Royal New Zealand Air Force

[RegR]

To be honest unless you commit to it totally I don't see the point in doing half arsed and that means jumping straight into the deep end with JSF.


But since the chances of that happening is zero, I'd like to see a better investment within the JATF. That includes more NH-90 eventual replacement of SH-2G with Lynx Wildcat or similar that can do more than just ASW. A more sustainable shipping for JATF preferably with a well dock and hanger for upto 6 helicopters, a better investment in offensive land capabilty

Guess it all depends on what our govt would/would have actually commited them too and actually used for? which is barely anything resembling pure air combat and far short of being anywhere near a 5th gen adversary requiring the likes of F35 vs F16.

I would like to see more NH90 but combined with the seasprite replacement not on top of ie seasprite replaced with NFH/NH90s. NFHs for the combat side and marinised NHs for the support vessels. Provides a capable naval helo, JATF helo, common platform and keeps it with the maritime SME 6 Sqn.

I see nothing to suggest 3 sqn is short on frames just yet therefore cannot see them getting any extra 90s so if 6 sqn was to get some basic marinised versions as well as the more complex NFHs come replacement time them we are not nesscessarily increasing overall numbers but still gaining capability over the current sprites. If they are mainly for JATF then makes even more sense to keep them in navy grey. Air force uses CY mainly as transport to a land op whereas naval aviation has the expertise to work from the CY as routine, cuts down on currencies needing to be maintained as well.

4 NFHs for the future frigates and OPV and 3-4 naval NHs for CY (future CY) and new End along with marinising a couple of the extra A109s and we have a sqn more comparable in size and options to 3 sqn but obviously marine in nature.

 

[ngatimozart]

Guess it all depends on what our govt would/would have actually commited them too and actually used for? which is barely anything resembling pure air combat and far short of being anywhere near a 5th gen adversary requiring the likes of F35 vs F16.

I would like to see more NH90 but combined with the seasprite replacement not on top of ie seasprite replaced with NFH/NH90s. NFHs for the combat side and marinised NHs for the support vessels. Provides a capable naval helo, JATF helo, common platform and keeps it with the maritime SME 6 Sqn.

I see nothing to suggest 3 sqn is short on frames just yet therefore cannot see them getting any extra 90s so if 6 sqn was to get some basic marinised versions as well as the more complex NFHs come replacement time them we are not nesscessarily increasing overall numbers but still gaining capability over the current sprites. If they are mainly for JATF then makes even more sense to keep them in navy grey. Air force uses CY mainly as transport to a land op whereas naval aviation has the expertise to work from the CY as routine, cuts down on currencies needing to be maintained as well.

4 NFHs for the future frigates and OPV and 3-4 naval NHs for CY (future CY) and new End along with marinising a couple of the extra A109s and we have a sqn more comparable in size and options to 3 sqn but obviously marine in nature.

Some numbers for NH90 maritime derivatives. This is the source for the costs. Note that the source is in French.

• NFH - ASW/ASuW €43.3 million flyaway cost: NZ$ 420 million
• NFH - Support €36.4 million flyaway cost: NZ$ 235 million
• Total Flyaway Cost: NZ$ 655 million
• Term Of Life Cost: NZ$1.63 billion
• Exchange rate NZ$1.00 =€0.6243

I've gone with six of the NFH - ASW / ASuW because I think three frigates is a necessity and two helos per frigate is a minimum. In reality for three frigates they should have eight of these aircraft. With the Support variant four minimum but even with two logistics vessels that should be enough. In reality they should have five. I am in two minds about any acquisition of the NFH - ASW / ASuW variant because it may negate operating them off any future OPV / OCV.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Yes I read that also somewhere, does make sense with minimum operational requirements along with an OCU, attrition etc for a singular squadron. Classic NZDF however, Service wants X govts thinking Y compromise service gets Z. Think the only time they won the numbers game was NZLAV haha

Yeah, but arent they selling quite a few of them Lav 3 off now? looks like they are having crewing issues with the navy Ipv too, it seems Nzdf has more of an issue with crewing what it has , before buying large numbers of vehicles, vessels and putting them into service.

