Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Todjaeger]

So rather than futile, I would argue that it is essential that the current RNZAF capability is raised.

Unless and until NZ decision-makers realize and understand the potential threats (or at least some of them) and therefore the rationale and utility of having and maintaining an ACF, including everything required to actually operate and sustain itself, then yes, stating that it is essential to raise an ACF is futile.

The NZDF budget as a whole entity likely has sufficient funding to start raising an ACF, but to do so would further wither existing NZDF capabilities, including ones which are also essential to NZ and all too often, already too small and underfunded/resourced.

In short, buy-in from policy and decision-makers is required, so that the additional funding and resources can be provided so that everything needed to raise an ACF could be done. This means being able to recruit the additional personnel to serve in the ACF as pilots and groundcrews or aircraft & ordnance maintainers. There would also likely be a need for additional base facilities (more aircraft so more hangars, likely expanded fuel storage and delivery, etc.) and/or even more bases used, with an associated increase in personnel to guard, maintain and utilize the expanded or additional facilities. Then there is the cost for base expansion, in addition to the costs involved in establishing and implementing a fast jet training syllabus, as well as the actual purchase of the fast jet trainers and fast jets themselves. I could keep going, but it should be clear by now that significant additional resources would be required, likely costing billions. To provide some context for numbers, a contract for 16 F-16 Block 70 to be built in Greenville SC by LockMart for Bahrain was signed in 2018 for USD$1.12 bil. which works out to a rough flyaway cost of USD$70 mil. per aircraft. Six years later and with US inflation numbers at 40 year highs... The flyaway cost for a mere dozen is going to approach if not exceed USD$1 bil. and honestly if NZ were to be raising an ACF, two dozen or more would likely be necessary to provide an actual, credible capability.

This all leads back to the question of how would the NZDF and RNZAF be able to afford to purchase and build everything which would be required by an ACF, as well as recruit, train and then retain all the additional personnel which would be needed either for the ACF, or to replace existing RNZAF personnel who transferred from their current posts to the ACF.

I just do not see Treasury and other policy and decision-makers in NZ increasing the NZDF budget beyond the existing ~NZD$4.2 bil. to anywhere near what would be required to start the multi-year process of raising, training and then establishing an ACF again. I do not see any such increase in Defence funding ever happening until those able to authorize such an increase actually start to realize and understand (and admit, at least to themselves) how precarious NZ's security situation really is.

 

[Aerojoe]

I can understand the wish for a ACF but no government, regardless of stripe, will go there in current environment of failing health and education systems requiring eye watering investments

 

[Gibbo]

I can understand the wish for a ACF but no government, regardless of stripe, will go there in current environment of failing health and education systems requiring eye watering investments

Yep, especially when the 2 parties talking up defence spending predicate their election planks on significant spending cuts! Anyway swiftly moving away from that territory like a scolded cat.... realistically the best we can probably hope for is continuance of the key DCP deliverables... SOPV; EMAC; Strategic airlift... ie: claw back the delays. That will allow some 'face saving' without blowing the budget & having the loony-left going ape at 'NZ's rampant militarisation'.

 

[Gooey]

Todg and Aero,

These are all solid arguments of the existing state of affairs. I have no counter.

Gibbo,

I'd put money on that horse, having experienced the last 4 decades of kiwi inwards looking, exceptionalism.

My thoughts are we should not pretend that the strategic environment which allowed this 40 years of NZ silliness, has remained constant. Rather than benign, or even competition, the term strategic peril is more appropriate.

Likewise, any maritime strategy requires kinetic airpower. Without it, it is unbalanced. While NZG and the so called NZDF may not accept and recognise this, it does not mean that the RNZAF should not have an ACF. It is both affordable, and necessary. That is why I am disagreeing with you that it should not be raised.

 

[Stampede]

Unless and until NZ decision-makers realize and understand the potential threats (or at least some of them) and therefore the rationale and utility of having and maintaining an ACF, including everything required to actually operate and sustain itself, then yes, stating that it is essential to raise an ACF is futile.

The NZDF budget as a whole entity likely has sufficient funding to start raising an ACF, but to do so would further wither existing NZDF capabilities, including ones which are also essential to NZ and all too often, already too small and underfunded/resourced.

