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

[Norm]

Thank you. This is my point exactly. Once it's gone it's not coming back.

PS How many javelines did you order?

24 The Dominion Post 29/6/06 set it out quite well "new Missiles cost (NZD $141,000 a shot.)...total cost $26(NZD) millionall NZD follows;

24 launch units@$nzd $207K each $4,968,000.
10 Computerised indoor simulators @$116K each $1,160,000.
10 outdoor laser-based simulators @$200K each $2,000,000
10 laser simulators target kits worth $830,000
Spares , manuals and initial training costs not disclosed say $200k
undisclosed number of missiles total cost $nzd 26M,assume no GST in this suggest 120 missiles at $141KNZD each after accounting for above, grand total $26,158,000.

Issue likely my pick, 2 Inf BNs 16,Army combat School2,SAS 6. It's a start but 24 does not ensure an allocation for Logistics,Engineers,Artillery and the TF BNs as 24 only cover the base sharp end.Good to see investment in simulators , provides a good platform for the future.

 

[Big-E]

24 The Dominion Post 29/6/06 set it out quite well "new Missiles cost (NZD $141,000 a shot.)...total cost $26(NZD) millionall NZD follows;

24 launch units@$nzd $207K each $4,968,000.
10 Computerised indoor simulators @$116K each $1,160,000.
10 outdoor laser-based simulators @$200K each $2,000,000
10 laser simulators target kits worth $830,000
Spares , manuals and initial training costs not disclosed say $200k
undisclosed number of missiles total cost $nzd 26M,assume no GST in this suggest 120 missiles at $141KNZD each after accounting for above, grand total $26,158,000.

Issue likely my pick, 2 Inf BNs 16,Army combat School2,SAS 6. It's a start but 24 does not ensure an allocation for Logistics,Engineers,Artillery and the TF BNs as 24 only cover the base sharp end.Good to see investment in simulators , provides a good platform for the future.

Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of the javelin, it's a wonderful little weapon but after seeing it used in Iraq I think it was wasted. I remember watching the battle of Fallujah unfold over AFRTS and they showed the real action as it happened. The imbeds I was watching were with the Marines and they used those expensive Javelins to take out mud brick houses at 100m! There were plenty of M1A1s roaming around to put an HE shell on target. They must think they grow on trees. I wonder if 120 missiles are going to cut it.

 

[Wooki]

...As for getting the RSAF to relocate one of their units from the US to NZ, it depends on what the Unit does in the US. If they predominantly are a training unit then it would only make sense if the same or better training could be done in NZ for an equal or better price. If it isn't a training unit, then it might make more sense but would still need to be less expensive before Singapore might decided to go along with it.

I see that as the best solution to the NZDF's lack of fast jet capability. It is nonsensical having a Singapore squadron based in the USA as it doesn't provide the strategic advantage that basing the squadron in NZ would. I suspect that the only reason they have not done it, is that no one has thought to ask from either party.

In fact IIRC, Singapore have CH-47s, AH64Ds and F-16Cs twiddling their thumbs in the USA, so a basing in NZ would seem to make more sense, especially for the helos. When combined with the MRV you could have your helos island hop all the way back to Singapore if and when needed.

So, what I am saying is use the very fact that NZ decided to get rid of the fast jets as the reason Singapore should base theirs there. In today's assymmetric ('scuse spelling) environment, its probably the safest place on Earth for their military assets to reside and it is within easy reach to call upon them if they need them. Certainly a lot easier then basing them in the USA.

As for tank regiments. I think ST mentioned it, but my reference to cv90-120's was strictly companies to reinforce Australian and Singaporean units. The cv90-120 because it is light and can take advantage of the MRV and the suggested LOLOs and fits in with security detachment-like deployments in the South Pacific.

A more combined Australia/Singapore/New Zealand approach is what I am advocating.

Not an individualistic national approach that NZ cannot afford.

Cheers

W

 

[JBodnar39]

I could not imagine the NZ government allowing Singapore to base its fighters on NZ soil - that woul dgo against the pacifist grain of the country.

Facts are that without a HUGE investment, NZ's military force is and will remain capable of doing little more than patrolling its waters (to some degree) and contributing a very small contingent to international peace-keeping operations. The country's distance from neighbors precludes the necessity of an air defense force to defend its airspace. With the exception of a terrorist flown 747 - I can think of no other potential air threat. Perhaps someday China - but certainly not now. SSK's are an idea, but again against what realistic threat?

