Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Volkodav]

Actually if NZ could buy the last white tail and then jointly operate it with 36sqn that could actually serve as a model to regain an ACF. RNZAF personnel could progressively train up through the RAAF system then join 1 Sqn as the Growlers begin to arrive, perhaps forming an additional flight.

As the F-35 capability ramps up more and more Rhinos could transfer to the RNZAF until the the RAAF is left only with Growlers and a small number of Rhinos for training. Eventually NZ would replace their secondhand Rhinos with F-35s.

 

[ngatimozart]

Actually if NZ could buy the last white tail and then jointly operate it with 36sqn that could actually serve as a model to regain an ACF. RNZAF personnel could progressively train up through the RAAF system then join 1 Sqn as the Growlers begin to arrive, perhaps forming an additional flight.

As the F-35 capability ramps up more and more Rhinos could transfer to the RNZAF until the the RAAF is left only with Growlers and a small number of Rhinos for training. Eventually NZ would replace their secondhand Rhinos with F-35s.

One possible scenario and if it did come to fruition my own personal view is that we would be better to stick to the Shornets rather than go the way of the F35 for a variety of reasons.

 

[old faithful]

I have still heard whispers of the RAAF aquiring another 2 x C17, s. Not sure how that would work, or if its just confusing info, but he was dead right about numbers 5 and 6, when the fleet was looking at just 4.

 

[Volkodav]

One possible scenario and if it did come to fruition my own personal view is that we would be better to stick to the Shornets rather than go the way of the F35 for a variety of reasons.

The F-35 would be a couple of decades down the road when they become a cheaper option to upgrading and keeping the Rhinos.

 

[MrConservative]

I see that a certain well known kiwi aviation forum has some users on it trying to resurrect the rumours of the RNZAF acquiring C17s. The latest idea is that they will acquire the last white tail and that the USAF will sell them a used one. IMHO that isn't going to happen because the USAF will be wanting to hold on to all their C17s. The proposition of C17s wearing kiwi roundels has passed into history and I think people need to accept that.

What will make interesting reading, will be the air transport study when it is completed. That will give an indication of the direction that they are leaning towards. Whilst we all have ideas of what the structure of the air transport component should be, the study and the DWP will hopefully detail it. Hence it's a game of wait and see.

Well by the time they make up their mind the last whitetail may well be gone and likely to a ME operator. However I do know that the used option has been floated to the Minister.

Some USAF C-17s could be earmarked for de-activation as a UPI report from January 2015 suggests possibly up to 16 airframes could be stored as backup inventory and at a later date reactivated into Reserve and NG squadrons. The Obama administration wants to cut costs.

That may give the NZ Govt some glimmer of hope and a political work around as the C-17 was ticking all the boxes according Brownlee. The Antarctic role is our political trump card with the US political establishment as the NZ Govt wants the NZDF moving into a greater role and responsibility with respect to the Ice. Also having another reliable western alliance friend in the western pacific operating a couple of C-17s is a net positive for the US as their pivot intensifies over the next 10 years.

There have been various reports that the USAF over the years was politically forced to take more C-17s than they really wanted as pork barrel politics would rear its head. Shutting down defence production lines could force the loss of a congressional or senate seat and that was more important than getting the numbers right.

 

[kiwi in exile]

As the F-35 capability ramps up more and more Rhinos could transfer to the RNZAF until the the RAAF is left only with Growlers and a small number of Rhinos for training. Eventually NZ would replace their secondhand Rhinos with F-35s.

You guys have jumped from realistically discussing air transport replacements to lets restart the ACF fantasys. Didn't someone on this thread work out it would cost a billion dollars and take about 10 years and a shitload of political will to restart an ACF, potentially at the cost of more vital investment in other areas. Not to mention, that even if we inherited some super hornets over the coming decade, how relevant will they be? We would be like we were when we were running skyhawks. Paying all that money to operate a severly combat limited ACF. Many people are arguing that the level of advantage that the F35 has in terms of stealth will rapidly disappear as ground based radar tech evolves and the US is allready planning for its next, sixth gen air combat aircraft. Buying someone elses redundant seconds as they recapitalise to meet current/evolving threats is not the best way forward.

Maybe we could get some hornets for warbirds over wanaka 2025.
Rant over

 

[vonnoobie]

Since there is still 1 white tail left and in the past has been mentioned that money wise NZ wouldn't be able to necessarily put up the initial costs as easily and readily as others.. What are the chances of Australia and NZ jointly funding the acquisition of the last one and/or possibly to be retired USAF C-17's?

