John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Oz's classic Hornets going to NZ, wouldn't that make junior's day. It would certainly please many in the RCAF.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
It is a low cost on the capital side, at least initially. The problem comes when they need to be replaced in ten years. Will the pollies buy replacement jets then? Also, the Oz Hornets will require some capable support people to be trained and paid along with parts and weapons. Still, it is a reasonable way to attempt a return to fast jets.
t68
Well-Known Member
that's when Super Hornet may be available, but unfortunately they always will be behind the curve, unless they did a deal early and the RAAF order the remaining 28 aircraft to free up the F18F that would be a better deal from my perspective
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Not to be a killjoy, but I doubt that the RNZAF could effectively or efficiently raise an ACF from ex-RAAF F/A-18A/B Hornet HUG's...
Firstly, the RNZAF does not currently have any sort of training scheme in place to start training fast jet pilots.
Secondly, even if the issues surrounding establishing a stream of fast jet trained pilots could be resolved is the condition of the by then ex-RAAF HUG's.
The RAAF HUG's are due to start getting replaced when the F-35 deliveries start in 2020. Presumably the RAAF will retire the most worn or most utilized (as opposed to oldest) F/A-18A/B's first. At this point, the HUG fleet will be between 30 and 36 years old, and will have seen 30+ years of service. Assuming the RAAF withdraws the most heavily used aircraft first, then what would be available for the RNZAF (or the RCAF for that matter) to purchase initially is the least useful and/or most costly to operate and maintain Hornets. As further F-35 deliveries are made, then Hornets that had initially been in better condition could start becoming available. Keep in mind though that their conditions would continue to decline to a degree as they continue to see further use in RAAF service.
What this could mean for the RNZAF is that post-2020, the RNZAF might be able to get their hands on ex-RAAF Hornets, but in addition to pilots, would also immediately need to have very competent aircraft maintainers to support the aircraft. IMO the need for the ground crew and aircraft maintenance would be higher than the need for pilots, because it would be on the ground crew to determine which aircraft were safe to fly, and which were only good for parts.
The situation for Canada is somewhat different as Canada not only has the needed pilots (already rated in the Hornet) and piloting training in place, but also the ground crew and maintenance. In fact, while Canada has expressed some interest in the RAAF Hornets, the interest might be as a source for Hornet parts, as opposed to operational aircraft.
Per the RAAF site, the Australian Hornets have
Though that does not indicate exactly when the decade timer started. Assuming it started now (which I suspect it does not) that would mean at least some of the Hornets would be able to be effective until ~2028 or at least the start of that year.
Based off other estimates done in the past, it would likely take about five years for a group of pilots to regain proficiency in fighter operations. That would mean the best case scenario would give the RNZAF only about 3 years of operational use before needing to either replace the ex-RAAF aircraft, pay to SLEP/rebuild them, or once again disband the ACF. IMO it would be more likely that the RNZAF would have less operational time than that, because I doubt that the RAAF Hornets which could become available in 2020 would be ones in good enough condition to remain operational until 2028.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
While that would rank highly for entertainment value, the PM is shooting down the Defence Minister's trial balloon about re-establishing fast jet capability. The DefMin is from a minor party in coalition with Labour, and it looks like he is being reminded who is really in charge.Oz's classic Hornets going to NZ, wouldn't that make junior's day. It would certainly please many in the RCAF.
Sorry Canada - those Classic Hornets are yours for the taking!
Any way forward would be long and difficult, and as you mentioned, at least 5 years for pilot qualification, to which we would need to add leadership experience and training, so at the 5 year mark we would need to borrow flight leaders and squadron commanders to achieve a result.
A hornet deal if cheap enough could be used as a re-establishment move , but I would doubt that the hornets would constitute an effective operational unit within their lifetime.
As you indicated an effective training scheme whether by contract to another provider or raised in house would be needed to get the ball rolling.
I am a strong supporter of the re-establishment of an ACF but I am under no illusion that it is going to be a long road ahead to reach full operational status, I think it will take between ten and fifteen years. But as I have said before, if you don't start, you won't finnish and just because something is difficult is no excuse for not doing it, just doing the easy stuff seldom achieves significant results.
t68
Well-Known Member
I think the legacy Hornets are a cheap early stop gap in re-establishing a base line and command chain until a more modern aircraft is procured, would it be in the AuGov interest to gift 18 legacy aircraft to re-establish an ACF still moves the aircraft maintenance to a third party saving those cost to the RAAF.
I was think along the lines of gifting the actual airframes (18) but they would have to buy the spare inventory, also is there any spare capacity for LIFT training with the Hawk's, would also be interesting to see if there are any Kiwi pilots in the RAAF how would think of transfering back to the RNZAF.
I was think along the lines of gifting the actual airframes (18) but they would have to buy the spare inventory, also is there any spare capacity for LIFT training with the Hawk's, would also be interesting to see if there are any Kiwi pilots in the RAAF how would think of transfering back to the RNZAF.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
IMO, even gifting 18 legacy Hornets would not be viable. At best the aircraft have another decade of useful life left in them which means out to ~2028, and it would still be 2+ years before the RAAF might be ready to hand them over, Then likely 5+ years for Kiwi pilots to become proficient in the Hornets which means an operationally useful capability would not come online until 2025 at the earliest. The Hornets would also need to be replaced or upgraded and SLEP'd again by 2028. All the while, the ongoing cost of supporting and operating the Hornets is going to continue climbing, as it is within the RAAF currently. The question on whether there would be any RAAF Hornets in decent, flyable condition once they start getting replaced by the F-35's also remains unanswered.
The issue from my POV is not about what it costs to actually get the aircraft from the RAAF, but the actual cost to bring the aircraft and capability into service, and then cover the ongoing operating and support costs.
In addition to the existing RNZAF pilots, additional pilots would be needed due to more aircraft being brought into service, and the RNZAF does not currently have an appropriate training capability for that type of aircraft. Extra ground crew trained in supporting Hornets would need to gathered and trained, extra facilities, etc. All of that needs to be in place before the RNZAF could start operating and training on the Hornets themselves.
As is so often the case the ability to effectively manage the required logistics and support can make, or in this case most likely break a capability.
If (big IF) the RNZAF were to commit to raising and sustaining a fast jet ACF in the near and long-term, there are better routes to accomplishing this IMO. Getting 2nd hand fighters that have seen 30+ years of service is not the appropriate path to take.
If going for 2nd hand fighters, it would probably be better to check with the US to see if the US has any F-16's stored at Davis-Monthan AFB with low flight hours that it would be willing to sell and that could then be upgraded to a common standard.
Agreed, the US would be just as likely to "gift" a lower milage F-16 fleet from their larger (and growing) inventory and be better bang for buck which is a major consideration for any baseline ACF for NZ in terms of any aqquisition, operation, support and upgrades. Still a big ask and commitment either way.
Although somehow I think this is all moot just going off our new PMs vibe.....good one Winston.
Although somehow I think this is all moot just going off our new PMs vibe.....good one Winston.
Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
This all feels like a cruel tease but if Rob Mark is looking at this those hornets do have some pretty trick avionics that would help keeping them relevant but as you have all alluded to or stated structurally they would likely be non viable. Possible zero hour refurb?
As I understand it the usaf is not inducting any more f-16 hence the movement of the production line to smaller facilities. Also I believe the fleet has been worked pretty hard. Counter to that though they have had pilot shortages which may have limited some of the flying hours per frame.
If RM tags his reputation to this and defence can outstep the greens this could happen purely because of face saving on the part of NZ first. But if that has to happen I would think leasing gripen d's would have to be good option.
Prefer we got 18 s-3 vikings with the 4 p8's instead tho and more frigates.
18 S3,s???!!!!
Why?
Kiwis would be far better off with 5-6 dedicated MPA like the P8,s and P1,s.
As for a secondary MPA 4-6 dash 8,s or equivalents would do the trick. 18 S3,s wouldn't really be of much use. Lot of airframes for hunting 1980,s sub's that are not in NZ waters.
As for an air combat resurrection, I just can't see it happening with Labor and greens, no matter how much RM wants it.
If I could choose best case, it would be 4 more NH90,s. 2 MRRTT,s to replace the 737,s., 5 C2,s to replace the old hercs, 6 P1,s or P8,s for the P3,s, and 4 frigates for the Anzac's. Maybe swap out Cantabury for a Bay class or similar option. Replace the Army,s 105,s with 155,s maybe SP. Get some bushmasters, perhaps add another sqn to QMAR and imbedded veges.
Why?
Kiwis would be far better off with 5-6 dedicated MPA like the P8,s and P1,s.
As for a secondary MPA 4-6 dash 8,s or equivalents would do the trick. 18 S3,s wouldn't really be of much use. Lot of airframes for hunting 1980,s sub's that are not in NZ waters.
As for an air combat resurrection, I just can't see it happening with Labor and greens, no matter how much RM wants it.
If I could choose best case, it would be 4 more NH90,s. 2 MRRTT,s to replace the 737,s., 5 C2,s to replace the old hercs, 6 P1,s or P8,s for the P3,s, and 4 frigates for the Anzac's. Maybe swap out Cantabury for a Bay class or similar option. Replace the Army,s 105,s with 155,s maybe SP. Get some bushmasters, perhaps add another sqn to QMAR and imbedded veges.
RM was a fan of the balanced force concept that was the general government policy during the 80's and 90's and has on several occasions show a preference for the FA 50 to help re-establish this concept. As has been pointed out by others the establishment of a ACF would require an increase in training numbers , both for aircrew and ground crew so we may also require more T6's and instructors as well.
If the balanced force concept does become policy then a ACF would be part of that. I think that while some older second hand aircraft may be available (F16/18 ) the costs of keeping them operational may make a new buy of FA50's a better long term option.
If the balanced force concept does become policy then a ACF would be part of that. I think that while some older second hand aircraft may be available (F16/18 ) the costs of keeping them operational may make a new buy of FA50's a better long term option.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It is also quite possible, perhaps likely even, that more infrastructure would be required to support an ACF. More hangar space for new/extra trainers and the ACF, more shops for maintenance work, more storage for parts, etc. Then due to the increase in required personnel more barracks/housing would be required and so on.
All of these required incidentals, that most people do not even consider when looking at adding (or regaining) a capability quickly add up, both in terms of initial acquisition costs as well as ongoing costs.
IIRC the ongoing cost of operations and support for the ACF prior to disbanding has been ~NZD$200 mil. p.a. I would be curious to see what the estimates would be now for an ACF of ~24 aircraft based upon differing aircraft compositions. If I had to guess, I would expect the cost to be NZD$300+ mil. p.a. for a modern front line fighter, with some of the newer and more advanced models being even higher.
IMO it is this ongoing and support cost that really kills the idea of an ACF be re-established at the present time. There just is not enough room for NZD$300 mil. to get shifted around within the NZDF budget without causing existing capabilities to be further degraded or lost altogether.
To give an idea of how limited the funding is, I checked the 2009 NZDF annual report on the Naval Combat Force expenses, and between the Personnel and Operating costs the total was NZD$195 mil. That would suggest that, absent additional non-CAPEX funding for personnel, support and operations, it would be a choice between an ACF or retaining the frigate capability, or something else of similar cost and significance.
Exactly.
Agree mostly although I wouldn't swap out the 105s for 155s because I think that the 105s would fill a niche slot and both the ADF and US Army / USMC have 155s. I would go with 4 x C-2 and 4 x KC-130J just to cover the tactical role and AAR. 4 marinised NH90s and marinise the pre-existing 8 NH90s already in service. Or add 4 chooks, 2 more marinised NH90s and marinise the pre-existing 8 NH90s. a couple or 3 KC-30 MRTTs utilising used donor aircraft. A330-200s as donor aircraft would give great commonality with the RAAF. Most definitely 3 - 4 x FFGs and a LPD / LHD. Keep the Canterbury and use it as a logistical support vessel. Definitely don't want the RAAF classic hornets because of treasure and resources that would have to be invested in them for marginal, if any, gain. If and that's a big IF we went down the ACF path then KAI FA-50s would do the job.
Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
OK. This was under the same premise as "gifted", or cheap f18 or f-16's.
18? 6 as parts hulks 12 to operate as 3 dets of 4 to former up strike packages in the maritime strike role. Why not more p8/p1's instead? Cos the writing is on the wall. We'll be lucky if we get more than 4 and in that quantity we can't afford to loose one to enemy action so a cheaper platform is needed as the shooter complement to the sensor coordinator role of the p3 replacement. Sticker shock will hit hard which ever machine it is regardless of the excellent value both options represent and the value the p3 has given. The public sees billions and military switch to cynical.
Why S3? They were a very capable, sturdy, supportable and economical platform in usn service that are already wired for a wide range of weapons, sensor pods, refueling pods, link 16. They are very forgiving aircraft with good nimble handling and pretty long legs, refueling probe, with excellent airframe hours and use engines that are very close to their commercial equivalents. They mount a good Mad, still competitive synthetic aperture radar and particulate sniffers.
The are excellent SAR platforms and can take off and land from runways the p8 can't.
While invasion is just not likely in any scenario. You probably cant rule out sub/commerce/mine warfare to push us out of an alliance or bend us to another nations will should things destabilise further. It was attempted in the last two global conflicts. In that scenario you still need to provide convoy escort, maritime interdiction and patrols. The S3 can do that. Whether off our shores or someone else's.
It can't transport cargo like a c295. But we wouldn't be able to get enough c295's equipped in the same fashion as the S3. but I think it would be very foolish to write it off. There is a real value there. But again only if it's cheap.
Other components you mention totally agree. C2 and kc130 sounds like a good mix but I would add more 109's aswell to the rotor fleet.
Frigates and lpd? Stretch absalon to 155m add two more mtu and build six in Korea. Four as frigates two as lpd (would need the addition of either stern ramp or stern dock) . If Aus mount spike lr2 to their crv then mount them on our lavs and a rws mount.
What happens 10, 20 years down the track with us having an orphan S-3 fleet? No thanks and it cannot do half of what the P-8 or even the P-1 are capable of. Be realistic in that the S-3 is a 1980s carrier aircraft that would cost us a fortune to operate and sustain for the small capability set that it would give us. Most definitely not value for money. It would cost far to much to upgrade it so that it could be interoperable with our allies and coalition partners. It's not about replacing the P-3K2 with something of inferior capability. It's about acquiring platforms and capabilities that are better than what we are replacing. In fact nowadays the platform is only a taxi service for the capability sets.
The Absalon class are not frigates, nor are they meant to be. In todays world it is very much horses for courses and a hybrid FF / LPD is not going to work. Totally different missions and capability sets.
Ocean1Curse
Member
On the plus side P8-A does offer improved drone capability based loosely on the successful integration of the Armies Apache fleet to better communicate with drones like the Reaper. From the article I'll link below:
"The Navy is modernizing software for its Boeing P-8A multi-mission maritime surveillance aircraft to improve Anti-Submarine Warfare, Anti-Surface Warfare and operational integration with unmanned systems service officials said. "
For me RNZAF are left with 2 front running options if it wishes to reconstitute an ACF. 1) go with mothballed U.S F16's and buddy up with the Singaporeans/Australians for training ect. Or 2) make the jump to much cheaper drone options. I mean less the combat pilot training which costs more than drone pilots (or what ever we're calling em now. I just don't go down into that level of detail to often)
Both have there risks which I'm sure should be left to more qualified opinion takers to muse over. From memory it's all ready been established in this thread that an F-16 fleet is doable. And this maybe hear say but I think RNZAF making the jump to drones is doable. Especially if we want to think about increasing the P-8A fleet past 4 airframes and with in budget and all that. Because from where I'm sitting the upgrade horizon seems significantly grater for the P-8.
https://defensesystems.com/articles/2017/03/15/poseidon.aspx?m=2
"The Navy is modernizing software for its Boeing P-8A multi-mission maritime surveillance aircraft to improve Anti-Submarine Warfare, Anti-Surface Warfare and operational integration with unmanned systems service officials said. "
For me RNZAF are left with 2 front running options if it wishes to reconstitute an ACF. 1) go with mothballed U.S F16's and buddy up with the Singaporeans/Australians for training ect. Or 2) make the jump to much cheaper drone options. I mean less the combat pilot training which costs more than drone pilots (or what ever we're calling em now. I just don't go down into that level of detail to often)
Both have there risks which I'm sure should be left to more qualified opinion takers to muse over. From memory it's all ready been established in this thread that an F-16 fleet is doable. And this maybe hear say but I think RNZAF making the jump to drones is doable. Especially if we want to think about increasing the P-8A fleet past 4 airframes and with in budget and all that. Because from where I'm sitting the upgrade horizon seems significantly grater for the P-8.
https://defensesystems.com/articles/2017/03/15/poseidon.aspx?m=2
I would totally agree that drones would be a far better option for AC for NZ than going for a fighter trainer. CAS could be done with a drone and fit one with a pair of AIM 9,s and you basically have NZ air threat covered. The P3 replacement will need a long range ASM in my opinion. NZ will be safe. As for force projection, East Timor like deployments and disaster relief, C2,s and a bay class size ship would be ideal. Of course such a ship would need to be escorted, and stay on as well, and 2 FFG,s would be asking a lot. Minimum of 3 needed, 4 would be better. 1 deployed, 1 in NZ, 1 in refit or working up. A 4th would allow a lot more flexibility.
S3,s ? Nup.
S3,s ? Nup.
I actually think a drone would be a terrible idea for NZ if you are thinking of arming it for CAS and air defence.
Firstly no such drone capabilities exist and are not likely to any time soon. Secondly even if they do become available in the decade beyond 2030 (when they could be realistically introduced to service) they certainly aren’t going to be cheap...