NZDF General discussion thread

[t68]

Reactivating an ACF is a hugely expensive and long process and I believe that the NZDF would achieve better deterrence by investing in alternative capabilities.

Agree its not a cheap exercise to stand up again

1. Expand the frigate force, the OPVs and maritime helo numbers so that all deployed ships had helo capability.

This would enable the RNZN always partake in allied naval activity, provide escorts for the proposed LHDs and to meet its sovereignty obligations in both the Pacific and the Antarctic.

Agree there are a number of different ways that NZ could go with this but I think they will end up tagging onto the RN City class (Type 26) frigates

2. Expand the P8 force and give them LRSAM’s. That in itself is probably a greater deterrent than a small ACF.

I agree adding the standoff weapons will make a substantial increase to the RNZAF, but that also should mean that they can cross the weapons with other platforms giving more options to defence P8 is too important to RNZAF with too few airframes even if they expand to current P-3 Orion numbers

Given that NZ is shelling out $1.46B for 4 aircraft and that Singapore is paying approx. $2.750B for 12 F35B, which makes more economic sense to deliberately put into harm’s way.

3. Give the Army a meaningful Attack/ARH capability to add lethality, and;

4. Provide a further CAS capability in the form of the Beechcraft AT-6B which would be incredibly useful in the Indo Pacific especially for the counter insurgency Role and would compliment allied capability (I’ve argued for this previously).

I have advocated this for some time the Wolverine would complement the ADF’S ARH capability

5. Increase air mobility/transport numbers.

I think that’s a given conclusion even if an ACF is not resurrected, as a JATF will require expanding land force numbers long term and will need supporting with the log tail away from home waters

 

[ngatimozart]

Reactivating an ACF is a hugely expensive and long process and I believe that the NZDF would achieve better deterrence by investing in alternative capabilities.
1. Expand the frigate force, the OPVs and maritime helo numbers so that all deployed ships had helo capability.
This would enable the RNZN always partake in allied naval activity, provide escorts for the proposed LHDs and to meet its sovereignty obligations in both the Pacific and the Antarctic.

Most definitely the frigate force needs expanding, plus the OPV fleet needs to be replaced with a corvette type capability and in greater numbers. The SOPV capability needs to be built and fitted out to full military standard.

2. Expand the P8 force and give them LRSAM’s. That in itself is probably a greater deterrent than a small ACF.

Agree about the P-8A force and the LRASM. I would suggest a total of 6 P-8A, preferably 7 would be better. This is over and above the secondary capabilities being acquired for maritime surveillance.

3. Give the Army a meaningful Attack/ARH capability to add lethality, and;

An ARH would be ideal and there are a pile of AH-1W in the Boneyard that could be upgraded and / or remanufactured to NZ specs. For example it may be possible to replace the 20 mm cannon with a 30 mm cannon, or failing that a 25 mm cannon, for more hitting power. Will something like Spike LR be able to be integrated onto it? The reason for Spike is because it will be manufactured in Aussie and by all accounts is a very good missile.

4. Provide a further CAS capability in the form of the Beechcraft AT-6B which would be incredibly useful in the Indo Pacific especially for the counter insurgency Role and would compliment allied capability (I’ve argued for this previously).

No. We need to prepare for a conventional war against a nation state. CIR is now a role that has to take lower priority and be dealt with using assets already at hand

5. Increase air mobility/transport numbers.
It may be the case that a choice between 3&4 above would be appropriate.
All of the above give the NZDF a better balanced force as I fear resources given to an ACF would leech funds away from other more needed assets.

Most definitely both fixed and rotary wing air mobility asset numbers need to increase. The C-130J-30 acquisition should be increased to 8 aircraft. Four KHI C2 should be acquired as well. Their internal cargo hold height is very similar to that of the C-17 so they would be able to carry the NH90 easily enough. The 8 NH90 are nowhere enough and Airbus have been unreliable with delivery, plus there are problems with its marinisation. There are a pile of ex USN SH-60B / F in the Boneyard that can be upgraded and / or remanufactured as utility helos. We could also consider 3 - 4 Chooks.

It's expensive but NZ can afford far more than the measly NZ$20 billion that it has set aside as capital expenditure. As a country we can afford all that I have suggested PLUS an 18 aircraft fast jet strike wing. I would argue that it can and should afford at least NZ$35 billion. Our economy has bounced back quite well and will continue to do so, plus the government has plenty of room left to move. It's a political choice not to do these at the moment.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

It's expensive but NZ can afford far more than the measly NZ$20 billion that it has set aside as capital expenditure. As a country we can afford all that I have suggested

$20 billion over 15 years about 1.3 billion a year... which SFA in the grand scheme of things.

I agree on most things ... the hard part is selling that to the any short term polly mind that only thinks of the next 3 years not the next 15-20.

If the ESV turns into a small LHD (which lets be honest I doubt it... but as you know I advocate it as it opens so many other capabilities available and within budget) then a number of ARH's would be logical next step to give the recon and light air cover of any amphibious operation, and or any operation in general. But can't see that happening either...

Not 100% sure on the KHI C2, I mean i like the aircraft and it would meet the needs and requirements (if it could carry a NH-90) but but if shit hits the fan spare parts become an issue as it would be only Japan and RNZAF that flies them...

 

[ngatimozart]

$20 billion over 15 years about 1.3 billion a year... which SFA in the grand scheme of things.

I agree on most things ... the hard part is selling that to the any short term polly mind that only thinks of the next 3 years not the next 15-20.

If the ESV turns into a small LHD (which lets be honest I doubt it... but as you know I advocate it as it opens so many other capabilities available and within budget) then a number of ARH's would be logical next step to give the recon and light air cover of any amphibious operation, and or any operation in general. But can't see that happening either...

Not 100% sure on the KHI C2, I mean i like the aircraft and it would meet the needs and requirements (if it could carry a NH-90) but but if shit hits the fan spare parts become an issue as it would be only Japan and RNZAF that flies them...

WRT the C-2, it's that or the A400M and KHI will be a darn sight more reliable than Airbus. I think that we will have to get away from the just in time logistics philosophy WRT spares and go back to holding sufficient spares in stock like we used to. What works for civvies doesn't always work for the military because the operating conditions and environments are totally different. Like @MrConservative I see a slow sea change in attitudes happening WRT defence and security within NZ and the only problem that I have with it, is that the political and bureaucratic classes are reacting to that and outside changes far to slowly. There is a DWP due this year and I note in the BfiM for the MINDEF that the intention is to consult the public and decision time about this is May 2021. A lot has changed since the last DWP so we may see better results than the last one. I don't think this govt is as taken with the PRC as the last National govt (2008 - 2017) was. I know that they are treading carefully, but the time is close when they will have to rear up on their hind legs and stand up to the CCP and the PRC, whether they like it or not.

 

[ngatimozart]

Until when 2035ish

NZ would not make a decision on a ACF for at least 5 years and then the selection process, so I imagine the earliest a aircraft would arrive in NZ colours would be after 2030 or roughly 2032 F-15/18 lines would most likely be closed by the time NZ gets around to ordering aircraft

Maritime strike for F35 is from block 4/5 from what I can gather the Israeli Air Force is supposedly working on conformal fuel tanks for the F35. I cant see NZ going straight to 6th gen Aircraft off the bat so I can only see F35 as the only game for NZ if it wants to get back in the game.

What is your obsession with NZ acquiring the F-35? It is not the only game in town for an ACF so get off that bloody hobby horse. And how do you know it would take at least 5 years to make a decision? Are you a member of the NZG? It could be a lot quicker or conversely it might not happen at all. There is a DWP due this year and if the decision is made in that, then theoretically the first aircraft could be here within 3 - 4 years or even less.

Agree there are a number of different ways that NZ could go with this but I think they will end up tagging onto the RN City class (Type 26) frigates

What gives you the idea that we will acquire the Type 26 in any form? Have you bothered reading through any of the posts that have been made about the future RNZN frigates and why the Type 26 would not be a good acquisition for the RNZN. Probably not and it appears that you are just speaking out of your arse again. Just because the ADF acquires the flashest toys in town doesn't mean the NZDF has too. So pull yer head in.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

WRT the C-2, it's that or the A400M and KHI will be a darn sight more reliable than Airbus.

I do like the C-2 and agree it will be more reliable than the A400M...

I think that we will have to get away from the just in time logistics philosophy WRT spares and go back to holding sufficient spares in stock like we used to. What works for civvies doesn't always work for the military because the operating conditions and environments are totally different.

I personally would be a lot happier if we did...