Countries like Brazil and Chile and Belguim, and Poland maintain credible naval and air defense forces despite the fact that none are really threatened by any potentional invasion/ect - however the difference with them is that they have neighbors who have both ships and aircraft that can potentionally violate their borders - NZ does not.

 

[Wooki]

I could not imagine the NZ government allowing Singapore to base its fighters on NZ soil - that woul dgo against the pacifist grain of the country.

Facts are that without a HUGE investment, NZ's military force is and will remain capable of doing little more than patrolling its waters (to some degree) and contributing a very small contingent to international peace-keeping operations. The country's distance from neighbors precludes the necessity of an air defense force to defend its airspace. With the exception of a terrorist flown 747 - I can think of no other potential air threat. Perhaps someday China - but certainly not now. SSK's are an idea, but again against what realistic threat?

Countries like Brazil and Chile and Belguim, and Poland maintain credible naval and air defense forces despite the fact that none are really threatened by any potentional invasion/ect - however the difference with them is that they have neighbors who have both ships and aircraft that can potentionally violate their borders - NZ does not.

Once again, I think the focus should be on a "contributing to our allies approach", not a nationalistic approach. It saves New Zealand dollars and buys you more international leverage.

e.g. You wouldn't need to buy submarines if you contributed significant intel that australian submarines received (global hawk, UAVs, Intel officers, Analysts etc)

The NZDF can act as a force multiplier for its allies as you are right, the likelyhood of it being attacked is even lower than that of Australia being attacked.

I don't see this as major hurdle as NZ has a long, successful and proud ANZAC history. Singapore is just the new guy on the block, so-to-speak.

As for pacifist national identity, how much more passive can you get? In fact, by allowing another country to base its air assets in your country without you having to fork out the mucho dollars for the same capability, I would think the average kiwi would regard that as a bit of a coo, if anything.

cheers

W

 

[KH-12]

New Zealand has long had quite close military ties with Singapore in the not too distant past NZ had a detachment of UH-1H based there as well as some army personal, so a recipocal arrangement would be worth considering, of course a commitment would probably have to be made to preserve Whenuapai as an RNZAF asset while Ohakea would serve as the RSAF base. Would be interesting to see how the public would receive such a proposal, and the rules of command of such a force (ie who controls the assets while in NZ)

 

[dave_kiwi]

Singapore Units in New Zealand

Singapore do based a small artillary unit, 4 x 155mm SPH at Waiouru. If I remember correctly, there was an accident with one of them a few yars ago, where a W/O was killed.

So, I guess that basing Singaporean units in New Zealand is feasible, though I would doubt it would ever get to point where F-16s would be based in NZ.

May be the Apaches ...

 

[Big-E]

Singapore do based a small artillary unit, 4 x 155mm SPH at Waiouru. If I remember correctly, there was an accident with one of them a few yars ago, where a W/O was killed.

So, I guess that basing Singaporean units in New Zealand is feasible, though I would doubt it would ever get to point where F-16s would be based in NZ.

May be the Apaches ...

Do you have the facilities to support F-16s and Apaches?

 

[dave_kiwi]

Ohakea was a "Jet Base" :-(

F-16s have certainly been "operational" in New Zealnd - the very last ANZUS exercise, TRIAD '83 (haha - now that dates me) - F-16s operated out of Ohakea, while F-15s operated out of Whenuapai.

RAAF F-111s used to use Ohakea (certainly one crashed there ) occasionally, and I have seen F-111s operate out of Whenuapai as well.

So, the infrastructure is / was there -- doubt the "political" will is though ..

As an aside .. certainly Malaysia would be alot happier .. no more "woops .. we have intruded into your airspace again" ....

 

[KH-12]

I remember spending a whole day at the end of the Whenuapai runway during Triad looking up into the tailpipes of F-15's in full burner takeoffs - magic ,

Any deployment would have to be to Ohakea , I can't imagine the locals being too keen about a sqn of F-16's based in Auckland , the P-3's and C-130s and 757's could stay at Whenuapai.

 

[Todjaeger]

RSAF basing in NZ

If basing for the RSAF is an option, that would be good. In checking the RSAF website, it appeared that there are four oversea bases (not counting those in Australia) used by the RSAF. There is A-4SU Advanced jet training being conducted in France at one base. In the US there are three bases in use, one for the F-16, one for KC-135 AAR training and an ANG base where CH-47 & AH-64 training is being conducted.

