NZDF General discussion thread

[Rob c]

Certainly the Oz Govt would not stand for NZ becoming an 'enemy' asset, but the ADF would by & large defend Australian interests in NZ from Australia... the supply train across the width of the Tasman Sea is too fragile due to extreme distance. Having said that I'm sure we'd get RAN subs cruising our waters in that scenario.

They may not have an option, as a quick airborne invasion of NZ and the country may be in alternate hands within hours as we don't have anything in NZ to stop it. Simply follow up with escorted shipping to seal the deal.

No doubt. I just cant see it happening budget wise. Air combat forces are expensive to retain and operate (The A-4s took 14 per cent of the NZDF budget). That was simply upkeep for an already established capability. Fuel alone costs $4000 per hour of operation.

I don't know were the 14% came from? I remember Helen Clark saying 10% to operate strike wing, which included the Macchi's , the previous (from Memory) defence review had stated that 75sqn cost $50 mill per year and 14sqn $20 - 30. However they provided well in excess of any of those figures in their raw defence ability. and likely provided more deterrent ability than the rest of defence combined.
The fuel cost, was that per aircraft or for the unit? I cannot remember the price of aviation F34 fuel at that time, but I remember that an A4 would use about 8 to 9000lbs in a trip across to Australia.

 

[Lolcake]

They may not have an option, as a quick airborne invasion of NZ and the country may be in alternate hands within hours as we don't have anything in NZ to stop it. Simply follow up with escorted shipping to seal the deal.

I don't know were the 14% came from? I remember Helen Clark saying 10% to operate strike wing, which included the Macchi's , the previous (from Memory) defence review had stated that 75sqn cost $50 mill per year and 14sqn $20 - 30. However they provided well in excess of any of those figures in their raw defence ability. and likely provided more deterrent ability than the rest of defence combined.
The fuel cost, was that per aircraft or for the unit? I cannot remember the price of aviation F34 fuel at that time, but I remember that an A4 would use about 8 to 9000lbs in a trip across to Australia.

Helen Clark, parliamentary debate, 27 July 1999

... 'Air combat forces are expensive to retain and operate (14 per cent of the NZDF budget), and possibly beyond NZ’s economic capacity to keep up to date without detracting from other more necessary military capabilities.' (Interim Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee ‘Inquiry into defence beyond 2000’).

I would love nothing more than an ACF returning to NZ. I just dont see it as feasible anymore especially when other major assets are due for renewal (as per my post) in addition to lacking completely decent arty and Air defence assets.

A 2% of GDP budget for defence (currently proposed by nationals) is not going to even be remotely close enough to creating and sustaining an entirely new ACF. As stingray mentions below, focus should be expanding other assets within the current parameters of the proposed defence spending boost and possibly slightly more (4 frigate navy, additional P8s and EW assets). These would be entirely possible without the need to spend 10s of billions on a new ACF, its supporting infrastructure, training, weapons and not to mention the sustainment costs.

Cheers
L

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think there is some underestimation of the P8. Its a capable aircraft. Its much faster than the p3's, long ranged, much more survivable, better sensors, better weapons. The P8 is a game changer for NZ. It should be highly valued and respected as such.

It can deploy afar, in Australia or to say Butterworth or even further field like the middle east or Japan. It can carry powerful long range weapons. Short of NZ operating a bomber, this is as good as its going to get for NZ. Plus it has fantastic ASW capabilities and other relevant capability like SAR and EEZ enforcement.

Much is made about not having weapons. But honestly, NZ needs to focus in other areas. Australia has plenty of weapons, and it would be trivial to fit them to the NZ plane Harpoon is being phased out, LRASM phased in but integration won't be complete on the P8 until 2024. So just wait. Until then Australia has a huge stockpile of harpoons and is already acquiring NSM and LRASM so any orders wouldn't be filled until after Australia gets a significant delivery anyway.

The P8 will play important roles in any large future conflict. They are cheap to operate and reliable aircraft. Arguably they are now one of NZ most powerful defence assets. Either independently or in a combined force with Australia.

NZ has other areas it should focus on. Its Army needs to be re-equipped, and the Navy could move to a 4 frigate type Navy for the same crewing, if money could be found for new ships. Duplicating capabilities and chasing dragons is not going to help fixing those priorities.

Other aircraft NZ could consider is MC-55 or AWEC type capability on a G550 platform. These are also long ranged and based off civilian platforms with low operating costs. They are technologically advanced and owning the ELINT battlespace is very important. This might be more relevant for the Pacific and related areas. Particularly in grey zone operations. It is still an offensive capability. NZ could, single handedly, harass and deter Chinese ships/aircraft with such platforms in a realistic way. Blocking coms and fooling radars and gathering intelligence of enemy ships operating near Australia would likely not be sustainable for the Chinese, they would take a more cautious approach. Australia spent big with growlers, and they find them very useful. The conflict in Ukraine, Growlers are again, invaluable. NZ being 5 eyes, would be one of the very few countries who could comfortably get that kind of tech. Australia is only getting 4, and USA is only building a few EC-37B aircraft.

Australia's New MC-55 Peregrine Electronic Warfare Jet Breaks Cover (Updated)

Peregrine aircraft will bring Australia's electronic attack and surveillance capabilities up to par with the U.S. and allies in the region.

www.thedrive.com

There are affordable options for NZ to explore if they wished. The will more so than the money is the problem. The advantage of something EW is I think the NZ public would be more supportive of something that doesn't shoot fire and brimstone, but degrades the enemies abilities in a non-body count way. It would be super valuable in a conflict. It would give NZ real enforcement capabilities in the region. Turning up to a party with one of these, NZ would have the slickest and most secretive and exclusive kit in the business. Plus I think they would look kinda special if they were painted black.

 

[ngatimozart]

IMO the costs with re-establishing a new ACF would far outweigh its benefits. 20 years of neglect would have such a massive upheaval and upkeep cost that it would outstrip any benefits brought about by such an aquisition, funds that could be better spent on other capabilities that better suit the current circumstances.

Despite the National NZ govt saying they would look at this option. Short of cut price F18Fs from the RAAF with the Platform life extension that goes along with the Block 3 upgrade i dont see how NZ could aquire this capability cheaply without throwing the kitchen sink at it.

I would think NZ should focus on replacing existing assets with a more capable platforms e.g NZLAV>Boxers Anzacs>Hunters and developing the skill set that goes along with operating such a platforms. Air and sea mobility should be expanded and be at the centre focus so as to move forces to where they need to operate efficiently and effectively to support allied operations. Would love to see NZ with an expansion of major naval combatants to 3 vessels but it seems unlikely to happen.

Expanding ASW assets (possibly more P-8s), Artillery and establishing Air defence for deployed forces should also be a priority, needless to say drones and anti-drone tech, AI and cyber capabilities should also be a large focus of the defence review. Joint munition development/manufacturing is something that could also be looked under an alliance framework

Cheers
L

Boxers and Hunters???? NZ wouldn't acquire those purely because of the cost. Both are very expensive and more so because they are Australian made. It's a matter of spreading funding across many good platforms rather than a few excellent platforms. There are ways of obtaining similar capabilities to both the Boxers and Hunters without breaking the bank. In todays world compatibility and more importantly, interoperability, can be obtained electronically and virtually rather than having exactly the same platforms.

For example NZDF has the JATF (Joint Amphibious Task Force) so instead of going with the Boxer it might decide to replace the NZLAV with something like the BAE ACV entering service with the USMC, or the South Korean Hyundai 808 White Tiger IFV which is also amphibious. Considering that the next war will most likely be in the Indo Pacific and will be in an archipelagic / island environment, such an IFV base vehicle may make more sense than a GDLS LAV 6.0, Rheinmettall Boxer etc. Someone suggested to me that they would like to see the army have a tracked light tank for infantry support. Light tanks available today are basically turrets with big guns on tracked IFVs. BAE has the CV90105T or CV90120T both based on the CV90400 IFV. Hanwha has the KF-21 fitted with a 105mm turret on a K-21 IFV, that also happens to be amphibious. Both the CV90105T and the KF-21 are fitted with the CMI Cockerill XC-8 turret. The CV90120T The CV90120-T is armed with a fully-stabilized Swiss Ordnance 120 mm high-pressure low-recoil smoothbore gun. It fires modern NATO ammunition. IF any of these light tanks ever went into NZ service they would not be taking on PLA-GF or Russian tank armies, but provide infantry support. We'll leave the tank armies to the Royal Australian Armoured Regiment.

WRT to Anzac Class frigate replacements, some of us have discussed this over the years and we think it may be possible to outfit an Arrowhead 140 hull with the SPY-7 radar, AEGIS, CEC, and some, but not all of the systems that the RCN are using on their CSC. There are some things that the RCN would fit that we wouldn't. We already use the LM CMS330 and the RCN CSC CMS will be an upgraded version of that. It would be advantageous to us because the RCN will be using both Sea Ceptor and ESSM Blk II, so both will be integrated into the CMS. That means if needs be a future RNZN FFG could use the ESSM II if it has expended Sea Ceptor and no Sea Ceptor reloads are immediately available. Both SAM use the M-41 VLS so that's not a problem. IIRC about $4 billion has been set aside for the Anzac Class replacement and this way we would be able to afford three frigates, if we can keep the sailaway costs down to ~$1.2 - 1.5 billion per ship. If we went with the Hunter / CSC / City Class Type 26 variants we would be looking at a minimum of $2.0 - 2.5 billion per ship sailaway. We just have to be creative in how we can make our dollars go further.

Honestly, I see much, much closer integration of the ADF and NZDF as being a complete no-brainer if and when politics can be put aside.

Common equipment, platforms, training and sustainment all conducted jointly wherever mutually possible and beneficial would deliver substantial mutual savings, efficiencies and much needed collective scale.

The barriers to which, are at the end of the day, fluff.

They’re not real barriers.

We just need real and ambitious effort from both sides of the Tasman.

We've tried this before. Hell they even had the big talk at ministerial level and signed a piece of paper years / decades ago. Never happens because of all sorts of political reasons, plus differences in defence policies. There are also sovereignty issues that have to be considered.

 

[Lolcake]

Boxers and Hunters???? NZ wouldn't acquire those purely because of the cost. Both are very expensive and more so because they are Australian made. It's a matter of spreading funding across many good platforms rather than a few excellent platforms. There are ways of obtaining similar capabilities to both the Boxers and Hunters without breaking the bank. In todays world compatibility and more importantly, interoperability, can be obtained electronically and virtually rather than having exactly the same platforms.

For example NZDF has the JATF (Joint Amphibious Task Force) so instead of going with the Boxer it might decide to replace the NZLAV with something like the BAE ACV entering service with the USMC, or the South Korean Hyundai 808 White Tiger IFV which is also amphibious. Considering that the next war will most likely be in the Indo Pacific and will be in an archipelagic / island environment, such an IFV base vehicle may make more sense than a GDLS LAV 6.0, Rheinmettall Boxer etc. Someone suggested to me that they would like to see the army have a tracked light tank for infantry support. Light tanks available today are basically turrets with big guns on tracked IFVs. BAE has the CV90105T or CV90120T both based on the CV90400 IFV. Hanwha has the KF-21 fitted with a 105mm turret on a K-21 IFV, that also happens to be amphibious. Both the CV90105T and the KF-21 are fitted with the CMI Cockerill XC-8 turret. The CV90120T The CV90120-T is armed with a fully-stabilized Swiss Ordnance 120 mm high-pressure low-recoil smoothbore gun. It fires modern NATO ammunition. IF any of these light tanks ever went into NZ service they would not be taking on PLA-GF or Russian tank armies, but provide infantry support. We'll leave the tank armies to the Royal Australian Armoured Regiment.

WRT to Anzac Class frigate replacements, some of us have discussed this over the years and we think it may be possible to outfit an Arrowhead 140 hull with the SPY-7 radar, AEGIS, CEC, and some, but not all of the systems that the RCN are using on their CSC. There are some things that the RCN would fit that we wouldn't. We already use the LM CMS330 and the RCN CSC CMS will be an upgraded version of that. It would be advantageous to us because the RCN will be using both Sea Ceptor and ESSM Blk II, so both will be integrated into the CMS. That means if needs be a future RNZN FFG could use the ESSM II if it has expended Sea Ceptor and no Sea Ceptor reloads are immediately available. Both SAM use the M-41 VLS so that's not a problem. IIRC about $4 billion has been set aside for the Anzac Class replacement and this way we would be able to afford three frigates, if we can keep the sailaway costs down to ~$1.2 - 1.5 billion per ship. If we went with the Hunter / CSC / City Class Type 26 variants we would be looking at a minimum of $2.0 - 2.5 billion per ship sailaway. We just have to be creative in how we can make our dollars go further.

We've tried this before. Hell they even had the big talk at ministerial level and signed a piece of paper years / decades ago. Never happens because of all sorts of political reasons, plus differences in defence policies. There are also sovereignty issues that have to be considered.

Agree, i was just suggesting that re-establishing an ACF anew could be better spent on force distribution. Hunters at 2.5bn each would still be cheaper than a new ACF. All the suggestions you made make perfect sense.

Was just making a quick example while concurrently looking at interoperability with the ADF.

 

[Gooey]

Totally disagree. Like the Swordfish v P8 decision we need compatibility with our closest Allies.

The No8 fencing wire, slap on a few missile and OEM pictures of communication integration lies, days are hopefully over. You are just creating zombie orphans which don’t work, are under gunned, and end up over their life cycles costing more.

Just because CDR has not been implemented yet does not mean this doctrine in incorrect. Far from it. It is the only option we have, unless we just continue neutrality like the present.

So of course these platforms cost but that buys a capability that is clearly integrated with our area’s requirements (ASW FFG and Boxer’s armour), industry, and Strategic intent. Anything else is accepting second best for our guys and just perpetuates the historically incorrect National Security myth of NZ being the world good guy whom everyone likes.

Bottom line: of course we need to invest wisely in defence but that doesn’t mean going for equipment which is fundamentally flawed like Swordfish instead of first line platforms like P8

 

[Rob c]

A 2% of GDP budget for defence (currently proposed by nationals) is not going to even be remotely close enough to creating and sustaining an entirely new ACF. As stingray mentions below, focus should be expanding other assets within the current parameters of the proposed defence spending boost and possibly slightly more (4 frigate navy, additional P8s and EW assets). These would be entirely possible without the need to spend 10s of billions on a new ACF, its supporting infrastructure, training, weapons and not to mention the sustainment costs.