Like @MrConservative I see a slow sea change in attitudes happening WRT defence and security within NZ and the only problem that I have with it, is that the political and bureaucratic classes are reacting to that and outside changes far to slowly.

You are preaching to the converted... lol and yes I have seen a slow change... but the sea blindness is still there... and the air and land... oh you know what I mean... but there is a slow shift of politicians waking up

 

[Rob c]

Reactivating an ACF is a hugely expensive and long process and I believe that the NZDF would achieve better deterrence by investing in alternative capabilities.
1. Expand the frigate force, the OPVs and maritime helo numbers so that all deployed ships had helo capability.
This would enable the RNZN always partake in allied naval activity, provide escorts for the proposed LHDs and to meet its sovereignty obligations in both the Pacific and the Antarctic.
2. Expand the P8 force and give them LRSAM’s. That in itself is probably a greater deterrent than a small ACF.
3. Give the Army a meaningful Attack/ARH capability to add lethality, and;
4. Provide a further CAS capability in the form of the Beechcraft AT-6B which would be incredibly useful in the Indo Pacific especially for the counter insurgency Role and would compliment allied capability (I’ve argued for this previously).
5. Increase air mobility/transport numbers.
It may be the case that a choice between 3&4 above would be appropriate.
All of the above give the NZDF a better balanced force as I fear resources given to an ACF would leech funds away from other more needed assets.

Reactivating an ACF is a hugely expensive and long process and I believe that the NZDF would achieve better deterrence by investing in alternative capabilities.
1. Expand the frigate force, the OPVs and maritime helo numbers so that all deployed ships had helo capability.
This would enable the RNZN always partake in allied naval activity, provide escorts for the proposed LHDs and to meet its sovereignty obligations in both the Pacific and the Antarctic.
2. Expand the P8 force and give them LRSAM’s. That in itself is probably a greater deterrent than a small ACF.
3. Give the Army a meaningful Attack/ARH capability to add lethality, and;
4. Provide a further CAS capability in the form of the Beechcraft AT-6B which would be incredibly useful in the Indo Pacific especially for the counter insurgency Role and would compliment allied capability (I’ve argued for this previously).
5. Increase air mobility/transport numbers.
It may be the case that a choice between 3&4 above would be appropriate.
All of the above give the NZDF a better balanced force as I fear resources given to an ACF would leech funds away from other more needed assets.

The problem with the above in not re-establishing an AFC is that it does not block the threat from the air and any weakness in this area would be quickly exploited by an aggressor and what is proposed above would not be cheap either. What must be remembered is that historically well over 90% of invasions on islands have been successful if you allow the enemy to establish itself on shore. We have to provide a significant deterrent to both air and sea threats and a well armed AFC does this better than any other single capability that we can have. We must have the ability to deter both Air and sea threats and should they occur to be able to make it significantly expensive for any aggressors. We must not allow a significant force the luxury of a landing on our shores with any strength. What we must remember that should a threat arise that the threat would also apply to Australia, so help would not be available from there, and would happen during a breakdown in world order which could mean that at least for a limited period of time we could be on our own.
As I have said before, we have to know what is going on in our area and have the ability to contain or neutralise anything that we disapprove of before it reaches our shores . We must not forget that we live in an increasingly unstable world and due to global warming and population overload, our water and food production ability will become an increasingly sort after.
While I would agree we need additional P 8's, the limited number we could ever own would make me reluctant to commit them to combat with a surface fleet as i would consider them too valuable to take that risk, additional naval assets would be an advantage, but there is very little that gives us the flexibility that an AFC does in deterring both sea and air attacks on NZ. The other advantage with an AFC is that it puts the least number of our young men and women at risk should we have to commit to combat.
The first priority must be to deter or stop any threat before it reaches our shores, so surveillance, intelligence and long range air and surface defence must be the first priority.

 

[t68]

What is your obsession with NZ acquiring the F-35? It is not the only game in town for an ACF so get off that bloody hobby horse. And how do you know it would take at least 5 years to make a decision? Are you a member of the NZG? It could be a lot quicker or conversely it might not happen at all. There is a DWP due this year and if the decision is made in that, then theoretically the first aircraft could be here within 3 - 4 years or even less.

