But you can bet Twig & Tweet, NZ Alpine Club, EDS and all there hippie mates will be filing well funded Judicial Reviews in the Environment Court to stop it though.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
Yep, but then they didn't stop the commercial satellite launch pad on East Cape nor the rocket testing launching sites by Lake Ellesmere.But you can bet Twig & Tweet, NZ Alpine Club, EDS and all there hippie mates will be filing well funded Judicial Reviews in the Environment Court to stop it though.
Yes you are dead right Ngati, there was an extensive web covering both north and south, which from memory there was either 1 or 2 open in both the north and the south islands each day of the week.
The only remaining terrestrial areas are now the immediate Ohakea area and the 3 areas around Waiouru, M300 Rangipo / M301 Moawhango / M305 Karioi , the maritime zones are still there such as the large M504 Wairarapa Coast - Surface to 66000ft and the M302 Taranaki Bight surface to 9000ft.
KH-12 - is the eastern BoP still gazetted? In the old days the Blunties and Scooters on the odd occasion made their presence felt towards BG fishers who strayed into the no-go zone when chasing marlin. I know one bloke on the receiving end years ago - who said he nearly wet himself - and not just by falling in.
Had a bollocking by the harbour master when he got ashore.Yes the large area off the BoP is still indicated as a Notamed Military flying area, as are the areas further north, looks like all the maritime areas have been preserved as is, not generally any low level civil aircraft ops in those areas anyway, if everyone is running ADS-B you can allow a degree of overlap between military and civil ops, although I have recently had a P3 run underneath me at high speed in some Class G airspace scared the hell out of me ! Have had A4's come pretty close in the past as well.KH-12 - is the eastern BoP still gazetted? In the old days the Blunties and Scooters on the odd occasion made their presence felt towards BG fishers who strayed into the no-go zone when chasing marlin. I know one bloke on the receiving end years ago - who said he nearly wet himself - and not just by falling in.
shanes_world_05
Member
Hi guys, been lurking and learning and not contributing much but the Singaporean speculation has me intrigued.KH-12 - is the eastern BoP still gazetted? In the old days the Blunties and Scooters on the odd occasion made their presence felt towards BG fishers who strayed into the no-go zone when chasing marlin. I know one bloke on the receiving end years ago - who said he nearly wet himself - and not just by falling in.
I'm pretty ignorant on this generally so please feel free to correct me. But if the Singaporeans go ahead with the F-15 basing option could we capitalise on that and build some capabilities for ourselves?
Primary or most visible of this could we justify leasing some JAS-39C and D's as Aggressor/DACM aircraft? (I'll come back to this).
But could we try looking and building a Nellis/NTTR Lite facility that would be an attractive training venue for a number of our allies to come to and visit. Something of a centre of excellence for combat aviation with clear skies, largish training areas of differing terrains and away from prying eyes and sensors. But with the ability train against the Frigates or whatever naval assets our visitors bring along.
If we looked to acquire emulators and sig generators for them to train against and different targetryand props and telemetry measurement for after match briefings and lessons? Build lecture facilities and target libraries to draw on.
For our own ACF/aggressor provision using leased Gripens would allow for rapid acquisition but also upgrading to later iterations from SAAB and perhaps tie into their development plans as a partner with lessons learnt from training with allies and lessons learnt.
Can you forgo the LIFT and just use a larger formation of Jas-39D and just detune some to provide a progressive stepup in terms of intensity? From what I can gather Flight hour cost of Gripen is anywhere from $4700 USD to $8000 USD so depending on who you believe and what metrics are used the $4700 USD is more than a Hawk but not by much again only from what I can find. By going all Gripen the logistics is simplified and the in the event of war allows a greater total frontline fleet. Say 14 to 18 of C's and 16-20 of the D's maybe?
We may be able to use our hosting obligations to justify not only the resurrection of some form of ACF but also another frigate or frigates of greater size and capabilities in the years to come.
If we do this in a way that offsets some of the costs of the increase in our order of battle but also pays for the training facilities whilst not taking advantage of or abusing our relationships with our allies I think that would show Treasury and Cabinet that Defence is looking to responsibly manage its books, increase options for the GOTD and be innovative in its approach to fiscal stresses.
Just a series of thoughts. If there's any merit please run with it.
The cost to set up a training area is significant.
its not just about aircraft, its about the facilities, emulators etc....
eg look at delamere, bradshaw, SWBTA, they are huge areas as you need it for aircraft to be able to turn and fight within the box
eg the USAF/USMC don't even have some of the capabilities out at Delamere.
the Sings already have fixed wing combat air based in the US and thats so that they can also take advantage of USAF facilities.
its not a trivial cost, and I just can't see NZG even considering it due to those outlay and then maint costs
its not just about aircraft, its about the facilities, emulators etc....
eg look at delamere, bradshaw, SWBTA, they are huge areas as you need it for aircraft to be able to turn and fight within the box
eg the USAF/USMC don't even have some of the capabilities out at Delamere.
the Sings already have fixed wing combat air based in the US and thats so that they can also take advantage of USAF facilities.
its not a trivial cost, and I just can't see NZG even considering it due to those outlay and then maint costs
Last edited:
I saw this on janes defence site but i'm not a subscriber for more access to article.
Avalon 2017: New Zealand requests P-8A cost and availability details | IHS Jane's 360
Avalon 2017: New Zealand requests P-8A cost and availability details | IHS Jane's 360
I've got a subscription to IHS weekly and can't find it in there. will need to try when at work next week
although it should appear in USG registers
walter
Active Member
Can New-zealand affort a plane like the P-8A?
I mean there's alot up for replacement in the 20-25 period.
-6 Orion's
-2 Boeing's(757)
-5 Hercules
Would a MPA plane like the Swordfish not be better suited for N-Z?
It would be cheaper(to buy,fly,maintenance)i think,and it's not like the capabillities are world's apart.(okay,no inboard room,Global 6000 has 4 suspension points,but is that something you'll allways need/use?) another possibillity would be the 8000 series.(has inboard room)
But that's my thought on the matter(i clearly say MINE)
gr,walter
ps,we've a same sort of discussion on the Dutch Defence Board,Defensieforum.nl, (we sold all our MPA's,stupid decission i know)would we buy back MPA's,my answer is yes,but maybe the Swordfish is better suited for us,maybe also for N-Z?(pricewise)I'm no expert, just a thought.
NZ needs to minimize its logistics tail, getting the smaller MPA offerings is a false economy of scale
they could negotiate far more effectively on multiple type replacement selections with either boeing or lockmart
they could negotiate far more effectively on multiple type replacement selections with either boeing or lockmart
walter
Active Member
Could be,GF.
As i said just a thought.
But come to think about it,here's my vieuw.
Could be,GF(on the deal part,but don't know if Boeing or Lockheed are interested in a "deal of the week" price)joke,but you get my drift.
As for the false economy part,well i'm not so sure,i mean the price of the forementioned MPA plane(by me)is about half of what a Poseidon costs,as is the cost of using it.
So let's say(for this exercise)that N-Z wants to replace all of it's Orion's(6)on a 1 on 1(Poseidon) basis,the cost would be enormoes.
If however they would replace it with ,let's say 6(for comparison)Swordfish,they still have to pay a lot of money,but that would be half.
On other hand,if they(N-Z)would not replace on a 1 on 1 basis due to choosing the P-8A,they would loose assets(you only can be physically there 1 place at a time.)
I know you've got to caculate the extra cost of introducing a new plane(not American but Swedish/Canadian for this case)Training(pilots and mechanics),maybe flight simulator,spare parts,etc.
But when 1 plane cost half (or there about)of the other(with no world shocking differences in capabillities)you can do alot with that money wich stayed in your pocket,or i'm i wrong in thinking this?Is possible offcourse.
gr,walter
Last edited:
We don't have an ACF anymore so why do we really need to shut off airspace for the Singaporeans to train? I'd back the rights of Kiwis over foreigners wanting to train in NZ.But you can bet Twig & Tweet, NZ Alpine Club, EDS and all there hippie mates will be filing well funded Judicial Reviews in the Environment Court to stop it though.
There is more to it than that, the economic benefits to the local area would be significant, creating a significant number of jobs due to both the extra support functions and as reported the 500 extra Singaporean personnel and their families would require the normal living support , Housing, shops for their needs etc. I would also enable the NZ armed force the chance to train in a more realistic environment with out needing to travel overseas to get this experience again a cost saving and training plus. I see it as a significant win, win for both parties and more so for us than them as if we don,t do it then some one else will and we will be the only real losers.
My own view is that the Air force would want to get as near as possible to the all requirements of the FASC RFI within the realities of the overall costs. Some of the cheaper alternatives have significant missing abilities required by the RFI and while other larger air forces have other aircraft that may be able to compensate for this, in most cases we don't.Could be,GF.
