Author Topic: NZ Defence Acquisitions  (Read 3178 times)

Offline KiwiZac

  • Who said Kiwis can't fly...though this one can organise for a kit of the Fletcher FU24 to be produced!
  • The Modeller Formerly Known As K5054NZ
NZ Defence Acquisitions
« on: December 16, 2016, 09:06:18 AM »
Every so often someone suggests the RNZAF should've gone for/should get Gripen. What're y'all's thoughts about that?
"He's more real-world now than whif..."

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding
Re: Re: Saab JAS-39 Gripen
« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2016, 09:27:16 AM »
Your country can't afford them Zak    ;)

Offline apophenia

  • Suffered two full days of rapid-fire hallucinations and yet had not a single usuable whif concept in the lot !?!
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Re: Saab JAS-39 Gripen
« Reply #2 on: December 16, 2016, 12:47:42 PM »
Your country can't afford them Zak    ;)

Well, Saab does lease Gripen;)  Negotiations on a Gripen lease deal for the Slovak AF just stalled. Maybe jump on that opening?
Under investigation by the Committee of State Sanctioned Modelling, Alternative History and Tractor Carburettor Production for decadent counterrevolutionary behaviour.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Re: Saab JAS-39 Gripen
« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2016, 02:27:12 PM »
NZ is actually pretty well off, they just have some weird accounting processes that makes defence acquisitions more difficult, combined with an entrenched isolationism in some quarters that makes justifying defence spending very hard at times.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Re: Saab JAS-39 Gripen
« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2016, 02:31:12 PM »
On a defence site I belong to an individual made an interesting claim (that I imaging will see him firmly put in his box by the mods in short order), that though probably impractical, if not just plain impossible, sounded very interesting, JAS39M flying from HTMS Chakri Naruebet

Offline upnorth

  • Distorting a reality near you.
  • Reinvented Austria and the Stuka....Now what?
Re: Re: Saab JAS-39 Gripen
« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2016, 03:16:51 PM »
Your country can't afford them Zak    ;)

Well, Saab does lease Gripen;)  Negotiations on a Gripen lease deal for the Slovak AF just stalled. Maybe jump on that opening?

As the Hungarians have learned in the past few years, leased fighters get quite expensive if you crash them. They damaged one beyond repair in a landing incident here in the Czech Republic in 2015.

They lost another in the same time period when the pilot had to eject near their home base.

As the aircraft still belong to Sweden, Hungary was not happy to be presented with the bill for replacement aircraft.
Pickled Wings, A Blog for Preserved Aircraft:
http://pickledwings.wordpress.com/

Beyond Prague, Traveling the Rest of the Czech Republic:
http://beyondprague.wordpress.com/

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Re: Saab JAS-39 Gripen
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2016, 02:39:42 AM »
Every so often someone suggests the RNZAF should've gone for/should get Gripen. What're y'all's thoughts about that?

IMHO the Gripen would be an excellent choice for the RNZAF.  Far better in fact than the F-16s that were looked at.  That said, I understand and can agree with the New Zealand Govt's choice to do away with their fighter capability.  Take the emotion out of it and one can see that it was far better for New Zealand to spend their limited Defence budget on helicopters, army and the like.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Re: Saab JAS-39 Gripen
« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2016, 05:18:10 PM »
Every so often someone suggests the RNZAF should've gone for/should get Gripen. What're y'all's thoughts about that?

IMHO the Gripen would be an excellent choice for the RNZAF.  Far better in fact than the F-16s that were looked at.  That said, I understand and can agree with the New Zealand Govt's choice to do away with their fighter capability.  Take the emotion out of it and one can see that it was far better for New Zealand to spend their limited Defence budget on helicopters, army and the like.

Or even more to the point P-8A and a HALE/MALE for EEZ and regional surveillance missions, as well as strategic transports able to support their Antarctic missions.  Not as sexy as fighters but far more economically and diplomatically important for a country in NZs position.

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding
Re: Re: Saab JAS-39 Gripen
« Reply #8 on: December 17, 2016, 10:41:49 PM »
Every so often someone suggests the RNZAF should've gone for/should get Gripen. What're y'all's thoughts about that?

IMHO the Gripen would be an excellent choice for the RNZAF.  Far better in fact than the F-16s that were looked at.  That said, I understand and can agree with the New Zealand Govt's choice to do away with their fighter capability.  Take the emotion out of it and one can see that it was far better for New Zealand to spend their limited Defence budget on helicopters, army and the like.

Or even more to the point P-8A and a HALE/MALE for EEZ and regional surveillance missions, as well as strategic transports able to support their Antarctic missions.  Not as sexy as fighters but far more economically and diplomatically important for a country in NZs position.

Off topic a bit but along the same lines, I've always thought that the C-17 purchase Canada did was a very sensible decision ---  Now a RNZAF C-17 would be something ---

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Re: Saab JAS-39 Gripen
« Reply #9 on: December 18, 2016, 02:57:18 AM »
Now a RNZAF C-17 would be something ---

It was seriously looked at though deemed impossible due to there only being one C-17 left available (NZ needed at least two),  All others are already allocated and the C-17 is out of production.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: NZ Defence Acquisitions
« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2016, 03:07:36 AM »
They do have a ongoing requirement for C-130/B-757 as well as P-3K replacements.  It is not urgent though - at least for the P3Ks.  In recent months a RFI has been conducted that focussed on the transport requirements with a secondary inquiry regarding a possible link to a surveillance capability.  IMHO, the leading contender is a KC390/P-99 combination though it is be no means certain and certainly does contain some limitations.  Other contenders are:

Some C-130Js
Some A330/A320 mixes including leased options
C-2/P-1 pairing - a very capable, albeit possibly expensive option
A-400Ms
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Re: Saab JAS-39 Gripen
« Reply #11 on: December 18, 2016, 03:09:33 AM »
Or even more to the point P-8A and a HALE/MALE for EEZ and regional surveillance missions

The NZDF should just be merged in with the ADF to create an 'ANZAC' Defence Force and a few more P-8s/UAVs added to the Australian order.  Add another couple of squadrons of F-35s, a couple more AWDs, a third LHD, new FFH class and make us all happy... ;)
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: NZ Defence Acquisitions
« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2016, 09:27:54 AM »
I'd better be careful here but I can't see a merged ANZAC DF working, there are too many cultural differences.  From what I've seen first hand the Kiwi's are actually (in general) more professional and proficient than their Australian counterparts in many instances (possible exception being RAAF Engineering which is pretty much worlds best practice across the board). 

NZs procurement and naval engineering / project management is in general far superior, their problem being political disinterest and limited money.  I suspect this is because they haven't had their engineering and support organisations gutted in the way the Australian Army and RANs were in the 90s and 2000s and political disinterest can actually be preferable to excessive political interference, i.e. the total wrecking of a reasonable system in the late 90s for political gain and then adding layer upon layer of compliance and non-decision making to address the problems created by the originally politically inspired reorganisation.

The system that successfully acquired the Leopards, FFGs, Fremantles, F/A-18, Seahawks, Blackhawks, ANZACs and Collins to name a few (with no major program failures to mention) was replaced with a very bureaucratic system that resulted in the Super Sea Sprite, FFGUP, LCM2000, MU90, MRH90, ARH Tiger, M-113 upgrade, multiple attempts at an ANZAC upgrade before something reasonable resulted (but with platform issues yet to be addressed), Armidale Class Patrol Boats, Vigilaire, etc.  Basically procurement and project management became more onerous and difficult, accountability disappeared, ownership was often impossible to determine, service requirements were often ignored, industrial requirements were ignored except where pork was involved, and at the end of the day many decisions were made personally by the PM.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: NZ Defence Acquisitions
« Reply #13 on: December 18, 2016, 12:37:05 PM »
I'd better be careful here but I can't see a merged ANZAC DF working, there are too many cultural differences.  From what I've seen first hand the Kiwi's are actually (in general) more professional and proficient than their Australian counterparts in many instances (possible exception being RAAF Engineering which is pretty much worlds best practice across the board). 

I'd concur with that, at least as far as their Army is concerned.  They have little but they do a lot with it and often for far longer than the Australian Army does.   Their M41s, Scorpions lasted long past their use by dates and were still kept going.   Their LAV-IIIs were a smart choice as their replacements, for use overseas as part of peace-keeping forces.

In reality, New Zealand doesn't need a large defence force.  It is isolated enough to only worry if a potential enemy gains a foothold on either PNG or the east cost of Australia.  As neither is likely, they have little to fear.  What they do need is long range maritime recce assets, for asset protection, and Search and Rescue, far out to sea.  They also need a small long range transport group, to support their forces when they are deployed overseas.   As far as their navy is concerned, several Frigates/Destroyers and some close inshore surveillance craft should be sufficient to protect the Cook Islands and New Zealand itself, while also allowing it to protect it's sea assets.

Offline KiwiZac

  • Who said Kiwis can't fly...though this one can organise for a kit of the Fletcher FU24 to be produced!
  • The Modeller Formerly Known As K5054NZ
Re: NZ Defence Acquisitions
« Reply #14 on: December 18, 2016, 03:01:51 PM »
I'd like for us to get P-1s to replace the P-3Ks, based on looks and novelty.
"He's more real-world now than whif..."

Offline perttime

  • The man has produced a Finnish Napier Heston Fighter...need we say more?
Re: NZ Defence Acquisitions
« Reply #15 on: December 18, 2016, 04:12:17 PM »
Every so often someone suggests the RNZAF should've gone for/should get Gripen. What're y'all's thoughts about that?

IMHO the Gripen would be an excellent choice for the RNZAF.  Far better in fact than the F-16s that were looked at.  That said, I understand and can agree with the New Zealand Govt's choice to do away with their fighter capability.  Take the emotion out of it and one can see that it was far better for New Zealand to spend their limited Defence budget on helicopters, army and the like.
I think many European countries frequently use their fighters for checking out unidentified visitors at the borders. I suspect there's less need for that in NZ?

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding
Re: Re: Saab JAS-39 Gripen
« Reply #16 on: December 19, 2016, 12:56:47 AM »
Now a RNZAF C-17 would be something ---

It was seriously looked at though deemed impossible due to there only being one C-17 left available (NZ needed at least two),  All others are already allocated and the C-17 is out of production.

Even one is better than none, allied countries who do have them could always co-operate when the demand is for them. The Canadian ones have been very busy ever since they got them.  Mind you I see British ones more so than the Canadian ones at Calgary International where I work
« Last Edit: December 19, 2016, 12:59:42 AM by kitnut617 »

Offline perttime

  • The man has produced a Finnish Napier Heston Fighter...need we say more?
Re: NZ Defence Acquisitions
« Reply #17 on: December 19, 2016, 01:35:16 AM »

Even one is better than none, allied countries who do have them could always co-operate when the demand is for them.
Even Finland (not in NATO) gets to use one. We own none, but share in some sort of a European deal.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Re: Saab JAS-39 Gripen
« Reply #18 on: December 19, 2016, 02:14:17 AM »
Even one is better than none, allied countries who do have them could always co-operate when the demand is for them. The Canadian ones have been very busy ever since they got them.  Mind you I see British ones more so than the Canadian ones at Calgary International where I work

One is not practical from a operational perspective nor is it cost effective.  Two is the minimum you need here and was what NZ were looking at.


Even Finland (not in NATO) gets to use one. We own none, but share in some sort of a European deal.

But that would be part of a larger pool which is what makes it possible/practical.  NZ was looking for an indigenous capability.  Mind you a joint ANZAC solution would have been workable.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2016, 02:15:54 AM by GTX_Admin »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: NZ Defence Acquisitions
« Reply #19 on: December 19, 2016, 02:16:27 AM »

I think many European countries frequently use their fighters for checking out unidentified visitors at the borders. I suspect there's less need for that in NZ?

I think a UAV would be ideal for that.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: NZ Defence Acquisitions
« Reply #20 on: December 19, 2016, 02:22:39 AM »
NZs procurement and naval engineering / project management is in general far superior, their problem being political disinterest and limited money. 

I sense a touch of "the grass is always greener..." here.

The system that successfully acquired the Leopards, FFGs, Fremantles, F/A-18, Seahawks, Blackhawks, ANZACs and Collins to name a few (with no major program failures to mention) was replaced with a very bureaucratic system that resulted in the Super Sea Sprite, FFGUP, LCM2000, MU90, MRH90, ARH Tiger, M-113 upgrade, multiple attempts at an ANZAC upgrade before something reasonable resulted (but with platform issues yet to be addressed), Armidale Class Patrol Boats, Vigilaire, etc.  Basically procurement and project management became more onerous and difficult, accountability disappeared, ownership was often impossible to determine, service requirements were often ignored, industrial requirements were ignored except where pork was involved, and at the end of the day many decisions were made personally by the PM.

Be careful you aren't looking at things with a touch of 'rose coloured glasses'.  I think you will find that those programs had just as many issues during procurement as we have today - just look at the Collins class for one (it had major enquiries etc in to its procurement).  Moreover, there were a number of programs that were cancelled or simply didn't get going or were straight-out delayed.  Yes, one could argue that was often political though no more/less than today.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Re: NZ Defence Acquisitions
« Reply #21 on: December 19, 2016, 09:05:47 AM »
In my opinion, the Kiwi's should have purchased Northrop F-20 Tigershark's
In fact here's the following 1983 proposal to New Zealand

1983 Northrop F-20 Tigershark proposed program cost to New Zealand


- Total program cost for a typical squadron of 18 x F-20 Tigershark aircraft.
- The flyaway price includes airframe, avionics, engine, recoupment, and appropriate administration costs.
- Support and other costs include two years of initial spares, support equipment, training and training equipment, technical publications, aircraft delivery, contract engineering and technical services, and U.S. Government administrative costs.
- Support is based on 20 flying hours per aircraft per month from one operating base with organizational and intermediate levels of maintanance capability.
- Aircraft delivery can begin 30 months after go-ahead.

Program Acquisition Cost
(1983 $, 18 aircraft)
Unit flyaway $10.7 million
Total flyaway $192.6 million
Support & other costs $80 million
Total Program $272.6 million


The F-20 would have been far more economical than the F-16, for the RNZAF.
On top of this, Australia and NZ could have possibly saved some costs in maintenance in terms of the General Electric F404 turbofan

In fact, I've always liked the notion of the RAAF operating a 'High-Lo' mix of Northrop F/A-18L and F-20's - hence maybe a joint Australian /NZ licence manufacturing of F-20!


M.A.D   


Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: NZ Defence Acquisitions
« Reply #22 on: December 19, 2016, 10:18:19 AM »
NZs procurement and naval engineering / project management is in general far superior, their problem being political disinterest and limited money. 

I sense a touch of "the grass is always greener..." here.

The system that successfully acquired the Leopards, FFGs, Fremantles, F/A-18, Seahawks, Blackhawks, ANZACs and Collins to name a few (with no major program failures to mention) was replaced with a very bureaucratic system that resulted in the Super Sea Sprite, FFGUP, LCM2000, MU90, MRH90, ARH Tiger, M-113 upgrade, multiple attempts at an ANZAC upgrade before something reasonable resulted (but with platform issues yet to be addressed), Armidale Class Patrol Boats, Vigilaire, etc.  Basically procurement and project management became more onerous and difficult, accountability disappeared, ownership was often impossible to determine, service requirements were often ignored, industrial requirements were ignored except where pork was involved, and at the end of the day many decisions were made personally by the PM.

Be careful you aren't looking at things with a touch of 'rose coloured glasses'.  I think you will find that those programs had just as many issues during procurement as we have today - just look at the Collins class for one (it had major enquiries etc in to its procurement).  Moreover, there were a number of programs that were cancelled or simply didn't get going or were straight-out delayed.  Yes, one could argue that was often political though no more/less than today.