What gives you the idea that we will acquire the Type 26 in any form? Have you bothered reading through any of the posts that have been made about the future RNZN frigates and why the Type 26 would not be a good acquisition for the RNZN. Probably not and it appears that you are just speaking out of your arse again. Just because the ADF acquires the flashest toys in town doesn't mean the NZDF has too. So pull yer head in.

Just like your own post its based on opinion, the only government official that has remotely talked about about reinvesting in a ACF is Ron Marks. At this time I have not seen anything remotely of that nature come from the Defence Minister Peeni Henare, or the Prime Minister.

You yourself stated a few posts ago that the wheels move slowly in NZD if you actually think that standing up a handful of multi role ACF irrespective if they are 4th or 5th gen in the next 4 years you are dreaming. Marks had an up hill battle to replace the bloody C130/ Orions and look at the time frame. we are talking a whole new capability from scratch. only way you are going to see a permanent fighter jet capability in NZ in 4 years is through either the Singaporeans or Australian basing aircraft there.

At the moment you have a capability gap one that has existed since the demise of the scooters with the current plans to for upgrading the defence force with all the other competing needs throughout NZ reestablishing a ACF is either very low key or non existent, so any new aircraft is at-least a minimum of 10/12 years away. Which aircraft is still most likely to be a viable proposition comes 20 years down the line around 2050, even you can guess that one

As for the frigate replacement did I say they will buy Australian nope, I said there is a lot of options but in my opinion I think they will settle on the City class as the current weapons are comparable, you haven't moved away from American to UK now only to reinstate the weapons in the next fleet. While i would like to see additional frigates in service the RNZN head sheds will be looking for weapons system that have bite from the beginning, from my point of view it is better to have 2 ships that can integrate into the coalition than 3/4 ships that will need protecting from the task group itself, maybe its time to take your own advice in pulling ones head in.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

I have not seen anything remotely of that nature come from the Defence Minister Peeni Henare,

To be fair here I have not heard much from him yet either, other than going to various events ... I mean he has only been in the position a couple of months... so he has had a chance to do his job yet.

 

[ngatimozart]

The problem with the above in not re-establishing an AFC is that it does not block the threat from the air and any weakness in this area would be quickly exploited by an aggressor and what is proposed above would not be cheap either. What must be remembered is that historically well over 90% of invasions on islands have been successful if you allow the enemy to establish itself on shore. We have to provide a significant deterrent to both air and sea threats and a well armed AFC does this better than any other single capability that we can have. We must have the ability to deter both Air and sea threats and should they occur to be able to make it significantly expensive for any aggressors. We must not allow a significant force the luxury of a landing on our shores with any strength. What we must remember that should a threat arise that the threat would also apply to Australia, so help would not be available from there, and would happen during a breakdown in world order which could mean that at least for a limited period of time we could be on our own.
As I have said before, we have to know what is going on in our area and have the ability to contain or neutralise anything that we disapprove of before it reaches our shores . We must not forget that we live in an increasingly unstable world and due to global warming and population overload, our water and food production ability will become an increasingly sort after.
While I would agree we need additional P 8's, the limited number we could ever own would make me reluctant to commit them to combat with a surface fleet as i would consider them too valuable to take that risk, additional naval assets would be an advantage, but there is very little that gives us the flexibility that an AFC does in deterring both sea and air attacks on NZ. The other advantage with an AFC is that it puts the least number of our young men and women at risk should we have to commit to combat.
The first priority must be to deter or stop any threat before it reaches our shores, so surveillance, intelligence and long range air and surface defence must be the first priority.

Rob I don't think that we are talking about actual invasion of NZ because like Australia both countries can be effectively neutralised by cutting off their sea and air lanes of communication. That means both of us would be cut off from our oil and fuel supplies, weapons, ammo, foodstuffs, and other essential supplies etc., especially from the US. We would be left to wither on the vine. During WW2 that was the Japanese plan for Australia and NZ - cut us off from the US. They damn near succeeded too, especially if they'd taken Midway, PNG and the Solomon Islands. Mind back then NZ was very capable of feeding itself apart from juice of the empire (tea) and sugar. Australia would've been in a similar position. We and the Americans actually did that to the Japanese fortress of Rabaul tying up 100,000 troops there sinking everything that floated, shooting down everything that flew, destroying everything on the ground painted green and went after their food growing gardens. They only gave up because the Emperor told them too and they were pretty bedraggled, starving etc., when the allies landed in Rabaul.

