What if New Zealand acquired a fleet of fast jet combat air craft circa 2000

[Blue cat]

Australia can afford fourth. Just.

The total buy of 72 F35s ... lets see. One third in long term maintanence, one third getting short term repairs means we will have, what ... 24 available ? OK, split between two air bases.

12 able to do stuff from a given base.

Yep. The RAAF can't afford meaningful amounts of fifth generation aircraft.

In this day and age, 12 air craft armed with PGM's can do a significant amount of damage. Add in the data fusion, stealth characteristics, and other unique to the F35 features and I expect 12 F35's could present a major head ache for an opponent.

 

[Cockroach]

The average defence spend in Europe is 1.3% and 1.2% in the Eurozone, even though there has been an increase I think there's what 3-5 that hit 2% at this stage?

Whoops! Sorry, I had 2% in my head because that's a target for defence as a % of GDP under current NATO policies and agreements. Still, 1.3% is about 70% larger than the effective NZ defence budget (nominal 1% minus Treasury charge).

Sheepshagger land being a euphemism for Australia?
It always slightly amuses me when this comes up as I do recall growing up we used to make that kind of reference about Australia.

Yes, we get it... You've mentioned before you come from one of the small areas where cows are the object of affection instead of sheep...

***

He's assuming a 30%ish availability rate, which seems very much on the low side given the USAF availability rate seems to run about 70-80% for legacy types and about 50-60% for the %-35 in 2018, with more recent figures for the F-35 approaching legacy fleet numbers.

 

[Blue cat]

And the Kiwis only spend about 1% of GDP on defence (including a capital charge by Treasury on assets held by defence, meaning the real NZ defence budget is more like 0.8% of GDP)... Against 2% in Australia and much of Europe...

It is interesting to me how different nations calculate defence spending.. I suspect some nations could notably increase their defense spending by simply making some accounting and or organizational changes

 

[sparky42]

It is interesting to me how different nations calculate defence spending.. I suspect some nations could notably increase their defense spending by simply making some accounting changes

Works both ways, Ireland’s already indefensible spending looks even worse because the standard is to use GDP, and our GDP figures make no sense.

 

[Blue cat]

Works both ways, Ireland’s already indefensible spending looks even worse because the standard is to use GDP, and our GDP figures make no sense.

Interesting.. Yet another reason to look at different ways to calculate how much nations spend.. (Sorry for taking this thread a bit more off topic but this is a pet peeve of mine.)

 

[BlackDragon98]

Interesting history lesson.
Diefenbaker cancelled the Avro Arrow after all the development was finished, the problems were fixed, and the interceptor was ready for production and export
That idiotic move bankrupted Avro Canada and all the smart people that worked there ended up elsewhere.
Canadian aviation and aeronautics never fully recovered from that blow.
We ended up with a couple of moldy old bunkers in Ottawa, which are pretty useless in a nuke war. (I've been to one)
"Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity." -General George S. Patton Jr.

Australians, please buy that F-35.
You won't regret it down the road.

 

[Riain]

Australians, please buy that F-35.
You won't regret it down the road.

Our in-country numbers will alnost double this year, to 14. The 8 we have aren't creating negative chatter, so they mustn't be totally shit.

 

[Riain]

Again, to haul this back to the OP's post.

New Zealand can absolutely waste billions on fast jets in the 2000s. Will it make any difference ? No. Is it a good place to spend money on your defence force ? No - it's a choice between LAVs for the army, Marine Patrol aircraft for the navy or fast jets for the air force. Can I see a New Zealand government make the mistake of buying fast jets in the 2000s - absolutely, just like Australia made the mistake of buying F35s.

Yep. Some tanks went to Vietnam. Did they do anything useful ? No, it was an infantry war, fought by infantry. Afganistan, we get the dodge of 'armoured vehicles' by which we don't mean tanks but rather APCs and LAVs (you now, stuff that is actually useful and mobile).

As far as air superiority goes, your analogy is absolutely true. Unless you can bring kegs, don't bother. Bring a quiet hip flask of CAS - it's always useful.

As far as the recent RAAF deployment, the fast jets didnt do shit. What was useful were the fast jets competitors for Air Force dollars - transport aircraft, doing the 'lets drop stuff off without needing an airfield' that the RAAF has done since 1942.

A few points.

NZ would have liked to have the F16s, that's why they publicly announced the deal. It was only later, once the hidden costs were revealed, was it realised that F16s don't fit with 1%GDP defence spending.

The tanks in Vietnam did fantastic work, indeed the Army would have preferred to get them before the 3rd infantry btn. In addition the RAN DDG and 2 sqn RAAF undertook NGS and bombing missions in support of 1 ATF.