In short, buy-in from policy and decision-makers is required, so that the additional funding and resources can be provided so that everything needed to raise an ACF could be done. This means being able to recruit the additional personnel to serve in the ACF as pilots and groundcrews or aircraft & ordnance maintainers. There would also likely be a need for additional base facilities (more aircraft so more hangars, likely expanded fuel storage and delivery, etc.) and/or even more bases used, with an associated increase in personnel to guard, maintain and utilize the expanded or additional facilities. Then there is the cost for base expansion, in addition to the costs involved in establishing and implementing a fast jet training syllabus, as well as the actual purchase of the fast jet trainers and fast jets themselves. I could keep going, but it should be clear by now that significant additional resources would be required, likely costing billions. To provide some context for numbers, a contract for 16 F-16 Block 70 to be built in Greenville SC by LockMart for Bahrain was signed in 2018 for USD$1.12 bil. which works out to a rough flyaway cost of USD$70 mil. per aircraft. Six years later and with US inflation numbers at 40 year highs... The flyaway cost for a mere dozen is going to approach if not exceed USD$1 bil. and honestly if NZ were to be raising an ACF, two dozen or more would likely be necessary to provide an actual, credible capability.

This all leads back to the question of how would the NZDF and RNZAF be able to afford to purchase and build everything which would be required by an ACF, as well as recruit, train and then retain all the additional personnel which would be needed either for the ACF, or to replace existing RNZAF personnel who transferred from their current posts to the ACF.

I just do not see Treasury and other policy and decision-makers in NZ increasing the NZDF budget beyond the existing ~NZD$4.2 bil. to anywhere near what would be required to start the multi-year process of raising, training and then establishing an ACF again. I do not see any such increase in Defence funding ever happening until those able to authorize such an increase actually start to realize and understand (and admit, at least to themselves) how precarious NZ's security situation really is.

A ACF with 5 / 4.5 gen aircraft while desirable is probably a bridge to far.
The training aircraft plus fighters and infrastructure certainly is a big investment.

But take a step down to acquiring only 16 / 18 fast jet trainers and you still get significant force projection for the money spent.
Yes their will be investment needed and yes their are also other priority's in a balanced defence force.
You could realistically probably deploy around 6 / 8 aircraft.
Something for an adversary to consider compared to the current NZ option of none.
Financially NZ should be able to afford such a capability.
As to the politics!
Hmmmmmmmmm

Cheers S

 

[Rob c]

Even if the government did restart the AFC The procurement of high end combat aircraft would be 10 to 15 years away and in my view more like 15 years. What has to be remembered is that from a NZ defensive point of view, that in the event of conflict in our area we are well outside the combat radius of land based strike aircraft. This means that to defend NZ long range modern anti air and sea weapons and the systems to use them are more important than the launch platform itself.
I think that any start to an AFC would be done on the cheep with second hand or leased aircraft and later moving up to modern combat capable trainers like the T-TA-FA 50 at about the 5 to 10 year mark or second hand F6 or F18. Until the AFC was fully up to speed their is no point in going or anything high end unless the powers to be have some sort of ego fixation they need to pander to. Until that time I would think that the whole thing could cost between $2 to $3B over the next 10 to 15 years. The simple reality we still need to do the long walk before we can run. Full utilization of current facilities should enable us (with some upgrades) to operate effectively. On reflection we operated over 90 aircraft in 1990 from the bases we currently have, Less Hobby which was not a great loss with only one hangar in use at the time.

 

[Aerojoe]

I stand by my call that the economic and domestic political settings for the foreseeable future rule out reestablishing an ACF. If the desire is to make a potential adversary think twice then a focus on the weapons fit of P8A is a more realistic approach - any adversary to NZ territory faces crossing an expansive marine environment. An expanded NZ P8A fleet with future LRASM capability would be a more daunting threat for adversaries and could potentially even be able to be sold to the electorate by the main parties ( even if one would still have its panties in a bunch).

 

[Todjaeger]

Likewise, any maritime strategy requires kinetic airpower. Without it, it is unbalanced. While NZG and the so called NZDF may not accept and recognise this, it does not mean that the RNZAF should not have an ACF. It is both affordable, and necessary. That is why I am disagreeing with you that it should not be raised.

You seem to misunderstand my position.

I am not stating that the NZDF and RNZAF should not have an ACF. What I am stating is that it is futile for us here on DT to go on and on about a Kiwi ACF until either NZ policy & decision makers, or the Kiwi public at large, get convinced that an ACF is a desirable or needed capability. Once they (policy/decision-makers, the public, or both) get onboard with raising an ACF, then needed levels of funding have to be provided and then funding streams maintained.

To state that it (an ACF) is affordable is only true if one is talking about what is available in the whole of gov't budget, as the Vote Defence budget is insufficient without gutting current and planned future capabilities which are also used/needed. Raising a squadron or two of fighter, attack, or maritime strike fast jets would provide very little useful capability if it meant that the P-8A Poseidon acquisition had to be canceled to free up funding. Or if the frigates had to be paid off to make room in the Defence budget. In addition to Vote Defence needing to be increased so that new/additional/replacement kit can be acquired and in the needed numbers to meet current and projected future needs, Vote Defence would need to be increased beyond that in order for an ACF to be funded. Heck, the flyaway costs for a dozen KAI TA-50 Golden Eagle fast jet trainers (not the attack version, those cost ~USD$30 mil. each, not USD$21 mil.) is north of USD$250 mil. with the training and ongoing logistics/support required in order to actually operate the aircraft costing more still.

