Build your RNZAF

[Calum]

The RNZAF Selection thread got me thinking. If you could build the RNZAF of today what would you have.

Now be a little realistic ( eg no aircraft carrier with F-14's super hornets etc) but you can also assume that the RNZAF has a decent budget. And that these purchases would have well planned for over time so block obselence wouldn't be a issue.

I've chuked in some sqn's for fun but I really don't know if the No's are the best choices. (htat could be another thread)

Here's my version
Air Combat
75 Sqn Strike (includes OCU)
12-14X F-16C Block 50/52's
4 X F-16D Block 50/52

Maritime Patrol/ ASW
No 5 Sqn
6 X P-3K with a ASW capability, ASuW missile and good ESM capability. (think like the RAAF- AP-3C)
No 2 Sqn
4 X HALE/MALE UAV (global hawk or mariner)

Transport
No 40 Sqn
6 X C-130H (kinda what we're going towards, with full ECM fit, glass cockpit etc)

No 42 Sqn
2 X KC-30 (RAAF A330 MRTT)
6-8 X CN-235/CN-295 Tactical Transport

Army Support
Troop Transport
No 3 Sqn
14 X NH-90 TTH


No 1 Sqn
Light Utility/.SF/ helicopter tactics training but not flight training
10 X EC 145
3 X CH-47F

Naval Helicopter (assume 4 ANZAC's)
No 6 Sqn
4 X NH-90 (HFH)

You'll note there are no training aircraft. All the funds are spent in the "teeth"

Lead in fighter training, either contract to NATO training in Canada or the ADF.
Basic Flight training, Multi engine and Helicopter conversion -Contract to Civilian firm
Aircrew are to come to their operational aircraft ready for conversion.

The number of aircraft above aren't much different from the numbers the RNZAF had when I joined in 1986.

I've kept the Helicopters to EADS products, basically because they are the best, except for the Chinook. A heavy lift helicopter is a very handy asset, but it's cost of ownship is huge. Perhaps adding a few more NH-90's or EC-145's would provide better value for money.

For the fighters, the F-16 is still the best value aircraft for small airforces in the world. F-16's would eventually be replaced by F-35 but not until the F-35 deisgn has matured 2025-2030

[steve]

Good mix...and a good topic....What happened to our nice 757s?...Interesting to note that the Aussie are spending up heaps over the next ten years on defence...Australia has 5 times our population howver is able to afford a defence budget 12 times bigger than ours...does nothing for a national pride and the term bludger comes to mind!! quiite right on the F16s they would be fine asset for years ...look at the countries still operating the f5s which i believe inferior to the so called "clapped out" A4Ks

[corsair67]

Calum, very interesting proposition; and if I was PM this is what the RNZAF would look like.


75 SQN - Ohakea:

12 x SAAB JAS-39C Gripen
4 x SAAB JAS-39D Gripen

2SQN - Nowra:

8 x SAAB JAS-39C Gripen
2 x SAAB JAS-39D Gripen (Okay, I have a Gripen fetish!)

14SQN - Ohakea:

14 x BAe Systems Hawk 100

5SQN - Whenuapai:

6 x Lockheed Martin P-3K Orion (fully upgraded - not just the SAR stuff!)

40SQN - Whenuapai:

6 x Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules
2 x Lockheed Martin KC-130J Hercules

41SQN - Ohakea:

6 x Lockheed Martin C27J Spartan

42SQN - Whenuapai:

5 x Bombardier Dash-8 200

3SQN - Ohakea:

12 x Eurocopter NH-90

1SQN - Woodbourne:

8 x Bell 412 (for sentimental reasons!)

All basic pilot training undertaken by private contractors, with RNZAF supervision.