CAS only works in conditions of air contestability, low performance CAS aircraft get shot down by everything in any sort of threat environment. The RNZAF conops for F16s was to operate in a wing with RAAF F18s, just like it did with the A4s.

Australia has one of the world's few complete air forces, with capability in virtually every aspect of air operations. Removing the world class fighter fleet makes Australia an also ran in regional terms and is not good policy.

 

[Alex1guy]

For NZ I feel like it would be huge a waste of money. If we bought them, where would actually have been used meaningfully?

New ships for the navy and vehicles for the army make sense because they have multiple purposes that suit NZ's military eg. policing the Pacific, providing peacekeepers and disaster relief etc. Forgive me if I'm wrong but would it be fair to say jeta are a bit less multipurpose and kind of a waste for NZ? Any conflict where there would be a use for jets would likely be covered by NZs allies anyway and usually NZ provides special forces or engineering support when we have gone to war in Asia and the Middle East.

 

[Fred the Great]

Australia can afford fourth. Just.

The total buy of 72 F35s ... lets see. One third in long term maintanence, one third getting short term repairs means we will have, what ... 24 available ? OK, split between two air bases.

12 able to do stuff from a given base.

Yep. The RAAF can't afford meaningful amounts of fifth generation aircraft.

Maybe quit while you're a mile behind? Guessing you've never heard of the standard models for aircraft numbers, but the general one works like this - for every three operational aircraft, you have one in squadron maintenance, one in deeper maintenance / attrition reserve and one for conversion. Or, there's the USAF model, of 24 aircraft per squadron, plus 25% for training, 5% of the running total for testing, 10% of the running total for maintenance, and 10% of the running total for attrition reserve. Of course, you also have to remember there is no two-seater for the F-35 with most conversion to be done in flight simulators, and, in spite of all the bad press (much of it extremely misinformed doomsayers, some with vested interests), the aircraft has been designed to require less maintenance hours.

 

[juanml82]

Maybe quit while you're a mile behind? Guessing you've never heard of the standard models for aircraft numbers, but the general one works like this - for every three operational aircraft, you have one in squadron maintenance, one in deeper maintenance / attrition reserve and one for conversion. Or, there's the USAF model, of 24 aircraft per squadron, plus 25% for training, 5% of the running total for testing, 10% of the running total for maintenance, and 10% of the running total for attrition reserve. Of course, you also have to remember there is no two-seater for the F-35 with most conversion to be done in flight simulators, and, in spite of all the bad press (much of it extremely misinformed doomsayers, some with vested interests), the aircraft has been designed to require less maintenance hours.

Aren't stealth fighters far more expensive to mantain due the need to keep renewing the stealth coating? IIRC the flight hour of the F-35 is around $ 40,000, compared to the reportedly $ 4,500 of the single engine, non stealth Saab Gripen.
I guess the question is if low budget operators can skip the stealth coating during training and missions which don't require it in order to save money (at the expense of neglecting ground crews training)

 

[Fred the Great]

Again, to haul this back to the OP's post.

New Zealand can absolutely waste billions on fast jets

Ok so you are conceding the point that it wasn't about the money; that New Zealand's economy could withstand higher defence spending. This is all we have been saying.

It was a political decision not to spend the money; not that they didn't have the money. They did, they just preferred to spend it on other things, as I demonstrated.

You're backtracking from your previous comments about New Zealand's economy because it's been shown how you had no idea generally and specifically on the point that as a proportion of their total government expenditures and of their GDP, both Australia and New Zealand do not spend a lot on defence relative to the past and to other countries - even if the actual dollars figures appear insane. I suggest you take some time to look at the federal budget; it will give you the context you lack.

Yep. Some tanks went to Vietnam. Did they do anything useful ? No, it was an infantry war, fought by infantry. Afganistan, we get the dodge of 'armoured vehicles' by which we don't mean tanks but rather APCs and LAVs (you now, stuff that is actually useful and mobile).

You didn't know Australia deployed tanks to Vietnam and now you're claiming they didn't do anything useful when again you have no idea. Honestly, you're like the person who comments on a Facebook post while readily acknowledging you haven't read the article. The tanks were incredibly useful. Maybe do some research? And, no, it wasn't a "dodge" regarding armoured vehicles being deployed to Afghanistan, it was what suited our deployment and the transport and logistical challenges. Interestingly, Canada did deploy tanks to Afghanistan.

As far as air superiority goes, your analogy is absolutely true. Unless you can bring kegs, don't bother. Bring a quiet hip flask of CAS - it's always useful.

