Is NZ correct in scrapping the combat component of the RNZAF?

[Nooj]

In 2001, the New Zealand government disbanded the 2nd, 14th and 75th Squadrons of the RNZAF, citing a benign defence environment. They collectively made up the Air Combat Force.

It makes sense to me. New Zealand has good relations with most countries in the Pacific and there didn't seem to be an outbreak of war likely any time soon.

However, the loss of the combat component leaves the RNZAF without any teeth. Any time the army goes into combat (not unlikely, if Indonesia ever starts to act up), they'll have to rely on other nation's (namely Australia) air support.

Do you think the NZ government has made the correct decision? NZ does not want to get into military action ever again and is mostly focused on peace-keeping missions. Does a combat air squadron have any place in NZ's future?

 

[Todjaeger]

The determination of whether the decision was a "good" or "bad" decision largely resides on what assumptions are made about the future.

At present, there are really only a two nations capable of carrying out airstrikes against NZ. There is the US, and then there is Australia. Despite not seeing eye to eye on some issues (like nuclear power) the US wouldn't carry out an attack. Australia it is even less likely to, given that NZ is the main ally in the region both currently and historically.

As for other nations launching an airstrike, they would need to contend with the tremendous distances involved. Similar reasoning exists for the NZDF not really needing close air support aircraft since getting troops to NZ has the same problem. Again, this is all assuming other nations have enough of a problem with NZ to want to do so.

As for a need for close air support on peace-keeping missions, I'm not aware of any UN missions requiring ground attack aircraft. For overseas deployments as part of a coalition, the air support is usually provided by the larger nations. They typically have larger forces and therefore can detail aircraft for support without giving giving up as much of their forces.

What might possibly develop in the future is other nations with the capacity to carry out strikes against NZ, but that would take time to happen, and would most likely be noticed. Hopefully in time for NZ to develop the ability to defend itself against air attacks.

Personally, I would have prefered the RNZAF to retain some fast jet/ air defence capability. Both to have something just in case, but also to provide a framework in case NZ did need to reconstitute air combat units in the future.

To that end I see two ways to do it. The first way has been mentioned by various others in older threads. Having NZ sponsored & staffed squadrons in the RAAF. These would be composed of NZ personnel flying RAAF fighters, with some assistance from the NZ government and a RAAF could be assigned to a RNAF base on a rotating schedule.

The second is a little bit different. Basically it would involve the pilot training programs for the ADF & NZDF being merged to a degree. As part of that, some of the Fast Jet training done using Hawk LIF would be done in NZ. This would provide some air defence and ground attack capability as well as giving the opportunity for RNZAF personnel to train in doing so. Potentially even more useful if the Hawks could be modified to allow fighter pilots to train in AAR.

Granted, I'm not sure how popular that idea would be in NZ. I tend to get the impression that most people in NZ have other things they want government to spend money on.

 

[aaaditya]

this is a very worrisome trend,i know that new zealand is a very peacefull country but i believe they are becoming too complacent by reducing the capabilities of their armed forces during these time of violence.

 

[dioditto]

Why should NZ care? who's going to attack NZ when it has neutral stance like the swiss? and what country that's hostile to NZ can actually come CLOSE to it and not get detected by their allies America and Australia? Within its 1000 km radius, there is NO COUNTRY near NZ. Within 2000km radius, there are only Tonga, Fiji, Vanuatu and New Caledonia. (Australia is just outside that radius). To attack NZ, you need atleast blue-water navy. The pacific islanders (no offense to them) do not even have the Green-water navy wait...okay, lets be realistic... Brown-water navy... even that is too much to assume to attack NZ. Most of them do not even HAVE a navy... let alone Airforce. What are they going to attack with... CANOES?! The closest geo-political threat is from Indonesia or Malaysia, but those two countries have their own problems to face before even able to attack anyone else (namely the threat of outward projection of China), and even if they want to, they have to face Australia AND AMERICA first.

Eventually, NZ *might* need to develop it's airforce and navy again, but that's too far into the future (50 years + into the future) when chinese finally have a large enough blue naval fleets that can rival USA's..( and patrolling the pacific....which I doubt, because for chinese, its main concern is the south indian ocean... but eventually, they would be patrolling globally like the US)

 

[Nooj]

Todjaeger, you make good points.

New Zealand has strategic commitments to its Pacific neighbours. The government feels that it can fufill its obligations with no combat air wing to speak of by relying on other nation's capabilities. I see no problem with NZ doing this in Afghanistan. But I am a bit peeved (former NZ expat) to see it neglecting what I see as a deterrant in the region. It was not long ago when Indonesia was seen as the biggest threat to regional security (it still is in some ways). I'd agree that there's no immediate danger to NZ or its interests, but there's always the possibility of something rising up in the future...

Granted, I'm not sure how popular that idea would be in NZ. I tend to get the impression that most people in NZ have other things they want government to spend money on.

Defence is the last thing on many Kiwi's agenda. It's a result of the (relative) regional stability.

 

[Big-E]

NZ better be careful... before you know it China will extend her EEZ to include North Island... nfloorl:

 

[Aussie Digger]

To that end I see two ways to do it. The first way has been mentioned by various others in older threads. Having NZ sponsored & staffed squadrons in the RAAF. These would be composed of NZ personnel flying RAAF fighters, with some assistance from the NZ government and a RAAF could be assigned to a RNAF base on a rotating schedule.

The second is a little bit different. Basically it would involve the pilot training programs for the ADF & NZDF being merged to a degree. As part of that, some of the Fast Jet training done using Hawk LIF would be done in NZ. This would provide some air defence and ground attack capability as well as giving the opportunity for RNZAF personnel to train in doing so. Potentially even more useful if the Hawks could be modified to allow fighter pilots to train in AAR.

Granted, I'm not sure how popular that idea would be in NZ. I tend to get the impression that most people in NZ have other things they want government to spend money on.

I have noticed this idea on other NZ threads. I haven't commented on it, but I think I might now. Basically, what's in this deal for Australia?

RAAF is basically fully manned at present. Of what benefit would this program be to Australia? Unless NZ were prepared to assist with funding the RAAF fighter force (a VERY unlikely prospect considering they won't even fund their own) there is not a single benefit for Australia to do this that I can think of.

Sure it'd be nice for NZ and would no doubt be useful for them, but it'd reduce Australia's air combat capability. A fighter squadron is not the easiest thing in the world to move and considering we've only got 3x Sqns, a rotational basis for these Sqn's between NZ, Williamstown AND RAAF Tindal would be a VERY expensive exercise. Should Australia have to foot this bill for the benefit to be almost exclusively to NZ? .

Also what happens should the Australian Government wish to deploy it's fighters overseas? IF the NZ Sqn were to be deployed the NZ Government would HAVE to allow it's pilots to go with the Sqn. If an "all Australian" Sqn were to go, this would leave us with a single fighter Sqn to cover ALL of Australia!!! I can think of a few more issues, but that should give plenty of food for thought and perhaps discussion for now...

As to the Hawk's, NZ doesn't conduct training to this level anymore because it doesn't have "fast movers". What's the point of LIF training without a fighter? The RAAF's Hawk Mk 127's are already AAR capable, they have a "removable" refuelling probe whenever they need to train for AAR.

Again the issue of deploying RAAF Hawk's to NZ raises most of the same issues as the fighter issue. Who should pay for it? Who's going to pay for the infrastructure needed in NZ to support the aircraft. How long are the rotations going to be? (Australia only operates 2 Hawk Sqn's remember). What benefit is there to Australia to do this?

Besides, our Hawks are at maximum capacity just supporting RAAF and ADF. There is no spare capacity to support NZ as well with our present fleet. We need to expand it to do so. The same issues are therefore raised if this were to be done...

 

[Capt. Picard]

One of the reasons that the RAAF is fully staffed is that it had an intake of Kiwi flight crew after they got rid of the fast jets. I think that getting rid of the fast jet capability was a sensible decision however the money should be partly spent on naval assets.
NZ has realsitically no potential enemies in the medium future, and they should be respected for spending their money in a way that follows what the locals really want, not what so called "allies" want for it.

 

[Sea Toby]

Currently it appears to have been the correct deicision to scrap its air combat force. Whether in the future the decision was correct depends if New Zealand reconstitutes its air combat force to meet an external aggressor in time.

 

[Big-E]

Currently it appears to have been the correct deicision to scrap its air combat force. Whether in the future the decision was correct depends if New Zealand reconstitutes its air combat force to meet an external aggressor in time.

IMHO it appears to be the wrong choice. You can't just reconstitute an airwing overnight. Also the proficiency of NZ pilots was well above par. They have lost a tradition of excellence that won't be there in the future as the veterens move on in their career/retirements. If China decides to be Imperialist NZ would make a tempting target and an excellent staging point for the invasion of the most important coast of Australia. As PLAN gets her carrier program operational these threats will be VERY real.

 

[Waylander]

Isn't this a little bit too much panic. I mean there are much other problems directly in china's neighbourhood. And do you really think that an invasion force is going to go all the way to NZ without being intercepted by Australian and US forces?

 

[Sea Toby]

I am of the belief if the military situation changed significantly in the South Pacific, New Zealand would be able to buy a small number of used fighters quickly, and would be able to recruit as many trained pilots to fly them.

Even when New Zealand decides to reconstitute its air combat force, pilots will have to be recruited to train the next generation of pilots. Along with a few pilots, a few maintenance personnel can also be recruited. I agree reconstituting the force will take much longer than a day, more than likely it will take at least a year or two to bring the force up to snuff.

 

[Todjaeger]

I have noticed this idea on other NZ threads. I haven't commented on it, but I think I might now. Basically, what's in this deal for Australia?

RAAF is basically fully manned at present. Of what benefit would this program be to Australia? Unless NZ were prepared to assist with funding the RAAF fighter force (a VERY unlikely prospect considering they won't even fund their own) there is not a single benefit for Australia to do this that I can think of.

I agree, at a minimum any proposal would need to not incur extra costs for Australia.

What might work (emphasis on MIGHT), is relocating one of the Hawk 127 squadrons or raising a third training squadron equipped with Hawks and having that based in NZ. Now there would need to be a number of things that happen with this and as I mentioned, NZ might not really want to go along with this. The squadron would be mixed RAAF & RNZAF personnel and the training facilities would be used by both nations. Both nations would share costs to operate the squadron & facilities. Those who qualify after completing the training would then serve either at the facility to train following pilots or would serve in the RAAF fast jet units.

The sticking points that I see for a plan like this are as follows.

For NZ:
(1) There would have to be defence spending for the unit, something NZ doesn't appear ready/willing to do.
(2) NZ personnel that would then operate in RAAF squadrons would no longer be under control of NZ/NZDF and would additionally be at potential risk during operations that NZ might not wish to be involved with.

For Australia:
Basically as Aussie Digger wrote, what is the advantage to Australia.
How much would it cost, would the ADF be able to make use of NZ personnel operationally, etc.

Potential Australian advantages (I'm not writing for NZ, their advantages should be apparent)
(a) Access to a greater pool of pilots available/trained for fast jet operations
(b) assuming a 3rd Hawk squadron is formed, more available training facilities

As I wrote, these are potential advantages. If Australia is already meeting it's current goal in terms of available fast jet pilots, then adding to the available pool isn't much of an advantage. With regards to a 3rd squadron, if the existing units are capable of meeting the current training needs, then adding facilities would be a waste of resources.

With regards to the need for an air combat element, as I mentioned there isn't much of a current need. Even for the NZDF's existing Pacific commitments, only an outright shooting war would require the use of fighter or strike aircraft and that currently seems unlikely. What requires thinking about is the rising power of China and the future impact that will have on NZ and the region.

BTW Thanks AD for the info on AAR, nothing I'd read indicated that the Hawk 127 could be fitted for AAR. I knew the Hawk 200 series could do it, but those are single seater light fighters, not training aircraft.

EDIT: One thing I forgot to include.
If the NZDF decided to have an Air Combat squadron again how long before it would reach IOC?
Please make the following assumptions when answering this hypothetical question.
(1) All aircraft, both training and operational, are instantly available.
(2) The aircraft types in question will be different from that already in use in Australia.
(3) The existing pool of NZDF pilots for helicopters and multi-engine will be maintained.

Please give answers assuming NZ personnel serving in the RAAF aren't released to the RNZAF. Also please give answers making the opposite assumption, that the RAAF does release pilots to the RNZAF.

 

[dioditto]

IMHO it appears to be the wrong choice. You can't just reconstitute an airwing overnight. Also the proficiency of NZ pilots was well above par. They have lost a tradition of excellence that won't be there in the future as the veterens move on in their career/retirements. If China decides to be Imperialist NZ would make a tempting target and an excellent staging point for the invasion of the most important coast of Australia. As PLAN gets her carrier program operational these threats will be VERY real.

You have got to be kidding me...
If China really wants to invade NZ in the far future with it's carrier group, no amount of pilots that NZ can train can amount even the slightest resistence. NZ is a tiny country in term of population, 3.5 million, at full strength, it has barely ONE AIR WING. There just isn't enough manpower around.

 

[Big-E]

You have got to be kidding me...
If China really wants to invade NZ in the far future with it's carrier group, no amount of pilots that NZ can train can amount even the slightest resistence. NZ is a tiny country in term of population, 3.5 million, at full strength, it has barely ONE AIR WING. There just isn't enough manpower around.

Consider what a refitted Varyag would contain in terms of air power. A squadron or two of NZ F-16s would handle them nicely. Manpower is not an issue for such a token investment. Bahrain even has some.

 

[Aussie Digger]

One of the reasons that the RAAF is fully staffed is that it had an intake of Kiwi flight crew after they got rid of the fast jets. I think that getting rid of the fast jet capability was a sensible decision however the money should be partly spent on naval assets.
NZ has realsitically no potential enemies in the medium future, and they should be respected for spending their money in a way that follows what the locals really want, not what so called "allies" want for it.

Yep those (less than) 10 Kiwi pilots that they got years ago are the reason RAAF is fully manned...

The real reason RAAF is fully staffed at present is "returnee's". Former qualified RAAF pilots, maintainers etc have been returning to RAAF in something approaching "droves" from civilian aviation because of the downturn from the "War on Terror".

NZ does have the right to spend it's money in the way it wants, however it is spending it in a fashion because of the political ideology of the current Government, NOT in a way that makes much military sense.

By denying an air combat force for NZ and so far refusing to fit suitable weapons to the P-3K, they have largely given up their ability to control their maritime approaches, they have lost all ability to control their airspace, they have lost all ability to provide CAS for NZ Army and Navy, they have lost most of their reconnaisance capability, with no program even existing to acquire a unarmed UAV AFAIK.

With the decisions they have taken with respect to the Air Combat force, P-3K Orion ASW and ASuW capabilities and the lack of any (as yet) upgrades to the ANZAC frigates, have lost most of their capability to contribute "meaningfully" to Coalition operations (I'm referring to FPDA type Coalitions not "US" style Coalitions).

Quite simply, they have hamstrung the NZDF and forced it to try and move into a limited "Peace Keeping" type force. Let's hope they don't have to undertake any serious combat duties. It will as usual be the soldiers, sailors an airmen who suffer, not the politically misguided politicians who forced this situation upon them...

 

[dioditto]

Consider what a refitted Varyag would contain in terms of air power. A squadron or two of NZ F-16s would handle them nicely. Manpower is not an issue for such a token investment. Bahrain even has some.

I don't think China is going to have just ONE aircraft carrier battle group... I think it's going to have about 4 times that current US size (12 x 4 = 48) considering everything chinese do, they do it big, and do it more.

 

[Waylander]

Considering everything the Chinese do?
Why are so many people thinking that China has nothing better to do than building aircraft carriers (Together with escorts, subs, AORs, etc.) and some amphibious force and than shipping right to NZ?
Do you think China has no other problems?
Are you searching for an enemy?

 

[TrangleC]

I agree that it is most unlikely that someone will attack NZ.

Considering that it might be a good idea not to spend a lot of money for something you don't need.

Under other circumstances i would only worry about the fact that if ever the situation should change, it might be hard to start rebuilding a fully capable airforce.
But in that case, i think till a future enemy to NZ might possibly emerge in 20 or 30 years, the age of unmanned fighting aircraft will most likely already have dawned. Then NZ can just buy a few of these without needing a complicated infrastructure to train pilots aso.

So if there ever is a good time to save money by getting rid of a useless airforce, it most likely is now.

 

[Big-E]

I don't think China is going to have just ONE aircraft carrier battle group... I think it's going to have about 4 times that current US size (12 x 4 = 48) considering everything chinese do, they do it big, and do it more.

I don't disagree but AU will have a hand in the battle to even the odds. NZ should be able to contribute at least one fighter squadron if not two. If they had two they could keep one active and the other territorial.