Royal New Zealand Air Force

[MrConservative]

Do we know if the limited number of airframes has restricted operations, or are crews/engineers still more of a constraint? My impression is that the simulator-based training has been highly successful, so could there be less need for additional airframes be less than originally expected?

I have no idea, but am surprised that RNZAF hasn't been pushing harder for more numbers if they are really constrained.

Sim training has been successful. And of course there are extra Sprites. However, one thing to watch is the growing needs of the Specials in the rotary space. One of the new outputs from the DCP16 is the drive for a Special Forces Task Group for expeditionary deployments.

The original 5 A109's plus sim roles attributed to this platform are increasing - rotary pilot training, rotary crew training, light tactical transport, VIP, MAOT support, air support for counter-terrorism activities and the specials. There are more roles than numbers.

 

[Joe Black]

I also took a look at the 'kingpins' defence policy and noted with interest the reinstatement of the ACF.

I know Mr C has mentioned the TA-50 in the past and most recently. If we're to postulate the make-up of the ACF I was thinking that the Boeing Saab T-X project could be a starter - with a flow on purchase of the JAS Grippen as our fast strike platform.

I would imagine a sensible way to do this is execute it in 2 phases. First phase, get a LIFT platform like T/FA-50, performs 12 frames. Get the 2 batches of pilots trained up before getting another 12 frames (either something like JAS-39C/D Gripen or F/A-18 C/D Hornets - how about RAAF donate the retired frames), rather than the Vipers - reasons, common engines F-404 engines rather than having two different types.

 

[MrConservative]

Showing my lack of knowledge, but will an entry level jet trainer be required since we have the the new t6? it seams very capable all be it with out jet engines.

How much more benefit will it be having a dedicated jet trainer aircraft apart form the numbers side of things?

That is a good question.

It is likely to be less expensive and faster to generate capability by outsourcing the LIFT component offshore.

 

[MrConservative]

IIRC 18 A-4K aircraft were required to meet the then NZG policy aims. Can't remember where I read it though. That was when we had the AerMacchis and I would presume towards the tail end of the Blunties time.

I would add some F-16s to the mix as well, but prefer US weapons on both platforms because of ease of availability compared to European weapons. Maybe 12 of each platform if possible.

The 18 was based on continuing the Nowra agreement per Whineray Report now 20 years ago. That is off the table and outsourcing the LIFT side of the equation to an offshore training contract will reduce that requirement further.

Re the KAI FA-50 (Block II) EL/M-2052 AESA, Rafael Sky Shield, Derby, Python 5, and Spike are Israeli - but US weapons / systems are optional. However integration and certification is a cost determinant to do so and there would have to be a very compelling reason to switch from what are already peer level alternatives that KAI are looking at.

 

[ngatimozart]

That is a good question.

It is likely to be less expensive and faster to generate capability by outsourcing the LIFT component offshore.

I am not to sure about the costs because IIRC the 2016 Defence Projects Report stated that it was expensive to outsource training to other militaries compared to doing it in-house. I will see if I can find the reference again.

 

[danonz]

The 18 was based on continuing the Nowra agreement per Whineray Report now 20 years ago. That is off the table and outsourcing the LIFT side of the equation to an offshore training contract will reduce that requirement further.

Re the KAI FA-50 (Block II) EL/M-2052 AESA, Rafael Sky Shield, Derby, Python 5, and Spike are Israeli - but US weapons / systems are optional. However integration and certification is a cost determinant to do so and there would have to be a very compelling reason to switch from what are already peer level alternatives that KAI are looking at.

Sadly I don't think there is much chance of NZ Buying Isreali weapons as good as they are..still has a better chance than Russian aircraft ( if we are dreaming. Of air craft the new Mig 35 is only 5 million more than the FA 50

 

[MrConservative]

I am not to sure about the costs because IIRC the 2016 Defence Projects Report stated that it was expensive to outsource training to other militaries compared to doing it in-house. I will see if I can find the reference again.

In the context of Primary Pilot Training Capability and the numbers involved that is correct. However an overseas commercial relationship using leased aircraft or paid for aircraft time is a different matter entirely and there is a time element here. One is much faster in generating capability.

 

[Rob c]

yes I have read the policy, but how much would they push for it is another question, there would be more apatite from national but I don't think it would get any where at all if he partners with the dark side.

And if It is not an election issues it's likely to be pushed to back if negotiations

I E.mailed the said defence spokesman on this very question, but have not as yet received a reply.

