Royal New Zealand Air Force

[OPSSG]

Our NZ colleagues no doubt can offer better insight as to what an increase to 2% GDP can actually accomplish and if it is politically possible. NZ has been out of the fast jet business for some time now, unfortunately this is unlikely to change short of a mega deterioration in the geopolitical situation. Numerous posts here have emphasized the SLOC issue and the need for a better frigate fleet. Certainly a 2% GDP budget would go a long to making a 4 frigate fleet possible and preferably T-26s to better address the Asia Pacific submarine proliferation threat.

If you ask me, I don’t think a fantasy fleet discussion would really help us gain better insights. I would love it if Singapore could have NZ tag-along purchases to ours be it frigates (Victory class replacements) or submarines (Invincible class boats) - but not grounded in reality. I think to keep the various NZDF discussion threads somewhat grounded in reality has value - such as examining T-26 pros and cons in the navy side.

Not only that, but the C-2 is not built using new ground breaking technologies, but current MOTS and COTS technologies, so in that area it is less riskier. The real risk with it from a NZ pov, is it's lack of foreign buyers and low production numbers.

I like the C-2 very much too but it could well become a fantasy fleet discussion for both NZ or Singapore. In both our cases, the C-130J is the leading candidate.

IMHO, it is important to consolidate gains in NZDF capability that is relevant to local politicians. That way funding is assured. Even for Singapore, with Malaysian assistance in violating our port limits, then our politicians dare to spend incrementally 2% more viz a viz other priorities for the Victory Class replacements or what is called the multirole combat vessel (see my post in the RSN capabilities thread). The Singapore government will spend about S$22.7 billion, or 30 per cent of its total expenditure in Financial Year (FY) 2019, on defence, security and diplomacy, Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat announced in his Budget statement on Feb 18. In FY2018, defence, security and diplomacy spending accounted for about 28 per cent of the total Government expenditure.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

If you ask me, I don’t think a fantasy fleet discussion would really help us gain better insights. I would love it if Singapore could have NZ tag-along purchases to ours be it frigates (Victory class replacements) or submarines (Invincible class boats) - but not grounded in reality. I think to keep the various NZDF discussion threads somewhat grounded in reality has value - such as examining T-26 pros and cons in the navy side.


I like the C-2 very much too but it could well become a fantasy fleet discussion for both NZ or Singapore. In both our cases, the C-130J is the leading candidate.

IMHO, it is important to consolidate gains in NZDF capability that is relevant to local politicians. That way funding is assured. Even for Singapore, with Malaysian assistance in violating our port limits, then our politicians dare to spend incrementally 2% more viz a viz other priorities for the Victory Class replacements or what is called the multirole combat vessel (see my post in the RSN capabilities thread). The Singapore government will spend about S$22.7 billion, or 30 per cent of its total expenditure in Financial Year (FY) 2019, on defence, security and diplomacy, Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat announced in his Budget statement on Feb 18. In FY2018, defence, security and diplomacy spending accounted for about 28 per cent of the total Government expenditure.

For tactical, absolutely I'd agree,but the C130 J-30 hopefully gets chosen, we were referring to the strategic solution being C2 or A400M given that even defence was considering C17 under National.

Though at least we have a few more years to decide on that. How expensive would a commercial combi solution though compare to a C2, i would prefer we don't go down that track again.

 

[OPSSG]

For tactical, absolutely I'd agree,but the C130 J-30 hopefully gets chosen, we were referring to the strategic solution being C2 or A400M given that even defence was considering C17 under National.

Though at least we have a few more years to decide on that. How expensive would a commercial combi solution though compare to a C2, i would prefer we don't go down that track again.

Thanks for clearing that up for me and providing context.

 

[RegR]

@RegR have you been reading what I and some others, such as Mr C have been posting about what has been stated in the FAMC RFI? We've actually read the document, plus the attachments to it, and some of us have copies of it as well which we keep referring to. You will also note reading our past posts, that Mr C and myself have been quite scathing of the failure of the Key govt to buy the two C-17A white tails. that was a colossal blunder on their part, because the decision was made purely on flawed political ideological reasons.