Just speaking from personal experience, as well as from the fall out of Rizzo, Coles and Winter Reports etc.  Collins in particular was a project an incoming government wanted to fail for political reasons and when they couldn't justify scraping the existing hulls they hired a plagiarising sycophant to sit on the company board and destroy it from within.  Basically once reviewed by a number of impartial overseas experts it was found to have been a successful platform hamstrung by underfunding on sustainment (that ironically then cost more in remediation than doing things properly in the first place would have) and that the much maligned builder / maintainer was actually pretty good, just lacking in authority to do the job required (had to get sign off from government bean counters who didn't believe a word they said).  Proof of what I am saying, John Prescott was Chairman when most of the dodgy maintenance decisions were made, then more recently the former "anti" Industry Spokesperson, Sophie Mirabella, was appointed to the board after losing her seat in 2013, as part of a new move to discredit and kill off local capability.

Actually I should add that I spent several years seeing what ASC was proposing and being knocked back on, looking at the convoluted half measures that were done instead, wasting huge amounts of time and money trying to make successive governments versions of reality work.  I was also there when, following the Coles review in particular, the company was finally allowed to do thing the way they had been requesting to for almost the entire project, resulting in a, as far as the government and media were concerned, a miraculous turnaround.  The biggest change was a very simple one, ASC had received multiple awards and international recognition for their keyhole / insitu refurbishment on major submarine systems, when what they had always wanted to do was cut the hull and pull the systems out to work on them.  The government always refused this option but following Coles they cut the hull of the first boat in FCD, pulled out everything they needed to and delivered the completed project in record time and below cost estimates.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2016, 11:10:14 AM by Volkodav »

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: NZ Defence Acquisitions
« Reply #23 on: December 19, 2016, 10:24:35 AM »
In my opinion, the Kiwi's should have purchased Northrop F-20 Tigershark's
In fact here's the following 1983 proposal to New Zealand

1983 Northrop F-20 Tigershark proposed program cost to New Zealand


- Total program cost for a typical squadron of 18 x F-20 Tigershark aircraft.
- The flyaway price includes airframe, avionics, engine, recoupment, and appropriate administration costs.
- Support and other costs include two years of initial spares, support equipment, training and training equipment, technical publications, aircraft delivery, contract engineering and technical services, and U.S. Government administrative costs.
- Support is based on 20 flying hours per aircraft per month from one operating base with organizational and intermediate levels of maintanance capability.
- Aircraft delivery can begin 30 months after go-ahead.

Program Acquisition Cost
(1983 $, 18 aircraft)
Unit flyaway $10.7 million
Total flyaway $192.6 million
Support & other costs $80 million
Total Program $272.6 million


The F-20 would have been far more economical than the F-16, for the RNZAF.
On top of this, Australia and NZ could have possibly saved some costs in maintenance in terms of the General Electric F404 turbofan

In fact, I've always liked the notion of the RAAF operating a 'High-Lo' mix of Northrop F/A-18L and F-20's - hence maybe a joint Australian /NZ licence manufacturing of F-20!


M.A.D

Would have saved the cost of the Kahu upgrade and buying the ex RAN airframes as well.  That said, Uncle Helen may well have scrapped the Tigersharks too as by the early 2000s they would have been due for modernisation.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: NZ Defence Acquisitions
« Reply #24 on: December 19, 2016, 10:59:18 AM »
NZs procurement and naval engineering / project management is in general far superior, their problem being political disinterest and limited money. 

I sense a touch of "the grass is always greener..." here.

The system that successfully acquired the Leopards, FFGs, Fremantles, F/A-18, Seahawks, Blackhawks, ANZACs and Collins to name a few (with no major program failures to mention) was replaced with a very bureaucratic system that resulted in the Super Sea Sprite, FFGUP, LCM2000, MU90, MRH90, ARH Tiger, M-113 upgrade, multiple attempts at an ANZAC upgrade before something reasonable resulted (but with platform issues yet to be addressed), Armidale Class Patrol Boats, Vigilaire, etc.  Basically procurement and project management became more onerous and difficult, accountability disappeared, ownership was often impossible to determine, service requirements were often ignored, industrial requirements were ignored except where pork was involved, and at the end of the day many decisions were made personally by the PM.