Dreams are free! ;D

[Bruce]

O.K, I may be on a different track, but here's my thoughts:

40 sqn (whenuapai)
6x Airbus A400M transports

42 Sqn (Whenuapai)
6x Casa CN235

5 Sqn (Whenuapai)
4x P3K Upgrade

41 Sqn (Ohakea)
2x Bombardier Dash8 Q300 maritime / light transport (Including VIP)

6 sqn: (Whenuapai or Whangaparoa)
6x kaman Seasprites

3 sqn: (Ohakea)
12x NH90 Troop transport

1 Sqn, (Ohakea)
4x Agusta A109 LUH - Rotary wing conversion, light utility

2 sqn (Ohakea)
8x Agusta A109 LUH Combat support (Armed)

75 Sqn (Nowra)
16x F16 C/D Maritime strike

14 sqn (Ohakea)
10x Aermacchi MB339

PTS Woodbourne:

16x Alpha 300 (Leased)
Twin engine coversion flight - 4x Diamond DA42 Twinstars
4x Schweizer 300CB

HQ flight, (Wellington)
2x Gulfstream V Long range VIP transport (theyre cheaper than 757s)

The reasoning behind this selection is to ensure troops being deployed on peacekeeping missions overseas are adequately supported (in view of the lessons ignored after the Leonard manning incident) and able to deploy independant of foreign forces. hence the A109s, NH90s and A400Ms. with the Airbuses able to handle long range freight, the Gulfstreams can take over VIP work, both internally and internationally for less than the 2 757s (after all, I am the prime Minister...) Dash 8s do SAR, Inshore fisheries surveillance and light transport duties, CN-235s for Medium transport, such as hurricane relief to the islands etc. P3s would handle maritime work into the Pacific and southern oceans.

I would maintain an investment in in-house training with basic, twin engine and rotary wing training using state of the art civilian - type aircraft.

the F16s will contribute something to regional alliances, but to be honest, may be difficult to justify (we would be doing our bit with our Helos and transports) and the macchis would therefore need to be dragged out to provide fast jet training - If I didnt go for F16s Ii would still keep them, but improve thier weapons systems to aid in close air support for overseas deployments etc.

feel free to disagree - the PM is democratically elected

[steve]

I can handle loosing the strike...(well not really!) as long as the other components were expanded and upgraded big time..the savings have been deployed to gender bending type projects....and ceratinly big time to dubious arts subsidies...that said national was in power when they cut defence spending big as the "peace divident"...their f16 deal was to late..

[Dave Homewood]

Well personally I would attempt to claw back some of the losses the RNZAF has suffered and are to suffer. If I were to take over in charge of Defence right now I'd immediately turn around some past decisions. My choices are:

Air Combat
75 Sqn would be reformed at Ohakea initially with the Skyhawks being brought back out from storage - all promises to whatever company thinks they're buying them would be off (if Helen can do it over the F-16's I could breach contract on Skyhawks!!).

They'd be worked back up into squadron service - all of them in 75 Sqn which would include the OCU. Kiwi Red would also be authorised to reform to do shows and raise awareness for recruiting and building up the RNZAF again.

A team wouold be immediately set up to adress a replacement. I would not go towards a US manufactured jet as they have messed NZ around enough over the strike wing. I would ask the team to look at ex-RAF Harriers, Tornados and other types. Maybe Hawk fighters, or Mig 29's if we can get a cheap deal.

No. 14 Squadron would be back too, at Ohakea, again with the Maachis as they have decades of life left in them, and many RNZAf personnel know them well engineering-wise.

Maritime Patrol/ ASW
No 5 Sqn based at Whenuapai which won't close
As the six P-3K's are being upgraded and seem to be the a great platform for the duties they perform still, but I would open up to the RNZAF to see if they want to incorporate other weapons systems or surveillance gear they weren't allowed in the upgrade before.

I would form a second maritime squadron in the south, probably at Harewood, with 4-5 smaller maritime patrol aircraft such as the Dash 8's now being considered, to take on southern patrols, surveillance and also navigation and AEOP's training, taking over where NATTS left off. This would be No. 1 Squadron, bringing one of our most historic squadrons back to life. Maybe CASA C.295 for this role.

Transport
No 40 Sqn Whenuapai
The five C-130H Hercules and two Boeings would continue. One or two larger transport types would be explored that can fly the helicopters or LAVV's easily. Not sure what - I'm no modern aircraft expert but see the need.

