Royal New Zealand Air Force

[ADMk2]

granted but for the price of 2 Frigates you will be struggling to operate 8 F-35 which is a pretty fragile strike capability.

1 or 2 more frigates equipped similarly to your current ones, will provide roughly nil, strike capability…

I’d probably back the 8x JSF’s in that scenario to be honest…

 

[Gooey]

Apologies for a blunt and short statement.
UAS and P8s do not do maritime strike.
They could contribute to ISR, potentially armed ISR. Strike requires fast air.

 

[Boardgamer88]

Apologies for a blunt and short statement.
UAS and P8s do not do maritime strike.
They could contribute to ISR, potentially armed ISR. Strike requires fast air.

Ok, complete noob here, so apologies in advance.

Could NZDF utilised armed drones for maritime strikes, assuming fighter jets are a no-starter?

 

[Stuart M]

Australia spends about $500M per year sustaining the Super Hornet and Growler fleet alone with F-35 and training being a lot of $ on top I suspect any attempt to reestablish a NZ fast jet capability would cripple the NZ Defence budget. Luckily more affordable pilotless options are emerging.

The answer to that is to up the defence budget. Given that NZ has in the past spent 3.5 percent of gdp on defence under far more straightened circumstances, crying poverty now looks like bald faced dishonesty.

 

[kiwi in exile]

I fully agree with armed attack helicopters for CAS. Because of the JATF they would have to be marinised so that would be a priority. That means the AH-1Z but I would prefer a 30mm cannon rather than the 20mm. It has to do with reach and with most IFVs and SPAAG having 30mm guns it means that you have to get within their range to effectively use your gun. There are the AH-64 Apache and the Eurocopter Tiger as well.

I don't agree. I think a UAV solution works better. UAVs can maintain longer time on station thereby providing better ISR and arguably have a smaller logistics footprint. And cheaper to buy outright. The issue is in terms of deployability, that would have to be runway independant, or VTOL. convincing our Govt to buy 'shooting' uavs would be a hard sell. Convining them to buy attack helos...

 

[kiwi in exile]

Apologies for a blunt and short statement.
UAS and P8s do not do maritime strike.
They could contribute to ISR, potentially armed ISR. Strike requires fast air.

Cannot see how it all fits together. Suerly something like a p8 is designed to fight (or at least deter) ships, otherwise why does it carry AShMs. A target for maritime strike (fast jets) would be detected and designated by ISR/MPA asset. If said asset is carring the same AShMs- why not let it fire first. Is the issue that the fast jets can get out of the target vessels defensive systems range faster once they have fired.

 

[ADMk2]

Australia spends about $500M per year sustaining the Super Hornet and Growler fleet alone with F-35 and training being a lot of $ on top I suspect any attempt to reestablish a NZ fast jet capability would cripple the NZ Defence budget. Luckily more affordable pilotless options are emerging.

The actual sustainment budget for Super Hornet and Growler in RAAF service has been AUD$455m for 19-20 and in 20-21 was AUD$431m.

These costings are for a fleet of 35x heavy-weight twin engine fighters, inclusive of a very substantial spiral capability upgrade in lockstep with the USN. Inclusive of all costs you are looking at $61,571 per aircraft per hour (funded at a standard 200hrs per aircraft per year). However I wouldn’t take this figure as gospel due to the extensive upgrades they are going through, not least of which includes modern EW pods for Growler.

Our 40x strong force of JSF during 2020-2021 was funded at AUD$270m. (CPFH around AUD$33,750 at 40 aircraft per 200hrs for each airframe).

I would imagine a RNZAF force of approximately 50-75% of this force, 18-24 aircraft and without necessarily requiring the regular spiral upgrade that Growler at least (due to it’s specialised role) requires would make a significant cost impact.

Such a sized fleet of a single engined fighter such as a Block 70, F-16V would likely run around AUD $160m - $180m a year in sustainment, even if you chose to use the “expensive” (we’re told) JSF cost per flight hour… Of course upgrades would be on top of this, but as seen with other projects such as our Super Hornet / Growler these would likely come in middle and out years when the aircraft needs the upgrades to remain relevant…

 

[ADMk2]

Apologies for a blunt and short statement.
UAS and P8s do not do maritime strike.
They could contribute to ISR, potentially armed ISR. Strike requires fast air.

Why do P-8A’s have Harpoon and in the near future, LRASM if not for maritime strike operations?

