Another NZ Hypothetical: Do we need a seperate RNZAF?
- Thread starter Rocco_NZ
- Start date
- Status
Wash you mouth out!!
Seriously though you do raise a good point, with the demise of the air combat force the RNZAF consists basically of a Army Support Force and a Maritime Force. In the Air Combat Forces review the army wanted AH and the Navy FA aircraft. So splitting them may resolve some issues.
The main problem I see it disbanding the RNZAF into its respective services would be the Duplication of Training, procedures etc (not intially but in the long run). Reality is that while the Alliance Party (Now Jim Andertons Party) advocated such a move I don't think politically its a goer.
Seriously though you do raise a good point, with the demise of the air combat force the RNZAF consists basically of a Army Support Force and a Maritime Force. In the Air Combat Forces review the army wanted AH and the Navy FA aircraft. So splitting them may resolve some issues.
The main problem I see it disbanding the RNZAF into its respective services would be the Duplication of Training, procedures etc (not intially but in the long run). Reality is that while the Alliance Party (Now Jim Andertons Party) advocated such a move I don't think politically its a goer.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3
I disagree, I think it would be a very easy sell politically. There is a common perception that we don't have an air force, and the distinct force elements (such as Iroquois and Orions) are generally considered to be 'owned' by either Army or RNZN. I've worked in public sector communications roles for the last five years, and I would consider selling such a project to be signficantly easier than handling the disbandment of the air strike force.Lucasnz said:Wash you mouth out!!
The main problem I see it disbanding the RNZAF into its respective services would be the Duplication of Training, procedures etc (not intially but in the long run). Reality is that while the Alliance Party (Now Jim Andertons Party) advocated such a move I don't think politically its a goer.
I'm not sure duplication is something that would be increased by axing the service. As an example, the Joint Catering School runs catering training for all three services - each used to have their own.
Since Auntie Helen took the force out of the air force, I would rather rename the service the Royal New Zealand Air Corps instead, and keep it as is.
You will never know when another government in another era will reconsititute the air combat force again.
I do want to add that Auntie Helen has done one thing right, her party has reformed the New Zealand Defence Force. While the services still exists, they are now under the NZDF and now have a new combined joint command headquarters.
The Canadians were probably the first to do so, orginally Canada did away with the sailor and airmen uniforms, everyone wearing green army uniforms. Over a period of time, Canada realized its mistake, and reinstated the services different uniforms. Sailor like the Cracker Jack uniforms, and appear as sailors wearing one. Sailors did not like the appearing as grunt soldiers in foreign ports of call. There is nothing wrong with the traditions of the different services.
You will never know when another government in another era will reconsititute the air combat force again.
I do want to add that Auntie Helen has done one thing right, her party has reformed the New Zealand Defence Force. While the services still exists, they are now under the NZDF and now have a new combined joint command headquarters.
The Canadians were probably the first to do so, orginally Canada did away with the sailor and airmen uniforms, everyone wearing green army uniforms. Over a period of time, Canada realized its mistake, and reinstated the services different uniforms. Sailor like the Cracker Jack uniforms, and appear as sailors wearing one. Sailors did not like the appearing as grunt soldiers in foreign ports of call. There is nothing wrong with the traditions of the different services.
Last edited:
Come on, you didn't think the New Zealand air force had only 15 pilots for its Iroquois, 5 pilots for its Hercules, and 6 pilots for its Orions, did you? Their are close to 2,000 airmen and civilian employees. There are still 6 squardrons in the RNZAF. This number of officers in relation to enlisted is proper.
As I recall, some 700 airmen and pilots of the air combat force were sacked, a significant number considering the size of the service. Its another story whether the RNZAF have enough aircraft. Your suggestion that there are too many officers of Squadron rank compared to the number of aircraft implies there are too few aircraft.
It would have been nice if Auntie Helen had replaced the air combat force with some Apache or Cobra helicopters to bring up the aircraft numbers. But alas, wouldn't an air combat force of fighters be a better purchase?
She also could have added aircraft numbers to the inventory by purchasing more new Hercules, or even a few C-17s. As it is with the NH-90 order, it appears the helicopter force will have to do with less.
On the other hand I could see a use for the minehunting/sweeping helicopters the US Navy operates, the Sea Stallions, a heavy lift helicopter. Haven't you mentioned before New Zealand should invest in anti- sea mine capability.
As I recall, some 700 airmen and pilots of the air combat force were sacked, a significant number considering the size of the service. Its another story whether the RNZAF have enough aircraft. Your suggestion that there are too many officers of Squadron rank compared to the number of aircraft implies there are too few aircraft.
It would have been nice if Auntie Helen had replaced the air combat force with some Apache or Cobra helicopters to bring up the aircraft numbers. But alas, wouldn't an air combat force of fighters be a better purchase?
She also could have added aircraft numbers to the inventory by purchasing more new Hercules, or even a few C-17s. As it is with the NH-90 order, it appears the helicopter force will have to do with less.
On the other hand I could see a use for the minehunting/sweeping helicopters the US Navy operates, the Sea Stallions, a heavy lift helicopter. Haven't you mentioned before New Zealand should invest in anti- sea mine capability.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7
18 aircrews are funded for Iroquois. I think the issue isn't how many aircrew there are, but what non-operational tasks are being carried out. You don't seriously believe that it takes over over 150 people to support one aircraft do you? That's more people than are assinged to 3 squadron, which carries out flight and maintainance operations to everything but depot level.Sea Toby said:
Well, there is more to it than just the aircrew. There's the medical personnel, the police personnel, the ordnance personnel, the supply personnel, the administrative personnel, the training personnel, the mess personnel, the laundry personnel, the fuel personnel, the fire emergency personnel, the control tower personnel, besides the maintenance and aircrew. The list of occupations is a long one, everyone important to the operation of a squadron. Probably the most important person on a warship is the one who grinds the garbage.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9
Not very convincing. Most of the functions you have listed are non-deployable or contractor tasks. Most of the tasks you listed don't change regardless of the size of the force. I wonder how much money could be channeled in to the sharp end if they weren't duplicated accross three services.Sea Toby said:
Michael RVR
New Member
You know i'm not sure you're right there, i think theres alot that a sqn of AH's could offer to the NZDF.. and given that we're aquiring Tiger's at the moment it might be a convenient time too.Sea Toby said:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #11
If such as decision were to be taken, it would provide a fantastic partnership opportunty for the RNZAF. I would hope that type-qualifications could be completed using RAAF facilties. Similarly I hope that NZ doesnt intend on duplicating Australian facilties for its NH90 introduction to service.Michael RVR said:You know i'm not sure you're right there, i think theres alot that a sqn of AH's could offer to the NZDF.. and given that we're aquiring Tiger's at the moment it might be a convenient time too.
Oh, you get ground support with the helicopters, I shall admit. However, fighter aircraft does much more. It seems if Auntie Helen didn't like the operating costs of fighters, she won't like the higher operating costs of attack helicopters either.
And yes, there is a lot more to a defence force besides the bite, all of which needs to be organized, and led with officers. I listed 10 different occupations which weren't the bite, and you're not impressed. There is a tooth to tail ratio, New Zealand's isn't overwhelming.
As General Schwartzkopft said on national television in America, ten percent of the force will actually see combat, but without the other 90 percent doing their jobs, there wouldn't be the ten percent of the force fighting.
And yes, there is a lot more to a defence force besides the bite, all of which needs to be organized, and led with officers. I listed 10 different occupations which weren't the bite, and you're not impressed. There is a tooth to tail ratio, New Zealand's isn't overwhelming.
As General Schwartzkopft said on national television in America, ten percent of the force will actually see combat, but without the other 90 percent doing their jobs, there wouldn't be the ten percent of the force fighting.
Last edited:
NZDF would be much better off investing in more NH-90's than Tigers. Horrible rumour has current purchase at 8. The Tiger is much too specialised for NZDF purposes (ably supplied by allied forces anyway) and doesn't really fit current NZ govt policies and ideology. NZ Govt deploying NZSAS is evidence of a bit of cognitive dissonance though. I was impressed when I heard NZ Govt had sent its most potent assets to Afghanistan.
There's a thread on Stratpage where one commentator alleges that PM Hawke wouldn't send F-111's (I believe I laughed when I read the reason) or have CDT's equipped with personal weapons. A bit of a contrast to Helen. She didn't muck about.
I was impressed when I heard NZ Govt had sent its most potent assets to Afghanistan. There's a thread on Stratpage where one commentator alleges that PM Hawke wouldn't send F-111's (I believe I laughed when I read the reason) or have CDT's equipped with personal weapons. A bit of a contrast to Helen. She didn't muck about.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #14
I'm not impressed because you seem to be guessing. You mentioned catering - the RNZAF has contracted out its catering services.Sea Toby said:
Medical : Aviation Medicine Unit has just 2 doctors and 2 medics. Ohakea has 11 medical staff, including just 2 doctors and 8 medics.
Laundry services? Come on, give me a break!
Last edited:
just to confirm for non-kiwi and non-oz posters, NZ, Aust (and NATO) have had a Garrison Support Contract in place for a number of years.Rocco_NZ said:
a very high proportion of non warfighting or "blunt stuff" is outsourced.
Last edited:
Sorry if NZ were to re establish an air combat force, attack helicopters should be last on the list for some simple reasons.Michael RVR said:You know i'm not sure you're right there, i think theres alot that a sqn of AH's could offer to the NZDF.. and given that we're aquiring Tiger's at the moment it might be a convenient time too.
1/ They can not self deploy, unlike Fighter Aircraft, even the MB339C could self deploy with long range tanks to Australia. This means that NZ would either have to invest in another MRV or larger transport aircraft. While leasing ships / aircraft for overseas deployments is an option there is usually a delay. There would be no difference in transporting all the logitistics components.
2/ Operations in Iraq and Afganistain have shown how vunerable helicopters are to ground fire (nothing new in that).
3/ NZ, being a small country, needs to spend its money in a way that ensures it gets a flexible platform. Fighter aircraft offer this, not Attack Helicopters, which are specialist aircraft.
Back on topic - I don't think politically many of Labour's supporters would allow the airforce to be absorded by the Army / Navy. There are a number of other signifcant problems associated with the idea.
1/ The army would be able to absord the support personnel into its structure as part of an Aviation Battalion, the navy on the other hand is a different beast. The navy support structure would be more streamlined, reflecting the fact that it would not deploy in the field, and all staff, including aircrew and maintenance personnel will find themselves been sent to sea for extended periods. I think the navy would lose a significant number of ex air force personnel very quickly if such a mad idea every got off the ground.
seantheaussie
New Member
As to proper personell per aircraft Australia have just deployed 2 chinooks to Afghanistan with 110 personell. Considering they will probably recieve support from the major power running their base the appropriate numbers would soon climb higher.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #18
That's an interesting conclusion. 6 Squadron is liable for shipboard service currently. I can't see whole Orion crews and support people being deployed on a frigate myself! Certain individuals, like air tactical officers, would probably appreciate the opportunity to widen their experience. Not sure it would lead to a mass exodus.Lucasnz said:
I've read a number of articles suggesting that 3 Squadron is somewhat of a liability when deployed in the field, primarliy because it doesn't have the logistics assets to haul its own equipment, or the ability to protect itself. Turning the Squadron over to the Army should solve that in short order.
That essentially leaves just basic flight training, a pair of 757s and the Hercules.
Happy to be corrected, but my understanding of why helos have taken a beating in Iraq (disproportionately to Afghanistan) is due to poor implementation of doctine.Lucasnz said:
As I understand it, the Afghan losses are all within "acceptable" ratios whereas the early high losses of helos in Iraq was primarily due to a failure to stick to tried and tested doctrine.
- Status