You are preaching to the converted... lol and yes I have seen a slow change... but the sea blindness is still there... and the air and land... oh you know what I mean... but there is a slow shift of politicians waking up

Yes unfortunately the seablindess is an inherent Kiwi deficiency despite our love of the water, sailing and all sorts of watery pursuits. That big moat is both a blessing and a bloody great liability.

 

[MrConservative]

Interesting suggestions, but yet to see any of them resolve the strategic context we are finding ourselves in over the next 30-40 years - the lack of counter-maritime capability. In terms of credible air power solutions in the maritime domain that complete a coherent OODA loop, one in which the D and A of the Boyd model is virtually non-existent, Wolverines and ARH are next to useless in that regard.

 

[MrConservative]

The economic reality is that NZ doesn’t have a lot of money to spend on defence.

It has one of the most favourable economies in the world and a AAA credit line. Affordability is a fiction. It has never been economic handbrake, always a political one.

Australia would also benefit from having another squadron of strike fighters in the region (albeit with close Allies). “Stronger together” is a phrase I’d use to describe this sort of policy.

That was exactly the attitude during the Cold War period. The DWP97 talked about that "self reliance in partnership."

Another idea I have floated here before would be to combine with the RAAF for one NZ squadron. Kind of like a joint NATO (but ANZAC) squadron that could be based near Auckland. Training pipeline etc all managed by the RAAF but applications to join open to citizens from both countries. Preference for that squadron could be given to NZ officers and personnel to try and build experience within NZ. Control would be managed by both countries but usage in wartime would have to be detailed by a “mutual defence” scenario. At least this way if the NZDF ever takes it back “in house” there is something to start with. Funding would come from a NZ/AUS mix. Probably 80% NZ for that squadron but it would benefit from economies of scale when combined with the RAAF training and maintenance system.

Eminently sensible and probably the path to least resistance.

Sharing the Super Hornets, the NZ Govt buys half the existing fleet or expands it, takes over the cost of operating those aircraft. Frees up the RAAF to both increase its F-35 fleet beyond 72 airframes and frees up RAAF pilots to convert to the increased F-35 fleet, whilst in region there would be still 24 Rhino's and the Growlers. It is a win - win for everyone.

Edit: NZ buys in pro-rata to the Hawk replacement out of Pierce.

 

[aviation_enthus]

It has one of the most favourable economies in the world and a AAA credit line. Affordability is a fiction. It has never been economic handbrake, always a political one.

My point was more related to the size or the NZ economy. 2% or even 2.5% of a smaller well run economy is still severely limited compared to say Australia with a bigger GDP.

That was exactly the attitude during the Cold War period. The DWP97 talked about that "self reliance in partnership."

Reality is that Australia, NZ and probably Singapore should be finding “shared interests” to forge closer defence partnerships. We could all find various benefits that would help out in the event of conflict in Asia.

Eminently sensible and probably the path to least resistance.

Sharing the Super Hornets, the NZ Govt buys half the existing fleet or expands it, takes over the cost of operating those aircraft. Frees up the RAAF to both increase its F-35 fleet beyond 72 airframes and frees up RAAF pilots to convert to the increased F-35 fleet, whilst in region there would be still 24 Rhino's and the Growlers. It is a win - win for everyone.

Edit: NZ buys in pro-rata to the Hawk replacement out of Pierce.

I was also thinking Super Hornets as I’d imagine they’re cheaper to operate than F-35’s (or at least purchase). However this would combine with another idea I think Australia needs to pursue given the deteriorating strategic outlook, that is to create an active Air Force Reserve that runs Super Hornets. (Expanding the RAAF fleet to include active reserve units, then adding an NZ based full time squadron).

As much as we can all see the benefit in ACF, I think a dose of political reality is required. Once an expensive capability like this is lost, I would argue it’ll take an outbreak of serious conflict in Asia to bring it back again. There is no “votes” in buying fighter aircraft. Except from people on this forum of course!