The cost of an AFC would be spread over a significant period of time, the RNZAF calculated it would take 15 years to re-establish it up to the standard it was. It must also be kept in mind that the main function was and would be Anti air and anti shipping over the sea. this would require a significantly simpler aircraft than is needed by countries who have to carry out operations in a more complex environment, The anti air element would not have to deal with large numbers of land based combat aircraft as we are outside of the combat radius of modern combat strike aircraft from any land based location, (except possibly Norfolk island ) so only long range transports or bombers have a potential to get here. Long range anti ship missiles would cover the anti ship role. It could be said that the P* could cover this role, however IMO we have to few and they are to important to be risked in this way.
It was estimated some 20 years ago by the RNZAF that the cost of re-establishment would be $3B, this would have risen over the period to at a guess to $6B which over 15 years is about $400M per year. I think this is do-able if we are serious about our freedom and sovereignty. As I have said before we need the ability to deter or stop any attempt at either a quick unopposed air or seaborne invasion of our country, before help arrives. Currently we do not have this ability and anyone could simply fly in or sale in with out opposition when ever they like, without warning and if anyone wanted to they could simply sail into one of our ports , take it over and start unloading what they want. Even a relatively simple AFC with the right weapons would make these options or combination of them unavailable to a potential aggressor.

 

[Rob c]

Totally disagree. Like the Swordfish v P8 decision we need compatibility with our closest Allies.

Total compatibility is in my mind over played and in my 20 years in the RNZAF we had a large amount of incompatibility with our closes allies, but we were very successful at operating alongside of them. Compatibility is nice to have and helpful, but not necessary. After we had carried out upgrades a large sector of our equipment was different to our allies. Have a look how effective the Ukrainians are with operating a whole lot of incompatible gear.
In my mind we need what best fulfills our own requirements and then if it realistic look at compatibility and then only if it does not degrade from our requirements and is still within budget.

 

[Stuart M]

Snip. Even a relatively simple AFC with the right weapons would make these options or combination of them unavailable to a potential aggressor.

I think this is a very good point on a future ACF thats never been expounded on sufficiently; the deterrence/'complication to planning' factor.
NZ has a significant geographic advantage for defence purposes, but as the colonial history of the nation should show, geographic distance means nothing unless you have sufficient means to use that to your advantage.

For example, I do not believe that P8s, good as they are, are in anyway sufficient means of deterrence and certainly not just four of them. They are supposed to be part of a system, and they need other elements to reach their full potential. Their presence ensures that NZ is at best a somewhat well informed, but essentially unresponsive, target for serious external physical coersion. This is especially true should circumstances develop where those nations that might otherwise aid NZ are not in a position to do so due to pressing defence concerns of their own.

Whilst under current circumstances I don't think direct invasion is a probability, the same effect can be more conveniently had by other means and arguably has been via trade, but should circumstances change an ACF rules out any realistic possibility of invasion via steath or more in your face methods.

And this is the key thing about a ACF for NZ; it's what it's presence rules out for any external entity with ill intent, its absence rules things in as policy options for an agressor.

It was always argued to justify the ACFs disbandment that no one would or could invade NZ, but to my recollection, it was never well put that the ACF significantly helped ensure that remained the case. Moreover, an ACF that can conduct air interception and maritime strike also renders physical coersion without intent of invasion difficult. CCP elements that may or may not be based in the South Pacific in the future would be stuck between an Australian hammer and a NZ anvil.


A well founded ACF has the both the speed and load out, alongside required elements like P8s etc, to to ensure that the probabilities of physical coersion of NZ via invasion or other means remains unrealistic or difficult enough as to be not worthwhile.

 

[ngatimozart]

Totally disagree. Like the Swordfish v P8 decision we need compatibility with our closest Allies.

The No8 fencing wire, slap on a few missile and OEM pictures of communication integration lies, days are hopefully over. You are just creating zombie orphans which don’t work, are under gunned, and end up over their life cycles costing more.

Just because CDR has not been implemented yet does not mean this doctrine in incorrect. Far from it. It is the only option we have, unless we just continue neutrality like the present.

So of course these platforms cost but that buys a capability that is clearly integrated with our area’s requirements (ASW FFG and Boxer’s armour), industry, and Strategic intent. Anything else is accepting second best for our guys and just perpetuates the historically incorrect National Security myth of NZ being the world good guy whom everyone likes.

Bottom line: of course we need to invest wisely in defence but that doesn’t mean going for equipment which is fundamentally flawed like Swordfish instead of first line platforms like P8

Compatibility doesn't mean to have the same physical platforms. In modern terms it is more electronically / systems compatible. Can my platform digitally interface with your platform and our other mate's platform over there. If Swordfish came with Link 16 / 22 what's the problem? It can still do the job and is able to pass data in real time to other platforms. We didn't acquire it because it didn't meet our requirements, but we did look at it.

IF the NZG decided that the RNZAF was to operate a AEW capability then we will look at the E-7A Wedgetail. However the NZG may decide that it's to expensive a capability and go with something on a business jet airframe. There's nothing wrong with that and the Israelis do a pretty good conversion. IIRC the Singaporeans operate such a type. I happen to believe that the Boxer is the wrong type of IFV for NZ and that there are better suited 8x8 IFVs for OUR requirements. That's what this is about NZ requirements not Australian.

Total compatibility is in my mind over played and in my 20 years in the RNZAF we had a large amount of incompatibility with our closes allies, but we were very successful at operating alongside of them. Compatibility is nice to have and helpful, but not necessary. After we had carried out upgrades a large sector of our equipment was different to our allies. Have a look how effective the Ukrainians are with operating a whole lot of incompatible gear.
In my mind we need what best fulfills our own requirements and then if it realistic look at compatibility and then only if it does not degrade from our requirements and is still within budget.

Exactly, and what some people don't understand is today it's about systems NOT platforms.

Other aircraft NZ could consider is MC-55 or AWEC type capability on a G550 platform. These are also long ranged and based off civilian platforms with low operating costs. They are technologically advanced and owning the ELINT battlespace is very important. This might be more relevant for the Pacific and related areas. Particularly in grey zone operations. It is still an offensive capability. NZ could, single handedly, harass and deter Chinese ships/aircraft with such platforms in a realistic way. Blocking coms and fooling radars and gathering intelligence of enemy ships operating near Australia would likely not be sustainable for the Chinese, they would take a more cautious approach. Australia spent big with growlers, and they find them very useful. The conflict in Ukraine, Growlers are again, invaluable. NZ being 5 eyes, would be one of the very few countries who could comfortably get that kind of tech. Australia is only getting 4, and USA is only building a few EC-37B aircraft.

Australia's New MC-55 Peregrine Electronic Warfare Jet Breaks Cover (Updated)

Peregrine aircraft will bring Australia's electronic attack and surveillance capabilities up to par with the U.S. and allies in the region.

www.thedrive.com

There are affordable options for NZ to explore if they wished. The will more so than the money is the problem. The advantage of something EW is I think the NZ public would be more supportive of something that doesn't shoot fire and brimstone, but degrades the enemies abilities in a non-body count way. It would be super valuable in a conflict. It would give NZ real enforcement capabilities in the region. Turning up to a party with one of these, NZ would have the slickest and most secretive and exclusive kit in the business. Plus I think they would look kinda special if they were painted black.

Yes, this is one option that definitely does need some investigation. EW is something that NZ has kind of neglected in the past only paying lip service to it (in public at least). If one thing that the current Russo Ukraine War is teaching us, is the importance of EW across all domains. The PLA will be right across EW and be better at it than the current Russian effort in Ukraine. Another item that both the NZDF and ADF need to look at is BACN (Battle Field Airborne Communications Networks) and Airborne Communications Networks in general for when SATCOMs are lost. That is something that could be added as a suite to KC and VIP aircraft.

 

[At lakes]

deleted

 

[swerve]

IF the NZG decided that the RNZAF was to operate a AEW capability then we will look at the E-7A Wedgetail. However the NZG may decide that it's to expensive a capability and go with something on a business jet airframe. There's nothing wrong with that and the Israelis do a pretty good conversion. IIRC the Singaporeans operate such a type.

Singapore, Italy, Israel, UAE, Greece, Brazil, Mexico, India . . . . plus Sweden on order (currently operating AEW on turboprops, as are some others).

 

[hauritz]

No doubt. I just cant see it happening budget wise. Air combat forces are expensive to retain and operate (The A-4s took 14 per cent of the NZDF budget). That was simply upkeep for an already established capability. Fuel alone costs $4000 per hour of operation.

Creating one anew, would require a whole new generation of pilots, infrastructure, maint crews, weapons crews..the weapon aquisitions and of course the aircraft themselves (maintenence and purchase).... the whole bangers and mash. NZDF are currently having quite significant staff shortages..this would require hundreds of additional staff.

Pilots that piloted the A-4s are long gone and more than likely close to playing lawn bowls somewhere near Chirstchurch. Everything would need to be vetted and pushed via RAAF as the only realistic scenario (again, additional cost).

Going off extremely loosey goosey numbers from Europe, likely ~10bn mark (double the current defence budget) as a conservative estimate and that would be just to establish the capability. The question remains would that 10 Bn be better served as extra naval and ASW assets. You are giving up alot of distribution among the armed forces for that money.

Aquiring this would be likely be concurrent or in the time frame of the ANZAC replacement and the NZLAVs (again billions of dollars). Will be interesting to see what the NZ Defence review prioritises and if there is a budget for all these things in addition to the invevitable massive recruitment drive needed.

Fully support an ACF for NZ, infact i wrote to the Nationals leader at the time he was contesting the election post ACF dismemberment where he was fully supportive of re-establishing the ACF had he won the ensuing election, a far easier feat than now. Unfortunately, they were defeated and the rest is history, RNZAF pilots and crews either transferred to the RAAF or outright retired.

