Royal New Zealand Air Force

[ngatimozart]

This is some numbers I have come up with for the recapitalisation if the RNZAF (costing in $Millions:

Qty Item Cost
5 Airbus A400M Grizzly $1,189
3 Augusta Westland AW109 LUH $37
4 Boeing CH47D Chinook ex US Army $83
3 Boeing KC46 $1,004
5 Boeing P8 Poseidon MMA $1,237
24 LockMart F16B Regen and R-MLU to F-16V $1,294
2 NHI NH90 Helicopter (NFH -Support) $114
8 NHI NH90 Helicopter TTH Marinisation Upgrade $117
8 Pilatus PC24 $167
Sub-Total RNZAF Acquisitions $5,241
50% Estimated spares, maintenance, manuals, simulators etc., RNZAF Acquisitions $2,600
Total RNZAF Acquisitions $7,900

To put that into the context of an overall NZDF recapitalisation:
Total RNZN Acquisitions $1,735
Total Army Acquisitions $1,085
Total RNZAF Acquisitions $5,241
Subtotal RNZN, NZ Army, RNZAF Acquisitions $8,060
Total NZDF Acquisitions $2,300
Sub total $10,360
50% Estimated spares, maintenance, manuals, simulators etc., RNZN, NZ ARMY, RNZAF Acquisitions $4,030
Total Estimated Present Value Acquisition Cost $14,390

These are only estimates based upon publicly released documentation and has been computed in Excel, hence the faux "exact looking" sums.

You will note that the P-8 costings are less than the price quoted in the DSCA release. That's an upward figure and during negotiations I would think that the cost will come down.

The sum of $20 billion has been set aside for CAPEX (Capital Expenditure), hence based upon these figures there should be approx $4 - 5 billion left over. The weapons and actual day to day costs of capabilities are covered by OPEX (Operational Expenditure). In order to cover the OPEX increased costs, Vote: NZDF would have to rise to somewhere between 2.0 (possibly 2.5) % GDP annually.

Therefore IMHO, the NZG can afford the increased expenditure and re-establishing an ACF is both affordable and achievable, without having to decrease funding for other NZDF capabilities.

 

[ADMk2]

Rob

Let's assume an airliner is overtaken by rogue elements and it maintains its flight plan to ditch into the Auckland CBD how would any type of ACF counter this?

If the fools told you they were coming are you planning on maintaining a QR aircraft at all times? If not how long to get an aircraft prepped and armed to respond? If NZ was bordered by aggressive neighbours like Eastern Europe or the Middle East or parts of Asia I can see it. As has been said the lack of AAR and EW aircraft make the ACF only part of the equation.

If it is a ship that has been taken over and it is loaded with an armed force intent on creating a beach head I think starvation and lack of resources will stop that after a week or two and in that time they would get a damn bloody nose from NZ Army and SAS.

During WW2 the Japanese were only a threat because of air craft carriers and submarines directly to NZ.

Now is not the time to fight the last war or wars. Preparations need to be made to support likely operations the NZDF will be engaged in independently and via a coalition.

Most NATO countries provide 24/7 QRA aircraft for round the clock air defence. As an example the Czech Air Force is capable of doing this 24/7 with a fleet of only 14x Gripen fighters.

I see absolutely no reason other than political will, that NZ couldn't do the same.

 

[t68]

Most NATO countries provide 24/7 QRA aircraft for round the clock air defence. As an example the Czech Air Force is capable of doing this 24/7 with a fleet of only 14x Gripen fighters.

whilst the Czech Air Force did supply aircraft and pilots for NATO QRA they only did so for 4 mths, but in NZ context I would expect more than 14 aircraft.

Czech Air Force Completes Baltic Air Policing - Airforce Technology

 

[MrConservative]

whilst the Czech Air Force did supply aircraft and pilots for NATO QRA they only did so for 4 mths, but in NZ context I would expect more than 14 aircraft.

