This is a discussion on NZDF General discussion thread within the Geo-strategic Issues forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; If it were me the first thing I would fix is the air defense situation and maritime strike option. With ...
If it were me the first thing I would fix is the air defense situation and maritime strike option. With so many good fighter/bombers being available the Kiwis could get a respectable force structure in place fairly quickly.
For an Island nation putting money into the army is fine but for them it should be nearer the end of priorities. If an enemy could get a foothold on their territory, AND, own the airspace, then the battle is already over no matter what the army does.
But, I dont know what they are thinking down there, or what they consider priorities. I dont want to turn this into a ANZUS thing but on a strategic level I dont know what they were thinking when they banned 25% of our warships from their ports.
I cant understand anyone who thinks wars of empire are never going to happen again. Most of all in Asia.
Just something to throw out there, while doing the round of the airforce technology pages I came across the L159 Advanced Light Combat Aircraft (ALCA) the Czech Airforce is offloading 47 of them they seem like a ideal aircraft for the low level missions that the RNZAF used to fly not mention a very similar loadout as the Skyhawks used to carry, Mavericks Sidewinders gun pods and Iron bombs, I am sure these could be purchased at a very reasonable price, comments? Im not familar at all with the ALCA so comments on performance in regards to hypothetical needs of the RNZAF would be great. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/l159/
If it were me the first thing I would fix is the air defense situation and maritime strike option. With so many good fighter/bombers being available the Kiwis could get a respectable force structure in place fairly quickly.
For an Island nation putting money into the army is fine but for them it should be nearer the end of priorities. If an enemy could get a foothold on their territory, AND, own the airspace, then the battle is already over no matter what the army does.
But, I dont know what they are thinking down there, or what they consider priorities. I dont want to turn this into a ANZUS thing but on a strategic level I dont know what they were thinking when they banned 25% of our warships from their ports.
I cant understand anyone who thinks wars of empire are never going to happen again. Most of all in Asia.
Good points Rich. Without wanting to stray into the fighter/bomber arena (although I agree, affordable second hand options exist), in terms of maritime strike and due to the expertise built-up from operating P3's for 40 years, NZ's large SAR/patrol areas (south pacific to antartica), the very nature of the long distances betwen the scattered SP island nations, interoperability with Aus and USN, why not in the short term then simply increase the P3 fleet from 6 to say 12-15 etc), upgrade the sub detection equipment and arm them with suitable anti-ship missiles etc? This would provide credible force projection over a sustained period should the need arise, be that pacific/SE asia etc, but more importantly get good value for money as we know the P3's fulfill other government requirements (EZ patrol, SAR, UN/NATO task force missions etc) in other words these aircraft just don't sit around, they are fully utilised one way or another.
Re: Anzus and what the govt was thinking? Might put a post on the A**US discussion when I have a moment.
Good points Rich. Without wanting to stray into the fighter/bomber arena (although I agree, affordable second hand options exist), in terms of maritime strike and due to the expertise built-up from operating P3's for 40 years, NZ's large SAR/patrol areas (south pacific to antartica), the very nature of the long distances betwen the scattered SP island nations, interoperability with Aus and USN, why not in the short term then simply increase the P3 fleet from 6 to say 12-15 etc), upgrade the sub detection equipment and arm them with suitable anti-ship missiles etc? This would provide credible force projection over a sustained period should the need arise, be that pacific/SE asia etc, but more importantly get good value for money as we know the P3's fulfill other government requirements (EZ patrol, SAR, UN/NATO task force missions etc) in other words these aircraft just don't sit around, they are fully utilised one way or another.
Re: Anzus and what the govt was thinking? Might put a post on the A**US discussion when I have a moment.
You make some good points recce.k1 and I would also like to see the Kiwi P3 force expanded and upgraded along the lines you suggest. I also think that NZ has also established expertise in the strike area, having operated Canberra tactical bombers and then Skyhawk light attack aircraft for the 40 year period leading up to the axing of the air combat force. I think there is a place for both.
I agree with you and Rich that there are probably many good second hand aircraft available and as I've mentioned before I would love to see NZ negotiate with Australia to take over the FA-18Fs when the 4th NACC squadron is acquired by the RAAF. I think it would be a super aircraft for the RNZAF (no pun intended!). This would give time to bring the MB339s out of storage to train a new group of pilots for the strike role. Advanced training could be provided by the RAAF and a lead in to a transfer could be for a Kiwi flight to be formed within the RAAF SH squadron. This would enhance the regional power status of NZ and would be a very welcome addition to overall ANZAC capability.