RAAF gets extra C-17's at only a portion of the cost's, RNZAF gets C-17's at a portion of the costs and the USAF maybe off loads some unneeded C-17's while increasing the capability of some key allies in the region. Bit of a win for every one, So sadly almost no chance in hell of that happening.

In regards to NZ and ex Shornets.. Why? They rarely ever deploy over seas any major force that would justify there own exclusive aerial combat force, There are no nations in range for which they may be required and even with carriers every nation is too far away to support such a threat against NZ, NZ gaining such a capability that as Kiwi pointed out would be out dated by the time would be a waste of funds and resources. Honestly NZ would be better off attaining an aircraft dedicated towards ground support and even that has a snow balls chance in hell of occurring. Funds are better moved towards project's that can be of use (Future frigates, increase transport capability [C-17's, A-400's etc], future armored vehicles etc).

Being a sticky beak, over.

Regards, Matthew

 

[ngatimozart]

Since there is still 1 white tail left and in the past has been mentioned that money wise NZ wouldn't be able to necessarily put up the initial costs as easily and readily as others.. What are the chances of Australia and NZ jointly funding the acquisition of the last one and/or possibly to be retired USAF C-17's?

RAAF gets extra C-17's at only a portion of the cost's, RNZAF gets C-17's at a portion of the costs and the USAF maybe off loads some unneeded C-17's while increasing the capability of some key allies in the region. Bit of a win for every one, So sadly almost no chance in hell of that happening.

In regards to NZ and ex Shornets.. Why? They rarely ever deploy over seas any major force that would justify there own exclusive aerial combat force, There are no nations in range for which they may be required and even with carriers every nation is too far away to support such a threat against NZ, NZ gaining such a capability that as Kiwi pointed out would be out dated by the time would be a waste of funds and resources. Honestly NZ would be better off attaining an aircraft dedicated towards ground support and even that has a snow balls chance in hell of occurring. Funds are better moved towards project's that can be of use (Future frigates, increase transport capability [C-17's, A-400's etc], future armored vehicles etc).

Being a sticky beak, over.

Regards, Matthew

Not being a sticky beak. Honestly, if a strike aircraft was acquired, in the NZ context it would be used for maritime strike and ground support with air to air being a necessity in order to survive in a contested airspace.

The only reason the RNZAF air combat force was disbanded was because of a unilateral ideological decision taken by a prime minister who had protested against the Vietnam war and the acquisition of the Skyhawks by the NZG in 1970. It was seen to be protesting their arrival when they arrived in Auckland on the USS Ranger. Excuses used by the Clark Labour govt in 1999 to cancel the F16 deal and then in 2000 to disband the ACF, that the country could not afford it was pure sophistry. The F16 deal was literally the deal of the century.

In answer to KIEs comment regarding cost of the standing up a new ACF, it was I who gave the figure. It works out roughly at NZ$4-5 billion to stand up 18 F16 / F18F, 12 LIFT, dedicated simulators, weapons, maintenance, manuals, facilities, basically everything from scratch. Two Sqns worth of aircraft. Also extra T6C trainers would have to be acquired because of the increased pilot trainees.

 

[Gracie1234]

Why do some people believe that NZ can not afford defence equipment? Politicians say that line because it suits them. The fact is the NZ economy is doing better than most countries, our govt debt is low compared to most comparable countries. We could afford 2% GDP funding relatively easily.
If our politicians wanted to support the NZDF with increased finances, the country can afford it. The politicians choose not to. This finance argument is just a distraction in my view.
NZ is not the same country economically as it was in the 80s or 90s.
Ngati, the cost you put up for standing up an air combat capability would be 1 or 2 years predicted increase in Govt revenue. A sustainable plan could be put in place over 10 years to increase funding to afford this and other capabilities. I personally would support this to a level of 2% GDP +/- a little.

 

[vonnoobie]

Why do some people believe that NZ can not afford defence equipment? Politicians say that line because it suits them. The fact is the NZ economy is doing better than most countries, our govt debt is low compared to most comparable countries. We could afford 2% GDP funding relatively easily.
If our politicians wanted to support the NZDF with increased finances, the country can afford it. The politicians choose not to. This finance argument is just a distraction in my view.
NZ is not the same country economically as it was in the 80s or 90s.
Ngati, the cost you put up for standing up an air combat capability would be 1 or 2 years predicted increase in Govt revenue. A sustainable plan could be put in place over 10 years to increase funding to afford this and other capabilities. I personally would support this to a level of 2% GDP +/- a little.

And that work's out to about $3.8 billion annually. 2% sounds like a lot but 2% of a small economy is still a small amount. At that sort of amount you would be spending similar to Finland with the difference being Finland and New Zealand having drastically different situation (Finland - Russia/Land based -- New Zealand - 100% maritime reliant).

All this aside, it is now starting to head that way of the RAN thread.. So let's nip this in the butt.. New Zealand wont ever have ACF again, chance of gaining the last white tail is minimal and New Zealand baring a major conflict wont ever but there defence budget up to 2%. We are discussing dream land crap.. Apologies on my part for it.. Lets stop it now.

Cheers, Matthew =)

 

[40 deg south]

Why do some people believe that NZ can not afford defence equipment? Politicians say that line because it suits them. The fact is the NZ economy is doing better than most countries, our govt debt is low compared to most comparable countries. We could afford 2% GDP funding relatively easily.
If our politicians wanted to support the NZDF with increased finances, the country can afford it. The politicians choose not to. This finance argument is just a distraction in my view.
NZ is not the same country economically as it was in the 80s or 90s.
Ngati, the cost you put up for standing up an air combat capability would be 1 or 2 years predicted increase in Govt revenue. A sustainable plan could be put in place over 10 years to increase funding to afford this and other capabilities. I personally would support this to a level of 2% GDP +/- a little.

If there was strong public support for increased defence spending, politicians would be happy to oblige. But there isn't, so they wont. End of story.

I'm sceptical about this latest re-heat of the 'C-17' to NZ story. I know there was a proposal floated to ministerial level (under Mapp, I think) that NZ acquire a single C-17 and effectively operate it as part of the Australian C-17 fleet, but focused on NZ tasking. The idea quietly died - I have never had a detailed explanation why, but suspect loss of sovereignty would be a factor. I can't see why the same objections wouldn't apply now.

The purchase of Safe Air gave a clear signal that Airbus thinks it is in the drivers seat. I think that is probably the correct assessment.

 

[htbrst]

The only reason the RNZAF air combat force was disbanded was because of a unilateral ideological decision taken by a prime minister who had protested against the Vietnam war and the acquisition of the Skyhawks by the NZG in 1970.

And just to rub salt in the wound, a picture of what could have been was released today, with an ex-RNZAF Skyhawk alongside a F-35 and F-16 as part of operational testing of the F-35 for the RNLAF

A-4 Skyhawks support F-35 operational testing

HiRes: http://www.edwards.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/2015/08/150827-F-ZZ999-001.JPG

(not all of the A-4's are ex-RNZAF, but the lone ship with the F-35 and F-16 was)

 

[recce.k1]

Well by the time they make up their mind the last whitetail may well be gone and likely to a ME operator. However I do know that the used option has been floated to the Minister.

Some USAF C-17s could be earmarked for de-activation as a UPI report from January 2015 suggests possibly up to 16 airframes could be stored as backup inventory and at a later date reactivated into Reserve and NG squadrons. The Obama administration wants to cut costs.

That may give the NZ Govt some glimmer of hope and a political work around as the C-17 was ticking all the boxes according Brownlee.

I wonder what assurances, if any, the MoD/NZG have received from the US authorities in relation to acquiring a de-activated USAF C-17?

Or that they have (or to some degree), but NZ, and possibly the Australians for that matter in terms of an couple of extra airframes for them, have to wait it out for the US authorities to conclude (on their own terms) whether they will or won't de-activate and store them, however long that may take etc?

And even if de-activated C-17's could be acquired, what if they can only be leased until the USAF require them back thanks to the changing geo-political situations the West faces?

I'll speculate here, the DefMin is genuinely advocating for the C-17's. Treasury on the other hand is aware that the US Govt is considering de-activating some of their C-17's. DefMin/MoD told not to negotiate with Boeing to acquire 2x Whitetail C-17's until de-activation plan is confirmed (bean counters excited on possibility of saving money). Meanwhile NZ missed out on acquiring 2x Whitetails when Qatar scooped 4 of the remaining 5. In the meantime NZG stalls on purchasing the remaining last whitetail whilst NZG/Treasury awaits US Govt decision on de-activation. Deactivation does or doesn't happen (if so no C-17's at all for NZ)! The moral of the story, Govt should have over-ridden Treasury advice (which does happen, their recent brain fart was to cull all NZ rail services) and NZG should have bought 2x Whitetails (or even the last one, after-all it was reported the air mobility budget was around the NZ$2B figure). That then left the option open to acquire additional de-activated USAF C-17's in the future if NZ (like the Aussies did) find that in practice the C-17's were worth their weight in gold. Hey but I could be wrong or partially incorrect on this idle speculation.

