Royal New Zealand Air Force

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
5. Finally, can people say with certainty and actuality that a FMS of ex USAF F/A-16's without any upgrades sitting in early block configuration in the desert with the same amount of hours and age is going to be easier and faster than current operating and upgraded F/A-18's under a direct ITAR's approved OZ-NZ sale and transfer. Aircraft that we can be agnostic whether or not we upgrade them for the interim period. Noting that often those US FMS deals involve strings attached such as contracts to 'regenerate' them using US companies. Our cancelled F-16's were as cheap as chips per MDE - the cost was in getting them regenerated, tested and shipped.
Just one little quibble. A number of those early F-16's (Block 1 - 20) had been mothballed with fairly low flight hours, having been replaced with production Block 30/32 and later fighters rather than upgrade to newer/later block standards. Since then, a number of Block 20's have had a MLU which provides some of the capabilities of the Block 50/52 aircraft.

At present though, I am uncertain just how many older but low hour airframes remain available for purchase and upgrading. Spending money to purchase old, high hour airframes to upgrade would be a waste of time, money and effort IMO.
 

Bluey 006

Active Member
Just one little quibble. A number of those early F-16's (Block 1 - 20) had been mothballed with fairly low flight hours, having been replaced with production Block 30/32 and later fighters rather than upgrade to newer/later block standards. Since then, a number of Block 20's have had a MLU which provides some of the capabilities of the Block 50/52 aircraft.

At present though, I am uncertain just how many older but low hour airframes remain available for purchase and upgrading. Spending money to purchase old, high hour airframes to upgrade would be a waste of time, money and effort IMO.
I agree.

I was recently reading about USAF plans to replace the A-10 Warthog and this lead me to the Textron Scorpion and while looking at the mission sets the first thing I thought of was this might be the ideal platform for NZ to get back the ACF. As most of you would probably know the reason the USAF has finally decided to replace the A-10 is that it simply isn’t economical for F-35 to perform these low level close air support missions nor despite Lockheed claims and all it's capabilities it isn’t ideally suited for them.

If there is an appetite for RNZAF to get back manned fast jets, then something like the Scorpion might be the way to go because it could do all the missions the RNZAF is likely to need it to do independently, but adds a new capability to the overall ANZAC air forces.

In larger scenarios Afghanistan, East Timor or god forbid WW3 the RAAF F-35s and Growlers could provide high level strike, Air defence, EW, escort, CAP etc and the Kiwi Scorpions could be down in the mud providing low level close air support and surveillance much cheaper than the RAAF F-35s could (remembering F-35 costs around $32,000 USD an hour to fly). It’s a win-win for both parties because unlike the USAF the RAAF can’t afford to buy a separate airframe for this mission and Kiwi Scorpions could provide this capability, for NZ it provides a low cost platform to get back skills in the fast jet arena for whatever direction that heads, gives something back to the ANZAC relationship and means if something unexpected other than a J-31 does appear in the skies or ocean around NZ the kiwi’s have a sovereign capability to engage it with.

Australia and NZ are both sovereign nations with independent foreign policy if requested both are highly likely almost certain to support each other with complementary capabilities if requested.Let’s be honest, if there are 100s of Pak-50s or J-31s screaming to toward NZ the RAAF is going to be involved and if Aussie diggers are taking casualties because expensive F-35 could not be deployed and RNZAF has capabilities to support them, it is unfathomable that they wouldn't.

If it’s not the scorpion and economies of scale are your thing, then whatever develops out of the U.S T-X fast trainer program or the A-X if it pans out. Slotting training directly into the US system as was done with the F-35.

UCAVs may prove to be even cheaper again though.

Seems like logic to me. What the point of getting shagged F-18s or F-16s that won’t stand up against J-20 when there will be plenty of their replacements the F-35s flying around the region. Get something that complements those F-35s, frees them up by supporting their mates on the ground with a capability they don't have, and is a suitable platform to develop a future force if one day you do want full scale fast jet capabilities.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I agree.