Czech Air Force Completes Baltic Air Policing - Airforce Technology

We are getting off in tangents here.

I think people need to back the truck up here with respect to QRA.

The only time it has ever been done in NZ in the past was for short term APEC and CHOGM events.

Cannot see any requirement for it outside us hosting another such event. Next APEC is in 2021 in which even if the NZG pressed GO during the next term for NZ Firsts policy to restore New Zealand’s strike capability with a small advanced force of jet trainer and combat aircraft. (Emphasis noted to those you still have not picked up on this and waffle off in tangents) it will be a once in a decade situation for only a matter of days.

 

[ngatimozart]

whilst the Czech Air Force did supply aircraft and pilots for NATO QRA they only did so for 4 mths, but in NZ context I would expect more than 14 aircraft.

Czech Air Force Completes Baltic Air Policing - Airforce Technology

I believe that 4 months is the standard tour of duty for the NATO air Policing QRA, so it's not "only did".

The original A-4K fleet was only 14 aircraft albeit with a fleet of 16 Blunties (BAC Strikemaster Mk 88) on 14 Sqn as LIFT (1972 - 92).

When the Requirements Analysis in The Capability Definition phase was performed for the Pilot Training Capability (T-6C Texan) an assessment was done covering different options. Option 5 is one that is quite pertinent to standing up an ACF:

Options considered - Option 5: Overseas military
Cost Estimates (NZ$ million) - Capital: $160 Operating/year: $66
Advantages - Likely to meet all benefits, success factors and safety requirements.
Disadvantages - Not affordable.
Source: Major Projects Report 2016, p. 178

I would suggest that if we were to undertake the same option for LIFT, as some of us have suggested, the assessment during Requirements Analysis in The Capability Definition phase may well reach a similar conclusion. That would mean looking at LIFT aircraft and that is where the KAI TA-50 would come in as a contender.

 

[t68]

I believe that 4 months is the standard tour of duty for the NATO air Policing QRA, so it's not "only did".

yes that's right they only did NATO QRA for 4 months in May 2009 and September 2012, those Czech aircraft are not doing 24/7/365, the UK has a standing QRA over UK airspace using Typhoon and they have a lot more than 14 aircraft. but as Mr C says we are going off topic

 

[John Fedup]

This is some numbers I have come up with for the recapitalisation if the RNZAF (costing in $Millions:

Qty Item Cost[/B
3 Boeing KC46 $1,004
.

Wouldn't the A330 based MRRT be a safer choice for NZ?

 

[ngatimozart]

Wouldn't the A330 based MRRT be a safer choice for NZ?

Not necessarily. They are larger aircraft than the KC-46 and cost about $80 million more. That's the flyaway cost. Whilst the KC-46 is having birth pains, it will in the longer term hopefully be less risky.

 

[t68]

Not necessarily. They are larger aircraft than the KC-46 and cost about $80 million more. That's the flyaway cost. Whilst the KC-46 is having birth pains, it will in the longer term hopefully be less risky.

I think what John might be getting at is that the MRTT and A400M are by the one supplier, where as the other options are from numerous vendors not a bad thing but might stretch the $more going via single source prime

 

[MrConservative]

I think what John might be getting at is that the MRTT and A400M are by the one supplier, where as the other options are from numerous vendors not a bad thing but might stretch the $more going via single source prime

As GF has pointed out in the past the KC-46 has human factors synergies with the P-8 - another Boeing product. Also the KC-46 will have the ability to mount a wide range of further sensors in the EW/ISR dimension on the platform - so not just a tanker - strategic transport but also bearer.

 

[John Fedup]

Fair enough if the additional electronic kit is added in but the MRTT does have greater transport and AAR capabilities and is a proven platform, IMO its most important feature. I gather the KC-46 will have enough time to prove itself prior to NZ's purchase. If the EW/ISR kit is affordable and deemed more important than the MRTT's advantages I guess a P-8, KC-46, and CH-47F package along with a support deal will make an attractive package.