 

[kiwi in exile]

The biggest problem with having a 3rd or forth frigate and no strike aircraft is simply the problem of area coverage. with 3 or 4 frigates the area you you will have only 1 0r 2 available at any one time and the area they can cover is quite small in relation to the area available for approaches to approach NZ. the only way you can get to NZ is by sea or air so our primary Defence should be first of all to have good surveillance of both our sea and air approaches, follewed by the ability to neutralize any threat that enters this area. the best way to carry out the surveillance is by air as you can do this with more limited numbers than fixed ground stations due to mobility. the same aplies to neutralizing any threats as a comparatively small number of strike aircraft with modern weapons (1 or 2 Squadrons ) can quickly respond to a threat in any area which a ship cannot do. This could also be carried out by land based missile systems, but the number needed to cover NZ would be huge and as you would both anti air and sea, this out of the question due to the area that we need to cover. The air approaches are a worry as at the present time you could fly into NZ with airliners, take over an airfield and continue to fly in troops to take over a port and there is nothing we could do about it. Air power is by far the most flexible and effective way of firstly providing a significate deterrent and secondly an effective primary defence for our freedom and sovereignty. Any other option and the numbers needed to cover NZ are just too large.

Thanks for your clear explanation. You have changed my thinking. I just don't like idea of buying second hand 4th gen fighters in 2022. Nostalgia for lost f16s wont lead us forward. And I think for the cost involved to do this properly (remember its the NZ government we're talking about) why not fix another couple of existing capabilities. IE- would you still want to spend all that money on building fast air if it meant not replacing the ANZACs/c130's/p3s, (i know ideally we would have all of the above)
You have also pre-empted another question I had about soley land based missile based air and sea defences. If you limited youself to protecting strategic high value targets/population centres from incomming missiles that would still require dozens of systems. If you wanted to engage the offending ship or strike aircraft, your radar/missile system would need to have a greater range than the standoff range at which the vessel/plane employed its weapons.

 

[ADMk2]

It has to go beyond a token capability because if it is that it will be seen by our sole ally and friends as pure tokenism. It has to be a credible capability and capable of being NZ sustained.

It would be for maritime strike and have air defence and long range land strike as secondary roles. You cannot put the P-8A into contested airspace and expect it to survive and it's not built for high G combat manoeuvres; they'd tear the airframe apart. The RNZAF wouldn't acquire the MQ-28A but it would most likely acquire the MQ-9B SeaGuardian.

Yes a decision has to be made soon, very soon because it takes 10 years to fully stand up such a capability.

Correct on both counts, especially the latter.

Yes the P-8A are definitely a strategic asset and we are two short of them.

Agree that twin engined strike aircraft are required and only four are available:

1. Boeing F-15EX
2. Boeing F-18F
3. Dassault Rafale
4. Eurofighter Typhoon

The Rafale and Typhoon can be discounted purely because of cost and the Rafale because it's not operated by a FVEY partner. The F-18F Shornet is good but it's relatively short legged and dependent upon A2A refuelling. The F-15EX is long legged with a combat radius of over 1,000nm, has a very large weapons load, can self escort, and is a newly updated and modernised variant of the F-15E Strike Eagle. Boeing intends to sell it to the USAF for US$80 million which is the same price as the F-35A and similar to the F-18F. The reason why I prefer a two person crew is because the ACO in the back seat can reduce the pilot's workload by working the sensors, weapons and EW, allowing the pilot to fly and fight the aircraft.

I fully agree with armed attack helicopters for CAS. Because of the JATF they would have to be marinised so that would be a priority. That means the AH-1Z but I would prefer a 30mm cannon rather than the 20mm. It has to do with reach and with most IFVs and SPAAG having 30mm guns it means that you have to get within their range to effectively use your gun. There are the AH-64 Apache and the Eurocopter Tiger as well.

That's an unwritten and unsaid assumption. Each of the platforms would have Link 16 TDL capabilities minimum and that would give you C2 to C4ISR capabilities depending upon the platform.

Why do you see a twin engine fighter aircraft as definitely required, if there were to be a ‘requirement’ for an ACF again? Most of the world’s fighter fleets don’t and even RAAF only flies one because JSF got delayed… The F-16 for example is statistically the safest US fighter, with both F-15 and Super Hornet trailing it (though they all have incredible safety records).