 

[Rob c]

Rob I don't think that we are talking about actual invasion of NZ because like Australia both countries can be effectively neutralised by cutting off their sea and air lanes of communication. That means both of us would be cut off from our oil and fuel supplies, weapons, ammo, foodstuffs, and other essential supplies etc., especially from the US. We would be left to wither on the vine. During WW2 that was the Japanese plan for Australia and NZ - cut us off from the US. They damn near succeeded too, especially if they'd taken Midway, PNG and the Solomon Islands. Mind back then NZ was very capable of feeding itself apart from juice of the empire (tea) and sugar. Australia would've been in a similar position. We and the Americans actually did that to the Japanese fortress of Rabaul tying up 100,000 troops there sinking everything that floated, shooting down everything that flew, destroying everything on the ground painted green and went after their food growing gardens. They only gave up because the Emperor told them too and they were pretty bedraggled, starving etc., when the allies landed in Rabaul.

Ngati. I don't think that the possibility of invasion can be ignored, though the threat would be some years away at present but is real none the less real. The reason for this is the main reason for the break down in world order as perceived by the US army ( U.S. Military Could Collapse Within 20 Years Due to Climate Change, Report Commissioned By Pentagon Says - VICE ) and an earlier report by the London University, both of which talk about the over population of the world. London university was very clear in that it felt that food and water would become the strategic necessity (the oil fields of the future) and the cause of conflict in the future. Due to our surplus of both food and water any aggressor entering our area would want to make use of that surplus. Isolating NZ would leave what is increasingly a scarce resource (water and food ) untapped and I doubt that any aggressor would be satisfied by this .

 

[Rob c]

As much as we can all see the benefit in ACF, I think a dose of political reality is required. Once an expensive capability like this is lost, I would argue it’ll take an outbreak of serious conflict in Asia to bring it back again. There is no “votes” in buying fighter aircraft. Except from people on this forum of course!

While under current circumstances the politicians are not interested in an AFC, there is more support for this in polling that is carried out from time to time. Polls carried out every few years have shown a little variation in support for an AFC at between 65% to 70% and there has been around 40% wanting an increase in the defence budget, however I would say most of this support is relatively soft and from a quiet majority and whether the local council can stop the tap water from going brown is a more immediate concern.

 

[Gracie1234]

As an observation of the current economic environment, the NZ public seem quite comfortable with large defence purchases as long as they can be clearly explained, it is not the 80s or 90s. When the announcement was made of the 20 Billion, the c130 and the p8, there were some questions asked but there were no national protests. It left the front page very quickly.
COVID has also desensitized people to massive numbers, just look at the projected debt levels. A few years ago that would of been a much larger conversation.
In my view now is the time that we need to be investing in our entire country, money is cheap and our ability to pay is high. If we attributed 2% of GDP that would be enough, we are a $200 billion economy and expected to reach $300 billion soon. We need to keep in mind that the NZ population will get to 8-10 million within the next 50 years, if we follow historical growth rates. The gov will be needing this to help grow the economy to pay for the superannuation and debt problem.
The money is there to lift our capability and demonstrate our commitment. I am not educated enough to know what the actual mix of capabilities should be but being an IT guy I would advocate for a strong Cyber capability. Taking down infrastructure with an IT attack provides the same outcome as a bomb and it is easy to deny in public.

 

[ngatimozart]

Ngati. I don't think that the possibility of invasion can be ignored, though the threat would be some years away at present but is real none the less real. The reason for this is the main reason for the break down in world order as perceived by the US army ( U.S. Military Could Collapse Within 20 Years Due to Climate Change, Report Commissioned By Pentagon Says - VICE ) and an earlier report by the London University, both of which talk about the over population of the world. London university was very clear in that it felt that food and water would become the strategic necessity (the oil fields of the future) and the cause of conflict in the future. Due to our surplus of both food and water any aggressor entering our area would want to make use of that surplus. Isolating NZ would leave what is increasingly a scarce resource (water and food ) untapped and I doubt that any aggressor would be satisfied by this .

Thanks for that. Interesting article and it does follow the science.

Speaking to the science in the NZ context, we too will suffer from water problems. Most of our water storage is locked up in our 3140 glaciers (as of 2010) but because of climate change our glaciers are retreating, we are losing glaciers, resulting in significant water shortage loss. We will get to the point where we will have lost all of our glaciers. All of the hydro lakes in the South Island are glacial fed. They actually rely on the spring thaw of the snow pack for a significant amount of their water. There will be more rain intensive events, but overall the cumulative impact will be less annual rainfall.

This places us in somewhat of a conundrum because to keep growing tucker we require water, but we will have less of it. That means we have to change the way we do things and just look at the screaming and shouting when Councils start trying to put coastal inundation information on people's properties LIMs (Land Information Memorandum).