Be careful you aren't looking at things with a touch of 'rose coloured glasses'.  I think you will find that those programs had just as many issues during procurement as we have today - just look at the Collins class for one (it had major enquiries etc in to its procurement).  Moreover, there were a number of programs that were cancelled or simply didn't get going or were straight-out delayed.  Yes, one could argue that was often political though no more/less than today.

Just speaking from personal experience, as well as from the fall out of Rizzo, Coles and Winter Reports etc.  Collins in particular was a project an incoming government wanted to fail for political reasons and when they couldn't justify scraping the existing hulls they hired a plagiarising sycophant to sit on the company board and destroy it from within.  Basically once reviewed by a number of impartial overseas experts it was found to have been a successful platform hamstrung by underfunding on sustainment (that ironically then cost more in remediation than doing things properly in the first place would have) and that the much maligned builder / maintainer was actually pretty good, just lacking in authority to do the job required (had to get sign off from government bean counters who didn't believe a word they said).  Proof of what I am saying, John Prescott was Chairman when most of the dodgy maintenance decisions were made, then more recently the former "anti" Industry Spokesperson, Sophie Mirabella, was appointed to the board after losing her seat in 2013, as part of a new move to discredit and kill off local capability.

I've always found the present Government party, when in opposition's position on local industry rather strange, to say the least.  They loudly proclaimed that they would much rather have bought, "off the shelf" than have anything produced in Australia.  Now they are Government, they are forced to accept that a large number of local jobs (hence voters) rely upon employment in defence industries like ASC.   So, they at least make the right noises of support for local industry, even if they aren't really interested in keeping it here.

The Collins class wasn't necessarily the right boat for the RAN but it was the boat that was chosen, primarily because Kockums were willing to actually do what was asked of them in the tender process, whereas the Germans sneered at the Australian Government and just did what they wanted.  Of course, Kockums then did a bit of a dirty on ASC and handed them a semi-completed hull for the lead boat which had to have most of the welds redone here in Australia in order to pass quality assurance.  The RAN didn't help with their demands that ASC supply the boats under a fixed price contract which hampered their control systems.  The ALP Government didn't help either by sacking a raftload of middle-management naval officers who had managed the Collins project when their services were felt to be no longer required - hence all the "revelations" in the (primarily) Murdoch press about the supposed "disaster" that the Collins class was in the mid-1990s.   Most of them being half-truths and misinformation based on old problems which had been addressed.

We ended up with one of the most advanced conventional ocean going submarines in the world.  It is the largest such boat, it has the longest range and it is the most quiet running, despite all the bullshit about it sounding like a "jazz band".   It has had problems but fewer than most first build submarines.  At the same time as we were building the Collins class, the US Navy was scrapping the lead boat on the stocks of the then new Seawolf class because all the welding had been done substandard and the RN had found that the builders of their new SSN, the Vanguard class had welded one hull section on upside down!   So, the "experts" can get it wrong, then so can we.

When someone who is really in the know, writes the full story of the Collins project, it will IMHO make some very interesting reading indeed.   Hopefully he'll have a publisher with deep pockets to defend against the court cases which will occur.

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Re: NZ Defence Acquisitions
« Reply #25 on: December 19, 2016, 08:01:57 PM »
In my opinion, the Kiwi's should have purchased Northrop F-20 Tigershark's
In fact here's the following 1983 proposal to New Zealand

1983 Northrop F-20 Tigershark proposed program cost to New Zealand


- Total program cost for a typical squadron of 18 x F-20 Tigershark aircraft.
- The flyaway price includes airframe, avionics, engine, recoupment, and appropriate administration costs.
- Support and other costs include two years of initial spares, support equipment, training and training equipment, technical publications, aircraft delivery, contract engineering and technical services, and U.S. Government administrative costs.
- Support is based on 20 flying hours per aircraft per month from one operating base with organizational and intermediate levels of maintanance capability.
- Aircraft delivery can begin 30 months after go-ahead.