It is unfortunate, but also reality, that so many in NZ seem unable or perhaps unwilling, to take a realistic look at the world situation and then make policy decisions based upon how things actually are, as opposed to how some of the ideologues seem to believe things should be. As it stands now, it seems almost as if a hostile TF could be rounding Sinclair Head and some Kiwi observers could be looking through pairs of View Master stereoscopes and see nothing but pretty pictures instead of what they might see using binoculars or heck, just the Mk I Eyeball.

TBH though, it still seems as though even many kiwi DT members exhibit a similar degree of 'sea blindness' that the Kiwi public and members of gov't and politics seem to have. If NZDF assets are responding to threats within the NZ EEZ or NZ airspace, then it is already far too late. NZ needs to be able to respond much further out, either forward deploying to deal with threats whilst they are a safe distance from NZ/Kiwi concerns, or to cover capabilities needed by allies whilst they are responding. Also (and this gets back to the issue of 'sea blindness') given how interconnected NZ is to the rest of the trading world and global economy and how dependent NZ is on both imports and exports, much of this Kiwi trade can be threatened or disrupted well away from NZ's EEZ.

In order for something like an ACF to get raised, either the world security situation needs to get drastically worse quite rapidly, to the point where neither politicians or the public can ignore it. Otherwise, the public needs to realize how naive they have been in believing that unless someone is actually shelling or landing in NZ, they are not a threat. One question to ponder is, "how much has the cost of fuel increased since the end of Feb?"

Where I am (in the US) the avg cost of fuel has gone up ~50% from a year ago, and that is without a conflict where one party is able to successfully interdict a significant portion of petroleum shipments and/or refined product. Just imagine how bad the situation could get if a conflict were to occur and major terminals and refineries were to get taken over or knocked offline.

 

[Rob c]

I stand by my call that the economic and domestic political settings for the foreseeable future rule out reestablishing an ACF. If the desire is to make a potential adversary think twice then a focus on the weapons fit of P8A is a more realistic approach - any adversary to NZ territory faces crossing an expansive marine environment. An expanded NZ P8A fleet with future LRASM capability would be a more daunting threat for adversaries and could potentially even be able to be sold to the electorate by the main parties ( even if one would still have its panties in a bunch).

That can cover the seaward area, but at the expense of putting a very important platform in harms way. We also have air approaches to worry about. The reason that the air force upgraded the Skyhawks and fitted air to surface missiles to them, was that we did not have enough P3's and they where too important, to risk them as missile carrier's I was at the briefing by the C.A.S when this decision was relayed to us as why the upgrade to P3K would not include the fitting of missiles .

 

[Aerojoe]

That can cover the seaward area, but at the expense of putting a very important platform in harms way. We also have air approaches to worry about. The reason that the air force upgraded the Skyhawks and fitted air to surface missiles to them, was that we did not have enough P3's and they where too important, to risk them as missile carrier's I was at the briefing by the C.A.S when this decision was relayed to us as why the upgrade to P3K would not include the fitting of missiles .

I don’t dispute any past discussions you refer to. I’m simply suggesting some recognition of current day reality needs to be applied. There isn’t a blank cheque. In other parts of society some would argue the spending you’re proposing should be used to provide reduced hospital waiting lists, more teachers and address homelessness. It’s unfortunate the ACF capability was lost but the reality is that having gone any political party saying they would fund re-establishing an ACF would be committing political suicide - they all know that.

 

[Xthenaki]

I don’t dispute any past discussions you refer to. I’m simply suggesting some recognition of current day reality needs to be applied. There isn’t a blank cheque. In other parts of society some would argue the spending you’re proposing should be used to provide reduced hospital waiting lists, more teachers and address homelessness. It’s unfortunate the ACF capability was lost but the reality is that having gone any political party saying they would fund re-establishing an ACF would be committing political suicide - they all know that.

i Agree that there is no blank cheque but reestablishing an ACF is definately affordable if financed in tranches over sustained periods. In other words by progression in re-establishment. Whilst the internal priorities you have mentioned above need addressing our Sovereignty is paramount and our internal priorities would no longer exist if we taken over or surrounded by a foreign force.

 

[Gooey]

Todj and Aero,

I agree with the points that you make. Particularly, the low level of existing NZG funding for defence that strangles any ability for the nation to operate war fighting equipment. Likewise, the optics for the current herd of politicians to increase military funding when there is always more hospitals, schools, and iwi to fund.

