Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Todjaeger]

Sadly, there is no sugar coating the current RNZAF ORBAT.

After decades of self induced delusion and 'hope' as our best defence, the country finds itself in an era of strategic competition where wolfs will take the dishonorably stupid and our only ally is more aware and embarrassed for us than we are. Four reconnaissance aircraft being the total sum of NZ air power is beyond pathetic. Collectively we have managed to denude our warrior class to nought, forget the lessons of history, and smugly wallow in our isolated hermit politics.

For those who think this is hyperbole, take another look at how dangerous our current situation is and then ask if our politicians and MoD have the with-all to comprehend and act decisively? Particularly after the last four decades of a clown show.

Not to make this anymore unpleasant than it already is, but one also needs to consider what the RNZAF aviation assets are actually armed with. IIRC the only AShM in Kiwi service is the AGM-119 Penguin Mk 2 Mod 7 with a range of ~30 km, whilst the AGM-65 Maverick has been retired from service.

AFAIK the Penguin has not been integrated with the Poseidon and TBH I do not see anyone other than perhaps NZ being interested, and therefore willing to spend the coin needed to accomplish that. That basically means Kiwi Poseidon's are unable to do anything about detected hostile surface contacts. It is also worth noting that the Greens, at the time the Poseidons were ordered, was also fighting to keep them from being armed.

In turn, what this means is that any hostile naval power could theoretically send a warship armed with SAM's with the capability of something like the ESSM and more than 20 AShM to take hostile actions vs. NZ and NZ shipping, and the NZDF would be unable to respond effectively.

 

[Rob c]

The reality is that we really don't have a proper airforce at all. I remember when Helen scrapped the strike wing a letter in the paper saying that RNZAF stood for Royal New Zealand Air Farce. A bit cruel but not far from the mark.

 

[recce.k1]

Chaps, let's not forget the Kiwi P-8 acquisition process started nearly 10 years ago when NZG strategic assessments were not as frank and "hawkish" as they have been of late (the Department of State FMS notification was April 2017, the P-8's were ordered in March 2019 - before the Defence Capability Plan of June 2019 and Defence Assessment of December 2021 which both brought the deteriorating strategic environment to the forefront of public attention).

In terms of timelines if we look at our neighbours across the Tasman in 2014 the AusGov announced its intention to procure 8x P-8s plus options for four more (ordered 2016). Then in 2020 after the initial batch of 12 were delivered the AusGov announced it will order a further 2 (to make 14 in total).
It was also announced in 2014 that AGM-84 Harpoon Block 1G would be integrated.

For NZ there is no point integrating Harpoon (as we don't already have them in stock unlike the ADF), nor Penguin (it surely must be reaching end-of-life - although expect a Seasprite live firing in 2024 all going well, according to OIA docs) instead it needs to look to the future and follow the US and Australia's lead in acquiring new generation technology like LRASM (which the US is still integrating on the P-8). And HAAWC kits for the Mk-54's once they successfully enter service with the US and its allies.

All going well the soonest we may possibly hear about NZ interest in stand-off weaponry could be next year's 2024 Defence Capability Plan (and, assuming it's a high NZDF priority, hopefully signal a further P-8 buy before the assembly line closes (so if the Canadians will follow through with orders keeping the line going that may also be helpful for us timing wise). Note also the NZG's don't tend to publicly announce munition purchases ...

 

[Todjaeger]

Chaps, let's not forget the Kiwi P-8 acquisition process started nearly 10 years ago when NZG strategic assessments were not as frank and "hawkish" as they have been of late (the Department of State FMS notification was April 2017, the P-8's were ordered in March 2019 - before the Defence Capability Plan of June 2019 and Defence Assessment of December 2021 which both brought the deteriorating strategic environment to the forefront of public attention).

In terms of timelines if we look at our neighbours across the Tasman in 2014 the AusGov announced its intention to procure 8x P-8s plus options for four more (ordered 2016). Then in 2020 after the initial batch of 12 were delivered the AusGov announced it will order a further 2 (to make 14 in total).
It was also announced in 2014 that AGM-84 Harpoon Block 1G would be integrated.

For NZ there is no point integrating Harpoon (as we don't already have them in stock unlike the ADF), nor Penguin (it surely must be reaching end-of-life - although expect a Seasprite live firing in 2024 all going well, according to OIA docs) instead it needs to look to the future and follow the US and Australia's lead in acquiring new generation technology like LRASM (which the US is still integrating on the P-8). And HAAWC kits for the Mk-54's once they successfully enter service with the US and its allies.

All going well the soonest we may possibly hear about NZ interest in stand-off weaponry could be next year's 2024 Defence Capability Plan (and, assuming it's a high NZDF priority, hopefully signal a further P-8 buy before the assembly line closes (so if the Canadians will follow through with orders keeping the line going that may also be helpful for us timing wise). Note also the NZG's don't tend to publicly announce munition purchases ...

The Kiwi P-8 acquisition may well have started a decade ago or near enough. IMO that just further demonstrates how much of a problem the NZDF force structure and capabilities have. In this modern age of naval combat capabilities, for how long has the NZDF been limited in the anti-shipping capabilities to using naval gunfire from the frigates, or comparatively short-ranged AShM/PGM's that can only be launched at targets which would be well within the defensive umbrella of area air defence missiles?

From my outsider's POV, many of the defence capabilities which would be needed should there be an outbreak of hostilities are of various types which would likely take several years at a minimum, for NZ to acquire and then bring into service. In the case of some of the major kit like replacement frigates or additional vessels, such time frames to acquire need to be measured by a decade or more.

This means that long-ranged planners and planning need to look at what defence and security needs could potentially be, when new kit might be getting introduced into service, as well as what those needs could be for the duration of the kit's service life.

In further food for thought, it has now been about 18 months since Russia launched an invasion of much of the Ukraine. It has now been almost a decade since Russia annexed the Crimean. It has also been over 15 years since the Russo-Georgian war. One of the reasons why I point this out is that such history shows the current conflict situation in the Ukraine and surrounding areas today did not 'just' happen, but that a major power was working towards establishing control against or over a number of their neighbours and/or areas of interest. Similar efforts, if not necessarily the methods, have been taking place in the Asia-Pacific for years, but has also seen an increase in tension and issues over the last decade. Now these areas and potential threats are indeed far from NZ, but such issues can and have impacted global trade and distribution, which impacts everyone, everywhere, one way or another. What I suspect NZ needs, is someone (or a group) to take a realistic, big picture look at NZ and NZ's place in the world and then figure out what NZ requires in order to have the place it desires as well as maintaining the lifestyles of Kiwis.

 

[JohnJT]

NZ should be leaning heavily into technology for it's new capabilities.

EMAC part 1.

Rocketlab have been launching new SAR satellites for Capella space (a new one goes up soon). SAR imagery is the future of surface maritime surveillance.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1543973060176494592

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1514591013301534723

This capability is available today. All NZ has to do is sign a contract.

 

[JohnJT]

Looking at options for improving NZ's offensive capability in a way that wouldn't be prohibitively expensive, politically problematic or take forever.

EMAC part 2.

In 2015 the Netherlands acquired through FMS a package of four MQ-9s for not much more than the price of one P-8.

The Netherlands – MQ-9 Reapers | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

This package was quite extensive, including parts, contractor support, training, logistics, etc.
Also included were four General Atomics Lynx Synthetic Aperture Radar with Maritime Wide Area Search.

Such a package would represent a significant new capability for the RNZAF and would take some of the maritime surveillance burden off the P-8 at a lower operating cost compared to more P-8s or other manned aircraft.

Countries are looking at arming their MQ-9s with long range cruise missiles, specifically JSM.

Cruise Missiles Could Get Added To MQ-9's Arsenal

Serving as weapon trucks loaded with Joint Strike Missiles could be one way for the MQ-9 drone to remain relevant in future major conflicts.

www.thedrive.com

The MQ-9s could be acquired under EMAC, but could be offensively armed when things hot up and/or NZ political will changes.

 

[JohnJT]

SH-2G Seasprite replacement.
Currently the Seasprites have NZ's only anti-ship missile capability, so this capability will also need to be replaced.
The front runner to replace the Seasprites would have to be the MH-60R.

India's order for 21 MH-60Rs is expected to include the helicopter launched version of NSM.