A tanker kit option for a Hercules will again be explored like 40 Squadron almost got before.

No 42 Sqn - possibly based Ohakea, may move back to Auckland or have an operational detachment there and twin conversion training unit at OH
Drop the civil owned airliners and go for tactical, more useful twins, with ramp capability such as the CASA C.295


No 3 Sqn based at Hobsonville which would not close
16 X NH-90 TTH
6 x Squirrels

No 2 Sqn
22 Bae Hawks, based at Ohakea but half squadron (A and B Flights) detached to Nowra on rotation

Naval Helicopter
No 6 Sqn
Retain five Seaspites and add four NH-90's for the new ships

PTS/CFS
RNZAF purchase the civil owned CT/4E's and take over all maintenance themselves.

Now realms of fantasy

RNZAF Historic Flight
Retain Tiger Moth and Harvard, reinstate two more of the Harvards currently in storage as flyers and form three-ship display team. Add P-40, Corsair and Avenger all flying as WWII flight. All based at Wigram, operated there and around NZ regularly at fly-ins to raise money for the museum and recruiting, etc, operated by instructor pilots from CFS/PTS who'd travel to Wigram to operate the aircraft and gain heavy piston experience. Maintenance by a more expanded RNZAF team at Wigram museum, which itself would receive more than the pittance budget it gets.

Territorial Air Force
This would be reinstated with three squadrons of 10 aircraft each at Whenuapai, Woodbourne and Wigram flying Thunder Mustangs armed with machine guns and air to air missiles - built under licence in New Zealand at Ardmore by the way

[steve]

Mig 29s ..radical....however seriously cost effective and would be loved by the far left of this administraion ..some of them hate anything american...that aside the Ruskie jets are affordable....and impressive...however politcally not sure??

Here's an idea ...what about a discussion site on the future composition of the RNZAF within this board that represents the current thinking of the group...such as this thread but giving it more status . In other words ...a desirable status of the RNZAF based on at least a 50% increase in buget.. Maybe Dave and two others could agree/publish on line the ideal RNZAF 0f 2010 based on the inputs of members ..( that could produce a lot of sensible arguement!)which i must say are all similar..not over the top at all...visitors to the site could then read one a/f united asset statergy for this country from ex airforce staffers, aviators and followers etc.

[Dave Homewood]

I seriously don't know enough about modern military aircraft and the current workings of the RNZAF (it's changed a hell of a lot - mostly for the worse - since I was in) so I dubt I'd get involved in such a publication Steve.

As for Mig 29's to please people of "this admimistration" - if I were in the position to implement my plans it'd mean "this administration" would be gone - I'd never be in there with them. I'd have defeated them in a landslide with my new radical independent party that has no hidden agendas and is there for NZ's benefits, not lining our own pockets and kissing up to foreigners.

Firt act I would possibly use the Migs for would be to use all of Labour and National party member MP's as target practice on some rock in the ocean where the general public can see and cheer.

I'd go for the Migs or possibly Sukhois because they're the best - better than F-15's, and they look nicer. And they'd be cheaper and more economical to run. And they're proven as reliable. And I'd buy Russian because they owe us money and favours. America won't do us any favours any more so we won't get cheap F-16's

Much of the smaller stuff to re-equip the armed forces I would insist on having built here. That's something that bugged me when the F-16 deal was scrapped and Labour used the money to buy radios for the grunts they bought them from overseas and paid $140 million. Now, at that same time Tait industries of Hamilton which has always been a world leader was winning more international awards for its radio and telecommunications equipment. Why were they or some other NZ company not contracted to build radios here using our workers and expertise, and for our condituons. Then Labour craps on about the brain drain overseas, it's because of this sort of thing it happens!

[Calum]

The Mig's a Sukhoi's are certainily impressive. The Flanker is more than a match for anything but the F-22.
Logistically however they would be much more difficult to support. And over time they would probably work out more expensive.

