It's the same in any democratic country, the pollies never want sudden change, so that is why they are so good at procrastination, plenty of practice.A surplus unexpectedly high tooYes, the geopolitical situation is changing very quickly and unfortunately for the worse. The pollies will have to pull their finger out but unfortunately they will procrastinate until to late, unwilling to accept the warning signs.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
They may not want sudden change but they could well get what they do not want. The last 6 months has seen considerable deterioration within the global politic to the point that how we as a nation considered defence planning 12 months ago in terms of acquisition may need a urgent rethink.
With surpluses the money is finally there to properly invest into a FAMC solution which will see us beyond 2040. To have the foresight to acquire capabilities that will be required. Regardless of what evolves in the FAMC we will need a C-17 type capability in ten years time whatever they choose.
Totally agree with your assessment of the the changing situation and the need for forward thinking ( however unlikely) and a rapid rethink. I do think the C17 type could be covered by C2's "IF" procured in sufficient numbers. They have an excellent range/payload and can carry most military items that we have. Obviously there would have to be greater numbers but this would lead to greater flexibility.
When I wrote that list I was thinking of the future and the way the geopolitics are heading at the moment, so that's why I increased the numbers by one. Yes, I do believe that NZ does have a requirement for the C17 capacity because of the tyranny of distance. Whether we like it or not we are an expeditionary force because of our geography, therefore we have to have the platforms to cater for that. When you think about it every one of the 5i's nations is the same with regard to their forces, especially NZ, Australia and the UK. Those three nations have no land borders, all being islands. The last time Canada fought a war against its neighbour was, I believe was in 1812 when the poms and the US had a violent disagreement. The last US war against a land neighbour was the Mexican - American war of 1846 - 48. The last war in NZ was the Maori Land Wars of the mid 19th Century between the indigenous Maori and the pommy settlers & immigrants. Us Maori lost
So from the Boer War onwards all our wars have been overseas. We have never had a direct attack from foreign enemy in the form of an air raid or a naval raid or bombardment, unlike Australia who suffered Japanese air attacks in the top end and miniature sub attack in Sydney Harbour.
Well Rob I actually wish they would stop shagging around and just get on with buying the last whitetail 14-0003 and negotiating a further ex-USAF airframe. Because it actually provides a win-win for both the US and us on so many levels - political, militarily, and commercially. I would run the negotiation as a flow on deal couching it along the lines that if we can secure a long term lease/buy/refurb on a C-17 then it will likely unlock a comprehensive FMS industrial package from US manufacturers that would flow onto the NZDF acquiring the stored 14-0003 airframe, the K/C-130-J as the FAMC tactical solution, the P-8A as the FASC solution and a 737-800 BCF variant and all the package support contracts that this will all entail over the next 30 years. Basically a quid pro quo joblot deal. Sort out the ideal C-17 solution and there is Billions of ongoing business with US companies downstream. More if we add Triton to further compliment the P-8.
And I would ruthlessly play the jobs in marginal congressional districts line on the Hill via lobbyists and PW, LM and Boeing execs against any reluctance from the state dept or pentagon staffers who are not getting the wider picture and want to quibble over 1 C-17 heading down under when we know that 1) We would pit it to better use on both our behalves and 2) They will really not actually miss it since they have 16 airframes floating in backup reserve.
And now that we know there is money in the Govt coffers - it is inexcusable to not make a concerted effort to put this in play as I would rather head down this complimentary pathway than tortured deals with the European, Brazilian and Japanese who are offering on paper interesting products but as yet still too developmental. Throw in the PC-24 as per MEPT/VIP/Coastwatch roles and you would have a full spectrum - low risk - high capability fixed wing solution that would seamlessly fit into US/OZ operational ways and means. I mean it is not rocket science.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Well spoken MrC. The fact there is a whole of government is the result of continued underfunding of the military and other infrastructure requirements in the country. With the white paper in place I hope they follow through with their commitment to programs. You more than anyone here seems to have the insiders knowledge of the likely track that this will all play out. Hope it happens.
The chances of the pollies gaining a clear head and actually doing something are about the same as Iceland beating the All blacks at rugby. The best chances for change and the much needed boost in funding are if the government gets a big fright or the next election turns up something interesting . As to your choices of air craft, The C17 would be great, but would seldom need to be used to their full potential, You could probably achieve the same with 3 C2's as you could with 2 C17's due to this under utilization. There would also be the increased flexibility with 3 aircraft. I would however have no problems with with a C17 purchase.Well Rob I actually wish they would stop shagging around and just get on with buying the last whitetail 14-0003 and negotiating a further ex-USAF airframe. Because it actually provides a win-win for both the US and us on so many levels - political, militarily, and commercially. I would run the negotiation as a flow on deal couching it along the lines that if we can secure a long term lease/buy/refurb on a C-17 then it will likely unlock a comprehensive FMS industrial package from US manufacturers that would flow onto the NZDF acquiring the stored 14-0003 airframe, the K/C-130-J as the FAMC tactical solution, the P-8A as the FASC solution and a 737-800 BCF variant and all the package support contracts that this will all entail over the next 30 years. Basically a quid pro quo joblot deal. Sort out the ideal C-17 solution and there is Billions of ongoing business with US companies downstream. More if we add Triton to further compliment the P-8.
And I would ruthlessly play the jobs in marginal congressional districts line on the Hill via lobbyists and PW, LM and Boeing execs against any reluctance from the state dept or pentagon staffers who are not getting the wider picture and want to quibble over 1 C-17 heading down under when we know that 1) We would pit it to better use on both our behalves and 2) They will really not actually miss it since they have 16 airframes floating in backup reserve.
And now that we know there is money in the Govt coffers - it is inexcusable to not make a concerted effort to put this in play as I would rather head down this complimentary pathway than tortured deals with the European, Brazilian and Japanese who are offering on paper interesting products but as yet still too developmental. Throw in the PC-24 as per MEPT/VIP/Coastwatch roles and you would have a full spectrum - low risk - high capability fixed wing solution that would seamlessly fit into US/OZ operational ways and means. I mean it is not rocket science.
The KC130 I think is a bit pointless as what are you going to refuel with it? The other problem is that the AAR system takes about a day to remove and over a day to refit, so either you fly with it on (as most users do) and except the range/payload constraints that this involves, or have the aircraft out of service for 2+ day's every time you want to use it. The KC390's system and I think the A400m system are quick fit systems and also they are also receiver aircraft that make use of AAR. The B737 would bring with it the same problems that caused frustration with the B757 in that the freight mode could only be used between major airports with the correct unloading gear and it also uses longer runways than the B757 which constricts it's use in NZ .Risk can be managed and I am sure that MOD would ensure that any contracts would cover this area. Low risk also means low reward. AS I pointed out with the sea ceptor, it appears that MOD is not adverse to some managed risk. The other point for use to keep in mind is that as a small military force we need to build in flexibility with our acquisitions as seems to be the case with the recent naval ship replacements.
Don't tempt fate. They could be following the old South African plan involving the doctoring of food :rotfl
Considering how the other users of the C17 have found uses for their aircraft and acquired extra, I think that we would have no problems with efficient utilisation of them.
If it was a choice between the A400M and the KC390 personally I would go with the KC390. However if the NZG was to invest in AAR capability, I would scrap the idea of just a hose and drogue method and invest in a couple of KC46s. They could then refuel any aircraft fitted to receive AAR using either the boom or hose and drogue. Also they could be utilised for medivac, VIP pax transport etc. It's about future proofing and force multipliers, but whether or not the pollies have the vision or nous to get the concept is another story. Why the KC46? Going back to Mr C and his idea of "... ruthlessly play the jobs in marginal congressional districts line on the Hill via lobbyists and PW, LM and Boeing execs ...", we now have an extremely able negotiator as Ambassador in Washington, we use him to the best of his abilities as well as being ruthless with the lobbyists etc. We take a leaf out of the Israeli and AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) playbook.
Rob. I dont know if you remember my explanations in the past about the 737 BCF but to recap - its place in the RNZAF line up is as an enabler in a number of roles. 1) As a troop/civilian govt transport. 2) A VIP aircraft 3) A freighter that backs up the strategic role of the C-17 / A400M providing the flexibility of the 3rd aircraft. 4) A training aircraft with the scope to simulate a number of secondary roles. 5) LR Medevac in HADR events.
If we would be flying the P-8 a similarly cockpit/engines configured 73BCF either leased or owned would economically bridge 5Sqd and 40 Sqd without the duplication of expensive specialist assets yet providing platform and / or operational synergies for both.
The fact that it does not land a every tin pot town airport in NZ is neither here or there. Use another aircraft in the RNZAF fleet like in the past if that is an issue as that is not within its operational remit. If the PM wants to fly to Westport or Whakatane he would use an NH-90 or B200 and chances are that him going to Westport would be once every three years pretty much like most small regional centres. Likewise remote field offload facilities the trade-offs are either indicative of being uneconomic in terms of cost/benefit or far too occasional to warrant further expense over rare frustration events.
Sorry I had forgotten, The question I would ask is would it be economical in this role or would it be more economical to simply get an airline to carry out most of the tasks,above on an as required basis and use the capital for other uses. I don't know how often these task's are required and that would be the telling point. A point to be remembered is that the B737-800 at max TOW can only use AIA and CHCH.
Very economical - in fact that is the underlying rationale in this approach. It amalgamates a number of tasks - also airlines do not have the spare capacity or economic orientation to provide this. Charters likewise have a whole unique sets of issues that caused us to avoid them years ago. Collectively there is a high level of scope for the utilisation of a single airframe BCF as an adjunct aircraft across all 5 roles I outlined. Some would be higher than others - but the beauty of it is that consolidation of minor/adjunct roles onto a single air frame cannot be done more efficiently.
Applying the TOW is getting a little unrealistic in normal operational contexts. A micro-criticism for a micro-issue - frankly how often would a fully laden BCF be wanting to land at CHC or ALK - Never is the correct answer. Very rarely even C-17s are flown anywhere near their MTOW.
Accepted, I just think that with the deteriorating world situation we may be better off defence wise with 6-8 TA/FA50's which could be got for the same price and get a dedicated VIP/passenger pod/pods for the C17/C2/A400
Last edited by a moderator:
Given the current worldwide deteriorating geopolitical situation, one would think that it would be enough for our pollies to active consider substantially more investment in NZDF capabilities above and beyond the NZ$20 billion already announced. To whit, one capability, as you suggest, the reintroduction of an ACF.
However I think that the pollies have not had a sufficient enough of a scare to cause their sphincter muscles to cease operation, so we will undoubtedly have to wait until unwelcome and unfriendly foreign devils are storming the beaches in Auckland and Wellington before our pollies would actually sit up and take notice. Seriously though, they are burying their heads like the ostrich in the sand whilst the situation deteriorates further at a quicker pace and this time we do not have the British Empire to fall back on, nor do we have a functioning defence treaty with the US. That lack of a treaty has both its good points and its bad points, however my belief is that in the long term the bad points outweigh the good points. Secondly, unlike WW2 it will take much longer to rebuild and re-equip NZDF, in this case the RNZAF, to enable it to fight alongside our allies and coalition partners.
Therefore we need to look at two scenarios which look at two different funding level by the NZG. The first is funding at the present level with the possibility of a small increase of funding to cover an ACF. The second is where the pollies sphincter muscles have gone on strike and they've needed to change their underwear, which results in a significantly large and substantial increase in defence funding.
Under the first scenario, KAI TA / FA 50s would probably be the platform of choice if it was decided to go with new build aircraft. Or used F16s from the Boneyard and gradually upgraded if it was decided to go with used aircraft. Maybe 12 aircraft at first with the possibility of another 6 further down the track.
Under the second scenario the if NZG policy and funding permitted a new buy of combat aircraft then rather than a new buy of F16s or Gripens, for an extra US$10 million (projected 2019 flyaway cost) we could acquire F35s. IMHO the F35B rather than the F35A because I feel that the B gives us greater versatility than the A would. The F35B appears to cost US$15 million more than the A so we would be looking at possibly US$95 million flyaway per aircraft. Still cheaper than the Rafale, Typhoon or F15 and a lot more effective. Because NZDF is / has stood up a JATF which is an expeditionary force, the F35B would be the ideal fit for such a fit, able to be lillypadded on LHDs and operate from very austere strips just behind the front lines. Otherwise very similar to how the USMC operate theirs. It would also add a capability to an ANZAC Force that is at present absent. Regarding numbers we would be looking at two tranches of 7 aircraft, with the possibility of third tranche further down the track if required. Like the F16 training it would be contracted out, in this case most likely to the USMC. IIRC the Whinwray report stated that a minimum of 18 Skyhawks were required to meet the NZG policy requirements. Using that as a basis, then a minimum of 18 F16s would need to be acquired to meet the same or similar policy requirements. For the same cost 14 F35Bs can be acquired and they would more than meet the policy requirements, plus most likely be an increase in the capability.
Last edited by a moderator:
With a deteriorating global situation shuttle diplomacy will increase so an aircraft which offers a component of its tasking allocation in that role without the restrictions of normal airline ops or detraction of normal squadron ops and with urgent time priorities will likely be ideal and necessary.
An F/A-50 variant utilising the T-X hump back ER conformal tank and A2A capability will cure its underwhelming range issues in the RNZAF context. Along with the current or intended upgrades such as the F-414M power plant, M61 Vulcan and wired BVR capability as seen on the PAF exported birds it would make it a great basic performer. However, it would need to be more developed to give it operational efficacy as an affordable (Light) Multi-role Strike Aircraft if we choose to go down that route. Nevertheless, KAI are looking to be able to add further capabilities via pylon mountings such as Rafael’s Sky Shield Electronic Jamming Pod and the Sniper AN/AAQ-33 (ATP-SE) and also integrate AESA/SABR as per the F-16V. They are also lining up to integrate the Taurus KEPD 350-K2 to give it its missing A/Shp capability, which would be a definite capability requirement within the RNZAF.
In that configuration package it will be an impressive lightish strike bird, a 21st century solution to the A-4 and F-5, which served small fiscally restrained air forces in the region. Essentially, a Korean JAS Gripen with a lower price tag and yes we do have a FTA with them which would make it an attractive option if we were to head down that pathway.
Last edited:
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
If the money is made available the F35B as you suggest would definitely compliment all the work done to date to create a JATF. In order to facilitate their deployment how big of an LHD do you suggest? Canberra size? The idea is sound but $1 billion plus single line item will be a huge mouthful for the government to swallow.
Would a Korean Dokdo class at 199 m and 14000 tons be an appropriate ship to accommodate a small flight of F35B's some helo's? At a wiki quoted price of just shy of US$300 million one could be had for half that of a Canberra. This then begs the question of escorts? With only two frigates currently more would be required to ensure a credible escort of the LHD. For all of this more $$$$$ will be needed.
It is the right direction and it will be interesting times in the coming years because I too hold to the idea that the world is going to #%<> and in a hurry. For whatever reason things do not look good and its only going to take a single spark to create the firestorm that awaits us. Lets hope cooler heads prevail.
Would a Korean Dokdo class at 199 m and 14000 tons be an appropriate ship to accommodate a small flight of F35B's some helo's? At a wiki quoted price of just shy of US$300 million one could be had for half that of a Canberra. This then begs the question of escorts? With only two frigates currently more would be required to ensure a credible escort of the LHD. For all of this more $$$$$ will be needed.
It is the right direction and it will be interesting times in the coming years because I too hold to the idea that the world is going to #%<> and in a hurry. For whatever reason things do not look good and its only going to take a single spark to create the firestorm that awaits us. Lets hope cooler heads prevail.
t68
Well-Known Member
Think needs for a third or even fourth Frigate should come before the return of a ACF and a true Amphibous Warfare ship.
Canberra/JC1 are too large NZ needs and the idea of flying F35B off them are just not going to happen. Just look at the shit storm with the ADF over B's for CBR and we have a generous air combat capabilty.
In an ideal world I'd like the Singaporeans to build the JMMS based on the Endurance class, but that seems to be getting less likely as time goes on, other option which I havnt really looked at as yet is the new Italian LHD,but for NZ a pair of Rotterdam Class could also work.
Last edited:
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/c-17/2016-23-c-17-concept-update.pdf
Looking at the papers released relating to the potential C-17 purchase earlier this year, three options were mentioned for the two B757s if a C-17 was purchased:
a) keep both aircraft and reduce flying hours to 750 hrs/year
b) sell one aircraft and fly the other 750 hrs/year
c) sell both and replace with modern commercial narrow-body (possibly leased)
http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/c-17/2016-34-c-17-acquisition-options.pdf
In this paper the preferred option has been redacted, but paras 21 and 22 make me thing it is (c).
Certainly, this demonstrates that the concept of a new civilian passenger aircraft for carrying out some functions currently delivered by the B757s is acceptable to NZDF.
http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/c-17/2016-20-c-17-update.pdf
This paper provides a good overview. Para 50 onwards briefly summarizes the options for Antarctic support. The authors seem particularly keen to kill the idea of purchasing a civilian wide-body.
Apologies to those who have seen this material before - some recent discussion makes me think it hasn't been widely read.
While I think that up sizing the Navy is important (more frigates etc) I don't think should come before restarting the ACF. For purely defence reasons the ACF is far more useful in that it can be used as the primary weapon for land sea and air operations or to support land ,sea and air operations, it can move quickly to any threat area or can be deployed quickly over long distances. When deployed in a hostile environment it offers the greatest amount of force but putting the least number of personnel at risk of becoming casualties. Due to these factors it provides the greatest deterrent effect.
Looks like a very good package.The reason I would go down this road is that we would need an advanced trainer to start the ball rolling and the more basic (cheaper) TA 50 would cover this without going to another aircraft type. They would also fit into the supporting the Assies as they have always said that they are short on ground support aircraft. The possibility of moving on to larger and more capable platforms should wait until we have the ability and experience to use them effectively.We should ask the Korean's to add a aar probe. On single point refuel aircraft, usually not a biggie.
Last edited:
We actually would not need our own advanced trainer if the T-50A is selected for the US. Contract into the Joint Jet Pilot Training Program out of Sheppard Air Force Base in Texas.