NZDF General discussion thread

[Julian 82]

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.

What we are contending is that for the considerable cost involved in regenerating an air combat force, it is not worth that expense in buying an aircraft that will be obsolete in high intensity combat within the next decade.

The PLAN is building CATOBAR aircraft carriers with their own version of the E-2 Hawkeye. They will introduce their own stealth fighters in these carrier air groups in due course (perhaps as early as a decade’s time).
A Super Hornet will simply not be survivable in this environment so any perceived CPFH cost saving is really a moot point.

 

[Raven22]

To inject a bit more realism New Zealand will spend around NZD$50 Billion into the NZDF over the next 10 years.

And every single one of those dollars has already been allocated to exisiting capabilities. Which is my point. Unless you are planning to gut the current force to pay for it, any new fast jet capability has to be paid for by additional spending. How much additional spending can be debated (I just extrapolated from the current NZ budget) but clearly it is a massive increase over and above what is already an increasing budget. Any discussion of fast jets has to be grounded in budgetary reality.

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.

We may be talking at cross purposes here, as I was talking about NZ having a true sovereign fast jet capability. Such a capability would be very expensive due to everything that needs to be paid for beyond the fast jets themselves (the training aircraft, the ground infrastructure for the aircraft, the infrastructure needed to store and maintain the weapons, instrumented ranges, threat libraries etc etc etc). If what is being advocated is simply NZ paying a pro-rata rate to add a dozen NZ flagged fast jets to the RAAF orbat then clearly that would be more manageable from a budgetary sense, but I would suggest even more of a non-starter politically. What are the chances of the NZ government spending billions of dollars for a capability that can only exist as part of a joint force structure, and over which they don’t have full sovereignty?

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.

I don’t think those numbers are very helpful. The note under the table with those figures says: This table aims to be indicative of expenditure on the Hornet and Super Hornet fleets, rather than providing complete life-cycle costing; for example, it does not cover the early sustainment of the Hornet fleet. These amounts have not been adjusted for inflation.

Those figures show how much was spent on the aircraft themselves, not how much it cost to maintain a fast jet capability in its entirety, which NZ would have to recreate from scratch.

 

[MrConservative]

And every single one of those dollars has already been allocated to exisiting capabilities. Which is my point. Unless you are planning to gut the current force to pay for it, any new fast jet capability has to be paid for by additional spending. How much additional spending can be debated (I just extrapolated from the current NZ budget) but clearly it is a massive increase over and above what is already an increasing budget. Any discussion of fast jets has to be grounded in budgetary reality.

It will obviously have to be additional spending as it is an additional cost. What we do know that the entire ACF of 17 Macchi and 22 A-4's historically cost 11% of the NZDF budget when the Capital Charge was removed. We also know that the F-16 because they were to be leased would have reduced this by about 3% as they were not part of the Capital Charge regime.

Should we be building up to a 50% increase in our defence spend from 1.1% of GDP to 1.6% which is the OECD average over the next decade? Absolutely. I think that this spending lift should have started 10 years ago, when it was obvious that the strategic mood in the Indo-Pacific was changing.

We may be talking at cross purposes here, as I was talking about NZ having a true sovereign fast jet capability. Such a capability would be very expensive due to everything that needs to be paid for beyond the fast jets themselves (the training aircraft, the ground infrastructure for the aircraft, the infrastructure needed to store and maintain the weapons, instrumented ranges, threat libraries etc etc etc). If what is being advocated is simply NZ paying a pro-rata rate to add a dozen NZ flagged fast jets to the RAAF orbat then clearly that would be more manageable from a budgetary sense, but I would suggest even more of a non-starter politically. What are the chances of the NZ government spending billions of dollars for a capability that can only exist as part of a joint force structure, and over which they don’t have full sovereignty?

The reality is that the NZDF is more interdependent on other countries. In every major engagement we fought within larger coalition structures. In many respects the RNZAF P-8A acquisition will be a morphed interdependent capability that will rely on and contribute to both the ADF and USN. That is a good thing in that we don't fall into the silo mentality of ourselves alone.