TL : DR Restablishing an ACF is extrememly difficult after it has was stripped to bare bones by Clarkey.



Cheers

I still think NZ should have retained at least some very basic fighter capability. As things stand drug smugglers could just blatantly fly aircraft directly into NZ knowing that there is virtually nothing the NZ government could do to stop them. Even just a squadron of armed trainers is better than nothing. Possibly NZ should also think about retaining a core of fast jet pilots just in case the proverbial hits the fan sometime over the next decade. Perhaps do a deal with Australia to have at least a handful of pilots seconded to the RAAF.

 

[OldTex]

I still think NZ should have retained at least some very basic fighter capability.

Should have but didn't so it is pointless go down the "woulda, coulda, shoulda" path.

Possibly NZ should also think about retaining a core of fast jet pilots just in case

Where is this core of fast jet pilots going to be retained from? There are no "fast jets" in the RNZAF (757s and P8s don't really count).

 

[Gooey]

Sorry chaps, with respect I anticipate that you are grossly underestimating how difficult it is to integrate avionics, links, and radars etc in a secure environment. The recent C130H update is a prime, local, example of this without the over-arching communications and classified environment.

In addition, there is the absolutely huge advantage of common TTPs, SOP, weapons development etc to bring out effeciencies which small nations would struggle to reproduce. I absolutely respect your guys previous RNZAF experiences. My own were not widened until I got away from my hard working aircraft type and saw the bigger picture with the FVEY non kinetic world. The reason, I suspect, that MoD went for 'expensive' P-8A was due to these concepts being presented as reduced through life costs and the only way for FVEY interaction. No kiwi zombies that have to be certified, accredited, and will end up cost overrunning while not fundamentally working.

Finally, virtual training, the add on to traditional simulator training, is probably (I'm professionally guessing) only fully available via standard aircraft such as P-8. In some instantaneous the only training on high grade war modes will be in a virtual, world wide, training network.

WRT ACF: absolutely, Mr M, on the soft power aspects of a nations fighter force.

 

[Stuart M]

Perhaps an indication of a future National led government veiw of the world .. or situational rhetoric.
How this translates practically I cannot say as National are still policy lite this far out from an election.

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

“None of us, especially a small country like New Zealand, wants to believe that might is right ... But this war has proved that when you have to fight for what you believe in, you need an army, weapons, ammunition, and friends to help defend your interests.

“This war has again highlighted the shortcomings of the United Nations, whose purpose is noble but whose impact is weak. This international group could not prevent one authoritarian power launching a war on its neighbour

Perhaps some lessons are sinking in or being relearned.
Apologies to mods if this is seen as political.

 

[Takao]

*because this worked so well last time, dipping into the NZDF ACF debate...*

There's lots of discussion about the ACF here, but it seems to be missing a couple of key strategic....truths.

1. Deterrence. Sorry, a Sqn of fast jets doesn't deter anything. Especially anything that can reach NZ. Let us not kid ourselves, there are only two countries that would have a chance of invading NZ (Australia and the US), and neither will be deterred by a Sqn of fast jets. Sorry. Distance is the much more effective way. Also, because I'm pretty clear that a nation's interests do not end at the 12 nm line, what does a Sqn of fast jets give you to deploy? 4? What is that going to deter?

2. Distance. What is this Sqn going to do? I saw someone comment that an airborne invasion would render NZ out of the fight in days and the ACF was the only thing that could stop it. Um....if the All Blacks alone can't handle an airborne invasion I'll eat my hat. That's just not feasible. Sorry, but unless its us or the Americans, no one is invading NZ. NZ is as far away from threats as you can get - you have luxuries here.

3. Role. So what are the missions of the NZDF? Broadly similar to the ADF, but with a percentage of the budget. Note that in this case, there are certain things that have to be funded (looking at you RNZN). NZ is an island nation, it has a massive Search and Rescue zone and has a better relationship with the SW Pacific Islands than Australia does. None of that can use fighters - but it can use maritime aircraft, ships and troops. Plus, unlike Australia, it's extremely unlikely you will fight (a) alone or (b) as the lead of a multi-national force. So you can tailor to your advantages

4. Australia. The reality is, except for the Bledisloe and Rugby World Cups, Australia will be the greatest ally to NZ. Your fights will automatically be ours. I do not mean this in a condescending way, I was immensely proud to serve beside NZDF men and women overseas and within Australia. There are tasks that the NZDF is much better at (let's not kid ourselves, our....bumbling in the SW Pacific does not ender us to the island nations often) and there are none I'd rather beside me. But, just like we have with the Americans, it means you can 'outsource' some of your defence. Yeah, it sucks. But it's real. If you think that the will not be a RAAF F-35 or F/A-18, or an Army Tiger or Apache overhead 1 RNZIR when they need it I have news for you. I have attended discussions with NZDF people where they sought out our views on giving up key Land capabilities because "we won't be fighting without the Australians".

