A theory open to debate

[Dave Homewood]

I have given this some thought. Since the loss of the Strike Wing there has often been supposition that maybe one day it will be brought back when we get a different government. But one of the huge stumbling blocks there is re-equiping with aircraft capable of meeting the needs of a strike wing. Let's face it, NZ will never ever again be offered such a sweet cheap deal as the F-16's we nearly got. And there is no way we could afford some of these new fangled whizzy do ugly things Australia is ordering, one new fighter alone equates to the price of all those F-16's, criminal.

So I have been wondering, New Zealand has always had a can do attitude, and also we're great at making do and turning what we have into something better. Well I reckon we have a large number of hugely innovative people out there in NZ, who are highly skilled and have what it takes to design and build our own fighter aircraft. You may scoff but what is a fighter aircraft? it's simply an aeroplane designed as a platform for delivering ordnance and defending positions with its weapons.

Surely using the skills of the likes of our experimental home builders as well as our exisiting and ex-RNZAF trained people and those in the more legitimate aircraft producing trades, as well as even our boat building indusrty for high quality carbon fibre technology, etc, a design team could be raised that could produce a low cost aircraft, with state of the art technology and innovations. Perhaps it doesn't even have to be a jet if the weapons system if good enough. Perhaps a high performance piston engined fighter bomber could be produced?

I think if it were done with a supporrtive governemnt and industry backing it, NZ could certainly set to and produce a stunning design. It could even become an export item in the longer term. We have the skills, I'm just unsure if the country would bother.

What do you guys and girls think, is this a genuine possibility or just pie in the sky?

[conman]

We could strap some of those surplus AIM-9L's to a Martin JetPack (VTOL and LO capability) !

[beagle]

pretty sure you could get 10 wing stations for sidewinders on the 757

[yak2]

If you look at the rationalisation of aircraft manufacturers in the US, UK and Europe, you will get an idea of the huge costs involved in aircraft R&D and production. Especially in peacetime when bean counters have the eventual say. The F35 program is a classic example. I have recently obtained some pictures of the development of the Wamira training aircraft for the RAAF, which I will post shortly. That exercise was indicative of the associated problems of economics and politics with even a quite modest program. In the end it was significantly cheaper and at lower risk to build the PC9 under licence. Since that time, the aircraft industry in this country has become much more technologically advanced. It produces complex high added value components primarily for export, rather than manufacturing entire aircraft for the domestic market.

[Dave Homewood]

Yes, I see your point Rob, but what I was really meaning was rather than have to spend all the money on R&D why not apply the experience and knowledge of people already doing this stuff? Homebuilders, we've learned through this forum and elsewhere, are generally on the cutting edge of developing top technology for cheaper and cheaper costs and that innovation can surely be transferred over to production aircraft. Also, when Project Kahu was underway a lot of the highly specialist avionics equipment and stuff like that was designed by our own RNZAF airmen rather than highly paid boffins overseas, making it cheaper and in many cases so much better they patented some things and later sold rights to others to use their technology. This has probably happened with other RNZAF projects too I'd imagine. Surley this is what could be done to build a combat capable aircraft for a few millon dollars rather than a few billion? That's the point I'm trying to make and wonder if others think it's feasible.

[sleemanj]

No government will reinstate a strike wing unless a serious threat to New Zealand security for which a strike aircraft would be an effective weapon presents itself, which is , lets be honest, exceptionally unlikely.

Not just because NZ doesn't really have many enemies, or that NZ is far away from anywhere, or that NZ does have other weapons available, but simply that the utility of strike aircraft against the forms of attack one is likely to see in future, in this country (and any other western country really) is really quite marginal. Put straight forward, NZ has no forseeable need to go on the offensive, and strike aircraft don't make good defensive weapons against a suitcase bomb.

A domestically manufactured strike aircraft may be a noble (fun, interesting, cool) idea, but it's not realistic, there isn't a point in having a strike aircraft that isn't a match for "off the rack" aircraft supplied by other countries to anybody with the dollars. Your estimate of "millions" is far far short for the development of a sensible strike aircraft from scratch. Hundreds of millions of dollars.

Perhaps if we were talking about Predator etc, unmanned (but not unarmed) aircraft you may have a point, such aircraft would likely be in the realms of feasibility, and is definately the way that the US military is heading - the time of the manned fighter aircraft is very rapidly drawing to a close, it won't be long at all (perhaps less than 20 years) before technology reaches the point where for the "pilot" there is no discernable difference between being in the aircraft vs being in a remote cockpit - apart from the fact that if the aircraft gets blown to bits, the pilot can still take the casual stroll home after his 9 to 5 shift.

[yak2]

I'm not saying it can't be done Dave. Just that there are better uses for the available resources. Some countries have started with a proven airframe, and then modified it to provide improved capability eg. Israel with the Mirage and F4. But it is only a stop gap measure. Small countries are in a bind aquiring/maintaining increasingly expensive and more complex defence equipment. Strategic alliances are a part solution. Perhaps NZ mends its fences with the US, and in return for providing on the ground support with its servicemen, is supplied with the necessary aircraft etc to deliver that capability. Alternatively develop a complimentry force with an ally which seems to be the way that you are heading. And develop an industry offset program if one is not already in place ie. NZ will buy a US aircraft if the US undertakes to invest a chunk of the work in NZ.

[timmo]

Baby steps.

You don't decide to run a marathon without first seeing if you can walk around the block.

If we consider that New Zealand could not even manufacture a passenger car (a far less complex machine than a jet aircraft) with its current industrial capacity, then I don't hold out any hope that we would be able to manufacture a high performance aircraft.

Sure we maybe able to take a part, look at it and tweak it but that is far far different from making something from scratch as 99% the work is already done for you. There are multiple ways to solve a problem but some are better than others: What is the best material to use for this part? How thick should this part be? where is the best place to mount this? There are so many variables for each part of a machine- 'tweaking' something is simply changing one of the thousands/millions of interacting variables. It is when you need to consider all of these variables and how they ALL interact that the complexity and cost sky rockets

[FlyNavy]

Perhaps there is a good point to the thread idea of UAV development perhaps. Did not we see a Sidewinder equipped device about one year ago on this forum? Australia has learnt to specialise to maintain skills and not try to do it all. AND I acknowledge the Kiwi can do spirit as evidenced in the KAHU upgrade but I take issue that a lot of the devices were home grown. What were they Dave? Did not Smith Industries in the States contract to do the upgrade? Perhaps they then subcontracted to NZ but that is same as I'm talking about for Australia specialising.

AND before Dave wants to hammer me point by point, yes the RNZAF designed for the upgrade and put some of it together BUT they did not start from scratch so to speak. They designed the TUNNY CUP! ;D

[Bruce]

Well I have a few prelim sketches of a UAV and a semi - steath Forward air control / close air support aircraft in my design file as "what if" exercises.... (I'd be happy to start refining them if a couple of million development dollars fell my way

[corsair67]

Oi, if New Zealand can build this - then anything's possible:




A Bob Semple tank crosses the Bridge of Remembrance during a defence parade through Christchurch
[26 Apr. 1941]

The Semple tank project was the idea of the Rt Hon. Robert Semple (1873-1955), Minister of Public Works and also National Service in 1941. He suggested that tank superstructures be constructed and fitted to Caterpillar tractors to help defend New Zealand from enemy invasion. Three tanks were built at the New Zealand Railways workshop at Addington. Two of the tanks were attached to 11 Heavy Regiment, New Zealand Artillery for a defence parade through Christchurch. Semple was one of those taking the salute in Cathedral Square. However, the tanks were only used by the army for training and experimentation and otherwise proved of little value. They were eventually reconverted to tractors. See Defending New Zealand : ramparts on the sea 1840-1950s / Peter Cooke, v. 1, p. 352 Thousands of troops, headed by the Mounted Brigade, with hundreds of Home Guards and Emergency Precautions volunteers and women war workers took part in the largest parade the city had ever seen, which was designed to show New Zealand's military and civil preparedness. The parade took more than an hour to pass the saluting base in Cathedral Square.