Program Acquisition Cost
(1983 $, 18 aircraft)
Unit flyaway $10.7 million
Total flyaway $192.6 million
Support & other costs $80 million
Total Program $272.6 million


The F-20 would have been far more economical than the F-16, for the RNZAF.
On top of this, Australia and NZ could have possibly saved some costs in maintenance in terms of the General Electric F404 turbofan

In fact, I've always liked the notion of the RAAF operating a 'High-Lo' mix of Northrop F/A-18L and F-20's - hence maybe a joint Australian /NZ licence manufacturing of F-20!


M.A.D

Would have saved the cost of the Kahu upgrade and buying the ex RAN airframes as well.  That said, Uncle Helen may well have scrapped the Tigersharks too as by the early 2000s they would have been due for modernisation.

Interesting point re Kahu Volkodave, and you are probably correct "Uncle Helen"!!
But it is What If!!
Once again, I find it interesting to hear about you ASC experience!! Thank's for sharing.

M.A.D

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Re: NZ Defence Acquisitions
« Reply #26 on: December 19, 2016, 08:17:03 PM »
Ok, if one considers closer weapons procurement agreements between Aust and NZ, one might seriously consider Project Waler as a replacement for both Army's ubiquitous M113 fleets!

M.A.D

Offline perttime

  • The man has produced a Finnish Napier Heston Fighter...need we say more?
Re: NZ Defence Acquisitions
« Reply #27 on: December 20, 2016, 01:03:55 AM »

I think many European countries frequently use their fighters for checking out unidentified visitors at the borders. I suspect there's less need for that in NZ?

I think a UAV would be ideal for that.
It would have to be a pretty good UAV: fast enough to intercept the visitor before it is on your lawn, able to ID things even at light, and able able to do something about it if you don't want it on your lawn.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: NZ Defence Acquisitions
« Reply #28 on: December 20, 2016, 02:58:00 AM »
Guys, please keep the Australian political rants out of this discussion.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Kelmola

  • Seeking motivation to start buillding the stash
Re: NZ Defence Acquisitions
« Reply #29 on: December 20, 2016, 06:02:56 AM »
Scenario 1: China decides it's not enough to antagonize Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Brunei, and by proxy, the US in its neighbouring waters (plus the usual beef with India), and wants to start building artificial reefs in NZ territorial waters and/or inserting "polite people" who then unanimously vote to join North Island into China.
Scenario 2: Putin decides Russia needs a proper tropical colony and decides to do the same, once the Pacific Fleet is made great seaworthy again.
Scenario 3: Hardline islamists seize power in Indonesia and they decide to spread the jihad to NZ because it's easier to conquer than the infidel lands in the immediate neighbourhood.
Scenario 4: The cows came home along with the flying pigs and the ever-menacing cargoship full of Argentinian revanchists accidentally lands in Auckland instead of Port Stanley. Hilarity ensues.

The thing most working for NZ is the sheer distance from anything resembling a threat, and as they still have a functional Army merely reaching the islands is not enough, one would have to be able to maintain a supply chain over most of the Pacific. Of course, outlying islands (Tokelau and Cook Islands) are still at risk, but would not really be defensible even with combat aircraft unless there would be a permanent force stationed there. (Also, to reach those islands the potential attacker would have to pass several US-held islands, which might attract undue attention to the invasion fleet.)