5. Cost. Here comes the slap in the face. From what I can tell, the acquisition and sustainment part of the NZDF has a budget of $1.2 b / yr. We spent $3 b on our Super Hornets and they cost us about $360 m / yr on sustainment (2/3 the CAF21 line on table 55). Even if you go to 12 aircraft, that's $1.5 b + $180 m / yr. More than 10% of your budget on 12 aircraft that can what? Note it pretty much has to be F/A-18F - unless you completely give up the maritime strike role. You might be able to save some costs by asking us to make our CAF21 an ANZAC unit and having your F/A-18s match ours....but it'll still cost money.

6. Capability. What else do you have to buy to support a modern ACF? What will your control be? Will you have AEW&C? Only ground radars? The latter will be barely suitable, and likely prevent much beyond 150 nm intercepts. What about AAR? Or are you just going to hold onto the internal tank range? If doing that you can barely get halfway across the Tasman (Based on Sydney - Wellington). What munitions are you carrying? Some will be common with the P-8, but most won't be. A modern ACF is much more than a dozen A-4's.

Overall I think the NZDF has much better things to spend it's money on. It's soft power is (sadly) arguably greater than the ADF, it is an island nation and it has a culture that is superior than us mostly white nations for operating in the region. It has a partner that will stand by it every single time (bar the Bledisloe) but has many international responsibilities. I'd be saying boost your Navy, boost your maritime and air transport elements, focus on adaptability for your Army (so that, if needs be, 1 RNZIR can 'seamlessly' integrate elements from 2/14 Light Horse and 1 Regt to form BG ANZAC for example) without high end armour or artillery components (but some armour, so they can keep combined arms skills up). Pursuing an ACF would be the quickest way to killing the capability and reputation of the NZDF I can imagine.

 

[Rob c]

1. Deterrence. Sorry, a Sqn of fast jets doesn't deter anything. Especially anything that can reach NZ. Let us not kid ourselves, there are only two countries that would have a chance of invading NZ (Australia and the US), and neither will be deterred by a Sqn of fast jets. Sorry. Distance is the much more effective way. Also, because I'm pretty clear that a nation's interests do not end at the 12 nm line, what does a Sqn of fast jets give you to deploy? 4? What is that going to deter?

I disagree with you on this as you have to factor in, the distance involved plus what could be brought to bear by the potential aggressor. As I have said before that any aggression into this area is likely to involve both Australia at the same time. This would limit what any aggressor could bring to bear on NZ. This would mean that any seaborne invasion would have to proceed with limited or no air support. No one in their right mind is going to be happy to sail into waters in these circumstances against even a single sqn equipped with long range missiles, which can get at him outside of his air defence

2. Distance. What is this Sqn going to do? I saw someone comment that an airborne invasion would render NZ out of the fight in days and the ACF was the only thing that could stop it. Um....if the All Blacks alone can't handle an airborne invasion I'll eat my hat. That's just not feasible. Sorry, but unless its us or the Americans, no one is invading NZ. NZ is as far away from threats as you can get - you have luxuries here.

Why is it not feasible? There have been a lot of losers in history that thought that something was not for feasible for their opponent to do and have found out that when they thought something was not feasible it was only due to their lack of imagination.
The reality is that, due to our complete lack of any significant defence ability it would be quite easy as say, fly in from the Solomon's using long range commercial
airliners to an airport of your choice, take it over , then continue to fly in what you want while you secure the area and a port to bring in the heavy stuff, which if you have control of the area could be done using roro ships. Doing it like a Pearl Harbor makes it feasible and you don't even need many ,if any dedicated military transports.

4. Australia. The reality is, except for the Bledisloe and Rugby World Cups, Australia will be the greatest ally to NZ.

The reality is that in the advent of a sudden regional attack Australia is likely to have it's hands more than full looking after it's own interest, first and only after the situation is stabilized for them would they be able to offer assistance.

Cost. Here comes the slap in the face.

Of course there needs to be an increased budget. But we don't need top of the line as we are outside of the combat radius of land based combat aircraft and I do agree we need more surveillance but again due to location this can be somewhat simpler than say E7's.
The reality is that any potential aggressor is going to love hearing their target saying "Oh that is not feasible" when the reality is that nothing is really off the table for the imaginative leader.
The issue is how would we defend our selves until help could arrive which could be delayed weeks or months. If any aggressor become established here they would be very difficult to dislodge.
It is very easy to say something cannot be done (with minimal evidence) But I am of the opinion that solution finders are far more valuable than the can't be done block.[/QUOTE]

 

[Stuart M]

*because this worked so well last time, dipping into the NZDF ACF debate...*
Snip
). Pursuing an ACF would be the quickest way to killing the capability and reputation of the NZDF I can imagine.