No, it's logically flawed. More beer is always welcome. There's always a limit.

As far as the recent RAAF deployment, the fast jets didnt do shit. What was useful were the fast jets competitors for Air Force dollars - transport aircraft, doing the 'lets drop stuff off without needing an airfield' that the RAAF has done since 1942.

I'm sure those on the receiving end of their bombs wouldn't agree they "didn't do shit". And the RAAF has a greater transport capability than ever, which haven't had much of a direct impact against ISIS.

 

[Fred the Great]

Aren't stealth fighters far more expensive to mantain due the need to keep renewing the stealth coating? IIRC the flight hour of the F-35 is around $ 40,000, compared to the reportedly $ 4,500 of the single engine, non stealth Saab Gripen.
I guess the question is if low budget operators can skip the stealth coating during training and missions which don't require it in order to save money (at the expense of neglecting ground crews training)

The question is how many man hours per flight hour. Older aircraft - F-111, F-14 - were incredibly labour intensive, even in their day. Modern aircraft are designed to require fewer hours because that's where your major cost is - the wages, really, of those people doing the maintenance. They're not guys off the street. They're your greatest challenge to keeping your birds in the air.

I doubt the cost and frequency of "stealth coating" is in the public domain. That would be speculation.

 

[Fred the Great]

Sheepshagger land being a euphemism for Australia?
It always slightly amuses me when this comes up as I do recall growing up we used to make that kind of reference about Australia.

I found it amusing to discover we have more sheep than you. But you have more per person. I don't think I've ever made the sheepshagger joke to a Kiwi; it's as shit as the two-headed one for Tasmanians.

 

[Crowbar Six]

 

[Julius Vogel]

I found it amusing to discover we have more sheep than you. But you have more per person. I don't think I've ever made the sheepshagger joke to a Kiwi; it's as shit as the two-headed one for Tasmanians.

Yeah it isn't my style either

 

[Riain]

The F35 is designed so that access for maintenance is done through existing holes in the skin: wheel wells, bomb bays etc so having to breach the coating for maintenance isn't common. Lockheed has been doing stealth fighters for 35 years now so has sorted out a lot of the problems, and the RAAF is happy with the 8 we have.

Besides, stealth is not an option, it's a prerequisite for winning wars. Nobody will be patting themselves on the back when their fighters are shot down because they were cheap to maintain.

 

[Riain]

For NZ I feel like it would be huge a waste of money. If we bought them, where would actually have been used meaningfully?

New ships for the navy and vehicles for the army make sense because they have multiple purposes that suit NZ's military eg. policing the Pacific, providing peacekeepers and disaster relief etc. Forgive me if I'm wrong but would it be fair to say jeta are a bit less multipurpose and kind of a waste for NZ? Any conflict where there would be a use for jets would likely be covered by NZs allies anyway and usually NZ provides special forces or engineering support when we have gone to war in Asia and the Middle East.

NZ wouldn't get fighters for limited wars, it would get them for big wars which are more than able to spill onto NZs patch. Sure its expensive, but you can't just wish Wing Commander pilots with 20 years experience into existence.

Saying your allies will look after you is insulting, and you should fully expect to be left in the lurch in a major crisis.

 

[Scerus]

Yep. Hardly a second or third world economy. Reasonably generous social welfare. But you know that. Interestingly, the Labour government that axed the RNZAF air combat capability was able to find the funds to set up a bank, buy a majority stake in an airline, renationalise the railways and start a super fund. Later it even delivered tax cuts. It’s not money that stopped NZ from having air combat aircraft; it’s the political will. And I never said it wasn’t understandable.

Our "reasonably generous" welfare state no longer exists, hasn't since 1991.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Aren't stealth fighters far more expensive to mantain due the need to keep renewing the stealth coating? IIRC the flight hour of the F-35 is around $ 40,000, compared to the reportedly $ 4,500 of the single engine, non stealth Saab Gripen.
I guess the question is if low budget operators can skip the stealth coating during training and missions which don't require it in order to save money (at the expense of neglecting ground crews training)

I think one of the eye openers and drivers of much (certainly not all) of the popular criticism for the F35 is that things like cost per hour and lifetime costs etc have been presented in such a way that has never been done before and in many cases due to such data not being available much of the cost per hour of legacy aircraft are simply unknown.

So while the SAAB a jet that uses existing COTS tech to drive down cost etc might sound much cheaper, I would imagine that conducting a full analysis of the life time and true cost per hour equal to that done to the F35 might also be an eye opener if it was ever done!