[phil82]

The problem with anything Russian, would be maintenance, spares, and life-span.I recall an article in a US aerospace magazine that the TBO for Russian engines, for example, was a fraction of that of the Western designs. I've just been to Russia, [St Petersberg in May], and just about all Russian airlines now use Airbus or Boeing aircraft, and at least one Russian design underwent an engine change to American engines. At St Petersberg airport, I noticed a whole row of former Russian types obviously parked for a very long time.

[Calum]

I'll try and address some points of the earlier posts in this one, in no particular order.

Piltot training

I can't see the point of the RNZAF owning the aircraft used to train pilots. The instructors would be RNZAF aircrew jus the airframes and maintenance performed by a civilan company. The RNZAF should just pay for Power by the hour.

Lead in fighter Training

Likewise the lead in fighter role, although the arguement to retain the Macchi (Dave) due to it's young age is a good point. The cost of maintaining a lead in fighter type aircraft for jsut one sqn of knucks seems to be excessive . In the old days all pilots went on to fly Blunties before going to their operational aircraft, but with a more advanced training system (eg CT-4E then to a PC-21/T-6II) I don't see the need for a organic Lead in fighter.

Send the knucks to 76 Sqn RAAF or NATO in Canada I say

I also wouldn't go near the hawk, overrated for the price and cost of ownership IMHO. if we must ahve a lead in fighter then the Macchis are fine.

UAV/ Martime patrol

Also no one wants the RNZAF to get into the UAV game. I see a HALE/MALE UAV's as a martime patrol asset to take over some the long patrols currently performed by the P-3's, particularly things like fisheries protection.

Naval helicopters

As for the Sea Sprites, I'd ditch them (literally, outside the 12 mile limit) ASAP and get a decent naval helcopter. I'd prefer the naval NH-90 as it has many commonalities with the NH-90 operated by 3 Sqn. The Super Lynx would be the al

Helicopters

likewise my choice of the EC-145. It should have many common systems with the NH-90. EADS would give us a better deal if we increase our fleet of helciopters by buying from them.

Bruce makes a good point about a small long range VIP transport.

While I like the 412, it's an old airframe, near the end of it's life, the EC-145 is at the beginning (the US just ordered 322 of them) and it can carry as much as the 412.

I'd also ditch my CH-47F, to expensive

Transport Fleet

It was a toss up over C-130J's/upgraded C-130H. The RNZAF had optins on 8 C-130J's at the end of the RAF buy but we didn't take them up. The C-130J has had a lot of teething problems although these seem to be ironed out.

The A400M could be a good option for the RNZAF for the reasons Dave stated (ie carrying large loads). Still got to wait to see how it turns out though.

As for a Herc Tanker, turbo props make crap tankers for fast jets. The RAAF KC-30B is a nice sized aircraft with a large cargo carrying cababilty along with it's refuelling capabilty.

Fighters

The Gripen would be a nice choice. the only thing against it is that teh F-16 fleet size is so much larger hence spares will be cheaper.

After further thought I'd probaby reduce the fighter size down to 14 ( mix of 11/12 single seaters and 3/2 T-Birds) of either the F-16 or Gripen. I'd buy 2 simulators though as much of the conversion training can be done on those.

[Dave Homewood]

Well, as I said i know bugger all about modern military types. Even when I was in the RNZAF there were no modern types, the Maachi was the newest design at about 15-20 years old then...

[I'll try and address some points of the earlier posts in this one, in no particular order.

Piltot training

I can't see the point of the RNZAF owning the aircraft used to train pilots. The instructors would be RNZAF aircrew jus the airframes and maintenance performed by a civilan company. The RNZAF should just pay for Power by the hour.

My reasoning is to place the ownership and maintenance with a more respected crew - without trying to be libelous, the present owners have a terrible reputation, especially from their own workers and ex-workers I know. I'd not sign a contract with them, that's for sure.

Lead in fighter Training

Likewise the lead in fighter role, although the arguement to retain the Macchi (Dave) due to it's young age is a good point. The cost of maintaining a lead in fighter type aircraft for jsut one sqn of knucks seems to be excessive . In the old days all pilots went on to fly Blunties before going to their operational aircraft, but with a more advanced training system (eg CT-4E then to a PC-21/T-6II) I don't see the need for a organic Lead in fighter.

Send the knucks to 76 Sqn RAAF or NATO in Canada I say

Yes I'd forgotten that in the modern CT/4E era other non-fighter pilots didn't get Maachi training as they had before. However, the Maachis are ours, bought and paid for, just sitting there wasted. They are also very capable as defence platforms in their own right, if the balloon went up. Perhaps I'd make 14 Sqn a Territorial Squadron then...

I also wouldn't go near the hawk, overrated for the price and cost of ownership IMHO. if we must ahve a lead in fighter then the Macchis are fine.

Oh but they're so pretty and would make a great nine-ship display team if we painted some red!

UAV/ Martime patrol

Also no one wants the RNZAF to get into the UAV game. I see a HALE/MALE UAV's as a martime patrol asset to take over some the long patrols currently performed by the P-3's, particularly things like fisheries protection.

Er what? You Ohakea types always speak in such codes the rest of us never understand...What's UAV, HALE and MALE??

Naval helicopters

As for the Sea Sprites, I'd ditch them (literally, outside the 12 mile limit) ASAP and get a decent naval helcopter. I'd prefer the naval NH-90 as it has many commonalities with the NH-90 operated by 3 Sqn. The Super Lynx would be the al

Unlike the RAN our Seasprites are apparently vbery good in the job and liked by maintenace staff. Sure, I'd prefer the Super Lynx which is what I'd have preferred in the first place, and yes some naval NH-90's would be a good addition, but why ditch something that's working?


As for a Herc Tanker, turbo props make crap tankers for fast jets. The RAAF KC-30B is a nice sized aircraft with a large cargo carrying cababilty along with it's refuelling capabilty.

Yes, maybe a jet could be purchased and have a tank installed. A 727 or something.

Fighters

The Gripen would be a nice choice. the only thing against it is that teh F-16 fleet size is so much larger hence spares will be cheaper.

I wonder if the USA would really want to go there again with an F-16 deal after the last one. It would certainly be very much more costly than the last one we had.

After further thought I'd probaby reduce the fighter size down to 14 ( mix of 11/12 single seaters and 3/2 T-Birds) of either the F-16 or Gripen. I'd buy 2 simulators though as much of the conversion training can be done on those.

We've already got a good Maachi simulator...

What, no comment about the most important parts? I mean the Historic Flight and Squadrons of Thunder Mustangs? ;D

[Calum]

The historic flight goes without saying Dave. Love it:-)

[phil82]

Well Steve, if I were really, really cynical, I might suggest that National knew full well that when Labour got in they would do what Helegrad had long threatened to do, and that was cancel stike capability,and they [National}knew that!

[steve]

Yes...at the time Helen Clark made it clear that she would reverese this decision..they could have easily allowed for a heavy penalty clauses beyond the 11 millions that had to be paid out..thus making the decision to painful to comtemplate ie ..breaking the lease...Doug Graham signed the lease in Washington for the deal! .. I know from your writings and background that you are a clever old bird! "if i were cynical"....totally agree . ..Hate to say it...but Phil Goff has been the most senior poly to hold the Defence Ministers position for many years ....and is at least uplifting the status of this portfolio...thanks to Winston! about time we had an ex RNZAF chap get into national politics...I can identify army and navy MPS but not a/force...Air Commordore F Gill come to mind only...and he's well gone..

[madmac]

This assumes at the airforce takes on extra capability to replace the lack of warships, which is justifiable given their current lack of survivability. We live or die by our control of the sea.

The one thing that is overlooked is the use of decoys not just for the airframe but for ASM missiles as well. For example if you attack a naval fleet with say 10 missiles your chance of success would be better if you used 5 missiles, and used the freed up hard points carry missile decoys (assuming that the decoys are smaller & that a number, say 5 can be carried on a singe HP) as when the defences would have to deal with 30 radar returns. With large scale use , this could act as significant force multiplier.

Air combat
12 x Tornado's reengined with EJ200's possibly lengthened fuse for fuel / ECM (like what was offered to the japs), tasked/ equipped for AWAC, tanker, satellite killing & long range recon..

ECM
6 x Tornado's for wild weasels airframe mods as above.

Primary maritime shrike capability.
25 x SAAB JAS-39C Gripen
15 x SAAB JAS-39D Gripen

Maritime Patrol/ ASW
6 x Nimrods MR4 Very good range, High speed, 4 engines, lowest signature of any maritime patrol aircraft
4 x P-3K added ASW capability & reengined. .

Tankers
4 x Nimrods if only to get the build numbers up. I think tanker / transports are putting all ones eggs in one basket if the shit hits the fan (anyway ANZ got lots of transport capability).

Transports
6 x C-130H re engined of course. C-130J have the same structure as the C-130H but with a poor build quality. Fitted with ECM & infared red jamming.
3 x Hawker 850 with cargo door & floor. Good for VIP's, medvac etc. Fitted with ECM & infared red jamming.
2 x 757 Fitted with ECM & infared red jamming.

Trainers
18 x Aermacchi MB339
15 x CT4E with the new glass cockpit.
6 x R44
All maintenance would be keep in-house to provide a war reserve that can be raided when needed ( at which time it can be contracted out for the short term.)

Choppers
4 x MH6 hacks & turbine conversion.
10 x AH1Z all weather close in grunt support
10 x UH1Y For chopper operations composite fuses etc are crap from a maintenance & cost point of view.
Add ASW capability to the Seasprites

Territorial Air Force
It lets the service get a few more years out of their people.
8 x AH6 Uses existing skills that the civilian operators use for venison hunting almost.
7 x MH6
5 x UH1Y

18 x A4K upgraded to match Gripens avionics (but single role, to suit TF pilots flying less time on aircraft) reengined & relifed. Could added the F35 style intakes, use trust vectoring engines, dig up Douglas super Skyhawk ( totally different to the Singaporeans ) data for incorporation (hydraulic slats, increased max AOA & conventional rudder skins) but that's just an Aerospace engineer dreaming.

Bases:
I would built a bare base on Tokalu, a cheap unsinkable aircraft carrier in a handy place & upgrade the Chatham islands strip to be able to base a maritime patrol aircraft out of there for a week at a time. I keep Whenuapai open & added one new base in the South Island. A gain this is a case of too many eggs in to few baskets.

[Barnsey]

Air combat in a Tornado??? An oxymoron, surely?

This wish list needs to be improving the RNZAF's capability, not dragging it under!

Go with one multi-role capability for economy of scale....

[phil82]

Tornado?

The Tonka is now a very old aircraft!

[phil]

And from a maintainers point of view it's not very flash at all. Too many different types and from too many eras to be easily supportable. The logistics would be a nightmare, some European, some US, some Brit...it's hard enough getting parts at the moment, just working on US stuff.

Nice effort though, it sure would make the job more exciting than it currently is, having some decent capability again.

[madmac]

The Tornado are old. But there are few airframes available & suited to long range carriage of long range AAM etc (maybe SU 27's, F15's but swing wings highly beneficial, Black Jacks could be interesting ;D). There is not much ACM against AWACs, tankers & you go home quick smart.

Multi-role capability add's about 20% to an airframe cost (never seen weight cost data), require more pilot training or more likely less expertise on each role and only work well where there are similarly performance requirements.

Logistical it would be a pain. But if a country stops talking to your every thing doesn't stop flying. Its simple to show a hard cost benefit of reducing the number of types but really hard to show the cost of the resultant inflexibility ( i.e the USAF C130's flying 2 tonne loads around Iraqi). As a result it can be guaranteed that nearly all western airforces operate too few airframe types. Why can't the airforce do what nearly every other operator in NZ does, make or have made the parts that are hard to get or too costly.

The money the RNZAF is spending on the P3's & C130's doesn't give a good return unless the engines are up graded (on older airframes engine related costs are about 50% of the total operating cost).