Another NZ Hypothetical: Do we need a seperate RNZAF?

[Whiskyjack]

Happy to be corrected, but my understanding of why helos have taken a beating in Iraq (disproportionately to Afghanistan) is due to poor implementation of doctine.

As I understand it, the Afghan losses are all within "acceptable" ratios whereas the early high losses of helos in Iraq was primarily due to a failure to stick to tried and tested doctrine.

I could be wrong here as well, In Iraq I thought it was more of a case of Army doctrine vs USMC doctrine. The USMC doctrine was seen as superior.

In Afghanistan the issue was operating at higher altitudes and the platforms such as Apaches and Blackhawks were not optimal for the environment, which is why Chinooks were preferred.

 

[Michael RVR]

I can't say i agree with you Lucasnz. Sure they don't look as good at an airshow, but the way i see it is that you need to support the troops you have (being so few of them), and i don't think you could do it better with fast movers.

1/ They can not self deploy, unlike Fighter Aircraft, even the MB339C could self deploy with long range tanks to Australia. This means that NZ would either have to invest in another MRV or larger transport aircraft. While leasing ships / aircraft for overseas deployments is an option there is usually a delay. There would be no difference in transporting all the logitistics components.

So put them into a C-17, three to a load. You say theres no difference in transporting logistic components - exactly right, so theres really no difference in the time when they're fully mission ready regardless.

Personally i think the AH's we're buying has given us an incredible capability to support ground forces, and one that is far beyond whats available with fast movers..

Besides, fighters can come from the coalition as almost everyone has them. NZ has to offer something 'special' IMHO.

 

[Lucasnz]

I can't say i agree with you Lucasnz. Sure they don't look as good at an airshow, but the way i see it is that you need to support the troops you have (being so few of them), and i don't think you could do it better with fast movers.

I agree AH would be better at Troop support but a country the size of NZ with limited funds has to spend its money in a way which maximises it's capability. Acquiring AH would limit capability.

So put them into a C-17, three to a load. You say theres no difference in transporting logistic components - exactly right, so theres really no difference in the time when they're fully mission ready regardless.

C-17's are the problem: Fighter aircraft only need them for the stores, ammo etc. Helicopters need them to go anywhere outside NZ. I'm sure Australia won't mind lending us some C-17's, but it would take four to transport a sqn of 12 AH plus the additional flights for stores.

Besides, fighters can come from the coalition as almost everyone has them. NZ has to offer something 'special' IMHO.

Thats the whole problem I believe with the current governments defence policy - it has forgotten that the core role the NZDF is the defence of NZ and from the forces established to acheive that NZ should contribute to international operations. Just bringing something special to a coalition does not serve NZ long term needs (Pity that the typical NZ politican only thinks in 3 year terms).

Enjoy the weekend!