Royal New Zealand Air Force

[swerve]

What happens 10, 20 years down the track with us having an orphan S-3 fleet? ....

Yep. I can see that buying the entire stock of stored S-3s & spares for them might be feasible for a country with reasonable technical expertise & low labour costs, & a lot of coastline or islands to cover, but if you don't have a lot of people able to do the work of cannibalisation & refurbishment at relatively modest cost, in the way Pakistan has done with its Mirage III/V fleet, I can't see the S-3 being useful.

 

[Shanesworld]

What happens 10, 20 years down the track with us having an orphan S-3 fleet? No thanks and it cannot do half of what the P-8 or even the P-1 are capable of. Be realistic in that the S-3 is a 1980s carrier aircraft that would cost us a fortune to operate and sustain for the small capability set that it would give us. Most definitely not value for money. It would cost far to much to upgrade it so that it could be interoperable with our allies and coalition partners. It's not about replacing the P-3K2 with something of inferior capability. It's about acquiring platforms and capabilities that are better than what we are replacing. In fact nowadays the platform is only a taxi service for the capability sets.

The Absalon class are not frigates, nor are they meant to be. In todays world it is very much horses for courses and a hybrid FF / LPD is not going to work. Totally different missions and capability sets.

Our seasprites are are practically orphans with a smaller pool of airframes to source parts from. As with the pini's given the options we chose. Ditto with the lav's considering Canada has moved on now.
And no the S3 would be as an alternative to a acf not the p3 replacements. The p3 replacements will be at 4 aircraft too few for peacetime roles in 30 years time aswell as in any wartime role. We will simply have too few taxis.

I terms of cost none of us here have an actual dollar figure for this platform in terms of sustainment or operation. A fortune is an assumption. However one thing is south Korea has officially dropped their pursuit of S3. So that is an important point.

I don't doubt p3/p8/p1 can do alot more. No question. But again we can't afford to risk to risk them or flog the guts out of them. What are going to do in 30 years time with a tiny fleet of strategically crucial aircraft like mpas when they all need massive refurbishment and the production line shut down 20 something years ago and there are no surplus airframes to pick from as we had the luxury of post cold War.
And in terms of capability set. The S3 was utilised right up till its retirement in more roles than anything else in the usn. It has alot of practical application for us. But again only if we are talking cheap or free so as not to detract from the 4 mpa's or the replacement transports.


And in terms of frigate lpd. Yes different missions and different capabilities. But Iver and absalon are very similiar barring ro-ro deck and sensor mast. So I do see that working. And as a salons are armed like a warship so in a war they will be used like a warship. Names now will mean nothing later. It is as you say about capability. Where the absalon would need changes are speed and sensors. Not that crazy to change.

Throw ceafar on top and rerole the flex deck into a more frigate orientated mission space that is popular now with type 26 for example having a mission bay. Nothing wild here. It makes sense and is a product from a quality navy (Denmark) with very similiar constraints.
If we stay conservative withe the frigate replacement we will be lucky to get over the line with a one for one replacement. If they are capable of so much more then we might get some meaningful public support. This one I am dead certain should be looked into beyond our mere speculation/derision here and should warrant serious consideration at govt. Level. I'm inflexible on this. Whereas the S3 is just an alternative to some acf postulating.

 

[Shanesworld]

Yep. I can see that buying the entire stock of stored S-3s & spares for them might be feasible for a country with reasonable technical expertise & low labour costs, & a lot of coastline or islands to cover, but if you don't have a lot of people able to do the work of cannibalisation & refurbishment at relatively modest cost, in the way Pakistan has done with its Mirage III/V fleet, I can't see the S-3 being useful.

Yeah you have a good point. But we do have alot of coastline. And the expertise side can be acquired that isn't the issue. Canabalisation at an economical scale is though and storage. But we did store a fleet of a4's.

 

[RegR]

It is also quite possible, perhaps likely even, that more infrastructure would be required to support an ACF. More hangar space for new/extra trainers and the ACF, more shops for maintenance work, more storage for parts, etc. Then due to the increase in required personnel more barracks/housing would be required and so on.

All of these required incidentals, that most people do not even consider when looking at adding (or regaining) a capability quickly add up, both in terms of initial acquisition costs as well as ongoing costs.