 

[t68]

Fair enough if the additional electronic kit is added in but the MRTT does have greater transport and AAR capabilities and is a proven platform, IMO its most important feature. I gather the KC-46 will have enough time to prove itself prior to NZ's purchase. If the EW/ISR kit is affordable and deemed more important than the MRTT's advantages I guess a P-8, KC-46, and CH-47F package along with a support deal will make an attractive package.

Unfortunately rotary is off the table as per the RFI released. The below is as posted by NG on Aug 18 2016

FAMC RFI Closing time: 4pm 30 September 2016.
It is for the replacement of the current B757-200 Combi and C130H(NZ) fleet at no less than equivalent current capability or matched to future needs. The C130 replacements are to be delivered by February 2020 with IOC February 2021 and FOC February 2024. The B757 replacement to be delivered by February 2025 with IOC February 2026.
The following is excluded:
•any rotary wing component.
•solutions without any military component
•solutions that are unproven (without Type Certification), highly developmental and/or unsupported by a reliable evidence base
•disposal of current assets
It is anticipated that the FAMC fleet may well consist of more than one aircraft type.

The 757 replacement has a fair while to go so that may just work in Boeings favour

 

[ADMk2]

whilst the Czech Air Force did supply aircraft and pilots for NATO QRA they only did so for 4 mths, but in NZ context I would expect more than 14 aircraft.

Czech Air Force Completes Baltic Air Policing - Airforce Technology

Of their own airspace... Wasn't talking about the Baltic Mission...

 

[Shanesworld]

Is it likely?

I am doubtful regards "that" parties policies on defence given the very contradictory record as others have mentioned. I have voted for them for a long time and frankly been pretty disappointed (probably still vote for them though... Sigh).
But if by some miracle the ACF were to be resurrected how about a single fleet of leased Gripen c/d's? 12 c's and say 4-6 d's. The operating costs are low (perhaps not as low as a Hawk but with the higher capability of the T-50 I would expect a higher flight hour cost). Last flight hour cost I've seen for Gripen was $7000usd with the upcoming Gripen E is quoted at $4500an hour with life of 8000 hours. If air war changes significantly an upgrade to Gripen E would be an easier shift than from T-50 to another type and gets us a credible but maintainable force in deployable numbers. I seem to remember the Hungarian and Czech lease deals being around $50-60mil a year for 14 aircraft a piece 2 of each being D's and Hungary doesn't seem to maintain a Lift fleet. For all up $350-400mil a year incl. Operational cost you have modern combat fleet.
However Directed energy weapons being introduced into air combat does make me wonder about the viability of fighters altogether. And as much as I would love to pretend I could be a pilot of Rnzaf Gripen I think building up the naval combat fleet is the big priority. Two light frigates is not a minimum nor is it credible.
But NG I love that list. 8 grizzly's put us right where we need to be.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

I am doubtful regards "that" parties policies on defence given the very contradictory record as others have mentioned. I have voted for them for a long time and frankly been pretty disappointed (probably still vote for them though... Sigh).
But if by some miracle the ACF were to be resurrected how about a single fleet of leased Gripen c/d's? 12 c's and say 4-6 d's. The operating costs are low (perhaps not as low as a Hawk but with the higher capability of the T-50 I would expect a higher flight hour cost). Last flight hour cost I've seen for Gripen was $7000usd with the upcoming Gripen E is quoted at $4500an hour with life of 8000 hours. If air war changes significantly an upgrade to Gripen E would be an easier shift than from T-50 to another type and gets us a credible but maintainable force in deployable numbers. I seem to remember the Hungarian and Czech lease deals being around $50-60mil a year for 14 aircraft a piece 2 of each being D's and Hungary doesn't seem to maintain a Lift fleet. For all up $350-400mil a year incl. Operational cost you have modern combat fleet.
However Directed energy weapons being introduced into air combat does make me wonder about the viability of fighters altogether. And as much as I would love to pretend I could be a pilot of Rnzaf Gripen I think building up the naval combat fleet is the big priority. Two light frigates is not a minimum nor is it credible.
But NG I love that list. 8 grizzly's put us right where we need to be.

The RNZAF discussion community put forward the argument that increasing a defence relationship with the RSAF, basing a number of there F-15sg in Ohakia for training purposes. This will be a great opportunity for training skilled pilots of our own that we would be foolish to ignore and I agree with you that NG list is proper.

Pilots greater than platforms.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

The Kawasaki C2 may be set to be exported to the UAE according to another thread on DT. At $173 million US that's $237 million NZ per aircraft. As a B757 replacement that's equivalent to a K46 in price if not less. Would this not be an opportunity as it would give a true strategic capacity capable of moving the out size loads when needed. Let C130J-30 and KC390 battle it out for the tactical lift. Good to see the interest in this fine aircraft.

 

[ngatimozart]

The Kawasaki C2 may be set to be exported to the UAE according to another thread on DT. At $173 million US that's $237 million NZ per aircraft. As a B757 replacement that's equivalent to a K46 in price if not less. Would this not be an opportunity as it would give a true strategic capacity capable of moving the out size loads when needed. Let C130J-30 and KC390 battle it out for the tactical lift. Good to see the interest in this fine aircraft.

I saw that, however that doesn't decrease the risk in NZG eyes. With A-400M being operated by the UK (France and Germany as well), I would think that the A-400M has to be the frontrunner. There are far more A-400Ms being acquired than C-2s.

 

[Rob c]

The Kawasaki C2 may be set to be exported to the UAE according to another thread on DT. At $173 million US that's $237 million NZ per aircraft. As a B757 replacement that's equivalent to a K46 in price if not less. Would this not be an opportunity as it would give a true strategic capacity capable of moving the out size loads when needed. Let C130J-30 and KC390 battle it out for the tactical lift. Good to see the interest in this fine aircraft.

I have felt that the RNZAF have been leaning towards a military freighter rather than an airliner based replacement of the B757. My thoughts have been swayed by the following.
I was told some time ago by a contact that the air force was not completely happy with the 757 in the strategic role (unofficially of course. )
The 757 is being replaced well before it becomes life expired, which is unusual in NZ. this would suggest that they want something different
One of the options for the FAMC suggested on page ten of the latest Air Force news is for a single type replacement for both roles. If this happened The low cabin noise levels of the C2 may be an advantage for the carriage of passengers. I am unaware of the cabin noise of the KC390 but would assume that it would be significantly lower than the A400 which vary's between 91.8 to 102.5 DB. due to it's use of turbo fans instead of props. Cockpit noise in the A400 is considered to be less than the C130 but high enough for ear protection. I think that the business case will be the deciding factor. However the election could throw a large spanner in the works.

 

[John Fedup]

Maybe NZ should approach Qatar to see if they are willing to part with a couple of their recently acquired C-17s. Given Qatar's current status in the region, the cash from a sale could be applied to weapons capable of fending off their neighbours. It's not like they the really need strategic lifters and I doubt the US would object to a sale to NZ. C-17s are less risky than A400s or C-2s. I must admit taking a hard look at the C-2 makes sense given the problematic A400 history.

 

[40 deg south]

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.

To steal a line from an opposing politician in tonight's Queenstown debate, "Mr Peters has more bottom lines than 100-year-old elephant". While I doubt there is much chance of this promise being fulfilled even if he does end up holding the balance of power, I still think it poses a risk to NZDF.

The most likely scenario if fast jets were acquired is that funding currently targeted towards transport and surveillance aircraft, plus base maintenance, would be redirected into a token number of low-end jets. These would be much more sexy but much less useful than the workhorse aircraft that NZ actually needs, and cost a small fortune to run.

This is, sadly, far more plausible than NZDF getting a funding boost to allow current replacement plans plus a new FJ capability.