As i said just a thought.
But come to think about it,here's my vieuw.
Could be,GF(on the deal part,but don't know if Boeing or Lockheed are interested in a "deal of the week" price)joke,but you get my drift.
As for the false economy part,well i'm not so sure,i mean the price of the forementioned MPA plane(by me)is about half of what a Poseidon costs,as is the cost of using it.
So let's say(for this exercise)that N-Z wants to replace all of it's Orion's(6)on a 1 on 1(Poseidon) basis,the cost would be enormoes.
If however they would replace it with ,let's say 6(for comparison)Swordfish,they still have to pay a lot of money,but that would be half.
On other hand,if they(N-Z)would not replace on a 1 on 1 basis due to choosing the P-8A,they would loose assets(you only can be physically there 1 place at a time.)
I know you've got to caculate the extra cost of introducing a new plane(not American but Swedish/Canadian for this case)Training(pilots and mechanics),maybe flight simulator,spare parts,etc.
But when 1 plane cost half (or there about)of the other(with no world shocking differences in capabillities)you can do alot with that money wich stayed in your pocket,or i'm i wrong in thinking this?Is possible offcourse.
gr,walter
Most of the maritime Military flying zones are very large areas of airspace which don't clash with any civil use, ideal for ACM practice and anti-shipping exercises which I'm sure the Singaporeans would be mainly interested in, the areas around Waiouru are pretty much off limits anyway with live fire ground force activity, not sure you would need to create a whole lot of new areas over land anyway, and there are ways of separating aircraft with technology these days anyway, the NZ aviation scene will be a compulsory ADS-B environment within a couple of years most likely.
gf0012-aust has given you a well-rounded reply in terms of actual costs etc etc... which make such a move unlikely. The other thing to consider is there is absolutely zero desire from any political party (except NZ First who will never get to hold sway on such decisions) to get back into an ACF. Bluntly... NZ will not ever get an ACF unless we have a major military scare that exposes our lack of ACF.
It won't happen in increments like under the umbrella of this Singaporean plan - much as I wish it would. Brownlee was asked directly if this indicates a move back to an ACF for NZ and he bluntly said 'absolutely not' - sums up the likelihood.
Others have pointed out there is thinking that rather than a fast jet ACF we could contribute to that battle domain with a P8A as it is more than just a MPA.
ah, but you would be incorrect on that assumption. I've been involved with a number of assessments and contract negotiations with those two primes
you'd be surprised at how much you can drive down costs through negotiation. there's more than one way to skin the cat
in NZ's case, they have some fleet replacement issues which could be considered and injected into negotiations in parallel despite being separate acquisitions. if all 3 fleet capabilities could be satisfied through one prime they would almost sell their children to lock out the other competitor
NZ despite being a small force, still has some clout in cachet even if they aren't a volume buyer. In a similar fashion to Australia, but in less scale, they are regarded as a triple AAA customer - ie if they buy a capability there is a potential flow on benefit to other customers as they are respected at the force level and as an astute customer where acceptance of a platform can pave the way to getting entry into other similar sized militaries - and especially within the PACRIM
so you misunderstand the ability they have and the capacity to actually control negotiations. NZ is not a contracting orphan irrespective of the small scale of purchases
Its why primes and vendors will make the effort to go box flogging in NZ as they are eyeing off the long game. They won't make a fortune out of NZ, but they want to win to try and ease opening other doors for similarly sized militaries or countries with similar force construct design features
actually - no I don't calculate on costs.
the economies of scale is a reference to combat capability
in fact when we do a platform assessment we aren't allowed to do the initial assessment on financials at all - that comes later down the track
for me, the assessments are always about combat capability and force requirements. our recommendations will always be driven by that. Its up to the govt to determine whether they accept our choice on capability merit and then crunch the numbers within their own political motivations of the time
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
What of the possibiliy of drones then being introduced into service, prime role as mpa to assist P8 or similar, with a secondary capability for interdiction of hostiles
Wouldnt that be a more affordable option than a few sqaudrons of F16 or similar? I wonder how long it would take in comparison to establish , given we already are using drones in a much smaller capacity.
Wouldnt that be a more affordable option than a few sqaudrons of F16 or similar? I wonder how long it would take in comparison to establish , given we already are using drones in a much smaller capacity.