Not really, the old ACF infrastructure still mostly remains at Ohakea, the old 75 (A4) Sqn hanger is actually currently vacant as 3 Sqn has moved into it's new hanger and the PTS Sqn would now have more space in their hanger for any extra texans as airmoves has also moved into their new terminal. The 14 (machhi) Sqn hanger houses the 4 king airs so I'm sure they could share real estate with a downsized LIFT option if need be.

The ammo bunkers, engine run, obvious tarmac areas etc are as per the days of old so available and is still the same barracks and housing as well although I think a civilian company now owns/runs the housing area but the defence housing plan/responsibility is alittle different to back then anyway. The maintainence support building was built along with the helo hangers and is a vast improvement on the legacy facilities and combines alot of trades under one(ish) roof so to speak.

TBH there currently would be abit of base redundancy especially at Ohakea which is probably why NZ is even considering hosting the Singa Sqn in the first place, wether or not the singaporeans utilise existing buildings or build their own to suit would be another question. There was rumours of bringing the boeing flight down or more recently some portion of any new maritime patrol element to make use of the empty hanger but then again they also suggested closing Whenuapai and creating a superbase once upon a time so who knows what could be on the cards.

 

[t68]

What happens 10, 20 years down the track with us having an orphan S-3 fleet?

It would be an orphan fleet from day one,agree on that money going to adtional P8's. I remember reading somewhere that South Korea shelved the idea of the S3 fleet

 

[Shanesworld]

It would be an orphan fleet from day one,agree on that money going to adtional P8's. I remember reading somewhere that South Korea shelved the idea of the S3 fleet

They did. To refocus money on other naval priorities. But we already operate orphan fleets. Seasprites being a very workable example.

Would that money go to additional p8?. 1.4 bill to 2 bill. Would the electorate handle that?

 

[Todjaeger]

OK. This was under the same premise as "gifted", or cheap f18 or f-16's.

Again not (deliberately anyway) trying to be a killjoy here, but if S-3's were to be "gifted" to NZ, a pertinent question to be answered is, "what is in it for the US?"

18? 6 as parts hulks 12 to operate as 3 dets of 4 to former up strike packages in the maritime strike role. Why not more p8/p1's instead? Cos the writing is on the wall. We'll be lucky if we get more than 4 and in that quantity we can't afford to loose one to enemy action so a cheaper platform is needed as the shooter complement to the sensor coordinator role of the p3 replacement. Sticker shock will hit hard which ever machine it is regardless of the excellent value both options represent and the value the p3 has given. The public sees billions and military switch to cynical.

Why S3? They were a very capable, sturdy, supportable and economical platform in usn service that are already wired for a wide range of weapons, sensor pods, refueling pods, link 16. They are very forgiving aircraft with good nimble handling and pretty long legs, refueling probe, with excellent airframe hours and use engines that are very close to their commercial equivalents. They mount a good Mad, still competitive synthetic aperture radar and particulate sniffers.
The are excellent SAR platforms and can take off and land from runways the p8 can't.

While invasion is just not likely in any scenario. You probably cant rule out sub/commerce/mine warfare to push us out of an alliance or bend us to another nations will should things destabilise further. It was attempted in the last two global conflicts. In that scenario you still need to provide convoy escort, maritime interdiction and patrols. The S3 can do that. Whether off our shores or someone else's.

It can't transport cargo like a c295. But we wouldn't be able to get enough c295's equipped in the same fashion as the S3. but I think it would be very foolish to write it off. There is a real value there. But again only if it's cheap.

One thing I have to question is whether retired S-3 aircraft could provide a long-term ASW capability more efficiently and cost-effectively vs. new build ASW aircraft. The proposals to return S-3's to service, either for S. Korea, or for the US as COD following refurbishment have all fallen through.

S. Korea is apparently still examining offers from the major military aircraft providers for a solution to short-ranged fixed-wing ASW aircraft. The USN opted to get V-22's for COD rather than select a C-3 version of the S-3.

One thing to consider for the S-3 is whether their avionics and sensors would be sufficient or if the aircraft would need updating prior to being able to return to service. I strongly suspect the sensors and avionics would need to be replaced, which would mean the only cost savings would be on the actual airframe itself.

I personally doubt that a lower upfront airframe cost would be justify the long-term expenses. The plan for a USN COD was to use ~90 airframes in the boneyard to provide needed parts for 35 COD aircraft. It would be better IMO to purchase new CN-235 or C-295 aircraft, which are in production and have a user support base, and then modify them either into ASW/MPA aircraft or modify them to have a swing-role capability of ASW & MPA operations.

