Royal New Zealand Air Force

[ngatimozart]

What will it take for the New Zealand govt to actually begin thinking of rebuilding the RNZAF's fighter aircraft capability? Would an invasion of Taiwan finally wake them up or will even that not be enough.

I know that New Zealand's position is quite unique, an Island far removed from the nearest hostile country, and being neighbours to a superclose ally with a powerful military. But is there any scenario discussed by the heads of the New Zeland govt apparatus, where it might be prudent for the RNZAF to have jet fighter capablities again?

A real fright that makes our politicians crap their pants. But by then it's far to late.

 

[T.C.P]

Well our govt did say on the news tonight supplying arms isn't off the table to Ukraine. So I think maybe they are slowly coming to the reality the world isn't the safe place they thought it was Taiwan might just be the last straw.

Trump and Ukraine should be a wakeup call for everybody. Prior to these incidents, I always believed that if India or Myanmar ever attacked my country, the world would respond, but I have no such faith any more.

If a crazy person like trump can get elected in a developed and highly literate and educated country, its not crazy to think that a far right nutjob could potentially take power in India if in the future, the circumstances were right for such a thing. And I dont mean some one moderate right like modi (who is only right off centre and is someone who you can negotiate or deal with), I mean right as in crazy far right. India doe shave hinduvta fringe parties who have elected local level politicians who believe that India should invade Bangladesh and achieve 'Mahabharat'. 6 years ago I would never have given those fringe parties a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting into power, but if it can happen to the USA, it can certainly happen to countries poorer and less educated than the USA.

Sorry for the off topic rambling, but my point is essentially that Ukraine has proven that every nation should have a strong and reliable defense force, within reason, that is capable of making any invader bleed. Relying on the world is too risky, and it is better to be prepared.

With New Zealand's economy maintaining one squadron of fighter jets should not be too much of a strain. 16 capable fighter aircraft with maritime stike capablity will make any one think twice before attacking. RNZAF already has a strong aerial ASW capability, and New Zealand is part of the world's most advance intelligence network. 16 BVR fighters, with long range anti shipping missiles, will be enough for the RNZAF to take out the supply ships of any potential hostile nation.

On that note, would land based long range anti shipping missiles, be a suitable and cheaper alternative? A few drones or AWACs to help guide the long range missiles, and New Zealand would be able to hit any attacking ships.

 

[phreeky]

If a crazy person like trump can get elected in a developed and highly literate and educated country, its not crazy to think that a far right nutjob could potentially take power in India if in the future, the circumstances were right for such a thing.

Without straying off topic, but yeah every country has their crazies and although varying likelihood of getting into power, it's never zero. It puts not only into question the possible actions of others, but the reliability of alliances.

I'd be very interested to hear from those more knowledgeable on such a thing, however my thinking is that it's much easier to scale up a capability you have, even if it's a token-sized capability, than it is to start fresh in case a situation were to become very sour. If NZ can see a scenario where they may wish to stand up a fast jet capability, then I think they really ought to consider a small one for peaceful times.

The question I have is - what is it for? Given the maritime environment/distances involved, I would think that a maritime strike capability would be the priority. I'm not sure it has to be serviced by fast jets - does a P-8 do a sufficient job? What about a P-8 with a potential future fleet of Loyal Wingman or similar?

At some point they need to make a decision, and the reality is that delaying a decision is a decision in itself to do nothing.

 

[kiwi in exile]

The real question is are fast jets the best (in terms of capability/cost/benefit analysis) means of having a credible maritime deterrrent.
NZ has a huge maritime area of interest. Many fast jets (a4s, f16, f35) have short legs. Could foreign naval vessels fire missiles on NZ from outside our combat aircrafts/their missles range.

I think i would rather have a 3rd, 4th frigate, IE a credible navy, than a bunch of fast jets. The costs associated with building, buying and supporting this capability would be immense when there are so many other areas on NZDF capability where we need to spend more/do better. If our p8s recieve armaments,standoff missiles would be the most cost effective means of mainating a maritime deterrent (supported by persistent ISR drones like Sea Guardian). There are other things we need to get right and do well before we try and do more things in a half assed manner.

 

[Lucasnz]

The real question is are fast jets the best (in terms of capability/cost/benefit analysis) means of having a credible maritime deterrrent.
NZ has a huge maritime area of interest. Many fast jets (a4s, f16, f35) have short legs. Could foreign naval vessels fire missiles on NZ from outside our combat aircrafts/their missles range.

I think i would rather have a 3rd, 4th frigate, IE a credible navy, than a bunch of fast jets. The costs associated with building, buying and supporting this capability would be immense when there are so many other areas on NZDF capability where we need to spend more/do better. If our p8s recieve armaments,standoff missiles would be the most cost effective means of mainating a maritime deterrent (supported by persistent ISR drones like Sea Guardian). There are other things we need to get right and do well before we try and do more things in a half assed manner.

The fact that ships now have the capability to launch stand off attacks from while over 100km away does raise the question about the viability of fast jets in a country with no effective ground based radar system capable of military level detection, especially in the hangars are targeted. Consequently there is some logic in the argument about acquiring fast jets vs naval vessels, but they are in my view complimentary capabilities. The ships provide a persistent response / on station presence while the fast jets provide a rapid response capability. While I agree with arming the P8 with standoff capabilities they are a strategic asset and we would still be better off acquiring a strike aircraft with long range. Potentially than means a twin engine stand off missile carrying aircraft with air defence capability while attack helicopters provide CAS. (Please excuse the rambling - I haven't hit the caffeine yet)

 

[T.C.P]

Potentially than means a twin engine stand off missile carrying aircraft with air defence capability while attack helicopters provide CAS. (Please excuse the rambling - I haven't hit the caffeine yet)

Something like the F-18sh or the rafale, would fit that role well for RNZAF. How much would it cost for New Zealand to acquire and maintain 16 F-18sh? With New Zealand's close relationship to the USA, I am sure they would get a massive discount. The USA gives out billions in military aid to allies a lot less closer than the Kiwis. High level direct govt-govt requests would probably allow RNZAF to acquire F-18shs at cut rate prices.

 

[Rob c]

The real question is are fast jets the best (in terms of capability/cost/benefit analysis) means of having a credible maritime deterrrent.
NZ has a huge maritime area of interest. Many fast jets (a4s, f16, f35) have short legs. Could foreign naval vessels fire missiles on NZ from outside our combat aircrafts/their missles range.

I think i would rather have a 3rd, 4th frigate, IE a credible navy, than a bunch of fast jets. The costs associated with building, buying and supporting this capability would be immense when there are so many other areas on NZDF capability where we need to spend more/do better. If our p8s recieve armaments,standoff missiles would be the most cost effective means of mainating a maritime deterrent (supported by persistent ISR drones like Sea Guardian). There are other things we need to get right and do well before we try and do more things in a half assed manner.

The biggest problem with having a 3rd or forth frigate and no strike aircraft is simply the problem of area coverage. with 3 or 4 frigates the area you you will have only 1 0r 2 available at any one time and the area they can cover is quite small in relation to the area available for approaches to approach NZ. the only way you can get to NZ is by sea or air so our primary Defence should be first of all to have good surveillance of both our sea and air approaches, follewed by the ability to neutralize any threat that enters this area. the best way to carry out the surveillance is by air as you can do this with more limited numbers than fixed ground stations due to mobility. the same aplies to neutralizing any threats as a comparatively small number of strike aircraft with modern weapons (1 or 2 Squadrons ) can quickly respond to a threat in any area which a ship cannot do. This could also be carried out by land based missile systems, but the number needed to cover NZ would be huge and as you would both anti air and sea, this out of the question due to the area that we need to cover. The air approaches are a worry as at the present time you could fly into NZ with airliners, take over an airfield and continue to fly in troops to take over a port and there is nothing we could do about it. Air power is by far the most flexible and effective way of firstly providing a significate deterrent and secondly an effective primary defence for our freedom and sovereignty. Any other option and the numbers needed to cover NZ are just too large.

 

[Gooey]

Air power is by far the most flexible and effective way of firstly providing a significate deterrent and secondly an effective primary defence for our freedom and sovereignty.

Entirely correct Rob, IMHO, air power as part of a balanced NZDF, provides NZG with options for fast, flexible, firepower. RNZN boats are persistent but slow, for security of our sea lanes. All, including credible land forces, would be a modern contribution to Allied forces as required.

Forward Defence in old money. If we are fighting the enemy in NZ, our National Security policy has failed dismally

Meanwhile, in Planet Zorb and an alternative universe, NZG is contributing to our failed UN strategy and pacifism by supplying 2nd hand plastic lids to a nation fighting for its existence:

Stuff

i.stuff.co.nz

 

[Stuart M]

The fact that ships now have the capability to launch stand off attacks from while over 100km away does raise the question about the viability of fast jets in a country with no effective ground based radar system capable of military level detection, especially in the hangars are targeted. Consequently there is some logic in the argument about acquiring fast jets vs naval vessels, but they are in my view complimentary capabilities. The ships provide a persistent response / on station presence while the fast jets provide a rapid response capability. While I agree with arming the P8 with standoff capabilities they are a strategic asset and we would still be better off acquiring a strike aircraft with long range. Potentially than means a twin engine stand off missile carrying aircraft with air defence capability while attack helicopters provide CAS. (Please excuse the rambling - I haven't hit the caffeine yet)

As ever the question of fast jets for RNZAF is about not looking at platforms in isolation, and whilst one can place more or less emphasis on one capability according to context, the defence forces must be seen as a system of systems, with a series of missions, with an overarching objective.

 

[Stuart M]

Something like the F-18sh or the rafale, would fit that role well for RNZAF. How much would it cost for New Zealand to acquire and maintain 16 F-18sh? With New Zealand's close relationship to the USA, I am sure they would get a massive discount. The USA gives out billions in military aid to allies a lot less closer than the Kiwis. High level direct govt-govt requests would probably allow RNZAF to acquire F-18shs at cut rate prices.

And if the US were to look at the history books of 22 odd years ago, they might also ask themselves why they would bother giving a discount, as NZ has a record of lack of reliability around keeping its word on defence purchases, and charge full price.

 

[Stuart M]

snip

I'd be very interested to hear from those more knowledgeable on such a thing, however my thinking is that it's much easier to scale up a capability you have, even if it's a token-sized capability, than it is to start fresh in case a situation were to become very sour. If NZ can see a scenario where they may wish to stand up a fast jet capability, then I think they really ought to consider a small one for peaceful times.

The question I have is - what is it for? Given the maritime environment/distances involved, I would think that a maritime strike capability would be the priority. I'm not sure it has to be serviced by fast jets - does a P-8 do a sufficient job? What about a P-8 with a potential future fleet of Loyal Wingman or similar?

At some point they need to make a decision, and the reality is that delaying a decision is a decision in itself to do nothing.

I think the fighting in Ukraine shows that the adage of defence forces being properly integrated systems of systems is sound, and when you pull capabilities out of that system then you place undue burdens on the remaining systems that they were never designed to address.

I also suggest of the habit of mind that defence forces capabilities can be retained at a 'peace time' level of equipment and somehow get more should we need it, is a dangerous folly; This is not the 19th century, should a war be in the offing we simply will not have the time to build up sufficient stock of material and trained personnel to deal with hostilities, and the Ukrainian war, as well as the various Arab/Israeli wars, shows this to be true.

 

[ngatimozart]

Without straying off topic, but yeah every country has their crazies and although varying likelihood of getting into power, it's never zero. It puts not only into question the possible actions of others, but the reliability of alliances.

I'd be very interested to hear from those more knowledgeable on such a thing, however my thinking is that it's much easier to scale up a capability you have, even if it's a token-sized capability, than it is to start fresh in case a situation were to become very sour. If NZ can see a scenario where they may wish to stand up a fast jet capability, then I think they really ought to consider a small one for peaceful times.

It has to go beyond a token capability because if it is that it will be seen by our sole ally and friends as pure tokenism. It has to be a credible capability and capable of being NZ sustained.

The question I have is - what is it for? Given the maritime environment/distances involved, I would think that a maritime strike capability would be the priority. I'm not sure it has to be serviced by fast jets - does a P-8 do a sufficient job? What about a P-8 with a potential future fleet of Loyal Wingman or similar?

It would be for maritime strike and have air defence and long range land strike as secondary roles. You cannot put the P-8A into contested airspace and expect it to survive and it's not built for high G combat manoeuvres; they'd tear the airframe apart. The RNZAF wouldn't acquire the MQ-28A but it would most likely acquire the MQ-9B SeaGuardian.

At some point they need to make a decision, and the reality is that delaying a decision is a decision in itself to do nothing.

Yes a decision has to be made soon, very soon because it takes 10 years to fully stand up such a capability.

The fact that ships now have the capability to launch stand off attacks from while over 100km away does raise the question about the viability of fast jets in a country with no effective ground based radar system capable of military level detection, especially in the hangars are targeted. Consequently there is some logic in the argument about acquiring fast jets vs naval vessels, but they are in my view complimentary capabilities.

Correct on both counts, especially the latter.

The ships provide a persistent response / on station presence while the fast jets provide a rapid response capability. While I agree with arming the P8 with standoff capabilities they are a strategic asset and we would still be better off acquiring a strike aircraft with long range. Potentially than means a twin engine stand off missile carrying aircraft with air defence capability while attack helicopters provide CAS. (Please excuse the rambling - I haven't hit the caffeine yet)

Yes the P-8A are definitely a strategic asset and we are two short of them.

Agree that twin engined strike aircraft are required and only four are available:

1. Boeing F-15EX
2. Boeing F-18F
3. Dassault Rafale
4. Eurofighter Typhoon

The Rafale and Typhoon can be discounted purely because of cost and the Rafale because it's not operated by a FVEY partner. The F-18F Shornet is good but it's relatively short legged and dependent upon A2A refuelling. The F-15EX is long legged with a combat radius of over 1,000nm, has a very large weapons load, can self escort, and is a newly updated and modernised variant of the F-15E Strike Eagle. Boeing intends to sell it to the USAF for US$80 million which is the same price as the F-35A and similar to the F-18F. The reason why I prefer a two person crew is because the ACO in the back seat can reduce the pilot's workload by working the sensors, weapons and EW, allowing the pilot to fly and fight the aircraft.

I fully agree with armed attack helicopters for CAS. Because of the JATF they would have to be marinised so that would be a priority. That means the AH-1Z but I would prefer a 30mm cannon rather than the 20mm. It has to do with reach and with most IFVs and SPAAG having 30mm guns it means that you have to get within their range to effectively use your gun. There are the AH-64 Apache and the Eurocopter Tiger as well.

As ever the question of fast jets for RNZAF is about not looking at platforms in isolation, and whilst one can place more or less emphasis on one capability according to context, the defence forces must be seen as a system of systems, with a series of missions, with an overarching objective.

That's an unwritten and unsaid assumption. Each of the platforms would have Link 16 TDL capabilities minimum and that would give you C2 to C4ISR capabilities depending upon the platform.

 

[T.C.P]

And if the US were to look at the history books of 22 odd years ago, they might also ask themselves why they would bother giving a discount, as NZ has a record of lack of reliability around keeping its word on defence purchases, and charge full price.

lol.

Man if only we were in New Zealand's shoes!! We would get ourselves a squadron F-16s, some big ass ex-USN frigates with upgraded VLS systems, some nice Apaches, instead of begging for some second hand discounted C-130Hs and ex coast guard cutters that we convert into patrol frigates, like we currently do.

The privilege that New Zealand has and chooses not to use is insane to me. They could easily build up a high tech strike capable military with little cost, while we beg around for scraps and even have those scraps denied. Feels bad man.....

 

[Rob c]

Agree that twin engined strike aircraft are required and only four are available:

1. Boeing F-15EX
2. Boeing F-18F
3. Dassault Rafale
4. Eurofighter Typhoon

With modern engines, which are very reliable, I don't think that twin engines are completely necessary. Nice to have but I think that something like the F16 would be viable. An other possible cheaper option would be second hand F18's with an electronic update, modern long range missiles and the new C130j's fitted for air to air refueling ,

 

[Stuart M]

lol.

Man if only we were in New Zealand's shoes!! We would get ourselves a squadron F-16s, some big ass ex-USN frigates with upgraded VLS systems, some nice Apaches, instead of begging for some second hand discounted C-130Hs and ex coast guard cutters that we convert into patrol frigates, like we currently do.

The privilege that New Zealand has and chooses not to use is insane to me. They could easily build up a high tech strike capable military with little cost, while we beg around for scraps and even have those scraps denied. Feels bad man.....

NZ (politicians for the most part) has a fairly smug and entitled attitude, I think its down to the luxury of Pax Brittanica and then Pax Americana allowing NZ to use geography to shelter from certain harsh realities in the world.
Its an odd attitude when you consider that the majority of the population are white, speak English and the head of State is Queen Elizabeth II, you would think that would clue NZ into the precarious nature of 'incredibly benign strategic environments'.

 

[JulioCompactus]

It has to go beyond a token capability because if it is that it will be seen by our sole ally and friends as pure tokenism. It has to be a credible capability and capable of being NZ sustained.

It would be for maritime strike and have air defence and long range land strike as secondary roles. You cannot put the P-8A into contested airspace and expect it to survive and it's not built for high G combat manoeuvres; they'd tear the airframe apart. The RNZAF wouldn't acquire the MQ-28A but it would most likely acquire the MQ-9B SeaGuardian.

Yes a decision has to be made soon, very soon because it takes 10 years to fully stand up such a capability.

Correct on both counts, especially the latter.

Yes the P-8A are definitely a strategic asset and we are two short of them.

Agree that twin engined strike aircraft are required and only four are available:

1. Boeing F-15EX
2. Boeing F-18F
3. Dassault Rafale
4. Eurofighter Typhoon

The Rafale and Typhoon can be discounted purely because of cost and the Rafale because it's not operated by a FVEY partner. The F-18F Shornet is good but it's relatively short legged and dependent upon A2A refuelling. The F-15EX is long legged with a combat radius of over 1,000nm, has a very large weapons load, can self escort, and is a newly updated and modernised variant of the F-15E Strike Eagle. Boeing intends to sell it to the USAF for US$80 million which is the same price as the F-35A and similar to the F-18F. The reason why I prefer a two person crew is because the ACO in the back seat can reduce the pilot's workload by working the sensors, weapons and EW, allowing the pilot to fly and fight the aircraft.

I fully agree with armed attack helicopters for CAS. Because of the JATF they would have to be marinised so that would be a priority. That means the AH-1Z but I would prefer a 30mm cannon rather than the 20mm. It has to do with reach and with most IFVs and SPAAG having 30mm guns it means that you have to get within their range to effectively use your gun. There are the AH-64 Apache and the Eurocopter Tiger as well.

That's an unwritten and unsaid assumption. Each of the platforms would have Link 16 TDL capabilities minimum and that would give you C2 to C4ISR capabilities depending upon the platform.