 

[Joe Black]

These are the figures for setting up an ACF. The figures include a guesstimate of the term of life costs.

• KAI TA50 LIFT US$35 million flyaway cost: 12 = NZ$0.6 billion
• F16 Block 52 US$70 million flyaway cost: 18 = NZ$4.7 billion + LIFT = NZ$5.3 billion
• F18F Super Hornets US$65.3 million flyaway cost: 18 = NZ$4.3 billion + LIFT = NZ$4.9 billion

Hence quite an expensive undertaking. The loading that I have used for the Term Of Life Costing is Flyaway Cost plus 250%. Whilst I believe that this is NOT how the NZG calculate thru life costs, it should give an indication of the total costs. The flyaway costs are only as accurate as the info that is on the websites where I accessed the data, so should be taken as indicative only. Exchange rate was NZ$1.00 = US$0.6824.

If NZ is to re-introduce fast jets, I would suggest either a Sqn of 18 F/A-50 Golden Eagles or a mix of 12 F/A-50 + 8 Gripen C would be great options. One could get 2nd hand JAS-39C Gripen as the Royal Swedish AF are selling some of the still relatively new planes.

 

[RegR]

Some numbers for NH90 maritime derivatives. This is the source for the costs. Note that the source is in French.

• NFH - ASW/ASuW €43.3 million flyaway cost: NZ$ 420 million
• NFH - Support €36.4 million flyaway cost: NZ$ 235 million
• Total Flyaway Cost: NZ$ 655 million
• Term Of Life Cost: NZ$1.63 billion
• Exchange rate NZ$1.00 =€0.6243

I've gone with six of the NFH - ASW / ASuW because I think three frigates is a necessity and two helos per frigate is a minimum. In reality for three frigates they should have eight of these aircraft. With the Support variant four minimum but even with two logistics vessels that should be enough. In reality they should have five. I am in two minds about any acquisition of the NFH - ASW / ASuW variant because it may negate operating them off any future OPV / OCV.

I guess if and when we get a 3rd frigate then we could add an extra helo or 2 in as part of the package, TBH I'm still holding my breath for the 3rd OPV so can't really see it happening due to cost, crewing etc as much as I see its merit. I would not get NH types for our current fleet but for their eventual replacements, even the ANZACs are not ideal for their size, so obviously they (future vessels) will be future proofed with a larger hanger and rated flight deck amongst other things. OPVs such as BAM are able to accommodate NH/MH size plus we have only just aqquired the upgraded sprites so awhile off yet.

 

[RegR]

Yeah, but arent they selling quite a few of them Lav 3 off now? looks like they are having crewing issues with the navy Ipv too, it seems Nzdf has more of an issue with crewing what it has , before buying large numbers of vehicles, vessels and putting them into service.

The 4 IPVs replaced 4 IPCs so no increase there, recruitment and retention has it's ups and downs as with any large organisation and is not really the equipments fault. The need and requirement is still there regardless of if we can get/keep the people where they need to be to do it.

 

[RegR]

Sorry repost

 

[kiwipatriot69]

The 4 IPVs replaced 4 IPCs so no increase there, recruitment and retention has it's ups and downs as with any large organisation and is not really the equipments fault. The need and requirement is still there regardless of if we can get/keep the people where they need to be to do it.[/


Just brought that up not to knock the gear, just the funding for crews and deployment of equipment, wether its Ipv's, Lav's or aircraft.Our Navy today online articles seem to think extra Opv will happen so im confident.Would be curious to know, how often are Seasprites deployed on our ships?

 

[swerve]

If NZ is to re-introduce fast jets, I would suggest either a Sqn of 18 F/A-50 Golden Eagles or a mix of 12 F/A-50 + 8 Gripen C would be great options. One could get 2nd hand JAS-39C Gripen as the Royal Swedish AF are selling some of the still relatively new planes.