It's nothing to do with the old mantra of replacing a Herc with a Herc. It's about what's the best platform to meet NZ's tactical air lift capability requirements and at present the C-130J meets those requirements. I agree 8 would be a good number, but given the history of NZ acquisitions and the current govts attitude towards defence, it would be a very remote outside chance at the best. I wouldn't even bet Winston's starboard dangler on it. Having a two tier military transport fleet comprised of aircraft with ramps is ideal, because one component is tactical, whilst the other is strategic, hence a C-130J and A400M / C-2 fleet makes sense.

Yes actually I read everyone's interpretations of the desirable tea leaves. I also read all the tooing and froing, chopping and changing, guessing and unguessing....and that's just the govt...

If I was to believe every govt project wish list to date we would be looking at a very different defence force nevermind the wishlists on here. You just have to read back through this and the other NZDF threads to see the developments, or not, of what has been stated.

 

[MrConservative]

the C-2 is not built using new ground breaking technologies, but current MOTS and COTS technologies, so in that area it is less riskier. The real risk with it from a NZ pov, is it's lack of foreign buyers and low production numbers.

There is a degree of parts bin raiding for the C-2 from the US aerospace firms based around Aichi prefecture.

One thing worth mentioning is if the RNZAF did buy the C-2 as the first foreign customer, the positive press in Japan for New Zealand would be huge. A lead story on NHK 7pm news and other networks, in all the major newspapers and news magazines.

 

[ngatimozart]

Yes actually I read everyone's interpretations of the desirable tea leaves. I also read all the tooing and froing, chopping and changing, guessing and unguessing....and that's just the govt...

If I was to believe every govt project wish list to date we would be looking at a very different defence force nevermind the wishlists on here. You just have to read back through this and the other NZDF threads to see the developments, or not, of what has been stated.

There's a big difference between a project wish list and a Cabinet approved RFI. The RFI nailed things down sufficiently to see where the Cabinet was willing to look. Unfortunately the RFTs for both this and the FASC were not made public, so we cannot ascertain what made the cut and what didn't. However the Cabinet C-17 acquisition papers were and much was gleaned from those. Yes, it's a matter of reading the tea leaves, but it is also a matter of reading documentation and papers that have been released to gain an understanding of the govts priorities and possible thinking. Since this is a public forum it provides an ability to proffer both plaudits and informed criticism with informed suggestions of the GOTD, with regard to defence, as well as a platform for robust discussion.

 

[RegR]

There's a big difference between a project wish list and a Cabinet approved RFI. The RFI nailed things down sufficiently to see where the Cabinet was willing to look. Unfortunately the RFTs for both this and the FASC were not made public, so we cannot ascertain what made the cut and what didn't. However the Cabinet C-17 acquisition papers were and much was gleaned from those. Yes, it's a matter of reading the tea leaves, but it is also a matter of reading documentation and papers that have been released to gain an understanding of the govts priorities and possible thinking. Since this is a public forum it provides an ability to proffer both plaudits and informed criticism with informed suggestions of the GOTD, with regard to defence, as well as a platform for robust discussion.

And there it is 'possible thinking', not a forgone conclusion in sight, we are getting there. And this is what I am saying, everything is merely a possibility until it actually happens, C17 and LOSC have proven that so perhaps we need to tone down a little on the matter of factness? All these documents do is prioritise the (desired) direction not nesscessarily the (final) destination per se as there are still differing avenues, be it slight or wide, right up until the final D is made, for example up until recently we were getting a new build purpose built ship with all the bells and whistles and now we have a re-purposed ship with the bells to do the same job, slight change to say the least so actually the "new" ship was/is just an idea, a well intentioned and intended idea, but an idea nonetheless. All projects are up until a point.

 

[t68]

And there it is 'possible thinking', not a forgone conclusion in sight, we are getting there. And this is what I am saying, everything is merely a possibility until it actually happens, C17 and LOSC have proven that so perhaps we need to tone down a little on the matter of factness? All these documents do is prioritise the (desired) direction not nesscessarily the (final) destination per se as there are still differing avenues, be it slight or wide, right up until the final D is made, for example up until recently we were getting a new build purpose built ship with all the bells and whistles and now we have a re-purposed ship with the bells to do the same job, slight change to say the least so actually the "new" ship was/is just an idea, a well intentioned and intended idea, but an idea nonetheless. All projects are up until a point.

Wasn't that due to raiding the defence piggy bank because the frigate up grade went over budget?

Has anything else of late gone over that might affect the bottom line for the replacement aircraft?

 

[ngatimozart]

And there it is 'possible thinking', not a forgone conclusion in sight, we are getting there. And this is what I am saying, everything is merely a possibility until it actually happens, C17 and LOSC have proven that so perhaps we need to tone down a little on the matter of factness? All these documents do is prioritise the (desired) direction not nesscessarily the (final) destination per se as there are still differing avenues, be it slight or wide, right up until the final D is made, for example up until recently we were getting a new build purpose built ship with all the bells and whistles and now we have a re-purposed ship with the bells to do the same job, slight change to say the least so actually the "new" ship was/is just an idea, a well intentioned and intended idea, but an idea nonetheless. All projects are up until a point.

Yep, they do and that is what we have to work with. You are dead right about the final decision and with hindsight we may obtain an understanding of the thinking of the decision makers. Both the C-17A and LOSC decisions were purely political, for different reasons. One already stated and the second to make a political point and they could've funded the extra FSU spending in the upcoming budget (2018 / 19 or 2019 / 20), or it could've been approved by Cabinet as extra funding and a politically scathing point still be made. I don't like foregone conclusions when dealing with pollies except the one that if there is a way of stuffing it up they will find it.

The previous govt from 2016 onwards had appeared to accept that they had to take a long term rational view of defence acquisition and that the information and advice they were getting from the MOD was of good quality and well founded. Unfortunately the current govt, except for the DEFMIN, appear to have not reached the same conclusion, plus they have a different set of priorities with defence well down the list. The previous govt's downfall was that they wouldn't make a decision because it would cost money and whilst they talked the big talk, they didn't walk the walk by not budgeting the $20 billion CAPEX over 10 - 15 years.

If you ask me, I don’t think a fantasy fleet discussion would really help us gain better insights. I would love it if Singapore could have NZ tag-along purchases to ours be it frigates (Victory class replacements) or submarines (Invincible class boats) - but not grounded in reality. I think to keep the various NZDF discussion threads somewhat grounded in reality has value - such as examining T-26 pros and cons in the navy side.


I like the C-2 very much too but it could well become a fantasy fleet discussion for both NZ or Singapore. In both our cases, the C-130J is the leading candidate.

IMHO, it is important to consolidate gains in NZDF capability that is relevant to local politicians. That way funding is assured. Even for Singapore, with Malaysian assistance in violating our port limits, then our politicians dare to spend incrementally 2% more viz a viz other priorities for the Victory Class replacements or what is called the multirole combat vessel (see my post in the RSN capabilities thread). The Singapore government will spend about S$22.7 billion, or 30 per cent of its total expenditure in Financial Year (FY) 2019, on defence, security and diplomacy, Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat announced in his Budget statement on Feb 18. In FY2018, defence, security and diplomacy spending accounted for about 28 per cent of the total Government expenditure.

I don't think it's so much fantasy fleet but more options and NZ govt's continual neglect of defence. That neglect has occurred since 1991 because of an economical theory and both major parties have found it politically convenient to continue with that line, to the point that they have an unwritten agreement not to debate defence during the lead up to elections.

 

[MrConservative]

They didn't walk the walk by not budgeting the $20 billion CAPEX over 10 - 15 years.

No government sets aside a full $20B over 15 years and parks it up in a special little bank account, they plan to do it using a rolling forward forecast. They had the first 4 years allocated under the PREFU and adjust it over time. Following years are then accounted for / budgeted under the next PREFU period.

 

[Rob c]

Just for interest I saw a C17 at Ohakea this morning and later on today there was a trio of single seaters lining up to land at Ohakea. It was too far away to Identify the single seaters or the markings on the C17, but I assume they were Australian and the single seaters were F18's . Anyone know why they are here?

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Just for interest I saw a C17 at Ohakea this morning and later on today there was a trio of single seaters lining up to land at Ohakea. It was too far away to Identify the single seaters or the markings on the C17, but I assume they were Australian and the single seaters were F18's . Anyone know why they are here?

Here's our chance, quick , pinch one C17 while they're not look looking and swap the kangaroo insignia for a kiwi one.

 

[ngatimozart]

Just for interest I saw a C17 at Ohakea this morning and later on today there was a trio of single seaters lining up to land at Ohakea. It was too far away to Identify the single seaters or the markings on the C17, but I assume they were Australian and the single seaters were F18's . Anyone know why they are here?

RAAF C-17 and F-18s for Classic Fighters at Omaka (Blenheim) this weekend. There is F-18 display, but not sure about a C-17 display.

 

[Traveller]

Here's our chance, quick , pinch one C17 while they're not look looking and swap the kangaroo insignia for a kiwi one.

Haha....typical Kiwi....there is a reason the RNZAF uses a flightless bird as its insignia

If you were going to 'borrow' I would have thought you would take the F-18's.

 

[t68]

Haha....typical Kiwi....there is a reason the RNZAF uses a flightless bird as its insignia

If you were going to 'borrow' I would have thought you would take the F-18's.

Yeah they might have got away with having someone on the inside saying delivery's have been accepted in advance to RCAF, the RAAF/RCAF might not miss a few gone walkabout

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Haha....typical Kiwi....there is a reason the RNZAF uses a flightless bird as its insignia

If you were going to 'borrow' I would have thought you would take the F-18's.

I thought 'borrowing ' a few F18 would be trickier, seeing we haven't any experianced fighter pilots left, some of which ironically went to serve in the RAAF !

 

[ngatimozart]

Borrowing is not the term. The correct term is "liberating" as per Air Board Orders .... well it was liberating when I was in and I think that the term may harken back to WW2 days when the RNZAF fought alongside the USN & USMC in the Pacific Islands. My dad served there and he did mention in passing of US stores and equipment being acquired without the necessary paperwork, nor the US supply people knowledge of said issuing. I know that he personally liberated a 20 lb pat of butter once and some quantity of beer at various times. Found out about that at his funeral It's interesting because the RNZAF call smoko "Joe break" and that term is not one that came from the RAF and don't think it's used in the RAAF either. I believe that it is a term that comes from Pacific War in WW2 because the Americans call coffee joe, so Kiwis there would've picked up on it and just started using the term, bringing it back with them. So there was an American influence on the RNZAF culture during WW2 that has lasted.

 

[ngatimozart]

Yeah they might have got away with having someone on the inside saying delivery's have been accepted in advance to RCAF, the RAAF/RCAF might not miss a few gone walkabout

We do have photographic evidence of an Avro Vulcan in RNZAF markings, taken at Ohakea circa 1973 from memory.

 

[Rob c]

Haha....typical Kiwi....there is a reason the RNZAF uses a flightless bird as its insignia

In the long distant past the kiwi could fly which while not perfect is somewhat better than a kangaroo.
mind you a kangaroo burger probably tastes better. But as for flight hmm

 

[Xthenaki]

In the long distant past the kiwi could fly which while not perfect is somewhat better than a kangaroo.
mind you a kangaroo burger probably tastes better. But as for flight hmm

I did here from an Aussie mate that his brother who had been wounded in Vietnam and hospitalised there witnessed a digger trying to sell an American "Genuine Kangaroo feathers".