I was recently reading about USAF plans to replace the A-10 Warthog and this lead me to the Textron Scorpion and while looking at the mission sets the first thing I thought of was this might be the ideal platform for NZ to get back the ACF. As most of you would probably know the fact the USAF has finally decided to replace the A-10 is that it simply isn’t economical for F-35 to perform these low level Close Air support missions nor despite Lockheed claims isn’t ideally suited for them. Let’s be honest, if there are 100s of Pak-50s or J-31s screaming to toward NZ the RAAF is going to be involved.

If there is an appetite for RNZAF to get back manned fast jets, then something like the Scorpion might be the way to go because it could do all the missions the RNZAF is likely to need it to do independently, but adds a new capability to the overall ANZAC air forces. In larger scenarios Afghanistan, East Timor or god forbid WW3 the RAAF F-35s and Growlers could provide high level strike, Air defence, EW, escort, CAP etc and the Kiwi Scorpions could be down in the mud providing low level close air support and surveillance much cheaper than the RAAF F-35s could (remembering F-35 costs around $32,000 USD an hour to fly). It’s a win-win for both parties because unlike the USAF the RAAF can’t afford to buy a separate airframe for this mission and Kiwi Scorpions could provide this capability, for NZ it provides a low cost platform to get back skills in the fast jet arena for whatever direction that heads, gives something back to the ANZAC relationship and means if something unexpected other than a J-31 does appear in the skies or ocean around NZ the kiwi’s have a sovereign capability to engage it with.
Australia and NZ are both sovereign nations with independent foreign policy if requested both are highly likely almost certain to support each other with complementary capabilities if requested.

If it’s not the scorpion and economies of scale are your game, then the U.S T-X fast trainer program or the A-X if it pans out. UCAVs may prove to be even cheaper again though.

Seems like logic to me. What the point of getting shagged F-18s or F-16s that won’t stand up against J-20 when there will be plenty of F-35s flying around. Get something that complements those F-35s, frees them up by supporting their mates on the ground, and is a suitable platform to develop a future force if one day you do want full scale fast jet capabilities.
I looked at the Scorpion a couple of years ago and it still hasn't attracted a customer. I am quite wary of it because if we went down that route, we could end up being the launch customer, which is too risky in my eyes. Also would it be capable of surviving in contested airspace? Today the CONOPS for CAS appear to be using what ever platform is available and with the new generation of guided weapons, appears to be working. Whilst it may be cost effective to use aircraft such as the Scorpion or A-29 Tucano to chastise enemy irregular forces, against a peer or near peer enemy with good air defence capabilities, it most likely would be quite a dangerous undertaking.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Whilst it may be cost effective to use aircraft such as the Scorpion or A-29 Tucano to chastise enemy irregular forces, against a peer or near peer enemy with good air defence capabilities, it most likely would be quite a dangerous undertaking.
It's probably worth noting that the "Mighty A-10" tm was dangerously exposed by a nowhere near peer enemy during the second gulf war. Does fine for blatting insurgents, not so great when there's actual opposition. Not too sure that the Scorpion is likely to be better than the A-10, even if anyone was to buy it

oldsig
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Just one little quibble. A number of those early F-16's (Block 1 - 20) had been mothballed with fairly low flight hours, having been replaced with production Block 30/32 and later fighters rather than upgrade to newer/later block standards. Since then, a number of Block 20's have had a MLU which provides some of the capabilities of the Block 50/52 aircraft.