Thus we should take the opportunity to turn the discussion from this "oh gosh it is expensive I give up mentality" which has been repeated Ad nauseam - to here is a problem how to we solve it? What are the options? What are the strengths and weaknesses? What is the possibly trajectory of capability and will that process stay the same over time?

For example, as reestablishing a multirole air combat capability within the NZDF is an expensive and complex endeavour, an evolutionary approach might be the best way forward. An initial supplementary capability in partnership (with someone) that matures into its own sovereign identity over time.

I don’t think those numbers are very helpful. The note under the table with those figures says: This table aims to be indicative of expenditure on the Hornet and Super Hornet fleets, rather than providing complete life-cycle costing; for example, it does not cover the early sustainment of the Hornet fleet. These amounts have not been adjusted for inflation.

Those figures show how much was spent on the aircraft themselves, not how much it cost to maintain a fast jet capability in its entirety, which NZ would have to recreate from scratch.

However those figures give a very clear indication of the costs to operate 95 combat aircraft over a 10 year period which included the acquisition of 24 Rhino's and will be highly illustrative that it would not cost the RNZAF to spend $2.5 billion a year for 10 years or all up $25B to recreate a single squadron which is the all up cost of the whole FASC project. Early sustainment of the Hornet has no bearing in an accounting sense other than being historically interesting. Complete lifecycle costs will only fiscally impact later in any thru-life acquisition phase as equipment and components age. Thus they are more helpful than you wish them to be.

 

[Rob c]

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

Sorry I totally disagree as the NUMBER ONE priority of any defence force is to defend their countries sovereignty and freedom. Other priorities have to come after this number one priority, as if you fail to be able to protect your own freedom you cannot help anyone else .
As I have said before an AFC has the ability to have a significantly better deterrent effect than anything else we could afford, due to our geographical location as pointed in my previous post. The point being if you can deter any potential aggressor this must be your first choice as it will save the lives of your young men and women. There is nothing else we could own that would achieve this. Don't you like the the idea of NZ being able to maintain our freedom.

 

[Julian 82]

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.

What we are contending is that for the considerable cost involved in regenerating an air combat force, it is not worth that expense in buying an aircraft that will be obsolete in high intensity combat within the next decade.

The PLAN is building CATOBAR aircraft carriers with their own version of the E-2 Hawkeye. They will introduce their own stealth fighters in these carrier air groups in due course (perhaps as early as a decade’s time).
A Super Hornet will simply not be survivable in this environment so any perceived CPFH cost saving is really a moot point.

It will obviously have to be additional spending as it is an additional cost. What we do know that the entire ACF of 17 Macchi and 22 A-4's historically cost 11% of the NZDF budget when the Capital Charge was removed. We also know that the F-16 because they were to be leased would have reduced this by about 3% as they were not part of the Capital Charge regime.

Should we be building up to a 50% increase in our defence spend from 1.1% of GDP to 1.6% which is the OECD average over the next decade? Absolutely. I think that this spending lift should have started 10 years ago, when it was obvious that the strategic mood in the Indo-Pacific was changing.

The reality is that the NZDF is more interdependent on other countries. In every major engagement we fought within larger coalition structures. In many respects the RNZAF P-8A acquisition will be a morphed interdependent capability that will rely on and contribute to both the ADF and USN. That is a good thing in that we don't fall into the silo mentality of ourselves alone.

Thus we should take the opportunity to turn the discussion from this "oh gosh it is expensive I give up mentality" which has been repeated Ad nauseam - to here is a problem how to we solve it? What are the options? What are the strengths and weaknesses? What is the possibly trajectory of capability and will that process stay the same over time?

For example, as reestablishing a multirole air combat capability within the NZDF is an expensive and complex endeavour, an evolutionary approach might be the best way forward. An initial supplementary capability in partnership (with someone) that matures into its own sovereign identity over time.

However those figures give a very clear indication of the costs to operate 95 combat aircraft over a 10 year period which included the acquisition of 24 Rhino's and will be highly illustrative that it would not cost the RNZAF to spend $2.5 billion a year for 10 years or all up $25B to recreate a single squadron which is the all up cost of the whole FASC project. Early sustainment of the Hornet has no bearing in an accounting sense other than being historically interesting. Complete lifecycle costs will only fiscally impact later in any thru-life acquisition phase as equipment and components age. Thus they are more helpful than you wish them to be.

Mr C you make some excellent points. Would it not make sense for the RNZAF to acquire a squadron of F-35As? It is the aircraft which gives you the most bang for buck and the longest period of relevance and you can slot into the RAAF pipeline for training and sustainment.

 

[Raven22]

However those figures give a very clear indication of the costs to operate 95 combat aircraft over a 10 year period which included the acquisition of 24 Rhino's and will be highly illustrative that it would not cost the RNZAF to spend $2.5 billion a year for 10 years or all up $25B to recreate a single squadron which is the all up cost of the whole FASC project. Early sustainment of the Hornet has no bearing in an accounting sense other than being historically interesting. Complete lifecycle costs will only fiscally impact later in any thru-life acquisition phase as equipment and components age. Thus they are more helpful than you wish them to be.

Without getting in to a line by line back and forth, I will just respond to this. Those numbers only show the cost to sustain the hornet aircraft, not the whole capability. It doesn’t include the cost of the infrastructure they sit on, the weapons they fire, the training aircraft needed to train the pilots, the costs of maintaining ranges, the cost of maintaining threat libraries, and all the other gamut of things needed for a capability. It doesn‘t even include the wage of the pilots. The costs shown really aren’t indicative of the true costs of maintaining a fast jet capability.

All that would need to be recreated for NZ. Telling us how much of the funding pie the A-4s took 20 years ago isn’t very helpful either, as those planes already existed as did everything else needed to operate them. Again, exactly how much that cost would be can be debated, but it has to be debated. You can‘t just assume away the billions of dollars it would cost.

 

[Takao]

However those figures give a very clear indication of the costs to operate 95 combat aircraft over a 10 year period which included the acquisition of 24 Rhino's and will be highly illustrative that it would not cost the RNZAF to spend $2.5 billion a year for 10 years or all up $25B to recreate a single squadron which is the all up cost of the whole FASC project. Early sustainment of the Hornet has no bearing in an accounting sense other than being historically interesting. Complete lifecycle costs will only fiscally impact later in any thru-life acquisition phase as equipment and components age. Thus they are more helpful than you wish them to be.

No, if anything @Raven22 is understating the cost because you missed his last line.

That cost doesn't include infrastructure (Tindal, Williamstown and Amberley already existed and could take modern fast air) or workforce (1 and 6 Sqn already existed). It doesn't include a logistics or engineering workforce. It doesn't include the training pipeline (PC-9s and Hawk 127s already existed) nor does it include weapons or (depending on accounting) fuel. It literally provides you 95 aircraft sitting on a runway.

Beyond all that missing 'stuff', I'd be cautious against using RAAF figures. We have a larger fleet (and hence can spread costs better and our acquisition and sustainment for the Hornet fleets is unique and with the USN. If you want anything but Super's you will be dealing with a different force with different costs and support structures.

Then consider the timeline. When do you need this capability? 2030? !0 years is pushing it - but possibly feasible if you are generous with the $$. Anything shorter and I'd suggest you are in fantasy land.

Finally, assuming all this happens, you have 24 fighters and a training + logistics pipeline. They can't really fight though - there is no AEW&C or AAR. Again, you can rely on the RAAF, RAF or US for that, but if you want a sovereign capability (terms that keep popping up in this thread), you want it to be a credible ACF.

I'm loathe to comment on the RNZAF getting an ACF anymore because I can't see it happening in any reality. Not for a military that isn't really considering keeping or replacing key platforms already in service. But the constant facts that ACF supporters underestimate is the sheer cost at creating a new capability. That money has to come from somewhere, and while I get the "Government should raise spending", (a) they don't appear to be convinced and (b) that money will almost certainly go elsewhere to plug existing gaps. Once the NZ Government killed the F-16s, I think they publicly were stating that NZ forces would fight under Kangaroo-marked fighter protection.