My argument remains that NZDF is unbalanced and it is not futile to voice this.

 

[Rob c]

We are all tending to repeat ourselves and I would suggest we wait and see if any of the political promises to increase defence spending bear fruit. However emailing appropriate Pollies regularly on the subject and applying some pressure will do no harm, the more times they have to commit themselves, the less likely the see away of backing out.

 

[htbrst]

... I was at the briefing by the C.A.S when this decision was relayed to us as why the upgrade to P3K would not include the fitting of missiles .

And ironically, there's a post from the RNZAF yesterday about the air ordnance specialist trade coming to an end at 5 squadron now the P-8's are on their way.

https://www.facebook.com/NZAirForce/posts/367956695519576

 

[recce.k1]

And ironically, there's a post from the RNZAF yesterday about the air ordnance specialist trade coming to an end at 5 squadron now the P-8's are on their way.

https://www.facebook.com/NZAirForce/posts/367956695519576

RNZAF have been "catching up" rearranging trades/names to be more "current" (and "gender neutral").

Looks like most of the "air ordnance" functions will come under the "Armament Technician" trade name/function .... like they are in the RAAF "Aircraft Armament Technician".

Plus looking at the various roles the "Air Ordnance Specialist" carried out on the P-3 Orions (in the accompanying NZDF article), eg life-raft support, "preparation and deployment of Expendable Mobile Acoustics Training Targets, Phosphorus Smoke Markers, Electronic Signal Underwater Sound, Gun Flares, 406 Locator Beacons and other various droppable survival aids" (plus other "oddities" like food and PPE provisioning), it suggests the functions will still be needed.

Perhaps the NZDF article should have been more clearer as to who will undertake these functions on the new P-8's? Otherwise it could make a good follow up article.

Although interestingly the Defence Careers/Armament Technician webpage info doesn't mention being part of on-board aircrew. Whether this is a given (or simply a "copy" omission), perhaps the Govt needs to support plans by Defence to better arm the Poseidons to ensure that (as the days of dropping Mk82 drag-bombs are over)!

 

[RubiconNZ]

A couple of RAAF PC-21’s visiting Ohakea today it seems. That’s a long flight via Norfolk I would imagine. RAAF C130 visiting the north island.

 

[recce.k1]

A couple of RAAF PC-21’s visiting Ohakea today it seems. That’s a long flight via Norfolk I would imagine. RAAF C130 visiting the north island.

Interesting comparing the starting salaries of for example the RNZAF Armament Technician (NZ$51,905) & RAAF Aircraft Armament Technician (AU$73,253) ... as of today that works out to be NZ$81,140.42. No wonder why some of our best and qualified Kiwi's cross the ditch for better employment opportunities (and hopefully that visiting RAAF C130 hasn't scooped up a bunch of newly graduated recruits and is heading back with them)! Seriously though, just like other sectors (eg health and education) that saw decent salary increases when Labour came to power, perhaps it is time this (and the next) Govt. did the same for the likes of the Defence Force and Policing/Fire and Emergency etc, as their skillsets are becoming ever more crucial in this changing world!

 

[ImJustDubzzz]

A couple of RAAF PC-21’s visiting Ohakea today it seems. That’s a long flight via Norfolk I would imagine. RAAF C130 visiting the north island.

They're here to participate in Exercise Raven Kahu, some quick notes about it:

- 8 - 19 August
- up to 4 PC-21s participating, all 4 arrived at RNZAF Base Ohakea on the 5th of August, where they are being based for the duration of the Exercise.
- JTAC and FAC(A) training with a heavy focus on enhancing the NZDFs capabilities in these areas
- First time the RAAF PC-21 deployed internationally for an activity

Here's the source.

 

[ImJustDubzzz]

Would anyone here have a clue as to why the Beech 200 King Air which I thought was retired and replaced in lieu of the King Air 350, is still operating under the RNZAF and out of Ohakea? Unless I'm completely wrong and they weren't retired but I was under the impression that they were when the King Air 350 was in service.

 

[Pepe le pew]

Would anyone here have a clue as to why the Beech 200 King Air which I thought was retired and replaced in lieu of the King Air 350, is still operating under the RNZAF and out of Ohakea? Unless I'm completely wrong and they weren't retired but I was under the impression that they were when the King Air 350 was in service.

As far as I know the Beech 200 aircraft were fully replaced by the B350s in 2020.

Hawker Pacific successfully delivers special missions capability to New Zealand | Jet Aviation

The B200s (which were leased from Hawker Pacific) returned to Australia. Now in service with RFDS according to this article.

Hawker Pacific King Air 350 planes based to Ōhakea | Stuff.co.nz

I have just checked Flightradar24 and their are currently two B350s in the circuit at Ohakea but no evidence of any B200s.