As for marinisation of attack helicopters, that idea I think is vastly over-stated. Lots of helicopters operate just fine at sea without being properly marinised and that includes RNZAF’s NH-90’s which will spend just as much time at sea as any RNZAF attack helicopter ever would, if not far more given their broader utility in a range of differing roles…

You pay a significant sum in cost and extra weight for that advantage, for what is afterall only a limited part of the operational requirement of them (supporting littoral operations). Most countries including those that regularly deploy helos on littoral operations including Australia, the UK, France and so on, don’t bother operating specialist marinised helicopters (apart from specific naval helicopters) for these reasons…

 

[Rob c]

Thanks for your clear explanation. You have changed my thinking. I just don't like idea of buying second hand 4th gen fighters in 2022. Nostalgia for lost f16s wont lead us forward. And I think for the cost involved to do this properly (remember its the NZ government we're talking about) why not fix another couple of existing capabilities. IE- would you still want to spend all that money on building fast air if it meant not replacing the ANZACs/c130's/p3s, (i know ideally we would have all of the above)
You have also pre-empted another question I had about soley land based missile based air and sea defences. If you limited youself to protecting strategic high value targets/population centres from incomming missiles that would still require dozens of systems. If you wanted to engage the offending ship or strike aircraft, your radar/missile system would need to have a greater range than the standoff range at which the vessel/plane employed its weapons.

My reasoning that we could get away with less than the latest airframes is that from a purely defensive point of view, NZ is outside of the combat radius of any modern land based strike aircraft. so the need for the latest combat aircraft is less, though would be nice. I think that the weapons that we provide these aircraft and their ECM fit out are more important. The big question is that would a aggressor want to risk a aircraft carrier in range of land based strike force with modern long range stealth missiles etc.? I assume that any threat to NZ would also involve a threat to Australia at the same time and because of this that any aggressor would have most of their military assets involved with Australia, therefore at the worse we may face one aircraft carrier. This means a deterrent force of aircraft with modern long range air to air and air to surface missiles would present a huge problem for any potential aggressor, even with less than the latest aircraft.

 

[Gracie1234]

I think before we would look at what specific types of aircraft we need, we should be asking what effects do we want to achieve. What are the scenarios? Once that is clear then we can look at platforms, man fighter aircraft, UACV, drones etc.
My understanding is that we will still need to have an expeditionary focussed force, I just do not see us needing to defend the North and South Island as the most likely scenario. It is more likely that we will be operating in the Pacific, Asia and Antarctica as theatres.
Technology is evolving quite quickly so innovation will need to be included in the mix, but these are not proven platforms. I believe it is more likely that we will get armed drones before we get manned combat craft. For example, this system could be a step forward.
SWITCHBLADE 300 SENSOR TO SHOOTER KIT

AeroVironment Introduces Switchblade 300 Sensor to Shooter Kit, A Simple-to-Integrate Multi-Domain ISR and Precision Strike Capability

AeroVironment, Inc. is a global leader and manufacturer of Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Unmanned Ground Vehicles and Tactical Missile Systems used by the United States military and Commercial industries. AeroVironment's multi-domain robotic systems include the Puma AE, Raven B, Wasp AE, Vapor...

www.avinc.com

 

[Depot Dog]

This is a great discussion. I think all the ideas are great. Unfortunately until there is a major international incident NZ government will not react. I was surprised the rise of China or the Ukraine war hadn't given the pollies a jolt of reality.

Australia To Sell Retired F/A-18 Hornet Fighters To Private Aggressor Firm Air USA

The adversary support contractor could get up to 46 of the surplus fighters, giving them one of the most capable private air forces in the world.

www.thedrive.com

I think NZ lost an easy opertunity to start a manned ACF. Australia second hand F18 will live again with other operators. Going back to the concept of crawl, walk, run. If the f18 was good enough for other operators then it could of started the crawl stage of the road back to RNZAF ACF.
The friendship between Australia and New Zealand means training shouldn't be a problem. Australia has maintenance contracts in place for the F18. Therefore it would be an easy transfer of contracts. I think it would of been a win win situation.
The only impediments are NZ pollies and possible a USA arms transfer approval being blocked.
This opertunity is lost. As they say in the classics "there is no point in crying over spilt milk". Moving on

There has been discussion in this forum of NZ aquiring armed helicopters. We have 22 Tigers which are being replaced. It is a no brainer entry level option to aquire these, if the deal is right.