Just about the only role I can think of which the S-3 is suited for but other existing aircraft are not, would be a CATOBAR AAR tanker. Since NZ does not have either an AAR capability or carriers, then I think acquiring the capability would be wasteful.

 

[t68]

They did. To refocus money on other naval priorities. But we already operate orphan fleets. Seasprites being a very workable example.

Would that money go to additional p8?. 1.4 bill to 2 bill. Would the electorate handle that?

You did not when NZ acquired the original airframes NZ have a working institutional knowledge of the airframe which could also be enhanced with a regional user at the time (ADF)

If you look at the timeline for a majority of user that end up with orphan fleets you will see that those nations generally received those airframes when the US were also historic user of such equipment.

one only has to look at the RAAF and the F111 we received the aircraft early in there planed lives with the primary user of the equipment untill such a time that they retired those airframes, at the time the RAAF had an intimate knowledge of the aircraft to sustain the aircraft, NZ will have no such relationship and may find it difficult to acquire the knowledge needed to establish such a capabilty from scratch.

 

[Shanesworld]

You did not when NZ acquired the original airframes NZ have a working institutional knowledge of the airframe which could also be enhanced with a regional user at the time (ADF)

If you look at the timeline for a majority of user that end up with orphan fleets you will see that those nations generally received those airframes when the US were also historic user of such equipment.

one only has to look at the RAAF and the F111 we received the aircraft early in there planed lives with the primary user of the equipment untill such a time that they retired those airframes, at the time the RAAF had an intimate knowledge of the aircraft to sustain the aircraft, NZ will have no such relationship and may find it difficult to acquire the knowledge needed to establish such a capabilty from scratch.

That is true. I have nothing to counter that.

 

[Shanesworld]

Again not (deliberately anyway) trying to be a killjoy here, but if S-3's were to be "gifted" to NZ, a pertinent question to be answered is, "what is in it for the US?"



One thing I have to question is whether retired S-3 aircraft could provide a long-term ASW capability more efficiently and cost-effectively vs. new build ASW aircraft. The proposals to return S-3's to service, either for S. Korea, or for the US as COD following refurbishment have all fallen through.

S. Korea is apparently still examining offers from the major military aircraft providers for a solution to short-ranged fixed-wing ASW aircraft. The USN opted to get V-22's for COD rather than select a C-3 version of the S-3.

One thing to consider for the S-3 is whether their avionics and sensors would be sufficient or if the aircraft would need updating prior to being able to return to service. I strongly suspect the sensors and avionics would need to be replaced, which would mean the only cost savings would be on the actual airframe itself.

I personally doubt that a lower upfront airframe cost would be justify the long-term expenses. The plan for a USN COD was to use ~90 airframes in the boneyard to provide needed parts for 35 COD aircraft. It would be better IMO to purchase new CN-235 or C-295 aircraft, which are in production and have a user support base, and then modify them either into ASW/MPA aircraft or modify them to have a swing-role capability of ASW & MPA operations.

Just about the only role I can think of which the S-3 is suited for but other existing aircraft are not, would be a CATOBAR AAR tanker. Since NZ does not have either an AAR capability or carriers, then I think acquiring the capability would be wasteful.

In terms of sensors as I understand it are still quite capable and considered still relevant. Role wise I would disagree. Finding ships and subs were we don't want risk higher value assets is the big one but twin engine trainer, SAR, convoy escort all pretty valid.

I terms of benefit to us? Well an ally in the Pacific with an enhanced asw/asuw that yes better served by p8 but we will be lucky to get 4. I doubt we would get any less though.
But avionics I think would be antiquated now and not in keeping with rnzaf or wider aviation trends so yeah that alone probably a good reason to park this. So there I'll leave this.

 

[Todjaeger]

In terms of sensors as I understand it are still quite capable and considered still relevant. Role wise I would disagree. Finding ships and subs were we don't want risk higher value assets is the big one but twin engine trainer, SAR, convoy escort all pretty valid.

I terms of benefit to us? Well an ally in the Pacific with an enhanced asw/asuw that yes better served by p8 but we will be lucky to get 4. I doubt we would get any less though.
But avionics I think would be antiquated now and not in keeping with rnzaf or wider aviation trends so yeah that alone probably a good reason to park this. So there I'll leave this.

Two of my big concerns would have been about the sea search radar and the sonobuoys.