Of course this could all go pear shaped if a new Oz government cancels the FA-18F deal and runs down Australia's own air combat force.
Just something to throw out there, while doing the round of the airforce technology pages I came across the L159 Advanced Light Combat Aircraft (ALCA) the Czech Airforce is offloading 47 of them they seem like a ideal aircraft for the low level missions that the RNZAF used to fly not mention a very similar loadout as the Skyhawks used to carry, Mavericks Sidewinders gun pods and Iron bombs, I am sure these could be purchased at a very reasonable price, comments? Im not familar at all with the ALCA so comments on performance in regards to hypothetical needs of the RNZAF would be great. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/l159/
For air policing & the like, fine. Cheap to operate, reliable, & with about as good a radar as you could reasonably expect in such a small aircraft. The air-air performance is surprisingly good: in NATO exercises Czech pilots are reported to have scored a few F-16 & F-18 kills in it. Would also enable the maintenance of fast jet flying skills at a relatively low price, in case they're ever needed again.
AFAIK they aren't currently configured for AAR, but it could be done. Ah yes - I see there's a note about it. That would be handy. I see no reason why a P-3 couldn't be fitted with a (removable) hose & drogue, if desired. Again, low-cost maintenance of skills, & might occasionally be useful.
...Just to add my tuppance worth, & on the subject of 2nd hand equipment.
The Kiwi's could always come back to their ancestrol background under the English empire & bring a large shopping trolley. We currently have lots of "Surplus" equipment that they could pick up for next to nothing.
We have some Harriers, & an Aircraft carrier for them to operate from.
We have some Sea King helicopters (I think), that could be used for ASW.
We have some MCMV's, an amphibious vessel or two & even a couple of old AO's / tankers. (Sorry, we did have some subs, but we've sold them to your cousins in Canada...)
They could take this lot away, then spend some time & more of their money bringing them up to a state that they would be happy to use them.
The Carrier, the Harriers & the Helo's would be an ideal addition to the current fleet......
"What could New Zealand do to become a regional power?"
4 Words. Long Range Cruise Missiles.
Having cruise missiles that can have precision strike capabilities across all the pacific should more than carried enough stick to deter anyone challenging NZ.
Plus, it is far more cost effective compare to a jet fighter, which cost an average of $30 million USD nowdays, plus pilot training, services, salary to the pilot and service crews, per year, the cost is enormous. Now compare this to a cruise missile which cost an average of $1 million USD with minimal service crew and no pilot training.. well the choice is clear
Some nut in NZ already started it in his own backyard few years back if I remember correctly.. wonder what happen to him now..
How could a Cruise Missile be launched withour using a P3 or ANZAC? The government seized the cruise missile from the guy. Apparently he could have launcehed it within 24 hours if he needed to. aardvark.co.nz/pjet/cruise.shtml
Your refering to Harpoon and SLAM which I belive are recent upgrades for the ANZACs? Are they operational?
Can NZ justify such a offensive weapon? Like I said, I can't see the political winds supporting such a upgrade. I certainly can't see them getting Tomahawks.
Your refering to Harpoon and SLAM which I belive are recent upgrades for the ANZACs? Are they operational?
Can NZ justify such a offensive weapon? Like I said, I can't see the political winds supporting such a upgrade. I certainly can't see them getting Tomahawks.
Would they ever use them?
Three of the RAN Anzacs currently have Block 2 Harpoon which has land attack capability. The remainder are being progressively fitted. Warramunga has certainly achieved operational status. Anzac and Arunta have recently been fitted but I don't know if either has actually fired a Harpoon yet.
Regarding Tomahawk, this seems to be regarded as 'too offensive' even for Australia as it is apparently felt that it could start a regional arms race. On that basis I agree it would be an unlikely acquisition for NZ.
How about leasing one of the Aussies older ANZACs? Would help us by gaining an extra frigate at small cost, and as Oz navy is worried about been able to crew new AAW destroyers, would provide extra crew for them.
Though as NZ is having problems crewing its current fleet, may not be all that useful.
Maybe NZ should increase its number of trained army reserves, both for combat and support roles. They already provide round-out for regular force units, but should be increased to provide a number of fully reserve units, say 2-3 full infantry battalions and 1 mech cav squadron, plus a 2-3 each artillery batterys, and 2-3 airdefence troops. NZ would have to purchase extra equipment for them, but would have a well trained force, that would not have to be paid fulltime, or provided with barracks, food etc, fulltime.