Regards
DD
Edit Correctted the spelling of Ukraine

 

[ngatimozart]

With modern engines, which are very reliable, I don't think that twin engines are completely necessary. Nice to have but I think that something like the F16 would be viable. An other possible cheaper option would be second hand F18's with an electronic update, modern long range missiles and the new C130j's fitted for air to air refueling ,

Yep, but I am looking at range and weapons carriage capability. Also second hand F-18s prove to be a costly option in the long term because they have to have a MLU at some stage and replacement earlier. With the F-15EX you can get four AAM on one hard point. The F-15E can carry four Harpoons so the F-15EX probably could carry four LRASM. The other point is that you could use it in conjunction with RAAF F-35A and set up a missile ambush with it acting as a missile truck. The F-35A to sneakily open the door and the F-15EX to wreck the joint.

 

[JulioCompactus]

The actual sustainment budget for Super Hornet and Growler in RAAF service has been AUD$455m for 19-20 and in 20-21 was AUD$431m.

These costings are for a fleet of 35x heavy-weight twin engine fighters, inclusive of a very substantial spiral capability upgrade in lockstep with the USN. Inclusive of all costs you are looking at $61,571 per aircraft per hour (funded at a standard 200hrs per aircraft per year). However I wouldn’t take this figure as gospel due to the extensive upgrades they are going through, not least of which includes modern EW pods for Growler.

Our 40x strong force of JSF during 2020-2021 was funded at AUD$270m. (CPFH around AUD$33,750 at 40 aircraft per 200hrs for each airframe).

I would imagine a RNZAF force of approximately 50-75% of this force, 18-24 aircraft and without necessarily requiring the regular spiral upgrade that Growler at least (due to it’s specialised role) requires would make a significant cost impact.

Such a sized fleet of a single engined fighter such as a Block 70, F-16V would likely run around AUD $160m - $180m a year in sustainment, even if you chose to use the “expensive” (we’re told) JSF cost per flight hour… Of course upgrades would be on top of this, but as seen with other projects such as our Super Hornet / Growler these would likely come in middle and out years when the aircraft needs the upgrades to remain relevant…

Hi AD

I took my figures from the portfolio budget statements for 2021 Appendix C. The super hornet / growler force i.e. CAF21 is A$527M for 21/22. (2020 was A$473m).

I also took into account in part the figures for LIF and training CAF 03/37 as to produce a fast jet pilot you need a pipeline. Further I compared the costs to the final years of classic hornet from earlier years to benchmark. It should be understood that the figures quoted are for material sustainment ONLY and don't include personnel costs so the Total Cost of Ownership is actually much higher than what I quoted.

For comparison Hawk LIF is $164M so I am not sure you could do a SQN of late F-16 for that cheap.

Portfolio Budget Statements : 2021-22 : Department of Defence

Defence 2021-22 Portfolio Budget Statements. The purpose of the Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS) is to inform Senators and Members of Parliament of the proposed allocation of resources to government outcomes, by agencies, within the portfolio.

defence.gov.au

link added

 

[Rob c]

Yep, but I am looking at range and weapons carriage capability. Also second hand F-18s prove to be a costly option in the long term because they have to have a MLU at some stage and replacement earlier. With the F-15EX you can get four AAM on one hard point. The F-15E can carry four Harpoons so the F-15EX probably could carry four LRASM. The other point is that you could use it in conjunction with RAAF F-35A and set up a missile ambush with it acting as a missile truck. The F-35A to sneakily open the door and the F-15EX to wreck the joint.

The point there would be that second hand F18's could be a good start point and maybe we could lease them for a fixed period of time (5 to 10 years). There maybe some ex F18 pilots available that have lost airline jobs that may be persuaded to give them ago again. If you went down this track who knows what would be available in say 12 years time and your low capital expenditure would keep treasury happy. remember that this would be the reformation stage, with possibly an initial lease of advanced trainers as well.

 

[ngatimozart]

The point there would be that second hand F18's could be a good start point and maybe we could lease them for a fixed period of time (5 to 10 years). There maybe some ex F18 pilots available that have lost airline jobs that may be persuaded to give them ago again. If you went down this track who knows what would be available in say 12 years time and your low capital expenditure would keep treasury happy. remember that this would be the reformation stage, with possibly an initial lease of advanced trainers as well.

Yes I thought about that and after much thought decided against it. I have been working on this for about four years.