The AN/APS-137 iSAR entered service at least as early as 1992, and possibly as far back as 1984 when the S-3B had a first flight, having been converted from the S-3A Viking. AFAIK continued/future development work stopped on the APS-137 stopped when the APY-10 entered service.

The USCG which had been using the APS-137 has to my knowledge been fielding either been field an Elta radar on HC-130J's, or the APS-143(v)3 on the HC-144A Ocean Sentry.

A question which I would be interested in the answer to, would be what would it cost take an HC-144 Ocean Sentry and add wing hardpoints as well as droppable stores like sonobuoys.

From the USCG fact sheet, it appears that an Ocean Sentry has ~twice the range of an S-3, and a 10+ hour mission endurance time. Given that the aircraft in USCG service can also be switch to cargo/personnel airlift by removing the workstation pallets, that could give the RNZAF more flexibility.

A key caveat though, is that IMO resources should be directed first towards getting at least 4 and preferably 6 P-8A Poseidons, before trying to acquire a medium-ranged MPA.

 

[Shanesworld]

Two of my big concerns would have been about the sea search radar and the sonobuoys.

The AN/APS-137 iSAR entered service at least as early as 1992, and possibly as far back as 1984 when the S-3B had a first flight, having been converted from the S-3A Viking. AFAIK continued/future development work stopped on the APS-137 stopped when the APY-10 entered service.

The USCG which had been using the APS-137 has to my knowledge been fielding either been field an Elta radar on HC-130J's, or the APS-143(v)3 on the HC-144A Ocean Sentry.

A question which I would be interested in the answer to, would be what would it cost take an HC-144 Ocean Sentry and add wing hardpoints as well as droppable stores like sonobuoys.

From the USCG fact sheet, it appears that an Ocean Sentry has ~twice the range of an S-3, and a 10+ hour mission endurance time. Given that the aircraft in USCG service can also be switch to cargo/personnel airlift by removing the workstation pallets, that could give the RNZAF more flexibility.

A key caveat though, is that IMO resources should be directed first towards getting at least 4 and preferably 6 P-8A Poseidons, before trying to acquire a medium-ranged MPA.

Oooh. The sonobouys. Yeah that was a weak point I think. I'm think they were an older system that wasn't subject to an update or upgrade.
But the SAR was being used in Iraq for terrain mapping I believe.

But strengthening a hc144 and wiring it for hard points sounds a task of similar effort. Albeit with an existent support structure and probable marketability for the manufacturer.

 

[CJR]

But strengthening a hc144 and wiring it for hard points sounds a task of similar effort. Albeit with an existent support structure and probable marketability for the manufacturer.

An ASW version of the CN-235 with external hardpoints has already been designed. Not sure if the armed variant is in service with anyone though (MP versions seem pretty popular but can only find one photo of an armed Turkish Navy aircraft and a few of an Exocet hanging off an Indonesian aircraft, but not certain if that's in service or just acting as a test-bed...).

 

[Todjaeger]

Oooh. The sonobouys. Yeah that was a weak point I think. I'm think they were an older system that wasn't subject to an update or upgrade.
But the SAR was being used in Iraq for terrain mapping I believe.

But strengthening a hc144 and wiring it for hard points sounds a task of similar effort. Albeit with an existent support structure and probable marketability for the manufacturer.

The HC-144 airframe is that of a CN-235, and there are armed MPA versions of that kitted out with three hardpoints under each wing, able to take AGM-84 Harpoon AShM. The Ocean Sentry is just the only one I am aware of which has been fitted for/with the palletized work stations so it can cover passenger, cargo, or MPS roles.

The other thing with the HC-144 is that it is not equipped for ASW roles, having no sonobouys, deployment system for sonobuoys, acoustic processors, or droppable depth bombers of LWT's.

 

[swerve]

...
The USCG which had been using the APS-137 has to my knowledge been fielding either been field an Elta radar on HC-130J's, or the APS-143(v)3 on the HC-144A Ocean Sentry.....

USCG HC-130H have been upgraded with Selex/Leonardo Seaspray 7500E (designed & made in Scotland).

The Js have Elta EL/M-2022.

 

[swerve]

It would be an orphan fleet from day one,

Which is why the only deal I can see that might possibly be worthwhile for anyone is buying the whole fleet (about 80, I think), with all stored spares, to keep some operational until the parts run out & there are none left to cannibalise.

And that's predicated on much lower labour costs than New Zealand. It's the Pakistani Mirage model.

I can't see it being at all practical for New Zealand.

