It's certainly an interesting discussion.
Allowing for the difference b/w the current NZG Defence Policy and an accelerated, kinetic capability, the 'combat' UAS platforms have several issues. Both operational limitations in a contested environment (as discussed), cost (EG. $1B NZD), and mission limitations WRT the flexibility that a manned system such as F-35 gives.
Now while I'm a C-130 navigator by trade, I hope I'm not too much of a dinosaur. Including that I know that UAS types have relevant advantages. For South Pacific ISR and over-watch (with/out weapons) missions, this includes endurance and persistence from an MQ-9B type.
For the Loyal Wingman, I suspect their mission sets are more akin to close-in EW decoys, weapons carriers, and additional ISR of different flavors. All of them, probably require some sort of modern fast jet capability for use.
Again, if I were KFAD, I'd vote for manned systems due to their mission flexibility, and therefore cost efficiency, over specialist UAS's.
Let me repeat myself The Loyal Wingman has no combat / surveillance mission sets at all. C/REF
my post above. It is a
joint research and proof of concept program between Boeing Australia and the RAAF. I dislike repeating myself and have lost count of the times that I have had to repeat this point on the Aussie threads. Must be their convict genes or something
The definition of dinosaur depends upon if you were a Herc Nav when they first arrived, or during the 1990s. If you served as a Nav on the Hastings, best three engined aircraft RNZAF ever had, then you may qualify as a late Jurassic dinosaur.
The P-8A Poseidon has the ability to remotely operate some UAV, although it was intended to partner with the MQ-4C Triton. However the USN has gone cold on the idea because of the cost overruns and continual delays. At the moment the RAAF appear to be the only ones going with the Triton. The flyaway cost of the platform itself is almost as much as the Poseidon, then you have to pay for base stations and everything else associated with it. The base stations aren't cheap either and I am given to under cost the equivalent of the flyaway cost for 2 - 3 Poseidons. To put that in perspective, the NZMOD have found over time that as a rule of thumb with aviation acquisitions, all the extras such as maintenance, spares, training, manuals, simulators etc., can add an extra 50% to the flyaway cost of each aircraft. However that excludes the operational costs such as weapons, personnel costs, fuel etc, although that is calculated for the TOLC (Term Of Life Costs) and WOLC (Whole Of Life Costs) which include estimates of everything including in the case of 5 Sqn, their inflight gastronomic expectations,
The P-8A galley is going to be a big come down.
Whilst some people think that a future RNZAF ACF should include the F-35, I would hold off on that and for the start
IF we stand up an ACF 2.0 a 4+ or 4++ Gen capability would be far more appropriate because we will have to crawl, walk, run, again with our hands being held by other FVEY air arms and civilian DACT contractors. Also contrary to what others have been saying, I have been informed through back channels that it would take 10 years for NZ to fully stand up an ACF. 20 or so years after acquisition of the fast jets it is possible that we could skip the 5th Gen aircraft and go straight to 6th Gen if the capabilities, economics etc., were right.
Don't get me wrong I would love for an ACF to be re-established, but given NZ pollies and their distain towards defence, I don't hold my breath. Also Treasury fought for over 30 years to get rid of the ACF and I don't see them giving in meekly to establishing another one. They will fight tooth and nail against it.