 

[recce.k1]

In the context of Primary Pilot Training Capability and the numbers involved that is correct. However an overseas commercial relationship using leased aircraft or paid for aircraft time is a different matter entirely and there is a time element here. One is much faster in generating capability.

Perhaps NZG could cut a good deal with Draken International

 

[recce.k1]

I E.mailed the said defence spokesman on this very question, but have not as yet received a reply.

Good luck with getting a straight answer!

Although the Kingmaker's Party has supposedly always been "pro-defence".... of course the first time he was in power he scuttled the 3rd ANZAC Frigate purchase when it went to Cabinet for sign-off (and also didn't give a rats about ruining Oz-NZ govt's closer defence relations) and can't really see what they did for Defence the second time when he was in power (when I foolishly voted for them)! Now whilst in Opposition during the term of this current Govt they have pooh-poohed nearly everything the Govt has announced on Defence (eg were unsupportive of the C-17 acquisitions, were unsupportive of the Iraq-ANZAC training deployment, have 'attacked' the NH-90's despite them being in-service, didn't back the NZSAS when Hager's hit-job book was launched and to cap it all off the Kingmaker himself said earlier this year in relation to the Govt's $20B CapEx programme "the plan would blow out the books, whoever was in government. "They are actually preposterous in their size ... if any of [the proposed figures are] true there goes your surplus for a start.", meanwhile the Kingmaker Party are leading the election bribe-o-meter for everything else and are off the scale!

I would love to see them support the purchase of FA50's or F16's ... but I suspect in reality a squadron of flying pigs would have a greater chance!

 

[MrConservative]

Good luck with getting a straight answer!

Although the Kingmaker's Party has always been "pro-defence".... of course the first time he was in power he scuttled the 3rd ANZAC Frigate purchase when it went to Cabinet for sign-off (and also didn't give a rats about ruining Oz-NZ govt's closer defence relations) and can't really see what they did for Defence the second time when he was in power (when I foolishly voted for them)! Now whilst in Opposition during the term of this current Govt they have pooh-poohed nearly everything the Govt has announced on Defence (eg were unsupportive of the C-17 acquisitions, were unsupportive of the Iraq-ANZAC training deployment, have 'attacked' the NH-90's despite them being in-service, didn't back the NZSAS when Hager's hit-job book was launched and to cap it all off the Kingmaker himself said earlier this year in relation to the Govt's $20B CapEx programme "the plan would blow out the books, whoever was in government. "They are actually preposterous in their size ... if any of [the proposed figures are] true there goes your surplus for a start.", meanwhile the Kingmaker Party are leading the election bribe-o-meter for everything else and are off the scale!

I would love to see them support the purchase of FA50's or F16's ... but I suspect in reality a squadron of flying pigs would have a greater chance!

And of course 12 months ago Mr Mark was complaining that $20 Billion was not enough and promised an alternative DWP before the election.

A small air combat capability would be one of their cheaper and more doable promises. The one that is the biggest joke is trebling exports by 2025. Sheer political vapourware in the real world.

The bottom line of NZ First is to be always angry to capture the angry vote in such numbers to achieve Winston his continuing sinecure and potential ministerial salary.

 

[recce.k1]

A small air combat capability would be one of their cheaper and more doable promises. The one that is the biggest joke is trebling exports by 2025. Sheer political vapourware in the real world.

Yes, it probably would be (as a doable promise) and I would hope if that happened it would be a result of an increase in defence expenditure (even a 'small' increase would cover the operational costs - guess say $150-300m/yr - that would be what, about a 5-10% gdp increase?), as opposed to maintaining current spending to achieve this (as that would mean something else would need to be cut ... and there's nothing else that can be cut).

I wonder whether if the Singapore basing goes ahead, because of the resulting infrastructure development, whether that would present the best opportunity to piggyback and raise up a small squadron of 4th gen FA50/F16 types as an initial fast-air training capability? It would give them something practical "to do" (and would be easily understood/supported in the minds of the pollies and public) eg dissimilar air-to-air combat training with the Singaporeans, as well as of course some traditional but least publicly understood roles such as JTAC training, maritime interdiction training etc?

Kind of like what 2 Sqn at Norwa was about (eg undertaking maritime strike training)!