At present though, I am uncertain just how many older but low hour airframes remain available for purchase and upgrading. Spending money to purchase old, high hour airframes to upgrade would be a waste of time, money and effort IMO.
The early Block 15's at AMARC are late 70's-early 80's vintage ADF versions but will require upgrading as essentially they have all the avionic charm of post Kahu A-4's and iirc are non wired for harpoon until Block 25. Yes they would make ideal candidates for Viper F-16V upgrades but that involves serious coin. The best of them have been snapped and ended up in places like Chile.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
The early Block 15's at AMARC are late 70's-early 80's vintage ADF versions but will require upgrading as essentially they have all the avionic charm of post Kahu A-4's and iirc are non wired for harpoon until Block 25. Yes they would make ideal candidates for Viper F-16V upgrades but that involves serious coin. The best of them have been snapped and ended up in places like Chile.
That is sort of the thing though. Any fighters NZ might be inclined to purchase are going to either have high costs, or be of little use. The high costs might be upfront being modern, advanced aircraft, or older aircraft in need of upgrades, alternatively the higher costs could be on the backend being older but already upgraded aircraft that had been well used and have higher costs to safely sustain operations.

The other option would be even more unpalatable IMO, getting low-cost aircraft that lack modern avionics which would leave them unable to operate in a modern battlespace.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
That is sort of the thing though. Any fighters NZ might be inclined to purchase are going to either have high costs, or be of little use. The high costs might be upfront being modern, advanced aircraft, or older aircraft in need of upgrades, alternatively the higher costs could be on the backend being older but already upgraded aircraft that had been well used and have higher costs to safely sustain operations.

The other option would be even more unpalatable IMO, getting low-cost aircraft that lack modern avionics which would leave them unable to operate in a modern battlespace.

if our Kiwi mates are to re-establish an ACF they should be under no illusions that a substantial amount of money will have to be spent in the long run either now with short term solutions or jumping in the deep end, its a bit like the UK and re-establishing the CEPP
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
That is sort of the thing though. Any fighters NZ might be inclined to purchase are going to either have high costs, or be of little use. The high costs might be upfront being modern, advanced aircraft, or older aircraft in need of upgrades, alternatively the higher costs could be on the backend being older but already upgraded aircraft that had been well used and have higher costs to safely sustain operations.

The other option would be even more unpalatable IMO, getting low-cost aircraft that lack modern avionics which would leave them unable to operate in a modern battlespace.
But this is not quite yet about operating in the modern battlespace - that is the point that needs to be recognised and digested.

It is about re-developing capability and extending training into modern air combat skill sets, with a view to being able to build capacity to get to an arbitrary point in time say 2030 years when we would then be able to operate and suceed in a future battlespace. This is about methodically building up to those operations over time.

Crawl - Walk - Run.

The new DefMin has seemingly proposed taking over the operation of some of the soon to be retired from RAAF service F/A-18AM's / BM's. "Some" is very likely to be a small tranche - which may mean an acquisition of less than 16-18 airframes - of which in effect may only be a short Squadron of 8-10 aircraft possibly generated and operational on the flight-line. Some kept in reserve and some cannabilised for attrition spares.

The new DefMin is possibly investigating what may follow after an interim period of using these aircraft - or possibly letting the next stage in capability evolve following a process of evaluating requirements for an introduction of a Gen 4++ or Gen 5 aircraft.

Since the inclination it seems is the F/A-18AM it is best to get official data on their costs.

According to the ANAO Audit Report No.6 2012–13, Management of Australia’s Air Combat Capability is estimated the cost of sustaining the fleet of 71 F/A-18's projected through their RAF retirement works out at an average of AUD $170m per annum for their remaining decade with the peak year of 2018/19 of AUD$214m or in effect AUD$3m per annum per platform to keep all 71 flying airworthy and a further operational outlay with the Hornet Deeper Maintenance costing $1.3m per aircraft per annum.

Thus it seems that it would cost on those figures circa NZ$5m a year for each aircraft. On top of that would go fuel, basing costs, salaries, basic stocks of weapons for training and qualification.

Another cost factor is the C+ SLEP at Cecil Field at USD$7.4m per refurbished airframe and mechanical overhaul, which would extend the aircraft's life out to 8000 hours.