I don't think having the AH-64s moved to NZ is a viable option yet. Deliveries started last year and I believe only 8 have achieved IOC. Once the delivers are completed along with the pilot & maintenance training, then it is a possibility.

If the reason the RSAF operates units in the US is just that there is available time/airspace for flight operations to maintain skills, that I do think it would make more sense to have the units based in NZ and therefore closer to home. There would of course still need to be ferry flights but the distance from NZ to Singapore is nothing like that of US to Singapore. But looking at the aircraft that is based in the US, I can't help but wonder if other training is being done as well. Access to US weapons ranges, training centers, that sort of thing, stuff that wouldn't be available in NZ.

As for the Advanced Jet training being done in France, that I'd say would make more sense to do in NZ. Hey, seeing Skyhawks overhead might even make people nostalgic...:teary

As for my thinking regarding a NZ tank regiment, I was referring specifically to ST, I just don't think the resources could be justified. As I mentioned there isn't sufficient shipping capacity to move a regiment of tanks off of NZ. I'm not even sure if there is sufficient ferry capacity to transport them between North & South Island.

As to the idea of a company of CV90-120s, I would tentatively argue against that. What I think might be a better choice, at least given current announced plans, would be a company of LAV IIIs configured for a fire support role and armed with a 90mm or 105mm gun. This would allow parts commonality with the NZLAV already in service. Now if the ADF does decide to get an IFV and chooses a CV90 variant (I'm rooting... err sorry, cheering) for the CV9040, then NZ getting some CV90-120s would make more sense.

Wooki, I definately agree with you that NZ should pursue projects and capabilities that are of use within the FPDA or ANZUS framework. At the same time, I think the NZ government also needs to make sure the NZDF maintains a capability to operate outside of the framework, for times when other nations are either unwilling, or unable to participate.

The one downside I see in trying to having complimentary or joint capabilities for allied forces is that what happens if an ally chooses or becomes involved in something that NZ doesn't wish to participate in? In this respect I mean if ADF Cav units are used to being backed up by NZDF fire support like CV90-120s or gun armed LAV IIIs. The current Iraq mission comes to mind, where ADF has troops in Iraq but NZ didn't wish to become involved. It could either expose NZ personnel to additional risks not of NZ choosing or potentially force NZ allies to go along with NZ foreign policies. I think we've all seen how popular that has made some countries which shall remain nameless...

 

[Waylander]

Wouldn't it make more sense to get more tracked IVFs like the Phirana III/LAV III with a min. 30mm gun and ATGMs like Spike, MILAN ER or Javelin instead of a 90mm/105mm/120mm version which is much more specialised and not as usefull in UN oversea missions?

 

[RubiconNZ]

NZ in Iraq

The one downside I see in trying to having complimentary or joint capabilities for allied forces is that what happens if an ally chooses or becomes involved in something that NZ doesn't wish to participate in? In this respect I mean if ADF Cav units are used to being backed up by NZDF fire support like CV90-120s or gun armed LAV IIIs. The current Iraq mission comes to mind, where ADF has troops in Iraq but NZ didn't wish to become involved. It could either expose NZ personnel to additional risks not of NZ choosing or potentially force NZ allies to go along with NZ foreign policies. I think we've all seen how popular that has made some countries which shall remain nameless...

Just to clarify the NZDF had a deployment to Iraq, they sent a PRT like Engineering team that was there for 1 year between 2003-04, they choose not to send more due to a greater concentration on operations in Iraq, although opposed to the way of invasion NZ did its bit in providing some troops for Iraq.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Nzdf

Wouldn't it make more sense to get more tracked IVFs like the Phirana III/LAV III with a min. 30mm gun and ATGMs like Spike, MILAN ER or Javelin instead of a 90mm/105mm/120mm version which is much more specialised and not as usefull in UN oversea missions?

Not to be smart I assume you meant wheeled?
As I have said before I would like a MGS essentially the Stryker variant modded for commanality with our current LAV III's. An AT variant would be nice however, at this time the NDZF has a total of 24 Javelins, a 105 arty round is much cheaper to expend on popping a bunker or practising with. It also provides option for a armoured role for the QAMR which needs some punch so to speak.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Ohakea was a "Jet Base" :-(

F-16s have certainly been "operational" in New Zealnd - the very last ANZUS exercise, TRIAD '83 (haha - now that dates me) - F-16s operated out of Ohakea, while F-15s operated out of Whenuapai.

RAAF F-111s used to use Ohakea (certainly one crashed there ) occasionally, and I have seen F-111s operate out of Whenuapai as well.

So, the infrastructure is / was there -- doubt the "political" will is though ..

As an aside .. certainly Malaysia would be alot happier .. no more "woops .. we have intruded into your airspace again" ....

It doesn't make much sense to me to operate F16's from NZ surely part of the point of having birds overseas, other than space would be to train with another airforce, having an aggressor squadron to train with would be much better than continued practise of operating against an essentially undefended air wise army.

 

[Waylander]

Yeah, wheeled. Sorry.
I'm in holiday so don't expect much of me.

I understand that price is vital but because of that I don't think that a small army like the NZ one should buy 105mm versions because they are not as flexible as a good IFV. And with, for example, a 40mm gun or this nice combination on the BMP 3 with a 30mm MG and a 100mm low pressure gun you should be able to make most of the holes you want.

 

[Sea Toby]

Many nations have this problem of basing troops/aircraft/ships abroad. America has been doing so for years, and vice a versa, many nations do training in America. Back during the 1980s when America wished to bomb Kaddaffi in Libya, our F-111 pilots flew with the approval of the United Kingdom, around the nations of France, Spain, and Portugal, countries that refused their airspace for this strike mission of Tripoli. At the time America had a navy base at Rota, Spain.

When America has gotten involved in conflicts abroad, NATO nations did not kick American troops out. Likewise, because the Germans didn't join our war, America didn't kick out the German pilots training in America.

At the Google Earth satellite image website, there is an image of an Australian F-111 at their airbase near Burns. If Australia went to war and New Zealand didn't, would New Zealand interned that aircraft for the duration of the war or would New Zealand allow Australia to fly that aircraft back to Australia? Surely the Australians will want to use that aircraft. On the other hand, there is a very good possiblity one of the C-130s seen in satellite images in Australia maybe a New Zealand C-130. If New Zealand went to war and Australia didn't, would Australia allow New Zealand to fly its C-130 home?

Its sticky already, isn't it. Basing troops abroad isn't anymore stickier than flying aircraft abroad. Please lets not make mountains out of molehills.

 

[Aussie Digger]

As for tank regiments. I think ST mentioned it, but my reference to cv90-120's was strictly companies to reinforce Australian and Singaporean units. The cv90-120 because it is light and can take advantage of the MRV and the suggested LOLOs and fits in with security detachment-like deployments in the South Pacific.

A more combined Australia/Singapore/New Zealand approach is what I am advocating.

Not an individualistic national approach that NZ cannot afford.

Cheers

W

IN response to the NZ/Singapore issue of embedding these units to "harden up" Australian unit's, I don't personally like the idea. I personally think a Country's defence force SHOULD be designed for it's own defence first and foremost, with interoperability a distant second.

Most Country's require a lot of similar capabilities (infantry, artillery, transport capabilities, surveillance and fire support to various degree's) but not all. NZ is currently satisfied with it's 25mm gun armed LAVIII's, Javelin and the future auto-grenade launchers to provide it's "higher level" direct fire support.

Australia and SIngapore have both decided they require a bit more than this and have opted for various tank designs, Australia obviously having chosen the M1A1 to provide this capability.

We are currently in the process of "hardening" the Australian Army with more armoured vehicles (Abrams, M113AS3/4, Bushmaster and ASLAV) than we've operated since WW2. The numbers respectively are: Abrams - 59, M113AS3/4 - 350, Bushmaster - 299 and ASLAV - 257 (with REAL opportunities for additional Abrams and Bushmaster vehicles existing) . A total of 965 new or upgraded armoured vehicles in less than 10 years overall!!! If the options on additional Bushmasters and Abrams are taken up under the modified HNA plan, this will likely lift the armoured vehicle acquisition to over 1200 vehicles, a not insignificant armoured force by any standard...

This "new fleet" is replacing a current armoured force of around 600 M113AS1's and 90 Leopards. Quite a lift in overall capability really.

If any further "hardening" of our Army is required, I'd prefer to see it done through enhancement of OUR capability. A CV-90/120 would be an impressive capability to bring to an operation, but I'd rather an M1A1 any day of the week...

 

[Norm]

A little while back here was a number of newspaper articles quoting the PM's concern(ironic I know )that NZ needed reassurance that when NATO took over in Afghanistan that the NZDF provincial reconstruction team in Bamyan could still count on air cover!!

There is a long list of basic items that are being addressed currently to upgrade the NZDF but over the Horizon if NZ needs to on occassion show some independence of action then investment in a Third +frigate,additional Seasprites,aircover, more LAV111's(some 105mm Gunned) etc needs to be on the cards.

 

[Wooki]

...
As to the idea of a company of CV90-120s, I would tentatively argue against that. What I think might be a better choice, at least given current announced plans, would be a company of LAV IIIs configured for a fire support role and armed with a 90mm or 105mm gun. This would allow parts commonality with the NZLAV already in service. Now if the ADF does decide to get an IFV and chooses a CV90 variant (I'm rooting... err sorry, cheering) for the CV9040, then NZ getting some CV90-120s would make more sense.

and

IN response to the NZ/Singapore issue of embedding these units to "harden up" Australian unit's, I don't personally like the idea. I personally think a Country's defence force SHOULD be designed for it's own defence first and foremost, with interoperability a distant second.

Most Country's require a lot of similar capabilities (infantry, artillery, transport capabilities, surveillance and fire support to various degree's) but not all. NZ is currently satisfied with it's 25mm gun armed LAVIII's, Javelin and the future auto-grenade launchers to provide it's "higher level" direct fire support.

Australia and SIngapore have both decided they require a bit more than this and have opted for various tank designs, Australia obviously having chosen the M1A1 to provide this capability.

We are currently in the process of "hardening" the Australian Army with more armoured vehicles (Abrams, M113AS3/4, Bushmaster and ASLAV) than we've operated since WW2. The numbers respectively are: Abrams - 59, M113AS3/4 - 350, Bushmaster - 299 and ASLAV - 257 (with REAL opportunities for additional Abrams and Bushmaster vehicles existing) . A total of 965 new or upgraded armoured vehicles in less than 10 years overall!!! If the options on additional Bushmasters and Abrams are taken up under the modified HNA plan, this will likely lift the armoured vehicle acquisition to over 1200 vehicles, a not insignificant armoured force by any standard...

This "new fleet" is replacing a current armoured force of around 600 M113AS1's and 90 Leopards. Quite a lift in overall capability really.

If any further "hardening" of our Army is required, I'd prefer to see it done through enhancement of OUR capability. A CV-90/120 would be an impressive capability to bring to an operation, but I'd rather an M1A1 any day of the week...

Fundamentals
1) I think everyone agrees that the NZDF is in a weakened state or, "in a state that it does not wish to be in" and hence the premise for the thread.

2) I do think we differ in the best way to get the NZDF out of that state.

3) I also agree that an independent operational status is the ideal, but also think (not believe, but think) that this is not a realistic goal in the short term. Especially given the history of political leadership decisions in NZ and the lack of funds to make it fully independent.

4) While proposals such as attaching a company to an allied unit (whether it be Aust or Sing) to give it the winning edge in a conflict sound great, I do realize you can't do that without changing existing operational techniques and those new techniques should be nutted out by the military who use them and no one else.

5) So if any of these "suggestions" were to be taken up there would be a lot of work to do in creating closer working ties with Australia and Singapore that exist to date, before any dollars were spent on hardware. (such as ensuring facilities for aircraft, ROE, command structure and the whole nine yards.)

Basing Foreign Fast Jets
It is my understanding that Singapore base their air assets off shore primarily to ensure survivability in case the country is attacked and a secondary function is to facilitate training.

If this is true, then basing air assets in NZ fits the primary function very well. The secondary function; training, could be conducted with the RAAF and you could float the idea with the Sings and Australians about sharing cost to reactivate some A4's as an "aggressor squadron".

You could also send the planes back to the USA for Red Flag operations and the like, as this would virtually simulate a deployment back to Singapore in time of need. I see it as a good thing and not a "waste of money". i.e. travel a long way and fight scenario.

-------------------------------------
This is getting a bit long, so I'll leave it at that for now. I have further thoughts re the cv90-120 and others which I can post later if anyone would like to read them. Just say the word.

Cheers

W