The video, shows both of the above and also a close call with the vamp areo's team. good footage of both the vulcan short of the runway landing and the sunderland extra low flying.
Last edited by a moderator:
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
milliGal
Member
Another bulletin from the RNZAF's Air Power Development Centre has talked about the value of an air combat force.
It seems like there is growing sense of support for the need to reinstate this capability within the NZDF (well, the RNZAF at least). With so many other NZDF core capabilities needing to be replaced or acquired in the next decade I suppose its not surprising such a capability got no mention in the latest DCP. It is a good case study for why deferring core capabilities replacements until absolutely necessary is a bad idea I suppose. With the geostrategic outlook now deteriorating they seem to be facing a bit of a bottle neck on this front.
Hopefully the upcoming white paper in 2022 will make a case for this capability to be restored.
It seems like there is growing sense of support for the need to reinstate this capability within the NZDF (well, the RNZAF at least). With so many other NZDF core capabilities needing to be replaced or acquired in the next decade I suppose its not surprising such a capability got no mention in the latest DCP. It is a good case study for why deferring core capabilities replacements until absolutely necessary is a bad idea I suppose. With the geostrategic outlook now deteriorating they seem to be facing a bit of a bottle neck on this front.
Hopefully the upcoming white paper in 2022 will make a case for this capability to be restored.
That message is at least suggested in Six Tenets for our Air Force by Group Captain Shaun Sexton in the 2019 RNZAF Journal - a very good read.
http://www.airforce.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/apdc/rnzaf_journal_2019-online.pdf
The other article which is worth digesting is Information-enabled Air Force – Eye in the Sky, or Pie in the Sky? by Mr Brian Oliver
I remember a couple of years ago at a conference in Osaka I attended where a senior Okinawa based US academic said that the PRC are not developing their LRHA EA-03 Soaring Dragon Electronic Warfare drone for the hell of it. Japan are looking to expanding their EW capabilities with their AA/AD strategy utilising the capabilities of the EA-18G to counter this very real threat.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
May I ask if there's enough political support within administration, political entities or public for NZ to regain back Combat Air Force or fast jets capabilities at this moment ?
Reason I ask is looking to some media commentary or online chatting from NZ publics, seems there are considerable thinking that justified decision to 'ditch' Skyhawks back then and using the fund for other needs like P3 or even P8. Even some talk on media analyst on NZ that saying that armed pilatus is enough for NZ to get involve on any security operations in Pasific neighbourhood.
Is there enough changing mood publicly in NZ to pressure NZ Administration on that direction ?
It is at least better than before with at least the current Defence minister personally supporting a return. But the issue at the moment is context. Most people who advocate for a return within the small ex-services community make the fatal mistake of articulating a return to an ACC that is simply a rinse and repeat of the pre 2001 days. Those roles maybe accounted for in any multi-role air combat platform looked at but any future air combat capability will need to take into account how it can support and enhance the wider air-space-maritime threat domain in both the NZ context and how that can also translate into the roles such a capability can play within the wider group of like minded defence partners.
The majority of so called "Media Analysts" in New Zealand in are people who attended a Polytech or University and got a job writing for a New Zealand provincial newspaper or in a TV newsroom. There is no journalist than I am aware of who has a 700 level plus qualification in an aligned academic discipline or prior professional background commentating. They, with only a few exceptions, have zero any idea about defence, national security or international relations.
Joe public is becoming aware that the world is changing and that there is no longer a benign strategic environment. The pressure will come from external changes in the geopolitical outlook. That will entertain both Joe Public's and Jacinda Polly's mind gradually. I think the main thing is to finesse the sticker shock because even though folk may think in principal an ACC is a good idea it cannot be at the expense of the rebuild of their local hospital, environment project or local highway upgrade.
I went back and sought out the pertinent paragraph in the May 2019 Tematataua bulletin from the RNZAF Air Power Development Centre that posed this question.
The question for the RNZAF is, are we configured and prepared for ‘all eventualities’? For instance, should the international climate continue to deteriorate, should we consider obtaining an air combat capability? To even stand up a basic level of capability in this role would probably take around six years, and you can add another ten years to build up an experienced cadre of combat pilots. The dilemma for democratic leaders is perhaps facing the choice between defending their nations, and preserving their wealth and way of life. International norms are changing as we move from a unipolar to a bipolar world, and strategic relationships quickly evolve into a straight choice between the poles. The world’s political centre of gravity is shifting. So, are we in the midst of a warning time? Well, given that conflict has been central throughout history, and that is unlikely to change, the answer is, probably. And how much time do we have to prepare…only time will tell.
