NZDF General discussion thread

[Stampede]

Not unless the OPV role is conducted by a vessel much larger than currently envisaged and acts more as a patrolable MRV utilising deployed minor surface and sub-surface craft including autonomous vehicles.

No. That idea was rejected 35 years ago when it was proposed pre Anzac and the conditions within our 21st strategic environment going forward make it even less realistic.

Yes it can. Even after the initial hit from Covid the economy is far more resilient than these so called countries that can afford high end military equipment.

You can get a Hobart sized vessel with comparable capability for a lots less than the Hobarts cost. New Zealand can afford four Frigates. Always was able to, always will be. Don't confuse choice to do or not to do something something with ability to do something.

How is this so with respect to providing a more "realistic and balanced option to NZ and her allies? Have you any evidence to substantial your claim?

New Zealand and its sea lines of communication which are amongst the longest in the world (and the reason why a fleet of OPV's was laughed off 35 years ago when suggested by well meaning, but ill-informed, amateurs) does not get to choose. New Zealand will not have some kind of miraculous protection from harms ways. Are you somehow related to Wayne Mapp? This is so misguided a comment I am speechless. It makes no recognition of the maritime domain threats that New Zealand faces are exactly the same as any other country within the Indo-Pacific.

Thanks MrConservative for the reply.

My proposal is with the benefit of hind sight and a view to the future.
Ideally NZ would of purchased 4 ANZAC's back in the day in addition to some OPV's.
But four ANZAC's became three, which finally became two and today you have one ( if that ) to provide government some maritime options supported with by a 25 mm pop gun on an OPV.

Not a great outcome made worse if the nation is tested in the 2018 to 2021 time frame of the ANZAC's upgrade


Can NZ afford more?
Absolutely and a look at your similar sized nations in Singapore and Denmark point to what can be achieved.

But here's the big if.

Will NZ spend the money?

I think we both recognise the challenged world we are in and going forward it is not looking pretty.

So will NZ double its frigate force going forward?
Invest in additional OPVs and all the other planned surface ships.
Not to mention doing justice to the other services.

This is serious money that I just don't believe will be forth coming.
So yes we can have our fleet suggestions, but without coin from treasury it "ain't gonna happen".

But the purchase of six light 2500T moderately armed frigates maybe more palatable to a defence shy electorate.

The ANZAC's will no doubt be flogged to death and wont be replaced until the mid thirty's, but a decision on an additional OPV and the Protector Class replacement will be made this decade.

An opportunity to reshape the New Zealand Navy is at hand.
Four Hunter Class with all the other stuff would be great, but realistically !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nup

So again hard and difficult choices will need to be made whether we , you and I like it or not.

@Stampede Can you please sort out your BB Coding. It's creating problems when people are quoting your posts and the Moderators are getting sick of editing your mistakes.
Ngatimozart





Regards S

 

[ngatimozart]

@Stampede it's not that the electorate is defence shy so much; it's the political class and the bureaucracy, especially Treasury. Treasury worked for 4 decades to get rid of the ACF because they saw it as a waste of money. To them it didn't do anything. They don't or refuse to understand the concept of deterrence.

A 2,500 tonne frigate?? That's even small for a corvette these days. The times they are a changing and it is starting to sink in amongst the political elite, ever so slowly. Some still cling to the fallacy that they don’t have to make a choice about the PRC, but that bird has already flown because the PRC has clearly nailed its colours to the mast.

As the PRC pushes more and harder on Australia, the clearer the choice becomes for NZ pollies and its population. Already people aren't that happy about the actions of the PRC. Some export businesses are very concerned and want the government to kow tow, but it appears that the general population aren't keen on that idea except some in business and the loopy left.