What we also know about the F/A-18AM is that the fleet has now completed 336,000 flying hours since introduction and average around 29.5 years old. They evidently fly between 160-170 hours p.a and have an average of around 5000 hours on each existing airframe. All airframes will be retired short of the original manufacturers life-time estimate of 6000 hours.

We also know that the RAAF F/A-18AM's are fundamentally sound following their 2015 evaluation study and unlike USN/USMC aircraft have not had a life of carrier service and thus would be ideal candidates for a C+ SLEP upgrade.

Cost and usage also have contexts. The policy context here is in terms of being a pathway to redevelop a capability. That capability is a strategic hedge to evolving or potentially variable strategic circumstances. It will give us choices that we do not have at present if circumstances unravel.

Essentially this is no different to a proposal that McCully or Carter were shopping around pre 2005 election when Clarke was trying to offload them to Tactical Air Services -basically to keep 8 A-4K's flying to keep air combat skills in house (After Clark faux sold them to Hoss whatshisname McCully then wanted to have the RAAF base some Hornets at OH). Essentially it was to recreate the old No.2 Squadron (that was based in Nowra) back in action in OH.

My guess looking at the policy context announced by NZ First and the motivation of Mr Mark instead of using 8 A-4K's - he possibly is proposing 8-10 F/A-18's. Instead of maintaining nine Machi's iirc was the 2005 idea - a proposal would be to outsource LIFT to a lead provider such as the PPP UKMFTS joint venture at RAF Valley. Instead of buying them and shipping them home to OH immediately - keep them in Australia initially flying alongside the ones still with Roos stencilled on the side at the Hornet OCU and contributing pro-rata, and start rotating four airframes a year through a SLEP. Then when the Hornet OCU party is over in OZ head back to OH with a industry sustainment contract in place for the next 7-10 years and join the Singa's and then start looking and thinking about finding the replacement that will have the job of operating in a modern battlespace within a post 2030 world.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
the preceding post by Mr C is a sound concept which could be made to work at a minimum cost. I agree with the notion that the ex Aussie F 18's would most likely not be considered fully operational in their remaining lifetime but would be a transitional arrangement . Mr C's crawl, walk, run, sums it up exactly with a 2030 plus time frame to reach a full operational capability.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
It is about re-developing capability and extending training into modern air combat skill sets, with a view to being able to build capacity to get to an arbitrary point in time say 2030 years when we would then be able to operate and suceed in a future battlespace. This is about methodically building up to those operations over time.

Crawl - Walk - Run.

The new DefMin has seemingly proposed taking over the operation of some of the soon to be retired from RAAF service F/A-18AM's / BM's. "Some" is very likely to be a small tranche - which may mean an acquisition of less than 16-18 airframes - of which in effect may only be a short Squadron of 8-10 aircraft possibly generated and operational on the flight-line. Some kept in reserve and some cannabilised for attrition spares.
Mr C's has merit and it would be a good way to stand up a the fast jet capability.
the preceding post by Mr C is a sound concept which could be made to work at a minimum cost. I agree with the notion that the ex Aussie F 18's would most likely not be considered fully operational in their remaining lifetime but would be a transitional arrangement . Mr C's crawl, walk, run, sums it up exactly with a 2030 plus time frame to reach a full operational capability.
I don't think it would take until 2030 to have the RAAF F/A-18A / B FOC in NZ service, more like 5 - 6 years from acquisition.
As part of the High Flight Hour program, the Defense Department asked Boeing to extend their service lives to
10,000 hours, he said.
“We find out what needs to be replaced, the major structural upgrades to make it go. We slap it back on together
and it goes back out to the fleet and gives it … another six years of life.”
The process takes a year or two depending on the shape that the aircraft is in when it arrives at Cecil Field. The
environment in which it was flown can have a major impact on the time required to complete the work. An aircraft
that operated in a dry desert might be in better shape than one that operated at sea where exposure to saltwater
particles can lead to corrosion, he said.
Maxwell suggested Boeing could further increase the Hornets’ service lives once the aircraft get close to 10,000
flight hours.
“There may be opportunities to continue past 10,000” if the Navy and Marine Corps wanted to go down that path,
he said. “We could probably extend that.”

Marine Corps, Boeing Resurrect F/A-18 Fighters
So we possibly could get 4K+ hours out of them before they reach the 10K hours stage, takes them to maybe 20 years in NZ service. If the USN / USMC decide to go for a further extension after the 10K hours is reached, we could be in a good position. This would most definitely give us the time and experience to investigate a subsequent replacement for them.

All that is really required, is the political will to undertake such a plan.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
JASDF Kawasaki C-2 68-1203 is reported as arriving at RAAF Amberley yesterday afternoon. There is speculation that it could cross the Tasman today.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Mr C's has merit and it would be a good way to stand up a the fast jet capability.

I don't think it would take until 2030 to have the RAAF F/A-18A / B FOC in NZ service, more like 5 - 6 years from acquisition.

So we possibly could get 4K+ hours out of them before they reach the 10K hours stage, takes them to maybe 20 years in NZ service. If the USN / USMC decide to go for a further extension after the 10K hours is reached, we could be in a good position. This would most definitely give us the time and experience to investigate a subsequent replacement for them.

All that is really required, is the political will to undertake such a plan.
The problem with reaching full operational capability quickly is not just getting the pilots up to speed in the aircraft, but rather it is getting the leadership and supporting sqn leadership structures in place. this could be shortened by using some Aussie leadership, if the RAAF would allow this, but otherwise your pilots will need to gain experience to become section leaders then they need the experience and training to become flight leaders and the same for your squadron leaders. Experienced, trained leadership is what is going to take the most time and lack of it will make any unit ineffective.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
The problem with reaching full operational capability quickly is not just getting the pilots up to speed in the aircraft, but rather it is getting the leadership and supporting sqn leadership structures in place. this could be shortened by using some Aussie leadership, if the RAAF would allow this, but otherwise your pilots will need to gain experience to become section leaders then they need the experience and training to become flight leaders and the same for your squadron leaders. Experienced, trained leadership is what is going to take the most time and lack of it will make any unit ineffective.
The way around this would be to recruit the right individuals and this in my view would be essential. These could be current serving members of the UK, Australian, USA or Canadian Armed Forces or those former ACF pilots who have flown fast air / Hornets in those countries. People willing to return or and are willing to migrate here either permanently or as short service engagements.

Furthermore there would likely be current RNZAF staff with 10 years or more in, QFI's and the like, very keen to up-skill from current transport, maritime and rotary posts across to this new unit and professionally develop with it as well.

Having the RSAF in-situ at OH operating F-15SG's would provide benchmarking / mentorship for any neophyte training unit.

As for FOC it depends on what remit FOC is envisaged. A short 'training/development' squadron of say 8-10 aircraft to achieve a basic level of capability that could do support tasks JTAC/Navy work ups et al, a pipeline in place for training/capability development, the ability to deploy abroad on exercises a detachment of 6-8 then 6 years is doable. From Crawl - Walk in other words. But to then get to the Walk - Run stage - a competent deployed full Squadron at DLOC into a medium intensity conflict working with peers in a coalition theatre scenario then that would take longer - perhaps by 2030.
 

Shanesworld

Well-Known Member
Would it be better to just focus on all the f18b's rather than mixed a/b fleet?

Also could it be seen as a cooperative effort between nz and Canada rather than competitive where Canada cannabalises the single seaters and we send our twin seaters for refurbishment/zero lifed at L3 thereby gaining some political feel good with a country that the public see as less hawkish and more inline with our pacifist leanings than say the US.

Also the asraam and seaceptor commonalities is a nice element.

Still abit sceptical that this could even happen though. The outcry will be deafening and I just cannot see the greens supporting it and National will attack it ferociously.

Also what would the redline be Fiscally for this to be a no go? 500 hundred mill, 700 hundred mill? Ongoing say 100 mill a year limit?

Also that c2 really suits it here.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The way around this would be to recruit the right individuals and this in my view would be essential. These could be current serving members of the UK, Australian, USA or Canadian Armed Forces or those former ACF pilots who have flown fast air / Hornets in those countries. People willing to return or and are willing to migrate here either permanently or as short service engagements.

Furthermore there would likely be current RNZAF staff with 10 years or more in, QFI's and the like, very keen to up-skill from current transport, maritime and rotary posts across to this new unit and professionally develop with it as well.

Having the RSAF in-situ at OH operating F-15SG's would provide benchmarking / mentorship for any neophyte training unit.

As for FOC it depends on what remit FOC is envisaged. A short 'training/development' squadron of say 8-10 aircraft to achieve a basic level of capability that could do support tasks JTAC/Navy work ups et al, a pipeline in place for training/capability development, the ability to deploy abroad on exercises a detachment of 6-8 then 6 years is doable. From Crawl - Walk in other words. But to then get to the Walk - Run stage - a competent deployed full Squadron at DLOC into a medium intensity conflict working with peers in a coalition theatre scenario then that would take longer - perhaps by 2030.
Generally agree with you on most of this, The use of leadership from other sectors might speed things up a bit, but not a lot as it is a different combat flying environment, a bit like turning a vet into a doctor or visa versa.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Would it be better to just focus on all the f18b's rather than mixed a/b fleet?

Also could it be seen as a cooperative effort between nz and Canada rather than competitive where Canada cannabalises the single seaters and we send our twin seaters for refurbishment/zero lifed at L3 thereby gaining some political feel good with a country that the public see as less hawkish and more inline with our pacifist leanings than say the US.

Also the asraam and seaceptor commonalities is a nice element.

Still abit sceptical that this could even happen though. The outcry will be deafening and I just cannot see the greens supporting it and National will attack it ferociously.

Also what would the redline be Fiscally for this to be a no go? 500 hundred mill, 700 hundred mill? Ongoing say 100 mill a year limit?

Also that c2 really suits it here.
Politically the Greens will rumble a bit but won't want to upset THEIR government too much, and the Nat's will only look at the money side but would not argue the concept as it was a policy of theirs in opposition during the Clark years until Key became leader . Polls over the years in regard to restoring an ACF have all been positive while slowly declining over the years, In the Clark years they tended to be over 70% and the last one I have seen , about a year ago was 68%
If the numbers of aircraft is small sticking with the B's could be an advantage, but it would depend on what the Aussies would release to us.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Generally agree with you on most of this, The use of leadership from other sectors might speed things up a bit, but not a lot as it is a different combat flying environment, a bit like turning a vet into a doctor or visa versa.
That runs contrary to what I have been told and disagree. The NZ flying environment has only superficial geographical differences that any well qualified QFI or flight leader from the RAAF, RAF or RCAF would have no problem with when teaching RNZAF pilots their new air combat trade. Our 'combat flying environment' ceased 16 years ago and I would suggest that we have a blank page. This is more like turning a doctor into a surgeon.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
That runs contrary to what I have been told and disagree. The NZ flying environment has only superficial geographical differences that any well qualified QFI or flight leader from the RAAF, RAF or RCAF would have no problem with when teaching RNZAF pilots their new air combat trade. Our 'combat flying environment' ceased 16 years ago and I would suggest that we have a blank page. This is more like turning a doctor into a surgeon.
Sorry, a misunderstanding, I was referring to the use of RNZAF pilots from other sectors, eg helicopter or transport in the strike leadership role. Agree that suitably qualified pilots from other air forces would in fact be a must to get things rolling.
 
Top