I have always been of the opinion that if we wait for an actual threat to rise in our area we will be too late to respond to that threat. Historically I have not found a country that has foreseen a threat in time to rearm fully to meet that threat. I have always maintained that we should have the ability to detect any incursion into our security area ( airbourne, surface or subsurface) and have the ability to stop, neutralize or destroy that inclusion. This I believe can best be achieved by airpower with satellites also assisting in the surveillance role and intelligence to help pre warn and indicate likely incursion points, this ability will also give us a significant deterrent ability which is best of all. A lot of this can be achieve by other means. but to give adequate coverage for the country requires a huge amount of resources and is not practical in our case. The time limit is rapidly approaching I believe, were we can achieve this before global warming and unrestrained population growth cause a significant deterioration in the world's overall security outlook.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Political correctness has never been my best skill so if I offend anyone it is not intentional. The former colonies of England including Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the USA have long suffered from the control of immigration preventing or restricting immigrants who do not look like the former white majority. Urban areas in Canada, namely Vancouver and Toronto, have been for years the focus of new immigrants and the white population is now the minority in these cities. The majority of these immigrants come from countries that are or have experienced poverty and conflict. That personal experience influences how they decide to vote in their new homes and the lack of conflict and lack of oppression makes these people feel safe in their new homes and they have no desire to support defence spending. Reading a very detailed history of the glory days of the RCAF recently when the RCAF attempted to be the "Big Air Force" we fielded in excess of 600 fighter aircraft with a population of 14 million. Today we have little more than 10 percent of that total. The history of the RNZAF is a little different but post Second World War the RNZAF had a vast number of fighter aircraft and facilities and today is but a shadow of its former self. Unfortunately for both our countries Rob C is spot on about rebuilding any of our lost capabilities. It is my opinion that we are on a precipice and that in the coming decade the western nations will be in conflict with an adversary that is intent on regaining its former glory as a world leader. The naïve minority that so wish for world peace, environmental solitude and no need for a military able to protect its citizens are in for a world of hurt. Peace is only assured when your opponent knows its going to hurt if they try something.
The greed of the west has created todays problem by creating a middle class of consumers in China that didn't exist 30 years ago. This has allowed the Chinese government to amass a level of wealth to be able to regain its former glory.
The resurrection of lost capabilities will cost much in treasure and blood. MrC has advocated for a tiered approach over the years as any new force has to learn to crawl before it can walk let alone run. IMHO the RNZAF needs to arm and begin using the Texans in New Zealand with gun pods and APKWS rocket pods in support of Army training operations. From here some form of combat aircraft needs to be identified for a niche role in support of allied operations. In this light maybe being able to offer EW capabilities with a platform such as the Super Hornet Growler would be the best route as it posses unique in demand abilities and can perform fighter and interceptor duties if required. I am not saying the purchase of 100 aircraft but the ability to deploy assets in support of allied operations would appease the 5Eyes who think NZDF isn't pulling its weight. A half dozen leased KA50 for lead in plus a dozen Growlers to allow for a deployment of a half dozen at any one time. I know numbers discussions serve no purpose but a niche capability is where the RNZAF needs to go towards.
The greed of the west has created todays problem by creating a middle class of consumers in China that didn't exist 30 years ago. This has allowed the Chinese government to amass a level of wealth to be able to regain its former glory.
The resurrection of lost capabilities will cost much in treasure and blood. MrC has advocated for a tiered approach over the years as any new force has to learn to crawl before it can walk let alone run. IMHO the RNZAF needs to arm and begin using the Texans in New Zealand with gun pods and APKWS rocket pods in support of Army training operations. From here some form of combat aircraft needs to be identified for a niche role in support of allied operations. In this light maybe being able to offer EW capabilities with a platform such as the Super Hornet Growler would be the best route as it posses unique in demand abilities and can perform fighter and interceptor duties if required. I am not saying the purchase of 100 aircraft but the ability to deploy assets in support of allied operations would appease the 5Eyes who think NZDF isn't pulling its weight. A half dozen leased KA50 for lead in plus a dozen Growlers to allow for a deployment of a half dozen at any one time. I know numbers discussions serve no purpose but a niche capability is where the RNZAF needs to go towards.
My personal opinion on the size of any ACF for the RNZAF would be about the size of the force in the early 1990's IE about 40 aircraft including combat capable advanced trainers. With the right weapons fit, both long range air to surface missiles and air to air, this would be significant deterrent to anyone that does not have more than one large aircraft carrier. Due to our distance from possible land based launch sites this would suffice as a significant deterrent and that is the way to go in my opinion as I see deterrence as a better option to actually being involved in combat. We would also require additional surveillance ability especially a basic AEW ability. While greater numbers and greater abilities would be nice this is the basic ability I think is needed.
In this article, Squadron Leader Rodney Barton examines and discusses the importance of tactical level reconnaissance in support of operations in a contested environment. In examining the importance of such a capability, Barton makes a case for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) to reacquire the ability to undertake such missions.