 

[KiwiRob]

The only reason the RNZAF air combat force was disbanded was because of a unilateral ideological decision taken by a prime minister who had protested against the Vietnam war and the acquisition of the Skyhawks by the NZG in 1970. It was seen to be protesting their arrival when they arrived in Auckland on the USS Ranger. Excuses used by the Clark Labour govt in 1999 to cancel the F16 deal and then in 2000 to disband the ACF, that the country could not afford it was pure sophistry. The F16 deal was literally the deal of the century.

You know that's not entirely true, you're letting your ideology and anger towards Auntie Helen get the better of you.

This might be news to some, both comments made by senior National govt ministers.

in 1991 Wayne Mapp had argued in an article entitled ‘Restructuring New Zealand’s Defence Force’ that the air strike force ‘must be the first element to be either eliminated or integrated into the Australian Armed Forces’. Mapp was clear at the time about what he felt about the utility of the Air Combat Force:

From the New Zealand perspective, the force most suitable for reduction is the air force. The strike role of the A4 Skyhawks is almost of no relevance except in medium to high level operations. … The Orions serve an important role. With suitable upgrading with Harpoon missiles they could readily take over the full maritime strike role.

And further to the above

Wayne Mapp in fact was not the only senior National Party member to have considered disbanding the air strike wing. In 1997, Max Bradford was reported as wanting, ‘to scrap our air combat forces entirely’. (Gordon Campbell, ‘Clearing the Air’, New Zealand Listener, 11 March 2000, p. 21). Gordon Campbell went on to note that, in an article in the Dominion on 10 June 1997, former Air Vice Marshall Ewan Jamieson was reported as saying: ‘A few weeks ago, Cabinet Minister Max Bradford was reported as arguing that the air fighter/attack capability should be abandoned in favour of the purchase of one or more additional frigates. … He asserted that a Skyhawk replacement would be “too costly” to include in future defence plans.’

http://press.anu.edu.au/sdsc/timing/mobile_devices/ch05s05.html

I suspect that the ACF was gone whichever govt was in power, it was low hanging fruit, never used, never likely to be used, so it got the chop. To say Helen was solely responsible isn't looking at the bigger picture. I don't like Helen, I would never vote for her but she made the right call.

 

[ngatimozart]

You know that's not entirely true, you're letting your ideology and anger towards Auntie Helen get the better of you.

This might be news to some, both comments made by senior National govt ministers.



And further to the above



Disbanding the Air Combat Force

I suspect that the ACF was gone whichever govt was in power, it was low hanging fruit, never used, never likely to be used, so it got the chop. To say Helen was solely responsible isn't looking at the bigger picture. I don't like Helen, I would never vote for her but she made the right call.

It appears that you seem to know somewhat more about my training, politics and ideological leanings than I do, in order for you to make assumptions. thereof. You don't know at all so do not presume to make claims about something that you know nothing about.

Having read widely upon the event and spoken to people who were involved in the Skyhawk arrival and their demise some thirty years later I do have an understanding of the events. Yes there has been various discussions regarding the cists and benefits of axing the ACF over the years. It's actually been Labour party policy since 1958 however each time it was raised the PMs and their Cabinet have always listened to their advisors. However in 1999 that advice was ignored and from then until around 2005, the Clark led Labour govt went on an anti Australian diplomatic mission. Now that is in the literature. The Australian NZ defence relationship is NZs most important defence relationship and has been since the signing of the Canberra Pact during WW2. No NZ govt until Clark has gone out of their way to damage that relationship, mind you the Bolger led National govt of 1991 got close. The damage that occurred to the NZ Australian relationship in the first two terms of the Clark govt and the Bolger govt has and will take a lot of repairing. Both govts did what they did for short sighted ideological reasons. Ideology has it's place but not where it endangers the security of the nation.