(A 75 Sqn combat resurrection would be further down the track, with comparable 4.5-5 gen assets to the RAAF of course ... when the NZG finally wakes up to the wider geo-political need)

 

[swerve]

...Re the KAI FA-50 (Block II) EL/M-2052 AESA, Rafael Sky Shield, Derby, Python 5, and Spike are Israeli - but US weapons / systems are optional. ....

US weapons & systems are operational, but IIRC unless the contract's been changed LM has a veto on fitting anything better than (or equal to?) the equipment of F-16s. I can't remember whether that's just S. Korea's F-16s, or applies to any production model.

I remember KAI showing their baby at an air show with the Selex Vixen 500E beside it, & talking to potential customers about fitting it, or perhaps a more powerful version to the FA-50. Then LM broke up the party. As I recall, it wanted a US radar of its choice to be the only option, but after arguments, it accepted the EL/M-2032 (but definitely not the 2052!).

That was several years ago, & with the plan for LM to upgrade Korean F-16s with
the APG-83 SABR KAI may have more flexibility now.

S. Korea keeps getting screwed around by LM & the USG. The T-50 radar, the BAE contract via FMS to upgrade F-16s with RACR which the USG decided would cost several hundred million dollars more than BAE quoted, leading to BAE being forced out & LM getting the deal - IIRC at a price similar to BAE's, without the several hundred million extra.

 

[MrConservative]

US weapons & systems are operational, but IIRC unless the contract's been changed LM has a veto on fitting anything better than (or equal to?) the equipment of F-16s. I can't remember whether that's just S. Korea's F-16s, or applies to any production model.

I remember KAI showing their baby at an air show with the Selex Vixen 500E beside it, & talking to potential customers about fitting it, or perhaps a more powerful version to the FA-50. Then LM broke up the party. As I recall, it wanted a US radar of its choice to be the only option, but after arguments, it accepted the EL/M-2032 (but definitely not the 2052!).

That was several years ago, & with the plan for LM to upgrade Korean F-16s with
the APG-83 SABR KAI may have more flexibility now.

S. Korea keeps getting screwed around by LM & the USG. The T-50 radar, the BAE contract via FMS to upgrade F-16s with RACR which the USG decided would cost several hundred million dollars more than BAE quoted, leading to BAE being forced out & LM getting the deal - IIRC at a price similar to BAE's, without the several hundred million extra.

Yes KAI were hamstrung and the radar choice deleted their wish for an AESA mount which left them with the EL/M-2032 as the best of the rest. One feature of the 32 architecture being upgradable to 52 standard. KF-16 upgrades, Viper shifting to India, Tejas a possible 52 mount, and the need to trump the M-346FA with Grifo is seeing the FA-50 have its shackles loosened in Block II which will feature the DART upgrade seen on the T-50A.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

I believe that the decision to scrap the ACF was correct at the time but the failure since to properly invest resources in the NZDF was criminal. This lack of investment coupled with poor decision making with regard to resultatant purchases has left the NZDF struggling with insufficient aircraft numbers and missing abilities.

In order for the RNZAF to support the JATF with viable resources so as to be self sufficient fixed wing fighters will drain the limited resources from other more pressing programs IMHO. Without an aircraft carrier any combat aircraft will be extremely limited to operations from mainland and secure island airfields. As a result, a heavy rotary wing inventory is necessary consisting of a mix of heavy, medium, light and naval helicopters optimized for deployment from naval vessels.

As much as I would love to see an ACF I truly believe that this option has well and truly passed. Let's consider what $400 million could do to enhance existing capabilities. If the FAMC and FASC programs are to be considered fully funded what could be done realistically to enhance the force?

To me I see the following as a viable list of resources that could be added to the RNZAF;

Four Boeing F Model Chinook
Two NH90 bringing the total to 10
Five AW109LUH bringing the total to 10 (All five new to be marinized) (All ten to have increased armament options)
Six AT6 Wolverine aircraft and armament options

This list builds on existing systems with only the chinooks being a new capability. The synergies of operating the same aircraft model as OZ should help to expand the heavy lift capabilities of both parties as the Chinook is the preferred western battlefield heavy lifter. As we discussed last year I see the need for these to support homeland HADR as well as overseas operations.

Thinking ahead and staying focused on the policy of a functional JATF will hopefully result in a useful dialogue in support of the NZDF.

 

[Rob c]

I believe that the decision to scrap the ACF was correct at the time but the failure since to properly invest resources in the NZDF was criminal. This lack of investment coupled with poor decision making with regard to resultatant purchases has left the NZDF struggling with insufficient aircraft numbers and missing abilities.

