Royal New Zealand Air Force

[gf0012-aust]

Everything I've seen says that Antonov & all its facilities in Ukraine (HQ, design bureau, aircraft plant in Kiev, etc) are owned by the Ukrainian state. Russia may have taken over some peripheral facilities in Crimea, & any operations in Russia, but that's all.

I'm unable to find my original source, so its making my position on this a bit more untenable

from recollection there was a fair bit of chest thumping around Putin thinking that phat ants were critical national assets and that the state was going to compulsory acquire the IP around those specific platforms

he was at that point arguing that russian military and strategic assets should not be held hostage to foreigners etc... so it was a "love is not in the air" speech

we can go elsewhere on this as I'm committing the cardinal sin of continuing to hijack things (inadvertently though I might add )

 

[t68]

I was thinking in terms of what may happen once 1Sqn reequips with F-35s (whether they be A or Bs) and the F/A-18Fs become surplus to requirements. My assumption was 6 Sqn would retain the Growlers plus a number of Fs (logically the pre-wired ones) for training meaning the remaining Fs would possibly be available for transfer to NZ.

All that won't happen till the early to mid 2020's, would we still need Growler capabilty once block 6/7 aircraft and software updates are added. The next buy would be either B's or more A's which might fall in at the EW upgrade timetable.

If that was to happen and by some miracle would it not be in MZ interests to also add a few G's into the mix.


Edit
Does anyone know if the remaing orders for the F35A will they be block 3F or earlier versions?

 

[ngatimozart]

Ngati, sounds like a A10 type? With the USAF recently contemplating mothballing squadrons in an effort to cut costs and the recent ISIS conflict re-affirming their unique abilities perhaps a deal could be struck with our ally whereas we take on this capability. Would mean alittle more punch than training in Iraq but contributing nonetheless.

It does a bit Reg. If you think about it, maybe we could look at the feasibility of taking some A10s over until we get something sorted out. Apparently there are some that have been rewinged or had work done on wings and may not have to high a number of hours on them. We do have a good record of extending airframe life so it may be achievable. There would have to be a lot of work done looking at the engineering, logistical, financial and operation feasibility of NZ going down the A10 path. Definitely worth looking at.

 

[t68]

It does a bit Reg. If you think about it, maybe we could look at the feasibility of taking some A10s over until we get something sorted out. Apparently there are some that have been rewinged or had work done on wings and may not have to high a number of hours on them. We do have a good record of extending airframe life so it may be achievable. There would have to be a lot of work done looking at the engineering, logistical, financial and operation feasibility of NZ going down the A10 path. Definitely worth looking at.

It could give you a multi role aircraft for both Navy and Army, I can just imagine scary the living daylights out of the illegal fishing trade when you put a burst of the 30mm in front of them

To be fair whilst not designed for the martime envoiroment it does have the to fire Maverick which could target shipping. Primary capabilty would be for Army in FAC and JTAC training, but all this could be achieved with an additional buy of AT-6 which can incorporate the A-10C Thunderbolt II’s precision engagement mission systems into the AT-6 without the cost of an soon to be orphan fleet of aircraft from the USAF

http://www.lockheedmartin.com.au/us...6-takes-light-attack-back-to-the-future-.html

 

[gf0012-aust]

not wanting to dampen the enthusiasm, but 2 chances for RNZAF to get A-10's....

its just not in the force mix

 

[shanes_world_05]

not wanting to dampen the enthusiasm, but 2 chances for RNZAF to get A-10's....

its just not in the force mix

I remember reading somewhere that A10's were considered prior to the Kahu upgrade when the Govt was considering all options including replacing the Skyhwaks. At the time it was considered either ill suited or not as suitable (I would join tomorrow if they did order them, but I won't hand in my resignation just yet) as competitive solutions. I think it was transit speed that let them down. Despite sensory improvements that would still be the case.
I guess however if air power is needed ill suited is still better than nothing at all. And get 300 airframes worth of spares!!! All we need is a habitual hoarder in parliament and we got ourselves a air combat force.

 

[ADMk2]

I was thinking in terms of what may happen once 1Sqn reequips with F-35s (whether they be A or Bs) and the F/A-18Fs become surplus to requirements. My assumption was 6 Sqn would retain the Growlers plus a number of Fs (logically the pre-wired ones) for training meaning the remaining Fs would possibly be available for transfer to NZ.

There is no guarantee 1 Sqn WILL re-equip with F-35. Sunk cost is a good reaaon why, risk mitigation (fleet wide aircraft grounding events DO happen) is a good reason why, future combat aircraft possibilities (other than F-35) are also a good reason why.

Shornet was bought initially to fill a gap and buy us time. That hasn't changed IMHO and there is absolutely no rush, to consider replacing the capability, nor to look too deeply into off-loading the airframes.