 

[ngatimozart]

RNZAF has begun its OP DEEP FREEZE flying for the season with a B757 taking pax and freight down.

NZDF begins annual Antarctic mission

 

[MrConservative]

Not really, the old ACF infrastructure still mostly remains at Ohakea, the old 75 (A4) Sqn hanger is actually currently vacant as 3 Sqn has moved into it's new hanger and the PTS Sqn would now have more space in their hanger for any extra texans as airmoves has also moved into their new terminal. The 14 (machhi) Sqn hanger houses the 4 king airs so I'm sure they could share real estate with a downsized LIFT option if need be.

The ammo bunkers, engine run, obvious tarmac areas etc are as per the days of old so available and is still the same barracks and housing as well although I think a civilian company now owns/runs the housing area but the defence housing plan/responsibility is alittle different to back then anyway. The maintainence support building was built along with the helo hangers and is a vast improvement on the legacy facilities and combines alot of trades under one(ish) roof so to speak.

TBH there currently would be abit of base redundancy especially at Ohakea which is probably why NZ is even considering hosting the Singa Sqn in the first place, wether or not the singaporeans utilise existing buildings or build their own to suit would be another question. There was rumours of bringing the boeing flight down or more recently some portion of any new maritime patrol element to make use of the empty hanger but then again they also suggested closing Whenuapai and creating a superbase once upon a time so who knows what could be on the cards.

The first thing is that Transtasman would not have published the speculation without their being truth to it and from at least two solid sources - quite often the source is very close to the action. It is where politicians / advisors go to fly kites, raise flags, leak, build policy momentum. We also know that Mr Mark has very definite and strong views on the necessity of regaining an air combat ability and obviously has instructed official into investigations into this. Credit to him for getting this back on the agenda - and should National now out of office have the cajones to endorse it and not go all vindictive because it is an NZ First idea - it could move ahead further in at least the discussion.

The Singa's coming here will utilise what remains and with the OH infrastructure upgrade and the investment by the RSAF cuts from the chase the usual objections trundled out that we would have to start from scratch with nothing. The RNZAF and the RSAF could go halves in the hush house that was to be built for the cancelled F-16's and was going to cost $8m (2001). Also nothing is done the same now or done the same as other countries. NZ contracts in services to the NZDF as it saves money and this would be no different. Thus cost comparisons between employing 700 people like under the old ACF arrangements pre 2000 cannot be reliably extrapolated.

As for LIFT training one option mentioned to me by an ex RAF knuck now living here is a small number of selected pilots post our T-6 wings course should be sent to UKMFTS at RAF Valley under a RNZAF contract scheme thus skipping the requirement for NZ to acquire a LIFT. The UKMFTS is a PPP arrangement between the UK MOD and industry we would be a paying customer - cheaper than ownership and running our LIFT programme which would be very RAF style anyway. Likewise post UKMFTS possibly work out a contract arrangement with a current F-18 unit viz USMC, USN, RAAF or RCAF to have NZ pilots complete their weapons courses, instructor courses etc using our own upgraded aircraft.

As for the condition of the aircraft - well negative speculation is nothing more than that. What we do know is that they have been well looked after in professional hands in the RAAF and have not spent 6000 hours been thrashed onto carrier decks like their USN and USMC cousins.

We also know that there is currently a very successful UMSC led project where legacy Hornets are been refurbished and upgraded to C+ status to at least provide a further 2000 hours of operational life. So what if they have to be replaced at a later date - post 2030 something.

Note: The 2015 USMC Aircraft Plan

F/A-18 SERVICE LIFE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (SLMP)
The current Center Barrel Replacement Plus (CBR+) program has extended the
service life of 200 Lot 17 and below aircraft to 1.0 Wing Root Fatigue Life Extension
(WRFLE). The current High Flight Hour (HFH) inspection has extended the life of 110 DoN F/A-18A-D aircraft beyond 8000 hours with 129 aircraft currently in work.

We also know that it will take some years to build up the capability to OLOC but that is understood - but what are people expecting - instant karma.

We have locked in $18.3 billion on Cap Ex and $1.7 billion to spend on defence infrastructure until 2030. There will be possible trade offs - for example KC-130J-SOC's and a couple of C-2's rather than A400M's. Frigates built in Korean like FFX-III's or Japan like the 30DX rather than Type 26, FREMM or F-110's of which frankly there has not been that great enthusiasm for in NZ circles.

The RAAF are not going to keep all the F/A-18AM's and BM's flying until all the F-35's are in service they will go out the hanger no doubt on a swap in swap out basis. Even if the Cannucks grab the first 18, there should be a further 18 worth looking at to upgrade.

This is a less expensive bullet to bite to recover a capability lost. Frankly the argument that we Kiwi's don't need some kind of ACF is often made by those who are not actually Kiwis and whose own countries actually have a current ACF capability yet are quick to justify their own necessities for their own national interests - well that is called hypocrisy and I am very suspicious of their motives to be honest.

Cheers, MrC

 

[RegR]

The first thing is that Transtasman would not have published the speculation without their being truth to it and from at least two solid sources - quite often the source is very close to the action. It is where politicians / advisors go to fly kites, raise flags, leak, build policy momentum. We also know that Mr Mark has very definite and strong views on the necessity of regaining an air combat ability and obviously has instructed official into investigations into this. Credit to him for getting this back on the agenda - and should National now out of office have the cajones to endorse it and not go all vindictive because it is an NZ First idea - it could move ahead further in at least the discussion.

The Singa's coming here will utilise what remains and with the OH infrastructure upgrade and the investment by the RSAF cuts from the chase the usual objections trundled out that we would have to start from scratch with nothing. The RNZAF and the RSAF could go halves in the hush house that was to be built for the cancelled F-16's and was going to cost $8m (2001). Also nothing is done the same now or done the same as other countries. NZ contracts in services to the NZDF as it saves money and this would be no different. Thus cost comparisons between employing 700 people like under the old ACF arrangements pre 2000 cannot be reliably extrapolated.

As for LIFT training one option mentioned to me by an ex RAF knuck now living here is a small number of selected pilots post our T-6 wings course should be sent to UKMFTS at RAF Valley under a RNZAF contract scheme thus skipping the requirement for NZ to acquire a LIFT. The UKMFTS is a PPP arrangement between the UK MOD and industry we would be a paying customer - cheaper than ownership and running our LIFT programme which would be very RAF style anyway. Likewise post UKMFTS possibly work out a contract arrangement with a current F-18 unit viz USMC, USN, RAAF or RCAF to have NZ pilots complete their weapons courses, instructor courses etc using our own upgraded aircraft.

As for the condition of the aircraft - well negative speculation is nothing more than that. What we do know is that they have been well looked after in professional hands in the RAAF and have not spent 6000 hours been thrashed onto carrier decks like their USN and USMC cousins.

We also know that there is currently a very successful UMSC led project where legacy Hornets are been refurbished and upgraded to C+ status to at least provide a further 2000 hours of operational life. So what if they have to be replaced at a later date - post 2030 something.

Note: The 2015 USMC Aircraft Plan

F/A-18 SERVICE LIFE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (SLMP)
The current Center Barrel Replacement Plus (CBR+) program has extended the
service life of 200 Lot 17 and below aircraft to 1.0 Wing Root Fatigue Life Extension
(WRFLE). The current High Flight Hour (HFH) inspection has extended the life of 110 DoN F/A-18A-D aircraft beyond 8000 hours with 129 aircraft currently in work.

We also know that it will take some years to build up the capability to OLOC but that is understood - but what are people expecting - instant karma.

We have locked in $18.3 billion on Cap Ex and $1.7 billion to spend on defence infrastructure until 2030. There will be possible trade offs - for example KC-130J-SOC's and a couple of C-2's rather than A400M's. Frigates built in Korean like FFX-III's or Japan like the 30DX rather than Type 26, FREMM or F-110's of which frankly there has not been that great enthusiasm for in NZ circles.

The RAAF are not going to keep all the F/A-18AM's and BM's flying until all the F-35's are in service they will go out the hanger no doubt on a swap in swap out basis. Even if the Cannucks grab the first 18, there should be a further 18 worth looking at to upgrade.

This is a less expensive bullet to bite to recover a capability lost. Frankly the argument that we Kiwi's don't need some kind of ACF is often made by those who are not actually Kiwis and whose own countries actually have a current ACF capability yet are quick to justify their own necessities for their own national interests - well that is called hypocrisy and I am very suspicious of their motives to be honest.

Cheers, MrC

Umm huh? I do not know who or what transtasmen is, am I supposed to?

 

[t68]

I suppose there is no way of really knowing how many Kiwis are flying for other 5 eyes partners, there may be scope for initial chain of knowledgeable servicemen to kick start the NZ ACF program