Royal New Zealand Air Force

[kiwipatriot69]

Just thinking China as an option, given the supply issues Aibus is having with the A400 M, and unavailable C 17, hercules j being too similar to what we have, other options i gather here like Embraer Kc 390 seems a bit of gamble so it doesnt bode well for RNZAF transport fleet, given the time frame is now what, five years before the 'Lep' on the Herc's starts expiring, then essential aircraft are retired?Im getting the impression our Air transport is looking pretty screwed TBH

 

[Cadredave]

Just thinking China as an option, given the supply issues Aibus is having with the A400 M, and unavailable C 17, hercules j being too similar to what we have, other options i gather here like Embraer Kc 390 seems a bit of gamble so it doesnt bode well for RNZAF transport fleet, given the time frame is now what, five years before the 'Lep' on the Herc's starts expiring, then essential aircraft are retired?Im getting the impression our Air transport is looking pretty screwed TBH

KP NZDF would never recommend transport aircraft to MOD from those two countries for the reasons that Tod gave it does come down to buyer beware, also there is a mountain of work going on behind the scenes that never make the light of day ie in the media I have absolute trust in NZDF being able to get what they require out of cabinet this is not the 60's - 90's all purchases are now Joint except of course single service purchases like AT-6 or Javelin, RNZAF has the full backing for the C-130H replacement of the other two services it will get done. Some of us might be very surprise at what does get purchased.

CD

 

[Todjaeger]

Just thinking China as an option, given the supply issues Aibus is having with the A400 M, and unavailable C 17, hercules j being too similar to what we have, other options i gather here like Embraer Kc 390 seems a bit of gamble so it doesnt bode well for RNZAF transport fleet, given the time frame is now what, five years before the 'Lep' on the Herc's starts expiring, then essential aircraft are retired?Im getting the impression our Air transport is looking pretty screwed TBH

Unfortunately, I have to agree that the state of the RNZAF is looking rather dire. Even worse, is that the situation is really self-inflicted, not so much by the RNZAF/NZDF IMO, but by previous Gov't for what appear to be ideological reasons either declined to or postponed needed replacement programmes. What makes the situation so galling to me, is that the "cost-saving" SLEP for the Hercs, apart from being delayed so long leading to missions being cancelled due to a lack of available and functioning aircraft, is that the SLEP cost ended up being nearly enough to replace the Hercs themselves. IIRC the cost ended up being ~NZD$250 mil. which at the time was just about enough to purchase 4 of the -J Hercs at their flyaway cost.

All that being said, I really do not see Russian or Chinese aircraft as being able to replace or even fulfill any gaps. There are reasons why aircraft produced in Russia, and China especially, do not have international flight certifications and are not cleared to fly in European or US airspace. It is not to keep those markets from purchasing from China instead of their domestic markets, but because the manufacturing and QC in particular does not meet the standards for US and European aircraft.

With respect to how the RNZAF got into this situation... I do wish some sort of inquest was held, to determine who made what decisions at various points. If the situation is the result of a refusal to open the purse, as I suspect it is, then I would advocate for the political equivalent of crucifying the responsible parties.

 

[John Fedup]

Difficult times for airforces needing to upgrade their fleets. The only decent military procurement for Canada lately has been C-17s and C-130Js. We were extremely lucky in not getting sucked into the A400M program. Unfortunately for NZ, the A400 and C-130J are the only current choices (A400 is having difficulties). Hopefully the KC390 program stays on course as it could be an addtional alternative that is worth looking at.

 

[ngatimozart]

With respect to how the RNZAF got into this situation... I do wish some sort of inquest was held, to determine who made what decisions at various points. If the situation is the result of a refusal to open the purse, as I suspect it is, then I would advocate for the political equivalent of crucifying the responsible parties.

Unfortunately an enquiry or inquest IMHO it is highly unlikely ever to be held because of too many vested political and other interests, plus Treasury would do all it could to undercut it, because its fingerprints would be over the incriminating evidence. The army may not come out of it smelling like roses either; and again that is unfortunate for them because I believe that they were placed in a very unfortunate position because they were in a position of having an essential capability being for all intents and purposes, fw&t, literally.

Finally the then RNZAF hierarchy have to take some blame as well, for resting on their laurels a bit, by not being proactive and political enough during the 1990s. There were many things that they could have done, but didn't and to this day I believe that the RNZAF hierarachy still haven't fully learned the lesson from the axing of the ACF. I realise that this comment will upset some current and ex RNZAF personnel and I do not apologise for it (because, being ex RNZAF myself the axing of the ACF really hurt), ALL of the reasons why need to be thoroughly examined honestly and without favour so that the lessons are learned in order that this is not repeated again.

 

[shanes_world_05]

Unfortunately an enquiry or inquest IMHO it is highly unlikely ever to be held because of too many vested political and other interests, plus Treasury would do all it could to undercut it, because its fingerprints would be over the incriminating evidence. The army may not come out of it smelling like roses either; and again that is unfortunate for them because I believe that they were placed in a very unfortunate position because they were in a position of having an essential capability being for all intents and purposes, fw&t, literally.

Finally the then RNZAF hierarchy have to take some blame as well, for resting on their laurels a bit, by not being proactive and political enough during the 1990s. There were many things that they could have done, but didn't and to this day I believe that the RNZAF hierarachy still haven't fully learned the lesson from the axing of the ACF. I realise that this comment will upset some current and ex RNZAF personnel and I do not apologise for it (because, being ex RNZAF myself the axing of the ACF really hurt), ALL of the reasons why need to be thoroughly examined honestly and without favour so that the lessons are learned in order that this is not repeated again.

Cant agree more. Sadly we are never likely to maintain a "credible minimum of capability" as a result (I hate that term-absolute rubbish of a term).

 

[ngatimozart]

Cant agree more. Sadly we are never likely to maintain a "credible minimum of capability" as a result (I hate that term-absolute rubbish of a term).

Yes and it leaves absolutely no room for any errors or technical failures. It is because Treasury does not see the need for any more expenditure on defence than it can avoid. In 1999 and 2000 it pushed for and succeeded in having the army designated as the main defence priority for expenditure because it was less technology based than the other two services hence being cheaper. Treasury were pushing for the axing of the frigate force as well based purely on cost. The Clark fixation with cancelling the F16 deal played right into their hands. Same with Winston Peters and Clark's strident opposition to the acquisition of the third Anzac frigate. Treasury have a historical record for being anti defence. After WW2 we could have had a really good air force based around aircraft we had after the war. Corsair fighters, Avengers, C47s and Catalinas. We probably could have struck a good deal with the US for the cost. Treasury balked big time. It was a very short sighted move that cost the country dearly.

The NZG decided to acquire a British cruiser and six frigates after the war. Unfortunately the RNZN then had British senior officers and they still thought in terms of a northern hemisphere naval outlook. There were some however, who thought that a cruiser was not suited for the Pacific because of the expanse and they had been in the Pacific during the war. IMHO we may have been better having a war surplus RN carrier instead. We definitely had the aircraft to operate off it (Corsairs and Avengers) and more importantly there were plenty of Kiwis who had served in the RNFAA during the war and were returning home. A carrier would have been a better option. The frigates would have provided an escort force. The end result would have been the RNZAF ACF and a RNZN FAA flying the same combat aircraft for the first few years.

Later on when it came to replacement we would probably have never been able to replace it like for like, but we may have gone down the road of something like a helicopter carrier with a strong naval aviation component. However that's really all moot because it never happened, unfortunately. It would have been interesting if it had.

 

[Rob c]

Yes and it leaves absolutely no room for any errors or technical failures. It is because Treasury does not see the need for any more expenditure on defence than it can avoid. In 1999 and 2000 it pushed for and succeeded in having the army designated as the main defence priority for expenditure because it was less technology based than the other two services hence being cheaper. Treasury were pushing for the axing of the frigate force as well based purely on cost. The Clark fixation with cancelling the F16 deal played right into their hands. Same with Winston Peters and Clark's strident opposition to the acquisition of the third Anzac frigate. Treasury have a historical record for being anti defence. After WW2 we could have had a really good air force based around aircraft we had after the war. Corsair fighters, Avengers, C47s and Catalinas. We probably could have struck a good deal with the US for the cost. Treasury balked big time. It was a very short sighted move that cost the country dearly.