 

[ren0312]

New Zealand's GDP was only 50 billion USD or so in the mid-90s, even if you can set the defense budget at 2% of GDP, that would be only 1 billion USD per year, not enough to buy 4 top of the line frigates like the Anzac class, plus the need to fund the F-16 purchase. Singapore's GDP was 2 times higher in the mid 90s, and Denmark 3.5 times higher, plus Singapore was spending more than 5 percent of GDP on defence, while New Zealand in the mid-90s was spending something like 1.6 percent, basically a higher GDP figure means a larger capacity to spend on defence, especially on very expensive items like frigates, I suppose that if New Zealand were to buy the 4 ANZAC class frigates at that time it should have been fitted with Harpoons already, instead of being fitted for but not with. Another issue in New Zealand were to renew the fighter fleet, it would need to buy the F-35 to be fully competitive with its likely peers, so that means for 2 dozen aircraft it would need to spend 5 billion USD, if you factor in the support costs? That would be 1.5 times larger than the entire defence budget of about 3 billion per year. That is not even including the needed base infrastructure plus the need to purchase a similar number of jet trainer aircraft, let us say MB-346s.

As for politics, if the electorate were to be given a choice between 5 billion for mass housing and public transport and 5 billion for fighter aircraft that the vast majority of the electorate would feel no immediate impact, then the mass housing and public transport program would be a no brainer.

 

[ren0312]

To put things in perspective, back when New Zealand spent seriously on defence in the 1970s and 1980s and defence spending was above 2.5 percent of GDP (higher than Australia), it still could not afford to upgrade its 2 Leanders beyond the barest minimum, and even after the upgrade they were still armed with obsolete equipment like the Sea Cats, which would be unable to shoot down anything faster than a helicopter or a WW2 Bf109.



@ren0312

I have removed the last paragraph as it is a repeat of post 5243 immediately above this one. Can you please avoid duplication as it adds nothing to your case.

We welcome folk who join this forum to become more aware of the current defence situation but I do suggest you do a tad more research. Looking at training aircraft as an example; a simple search will show that there are a range of Lead in Fighters in use and in development that are used for this purpose. These aircraft are not required to be full blown gen 4.5 aircraft as you suggest in post 5,246 (You were suggesting F-16V, Rafale or euro fighter) which would be overkill for the job.

Alexsa

 

[ngatimozart]

New Zealand's GDP was only 50 billion USD or so in the mid-90s, even if you can set the defense budget at 2% of GDP, that would be only 1 billion USD per year, not enough to buy 4 top of the line frigates like the Anzac clas, plus the need to fund the F-16 purchase. Singapore's GDP was 2 times higher in the mid 90s, and Denmark 3.5 times higher, plus Singapore was spending more than 5 percent of GDP on defence, while New Zealand in the mid-90s was spending something like 1.6 percent, basically a higher GDP figure means a larger capacity to spend on defence, especially on very expensive items like frigates, I suppose that if New Zealand were to buy the 4 ANZAC class frigates at that time it should have been fitted with Harpoons already, instead of being fitted for but not with. Another issue in New Zealand were to renew the fighter fleet, it would need to buy the F-35 to be fully competitive with its likely peers, so that means for 2 dozen aircraft it would need to spend 5 billion USD, if you factor in the support costs? That would be 1.5 times larger than the entire defence budget of about 3 billion per year. That is not even including the needed base infrastructure plus the need to purchase a similar number of jet trainer aircraft, let us say MB-346s.

WRT the ACF (Air Combat Force), no a F-35 acquisition isn't required and wouldn't be considered. Something in the 4+ Gen class would be sufficient because we would be looking more for a maritime strike fast jet capable of doing TACREC as well, more than anything else. Secondary capabilities would be air defence and possibly CAS. Secondly, a LIFT capability isn't a priority straight away and something like that could be assessed further down the track.

 

[ren0312]

Do not you need jet trainer aircraft to properly train for jet fighters? Something like the F-16V, the Rafale, or the Eurofighter would cost around the same as the F-35 without the stealth capability, though I am not sure about operating costs. As for the FA-50, I do not think it can really be considered a 4.5 generation aircraft. Plus there is the issue if anything less than a F-35 will be able to survive anything China or a country with a first rate air defence system and stealth aircraft can come up with in the next years or so. Can AESA radar make up for the the lack of stealthiness in a F-16 or a Superhornet vs a J-20 or something equivalent?

 

[ngatimozart]

To put things in perspective, back when New Zealand spent seriously on defence in the 1970s and 1980s and defence spending was above 2.5 percent of GDP (higher than Australia), it still could not afford to upgrade its 2 Leanders beyond the barest minimum, and even after the upgrade they were still armed with obsolete equipment like the Sea Cats, which would be unable to shoot down anything faster than a helicopter or a WW2 Bf109.

As for politics, if the electorate were to be given a choice between 5 billion for mass housing and public transport and 5 billion for fighter aircraft that the vast majority of the electorate would feel no immediate impact, then the mass housing and public transport program would be a no brainer.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s we actually had four frigates, from IIRC two Leanders (Canterbury and Otago) and two Whitbys (Taranaki and Otago). By 1984 the country was bankrupt, literally, and that created a crisis. Yet we still field four frigates until the mid 1990s, an ACF etc. it was in 1991 when government spending across the board was severely cut with Defence taking an instant 25% cut in funding.

WRT to NZ politics you appear to have little understanding of our internal politics at the moment.

 

[ngatimozart]

Do not you need jet trainer aircraft to properly train for jet fighters? Something like the F-16V, the Rafale, or the Eurofighter would cost around the same as the F-35 without the stealth capability, though I am not sure about operating costs. As for the FA-50, I do not think it can really be considered a 4.5 generation aircraft. Plus there is the issue if anything less than a F-35 will be able to survive anything China can come up with in the next years or so.

There are some things that I am not saying at the moment because they have been said on the different Kiwi threads here before and I don't like repeating myself all the time. So go back through this thread and the RNZAF thread and read up. That should broaden your knowledge.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

Back in the 1970s and 1980s we actually had four frigates, from IIRC two Leanders (Canterbury and Otago) and two Whitbys (Taranaki and Otago).

Errrmmm HMNZ Ships Canterbury & Waikato... just saying... lol

As you were... carry on

 

[MrConservative]

New Zealand's GDP was only 50 billion USD or so in the mid-90s, even if you can set the defense budget at 2% of GDP, that would be only 1 billion USD per year, not enough to buy 4 top of the line frigates like the Anzac class, plus the need to fund the F-16 purchase. Singapore's GDP was 2 times higher in the mid 90s, and Denmark 3.5 times higher, plus Singapore was spending more than 5 percent of GDP on defence, while New Zealand in the mid-90s was spending something like 1.6 percent, basically a higher GDP figure means a larger capacity to spend on defence, especially on very expensive items like frigates, I suppose that if New Zealand were to buy the 4 ANZAC class frigates at that time it should have been fitted with Harpoons already, instead of being fitted for but not with.

By 1995 the decision was to buy 3 Frigates, of which two were confirmed and the final being an option. By the time the government was given the option for exercising that 3rd frigate it was offered to us at AUD$355m, with the payments spread over 36 months through 2002-2004. In other words around AUD $115m p.a or around $130m Kiwi. The Anzac Frigate programme also generated $852m worth of business activity within New Zealand over the course of the ten year build programme, which assisted in raising GDP, sustaining employment, generating taxation. Furthermore, the payment schedule for the staggered purchase of the potential 3 frigates if all purchased was also staggered, and would have been paid over an eight to nine year period of the build. The F-16 purchase was a lease to buy over ten years for an all up cost of around $650m including MLU, Falcon Up and acquisition, or in other words $65m per year. However that was pre-disposed at an exchange rate of 0.52 to the USD. In reality as the exchange rate during the following ten year period of the lease between 2000-2010 it averaged out at 0.66 to the USD putting the actual annual repayment schedule much close to $50m p.a. To offset those costs during the that period, if the Government had accepted the offer by Air New Zealand to acquire three Boeing 767-219's it was retiring around the same time as it purchased the B757's from Europe for half the money with similar TOAL cycles and did not acquire 105 NZLAV's but only the 72 it actually needed the affordability from a Treasury would have looked much neutral. Again if the 14 Huey's had been replaced with the UH-60L like for like and not the eight NH-90 for over $200m less, the mythology of un affordability would have been an entirely different matter. Lastly by 1999 the GDP spend on defence went down to 1.2% and by 2001 it was under 1.0% and flatlined on that figure for a number of years, even though the GDP in out put terms had virtually doubled.

Another issue in New Zealand were to renew the fighter fleet, it would need to buy the F-35 to be fully competitive with its likely peers, so that means for 2 dozen aircraft it would need to spend 5 billion USD, if you factor in the support costs? That would be 1.5 times larger than the entire defence budget of about 3 billion per year. That is not even including the needed base infrastructure plus the need to purchase a similar number of jet trainer aircraft, let us say MB-346s.

Firstly, defence acquisitions don't work that way, they are paid for in a staggered series of milestones and not all in one hit. The NZDF is already handing money over for the P-8A and will continue to do so over the next few years until about 2025.

 

[MrConservative]

Do not you need jet trainer aircraft to properly train for jet fighters?

Simulators are reducing that requirement greatly. Also the ability to contract out the LIFT component is becoming more attractive, more cost effective, particularly if the in country requirement is to produce only a small number of pilots per annum.

As for the FA-50, I do not think it can really be considered a 4.5 generation aircraft.

In about the mid 2020's years it will have all the qualifying systems once the planned Block 30's come on line. AESA, BVR, F-414 thrust, KEPD-350-2 capability, improved EW/EA et al.

Plus there is the issue if anything less than a F-35 will be able to survive anything China or a country with a first rate air defence system and stealth aircraft can come up with in the next years or so. Can AESA radar make up for the the lack of stealthiness in a F-16 or a Superhornet vs a J-20 or something equivalent?

We have a thread here on DT called Air Power 101, which you should read. Also going down town into heavily defenced combat zones in first hour, first day strike has never been part of the RNZAF tool kit. Not every combat aircraft has to be LO and Gen 5 nor will they be for a very long time. But what you will find is that very clever people in Air Warfare throughly conceive, plan and execute strike packages where by your illuminated F-16 undertaking a interdiction tasking or a F-18F with SHARP doing TacRec of forward positions will have LO platforms like the F-22 and F-35 to deal with J-20's and such ilk.

 

[MrConservative]

To put things in perspective, back when New Zealand spent seriously on defence in the 1970s and 1980s and defence spending was above 2.5 percent of GDP (higher than Australia), it still could not afford to upgrade its 2 Leanders beyond the barest minimum, and even after the upgrade they were still armed with obsolete equipment like the Sea Cats, which would be unable to shoot down anything faster than a helicopter or a WW2 Bf109.

Maybe because back then NZ was addressing and spending on things such as the Waitangi Tribunal, addressing historical land confiscations and concentrating such social equity for its first nation peoples rather than wait until 1967, like some countries did to even give their own first nation peoples the vote and have barely taken responsibility for their past right until this. So don't get cute pal because you will come off second best.

 

[OPSSG]

Simulators are reducing that requirement greatly. Also the ability to contract out the LIFT component is becoming more attractive, more cost effective, particularly if the in country requirement is to produce only a small number of pilots per annum.

In about the mid 2020's years it will have all the qualifying systems once the planned Block 30's come on line. AESA, BVR, F-414 thrust, KEPD-350-2 capability, improved EW/EA et al.

We have a thread here on DT called Air Power 101, which you should read. Also going down town into heavily defenced combat zones in first hour, first day strike has never been part of the RNZAF tool kit. Not every combat aircraft has to be LO and Gen 5 nor will they be for a very long time. But what you will find is that very clever people in Air Warfare throughly conceive, plan and execute strike packages where by your illuminated F-16 undertaking a interdiction tasking or a F-18F with SHARP doing TacRec of forward positions will have LO platforms like the F-22 and F-35 to deal with J-20's and such ilk.

1. Agreed and thanks for asking ren0312 to cover the basics before he goes driving off the cliff; see also: Air Power 101 for New Members and F-35 - International Participation.

2. IMHO, there is a minimum size for an airforce to be seen as capable of independent action. As a small country, when you are asked by bigger powers to come to dinner, you should be asking if you are a dinner guest or just a menu item to be eaten.

... As for the FA-50, I do not think it can really be considered a 4.5 generation aircraft. Plus there is the issue if anything less than a F-35 will be able to survive anything China can come up with in the next years or so.

3. Be the best that NZDF can be, within a given budget and an alliance framework. Buying a single FA-50 squadron, while helpful to a coalition has limitations (and it is anticipated that NZDF will never acquire some of the more specialised capabilities resident in the RSAF).

​

(a) IMHO, to have real deployable capability (that tolerates attrition for the 1st 7 days of war), the minimum is 3 squadrons of 48 or more, as the backbone. If attrition is constant at 2.4 fighters a day, means in 7 days, a country will lose 16.8 fighters. If you have a 1 fighter squadron air force, a county is combat ineffective at around day 3 to 4 of a 7 day air war — as each scramble needs a flight of 4. If you have 3 squadrons at day 7, you still have 31 fighters left in the game.​

​

(b) Without a backbone, your country cannot conduct a full range of operations that include fighter ISR (using Elbit Condor 2 Long Range Oblique Photography system on a F-16 centerline station), DCA and OCA missions, strike, EW, SEAD, domain awareness, maritime interdiction, maritime strike (which is really hard to do, as there are 3 layers of de-lamination required to attack a naval task group) and air-to-air refuelling — with other force multipliers like AWACS seen as equally important to a tertiary force, when we put meat on the bones of this discussion.​

4. There is quite a bit of lingo and concepts you need to be aware of, for us to have a productive conversation. Even for Singapore’s tertiary air force, the procurement of the 1st 4 F-35Bs is a huge leap for Singapore’s CONOPS. VLO fighters for NZ will be an impossible leap; until the country takes significant steps forward towards training your country’s:

​

(a) 1st 1,000 hour fighter pilot (while he is still a MAJ or LTC, within our rank structure); and​

​

(b) small cadre of 500 hour weapons instructor pilots (while they are still young CPTs).​

It takes 2 years to qualify a 4 plane flight lead (see paragraphs 8 (d) & 8 (e) below, on continuing training for qualified fighter pilots); especially a F-35B flight lead.

5. Do have a read of some of the links provided (see also: A brief history of LO and F-35 Program - General Discussion), then you can ask insightful questions. Back in 2015, Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, chief of US Air Combat Command said: “I think as we look to the future, the Big SAR and advanced EOTS are the things we have to have on the sensor side.” The Computing upgrade for the F-35 is called Technical Refresh 3, and it's the first major electronic and computer update for the F-35 since Block 3i testing wrapped up in 2016. Besides runway denial, sophisticated SAM systems (including VL systems on naval vessels) can deny the control of air unless these fighters have VLO characteristics.

6. The F-35B’s 7 functions for the RSAF are, as follows:

(1) to conduct aerial reconnaissance;​

​

(2) to conduct air warfare (both offensive & defensive counter air);​

​

(3) to provide air support for troops (both BAI & CAS);​

​

(4) to support naval air-sea integration (including anti-ship missions);​

​

(5) to enable high end SEAD missions;​

​

(6) to conduct electronic warfare; &​

​

(7) to represent the RSAF in the annual NDP fly pass (plus at air shows).​

7. It’s not just a matter of a 2 to 4 year wait after placing an order. Dr Ng Eng Hen, Minister of Defence has recently said:

“Let me talk about acquisitions. F-35 JSF acquisition remains on track, and we expect to take delivery of four F-35Bs around 2026, so we are on schedule...​

​

Air Defence, our Aster-30 system will be stood up for 24/7 operations, on schedule to replace to replace our I-HAWK systems. Now there are some delays, in particular two – the deliveries of our CH-47Fs and our H225M helicopters, and we previously said that we expected them end-2020. There will be delays and we are expecting them now in 2021.”​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1277671541438906369

8. Singapore, as a small airforce, for example has 2.5 to 3.5 trained pilots for every fighter aircraft — due to sortie generation requirements.

​

(a) In other words, RSAF’s 100 fighters, has at least 250 pilots; before counting the WSOs, who are crucial to maintaining our SEAD capability. Plus lots of spare engines, the 60 strong F-16 C/D fleet has more than 10 spare engines to keep availability high (16.7% of fleet).​

​

(b) Training to fight for control of the air is a lot more than just buying platforms like the F-15SGs or even upgrading F-16s to the ‘V’ standard to keep these platforms threat relevant.​

​

(c) An air force fights as a system, in any system, the quality of pilots and how they are trained matters. By way of background, RSAF pilots deploy to Luke to receive upgrade training after being qualified as wingmen. "As an operational squadron, we work to get pilots through advanced upgrade training," said Lt. Col. Ryan Nudi, 425th Fighter Squadron's director of operations.​

​

(d) "It typically takes two years and 60 to 70 upgrade sorties, including two upgrades while they're here and typically one upgrade per year. Then they return to the operational squadrons in Singapore."​

​

(e) Pilots receive their two-ship upgrade, which means they can now lead a wingman into combat and their four-ship upgrade certifying they can lead three other aircraft into combat. RSAF pilots rotate through the squadron every two years, with a change-over of 10 pilots every year. "We typically fly 14 sorties a day," Nudi said. "That's about 280 sorties a month and 1.3 to 1.5 hours per sortie to meet the pilots' training requirements."​

​

(f) Singapore’s 12 F-16s at Luke Airbase will be moving to another location by 2026. Fort Smith Airport, Hulman Field, Buckley Air Force Base, Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, and Selfridge Air National Guard Base are the final candidates for the collocation for the RSAF’s F-16s (from Luke) and 4 new Block 4 F-35Bs.​

 

[swerve]

New Zealand's GDP was only 50 billion USD or so in the mid-90s, even if you can set the defense budget at 2% of GDP, that would be only 1 billion USD per year, not enough to buy 4 top of the line frigates like the Anzac class, plus the need to fund the F-16 purchase. Singapore's GDP was 2 times higher in the mid 90s, and Denmark 3.5 times higher, ...

Nominal GDP in USD in 1995:
New Zealand = 63 billion
Denmark = 182 bn
Singapore = 88 bn
So, less difference than you say. And those figures reflect the international purchasing power of GDP, not internal. New Zealand's prices were relatively low.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

The percentage of GPD on defence ie; 2% is pretty deceiving... as I am always hearing Singapore has a better defence force, and their population is similar, or Philippines has a similar budget etc... (Now before I rant don't get me wrong I want an increase but...) an excerpt of an article I wrote a while back...

The first thing I look at is the GDP of New Zealand and Singapore, so for example in 2018 Singapore's GDP was $364.2 billion USD and New Zealand had a GPD of $205 billion USD an extra $159 Billion dollars??? so straight off the bat Singapore has more money but it is still only 2% of GDP.

I then look at the strength of the currency, or buying power of the dollars. At the time of writing this article 1 Singapore Dollar equals 0.74c United States Dollar and 1 NZD equals 0.67 United States Dollar. So the Singapore larger GDP and stronger dollar giving more money and more buying power... At that exchange rate what Singapore can buy for $500,000 SPD, New Zealand to get the exact same thing has to pay $548,214.56 NZD or another way of saying it;

NZ had to pay 1.4 Billion for the P8's and infrastructure Singapore to do exactly the same are only paying a billion (ish)... saving $400 million. Spending that $400 million on other equipment that NZ can not buy.

There are many other things to look at, ie; pay, What do they pay a filipino soldier compared to the New Zealand soldier as an example? When you look at New Zealand, pay takes up nearly a quarter of the budget.

How many operational deployments and exercises do they go on? Do they have an actual separate coast guard on a separate budget, to take up some of these operations and patrols? In the Philippines case, they do and they get an extra 1/2 billion dollars to carry out their operations. In the case of exercises, how many do these countries hold.

What is the defence industry like in said country Singapore has a ship building industry and hi tech industries that it is in the best interest of the country to use as the money goes back in to the community etc...

Some countries defence budgets separate various things out of the actual defence budget and others combine the lot... ie separate procurement and operational budgets for example and can be hard to judge who does and who doesn't.

On a final note you have to look at where the country is in the world, what are their security wants and needs, and the country's actual defence policy overall and you will find they will be totally different. NZ has been blessed that we have lived in a benign corner for that past 30 years... however that is changing and changing fast and we will be caught with our pants down again...

 

[Rob c]

On a final note you have to look at where the country is in the world, what are their security wants and needs, and the country's actual defence policy overall and you will find they will be totally different. NZ has been blessed that we have lived in a benign corner for that past 30 years... however that is changing and changing fast and we will be caught with our pants down again...

I think when it comes to defence that we need to ask our selves a simple question and that is HOW MUCH VALUE DO WE PLACE ON OUR FREEDOM. I will also point out that historically if you wait until you see a threat you will as Nighthawk say's " be caught with your pants down", as it takes a lot longer to reestablish a defence ability than you will ever get warning of the need to have that increased ability. Our current defence policies over recent decades have simply been a gamble with our freedom and sovereignty as the stakes and to continue to gamble with the odds becoming increasingly poor is in my opinion becoming more and more foolhardy. As for an ACF, I believe that this has the greatest deterrence ability of anything we can have and that the cancelation of the AFC it was one of the worst defence decisions made by any government. Hellen Clark deliberately over stated the cost savings as to be in the region of 10% or $90-100m per year, but later a treasury document said the savings were in fact only $30m per year. It does not take a genius to work out that the money saved is a tiny fraction of the cost of reinstatement.

 

[ren0312]

By 1995 the decision was to buy 3 Frigates, of which two were confirmed and the final being an option. By the time the government was given the option for exercising that 3rd frigate it was offered to us at AUD$355m, with the payments spread over 36 months through 2002-2004. In other words around AUD $115m p.a or around $130m Kiwi. The Anzac Frigate programme also generated $852m worth of business activity within New Zealand over the course of the ten year build programme, which assisted in raising GDP, sustaining employment, generating taxation. Furthermore, the payment schedule for the staggered purchase of the potential 3 frigates if all purchased was also staggered, and would have been paid over an eight to nine year period of the build. The F-16 purchase was a lease to buy over ten years for an all up cost of around $650m including MLU, Falcon Up and acquisition, or in other words $65m per year. However that was pre-disposed at an exchange rate of 0.52 to the USD. In reality as the exchange rate during the following ten year period of the lease between 2000-2010 it averaged out at 0.66 to the USD putting the actual annual repayment schedule much close to $50m p.a. To offset those costs during the that period, if the Government had accepted the offer by Air New Zealand to acquire three Boeing 767-219's it was retiring around the same time as it purchased the B757's from Europe for half the money with similar TOAL cycles and did not acquire 105 NZLAV's but only the 72 it actually needed the affordability from a Treasury would have looked much neutral. Again if the 14 Huey's had been replaced with the UH-60L like for like and not the eight NH-90 for over $200m less, the mythology of un affordability would have been an entirely different matter. Lastly by 1999 the GDP spend on defence went down to 1.2% and by 2001 it was under 1.0% and flatlined on that figure for a number of years, even though the GDP in out put terms had virtually doubled.

Firstly, defence acquisitions don't work that way, they are paid for in a staggered series of milestones and not all in one hit. The NZDF is already handing money over for the P-8A and will continue to do so over the next few years until about 2025.

I am checking SIPRI data and NZ defence spending to GDP ratio and to government budget ratio stayed stable in the 80s, defence spending as a percentage of the total government budget stayed at close to 4.5% until the mid or late 90s, before dipping sharply to the 3 percent area under Clarke. Although yeah, the economy was not that good in real terms in the 70s and early 80s, which would affect defence spending in real terms, even if as a ratio of the economy it stayed fairly constant. About the F-16 purchase, there was an option to take on less aircraft, than the 28 planned, but Clarke and the MOF did not take up that option. Although you have the question as to what is the least amount of aircraft you can buy and still maintain a viable force? Based on SIPRI figures, NZ defence spending relative to GDP stayed at 1.7% to 1.6% from 1997 to 2001, before dropping steadly thereafter.

SIPRI Military Expenditure Database

The SIPRI Military Expenditure Database contains consistent time series on the military spending of countries for the period 1949–2022. The database is updated annually, which may include updates to data for any of the years included in the database.

www.sipri.org

 

[ren0312]

The percentage of GPD on defence ie; 2% is pretty deceiving... as I am always hearing Singapore has a better defence force, and their population is similar, or Philippines has a similar budget etc... (Now before I rant don't get me wrong I want an increase but...) an excerpt of an article I wrote a while back...



There are many other things to look at, ie; pay, What do they pay a filipino soldier compared to the New Zealand soldier as an example? When you look at New Zealand, pay takes up nearly a quarter of the budget.

How many operational deployments and exercises do they go on? Do they have an actual separate coast guard on a separate budget, to take up some of these operations and patrols? In the Philippines case, they do and they get an extra 1/2 billion dollars to carry out their operations. In the case of exercises, how many do these countries hold.

What is the defence industry like in said country Singapore has a ship building industry and hi tech industries that it is in the best interest of the country to use as the money goes back in to the community etc...








Some countries defence budgets separate various things out of the actual defence budget and others combine the lot... ie separate procurement and operational budgets for example and can be hard to judge who does and who doesn't.

On a final note you have to look at where the country is in the world, what are their security wants and needs, and the country's actual defence policy overall and you will find they will be totally different. NZ has been blessed that we have lived in a benign corner for that past 30 years... however that is changing and changing fast and we will be caught with our pants down again...

Singapore's military spending relative to GDP is at 3 percent, used to be 5 percent 10 years or 20 years ago.

 

[ren0312]

Simulators are reducing that requirement greatly. Also the ability to contract out the LIFT component is becoming more attractive, more cost effective, particularly if the in country requirement is to produce only a small number of pilots per annum.

In about the mid 2020's years it will have all the qualifying systems once the planned Block 30's come on line. AESA, BVR, F-414 thrust, KEPD-350-2 capability, improved EW/EA et al.

We have a thread here on DT called Air Power 101, which you should read. Also going down town into heavily defenced combat zones in first hour, first day strike has never been part of the RNZAF tool kit. Not every combat aircraft has to be LO and Gen 5 nor will they be for a very long time. But what you will find is that very clever people in Air Warfare throughly conceive, plan and execute strike packages where by your illuminated F-16 undertaking a interdiction tasking or a F-18F with SHARP doing TacRec of forward positions will have LO platforms like the F-22 and F-35 to deal with J-20's and such ilk.

 

[MrConservative]

About the F-16 purchase, there was an option to take on less aircraft, than the 28 planned, but Clarke and the MOF did not take up that option.

Yes 16 aircraft were later offered following the cancellation.

Although you have the question as to what is the least amount of aircraft you can buy and still maintain a viable force?

The figure was judged to be 18 following the Whineray Report if they were to generate a deployable 75th Squadron, later was told that this would be 16 in flying condition with between 2 to 3 for conversion with 2 set aside for attrition spares. The Macchi fleet would have been reduced to 11.

The 16 offered if no attrition airframes were to be ordered separately (which would of likely happened later as the attrition spare cost through EDA dropped down to low 7 figures in a few years) would have only generated 8-10 for a deployment. It did not get far enough to work through the mix of B and A models.

There was discussion within National during the Don Brash era leadership when John Carter was the Defence spokesman to bring back and keep 8 of the A-4K's flying under 2011 to retain basic non deployable combat skills within house as a future insurance policy as well as provide a degree of naval and army training support.