AFAIK there's actually a shortage of used JAS39C at the moment. Brazil would like to lease a squadron of them pending delivery of JAS39E, & Slovakia would like to buy or lease a squadron of either new or refurbished aircraft, but there aren't enough in store to provide those & the Swedish air force's requirements & no JAS39C are currently being built (though IIRC SAAB says it's able to re-start production cheaply enough to make a squadron of new aircraft an economically viable proposition - it's keeping the line alive on maintenance, upgrades & JAS39E work).

The RSwAF might let enough go for the Brazilians & Slovaks to be supplied, but anyone else will have to wait until either some JAS39A/B can be modernised (IIRC there are some in store, fairly low hours) or some new JAS39C can be built, either of which would take a while, or until enough JAS39E have been built to free up some of the currently operational Cs.

So - the RNZAF can get JAS39C/D eventually, but not in a hurry.

 

[ADMk2]

AFAIK there's actually a shortage of used JAS39C at the moment. Brazil would like to lease a squadron of them pending delivery of JAS39E, & Slovakia would like to buy or lease a squadron of either new or refurbished aircraft, but there aren't enough in store to provide those & the Swedish air force's requirements & no JAS39C are currently being built (though IIRC SAAB says it's able to re-start production cheaply enough to make a squadron of new aircraft an economically viable proposition - it's keeping the line alive on maintenance, upgrades & JAS39E work).

The RSwAF might let enough go for the Brazilians & Slovaks to be supplied, but anyone else will have to wait until either some JAS39A/B can be modernised (IIRC there are some in store, fairly low hours) or some new JAS39C can be built, either of which would take a while, or until enough JAS39E have been built to free up some of the currently operational Cs.

So - the RNZAF can get JAS39C/D eventually, but not in a hurry.

There is no rush anyway. Even if the RNZAF were authorised and funded to re-constitute a fixed wing air combat capability, the lead time to get ready to do so would take years anyway. They could probably order brand new -E models that could be manufactured and delivered before they were ready to properly employ them.

 

[ADMk2]

When take as a capabilty for the entire ADF it's not much to write home about, but when you take it with the capabilty in isolation and mix it with previous liberal goverment stance of raids and pre-emptive raids/strike then you can see we're concern my come from some of the neighbours.

The MQ-9 Reaper capabilty would be an excellent capabilty for irregular warfare objectives in time sensitive operation's whilst conducting ISR missions. No idea where the current administration sits with this.

"Dr Mahathir joined the outrage across South-East Asia over remarks by John Howard, the Australian prime minister, hinting that he was willing to sanction pre-emptive strikes against terrorists in neighbouring states."


Raids will mean war, Australia is warned - Telegraph

Not if we are supposedly conducting these missions in non-permissive airspace they aren't. They are entirely vulerable to even relatively simple air defence systems.

They are good at striking terrorists from 40,000 feet when the entire air space is sanitised and controlled by fignters, air defence and AWACS systems.

If Australia was prepared to go that far, and could actually manage it, I doubt the presence of MQ-9 Reapers would be especially troublesome for this nation...

An F-35 OTOH is most definitely intended to go into that non-permissive environment, so again, I really don't see the MQ-9 as upsetting as the first full LO strike fighter in the region, and the complaints about JSF haven't (yet) been about that...

Anyhoo, back to the RNZAF...

 

[40 deg south]

Anyhoo, back to the RNZAF...

Which has transport and maritime surveillance fleets that are both almost exactly 50 years old...

Fun though it is speculating on how NZ could best reinstate a strike capability, there are more pressing issues to deal with first!

 

[t68]

Not if we are supposedly conducting these missions in non-permissive airspace they aren't. They are entirely vulerable to even relatively simple air defence systems.

They are good at striking terrorists from 40,000 feet when the entire air space is sanitised and controlled by fignters, air defence and AWACS systems.

If Australia was prepared to go that far, and could actually manage it, I doubt the presence of MQ-9 Reapers would be especially troublesome for this nation...

An F-35 OTOH is most definitely intended to go into that non-permissive environment, so again, I really don't see the MQ-9 as upsetting as the first full LO strike fighter in the region, and the complaints about JSF haven't (yet) been about that...

Anyhoo, back to the RNZAF...

