NZDF General discussion thread

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I think from a political perspective, the most urgent problem is to fix in the short and medium terms is the housing crisis, maybe with some sort of massive cheap housing building project, or else it can become an enormous source of social instability, which can have enormous implications on military projects, I mean I wondering why no populist politician in New Zealand as of yet has proposed something along the lines of cutting the defence budget to fund public housing, even in the form of vouchers, which would really not be good, but which would also be politically popular in the short run, if people are given the choice between spending between guns and butter.
You are straying into politics here and that is best well steered clear of.
 

Rob c

Well-Known Member
What the private sector can't provide, and what is generally acknowledged as the first duty of government, is to protect its citizens.
Totally agree, I would add to this that also in addition to the first duty is to protect their citizens , they also have the duty to protect their countries sovereignty and in our case our democracy and our citizens freedom.
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
To be fair here I have not heard much from him yet either, other than going to various events ... I mean he has only been in the position a couple of months... so he has had a chance to do his job yet.
Ron Mark jumped right into the job and was highly effective, Henare has no military experience, the link to his uncle, which is often mentioned, is pretty tenuous at best.
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
How much underground water does New Zealand have?
NZ uses about 2% of the water that falls as rain or snow, we do not have a water problem nationally, we have a water problem in some locations, the water isn't always where we need it. This is a tremendous resource for NZ but we need to charge for it, at the moment both main parties have a similar stance, nobody owns water.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Until when 2035ish

NZ would not make a decision on a ACF for at least 5 years and then the selection process, so I imagine the earliest a aircraft would arrive in NZ colours would be after 2030 or roughly 2032 F-15/18 lines would most likely be closed by the time NZ gets around to ordering aircraft

Maritime strike for F35 is from block 4/5 from what I can gather the Israeli Air Force is supposedly working on conformal fuel tanks for the F35. I cant see NZ going straight to 6th gen Aircraft off the bat so I can only see F35 as the only game for NZ if it wants to get back in the game.
Right getting back to your obsession about the F-35. Her is one reason why the NZ government would NOT acquire the F-35. Its LCC (Life Cycle Costs) and when they are at such a rate that the USAF cannot afford to acquire the full 1763 that it ordered because of, I will use the article authors term "exorbitant LCC". To put it plainly this is what the USAF acqusition chief Will Roper said:

“I think the F-35 program is a long way from being at a sustainment point that we need. I think it’s a long way from being an affordable fighter that we can buy in bulk,” he told reporters today. “That’s the reason why Next-Generation Air Dominance is so important to the Air Force,” he said. “It doesn’t just represent a next-generation fighter with bells and whistles that we will need in warfighting. It doesn’t just represent a completely different acquisition paradigm. It also represents a chance to design an airplane that is more sustainable than the F-35 if, in fact, the F-35 cannot get its cost-per-flying-hour down.”

For a similar amount of money we could acquire the F-15EX and its CPFH is 60% more that the F-18F. Whilst I personally prefer the F-15EX and believ that it's a far better platform than the Shornet F, our pollies are not going to go with a platform that is going to have high LCC. Now if the USAF cannot afford to acquire their full order of F-35A because of the LCC then why do you think the NZG is going to go down that road? Which makes me wonder how Australia is going to afford the LCC of their F-35A fleet of the fleets life.


EDIT: F-35A CPFH US$44,000.00 (2018)
F-15EX CPFH US$29,000 (2020)​
F-18F CPFH US$18,000 (2019)​
 
Last edited:

Julian 82

New Member
Right getting back to your obsession about the F-35. Her is one reason why the NZ government would NOT acquire the F-35. Its LCC (Life Cycle Costs) and when they are at such a rate that the USAF cannot afford to acquire the full 1763 that it ordered because of, I will use the article authors term "exorbitant LCC". To put it plainly this is what the USAF acqusition chief Will Roper said:

“I think the F-35 program is a long way from being at a sustainment point that we need. I think it’s a long way from being an affordable fighter that we can buy in bulk,” he told reporters today. “That’s the reason why Next-Generation Air Dominance is so important to the Air Force,” he said. “It doesn’t just represent a next-generation fighter with bells and whistles that we will need in warfighting. It doesn’t just represent a completely different acquisition paradigm. It also represents a chance to design an airplane that is more sustainable than the F-35 if, in fact, the F-35 cannot get its cost-per-flying-hour down.”

For a similar amount of money we could acquire the F-15EX and its CPFH is 60% more that the F-18F. Whilst I personally prefer the F-15EX and believ that it's a far better platform than the Shornet F, our pollies are not going to go with a platform that is going to have high LCC. Now if the USAF cannot afford to acquire their full order of F-35A because of the LCC then why do you think the NZG is going to go down that road? Which makes me wonder how Australia is going to afford the LCC of their F-35A fleet of the fleets life.


EDIT: F-35A CPFH US$44,000.00 (2018)
F-15EX CPFH US$29,000 (2020)​
F-18F CPFH US$18,000 (2019)​
Yes but the F-15EX and the F-18E will die pretty quickly in a 2030s environment (noting they are not low observable). So they don’t end up being that cost effective.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Yes but the F-15EX and the F-18E will die pretty quickly in a 2030s environment (noting they are not low observable). So they don’t end up being that cost effective.
Not necessarily. As the actress said to the Bishop, it's not how big it is but how you use it. What's the point of having the flashest toy on the market if you cannot afford to use it?
 

Arclighy

New Member
Let's hope the Air Forces that do have F - 35 never have to use it in all out war. If they do, I'm sure they'll find the money pretty quickly. In the meantime, they'll work within their budgets. Either way, it's good too know that if ever needed, the F 35 is one of the options Air Forces have, if they are fortunate enough to have them.
 

Nighthawk.NZ

Well-Known Member
Stealth fighters are not the be all and all. The A4 wasn't technically a fighter it was a Light Attack... While they were also used in the fighter role... it was a Light Attack Aircraft... and being ex navy (RADAR) I know how while they carried out that role...

In New Zealand's case I don't think the F-35 would even be considered and I don't think it would actually meet the countries needs especially when you add in the initial cost and LCC, there are other options as suggested, ie; F-15EX, F-18E, Saab JAS 39 Gripen, Dassault Rafale etc. Each have their pro's and each their con's initial cost vs capability vs LLC vs blah vs blah vs blah vs blah
 
Yes but the F-15EX and the F-18E will die pretty quickly in a 2030s environment (noting they are not low observable). So they don’t end up being that cost effective.
Same would have been expected of the Mig-21’s the Indian Air Force ran in “Cope India” back in the early 2000’s. The Indians scored up to 9:1 kill ratios in some exercises, the USAF “underestimated their tactics”.

“The Flanker wasn’t the only aircraft that the Eagle’s drivers faced in mock air-to-air combat: “The two most formidable IAF aircraft proved to be the MiG-21 Bison, an upgraded version of the Russian-made baseline MiG-21, and the Su-30MK Flanker, also made in Russia,” Snodgrass explained to AW&ST.”


Older equipment used well still presents a threat even to western air forces.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Not necessarily. As the actress said to the Bishop, it's not how big it is but how you use it. What's the point of having the flashest toy on the market if you cannot afford to use it?

No point having any toys if you are not serious having an asset that is more capable across the spectrum until it retires in the late 2060's. hence the main reason why the RAAF preferred choice is an all F35 fleet and the F18F fleet are due to be retired around 2035ish which would be around the same time RNZAF would be reaching IOC for a regenerated ACF if aircraft arrive around 2030/2. As an interim if by what NG thinks they could have a fleet buy 2025(?) Its my opinion that if RNZAF wants a cheap aircraft until it regenerates enough corporate knowledge then ex USAF F16 out of AMARG and built up to block 72 standards then moving onto the F35 around 2035/40 would be the right thing to do. I still dont think it could be done by then either but you never know

In USAF terms the F35A is a replacement for the F-16 Falcon, where as the F22 was more of a replacement for F15C, but because of economics which limited the F22 line which was a purpose built air superiority fighter, F15EX is more about supplementing the ageing F15C fleet because of the knock on effect of low F22 numbers
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
No point having any toys if you are not serious having an asset that is more capable across the spectrum until it retires in the late 2060's. hence the main reason why the RAAF preferred choice is an all F35 fleet and the F18F fleet are due to be retired around 2035ish which would be around the same time RNZAF would be reaching IOC for a regenerated ACF if aircraft arrive around 2030/2. As an interim if by what NG thinks they could have a fleet buy 2025(?) Its my opinion that if RNZAF wants a cheap aircraft until it regenerates enough corporate knowledge then ex USAF F16 out of AMARG and built up to block 72 standards then moving onto the F35 around 2035/40 would be the right thing to do. I still dont think it could be done by then either but you never know

In USAF terms the F35A is a replacement for the F-16 Falcon, where as the F22 was more of a replacement for F15C, but because of economics which limited the F22 line which was a purpose built air superiority fighter, F15EX is more about supplementing the ageing F15C fleet because of the knock on effect of low F22 numbers
But what's the point of having the F-35 when its CPFH is US$44,000 and the chief USAF acquisition head says that it is unsustainable and that LM will never get it down to a sustainable level? They think that they might get it down to US$36,000 CPFH, which is twice that of the F-18F. How's the RAAF going to afford to sustain a fleet of 100 F-35A if the USAF can't afford to acquire and sustain their full intended fleet?

It's not just about LO. You have been on here long enough to know that the F-35 is far more than just being LO, because LO is just one capability in its long list of advanced capabilities, many of which are finding their way onto other US combat aircraft. It's all about a system of systems and you know that.

You also know that the F-35 is just one tool in the box and that it doesn't suit every country. Since you don't seem to understand this concept you should think carefully about it. You don't understand the NZ scene as much as you like to think you do. You aren't privy to a lot of what happens here.
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Given the economic consequences of COVID and some pretty stupid policies amongst Western governments, military kit will likely be impacted. The CPFH for the F-35 is quite appalling if accurate and if LM can’t address this, they and their customers are going to suffer. The UK, Euro, and Japanese future jets likely aren’t going to fare any better. I don’t think limited numbers of very expensive albeit capable jets will stand up well, especially if a significant quantity of the “limited number” are taken out in a surprise missile attack.
 

Julian 82

New Member
Th
Not necessarily. As the actress said to the Bishop, it's not how big it is but how you use it. What's the point of having the flashest toy on the market if you cannot afford t
But what's the point of having the F-35 when its CPFH is US$44,000 and the chief USAF acquisition head says that it is unsustainable and that LM will never get it down to a sustainable level? They think that they might get it down to US$36,000 CPFH, which is twice that of the F-18F. How's the RAAF going to afford to sustain a fleet of 100 F-35A if the USAF can't afford to acquire and sustain their full intended fleet?

It's not just about LO. You have been on here long enough to know that the F-35 is far more than just being LO, because LO is just one capability in its long list of advanced capabilities, many of which are finding their way onto other US combat aircraft. It's all about a system of systems and you know that.

You also know that the F-35 is just one tool in the box and that it doesn't suit every country. Since you don't seem to understand this concept you should think carefully about it. You don't understand the NZ scene as much as you like to think you do. You aren't privy to a lot of what happens here and you seem to have the arrogance to think that you can tell us what to do. Now you seem to think that US$44,000 CPFH is a good deal. If that indeed is the case then howabout you open your wallet and paying the LCC for the last 28 of the RAAF 100 F-35. I am sure that the CoA and the RAAF will really appreciate your generous gesture. You might even get a knighthood out of it.
We will just have to see. I would not be surprised if CPFH decreases as the aircraft matures in service.
 

ren0312

Member
Is there any alternative to LO as a requirement for a 5th or 6th generation fighter? If there is, then the Russians, Chinese, and Europeans would not be integrating stealth features into their 5th and 6th generation fighters? Since all of their designs include LO features. Will a 5th or 6th generation fighter even be competitive without stealth, there must be some reason that Israel or Japan chose the F-35 over the Eurofighter, Grippen, or Superhornet. OK maybe New Zealand can do OK with 4th generation fighters, or 4.5 generation? Is AESA radar a must for any fighter aircraft acquisition for NZ?
 
Top