The NZG decided to acquire a British cruiser and six frigates after the war. Unfortunately the RNZN then had British senior officers and they still thought in terms of a northern hemisphere naval outlook. There were some however, who thought that a cruiser was not suited for the Pacific because of the expanse and they had been in the Pacific during the war. IMHO we may have been better having a war surplus RN carrier instead. We definitely had the aircraft to operate off it (Corsairs and Avengers) and more importantly there were plenty of Kiwis who had served in the RNFAA during the war and were returning home. A carrier would have been a better option. The frigates would have provided an escort force. The end result would have been the RNZAF ACF and a RNZN FAA flying the same combat aircraft for the first few years.

Later on when it came to replacement we would probably have never been able to replace it like for like, but we may have gone down the road of something like a helicopter carrier with a strong naval aviation component. However that's really all moot because it never happened, unfortunately. It would have been interesting if it had.

The RNZN did actually want a carrier, did the costing etc and did submit to Cabinet but was refused; and while treasury has had an over sized influence on defence they have little real expertise in the strategic or tactical needs of defence the defence forces and absolutely no training.

 

[ngatimozart]

The RNZN did actually want a carrier, did the costing etc and did submit to Cabinet but was refused; and while treasury has had an over sized influence on defence they have little real expertise in the strategic or tactical needs of defence the defence forces and absolutely no training.

And therein lies the crux of the matter. They are economists with an ingrained economists experience, worldview, philosophy, theories and models. Since prior to the 1984 election they have subscribed to neoliberal economic and political theory to almost a point of religious fervour. Whilst that has bought advantages not everything in the world operates to market economy theories and rules. That is their big failing. I was a geographer by trade so I have a different world view and approach to most disciplines. That is what all geography first years are taught and have drummed into them because it is seen as a strength to be built on in order to have a holistic view of the world around us. So we have the ability to look at the macro, meso and micro scales simultaneously. Unfortunately Treasury is unable to do that, unable to look at the world beyond economics.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

And therein lies the crux of the matter. They are economists with an ingrained economists experience, worldview, philosophy, theories and models. Since prior to the 1984 election they have subscribed to neoliberal economic and political theory to almost a point of religious fervour. Whilst that has bought advantages not everything in the world operates to market economy theories and rules. That is their big failing. I was a geographer by trade so I have a different world view and approach to most disciplines. That is what all geography first years are taught and have drummed into them because it is seen as a strength to be built on in order to have a holistic view of the world around us. So we have the ability to look at the macro, meso and micro scales simultaneously. Unfortunately Treasury is unable to do that, unable to look at the world beyond economics.

Im thinking with all the political unrest and acts of terror, and China's aggression and influence in the Pacific, our politicians and treasury must be getting feedback by now from its US and other allies,to pull our weight more. After all, there are economic reasons we can use too for having a stronger military presence in the pacific.

 

[Bonza]

IIRC at one of the Avalon airshows within the last decade or so, Russia wanted to send either a MiG-29 or Su-27/30 to participate. However, the aircraft did not participate because the aircraft was not allowed to operate in Australian airspace due to concerns over reliability.

Actually the Russians did send an Su-27, which flew its full display, some years ago. Longer than a decade ago, however. Are you sure you're not referring to the Malaysian Su-30s? If memory serves they wished to participate but some kind of technical issues with the aircraft's reliability caused them to be scratched. But I'm operating on memory here as you are, GF could probably clear it up... I'm certain the Flanker flew at Avalon years ago however.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Actually the Russians did send an Su-27, which flew its full display, some years ago. Longer than a decade ago, however. Are you sure you're not referring to the Malaysian Su-30s? If memory serves they wished to participate but some kind of technical issues with the aircraft's reliability caused them to be scratched. But I'm operating on memory here as you are, GF could probably clear it up... I'm certain the Flanker flew at Avalon years ago however.

the Flanker for the 99 Avalon show couldn't get certification. CASA failed it on safety reasons so it never made the visit.

the russians were a bit unhappy

 

[Bonza]

the Flanker for the 99 Avalon show couldn't get certification. CASA failed it on safety reasons so it never made the visit.

the russians were a bit unhappy

Ahh is that what happened... the Flanker I saw must have been what, 1992, 1993? Couldn't believe my eyes when I saw it. Such a friggin gigantic plane. Cheers for the explanation.