The USN is content the capability they provide (with weapons and systems upgrades along the way) will be sufficient until 2030. I see no reason why things would be different for the RAAF.

 

[Zero Alpha]

The RAAF discussion should go in the RAAF thread.

Editorial in today's DominionPost about the air transport fleet here

 

[Zero Alpha]

I remember reading somewhere that A10's were considered prior to the Kahu upgrade when the Govt was considering all options including replacing the Skyhwaks. At the time it was considered either ill suited or not as suitable (I would join tomorrow if they did order them, but I won't hand in my resignation just yet) as competitive solutions.

You've possibly got your wires crossed.

There was a report published that examined the option of using attack helicopters and upgraded P-3s as a alternative to a fast jet capability. Cobras were used as a baseline for the report. One of the conclusions was that while rotary CAS had a high military utility, it lacked the policy/political utility of fast jets (it would have taken interdiction & strike off the table as an option government could use, limiting choices in some employment contexts).

 

[t68]

The RAAF discussion should go in the RAAF thread.

Editorial in today's DominionPost about the air transport fleet here

With a fleet of 7 aircraft a couple going unserviceable when others are in the shop is always difficult to overcome. It would be intersting to see the servicabilty of the J fleet in the lastest ops and see if similer things have happened to the RAAF but had the luxury of transferring to other aircraft, I have said it before numbers are a capabilty all on their own.

I still believe that if you acquire a number of different aircraft if you only buy them in small quantity's you will still be susceptible to the type going unserviceable with not enough airframes to say rightl oh we will change aircraft it will delay things but won't scrub the operation

 

[shanes_world_05]

You've possibly got your wires crossed.

There was a report published that examined the option of using attack helicopters and upgraded P-3s as a alternative to a fast jet capability. Cobras were used as a baseline for the report. One of the conclusions was that while rotary CAS had a high military utility, it lacked the policy/political utility of fast jets (it would have taken interdiction & strike off the table as an option government could use, limiting choices in some employment contexts).

Hmmm, always possible but pretty sure I read this in a written history of the Skyhawks in New Zealand service. Not a hundred percent on the title but adamant that mention of the A-10 was made as a possible contender. This book (I think I was at National Archives for something else when I read it) discussed the single role nature of the A-10 whilst comparing to Australia's at that time recent decision to acquire the F/A-18 and the relatively successful introduction of the F-16 and the multi-role potential of both of those. Roughly early/mid 1980's reference as to the actual decision making process hence it was pre Kahu upgrade. Other contenders I think were SEPECAT Jag, A-7 and I think Phantom again (not sure). Don't remember mention of Rotary air but there was a mention of P-3's and that they at that time provided targeting and navigational guidance to the Skyhawks which for some contenders would not be as required freeing up the P-3's for more maritime surveillance time and further removing them from risk.
What period was this report you mention from? I'm guessing late nineties early new millennium?

Regardless New Zealand will not have the budget or see the need for air combat capability again till after it was needed anyway. Which is the crux of the issue. Budget and political will.

 

[Zero Alpha]

With a fleet of 7 aircraft a couple going unserviceable when others are in the shop is always difficult to overcome. It would be intersting to see the servicabilty of the J fleet in the lastest ops and see if similer things have happened to the RAAF but had the luxury of transferring to other aircraft, I have said it before numbers are a capabilty all on their own.

Have you seen the figures Airbus are quoting for periods between scheduled maintain on the A400? Pretty impressive, if they can deliver against the promise.

The age and a small size of the current fleet really mean the RNZAF is getting hit from 3 different directions on availability:

a) Scheduled maintenance free intervals are decreasing
b) Maintenance periods for scheduled work are increasing
c) Unscheduled maintenance events getting increasingly common

The Crown output agreements generally work around predicted availability. For example, only one Boeing is required to be available, at 12 hours notice. Unscheduled events may reduce this to no aircraft being available (as we saw last week).

The Herc fleet is required to have two aircraft available for operations at all times. The first aircraft is immediately available, the second is at 12 hours notice. The first aircraft is also required to be the backup SAR aircraft if the on-line P-3 goes unavailable, or after the on-line P-3 has sortied and needs post-flight maintenance before a second P-3 is made available to use.

The 'snowball effect' magnifies any events that would normally be trivial in larger air forces.

Scenario for illustration:

1. P-3 launches in response to a SAR operation. Its mission time is around 10 hours.

2. After locating a life raft and using its on station time, the P-3 returns to base and is replaced by the on-line Herc (remembering the second P-3 is at 12 hours notice).

3. The on-line Herc takes over the SAR duties. There are now theoretically no hercs available for 12 hours (unless a warning order has been made prior with enough time to react).

4. If either the Herc or the Orion has an unscheduled defect, the aircraft needs unscheduled maintenance. The time to remedy the defect may well be in excess of the availability time of the next online aircraft. 'Availability gap' is the result.

