How survivable are non-LO aircraft against an opponent with modern air defence, and frankly if New Zealand has no intention of using theirs as anything other than PR tools, because 4th generation aircraft would not be able to survive against countries with modern air forces, and so can only be used against third world countries with 40 year old SAMs and AAA, so chances are they will never be used, maybe just save money for the navy and the MPAs and stick with the PC-7s instead. Unless NZ wants to deploy them for photo ops and PR purposes against Lybian and Syrian rebels?
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
.....
@ren0312
I am not deleting this one as I want to give you a public warning. This is the third time you have posted without text. I understand you take time to formulate your posts but if that is an issue do them in word then paste them in.
If you cannot sort this out, or are unwilling to do so, I can provide motivation.
Alexsa
Last edited by a moderator:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
There is still a place for gen4+ fighters operating with a properly configured strike package. The USAF’s forthcoming F-15EX operating with F-35s is one example.
What needs to be kept in mind is that used in a local defence mode from NZ that any fighters that we have would be operating well outside the operating radius of any land based opposition. This means that we would have control of our airspace out to the operating radius of the aircraft we posseted if we armed them with modern weapons. The only fighter opposition that could reach us in combat condition would be from aircraft carriers. This raises the question of if there is general conflict that we need to defend ourselves from would any opposition want to spare or risk a couple of carriers to attack NZ or would they have more pressing use elsewhere. As has been pointed out the tactics you employ has a significant bearing on the outcome of any defence that is employed and this was born out in the 1990's when as has been previously posted on this sight, 75 sqn RNZAF in an exercise successfully attacked and was considered to have sank an American Aircraft Carrier by the use of innovative tactics .
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The other reasons that 4th Gen fighters are still viable from a NZ perspective are that they allow possible interception of future long range Chinese bombers and they can support Australian and other allied airforces.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
This exact scenario is actually mentioned in Air Power 101, created by some senior members on here about 8-9 years ago, highly recommended reading.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.”
Cope India: when India's Russian jets achieved a surprising 9:1 kill ratio against U.S. F-15s
According to Indian media an air exercise held ten years ago "highlighted the innovativeness of Indian fighter pilots, the impact of Russian jets and thewww.google.com.au
Older equipment used well still presents a threat even to western air forces.
Should always treat any publicly released results of Military exercises with scepticism unless you know exactly how the exercise was run, was it conducted to the rules laid out before hand, did everyone stick to pre agreed tactics, what its aims where.
This, I think, is the biggest weakness of this whole proposal. What is the purpose of these fighters? If their primary purpose is to defend the NZ mainland they would be a monumental waste of money. Even a long range fighter like the F15 has a combat range that would only get it half way to Australia. The chance of any threat force, that a fighter would be needed to counter, making it to within this range of NZ is minuscule. The only way that could possibly happen in a practical sense is if Australia was already defeated. And if Australia is already defeated, it is almost certain the entire alliance structure in the pacific has also been defeated. If there was a threat force out there that could defeat the entire alliance structure in the Pacific, nothing that the NZDF could do would stop them.
For fighters to make sense (noting they would be by far the biggest drain on the NZ defence budget), they would have to be part of a deliberate strategy for forward defence. Essentially, the NZ government would have to declare that the defence of NZ starts somewhere North of the Australian mainland, and structure the NZDF around that fact. That is a much, much greater change to the status quo of NZ defence that an increase in the defence budget sufficient to buy fighters.
In my opinion, if the NZ government wanted to increase the practical capabilities of the RNZAF, buying fighters would be a long way down the list. There is much that could be done much cheaper that would have much greater utility to both NZ and their allies/partners. I think a good start would be an increase in P8s combined with the purchase of anti-ship missiles, including a couple dozen LRASM warshots. Replace the 757s with a couple of MRTTs, and that allows the RNZAF to interdict any shipping out as far as about PNG. Add a couple of dedicated EW birds, and NZ really has a force to dominate their corner of the Pacific. Such a force would also almost certainly be more valuable to Australia and other partners in the region than a dozen or so 4th gen fighters, noting those fighters would need everyone else to provide the enablers to make them a viable capability.
I think to advocate fighters for NZ you have to work out the strategy they would fit into first.
Our first priority is to strengthen our maritime capability as you have mentioned above together with P8 UAV support (Sea Guardian) and naval combat surface ships. As has been discussed we need more choppers (Revamped USA as proposed by Ngati).
Your last phase sums up the fighter scenario perfectly and then move from there. I support the return of our fighter strike force but see priority given to our maritime capability
Your last phase sums up the fighter scenario perfectly and then move from there. I support the return of our fighter strike force but see priority given to our maritime capability
t68
Well-Known Member
The CPFH as you say is expected to reduce to marginally more than the F15EX in the coming years, operating budget is different to the purchasing budget, a diligent government has to accept that it requires money to do that and is taken into account upon selection.
If the government only looked at the CPFH and not the overall capability then you would never receive modern better aircraft than the aircraft it replaces. NZG could have bought new build UH-1N as they are cheaper to buy and maintain than the NH-90 they accepted defence advice that the NH-90 while more expensive buy and operate they increased the capability of the defence force overall
As to the RAAF sustaining its F35A fleet I don't see the government cancelling orders and buying additional rhino's do you, why do you think that is maybe they can see that the future of the F15EX & F18F holds of little value after a certain period whilst the F35 holds more upgrade potential until its retirement, we saw with the F111 what happens when keeping an aircraft well past its used by date.
Not sure why you are bring up the LO aspects of the F35 and I don't pretend that it is a silver bullet for every situation, but those same LO characteristics are advantageous in planning operations, we saw back in 1999 how the RNZAF A4 Skyhawks were not part of the initial planning stage of the intervention in ET as that aspect is still classified but going by what GF has stated in the past its not just what NZG had to say its the assessment on what the aircraft brings to the table by the RAAF, if the NZG is serious about resurrection of the ACF and wants to have a seat at the planning table then they have to be prepared to spend the $$ for aircraft that is not only relevant in the short term but one that is in the long term. Is an F18F or F15EX stil going to be relevant in 2055 somehow I think not.
Whether or not I think that US$44,000 CPFH is a good deal is irrelevant it is one that AusGov has to decide if it thinks the aircraft is fit for purpose on whatever force planning they need for now and the future considering the heightened operating environment, and I do open my wallet every bloody day to help pay for our defence by the way of taxes on not only income but everyday items I purchase.
And for the record what you describe as arrogance is the pot calling the kettle black, just as I am expressing an opinion on what I think might be the right aircraft if the NZG resurrects an ACF and am far from telling you what to do, you are also expressing an opinion on what the AusGov thinks it can afford in sustainment for our operating budget. you don't see me getting distressed because you are not Australian and are expressing an opinion'
As to the privileged conversations on here maybe the forum is not open enough then, and if the forum is only good enough for a selected few if that is the case why bother having an open forum then if you cant express an opinion
They are not mutually exclusive contrary to what some people think.
Our former strike capability was primarily predicated and trained to deal with tactical threats in the maritime domain, with more flexibility and enforcement than our P-3K and surface force possessed and was to develop considerably further with the acquisition of more capable assets.
There is also this misconception that “Strategy” is wholly a military context. It is not. It is equally if not more also about independent national interests including the political. A strategy or rationale for the employment of an ACC in the NZ context is still the same as it was 25 years ago as outlined in the DWP, reports and papers of the time. The only thing that has changed is the necessity.
As the Japanese and lately Indians have been finding out the intrusion into their airspace by unmanned remotes like EA-03's is causing a significant issue. With their growing capability and possession of extra long range remotes it will be become an issue in the southern hemisphere as they work towards "leaping over the 1st island chain" becomes more predominant.
As you of all people would remember Rob, 75 Squadron in concert with elelments of 40Sqd and 5 Sqd was very well versed in the ability to rapidly forward base a detachment of A-4's around the Asia-Pacific and got to be very precise in tempo. Exercises were treated with the pace and execution that they were a real time sensitive operational combat deployment in every department on base.
The possession within the RNZAF of an air combat capability added considerable strategic weight to the RAAF and RSAF. In the case of the RAAF it added around 20% of the direct ANZAC air combat force. Top justify not having that back in place, even 10% of it from a sole Kiwi Squadron, from a Australian perspective as some here have proposed is outrageously hypocritical.
t68
Well-Known Member
Yes have to agree on this from my perspective the direct contribution of a Kiwi ACF was not just about coverage of NZ airspace but it commitments to FPDA and so fourth, but was at one time an important element to the ADF's core security umbrella which is not the Army but the RAN/RAAF which manifestly wants to fight away from Australia as far as it can.
If NZG wants to genuinely contribute to the defence of the realm than it should continue to provide Air/Sea combat forces that can contribute to ADF's long term core security umbrella as Australia is really the last line of defence for NZ, and that is not arrogance but the reality of the situation
I‘m not sure how hypocrisy comes into it, but I think there has to be some realism injected. I think a lot of people are glossing over just how much would need to change for this to be a realistic possibility. I’m sure someone could develop some detailed numbers, but my rough estimate is that the NZDF budget would have to increase by around 50% over the next ten years to pay for the capital costs of acquiring all the capability (fighters, trainers, weapons, infrastructure etc), the costs of recruiting and training the people to fly and maintain them, and the costs of normal operations. That is a huge increase. Keep in mind that what is being advocated here is not a replacement of the capability the A4 provided, which, even when new, was at the bottom end of the fast jet capability spectrum. Nor is it a replacement for the capability the F16As would have provided, which was once again the bottom end of what would have constituted a viable capability. What is being advocated here is buying in the capability bracket of the F35, F15 and F18E/F. The RNZAF haven‘t operated a state of the art fast jet with that relative capability, and cost, since the meteor in the 50’s.
While I’m sure there have been some murmurings in government that the world is becoming a more dangerous place, it is a huge leap from there to increasing the defence budget by 50% to establish a capability that would only be useful in a very small number of contingencies. If NZ already had surfeit of capability options in other areas, and a fast jet squadron was a logical next step, that would be one thing. But there are so many other areas where the NZDF is deficient, and a relatively modest investment could make a big difference. If all the money is spent on fighters, though, those other capabilities will remain deficient, unless we go even further through the looking glass and imagine that NZ is going to double the defence budget or whatever.
To respond to your post directly, if NZ by some wizardry developed a fast jet squadron of course Australia would be grateful for the contribution. However, I’m not sure that is a good of measure of success for the tax payers of NZ when it comes to investing scarce dollars.
Last edited:
To inject a bit more realism New Zealand will spend around NZD$50 Billion into the NZDF over the next 10 years. Thus I question the math that we would have to spend a further $25 Billion to develop an air combat component of say a dozen the F-18F that can work within a ADF or USN force structure? So if you have those figures please reveal them.
To again inject a bit of realism according to the ANAO Audit Report No.5 2012–13 Management of Australia's Air Combat Capability—F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet Fleet Upgrades and Sustainment the 10 year cost to 2021 of operating, sustaining, upgrading and including acquiring the 24 Rhino's and 71 Classic's was to be AUD$15.688B.
One other point that I will not let glossed over is that the F-16's we were to acquire in 2001 were due for the full Falcon Up upgrade including M6+ software and ECM during their lease and would have been comparable to to the F-16C Block 50 which was considered at the time very much not at the lower end of the capability spectrum. Certainly on their introduction probably more capable in some areas than the F-18A's at the time.
PS: We flew the Canberra in the 1950's as well as leased Venoms for deployment. There was only one Meteor which was an evaluation aircraft.
One thing to keep in mind when comparing CPFH figures is whether you are actually comparing apples to apples. In the case of the F-35, the targeting pods, EW/ECM are all internal to the aircraft and their maintenance costs are included in that figure. Conversely, these features are all external add ons to the the F-16, F-15 and F-18. Are the maintenance costs of these pods and external fuel tanks etc included in the CPFH for each of these 4th generation aircraft?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.
Roper Hints NGAD Could Replace F-35; Why? Life-Cycle Costs - Breaking Defense
The NGAD program "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," said outgoing AF acquisition head Will Roper.breakingdefense.com
EDIT: F-35A CPFH US$44,000.00 (2018)
F-15EX CPFH US$29,000 (2020)F-18F CPFH US$18,000 (2019)
From memory, the reason that the Skyhawks did not participate in East Timor was purely political. @MrConservative may be able to correct me if I am wrong. 75 Sqn were in Singapore at the time having been on deployment and what I am given to understand from personnel in the RNZAF at the time, the GOTD did not want the Sqn involved at all because it did not suit their political agenda. IIRC it was the beginning of the Clark Labour government.
NZGOV acquisition policy is to take all costs into account and with aviation assets CPFH / LCC does have a significant impact. If you cannot understand why I mentioned LO then you don't understand the full capability suite of the F-35 and what it offers. Yes there are some things that are not discussed on an open forum because of OPSEC or other confidential requirements, but they may be indirectly alluded to. For example we do that with the P-8A and the underslung super secret radar that some USN ones carry.
Yes I am being harsh with you, but it is time for you to have a dose of realism and think about the context what you are posting. You know full well that no NZGOV will acquire the F-35 but you still persist with your claim. Some of us are aware of things that you aren't just because we live in the country and move through different groups within the society. Some of us actually make a point of being on top of what's happening and not all of our sources of information are open source, so we cannot and will not publish confidential information or sources, however we will where possible allude to it in general terms. If you cannot accept that, sobeit and it's no skin off my nose. However I will say this, there is public support for increased Defence spending and more people are wanting a return of the ACF. That can be seen on various social media platforms and in comments on various media articles.
I am very aware of that having been doing this for years.I would suggest that you read the Air Power 101 page before launching any further. It is an excellent resource. Then read the F-35 threads. All costs are included in the CPFH.
It was still Shipley in charge and it was a bit different. It was September 1999 and ircc they were in the Phillipines or had been. They were on exercise at the time anyway and not part of the ADF planning. The reason was they as a force were not ready to go and were not offered in the direct taskforce. The 75 Sqd were fully pre-occupied by the arrival of the F-16's and a number of their key people were in the US at that stage. They were placed on standby reserve by Shipley and were kept in Townsville for a brief period before heading home.