I can make these sorts of argument's about Australian SSNs and the speculation around a B-21 buy. Shall I apply it to the RAAFs ACF, the SSNs?
So who'd invade Australia that justifies this massive expenditure on armaments? The US?
Is the PLA going to swim to Australia with bayonets clutched between their teeth? Is that why you need F35s and SSNs?

But Australia has decided it needs these capabilities, and maybe the bombers, will this kill the capabilities and reputation of the ADF?

If NZ sees a need for an ACF and any associated enablers it will do as Australia has and be damned to other nations opinions of it.
Please recall that NZ is not an adjunct and supplicant of Australia, so if we on our side of the Tasman can respect and understand Australia's recent defence choices , perhaps you can do us the same courtesy if we choose to restore the ACF?

And no, I don't think there's any probability China is going to invade Australia or NZ.

As I alluded in a post above, the purpose of an ACF for NZ was/is about ruling out/restricting certain options a hostile power may have. Generally such circumstances would be in extremis and a responce in concert with like minded powers but nevertheless it forms a cabability that is not reliant on the priorities of others who maybe hard pressed with their own issues in those circumstances.
On this note, whilst Australia maybe NZ greatest ally, that does not mean it will have capacity to spare for NZ, a position Australia perhaps felt itself to be in with the UK in 1942?


I reject your notions about threats and distance; distance means nothing without the ability to use it to your advantage, thats why the King of NZ is Charles III, not some bloke called Te Rauparaha and why Saddam Hussein is an ex dictator.


It's worth recalling that in two world wars Germany deployed forces in NZ waters and did damage, and the CCP is a lot closer, more capable and technology is vastly different and lethal than then. I dont think China will ever deploy a CV group against NZ, but there is no reason why other assets and actions cannot be.
An ACF would be part of a NZ response to any CCP attempt to use armed or unarmed assets escorted by armed forces to coerce or intimidate NZ into a responce it would prefer not to take. But suitable forces at this distance can work against such forces as can be deployed against NZ.

The CCP is more than willing to use coersion to elicit a desired policy response, I advert you to their 14 point demands made of Australia and subsequent trade embargo, and based on their behaviour over some decades and recently, I have zero doubts that they are willing to use or threaten to use force if it seems useful and circumstances allow it.

A well founded ACF, in my veiw, should be part of a matrix of possible response options to enable NZ to retain policy independence alongside like minded powers in an increasingly hostile world.

 

[recce.k1]

Takao, as always you make excellent, knowledgeable points and I pretty much fully agree with the 7 points you astutely make. Well maybe except for the conclusion!

Yes I agree with you that an ACF is expensive, that there will be other higher priorities and where are the enablers to maximise its effectiveness, situational awareness, deployability and sustainability etc?

But “doing nothing” cannot be a realistic option moving forward into uncertain times.

(I wrote then deleted 6 paragraphs looking at this, TLDR version is, the international rules-based order post WW2 is now being openly challenged on the global stage, with potentially “unfriendly” attention also being focused towards the region NZ has close ties to (Pacific) and its Realm territories, Tokelau, Cook Islands and Niue (and perhaps within another 15-20 or so years, NZ’s Antarctic territorial claim, the Ross Dependency). Let alone NZ’s traditional interests eg Australia, Singapore, Malaysia etc).

Yes, I agree, spending $6b or so on a squadron of F-35’s (or such like) "now" would be nuts for various reasons (eg defence budget pressures, other higher priorities, one squadron can’t be “everywhere” at once, pilots still at the “crawl” stage etc).

But I also agree with Rob C’s previous thoughts that a cadre of pilots and support needs to be established. As it takes time, a long time, to rebuild a lost capability, NZ could be smart and spend a lot less (as in hundreds of millions) by leasing/buying second hand types and partner with a training “provider”. If that provider was the USAF, then perhaps second-hand F-16A/B/C/D’s? (or if USN or even RAAF, ex-F/A 18A’s? Or if UK, perhaps ex-early tranche Typhoons etc)?

This of course can only happen if the NZ defence budget increases (as trying to make this work with existing funding wouldn’t work as there is no more fat to discard). As luck will have it the two allied Opposition political parties are open to these discussions (and have been having them) and on polling trends may very well assume office next year.

If this were to happen, assuming the political/funding commitment is there, perhaps by 2030 the way forward can be re-assessed. On the assumption NZ defence spending is higher then (eg at least 2.2-2.5% of gdp)?

And that by then serious thought is also being put into obtaining force multipliers (eg KC-30's as replacement for the B757's for logistical and AAR support? New capabilities such as airborne AEW&C? Additional P-8's/UAV's for maritime domain awareness and strike)?

So perhaps the question we should be debating is, what is a realistic way forward for NZ (on the assumption that defence spending does rise over time) and how should NZ integrate capabilities, if so which ones, with the ADF to better surveil and protect both nations maritime domains and those of its close neighbors, via both air and naval (and space/satellite) capabilities?

[Slightly off topic i.e. not directly related to an ACF but part of geo-political jigsaw puzzle is this article I read tonight, which is below] ...

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz