Joint Australian and New Zealand Defence Forces

[oldsoak]

Mate, where are you coming from with this line? Not sure if you have posted it in the right thread or not. Are you referring to Australia's Collins Class? If so, IMO you are not correct. Based upon exercise results & first hand experiece attempting to deal with them, I woul put them up against any other sub, even US or UK nukes.
Cheers

I dont think the rather good abilities of the Collins class are that well known outside the circle of those who have contact with them, for obvious reasons. They make me wish we never got rid of the Upholders.

Back to the topic - what areas are there that Aus + NZ can work on to mutual support and benefit, given that NZ and Aus defence + foriegn policy may not tie up ? What happens if Australia buys into systems and concepts that NZ wont purchase ?

 

[Simon9]

i dont think they could stand a chance, i mean there submarines run on diesel.

In fact I would go as far as to say that the Collins are so good BECAUSE they are diesels - not in spite of the fact.

They are small, quiet, and optimised for littoral operations. The USN has had a lot of trouble trying to track them in littoral waters, and off Hawaii, and in those areas it's probably safe to say they have a marked advantage over a honkin' big SSN.

Sure, they don't have the range to match an SSN but they still get around the Pacific okay, and since the RAN is mostly concerned with the Asia-Pacific region and defence of its island, that's more than enough.

 

[Sea Toby]

As prices for new stealth fighters head towards US$ 100 million each, its interesting that the current New Zealand government balked at spending NZ$ 70 million to operate less than 20 old fighters a year. The cream puff cheap like new F-16s the previous government leased are gone, they are no longer available. I doubt whether older used F-16s could be leased for the same sweetheart deal although another government may attempt to do so again. Therefore, reconstituting the New Zealand air combat force will be difficult and take many years.

While eliminating the air combat force may have been a wonderful budget cut move considering the force had never been used for decades in combat, this move left New Zealand without any air defense. With the sale of the former assets, and the savings on operational costs, the current government is able to spend those funds on upgrading and extending the lives of both its old Hercules and Orion fleets.

On top of the savings of not acquiring a third frigate, this government is able to fund the reorganization of its navy, acquiring patrol and sealift vessels to round out its naval fleet. With these savings being spent on the navy and air force, any NEW spending is being spent on its army, including the new NH-90 helicopters. Although the helicopters are technically air force assets, they are actually more of an army asset in practice, providing army airlift.

Obviously, considering the above, the current government is placing priority on the army with any new investments despite the fact that New Zealand is a maritime nation.

 

[NZLAV]

IMO, I would rather have the 7 new navy vessels than 28 F-16a/b's because NZ now can deploy their army on amphibious assaults and they can patrol NZ's coasts. The F-16's would be great but I would rather have the PP ships.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Sea Toby
While eliminating the air combat force may have been a wonderful budget cut move considering the force had never been used for decades in combat, this move left New Zealand without any air defense. With the sale of the former assets, and the savings on operational costs, the current government is able to spend those funds on upgrading and extending the lives of both its old Hercules and Orion fleets.

Can I ask what you mean by left NZ with no Air Defence?

I ask because IMO I don't think NZ has had any AD (except for the most basic terms) since the 1950s.

 

[Sea Toby]

While I don't know for certain that New Zealand ever purchased Sidewiders for their Skyhawks, I was under the impression that the Skyhawks did have a gun to shoot, and were capable of dogfighting. Didn't New Zealand before the turn of the century have 17-18 Skyhawks?

I thought I left the impression I supported the Project Protector ships. However, I also supported leasing the F-16 Falcons, and the purchase of the third Anzac. Since its too late to order a new Anzac, I now support purchasing two newer design frigates for delivery around the mid-life point of the Anzacs, thereby avoiding block obsolescence.

My previous post was an attempt to show that the new government really hasn't spent any new funds for the navy and air force. Project Protector funds were saved by not purchasing the third frigate. The upgrades and life extension of the Hercules and Orions were saved by not leasing the F-16s and selling off the air combat force. The current government will spend up to NZ$ 560 million to purchase new helicopters, having already selected the NH-90s. Currently the government is shopping for the training helicopter replacement.

It seems that the army is getting the lion's share of new spending. New APCs, new LOVs, keying system for the Mistrals, Javelin anti-tank missiles, new radios, etc. While its great to have an updated army, I am concerned about New Zealand's lack of any air combat force, especially for a maritime nation, and losing much of its ASW capability.

Of course, New Zealand will probably only deploy its armed forces along with other nations providing both the air combat and ASW capability. Without either capabilities, I don't see New Zealand deploying its armed forces to any dangerous situation alone.

While we know what the current government thinks about going it alone, it won't, we wonder what another government feels about this issue. Being from a large nation, I like the option of going it alone. There may come a time when Australia is so busy and overwhelmed with its deployments abroad that New Zealand may have to go it alone in the South Pacific. While none of these island nations have a population over a million, nor the armed forces of New Zealand, having air support for the troops on the ground is a military option I prefer. Its better to drop bombs on a target than attempting to take a target out on the ground with lots of casualties.

And I will repeat, New Zealand can afford to do more on defence. Spending ten percent of the last two years budget surpluses alone could have acquired the F-16s and the third frigate. This government provided the arts with extra funding the same year it cut the air combat force, interesting around the same dollar amount. This should be revealing.

 

[Whiskyjack]

While I don't know for certain that New Zealand ever purchased Sidewiders for their Skyhawks, I was under the impression that the Skyhawks did have a gun to shoot, and were capable of dogfighting. Didn't New Zealand before the turn of the century have 17-18 Skyhawks?

Yes they had L/M version from memory. And yes it was a capable dog fighter, which was why I said ‘basic ability’. My issue is that AD is more about the ability to defend airspace, and the RNZAF has never been set up with that mission in mind. There has never been an AD network in NZ that could coordinate fighters or ground based air defence.

when it comes to AD the A4s, or the F16s, in a CAP situation, where they were protecting a high level event from a 9/11 scenario, would probably be effective, although there would be no BVR capability. Any other AD situation would probably have found the RNZAF lacking.

It seems that the army is getting the lion's share of new spending. New APCs, new LOVs, keying system for the Mistrals, Javelin anti-tank missiles, new radios, etc. While its great to have an updated army, I am concerned about New Zealand's lack of any air combat force, especially for a maritime nation, and losing much of its ASW capability.

I agree about the ASW, and the maritime strike is something I see coming off a P3, simply because it can project far enough into the Pacific.

Of course, New Zealand will probably only deploy its armed forces along with other nations providing both the air combat and ASW capability. Without either capabilities, I don't see New Zealand deploying its armed forces to any dangerous situation alone.

While we know what the current government thinks about going it alone, it won't, we wonder what another government feels about this issue. Being from a large nation, I like the option of going it alone. There may come a time when Australia is so busy and overwhelmed with its deployments abroad that New Zealand may have to go it alone in the South Pacific. While none of these island nations have a population over a million, nor the armed forces of New Zealand, having air support for the troops on the ground is a military option I prefer. Its better to drop bombs on a target than attempting to take a target out on the ground with lots of casualties.

Agree, with you on deployments, the NZDF must be able to operate independently to any low level Solomon’s like situation.

However dropping bombs is not realistically going to be a situation that NZ will find in the South Pacific. Even if it was called for the RNZAF could not project up into the Pacific to accomplish CAS missions. Couldn’t with the A4s, and wouldn’t be able to with the F16s if that had gone ahead.
For what it is worth, with out a build up close to the Area of Ops I don’t think the RAAF could conduct meaningful CAS into the Pacific. Before anyone gets hot under the collar about that statement, there is a difference between a strike mission and a CAS mission that requires assets loitering very close to the combat zone. I think the RAAF could conduct CAS for specific periods of time but not in a 24/7 manner.

And I will repeat, New Zealand can afford to do more on defence. Spending ten percent of the last two years budget surpluses alone could have acquired the F-16s and the third frigate. This government provided the arts with extra funding the same year it cut the air combat force, interesting around the same dollar amount. This should be revealing.

Yes NZ can. IMO it needs to take into account its strategic context and move from there.

However I think that we have gone off topic a bit here. I guess it is worth rembering that the ADF can generate 5 infantry battalions, the NZDF can generate 2 (not sure if either country has them fully manned tho). That is a contribution.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yes they had L/M version from memory. And yes it was a capable dog fighter, which was why I said ‘basic ability’. My issue is that AD is more about the ability to defend airspace, and the RNZAF has never been set up with that mission in mind. There has never been an AD network in NZ that could coordinate fighters or ground based air defence.

when it comes to AD the A4s, or the F16s, in a CAP situation, where they were protecting a high level event from a 9/11 scenario, would probably be effective, although there would be no BVR capability. Any other AD situation would probably have found the RNZAF lacking.



I agree about the ASW, and the maritime strike is something I see coming off a P3, simply because it can project far enough into the Pacific.




Agree, with you on deployments, the NZDF must be able to operate independently to any low level Solomon’s like situation.

However dropping bombs is not realistically going to be a situation that NZ will find in the South Pacific. Even if it was called for the RNZAF could not project up into the Pacific to accomplish CAS missions. Couldn’t with the A4s, and wouldn’t be able to with the F16s if that had gone ahead.
For what it is worth, with out a build up close to the Area of Ops I don’t think the RAAF could conduct meaningful CAS into the Pacific. Before anyone gets hot under the collar about that statement, there is a difference between a strike mission and a CAS mission that requires assets loitering very close to the combat zone. I think the RAAF could conduct CAS for specific periods of time but not in a 24/7 manner.



Yes NZ can. IMO it needs to take into account its strategic context and move from there.

However I think that we have gone off topic a bit here. I guess it is worth rembering that the ADF can generate 5 infantry battalions, the NZDF can generate 2 (not sure if either country has them fully manned tho). That is a contribution.

Have a look at some of these, some great shots of Kiwi A-4's doing A2A...

http://www.gibstuff.net/a4_alley/images4/aim9fire.jpg

http://www.gibstuff.net/a4_alley/images4/6205bank.jpg

http://www.gibstuff.net/a4_alley/images4/pair_a4weaps.jpg

http://www.gibstuff.net/a4_alley/images5/RNZAF%20Official_B-52%20and%20A-4,%20K81.jpg

http://www.gibstuff.net/a4_alley/images6/RNZAF_Official_4-A-4Ks-Tanking.jpg

http://www.gibstuff.net/a4_alley/images5/RNZAF%20Official%20NZ6205%20over%20Palmerston%20North.jpg

Admittedly the A-4's never had a BVR missile integrated, but with the APG-66 radar system and datalinks they had, there was no great obstacle to them being equipped with such if necessary...

 

[Sea Toby]

I understand New Zealand will never have an aircraft carrier, or will ever have any significant flight operations off of a landing/sealift ship, nor did the fighters have enough combat radius. Fighter aircraft can be refueled in flight and/or transported by container vessels. Acquiring a couple of tankers wouldn't bust their budget, leasing a container vessel wouldn't either. The US Marine Corps operate C-130s in the tanker role. Of course transporting fighters would require a suitable runway where they were deployed. As a maritime nation New Zealand air combat force should be more of a strike force rather than an interceptor. Both the A-4s and F-16s provided a significant strike force.

If the current government had purchased Tiger helicopters for the strike support role I could understand the government eliminating the fighters. But this government hasn't replaced this capability at all. At least the Tigers wouldn't require a suitable runway, a parking lot would suffice. More than likely the Tigers cost more than the sweetheart like new cream puff F-16s.

While I agree New Zealand could do some of its training in Australia, I doubt whether Australia would provide this training for nothing. Since its probably cheaper for New Zealand to train their own forces to their requirements, I doubt whether it would be wise to be swallowed up by the Australian defence forces. On top of this New Zealand doesn't have enough forces to base year round much of them in Australia either.

Of course, both countries being so close and friendly should have joint training exercises in both nations.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Have a look at some of these, some great shots of Kiwi A-4's doing A2A...

http://www.gibstuff.net/a4_alley/images4/aim9fire.jpg

http://www.gibstuff.net/a4_alley/images4/6205bank.jpg

http://www.gibstuff.net/a4_alley/images4/pair_a4weaps.jpg

http://www.gibstuff.net/a4_alley/images5/RNZAF%20Official_B-52%20and%20A-4,%20K81.jpg

http://www.gibstuff.net/a4_alley/images6/RNZAF_Official_4-A-4Ks-Tanking.jpg

http://www.gibstuff.net/a4_alley/images5/RNZAF%20Official%20NZ6205%20over%20Palmerston%20North.jpg

Admittedly the A-4's never had a BVR missile integrated, but with the APG-66 radar system and datalinks they had, there was no great obstacle to them being equipped with such if necessary...

With respect an over simplification, yes the A4s could and were refuelled air to air, but the fact remains they were short range. The rule followed in air refuelling is that the aircraft must always have enough fuel to divert if a refuelling goes wrong. So in operations over the Pacific it is a handicap.

I am sure a further upgrade to BVR could have been done as well. But I stand by my comments above.

 

[Whiskyjack]

understand New Zealand will never have an aircraft carrier, or will ever have any significant flight operations off of a landing/sealift ship, nor did the fighters have enough combat radius. Fighter aircraft can be refueled in flight and/or transported by container vessels. Acquiring a couple of tankers wouldn't bust their budget, leasing a container vessel wouldn't either. The US Marine Corps operate C-130s in the tanker role. Of course transporting fighters would require a suitable runway where they were deployed. As a maritime nation New Zealand air combat force should be more of a strike force rather than an interceptor. Both the A-4s and F-16s provided a significant strike force.

I don’t disagree with your comments, but I think the nature of conflict in the South Pacific is going to call for a fast response. IMO your scenario would only work if there was a build up of forces close to the conflict zone (if Govts in the South Pacific could be persuaded). The 5 tankers that Aussie is buying are for around AUS$1.4 billion, so not a cheap option, although I am sure something cheaper could be sourced.

If the current government had purchased Tiger helicopters for the strike support role I could understand the government eliminating the fighters. But this government hasn't replaced this capability at all. At least the Tigers wouldn't require a suitable runway, a parking lot would suffice. More than likely the Tigers cost more than the sweetheart like new cream puff F-16s.

I don’t disagree, even if the Govt had decided no more strike platforms more resources could have gone to air transport or surveillance etc…

While I agree New Zealand could do some of its training in Australia, I doubt whether Australia would provide this training for nothing. Since its probably cheaper for New Zealand to train their own forces to their requirements, I doubt whether it would be wise to be swallowed up by the Australian defence forces. On top of this New Zealand doesn't have enough forces to base year round much of them in Australia either.

Of course, both countries being so close and friendly should have joint training exercises in both nations.

I think that when it comes to the armies of both nations the training/tactics are very similar, as is the equipment to an extent. So it is a natural fit give or take.

 

[Highwayman]

It wont work - idelogically NZ and Australia are fairly close but with one recent exception - Iraq, how would the NZ governnent or vice versa feel about been dragged in an action with only one part of the partnership agreeing to it.
Why does NZ need an AD defence force, unless Pacific countries start purchasing a/c carriers or Australia decides to attack NZ where is the threat from? If NZ did decide to purchase an AD force how would it pay for it? - the country has a larger land area than the UK, so to be effective in the modern world you need to purchase fighters, air refuelling and AEW a/c, ground based radar etc. Attack helicopters are unfeasible because without a huge increase in transport(sea and air) capability how are NZ going to transport hundreds of men ,their associated equipment including transport helicopters and attack helicopters.
NZ can never operate alone unless its a very low risk scenario without other nations assisting.
I think the only fast jet requirement is a small number of combat a/c with modern reliable MR force to protect NZs EEZ which I believe is the 3rd biggest in the world.

 

[icelord]

i think Aus missed an oppurtunity to gain several trained pilots when the RNAF ditched the A4 and F-16, a program of NZ pilots being exchanged to the RAAF perhaps.
NZ take part in any pacific or asian Excercise being held like everyone else, and a single excercise with just NZ and ADF troops would have little benefit in statergy, since any deployment with both countries would see others involved and most likely any defence from attack would see Australia invaded long before NZ.
However, East Timor and the Solomons did have joint tasking conducted by both forces, and co-operation was involved with ADF, RNZF and respected police. Co-operation in counter-terrorism excercise would benefit for any maritime attacks in the tasman sea as well as search and rescue operations.
The fundamental problem as pointed out, is that the two governments are very different in many views, and also australia has mutual respect relationship and the bledisloe cup(we'll get it bak) in common with NZ, thats pretty much the main avenue between both in terms of co-operation.

 

[Aussie Digger]

i think Aus missed an oppurtunity to gain several trained pilots when the RNAF ditched the A4 and F-16, a program of NZ pilots being exchanged to the RAAF perhaps.
NZ take part in any pacific or asian Excercise being held like everyone else, and a single excercise with just NZ and ADF troops would have little benefit in statergy, since any deployment with both countries would see others involved and most likely any defence from attack would see Australia invaded long before NZ.
However, East Timor and the Solomons did have joint tasking conducted by both forces, and co-operation was involved with ADF, RNZF and respected police. Co-operation in counter-terrorism excercise would benefit for any maritime attacks in the tasman sea as well as search and rescue operations.
The fundamental problem as pointed out, is that the two governments are very different in many views, and also australia has mutual respect relationship and the bledisloe cup(we'll get it bak) in common with NZ, thats pretty much the main avenue between both in terms of co-operation.

We did gain quite a few trained NZ pilots who transferred to the RAAF when the "air combat force" was disbanded. I can't give an exact figure, but understand it was a few...

 

[KH-12]

We did gain quite a few trained NZ pilots who transferred to the RAAF when the "air combat force" was disbanded. I can't give an exact figure, but understand it was a few...

It would have been only a few as the RNZAF had more A4's than they had pilots in the strike sqns, by the time the AC force was disbanded.

 

[ANZAC ACE]

Hi guys! Interesting thread

I guess a joint force of some kind could be developed however a political framework for its use would need to be developed. I guess maybe what I am advocating is the possible creation of a force similar to the touted EU rapid reaction force. A framework could call for an ANZAC rapid reaction force to handle certain situations such as an imminent threat to our national security, humanitarian assistance, peace keeping and or police actions like the Solomon’s or Timor scenarios.

Under this framework both countries would contribute land, sea, and air units to support this force in operations. For example (and I’m no expert on force structure) each side could assign a battalion to this formation with full logistics support capable of deploying within the Pacific and or the South East Asia region. Some sort of joint command could be set up to over see this force.

The framework could call on the each country to ensure that this force maintains capability by ensuring that the governments of New Zealand and Australia commit to contributing forces that are able to carry out its missions within the framework agreement.

Now while there are many problems with this proposal and I’m sure you guys will have picked out holes in this already, there are positives. It enables both countries to maintain independent defence policies if they so wish and gives each countries militaries autonomy to carry out its own operations, yet at the same time would provide a show of political unity if a crisis occurred.

I guess this is just one suggestion I see as way to have some sort of joint ANZAC capability.

 

[Mr Brown]

Nice ideas ANZAC ACE. Could be a force for where NZ and Aussie interests meet, say in Pacific or SE Asia. May be more of a bonus for NZ than Aussies, afterall we may have more to gain, re access to amphib vessels, combat aircraft etc, where as Aussies would gain only a step-company or step-platoon to help in say Solomons, while Aussies look to military ops in wider world.