Sorry for the off-topic folks.

 

[MrConservative]

Looking at the EEZ surveillance side, the more I think about it the more I have come around to Mr C's idea of using the B350ER for that role. However I would suggest that it should be fitted with a maritime surveillance radar, AIS and an EO turret. It doesn't need to be armed but it should have SAR capability. Yes the sensors cost but they are required. The B350, probably not the ER, could also be used in the B200 role.

Looking at future airborne surveillance platform I still am of the opinion that the Bombardier G6000 SAAB Swordfish combination is better for the NZDF than the P8 because of the cost alone and with limited funds we can obtain more platforms than we could if we acquired the P8. A combination of both the light and heavier platform would be beneficial in the long term.

The 350ER can be tricked up to a whole range of capabilities. It is a very handy small multi-use platform ISR, SAR, MEPT, VIP, et al including light tactical. Ocean Eye and MX-15 in the NZEEZ / MISR role enabling the P-3K2 to be more directed in using its capabilities.

However I am not at all convinced about Swordfish in our strategic context post 2025 viz the P-8 with increment 3, MAC, HAASW, elint and the likely evolved sigint capabilities that are to be integrated and allow us to work with our alphabet soup partners at a level beyond all others. Without P-8 we will no longer be an active contributor and be just another 2nd tier client. It is simply too important to a capability not for just the NZDF but the NZG to faff around with. TINA!

 

[Rob c]

Im thinking with all the political unrest and acts of terror, and China's aggression and influence in the Pacific, our politicians and treasury must be getting feedback by now from its US and other allies,to pull our weight more. After all, there are economic reasons we can use too for having a stronger military presence in the pacific.

The politicians are not going to acknowledge any change in defence needs unless it is forced on them and by then too late. the will only respond, if they see votes in it or there is no other option. Defence spending to them is non vote gaining expenditure so until there is a public demand for an increase or other high levels of pressure change is unlikely. They simply don't see votes in it, fact and logic simply don't apply.

 

[40 deg south]

The politicians are not going to acknowledge any change in defence needs unless it is forced on them and by then too late. the will only respond, if they see votes in it or there is no other option. Defence spending to them is non vote gaining expenditure so until there is a public demand for an increase or other high levels of pressure change is unlikely. They simply don't see votes in it, fact and logic simply don't apply.

Every interest group complains that the government doesn't spend enough on their particular area. It doesn't matter whether it is conservation, education, technology or whatever. Every senior politician's day is largely measured by group after group of people marching into the Beehive and demanding the government give them a bigger slice of the national cake. Treasury's job is largely to say NO to most of these requests, so there is no reason for defence to feel it is singled out.

What NZ lacks is a strong defence lobby that can comment intelligently on matters of the day, and campaign for more public support for defence. In the absence of this, it is hard for NZDF/MinDef to get traction with the public.

Defence also used to have a reputation in Wellington for poorly written and researched submissions to Ministers, that failed to clearly fit suggested acquisition items into a coherent national strategy. Ministers and Treasury may therefore have taken a more sceptical approach to defence requests than would otherwise be the case. The 'Charles Chuckham' controversy certainly soured a whole generation of National Party ministers on Defence expenditure - they clearly felt they had been sold a pup.

I get the impression things have changed for the better, but am no longer a Wellington bureaucrat so have no direct knowledge.

 

[40 deg south]

April 4/16: New issues surrounding the propeller gear boxes on the Airbus A400M will not affect delivery external link external link, according to the company. The first issue regards the material structure and strength of the ring gear in about 14 gear boxes produced in the first half of 2015. A separate fault is an issue with the cracking of a plug that could see small parts of metal released into the oil system of the gearbox, affecting gear boxes that rotate to the right. Airbus plans to deliver 20 of the cargo planes to customers this year.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.co...port-delays-development-and-deployment-05080/

Airbus A400M Military Transport Plane Hits More Trouble

The second of these links is the better one.

Worth remembering that the C-17 also went through some fairly torrid times in its early days, but Airbus will be cursing the Europollies who wouldn't let them simply bolt a Pratt and Whitney engine onto their new airframe.

 

[John Fedup]

Worth remembering that the C-17 also went through some fairly torrid times in its early days, but Airbus will be cursing the Europollies who wouldn't let them simply bolt a Pratt and Whitney engine onto their new airframe.

I vaguely recall that P&W Canada was rejected by the Euro consortium for developing engines for the A400M which likely killed any chances for the A400M to be considered by the RCAF (lucky for us). However, the requirement for the A400M engine was a turboprop and I do not believe P&W (US or Cdn subsidiary) had anything at the time so bolting on was not an option. The C-17 (McConnell Douglas project) was troubled but it went on to become a very successful product for Boeing after their acquisition of MD. Airbus is lucky that there is no Western alternative (other than buying multiple C-130Js or maybe KC390s) for at least 15-20 years.

 

[ngatimozart]

THE REAL REASON THE ARMY WON OUR DEFENCE BATTLE --- AND WHY IT MAY SOON HAVE TO RETREAT
When the Air Force Skyhawk fighters were scrapped in 2000 the Government was advised to focus on the army because it was cheaper and less technologically complex. It led to a decision which inspired two decades of simmering jealousies within both the Navy and the Air Force and is now being questioned in the Government ’s Defence Review on which public consultations have begun.

Official documents which have only just been released show that Treasury questioned the decision to lease 28 F16 fighters from the USA to replace the Skyhawks. The decision to scrap the leases by the Clark Government in early 2000, and therefore end the Air Force’s air combat capability, was set against an ongoing stream of warnings from Treasury about t he unsustainable costs of the New Zealand Defence Force.

Within a fortnight of the Clark Government being elected Treasury produced a paper saying t hat current defence policy was unaffordable. “To maintain current policy, NZDF (New Zealand Defence Force) require capital injections estimated by NZDF to be $1.084 billion (for priority one project s only) – twice the amount of capital injections signalled in the DA97 (Defence Assessment 1997) for ALL priorities,” Treasury said. The document also point s out that Defence operating costs were $30 million over Budget largely driven by the $35 million cost of a deployment of more than 1000 troops along wit h Navy and Air Force personnel to Timor.

Once the new Government was established in early 2000, Treasury was asking questions about Defence policy. It argued that it would be better to develop a Defence force which had depth rather than breadth and that force should focus on land based forces. “Therefore the choice in developing a credible force for New Zealand that will overcome NZDF’s current fiscal problems, probably means shedding some of the capabilities that we currently have and instead emphasising areas where we have a comparative advantage,” it said.
Richard Harman 7th June 2015
POLITIK

The above is an excerpt bit it generally sets the scene for the rest of the article, which is worth the read. I haven't read the material myself, however from what he has written it appears that on the surface Treasury is attempting to have a controlling part in defence policy, which, if I'm not mistaken, is outside their purview.

 

[swerve]

I vaguely recall that P&W Canada was rejected by the Euro consortium for developing engines for the A400M which likely killed any chances for the A400M to be considered by the RCAF (lucky for us). However, the requirement for the A400M engine was a turboprop and I do not believe P&W (US or Cdn subsidiary) had anything at the time so bolting on was not an option. The C-17 (McConnell Douglas project) was troubled but it went on to become a very successful product for Boeing after their acquisition of MD. Airbus is lucky that there is no Western alternative (other than buying multiple C-130Js or maybe KC390s) for at least 15-20 years.

Don't forget the C-2 - as soon as the development problems are fixed.

P&W had a proposal for a turboprop, the PW180, based on the PW800 core. AFAIK it was dropped after it failed to get selected for the A400M.