 

[Rob c]

It was reported at the time of the cancellation by H.C. that the RNZAF's ACF was responsible for 10% of the defence budget, or $90-100M. However a treasury report 18 months after the close down the treasury reported an annual saving of $30m on the operating budget. The difference is explained by the way the accounting system works as these original costs included depreciation, capital charge, neither of which is a real saving when they are removed. It also included proportional charges like the cost of running Ohakea, a part of the defence HQ costs, and others like pensions R and D Etc, that then had to passed on to other units and functions.
The other point is that the unit probably represented a significantly greater amount of our ability to defend ourselves than the percentage cost it was to the defence budget.
The question that needs to be answered is what is best to first of all deter aggression against us and should this not work what will defend us from aggression and put the fewest number of our young men and women in harms way.

 

[Rob c]

Once the NZ Government killed the F-16s, I think they publicly were stating that NZ forces would fight under Kangaroo-marked fighter protection.

No, Helen Clark was saying that it was a benign strategic world and that we would not have to defend NZ and that at least half of the defence budget should be for capabilities for U.N. use. The rest was to be for such uses as fisheries patrols, SAR, disaster relief and other humanitarian tasks . The World situation was going to remain benign for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately the foreseeable future turned out to be a lot shorter than Helen Clark was trying to make out.

 

[MrConservative]

No, if anything @Raven22 is understating the cost because you missed his last line.

That cost doesn't include infrastructure (Tindal, Williamstown and Amberley already existed and could take modern fast air) or workforce (1 and 6 Sqn already existed). It doesn't include a logistics or engineering workforce. It doesn't include the training pipeline (PC-9s and Hawk 127s already existed) nor does it include weapons or (depending on accounting) fuel. It literally provides you 95 aircraft sitting on a runway.

Beyond all that missing 'stuff', I'd be cautious against using RAAF figures. We have a larger fleet (and hence can spread costs better and our acquisition and sustainment for the Hornet fleets is unique and with the USN. If you want anything but Super's you will be dealing with a different force with different costs and support structures.

Firstly, I referred to those figures, only in the sense that it would reveal the questionable claim of a $25B spend over 10 years for a sole squadron capability. Not seen one piece of evidence to back that claim up and yes I do understand the advantages of economies of scale but they would not explain a cost extrapolation out to $2.5B p.a to operate a few strike airframes. I would be very delighted to see such numbers. In fact it would be great if someone did dig down into the fiscal weeds and produced a realistic cost analysis.

The infrastructure costs at Ohakea for the permanent basing of Singaporean F-15's was deemed adequately affordable under the previous government, and the planned spending was aligned to benefit the local Manawatu region through and following the construction phase. Though the actual cost is now a s6 redaction they certainly did not run into hundreds of millions from what was suggested to me. The new fighter facilities for the RCAF at Cold Lake will cost CDN $272m for a 19000sqm facility including the demolition of the aging current facilities. In yet the current government chose not to due to wider policy reasons. When it comes to infrastructure costs and if we were going to head down that pathway into reconstituting an air combat capability, it would be prudent to look towards others like the RSAF who do have a basing shortfall with respect to the sharing the of infrastructure build and facility sustainment costs. That would be one of the gateways through the whole process.

Training, as you would be aware Part A of a LIFT course can be done on the T-6C, at least that is in place in an infrastructure sense, it maybe that we would need to outsource a small number of pilots to overseas to continue on Part B?

Then consider the timeline. When do you need this capability? 2030? !0 years is pushing it - but possibly feasible if you are generous with the $$. Anything shorter and I'd suggest you are in fantasy land.

I personally am under no illusions of the cost and the timing. But the opportunity cost to NZ if things unravel like they are highly likely to sometime over the next 10-15 years this all maybe too late.

Finally, assuming all this happens, you have 24 fighters and a training + logistics pipeline. They can't really fight though - there is no AEW&C or AAR. Again, you can rely on the RAAF, RAF or US for that, but if you want a sovereign capability (terms that keep popping up in this thread), you want it to be a credible ACF.

Indeed we may well have to rely on larger partners, as we have always done, whom I would also include the RSAF, RoKAF and JASDF because we as a nation require more certainty than just reliance on Australia for some components such as AEW&C and I have no problem with that - self reliance in partnership. Obviously when it comes to replacing the B757's a MRTT type of asset would logically be looked at. And yes looking at the DCP17 funding plan their seems to be money there in the FAMC strategic budget for such a capability.