21 MH-60R Seahawk Maritime Helicopters on Order for the Indian Navy - Naval News

India becomes the latest country to add the MH-60R Seahawk maritime helicopter to its fleet. The U.S. Navy announced a $905 million contract to Lockheed Martin (Sikorsky) for 21 "Romeo" helicopters for the Indian Navy.

www.navalnews.com

Replacing the Seasprites with MH-60Rs and the penguin missiles with NSM would give the RNZN a serious upgrade in offensive capability.

IMO none of my proposals are pie in the sky fantasy. EMAC and Seasprite replacement are NZ government requested capabilities. If done right, NZ could improve it's military capabilities significantly in a politically acceptable way.

 

[OldTex]

SH-2G Seasprite replacement.
Currently the Seasprites have NZ's only anti-ship missile capability, so this capability will also need to be replaced.
The front runner to replace the Seasprites would have to be the MH-60R.

India's order for 24 MH-60Rs is expected to include the helicopter launched version of NSM.

21 MH-60R Seahawk Maritime Helicopters on Order for the Indian Navy - Naval News

India becomes the latest country to add the MH-60R Seahawk maritime helicopter to its fleet. The U.S. Navy announced a $905 million contract to Lockheed Martin (Sikorsky) for 21 "Romeo" helicopters for the Indian Navy.

www.navalnews.com

Replacing the Seasprites with MH-60Rs and the penguin missiles with NSM would give the RNZN a serious upgrade in offensive capability.

IMO none of my proposals are pie in the sky fantasy. EMAC and Seasprite replacement are NZ government requested capabilities. If done right, NZ could improve it's military capabilities significantly in a politically acceptable way.

Replacing the Seasprites with a naval helicopter the size & weight of the MH-60R would limit the ships that could embark and use it. There is not only the flight deck to be considered but also the haul-down and traverse system as well as the hanger and magazine spaces as well.

 

[JohnJT]

Replacing the Seasprites with a naval helicopter the size & weight of the MH-60R would limit the ships that could embark and use it. There is not only the flight deck to be considered but also the haul-down and traverse system as well as the hanger and magazine spaces as well.

The Seasprite replacement may not be a single type. I'm only suggesting the MH-60R for the frigates.
Honestly, there are very few candidates and the MH-60R is almost a no brainer.

The RNZN’s 6 Squadron, which operates the Seasprites, is closely involved in defining MHR requirements. It does not want to operate and maintain another ‘orphan’ fleet of helicopters that is not used by other countries, as it limits the support network available.
“Defence will evaluate, amongst other criteria, the global fleet, life of type and obsolescence management plans of any proposed replacement capability,” Schmidt said.

RNZN searches for naval and UAS helicopter solutions - Australian Defence Magazine

A new Maritime Helicopter Replacement (MHR) project has been initiated that will see the Royal New Zealand Navy’s existing eight SH-2G(I) Seasprite helicopters replaced from 2027-28.

www.australiandefence.com.au

 

[ngatimozart]

Replacing the Seasprites with a naval helicopter the size & weight of the MH-60R would limit the ships that could embark and use it. There is not only the flight deck to be considered but also the haul-down and traverse system as well as the hanger and magazine spaces as well.

Agreed but we should be buying the helicopters for the ships and number of flight decks we will be building in the future, not the ones that we have now and which will be replaced in the next 10 years. We did that when we went from the Westland Wasp to the Kaman SH-2G(NZ) Seasprite and we suffered badly from a shortage of platforms.

@JohnJT I agree with your post WRT the spaceborne surveillance systems.

The MQ-9A Reaper is not what we require. It doesn't have the capabilities. It is the MQ-9B SeaGuardian which we require. And the cost for 4 aircraft plus ground stations etc is US$600 million.

Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States (TECRO) – MQ-9B Remotely Piloted Aircraft | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

The 2016 base price for the P-8A was US$115 million down from US$170 million. We would only be buying the aircraft in in a second tranche because we already have the rest of the equipment etc.

A military aircraft whose cost goes down? Boeing churns out P-8 sub hunters based on 737

Boeing rolled out the Royal Australian Air Force’s first P-8 Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft Tuesday. The plane — a rare military-procurement program delivering on time and under budget — is already in service with both the U.S. Navy and the Indian...

www.seattletimes.com

On those figures we could acquire another four P-8A for the cost of acquisition MQ-9B SeaGuardian.

The MH-60R operates off the RAN Anzac Class frigates so they operate off our two. Until the two Protector Class OPV are replaced, the A109 could operate off them.

 

[Redlands18]

Replacing the Seasprites with a naval helicopter the size & weight of the MH-60R would limit the ships that could embark and use it. There is not only the flight deck to be considered but also the haul-down and traverse system as well as the hanger and magazine spaces as well.

The Israeli SAAR 6 at 90m and 1800t operate the SH-60, the RAN Anzacs operate them without issues.

 

[OldTex]

The Israeli SAAR 6 at 90m and 1800t operate the SH-60, the RAN Anzacs operate them without issues.

Perhaps that is because those ships were designed to operate helicopters of the class of the MH-60/S-70. Whereas at least 2 of the current RNZN vessels cannot, because they were never designed to. Yes the future RNZN vessels should all be able to operate MH-60s, so long as the political and treasury master classes permit it.

 

[Todjaeger]

Perhaps that is because those ships were designed to operate helicopters of the class of the MH-60/S-70. Whereas at least 2 of the current RNZN vessels cannot, because they were never designed to. Yes the future RNZN vessels should all be able to operate MH-60s, so long as the political and treasury master classes permit it.

If one is thinking about the hangars in the RNZN OPV's, I would not let that class's limitations have much effect. The Irish Naval Service which operates similarly sized OPV's with helicopter hangars stopped routinely embarking helicopters in part due to the difficulties in operating from vessels of that size, but also due to the relatively limited capabilities which those helicopters would provide. I suspect that the RNZN OPV's would find themselves in a similar situation.

Even if the RNZN can operate naval helicopters armed with LWT's, depth bombs, and air-launched AShM or AGM's, they cannot do so operating from the OPV's because there is no hangar magazine to hold such ordnance. If the Kiwi OPV's have a shipboard electronics fitout of the type/capability typical for an OPV, then they also likely lack the comms and electronics systems to fit and make use of datalinks. This in turn means that any embarked helicopter might be able to detect targets using radar, E/O systems, ESM, etc. but would be forced to have one of the aircrew verbally relay any finding to their supporting vessel.

However, given how few naval helicopters NZ currently has in the first place (albeit more than they used to) I would not bother spending to much effort to try and get something which is effectively backwards compatible with a vessel which was never really designed to be an effective platform for them.

 

[d-ron84]

Brazil also has the Penguin AShM, and they currently are certified for use on their S70-Bs.
They are also have the P-8 on their shopping list, so if this eventuates and NZ get Seahawks, they could work together in regards to the AGM-119

 

[Todjaeger]

Brazil also has the Penguin AShM, and they currently are certified for use on their S70-Bs.
They are also have the P-8 on their shopping list, so if this eventuates and NZ get Seahawks, they could work together in regards to the AGM-119

The question of, "why?" would remain, even if NZ could get Brazil to partner with them. Both NZ and Brazil operate Penguin Mk 2 Mod 7 missiles, which have a max range of ~34 km. Given that many of the short/medium-ranged air defence missiles in service aboard naval vessels have max ranges of 40+ km, this would put the launching aircraft within range of the target vessel, before the aircraft itself is within range to actually launch.

How much sense would it make to expose a ~USD$173 mil. (FY2022) MPA/ISR aircraft to such danger of aircraft loss?

Not to mention how much would it likely cost to integrate vs. how much the ordnance itself is worth. Back in 2008, the Brazilian order was being reported as worth NOK 140 mil./$20 mil. and I suspect that Kiwi Penguin stocks are worth a comparable amount. Would it make much sense to even spend $10 mil. or $20 mil. so that ordnance worth about that amount might be fitted for use aboard new aircraft?

IMO there would be more value it getting older AGM-84 Harpoon and having that serve aboard Kiwi Poseidons, as these might actually permit standoff engagement by Kiwi Poseidons from outside the air defence umbrella of hostile vessels.

 

[Rob c]

The question of, "why?" would remain, even if NZ could get Brazil to partner with them. Both NZ and Brazil operate Penguin Mk 2 Mod 7 missiles, which have a max range of ~34 km. Given that many of the short/medium-ranged air defence missiles in service aboard naval vessels have max ranges of 40+ km, this would put the launching aircraft within range of the target vessel, before the aircraft itself is within range to actually launch.