 

[t68]

I remember reading something sometime ago in reference to the Skyhawk's that to save them it would have to merge with the RAAF as they did not have the numbers in caucus or Parliment it was one or the other just before Helen Clark came to power

 

[KiwiRob]

It appears that you seem to know somewhat more about my training, politics and ideological leanings than I do, in order for you to make assumptions. thereof. You don't know at all so do not presume to make claims about something that you know nothing about.

Get serious would you, your post makes it crystal clear how you feel, you've reiterated it many times on this board and others.

It's actually been Labour party policy since 1958 however each time it was raised the PMs and their Cabinet have always listened to their advisors.

I'd like to see you provide documented proof of this.

I though MrC had banned talk about if from this board.

 

[recce.k1]

Acf

Guys, regardless of the "political motives" one way or another of each side, would it be fair to say that the context as to whether NZ should or shouldn't have an ACF was a product "of its time" eg the end of the Cold War (the Soviet threat in the Pacific/SE Asia had vanished overnight), the end of joint training and military cooperation with the US (the demise of ANZUS in a NZ context) and like the 1960's hippies always wanted (lets include Clark, even Mapp and Bradford I guess ) "peace" had broken out!

Shouldn't the question today though is what, if anything, has changed? One thing for a start we now have a new emerging Superpower in "our" region, one that we and the rest of the Western world is at peace with, trades with and is co-dependant on. But how will that relationship change over the next eg 20 years and would it be prudent to make precautions?

How is our relationship with the US now? We now have joint exercises in NZ with them as well as over in Australia and on the US continent itself. (There are obviously some sticking points in terms of US naval visits to NZ itself but in time ....). Finally what happened to the "benign" strategic environment that NZ was meant to be in? Looks like "peace" has flown out the door!

After a couple of decades in the wilderness it seems pretty clear that the NZDF is rebuilding itself and to be inter-operable with a range of friends and allies again, meaning investment has (as is) rightfully being put into these areas and capabilities. It takes time (and a lot of money) to build these up.

I guess NZ isn't "there yet" for an ACF restoration (who knows that could be an issue post-2020, if at all) but I guess it would be prudent to make little steps in that direction. Perhaps the T-6 acquisition is one of them?

Volk, the other day (and others in the past) have raised the more likely (funding wise) scenario of putting RNZAF personnel through the ADF training system and perhaps ultimately NZ building up a flight (what 3 or so aircraft) of comparable aircraft in the interim. Somehow then Volks sensible suggestion veered of to discussions on pretty much a full ACF restoration, which won't happen like that cost and priority wise!

It will be interesting to see if the forthcoming Whitepaper makes a hint of any of this (I guess, publically, it will be unlikely), or whether that is something for the Whitepapers in 2020 etc. I guess all we can do is, whenever we run into politicians at events, is to raise these issues so that they are aware of public interest, which may be small (and small things can develop into bigger things over time), but that's better than none or saying nothing at all!

Finally is an ACF the answer, or for a maritime nation like NZ, is the longer-range P-8 (etc) brimming with long-range stand off missiles and supporting surveillance/satellite capabilities the answer? Plus better Navy (and ship-borne offensive) capabilities etc?

Putting aside Army close air support of course, which the Army appears to be suggesting that because they will deploy with other like minded coalitions the appropriate ACF assets will already be provided (although perhaps NZ then could invest in more rotary support assets to deploy with Army)? Perhaps we need to adjust our mindsets?

 

[ngatimozart]

I'd like to see you provide documented proof of this.

Going by memory it was in Don Sims book on the Skyhawks in RNZAF service. I don't have a copy and haven't read it since last year. However Don and his coauthor, Nick Lee-Frampton, did some excellent research and had really good sources. It is well worth the read. If it's not in there, it'll be in a paper amongst piles of documents I have here, which I don't have the time to go hunting through at the moment.

From what I recall, it was policy and it may have been policy put forward and accepted at a nation conference. That would have been near the time of the English Electric Canberra bomber acquisition. Prior to that policy there had been, from what I understand, bipartisan agreement on defence since WW2. If you want to know more, I suggest that you research it yourself.

Whilst I am scathing of Clark for axing the ACF and other defence decisions I am equally scathing of the Bolger National government as well. I have a somewhat of a dislike of politicians of any stripe / colour and that's where I come from.

 

[John Fedup]

I have a somewhat of a dislike of politicians of any stripe / colour and that's where I come from.

As I listen to bovine excrement from our politicos leading up to the federal election in Oct, I understand your view perfectly.