 

[Zero Alpha]

Roughly early/mid 1980's reference as to the actual decision making process hence it was pre Kahu upgrade. Other contenders I think were SEPECAT Jag, A-7 and I think Phantom again (not sure). Don't remember mention of Rotary air but there was a mention of P-3's and that they at that time provided targeting and navigational guidance to the Skyhawks which for some contenders would not be as required freeing up the P-3's for more maritime surveillance time and further removing them from risk.
What period was this report you mention from? I'm guessing late nineties early new millennium?

If you can find a reference that would be really interesting. I know Phantom was in the mix, and so was F-5 (or maybe it was F-20). Can't remember if it was A-7 or A-6 though. Maybe Tornado was there too?

I've just had a look at the 1978 and 1987 white papers. No reference in there.

Interesting though - the '78 white paper said the Wasp helicopters would be replaced by the mid-1980s and the '87 report said an provision was made for purchasing aircraft with a tanker capability. Moral of the story is that words in a white paper mean diddly squat!

 

[Volkodav]

There is no guarantee 1 Sqn WILL re-equip with F-35. Sunk cost is a good reason why, risk mitigation (fleet wide aircraft grounding events DO happen) is a good reason why, future combat aircraft possibilities (other than F-35) are also a good reason why.

Shornet was bought initially to fill a gap and buy us time. That hasn't changed IMHO and there is absolutely no rush, to consider replacing the capability, nor to look too deeply into off-loading the airframes.

The USN is content the capability they provide (with weapons and systems upgrades along the way) will be sufficient until 2030. I see no reason why things would be different for the RAAF.

Officially it is still planned to have four squadrons of F-35s in the RAAF, with the possibility that the last batch may be Bs, another type (unlikely as there is nothing else), or even a UCAV (also unlikely as their is not yet anything suitable). Still the most likely outcome is more F-35As as it is vastly more capable than the SH and having a uniform fleet will reduce many overheads and a later batch of full productionF-35s will likely represent much better value for money than a MLU of the SHs. It is however planned to retain the Growlers as a separate capability, irrespective of the fate of the SH, common sense indicates that some of the prewired SHs would be retained for training and possibly attrition.

This raises the question of what will happen to the still capable aircraft that will become surplus to requirements which dove tails nicely into the rumor Ngati raised relating to a reborn RNZAF ACF. The availability of a still very useful multirole capability that dovetails into two of their closest allies existing logistics and training systems would be attractive, especially as there may even be the possibly of slowly rebuilding the capability within the RAAF, by seconding personnel to the RAAF and training them on job, before transferring a completely trained and equipped Sqn back to NZ.

The RNZAF may not even need to build their own training and logistics, simply using the existing RAAF and USN arrangements, paying as they go without many expensive overheads, making a single squadron far cheaper to own and operate. This would also provide the RAAF with some efficiencies to offset the support costs of the retained Growler fleet. NZ could potentially own and operate only the combat element without having to invest in many expensive overheads that would lay unused much of the time. A win win for all.

This is all pure speculation but with the benefits it offers to all concerned I would be surprised if elements in Australia and NZ hadn't thought of it. Ngati's post on a reborn ACF made me wonder if the SH may not be what was being considered. I am not saying that this is what is happening or even that it has been discussed in any way, just that it seems, to me, to be a sensible, achievable and affordable way to do it if NZ was to operate strike aircraft again.

 

[Volkodav]

The RAAF discussion should go in the RAAF thread.

Editorial in today's DominionPost about the air transport fleet here

The discussion, if you had bothered to read it, is about surplus Super Hornets being transferred to the RNZAF upon the RAAF receiving its planned final batch of F-35s. The two are dependent on each other as if the RAAF does not buy the last batch of F-35As (or Bs) there will be no surplus SHs for NZ to take advantage of.

I suppose I could split the topic into two and cross reference them, i.e. see RAAF thread / see RNZAF thread and make the entire discussion impossible for anyone to follow if that makes you happy. Then again I can (and will) leave it where it belongs.

 

[shanes_world_05]

If you can find a reference that would be really interesting. I know Phantom was in the mix, and so was F-5 (or maybe it was F-20). Can't remember if it was A-7 or A-6 though. Maybe Tornado was there too?

I've just had a look at the 1978 and 1987 white papers. No reference in there.

Interesting though - the '78 white paper said the Wasp helicopters would be replaced by the mid-1980s and the '87 report said an provision was made for purchasing aircraft with a tanker capability. Moral of the story is that words in a white paper mean diddly squat!

Tanker? Holy.
I can't remember Tornado being mentioned but would have made sense at the time to consider it. I think the order book at that time would have been almost a thousand aircraft. I think the Skyhawk and the support from the US Navy was really appreciated so might have made the job of selling a Euro or Brit solution hard. I think the F-5 consideration was prior to the original Skyhawk acquisition aswas the phantom (Not the E model I think at that stage). I think it was A-7 as the A-6 was of quite a technical feat at that time. A-7 was advanced also but some smaller nations got them without all the trick nav and moving map stuff I believe.
Got to say that considering how faithful and economical the Skyhawk turned out to be it was abit of an inspired effort on the part of the Air force and Douglas.
I'll have a good look for it next time I am in there. I don't wander Pipitea street anymore so I'll have to detour in sometime (Library rather than Archives.). I think it was either Topped Gun or Skyhawks (History of ..blah blah) but neither front page looks quite right.

Yeah the Wasp was an elderly thing. But the white papers are all intentions I suppose until the equipment is in your hands such as the F-16 deal.

 

[t68]

http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/archive-publications/inquiry-defence-beyond-2000.pdf

On page 95 mentions Attack Helicopters for NZ, it is part of the greater discussion on combat capabilty on the stratigic level of NZ international interests

 

[RegR]

With a fleet of 7 aircraft a couple going unserviceable when others are in the shop is always difficult to overcome. It would be intersting to see the servicabilty of the J fleet in the lastest ops and see if similer things have happened to the RAAF but had the luxury of transferring to other aircraft, I have said it before numbers are a capabilty all on their own.

I still believe that if you acquire a number of different aircraft if you only buy them in small quantity's you will still be susceptible to the type going unserviceable with not enough airframes to say rightl oh we will change aircraft it will delay things but won't scrub the operation

Exactly why I am not overly sold on spending the bulk of our air transport funding on just 2 C17, if it is hard to keep enough frames serviceble with 5 aircraft how wil dropping down to 2 remedy this? Even new AC have to have scheduled downtime, no way around it.

Yes it can carry 4.5x more than a C130 but that only comes in handy if we need to send 4.5 C130s to the same place at the same time and bar something like HADR or an initial deployment does not really happen for our small DF especially if we don't even fill our hercs routinely and still not covering multiple missions or regular flights. Whilst they would be amazing for that percentage of tasks we conduct there is still no getting around the availability issues that only having 2 will present now and as they get older. 3 should be bare minimum otherwise A400 would be a better way to go despite it's immaturity and slight bugs, these can be sorted physical numbers can't. We can get more for the same (and possibly more with deals) plus they lift all we will need them to lift in our inventory over the distance required.

Whilst we still probably won't get 1 for 1 of what we need, 2 for 5 has problems all of its own even if combined with a small tac lifter.

 

[Volkodav]

Exactly why I am not overly sold on spending the bulk of our air transport funding on just 2 C17, if it is hard to keep enough frames serviceble with 5 aircraft how wil dropping down to 2 remedy this? Even new AC have to have scheduled downtime, no way around it.

Yes it can carry 4.5x more than a C130 but that only comes in handy if we need to send 4.5 C130s to the same place at the same time and bar something like HADR or an initial deployment does not really happen for our small DF especially if we don't even fill our hercs routinely and still not covering multiple missions or regular flights. Whilst they would be amazing for that percentage of tasks we conduct there is still no getting around the availability issues that only having 2 will present now and as they get older. 3 should be bare minimum otherwise A400 would be a better way to go despite it's immaturity and slight bugs, these can be sorted physical numbers can't. We can get more for the same (and possibly more with deals) plus they lift all we will need them to lift in our inventory over the distance required.

Whilst we still probably won't get 1 for 1 of what we need, 2 for 5 has problems all of its own even if combined with a small tac lifter.

The C-17 is being discussed as a replacement for the 757, not the C-130. If the Hercs were to be replaced too the number of C-17s being discussed would be four or five. This would only work if C295s (or similar) were acquired as a supplement. As I understand it the proposed C-17s would replace the 757s and serve along side the C-130s until their replacement at a much later date, with new Hercs, A400s or perhaps a larger number of tactical lifters (C-27J, C295 etc).

 

[gf0012-aust]

The discussion, if you had bothered to read it, is about surplus Super Hornets being transferred to the RNZAF upon the RAAF receiving its planned final batch of F-35s. The two are dependent on each other as if the RAAF does not buy the last batch of F-35As (or Bs) there will be no surplus SHs for NZ to take advantage of.

It's an FMS issue though. so NZG would need to lodge an EOI with US State. Technically the G's go back to the US on paper after end of lease.

The options though vary

eg

• State can do an in country demob and hold them in Oz pending decision
• State can approve and Oz be given carriage of transfer after they're cleansed
• They get cleansed here, go back to CONUS and get ready for other parties interest (eg canadians) as well pending other EOI to State
• Oz resells spares onto new buyer as part of a release (USN likely to write off the spares).