WRT the LIFT, that would have to be looked at down the track because it would be quicker to get trainees through other FVEY air arms LIFT courses. All together that would be five separate courses and we may be able to get the graduates some squadron time in the air arms as well. If we did two or three per course we would soon build up numbers. The problem would be with experienced Flt Cdrs and Sqn COs where we might have to either borrow some or head hunt some. When we do get the LIFT here we require sufficient QFI and we would have to look at how we solve that problem until we can breed our own. When we do go into LIFT the T-7A Red Tail would be the choice.

 

[ADMk2]

Hi AD

I took my figures from the portfolio budget statements for 2021 Appendix C. The super hornet / growler force i.e. CAF21 is A$527M for 21/22. (2020 was A$473m).

I also took into account in part the figures for LIF and training CAF 03/37 as to produce a fast jet pilot you need a pipeline. Further I compared the costs to the final years of classic hornet from earlier years to benchmark. It should be understood that the figures quoted are for material sustainment ONLY and don't include personnel costs so the Total Cost of Ownership is actually much higher than what I quoted.

For comparison Hawk LIF is $164M so I am not sure you could do a SQN of late F-16 for that cheap.

Portfolio Budget Statements : 2021-22 : Department of Defence

Defence 2021-22 Portfolio Budget Statements. The purpose of the Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS) is to inform Senators and Members of Parliament of the proposed allocation of resources to government outcomes, by agencies, within the portfolio.

defence.gov.au

link added

Hawk LIFT trainer fleet is almost double the size of an expected RNZAF fleet, is deployed across multiple airbases, regularly deployed across a country the size of Australia and it too is in the middle of a substantial upgrade period…

I didn’t take my figures from estimates or even revised estimates, but actuals…

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-10/AR-2020-21-tables.xlsx

 

[ADMk2]

I think before we would look at what specific types of aircraft we need, we should be asking what effects do we want to achieve. What are the scenarios? Once that is clear then we can look at platforms, man fighter aircraft, UACV, drones etc.
My understanding is that we will still need to have an expeditionary focussed force, I just do not see us needing to defend the North and South Island as the most likely scenario. It is more likely that we will be operating in the Pacific, Asia and Antarctica as theatres.
Technology is evolving quite quickly so innovation will need to be included in the mix, but these are not proven platforms. I believe it is more likely that we will get armed drones before we get manned combat craft. For example, this system could be a step forward.
SWITCHBLADE 300 SENSOR TO SHOOTER KIT

AeroVironment Introduces Switchblade 300 Sensor to Shooter Kit, A Simple-to-Integrate Multi-Domain ISR and Precision Strike Capability

AeroVironment, Inc. is a global leader and manufacturer of Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Unmanned Ground Vehicles and Tactical Missile Systems used by the United States military and Commercial industries. AeroVironment's multi-domain robotic systems include the Puma AE, Raven B, Wasp AE, Vapor...

www.avinc.com

We were discussing the ACF in the context of maritime strike operations in defence of NZ’s waterways and maritime approaches. There are no real solutions among the loitering munition and even UCAV catalogues for these roles as yet, or in the near future.

Your options basically boil down to surface and sub-surface attack systems, manned aircraft (fighter, MPA etc) or land-based long range anti-ship missile systems.

Despite being far too short-ranged and possesing too limited a warhead to achieve anything much against a warship, something like a Switchblade is most unlikely to be even moderately survivable against the air defence capability a modern highly capability naval vessel will be able to bring to bear.

These systems certainly have their place, but it is not in ASuW operations.

 

[ADMk2]

Yep, but I am looking at range and weapons carriage capability. Also second hand F-18s prove to be a costly option in the long term because they have to have a MLU at some stage and replacement earlier. With the F-15EX you can get four AAM on one hard point. The F-15E can carry four Harpoons so the F-15EX probably could carry four LRASM. The other point is that you could use it in conjunction with RAAF F-35A and set up a missile ambush with it acting as a missile truck. The F-35A to sneakily open the door and the F-15EX to wreck the joint.

F-15EX is likely to carry more than 4x LRASM…

Five JASSM Stealth Missiles Have Been Loaded On An F-15E Strike Eagle For The First Time

The configuration is intended to allow the flexible Strike Eagle to fill in for bombers on certain missions.

www.thedrive.com

But it’s payload aside, without refuelling it‘s range won’t be exceptional carrying such large loads and it’s survivability on it’s own, in an environment where they potentially are facing 5th Gen fighters (without necessarily) 5th Gen fighter support, is something even the USAF isn’t contemplating…