Cheers point taken

 

[t68]

Which has transport and maritime surveillance fleets that are both almost exactly 50 years old...

Fun though it is speculating on how NZ could best reinstate a strike capability, there are more pressing issues to deal with first!

Hopefully we will have a better idea of goverment thinking soon

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Which is why i suggested Drones in the first place, not just as 'strike capability' but Mpa. Multi role does seem to be the Buzzword in defence these days.

 

[gf0012-aust]

What intrests me is the article of australian $300 million purchase of reaper drones from America . And thier use for light attack,or even Triton for MPA could this be a possible solution for New Zealand, also perhaps to replace the skyhawks?

Triton is not configured for weaps carriage - thats why it was not an ideal platform for the armed coast watch role

its been a while since I saw the reports, but Triton also did not fit the borderprot and coastwatch flight profile for a weaponised system. - its why Mariner was a better fit for the armed role

Triton is a pure companion ISR system to be used in conjunction with manned weaponised platforms (BAMS)

added

the flight profile conops for a BAMS unmanned aircraft is very different to a weaponised unmanned

Triton is not designed for the latter flight profile - Mariner/Predator is

 

[40 deg south]

Hopefully we will have a better idea of goverment thinking soon

Yes, although whether the White Paper will be unveiled in April (as suggested by Radio NZ) or sooner is still a mystery.

If the 2010 version is anything to go by, it won't contain the shopping list of equipment that some may expect. Rather, it sets out the strategic priorities, and the capabilities the government is prepared to fund.

For example, it might specify that NZ needs the ability to rapidly transport NH90s to the Pacific for disaster relief. That will tell us that the Air Force is in line for something larger than a C130, but we will have to read between the lines whether this is more likely to be an A400 or some other possibility (new/second-hand C-17s, Japanese XC-2).

All in all, it's likely to pose more questions for members this forum than it answers.

 

[40 deg south]

Saab, Bombardier To Launch Maritime Patrol Aircraft Programs

Boeing’s Maritime Aircraft Options Dominate Singapore Airshow

A couple of links from the Singapore Air Show about maritime surveillance, which some may find interesting. There certainly is renewed interest in the topic in the South China Sea area.

 

[t68]

Yes, although whether the White Paper will be unveiled in April (as suggested by Radio NZ) or sooner is still a mystery.

If the 2010 version is anything to go by, it won't contain the shopping list of equipment that some may expect. Rather, it sets out the strategic priorities, and the capabilities the government is prepared to fund.

For example, it might specify that NZ needs the ability to rapidly transport NH90s to the Pacific for disaster relief. That will tell us that the Air Force is in line for something larger than a C130, but we will have to read between the lines whether this is more likely to be an A400 or some other possibility (new/second-hand C-17s, Japanese XC-2).

All in all, it's likely to pose more questions for members this forum than it answers.

Agreed, white paper will define the stratgic guidence of the NZDF, there is a transport study reveiw which for all intents was supposed to be released last year, Nagati has been following it with a keen interest he may have some up to date info.

 

[ngatimozart]

Saab, Bombardier To Launch Maritime Patrol Aircraft Programs

Boeing’s Maritime Aircraft Options Dominate Singapore Airshow

A couple of links from the Singapore Air Show about maritime surveillance, which some may find interesting. There certainly is renewed interest in the topic in the South China Sea area.

Interesting links. There are some potential platforms that the NZG may find interesting. TBH Airbus have been fiddling around with the A319MPA for years and they could of had it FOC well before the Boeing P8, if they had of persevered with it. For example, it would have meet the British MPA requirements, probably German and the French ones, plus other European P3 users. It would have been relatively easy to upgrade it to an A320 type. In the case of NZ, A320s are already being operated here by Air NZ so there would have been some maintenance synergies.

The Elbit G5000 (IIRC) based MPA looks an interesting prospect and if it does have a good ISR component as well, could be a serious contender. It has a far greater range and loitre time than the P8. It's also cheaper to acquire and operate. Elbit also do ISR and sigint conversions, JSTARS style conversions, AEW and others.

Addition: Sorry I don't have any uptodate info on the air transport study yet.