Australia spends about $500M per year sustaining the Super Hornet and Growler fleet alone with F-35 and training being a lot of $ on top I suspect any attempt to reestablish a NZ fast jet capability would cripple the NZ Defence budget. Luckily more affordable pilotless options are emerging.

 

[ADMk2]

The real question is are fast jets the best (in terms of capability/cost/benefit analysis) means of having a credible maritime deterrrent.
NZ has a huge maritime area of interest. Many fast jets (a4s, f16, f35) have short legs. Could foreign naval vessels fire missiles on NZ from outside our combat aircrafts/their missles range.

I think i would rather have a 3rd, 4th frigate, IE a credible navy, than a bunch of fast jets. The costs associated with building, buying and supporting this capability would be immense when there are so many other areas on NZDF capability where we need to spend more/do better. If our p8s recieve armaments,standoff missiles would be the most cost effective means of mainating a maritime deterrent (supported by persistent ISR drones like Sea Guardian). There are other things we need to get right and do well before we try and do more things in a half assed manner.

Very, VERY few foreign naval vessels could fire upon NZ outside the range of something like the F-35 / Joint Strike Missile combination and those that can, can only do so with the most advanced and expensive weapons they have in-service, equivalent to Tomahawk and Kalibr level missile systems.

You are considering an aircraft with a published combat radius of 590nm and a missile with a range of 300nm (hi,hi, lo profile) so an unrefuelled maritime strike range of over 1600k (without even considering the caveats placed upon those figures, likely to be longer ranged in reality) plus the speed to conduct such missions at extremely short-notice compared even to a P-8A and a level of survivability which is incomparable…

A similarly armed P-8A will give you similar capability to strike at even longer range, but with many more caveats on it’s presence and employability in that battlespace, particularly with respect to it’s significant vulnerability to surface to air and air to air systems, (unless and at least) escorted and protected by modern fighters.

A 3rd or even 4th frigate will give NZ many options in many roles, but as a better strike capability, than a modern fighter force? Absolutely not. Hence why everyone serious buys them…

 

[Gooey]

Australia spends about $500M per year sustaining the Super Hornet and Growler fleet alone with F-35 and training being a lot of $ on top I suspect any attempt to reestablish a NZ fast jet capability would cripple the NZ Defence budget. Luckily more affordable pilotless options are emerging.

That’s b/c our budget is bugger all.
We are a rich nation who can afford F35 and Type 26s.
Instead we chose poorly and are hippy dippy pacifists!

 

[JohnJT]

I'd happily bet my house on NZ never again operating a manned ACF in my lifetime.

On the other hand, NZ is in a unique position to embrace unmanned air systems with no push back from combat pilots and top brass.

 

[JulioCompactus]

Very, VERY few foreign naval vessels could fire upon NZ outside the range of something like the F-35 / Joint Strike Missile combination and those that can, can only do so with the most advanced and expensive weapons they have in-service, equivalent to Tomahawk and Kalibr level missile systems.

You are considering an aircraft with a published combat radius of 590nm and a missile with a range of 300nm (hi,hi, lo profile) so an unrefuelled maritime strike range of over 1600k (without even considering the caveats placed upon those figures, likely to be longer ranged in reality) plus the speed to conduct such missions at extremely short-notice compared even to a P-8A and a level of survivability which is incomparable…

A similarly armed P-8A will give you similar capability to strike at even longer range, but with many more caveats on it’s presence and employability in that battlespace, particularly with respect to it’s significant vulnerability to surface to air and air to air systems, (unless and at least) escorted and protected by modern fighters.

A 3rd or even 4th frigate will give NZ many options in many roles, but as a better strike capability, than a modern fighter force? Absolutely not. Hence why everyone serious buys them…

granted but for the price of 2 Frigates you will be struggling to operate 8 F-35 which is a pretty fragile strike capability.