes transfered following upgrades. Yep - the Indonesian transfer was for free but the package deal of 24 F-16C/D's is costing USD$750m including support, training and a joint mission planning system (JMPS).

But can a great deal be struck again? And can the deal stick without ideological meddling?
 

t68

Well-Known Member
With a MLU and LEP regeneration (if the airframe is in good condition) that airframe / engine can be life extended considerably. Pretty much this is happenning right now with the Indonesian deal for 24 "free" F-16 Block 25 airframes transfered following upgrades. Yep - the Indonesian transfer was for free but the package deal of 24 F-16C/D's is costing USD$750m including support, training and a joint mission planning system (JMPS).
It does seem like a good deal on paper, but remember they also have them in inventory already so supporting them should be easier


'Second-hand' boost for RI's air defense | The Jakarta Post
 
It's been awhile and it's inevitable that a trip down hypothetical lane is due. Facing into the wind and getting wet is all that will happen here though.

I'd much rather NZ get it's MPA and transport fleet sorted if I'm honest. ;)
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
It does seem like a good deal on paper, but remember they also have them in inventory already so supporting them should be easier


'Second-hand' boost for RI's air defense | The Jakarta Post
They have struggled for years keeping their Block 15OCU's aloft. Were not in the Clinton Administrations good books which didnt help.

It was the Clinton Administration that dealt with us over our F-16 lease deal. There original take it or leave it deal played out badly in that by buying 28 the RNZAF looked to be over reaching and were attacked for that. The Quigly review noted that belatedly when they new the deal may go tits up they became more flexible. Too late. A more modestly framed deal of say 16 with an option for more might have made it a lot more palletable.

Incidently the deal was struck a 0.52 FX rate but throughout the next deacde of installment payments from FY99-09 the USD-NZD FX rate was a much more favourable to NZ average of around 0.65. That makes the deal even cheaper and if indeed a deal of 16 airframes was struck then it could have easily been absorbed. Especially if we had also not over reached on the NZLAV acquisition.

So much was thrown away for so little.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
It's been awhile and it's inevitable that a trip down hypothetical lane is due. Facing into the wind and getting wet is all that will happen here though.

I'd much rather NZ get it's MPA and transport fleet sorted if I'm honest. ;)
To that I agree, but I will also that add along with a networked BAMS / ISR capability and air mobility we need to have the appropriate purple asset to replace the CY and have an ANZAC replacement. All that can deal with a post 2030 security environment. One thing though that has to be considered is that the threat matrix is rising faster than the capacity to deal with it.

One thing just to stirr this soup a little more is your mentioning of a MPA platform is of course the P-8. It has been seen as the most likely replacement for the P-3K2 as a tier 1 asset. However there is the non A (Attack) hunter roles that the baby Poseidon Challenger 605 MSA could do admirably, leaving the killer roles to be dispersed to a frigate or future LHD based ASW/ASuW helicopter (SH-2G which we have) and a MRCA like a F-16V upgraded from a legacy C/D Viper or even the joint Shornet option.

Thus the resulting question may well be - Should we go with the P-8 x 4 - or go with the C605 MSA and replace the P-3K2 like for like (6) and possibly fund a MRCA squadron? With the A400M we would have A2A capability.;) Hypothetically of course.
 

kiwi in exile

Active Member
Is this what you were linking to Reaver?

"New Zealand to accelerate air lift program?

04 Dec 2014

Nigel Pittaway | Melbourne
Unconfirmed reports suggest that NZ is considering the rapid acquisition of two Boeing C-17A Globemaster III strategic transports to bolster its air lift fleet in the near term."

Not a subscriber so cannot access to full text. This is interesting though. I suspected that we would be going for the A400. This may be on the back of a recent order of additional airframes for Aust.

rapid aquisition just in time for committing to redeploying to the mid east for an as yet unclear length of time?
 
Top