Don't forget the radar horizon, I would suspect that a chopper would come in low to be under this and pop up at launch time, then down again. However an active radar missile would make even this some what dangerous.

 

[Todjaeger]

Don't forget the radar horizon, I would suspect that a chopper would come in low to be under this and pop up at launch time, then down again. However an active radar missile would make even this some what dangerous.

If a naval helicopter is coming in on the deck at an altitude of 50 m, and the air search radar is at a height of 20 m, then the radar horizon is ~18.5 km. Not sure how safe or realistically viable it would be for something like a P-8 Poseidon to dive down low enough to break radar contact with a to-be-targeted ship, and then approach and pop-up from a flight altitude of 50 m.

Either way though, in order to make effective use of the limitations caused by the horizon, the aircraft would also not be able to use their onboard APS-143, APS-147 or APY-10 surface search radars. TBH I cannot remember whether the SH-2G(I) Seasprites are fitted with the APS-143 or APS-147.

It is also worth remembering that these aircraft, in order to provide a broad area of maritime surveillance, are likely to normally be flying at altitude in order to increase the radar horizon so that their onboard search radars can cover the most potential area.

With that in mind, a P-8A Poseidon flying at ~9,100 m would have a radar horizon of ~390 km for a target with a height of 20 m.

With ranges like that, having such a short-ranged weapon IMO makes very little sense.

 

[Gooey]

NZ should be leaning heavily into technology for it's new capabilities.
This capability is available today. All NZ has to do is sign a contract.

John,
the Capella SAR capability would be a real force-multiplier/minimum-expenditure for a NZ EMAC part 1 type mission. Alongside with the civie world equivalent for a SIGINT Hawkeye 360 type and a Optical Blacksky type of services.

HawkEye 360 | The Leader of Spectrum-Based RF Geoanalytics

HawkEye 360 is a space-based RF data analytics company with one-of-a-kind solutions to better spectrum mapping and monitoring on land & water

www.he360.com

Products - Global Monitoring and Geospatial Intelligence - BlackSky

Products - Global Monitoring and Geospatial Intelligence - Global Monitoring | Low Earth Orbit | Geospatial Intelligence | Smallsat | Earth Imaging

www.blacksky.com

Especially given, as has been said, the tiny number of RNZAF reconnaissance assets.

It is such an obvious conclusion for NZG that the only answer must be that this is happening already, buried in a deep kiwi super-black program somewhere. Funded by the carbon credit, obvis.

 

[chis73]

This seems an appropriate point to add some recent OIA request Seasprite / Penguin information:

1. According to this request (link), the NZDF has never successfully test-launched a Penguin missile (I would assume - ever). This doesn't particularly surprise me (I would expect there to be a promotional video released by the NZDF if there had been a launch - like they did for the Maverick tests). It's been 7 years and no video - take from that what you will. To me, it makes a mockery of their claim to be a combat capable force. Apparently, no unsuccessful firings in the last 2 years - I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there hasn't been any attempted test firings ever, and that there probably never will be.

2. This request (link) containing a report from Apr 2023 shows the magnitude of the obsolescence problems currently facing the Seasprites, particularly the avionics (see point 4). The AFCS (Automatic Flight Control System) and the CMFD (Common Multi-Function Displays) are noteworthy issues. The radar in the SH-2G(I) is the APS-143C I believe - according to the same document it's not being replaced. It would appear we are down to about 6 Seasprites of the 10 we purchased (of which 2-3 are airworthy), and these numbers are forecast to reduce rapidly over the next year or so.

I would also suggest a look at Simon Ewing-Jarvie's UNCLAS blog page on the Seasprites (link) and the spreadsheets on his Patreon page. Flying hours are much lower than they should be.

 

[Gooey]

There is some good details there chris73. Thank you.

Another issue with Seasprite / Penguin, assuming that it is operational, is its limited operational utility. Spear chucking against PLAN requires long range rockets and a dynamic launch platform. Demonstrably, nether of these attributes are held by the only claimed NZ AShM capability. The assessment becomes more complex once CCP aircraft carriers and the various levels of their air wings are involved.

In some combat plans it may be that RNZAF Poseidon, working with other nations forces, could help with weapons like LRASM and MALDs. However, the current very limited number of 5 Sqn airframes may make a case for concentrating on the basic reconnaissance mission instead (including ASW).