However, if China starts to become a proper blue-water navy, Russia gets its act together again, or Indonesia indeed starts flexing its muscles, then NZ should of course evaluate their options. Gripen E/F would probably be a good choice, though its range tends to be on the short side. (Or indeed Gripen M, if RAN decides to become a carrier force again the NZ Gripens could then cross-train on Aussie flattops...) Eurofighter is then the next logical step, but the cost may be prohibitive.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: NZ Defence Acquisitions
« Reply #30 on: December 20, 2016, 06:22:11 AM »
Scenario 1: China decides it's not enough to antagonize Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Brunei, and by proxy, the US in its neighbouring waters (plus the usual beef with India), and wants to start building artificial reefs in NZ territorial waters and/or inserting "polite people" who then unanimously vote to join North Island into China.
Scenario 2: Putin decides Russia needs a proper tropical colony and decides to do the same, once the Pacific Fleet is made great seaworthy again.
Scenario 3: Hardline islamists seize power in Indonesia and they decide to spread the jihad to NZ because it's easier to conquer than the infidel lands in the immediate neighbourhood.
Scenario 4: The cows came home along with the flying pigs and the ever-menacing cargoship full of Argentinian revanchists accidentally lands in Auckland instead of Port Stanley. Hilarity ensues.
step, but the cost may be prohibitive.

Don't forget Scenario 5:  The Penguins invade from Antartica ready to cut down all the NZ trees with...herrings!!!

The thing most working for NZ is the sheer distance from anything resembling a threat, and as they still have a functional Army merely reaching the islands is not enough, one would have to be able to maintain a supply chain over most of the Pacific.

NZ - easy place to invade...bloody hard to occupy IMHO (having good Maori friends).
« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 02:03:01 AM by GTX_Admin »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: NZ Defence Acquisitions
« Reply #31 on: December 20, 2016, 02:40:25 PM »
Since becoming a protected species in 1986 NZs Kea Parrot population exploded and the notorious rubber eating pests overran the entire country destroying every tire and seal in the place.  The end result was NZ lost all their ground, air and sea transport and defence capability in a matter of months leaving them basically in a stone age society and open to incursion from any power that could get there and protect their rides from the Keas.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: NZ Defence Acquisitions
« Reply #32 on: December 20, 2016, 03:29:56 PM »
Just on the quality of welds on the hull sections Kockums fabricated, the welds were complete, the sections were complete and everything passed inspection.  The problem was found when the affected boat, HMAS Collins, entered her first full cycle docking (major refit) after several years service and a complete materiel inspection of the hull was conducted after she had been gutted for the FCD with discovered multiple cracked welds in the affected sections.

Once the survey was complete it became obvious that the navy had been very fortunate that the sections hadn't collapsed with the resultant loss the boat and her crew.  There was serious consideration given to scraping her before repairs went ahead but the result of this was a delay that rolled onto the following FCDs.  Actually saw the weld maps for the affected section and even with only the replaced welds showing, the full shape of the sections was clear.

I need to iterate, this was neither a design fault or one of poor quality control, it an issue with training and certification of a new Australian developed welding process.  As seen throughout the project (and others i.e. AFP FFG, AWD etc.), when a risk was identified or assumed measures were put in place to mitigate them and no problem occurred, where no problem was foreseen, i.e. an experienced overseas partner or contractor supplying systems or producing equipment, and they were left to do what they had (supposedly) successfully been doing for years, problems happened.

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Re: NZ Defence Acquisitions
« Reply #33 on: December 23, 2016, 11:55:56 AM »
In my Alternative ADF ORBAT I have Australia in a joint Australian/NZ license manufacturing and fielding of GIAT/Nexter CAESAR 155 mm SPH on 6x6 Unimog U2450L chassis!
They're cost effectiveness - both purchase and operating costs, along with they're strategic mobility, make them ideal pieces of kit!!

M.A.D
« Last Edit: December 23, 2016, 01:15:06 PM by M.A.D »

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: NZ Defence Acquisitions
« Reply #34 on: December 24, 2016, 03:03:48 AM »
Does anyone know if there is a 1/35 kit (perhaps resin) of the CAESAR 155 mm SPH?
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding
Re: NZ Defence Acquisitions
« Reply #35 on: December 24, 2016, 05:00:36 AM »
'for the caption thread'

I told you to watch out for that 'Roo

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6898.0;attach=15023;image

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: NZ Defence Acquisitions
« Reply #36 on: June 24, 2017, 04:26:37 AM »
Quick Zac, you may want to go see this...and take plenty of photo for us ;)

http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/06/embraer-kc-390-to-visit-new-zealand-next-month/
All hail the God of Frustration!!!