So yes you do raise a very valid point and one that had slipped my mind.

 

[ASSAIL]

Interesting suggestions, but yet to see any of them resolve the strategic context we are finding ourselves in over the next 30-40 years - the lack of counter-maritime capability. In terms of credible air power solutions in the maritime domain that complete a coherent OODA loop, one in which the D and A of the Boyd model is virtually non-existent, Wolverines and ARH are next to useless in that regard.

You take the ARH and Wolverines out of context, they would never be considered for the maritime domain but would support ground operations/COIN undertaken in the islands to our north.
As to the OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) loop a strengthened and armed P8 force can go a long way to contributing.
Besides an ACF cannot “Act” at arms length without complex support.
Further if peer on peer conflict is the scenario NZ would not be acting alone but would be contributing to a combined force so the leverage provided by a small ACF would not be as useful as that provided by the P8 force. IMHO

 

[MrConservative]

You take the ARH and Wolverines out of context, they would never be considered for the maritime domain but would support ground operations/COIN undertaken in the islands to our north.

Indeed not as ground support for COIN operations has nothing to do with achieving the context of New Zealand not having a counter-maritime capability or indeed strategy for the 21st century, which as all the literature and modern warfare experiences suggest, involves the interface of naval, air and space/cyber domain capabilities in both ISR and combat components. Thus I question the efficacy of those kind of singular platforms when they do not resolve the bleedingly obvious counter maritime degradation that New Zealand faces.

As to the OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) loop a strengthened and armed P8 force can go a long way to contributing.
Besides an ACF cannot “Act” at arms length without complex support.

That is right the P-8 can. And yes it cannot act without complex support. However these will also have to be addressed. The other thing is that both the P-8A and a modern capable air combat capability enable and reinforce the Act phase.

Further if peer on peer conflict is the scenario NZ would not be acting alone but would be contributing to a combined force so the leverage provided by a small ACF would not be as useful as that provided by the P8 force. IMHO

It is not an either - or, both are important. However that is not the only reason for any possession of an air combat capability. There are also other factors which are pertinent to possessing that capability as a sovereign state within and relying on, a massive maritime domain of strategic interest. The very same reasons that other sovereign democracies retain it. Does Australia possess a multi-role air combat capability solely as a contribution to a wider combined force against a peer to peer adversary? Of course not. There are other national interests and national choices and indeed responses in play in how air power is shaped and performed.

The other thing is that in the late 1990's during the F-16 acquisition process, COIN aircraft and Attack Helicopters were all suggested and thoroughly evaluated in the Whineray and Quigley reports and quite rightly did not stand up to scrutiny including VfM. All roads pointed to then the retention of a multi-role air combat capability, that even then recognised a maritime interdiction prime focus, with the obvious ability to conduct a broad range of other missions sets pertinent to national interests and choices, as well as a contribution of stability to the wider security umbrella stability.

At the time of the F-16 acquisition it was noted that they would provide a contribution of around 20% of the combined RNZAF/RAAF strike capability. Which lays to rest any thoughts on their weight of contribution to the critical mass of air combat capability in our corner of the world.

 

[John Fedup]

As an observation of the current economic environment, the NZ public seem quite comfortable with large defence purchases as long as they can be clearly explained, it is not the 80s or 90s. When the announcement was made of the 20 Billion, the c130 and the p8, there were some questions asked but there were no national protests. It left the front page very quickly.
COVID has also desensitized people to massive numbers, just look at the projected debt levels. A few years ago that would of been a much larger conversation.
In my view now is the time that we need to be investing in our entire country, money is cheap and our ability to pay is high. If we attributed 2% of GDP that would be enough, we are a $200 billion economy and expected to reach $300 billion soon. We need to keep in mind that the NZ population will get to 8-10 million within the next 50 years, if we follow historical growth rates. The gov will be needing this to help grow the economy to pay for the superannuation and debt problem.
The money is there to lift our capability and demonstrate our commitment. I am not educated enough to know what the actual mix of capabilities should be but being an IT guy I would advocate for a strong Cyber capability. Taking down infrastructure with an IT attack provides the same outcome as a bomb and it is easy to deny in public.

Certain electorates are more tolerant of defence kit that isn’t considered pointy end, like your P-8s and C-130s, or in Canada’s caseC-17s/130s and Chinooks. Fighters are more problematic.