[FlyNavy]

In a time of war there is nothing wrong with being defensively creative. We see the problems that the US had invading Iraq. Sure it was easy but then what? A population that resists (by whatever means) is formidable.

[philip]

Surely to defend a small country like NZ you just need a bunch of missiles in concealed silo's capable of hitting anything inbound about 200 miles out

Many years ago I thought the way would be Jump-Jets hidden around the country but these days with missile and guidance technology you don't even need the aircraft

[Dave Homewood]

Missiles cannot lend close escort to our transports or pinpoint ground targets from a silo surely.

I'm not saying any of this is possible and should happen, I'm asking the question, so it's good to see everyone's thoughts and the debate ensuing.

Let's face facts, NZ has designed and produced some pretty good aircraft like the Airtrainer, Cresco and PAC750XL. Why not somethign with more teeth?

[corsair67]

NZ has produced some very good aircraft over the years, but the skills and technology needed to build aircraft like the CT-4, Fletcher, Cresco and 750XL are nothing like the skills and technology needed to build a modern fighter/strike aircraft.

Sure, someone in NZ could no doubt come up with a good enough design idea for a combat aircraft, but securing the finances needed to build the prototype aircraft would be virtually impossible - let alone the massive sums of money needed to build pre-production and production examples. Plus, how many aircraft would you be looking at producing? I couldn't see the point even trying if you aren't going to be able to sell several thousand examples

Unfortunately there isn't really a way to produce a cheap and effective combat aircraft - as many countries have found out over the years. Even the Soviets nearly went bankrupt trying to mass produce thousands of cheap and basic MiGs!

[30sqnatc]

Sept 10, 2008 17:46:27 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

Missiles cannot lend close escort to our transports or pinpoint ground targets from a silo surely.

I'm not saying any of this is possible and should happen, I'm asking the question, so it's good to see everyone's thoughts and the debate ensuing.

Let's face facts, NZ has designed and produced some pretty good aircraft like the Airtrainer, Cresco and PAC750XL. Why not somethign with more teeth?

The 'teeth' would have to come from overseas. The intellectual property required to complete system integration alone would cost multi millions and thats assuming the respective governments would agree on its release to NZ.

[shane]

A few have tried in the past to design such platforms .The Addax fighter didnt get past the scaled model stage but the TGR Snark UAV was flown and armed with Sidewinders and even a maverick missile but is now in recievership. Im keen to see Bruce's proposal (can u fit sidewinders on your Avian?) Just kidding . Im sure like WW2 with a forces for anti invasion mentality arming up the Crescos and Airtrainers would provide good cover for a defence. During WW2 every aircraft that the Air Force felt was of use was put into service and there are alot of privately owned jet fighters in NZ.

[Dave Homewood]

Sept 10, 2008 19:25:40 GMT 12 30sqnatc said:

The 'teeth' would have to come from overseas. The intellectual property required to complete system integration alone would cost multi millions and thats assuming the respective governments would agree on its release to NZ.

When the Kahu upgarde was done, for the very reason of costs of buying patents from overseas, a lot of the weapons system was designed here by our own Avionics Technicians for a tiny fraction of the cost and in some cases worked out better than foreign designs. That is the sort of thing I am talking about, do our own designs to get round problems rather than rely on foreign designs that cost the earth.

With our great wonderful trade deal with China perhaps we can buy some communist Chinese weapons for cheap too?

[dav3469]

I would think in that case (of a NZ government change, where combat aircraft were wanted) there most likely would be offers from the U.S. (or another allied country), wouldn't you think?

I realize the aircraft offered would not be in as "new" of shape as the stored Paki jets were, but I bet you would see some creative measures.

[Dave Homewood]

There quite probably would be such offers Dave but I think any government now would think "Oh we've gotten away without air protection this long, and they would cost so much it would be unpopular with the public' blah blah.

If it were in fact done here with a much cheaper platform that was employing lots of New Zealanders, politicians might actually consider it.

I see it only a s a lead-in to proper re-equipment of course.