In order for the RNZAF to support the JATF with viable resources so as to be self sufficient fixed wing fighters will drain the limited resources from other more pressing programs IMHO. Without an aircraft carrier any combat aircraft will be extremely limited to operations from mainland and secure island airfields. As a result, a heavy rotary wing inventory is necessary consisting of a mix of heavy, medium, light and naval helicopters optimized for deployment from naval vessels.

As much as I would love to see an ACF I truly believe that this option has well and truly passed. Let's consider what $400 million could do to enhance existing capabilities. If the FAMC and FASC programs are to be considered fully funded what could be done realistically to enhance the force?

To me I see the following as a viable list of resources that could be added to the RNZAF;

Four Boeing F Model Chinook
Two NH90 bringing the total to 10
Five AW109LUH bringing the total to 10 (All five new to be marinized) (All ten to have increased armament options)
Six AT6 Wolverine aircraft and armament options

This list builds on existing systems with only the chinooks being a new capability. The synergies of operating the same aircraft model as OZ should help to expand the heavy lift capabilities of both parties as the Chinook is the preferred western battlefield heavy lifter. As we discussed last year I see the need for these to support homeland HADR as well as overseas operations.

Thinking ahead and staying focused on the policy of a functional JATF will hopefully result in a useful dialogue in support of the NZDF.

I disagree with you on the decision to scrap the ACF for the following reasons
They were for all intents the one item we had which could both deter and make it difficult for any aggression against NZ especially if the F16'S had arrived as this would have require the use of a large aircraft carrier by the aggressor for them to be successful. Not too many countries have these.
It is not possible to see into the future and the amount of time needed to reinstate was far in excess off any warning time.
No country in modern history has seen a threat in time to re-arm to meet that threat so the notion that no current threat is an option not to have a viable defence is politically motivated rubbish.
It's the threat you don't see is the one that is really going to hurt you.
We are not. Unlike say Ireland or Canada, parked alongside a major power, who wont let anything happen in their backyard, so at the very least we have to be able hold the line until helpful politicians in friendly countries make up their minds to do something. This can take some time and we may not be considered important enough to rush the process.

 

[t68]

I believe that the decision to scrap the ACF was correct at the time but the failure since to properly invest resources in the NZDF was criminal. This lack of investment coupled with poor decision making with regard to resultatant purchases has left the NZDF struggling with insufficient aircraft numbers and missing abilities.

In order for the RNZAF to support the JATF with viable resources so as to be self sufficient fixed wing fighters will drain the limited resources from other more pressing programs IMHO. Without an aircraft carrier any combat aircraft will be extremely limited to operations from mainland and secure island airfields. As a result, a heavy rotary wing inventory is necessary consisting of a mix of heavy, medium, light and naval helicopters optimized for deployment from naval vessels.

As much as I would love to see an ACF I truly believe that this option has well and truly passed. Let's consider what $400 million could do to enhance existing capabilities. If the FAMC and FASC programs are to be considered fully funded what could be done realistically to enhance the force?

To me I see the following as a viable list of resources that could be added to the RNZAF;

Four Boeing F Model Chinook
Two NH90 bringing the total to 10
Five AW109LUH bringing the total to 10 (All five new to be marinized) (All ten to have increased armament options)
Six AT6 Wolverine aircraft and armament options

This list builds on existing systems with only the chinooks being a new capability. The synergies of operating the same aircraft model as OZ should help to expand the heavy lift capabilities of both parties as the Chinook is the preferred western battlefield heavy lifter. As we discussed last year I see the need for these to support homeland HADR as well as overseas operations.

Thinking ahead and staying focused on the policy of a functional JATF will hopefully result in a useful dialogue in support of the NZDF.

Agree, the focus should be on maximising current capability with focus on future frigate numbers and JATF and working with the ADF

 

[Rob c]

My belief is that you have to have a basic ability to defend yourself, before you start down other routes. the other routes will be important but unless your basic ability to defend yourself is in order they could be pointless. as the old saying goes " Make sure you bake your cake properly before icing it."

 

[MrConservative]

I believe that the decision to scrap the ACF was correct at the time

Why do you think it was correct?

but the failure since to properly invest resources in the NZDF was criminal. This lack of investment coupled with poor decision making with regard to resultant purchases has left the NZDF struggling with insufficient aircraft numbers and missing abilities.

Negligent more than criminal.

In order for the RNZAF to support the JATF with viable resources so as to be self sufficient fixed wing fighters will drain the limited resources from other more pressing programs IMHO.

The only weakness in the JATF is the core vessel and yes sorting out an improved and more appropriate vessel is more important. But if a government under MMP like we have in New Zealand insisted in investing additional resources to achieve the policy to restore New Zealand’s strike capability with a small advanced force of jet trainer and combat aircraft and tweak rotary numbers in addition to FAMC and FASC I am fine with it.

Without an aircraft carrier any combat aircraft will be extremely limited to operations from mainland and secure island airfields. As a result, a heavy rotary wing inventory is necessary consisting of a mix of heavy, medium, light and naval helicopters optimized for deployment from naval vessels.

A number of nations do not have aircraft carriers and yet have air combat aircraft and have done for recent decades - NZ (until 2001), Canada, Australia, Singapore, Japan, Korea ....

As much as I would love to see an ACF I truly believe that this option has well and truly passed.

I am confused by this. So now you say you would love to see an air combat capability return but going on the opening statement you made above 15 years ago when it was scrapped for ideological reasons you said it was the right decision.

Let's consider what $400 million could do to enhance existing capabilities. If the FAMC and FASC programs are to be considered fully funded what could be done realistically to enhance the force?

That maybe so - but we have the situation of the 3rd largest political party - NZ First (A economically centrist, socially conservative, popularist, and nationalist party polling around 10-15%) who will very likely be forming the coalition next government with the following policy:

We will restore New Zealand’s strike capability with a small advanced force of jet trainer and combat aircraft.

So a default setting of wont happen and cant happen is no longer plausible putting aside ones personal beliefs on the matter. NZ does have an MMP style of government for better or for worse. When on current polling 20% of the possible next governments seats in the house have such a policy and the major party cannot govern alone absolute positions are off the table.

To me I see the following as a viable list of resources that could be added to the RNZAF;

Four Boeing F Model Chinook
Two NH90 bringing the total to 10
Five AW109LUH bringing the total to 10 (All five new to be marinized) (All ten to have increased armament options)
Six AT6 Wolverine aircraft and armament options

The increased rotary with respect to the NH-90 and A109 I entirely agree with and have for years endorsed. The Chinook is in the same camp as an air combat capability - I agree in principal BUT only once the fundamentals are taken care of per FAMC, FASC and getting the NH90 and A109 fleet up to optimal numbers and the right mix of numbers of King Airs. However - a COIN platform like the Wolverine has no efficacy in our regional AOI or ConOps. The capability to arm the A-109 and operate it off flight decks makes more sense.

 

[Rob c]

Why do you think it was correct?

Negligent more than criminal.

The only weakness in the JATF is the core vessel and yes sorting out an improved and more appropriate vessel is more important. But if a government under MMP like we have in New Zealand insisted in investing additional resources to achieve the policy to restore New Zealand’s strike capability with a small advanced force of jet trainer and combat aircraft and tweak rotary numbers in addition to FAMC and FASC I am fine with it.

A number of nations do not have aircraft carriers and yet have air combat aircraft and have done for recent decades - NZ (until 2001), Canada, Australia, Singapore, Japan, Korea ....

I am confused by this. So now you say you would love to see an air combat capability return but going on the opening statement you made above 15 years ago when it was scrapped for ideological reasons you said it was the right decision.

That maybe so - but we have the situation of the 3rd largest political party - NZ First (A economically centrist, socially conservative, popularist, and nationalist party polling around 10-15%) who will very likely be forming the coalition next government with the following policy:

We will restore New Zealand’s strike capability with a small advanced force of jet trainer and combat aircraft.

So a default setting of wont happen and cant happen is no longer plausible putting aside ones personal beliefs on the matter. NZ does have an MMP style of government for better or for worse. When on current polling 20% of the possible next governments seats in the house have such a policy and the major party cannot govern alone absolute positions are off the table.



The increased rotary with respect to the NH-90 and A109 I entirely agree with and have for years endorsed. The Chinook is in the same camp as an air combat capability - I agree in principal BUT only once the fundamentals are taken care of per FAMC, FASC and getting the NH90 and A109 fleet up to optimal numbers and the right mix of numbers of King Airs. However - a COIN platform like the Wolverine has no efficacy in our regional AOI or ConOps. The capability to arm the A-109 and operate it off flight decks makes more sense.

Agree with you Mr C you pretty much covered everything well, from recent discussions