Tactical Reconnaissance Redux? The Requirement for Airborne Tactical Reconnaissance in #HighIntensityWar - Rodney Barton
"The Australian Defence Force (ADF) has not maintained an airborne tactical reconnaissance capability since the retirement of the reconnaissance variant of the F-111 in 2010. Instead, the ADF has shifted focus to ‘traditional’ Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) platforms such as the P-8 Poseidon and G550 Gulfstream aircraft, with unmanned ISR capabilities soon to follow. These platforms are not designed to operate in a contested environment; a degree of air superiority is required to ensure optimised collection. The ADF has been comfortably reliant on satellites to penetrate denied areas that require imagery collection, but the emergence of counter-space capabilities now puts this access at risk. This article will discuss the role of airborne tactical reconnaissance, why it still exists, why the ADF needs a tactical reconnaissance capability and the innovative methods of applying tactical reconnaissance in small air forces like the RAAF." Squadron Leader Rodney Barton RAAF
The USMC ATARS equipped F/A-18D's provide this role in the Indo-Pacific with VMFA(AW)-225 out of Mirimar (CA) and VMFA(AW)-242 out of Iwakuni (JPN) and those USN F/A-18F's units equipped with SHARP. Like EW it is a scarce and well sort after capability in the region. The USAF has a limited number of the DB-110 Airborne Reconnaissance System pods for F-16's and F-15's. If one is looking for a gap in the market for a RNZAF niche contribution towards an at present capability gap in Australia's strike toolbox and the wider security umbrella of the Indo-Pacific airborne tactical reconnaissance is an obvious possibility.
Of course such a niche capability does not preclude a platform from also being able to swing over to or complement other mainstay strike roles such as maritime strike, interdiction or potentially EW via Intrepid Tiger II pods or indeed airborne training support for naval and land forces.
The Iwakuni based VMFA-242 Bats squadron has a unit history which reveals a bit about the "niche" ATARS capability that they provide in addition to their all weather attack role, which will hopefully help those who are confused by this subset in the Recon trade.
https://www.history.navy.mil › nhhc › 58877_P10_15_VMFA-242 300 dpi
t68
Well-Known Member
Going forward I don’t think the RAAF would place a manned platform for the role future, options like RQ-180; RQ-170 or perhaps loyal wingman if we still have access to airbase’s forward of continental Australia will most likely lead the way forward
This is not about what the RAAF will do. It is about what the RAAF have not done been able to do for a decade now as the Barton essay outlines and suggesting that their is a niche capability which the RNZAF could provide within that context. Barton clearly makes the point that there is a role for TacRec within the context of manned strike platforms just as their are with the context of manned EA/EW platforms like the Growler.
t68
Well-Known Member
Yes we are talking about the RNZAF, but also thecRAAF has had this capbilty for years and AusGov would not put those asssets in harms way even at the request of the US in the Gulf War, AusGov did not want to risk the few assets we had and even operations in the last few years have been in relatively benign environments were the risk reduced to what the US puts there pilots to. Do you really think that a NZGov would place the crews in a higher risk environment.
Its going to take at least 5 years before any decision is and then another 10+ years for NZ to become proficient the F/A-18G has a shelf life of around 2030/5, while I think it’s commendable aspiration but manned is certainly not the way to go and even then I think the best way forward is fielding an ACF that enhances the battle plan additional air assets that can mix in all aspects of RAAF battle plans and that includes the NGJ.
TacRec is a different role set to the EW and as the Barton essay states the RAAF no longer has this capability in what Barton, who obviously has some knowledge on the topic understands it to be. Its risk exposure is no different to other roles in the strike package. We are not talking about the Growler and NGJ so why do you mention it. You made reference to the RQ-180's in this context which is is one hell of an outlier so made me question that you are on the same page as others concerning airborne tactical recon.
It's a manned platform and a fast jet such as a F-15E/ F-16 / F-18 / Gripen / Typhoon / Tornado / Su27/30 etc.
t68
Well-Known Member
I thought you were talking about a possible niche RNZAF capbilty to compliment the RAAF or greater coalition event since that is a way to regain a ACF in the short term the F/A-18G being wired for EW would also be able to make use of Shared Reconnaissance Pod used by the USN since you are talking niche being able to swing between an escort or EW/ISR tactical capbilty is what I thought you had in mind, if I got my wires mixed up I apologise.
t68
Well-Known Member
I’m lead to believe that the USAF dropout of the ATARS program, I think the F-4C Phantom and EF-111A Raven were the last USAF Tactical Reconnaissance platforms. I know the poms had Tornado ECR dunno about the rest of the Euro’s
I am talking about a potential complimentary niche role that the RNZAF could contribute as part of a regenerated generic strike capability. The RAAF cannot do everything and may find that if the RNZAF was going to get back into the strike business, it would at least be quite beneficial for the RAAF that the RNZAF, whom will undoubtably be working alongside, was not completely duplicating the roles its Rhino's, Growlers and F-35A's are doing, and stepped into the Tac Rec role.