I'm loathe to comment on the RNZAF getting an ACF anymore because I can't see it happening in any reality. Not for a military that isn't really considering keeping or replacing key platforms already in service.

In the last 5 years Platforms have been replaced. There has been no deletion of tangible capability in other areas.

Once the NZ Government killed the F-16s, I think they publicly were stating that NZ forces would fight under Kangaroo-marked fighter protection.

The government at that time circa 2000 believed neither the ADF or the NZDF would ever properly fight in the our "benign strategic environment" and that through their consummate diplomacy skills be a beacon of peace and hope.

 

[ngatimozart]

What we are contending is that for the considerable cost involved in regenerating an air combat force, it is not worth that expense in buying an aircraft that will be obsolete in high intensity combat within the next decade.

The PLAN is building CATOBAR aircraft carriers with their own version of the E-2 Hawkeye. They will introduce their own stealth fighters in these carrier air groups in due course (perhaps as early as a decade’s time).
A Super Hornet will simply not be survivable in this environment so any perceived CPFH cost saving is really a moot point.

There is a significant cost to regeneration of the ACF but we cannot add to it by acquiring the aircraft with the highest CPFH. Secondly, even suggesting the F-35 as the favoured solution to the pollies and Treasury is going to get their backs up immediately. There are politics involved in Kiwi defence acquisitions when they go from the Ministry to the Minister and Cabinet. There are also politics involvec between the Ministry, Treasury and MFAT. When the business case is put to Cabinet at each stage, it will have the pros and cons, including costs, for various aircraft, so Cabinet will have the best possible data to make a decision from. I happen to know this because there was a review into Defence Capability Procurement two years ago.

I am very aware of PLAN capabilities and what are thought to be their intentions. The first Type 002 CV is to be launched this year with fitting out to follow and probable IOC in 2025. The Type 003 CVN project has been put on hold at the moment, possibly due to funding issues, and it is not yet known if a second Type 002 will be built. It is also not known at present what the shipboard LO aircraft will be.

If a Superhornet isn't going to be survivable in that environment, pray tell how are the RAAF and USN Growlers going to survive then? TBH NZ CONOPS for the ACF will have to be formulated and approved. There are ways of mitigating some of the advantages of an LO aircraft and many factors come into account in air to air combat. Also it is how Gen 4+ aircraft are utilised in conjunction with friendly Gen 5 aircraft. There are plenty of articles in the literature that discuss this.

 

[t68]

NZGOV acquisition policy is to take all costs into account and with aviation assets CPFH / LCC does have a significant impact.

Yes it impacts the decision making, but it is also not the only thing that will sway the powers to be with the end decision, for something we will realistically be talking about may or may not happen in at least 5+ years time. When was the last time you saw the NZG rush into a decision on a major piece of equipment without a comprehensive business case let alone a capability it will regenerate from scratch

There is no point in rejecting an aircraft now just because CPFH are currently higher than the next lower spec aircraft that may or may not achieve the outcome that by force planning in a number of different scenarios and what the GOTD wants the defence force to be able to cover

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.

Really this is just getting to be condescending from you, are you really telling me you are privy to all this op-spec information and you all behind the scenes within this forum is sharing the information openly between yourself.....someone probably needs to go to gaol

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.

There is a difference between being harsh and you just being plain pretentious

There is a significant cost to regeneration of the ACF but we cannot add to it by acquiring the aircraft with the highest CPFH. Secondly, even suggesting the F-35 as the favoured solution to the pollies and Treasury is going to get their backs up immediately.

yes there is a significant cost to regeneration of the ACF, but you also have to be realistic on the time frame if and when the GOTD starts to serisoly consider such aircraft and the time frame the aircraft will be in service

If a Superhornet isn't going to be survivable in that environment, pray tell how are the RAAF and USN Growlers going to survive then? TBH NZ CONOPS for the ACF will have to be formulated and approved. There are ways of mitigating some of the advantages of an LO aircraft and many factors come into account in air to air combat. Also it is how Gen 4+ aircraft are utilised in conjunction with friendly Gen 5 aircraft. There are plenty of articles in the literature that discuss this.

You are totally missing the point in the suggestion of F35 in Kiwi colours, any consideration has to take into account how long the equipment will remain in service and how it remains relevant during that time. It is more than likely when NZGov makes a decision on a regeneration of a ACF at the same time that the RAAF is giving its recommendations to AusGov on replacement for the Rhinos and even perhaps Growler. you are discounting an aircraft on what it cost today, but NZG will be evaluating cost in most likely 10 years time

How about taking all this handbag swinging at each other off to PM's. Cheers MrC

 

[ren0312]

I am wondering why the RNZAF did not acquire F-5s instead of A-4s back in 1970, the F-5 also had light attack capabilities in addition to being a fighter jet, in addition it had 2 engines for additional redundancy. Also a fully upgraded F-5 like what Singapore, Chile, and Brazil have done is capable of firing BVR missiles, and Chile and Brazil are still keeping their F-5s flying up until now. Also owning upgraded F-5s would have allowed New Zealand to put aside the F-16 purchase issue in the late 90s, since the upgraded F-5s are still capable of flying up until the late 2020s.

 

[John Fedup]

NZ should seriously consider a ACF due to the deterioration of the geopolitical environment. I understand the the political and financial difficulties and unfortunately these factors will influence the choice of jet should it be decided to get back in the fighter game. The F-35 would be the best long term option. I think it would be in Australia’s and America’s interest to somehow subsidize this choice, especially if PLAN carriers start showing off F-31s on their flight decks or worse navalized J-20s from a CATOBAR carrier. The F-35 really does need to show a CPFH improvement though.

WRT to CPFH, I assume the $29,000 for the F-15EX was estimated from current F-15 costs. Although the EX has bigger engines and perhaps a little more exotic electronic kit, I am surprised it needs $11,000 more per hour than a SH. The F-35’s extra cost is sort of understandable due to LO and vastly more sophisticated electronic kit. The $44k estimate was from 2018, hopefully there has been some improvements with more on the way.

 

[ren0312]

NZ should seriously consider a ACF due to the deterioration of the geopolitical environment. I understand the the political and financial difficulties and unfortunately these factors will influence the choice of jet should it be decided to get back in the fighter game. The F-35 would be the best long term option. I think it would be in Australia’s and America’s interest to somehow subsidize this choice, especially if PLAN carriers start showing off F-31s on their flight decks or worse navalized J-20s from a CATOBAR carrier. The F-35 really does need to show a CPFH improvement though.

WRT to CPFH, I assume the $29,000 for the F-15EX was estimated from current F-15 costs. Although the EX has bigger engines and perhaps a little more exotic electronic kit, I am surprised it needs $11,000 more per hour than a SH. The F-35’s extra cost is sort of understandable due to LO and vastly more sophisticated electronic kit. The $44k estimate was from 2018, hopefully there has been some improvements with more on the way.

The Grippen Naval or F-16V is also a somewhat reasonable choice, though there is the problem that it is not LO, but then Germany does not think this is a problem with the Superbug and EF, also France does not think this is an issue either. If only NZ is allowed to buy from the Rusians the PAK-FA is also worth taking a look and has 2 engines.

 

[MrConservative]

I am wondering why the RNZAF did not acquire F-5s instead of A-4s back in 1970, the F-5 also had light attack capabilities in addition to being a fighter jet, in addition it had 2 engines for additional redundancy. Also a fully upgraded F-5 like what Singapore, Chile, and Brazil have done is capable of firing BVR missiles, and Chile and Brazil are still keeping their F-5s flying up until now. Also owning upgraded F-5s would have allowed New Zealand to put aside the F-16 purchase issue in the late 90s, since the upgraded F-5s are still capable of flying up until the late 2020s.

The F-5 was looked at and was the cheapest option on offer. However they were after a more CAS / Interdiction focused role in those days as in the previous decade the RNZAF flew the Venom in the Malayan Emergency and Canberra during the Confrontation in support of the RNZIR. The A-4 was very good at that particular role and equally became a very useful maritime strike platform when in the late 1980' was upgraded for that additional capability.

 

[Rob c]

The PLAN is building CATOBAR aircraft carriers with their own version of the E-2 Hawkeye. They will introduce their own stealth fighters in these carrier air groups in due course (perhaps as early as a decade’s time).
A Super Hornet will simply not be survivable in this environment so any perceived CPFH cost saving is really a moot point.

From a NZ point of view, you need to take the following into account.
Any attack on NZ would most likely be preceded by or in conjunction with an attack on Australia, therefore the aggressors most potent assets are more than likely to be tied up elsewhere.
It has been mentioned several times in the past that in an exercise 75 squadron RNZAF was successful in sinking an American carrier which would have been equipped with the E-2 , admittedly an older version, but the Skyhawks and their missiles were both older and the missiles in use had only a 20km range.
By the use of modern ECM and the long stand off range (300km) anti ship missiles , plus innovative tactics as in the case of 75 sqn's success, the SH could still present a formidable deterrent to an aircraft carrier.
Any significant damage to a carrier would put it out of action, however with proper aircraft dispersal, it would be very difficult to put NZ out of action and for that matter unlike a carrier we are unsinkable.

 

[Rob c]

The F-5 was looked at and was the cheapest option on offer. However they were after a more CAS / Interdiction focused role in those days as in the previous decade the RNZAF flew the Venom in the Malayan Emergency and Canberra during the Confrontation in support of the RNZIR. The A-4 was very good at that particular role and equally became a very useful maritime strike platform when in the late 1980' was upgraded for that additional capability.

From my time in De Eng I think there was also a question mark over the fatigue life of the F5 in NZ flying conditions as the RNZAF had already been bitten in this regard with the Canberra Bi 12 with main spar cracking starting to occur before 10 years.
For those interested the RNZAF lost 3 Skyhawks over 30 years due to engine failure, one at Bulls due to oil pump failure. one at Kakariki due to oil pump failure (different problem to the first and one in the Wairarapa area due to fuel pump failure. this was over 30 odd years and a total fleet of 24. the other 4 were due to non mechanical reasons.

 

[John Fedup]

The Grippen Naval or F-16V is also a somewhat reasonable choice, though there is the problem that it is not LO, but then Germany does not think this is a problem with the Superbug and EF, also France does not think this is an issue either. If only NZ is allowed to buy from the Rusians the PAK-FA is also worth taking a look and has 2 engines.

France and Germany have partnered to build a 5th Gen for operation in 2035. They would not start this expensive effort if they thought their current 4 and 4.5 Gen aircraft would still be suitable for 2030 onwards. It is why I hope the RCAF does not get SHs forced on them by junior. Whatever they get will have to be viable and supportable out to 2060 (maybe even longer).

As for the Su-57, not a choice that would likely impress other FVEY members or Japan.

 

[aviation_enthus]

From a NZ point of view, you need to take the following into account.
Any attack on NZ would most likely be preceded by or in conjunction with an attack on Australia, therefore the aggressors most potent assets are more than likely to be tied up elsewhere.
It has been mentioned several times in the past that in an exercise 75 squadron RNZAF was successful in sinking an American carrier which would have been equipped with the E-2 , admittedly an older version, but the Skyhawks and their missiles were both older and the missiles in use had only a 20km range.
By the use of modern ECM and the long stand off range (300km) anti ship missiles , plus innovative tactics as in the case of 75 sqn's success, the SH could still present a formidable deterrent to an aircraft carrier.
Any significant damage to a carrier would put it out of action, however with proper aircraft dispersal, it would be very difficult to put NZ out of action and for that matter unlike a carrier we are unsinkable.

I think this explanation is well put. Others have made similar points as well, define the threat and area of operations, then choose what is required to defeat it.

Any threat to NZ will have to come from the north. Also, NZ would not be facing any conflict on its own. Simple geography says any threat to NZ will be the result of a major conflict involving most of the countries in the Pacific. (Like WW2). So a sovereign capability is important, but they won’t be fighting a future enemy 1 vs 1.

So for example a Super Hornet supported by a strong P-8/surveillance force would be a reasonable threat for anyone trying to operate in NZ waters. Just because a nation like China has (in the future) a carrier with LO fighters, doesn’t mean it’s likely to be seen off the coast of NZ. More likely to be similar to other major conflicts in history, surface raiders or SLCM will be a persistent threat. The ability to sink a ship/submarine will be paramount. Air to air combat will be unlikely unless as part of a large coalition force (with AEWC etc).