Hammerbolt
Donor
That would be a very expensive convertion. The A-10 is basically built around the GAU-8; the much smaller and lighter M-61 would drastically alter the aircraft's CG.
AHC: Have the RNZAF acquire a light attack capability
- Thread starter La Rouge Beret
- Start date
Hammerbolt
Donor
If we can discuss modern aircraft, then I'd put the Super Tucano back in, because it's now kited out with all the eletronics.
If NZ is willing to spend a bit more, how about the Grippen? Light(ish), single-engined, from a neutral country...
If NZ is willing to spend a bit more, how about the Grippen? Light(ish), single-engined, from a neutral country...
Nothing short of the F-22 will do.
Edit to add: Or maybe Australia's old F-111s can be dug up and be restored.
Yeah that's the solution.
Edit to add: Or maybe Australia's old F-111s can be dug up and be restored.
Yeah that's the solution.
Given the gap between when the RNZAF stood down their jets and when the FA-50 came into service that surely would be a large jump in spending to restore the capability, and I suppose again you have the question of how you get NZ support to invest in such aircraft after decades of a gap.
I think that logic could go something like, "If there is a real shooting war, someone (RAF, USAF, USN, RAAF) will loan/provide real fighter aircraft for the RNZAF, and it would be better to have a cadre of trained pilots at that point than pilots needing training in fighter/ground attack types."
If that is the logic, then I think that's another reason for BAE Hawks....
Wacky Wiki says the Eupofighter Typhoon was £125 million, but that also includes development costs. Hawks are £18 million, a relative bargain.
Regards all,
WILDGEESE
Gone Fishin'
In that case it looks like them inserting the RAF's "Blue Circle Radar" system in to balance the aircraft,
Nought wrong with a good lump o' concrete to fix balance problems. Seems most American designers didn't like that solution. Most British designers just accepted it as a rite o' passage,
Not quite
Draken International purchased 8 to use for aggressor work when they bought half of the Skyhawk fleet, and they have gone on to be employed on fleet support work in France. The rest went to museums in NZ, one remains at Ohakea in private hands.
Used F5's are even cheaper (at least to buy)
I believe Switzerland recently sold / is selling ? another batch to the USN.While we are talking about light attack, since Ireland was mentioned already, one of the former AC commanders at a security Debate yesterday put the figure of 1 billion euros to generate a minimum air defence capability of 16 airframes and needed personnel. What would it cost for some form of light attack for New Zealand?
Hammerbolt
Donor
it would depend on what plane NZ buys. It starts with training requirements. It's a lot easier to train pilots for, for example, the Super Tucano than for a Grippen. For a Grippen/F-16 you need basic and advanced trainers, usually separate aircraft with their own instructors, support infrastruture, etc. For a Tucano class, you can dispense with the "advanced" part; most of the training can be carried out in the Tucano itself.
Probably a similar amount, if not more. It's the people that costs you the most.
Edit to add: As an aside, that's a very minimal air defence capability. If the 16 included two-seat aircraft for conversion (that is, you're training your own pilots), you'd need 3-4 of those, leaving you with just 12-13 single-seaters and then 2-3 of those would be in maintenance. That would leave your squadron with just aircraft and likely only 14 pilots. Those pilots would have to be on an on-duty roster, with maybe only two on station at any time. So you're hardly going to have an "alert five" - aircraft loaded up and taking off at five minutes' notice. More likely it could take half an hour to an hour to get your on-duty birds in the air.
Last edited:
I suppose it might depend I mean that was for 16 airframes that wouldn't be deployed outside of the state and have training done in foreign nations, for NZ I suppose if we are talking about NZ Light Attack then they will be deployed so what more air frames and more usage I'd guess.
More ground crew to support them; more weapons. But, as we keep saying, just isn't viable politically. Best hope was New Zealand had decided to retain an air combat capability to enforce her sovereignty - an emphasis on air defence over strike. An earlier September 11 might have helped.
Nah, that's passing off the training to another nation (most likely the UK which makes the most sense, though we currently are sending pilots to Australia and the US so who knows) so I'd guess leaving out the 2 seater trainers, he was also talking about having 3 crews per plane to provide 24/7. But yes it's all a "who the hell knows" situation given Ireland. I mean if there was an "out of hours" scramble I could imagine within days "outrage" about people getting woken up in Dublin by the Jets (and lets not talk about having the only base in the most expensive place in the country).
Ok, so 16 single-seaters. The problem is to get your pilots up to a reasonable standard they're going to need to fly a minimum number of hours a year. That puts hours on your airframes, which costs more and means you wear them out sooner. So three crews per plane is a non-starter. There's no way the gentleman you're referring to would have had that many in mind. Realistically, you could have one pilot per plane - allowing for four of the aircraft to be in longer-term maintenance / attrition reserve at any one time. That'd be ok though. Two flights of eight. One being on a roster at any given point in time (a four panel roster giving you two pilots on duty). But you can't have them able to take off in mere minutes 24/7, 365 days a year. For a comparison, the RAF needs four squadrons of Typhoons to be able to maintain two of those squadrons on a QRA duty, which only delivers two aircraft and crews on-duty at each station.
State would need 16 fighter jets for full air defence capability, expert says
Former Air Corps head calls for ‘realism’ in discussion on State’s ability to defend airspace
www.irishtimes.com
Ireland is ‘most vulnerable’ for defence, security conference told
Ireland is “probably the most vulnerable” in Europe from a defence point of view, a major security conference has been told.
www.irishexaminer.com
I would say the media has misinterpreted that. No air force has three crews per aircraft. It's ridiculously excessive.
Edit to add: Or maybe he was exaggerating. Either way, 48 pilots for 16 aircraft? Nope. And well in excess of what you would need anyway.
Last edited: