NZDF General discussion thread

[Stuart M]

View attachment 49959
From Wikipedia.

Realistically there are only two countries that could threaten New Zealand with Fighter aircraft, that is Australia (with multiple refuelling (KC30/C130j) of long range fighters (eg F-18SH) with long range munitions (LRASM)) and the USA (from carriers). With bombers, again, only Australia and USA, unless 3rd party airfields could be arranged. It could be in range of long range marine aircraft

No other country could realistically threaten NZ with fighters, even from carriers, it is simply too far away. Unlike pretty much every other country, its just not a threat for NZ.

NZ and its zones are exposed, to shipping threats. If the NZDF wants to increase in strength, the Navy is the priority area. The aircraft that NZ could look at are P8's, MC55A/EL/W2085, C130 type aircraft.

• P8 has ~8000km range. It can carry strike missiles, torpedo's, buoys, rescue packages, etc. Its a kinetic hitter. It can also do SAR. 11 hardpoints. This is the aircraft US/AU/CA etc are using to conduct freedom of navigation flights which the Chinese are opposing with Fighter jets. Front line aircraft, providing real presence operations in contested spaces.
• G550 based MC55A/AEW has a ~12,000 km range. It can conduct EW/SIGINT ops. It can degrade the environment that enemy ops can't be sustained or conducted. It can jam airspace, It can collect intelligence, it can manage airspace, it can force multiply with US and AU elements as well as globally make contributions as most other air forces do not have these capabilities.
• C130 ~7000km range. It can lift equipment and resources, and sustain deployments across the region as well.

All of these are pretty expensive. But all of these would be relevant for NZ. They have long enough range to be able to operate from NZ itself, but provide regional presence. They could be based from fields further north and from smaller pacific fields, and provide huge range further north from those fields. Expensive to buy, but cheap to operate. The P8 and the G550 are based off commercial planes. Companies and celebrities can afford to operate this class of aircraft.

If NZ wants to improve its Navy, it shouldn't be looking at short range diesel submarines, which make as much sense as fighter jets. There are no strategic straits or tight geography around NZ for them to operate (again like fighter jets, where over the open pacific ocean do we see airbattles happening?).

It could however look at operate 4+ large frigates in the 3000-7000t range. Crewing would be much the same as the two frigates it has now, so while a large upfront acquisition cost, operational costs would be much the same as operating the current two Anzacs it currently has. They would be regionally and globally more important. A well armed, capable frigate is always a significant asset, in any situation.

NZ has in its favor an ally like no other in Australia. Australia shares a similar world view to NZ. Australia and NZ are brothers in arms and share a migration, military and economic policy basically unlike anywhere else. Australia is the regional superpower. Australia is aligned very closely with the global superpower. NZ also has strong relationships with the UK. No one is going to threaten the UK without those other elements getting involved.

However, they have limited resources. Australia is huge in area. It struggles to patrol it vast (~15% of the earth surface) SAR zone and huge EEZ zone as well as provide military coverage of alliances up north. The US has many capabilities, but again, its looking far north. It has basically no bases in the south pacific.

So its not going to be some unknown Chinese carrier strike group that slips through that NZ will have to repel, but perhaps, a lone ship, a grey coast guard ship, military/commercial fishing ships, intelligence ships, SSN etc. If NZ can close the EM spectrum to that ship, it becomes useless, if it can make it known where and what it is doing, it becomes useless.

Any investment in this capability would also be useful globally. Many forces don't invest in these type of enablers sufficiently.

The NZ ACF from its inception in the 30's (oddly enough by the 1st Labour government to save costs on warships)was for maritime strike, not fighter aircraft.
If you look at historical events and probable future threats I think the reasoning from then still largely follows, so I would expand on your thoughts on this; surface and sub-surface threats from SSNs and single ships or at worst small squadrons at the high end with intent of intimidation or trade blockade by various means.
I dont see the P8 as being sufficient for this, but good for a lot of it, but what does matter is range and payload.

I agree with you entirely on a need for EW aircraft.

Certainly a South Seas Battle of Britain is not on the cards, but I do feel that NZ reqirements for an ACF are not in anyway like that of the US/AU/UK or others and NZ should not try to mimic their purchase choices as it would never make sense.

 

[Rob c]

Realistically there are only two countries that could threaten New Zealand with Fighter aircraft, that is Australia (with multiple refuelling (KC30/C130j) of long range fighters (eg F-18SH) with long range munitions (LRASM)) and the USA (from carriers). With bombers, again, only Australia and USA, unless 3rd party airfields could be arranged. It could be in range of long range marine aircraft

This is what makes an AFC so damn effective as a deterrent as it means that unless the the opposition can bring a significant Carrier based air group into NZ waters, NZ would be able to rule the sky's. This over the sea approaches to NZ will make anyone hesitate before committing themselves to any hostile action against NZ.
We must not forget that the first priority of any defence force is the preservation of that countries sovereignty. Our current defence force does not have this ability and increasing the numbers of ships or aircraft wont give us that capability. We must not forget that China is building up it's carrier fleet, which may become a threat in the future.

 

[Todjaeger]

This is what makes an AFC so damn effective as a deterrent as it means that unless the the opposition can bring a significant Carrier based air group into NZ waters, NZ would be able to rule the sky's. This over the sea approaches to NZ will make anyone hesitate before committing themselves to any hostile action against NZ.

Sort of yes and sort of no, not quite.

Any hostile force would hesitate in attacking NZ largely due to the distance of NZ from other land masses that could serve as bases, and the very long and vulnerable SLOC to those bases never mind NZ itself.

One of the problems I have with so much looking back at the ACF is that so many scenarios tend to focus on the defence of NZ proper, whilst threats to NZ beyond either the 12 n mile limit or the EEZ get ignored.

Yes, it would be nice if the NZDF did have a fast jet force which could carry out maritime strike missions, as well as provide CAS and ground attack training, as well as providing training opportunities by acting as an OpFor so that NZDF personnel could train to defend vs. maritime strike, CAS, strike, etc. It would also be nice if NZ had some ability to have fast jet intercept and shoot down capability.

However, there is a very large swath of defence capabilities which NZ has either under resourced or permitted to wither or retire completely which IMO are either more important or more useful (or both) and should be funded, before attempting to restart an ACF.

Also, awareness by the public would be needed to get buy-in from policy makers so that the NZDF gets the resources needed to acquire the kit needed to provide capabilities, the personnel to operate and maintain the kit, as well as the infrastructure to base and support the kit and personnel. Until that lack of awareness can be broadly overcome so that Kiwis really understand that bad people do exist in the world, that bad things can happen or be done to NZ, and that bad things can occur elsewhere which effect NZ, then NZ is unlikely to develop the policies needed to really provide for the defence of NZ, and certainly not commit the level of resources which would be required.

 

[Shanesworld]

I think it is commonly equated that acf equals fighting against other fighters and frankly thats wrong. For us thats a secondary role should they be sent abroad in an expeditionary role.
Invasion attempt will never happen. Its a red herring. It acts as distraction that ignores the real issues. Which is denial of trafe access and more acutely blockade.
The acf is primarily maritime strike, access denial and would free up frigates from a defensive role to a convoy escort focus.
The access denial would be against in the current climate PLAN frigates, merchant raiders, mine layers, surveillance/ew ships but the most important is long range aerial mine layers. H6 with captors could rapidly, without warning and at will without interference cripple us in an afternoon.
We need to police our air space.
But does that need vipers, gripens, typhoons, hornets or eagles? Maybe not.
We are getting p-8. We need to buy more p-8's anyway. The p-8 has a nascent radar capacity to guide aim120c onwards which will need to be developed further but is not unreasobly difficult. They should be able to carry aim9's.
But i think the real option is the laser weapon pods that are being tested from either raytheon or lockheed. This provides defensive strength and possible offensive punch. Fighters cant get here. Bombers, mpas can. If we focus on shooting those down and get nsm to sink warships then we have the home waters covered off. Anither 4 to 8 p-8's and worry about crewing them after as long as the line doesnt close down first. Then pivot to building up navy to beyond 4. 6 should be a min. The we have a chance of keeping merchant ships getting here if shooting starts in one of the important water ways.

 

[Rob c]

Invasion attempt will never happen. Its a red herring. It acts as distraction that ignores the real issues. Which is denial of trafe access and more acutely blockade.

Never say never to anything. We may look into the future and say we cannot see something happening, but the reality is when we look into the future we see nothing because we are blind to the future. We will not see a threat even if one there is in the future. As I have said before there have been plenty of losers in the past who said something could not or would not happen and then it has.
If you lose your sovereignty, then trade becomes irrelevant.

 

[recce.k1]

Never say never to anything. We may look into the future and say we cannot see something happening, ...

That is true and there may be a number of scenarios. For example the CCP is playing the long game to make strategic in-roads into the South Pacific. They now have a foot in the door.

Another scenario is when the Antarctic treaty expires in 2048 with a vast continent ripe for exploitation (does anyone seriously think the UN's words and resolutions will hold back members of the Security Council flexing muscle wanting to exploit)? We have a number of nations that have had historical claims to the continent dating back well over 100 years. Then there are nations (such as the US) even with its long historical connections to the continent that doesn't recognise these claims. Then we have relatively newcomers such as China and Russia that state the continent is part of their strategic interest, are building a number of bases (even in contested areas) and are the main stumbling blocks to international efforts to protect the continent and marine areas now. Presumably they don't want pesky agreements getting in the way of future plans let alone recognising an international agreement having "sovereignty" (even in the interim). Sound familiar to other present day conflicts and threats of conflict these two are involved with? Although access for them can be via the African and South American continents, the quickest and direct route is via the South Pacific. How convenient if a few Island nations are "bought off" in the future? This then becomes a direct threat to NZ's interests (and Australia's, US & France etc) and we will be needing more than passive Southern Ocean OPV's!

China and Russia Continue to Block Protections for Antarctica

For the sixth year in a row, nations failed to agree on any new marine protected areas in the fragile Southern Ocean around Antarctica

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[recce.k1]

Also, awareness by the public would be needed to get buy-in from policy makers so that the NZDF gets the resources needed to acquire the kit needed to provide capabilities, the personnel to operate and maintain the kit, as well as the infrastructure to base and support the kit and personnel. Until that lack of awareness can be broadly overcome so that Kiwis really understand that bad people do exist in the world, that bad things can happen or be done to NZ, and that bad things can occur elsewhere which effect NZ, then NZ is unlikely to develop the policies needed to really provide for the defence of NZ, and certainly not commit the level of resources which would be required.

As always excellent analysis Tod, but one thing (your last paragraph) you might not quite be aware of? There has been a change, a quiet change but akin to a tsunami still traveling across the ocean, the change has been quiet but has also strong undercurrents. Public sentiment (in a general sense) is more pro-defence again (those days of the 80's/90's indifferences and 2000's anti-Middle East meddling) are over.

Today the public reads, hears and sees the CCP flexing its muscles in the SE Asia (an area that NZDF has had historical ties with, the public sees as place to visit and holiday in and there is a healthy, visible and respected Asian diaspora living here - some 15% of our population).

NZ's efforts to help the Afghan people of Bamiyan Province in the 2000's/2010's is still well regarded and people here (like elsewhere) are aghast at the Taliban taking over again and with the likes of women's rights being subjugated. We also saw Syria and ethnic minorities being decimated.

Now we have Russia's meddling in the Ukraine and the reckless and deliberate slaughter of civilians. This has angered a segment of NZ society and we have people from nurses, aid workers (including former military and politicians) to ex-NZDF heading over to help where they can. NZDF's efforts in the UK to assist with training are supported (as was NZDF efforts to help train Iraqis to fight).

The AUKUS submarine announcement was received positively judging to the public sentiment I heard and spending billions on new P-8's and C-130's hasn't raised an eyelid. Well apart from the usual suspects (green party and peaceniks).

But back to your point, the main issue for buy in is the two main political parties. Unlike Australia (or UK or US) the bipartisan support isn't always there but this seems to be changing as a newer generation of politicians enter our Parliament.

 

[recce.k1]

Anither 4 to 8 p-8's and worry about crewing them after as long as the line doesnt close down first. Then pivot to building up navy to beyond 4. 6 should be a min. The we have a chance of keeping merchant ships getting here if shooting starts in one of the important water ways.

Funny you say that, I almost wrote up "wishlists" yesterday, one of them was an additional two P-8's to strengthen 5 Sqn. Plus an additional 6 to form a second squadron so that one sqn could be deployed overseas with one in reserve in training to relive them (a la NZ's WW2 experiences in the pacific war) plus also guarding local waters. Which was also an issue in WW2 when the fighting units deployed overseas leaving only the training units behind.

Edit: to add/clarify: Additional P-8 a/c to form a second sqn as a higher priority than acquisition of a 5th gen f/b a/c (which isn't the same as not also acquiring/leasing second-hand 4th gen a/c to raise and train competencies, for future planning purposes).

 

[Stuart M]

Sort of yes and sort of no, not quite.

Any hostile force would hesitate in attacking NZ largely due to the distance of NZ from other land masses that could serve as bases, and the very long and vulnerable SLOC to those bases never mind NZ itself.

One of the problems I have with so much looking back at the ACF is that so many scenarios tend to focus on the defence of NZ proper, whilst threats to NZ beyond either the 12 n mile limit or the EEZ get ignored.

Yes, it would be nice if the NZDF did have a fast jet force which could carry out maritime strike missions, as well as provide CAS and ground attack training, as well as providing training opportunities by acting as an OpFor so that NZDF personnel could train to defend vs. maritime strike, CAS, strike, etc. It would also be nice if NZ had some ability to have fast jet intercept and shoot down capability.

However, there is a very large swath of defence capabilities which NZ has either under resourced or permitted to wither or retire completely which IMO are either more important or more useful (or both) and should be funded, before attempting to restart an ACF.

Also, awareness by the public would be needed to get buy-in from policy makers so that the NZDF gets the resources needed to acquire the kit needed to provide capabilities, the personnel to operate and maintain the kit, as well as the infrastructure to base and support the kit and personnel. Until that lack of awareness can be broadly overcome so that Kiwis really understand that bad people do exist in the world, that bad things can happen or be done to NZ, and that bad things can occur elsewhere which effect NZ, then NZ is unlikely to develop the policies needed to really provide for the defence of NZ, and certainly not commit the level of resources which would be required.

Speaking of public awareness

Exclusive: Kiwi Air Force missions repeatedly intercepted by foreign military jets

A Herald investigation has revealed 92 intercepts of Kiwi Air Force planes since 2015.

www.nzherald.co.nz

We don't know the where, when or whys, but I think South China Seas would be top of the list. Not sure what the Middle East reference is for if it's inside three years ago, but before that I can think of a couple of plausable suspects.
Can't say I'm surprised as I know that interesting people from NZ do interesting things overseas that the public are not aware of.

 

[Stuart M]

Never say never to anything. We may look into the future and say we cannot see something happening, but the reality is when we look into the future we see nothing because we are blind to the future. We will not see a threat even if one there is in the future. As I have said before there have been plenty of losers in the past who said something could not or would not happen and then it has.
If you lose your sovereignty, then trade becomes irrelevant.

Based on what I do for a living I can certainly foresee certain sernarios that absolutely compromise NZs sovereignty, short of a traditional invasion, that an ACF as a part of a properly funded and equipped defence force would prevent.

 

[Gracie1234]

Just wanted to add one point to the NZ awareness and support for defense. As a nation, our ethinic mix has changed with many people now living here being from countries that are far less safe and secure.
People from SE Asia are aware of China's actions.
People from North Asia are aware of Nth Korea and China's actions.
People from India are aware of China's actions.
People from everywhere else are aware of Russia's actions.
These people make up a large percentage of our population, and we should not underestimate their willingness to protect their country(NZ)

 

[Lolcake]

I think we can conclude re-activation of the ACF is prohibitively expensive. Staff shortages are also an issue. This was as per as per my previous posts regarding this topic.

I would like to see the following come out of the Defence review, I expect to see something along these lines;

- Expansion of major naval surface combatants to 3 or 4 ships (including more capable ships)

- Expansion of the P-8 fleet and new upcoming associated capabilities/upgrades being developed for this asset.

- development of strategic Airlift/aar

- Land force renewal(LAV replacement)
and development of a significantly improved artillery and air defence capability

Cheers
L

 

[Stuart M]

I think we can conclude re-activation of the ACF is prohibitively expensive. Staff shortages are also an issue. This was as per as per my previous posts regarding this topic.

I would like to see the following come out of the Defence review, I expect to see something along these lines;

- Expansion of major naval surface combatants to 3 or 4 ships (including more capable ships)

- Expansion of the P-8 fleet and new upcoming associated capabilities/upgrades being developed for this asset.

- development of strategic Airlift/aar

- Land force renewal(LAV replacement)
and development of a significantly improved artillery and air defence capability

Cheers
L

Whilst I agree with this post in general, I don't think a return of air strike is prohibitive, expensive, yes, but not prohibitive.
A glance at historical defence spending, recent government spending in general beyond defence, and the nature of changing political concerns show that spending priorities is a question of political willpower more than a simple question of budget headlines .

 

[recce.k1]

Speaking of public awareness

Exclusive: Kiwi Air Force missions repeatedly intercepted by foreign military jets

A Herald investigation has revealed 92 intercepts of Kiwi Air Force planes since 2015.

www.nzherald.co.nz

We don't know the where, when or whys, but I think South China Seas would be top of the list. Not sure what the Middle East reference is for if it's inside three years ago, but before that I can think of a couple of plausable suspects.
Can't say I'm surprised as I know that interesting people from NZ do interesting things overseas that the public are not aware of.

Would also like to see Rob C's take on this (as he has talked about these types of issues in general before), particularly in terms of the vulnerabilities of patrol aircraft operating on their own, and on the flip side as well as patrol aircraft operating in coordination with other assets.

Haven't seen anything about the RAAF P-8/J-16 incident since the time it happened, but has there been any suggestions since that it was an attempt to force the P-8 down so that, like the Hainan Is./EP-3E incident, it resulted in the CCP being able to examine its sensitive technology?

If so should the likes of P-8's be escorted nowadays when operating over contested air spaces? Should Boeing integrate an air-to-air missile capability (like the Nimrods were during the Falkland Is. conflict)?

 

[Stuart M]

Would also like to see Rob C's take on this (as he has talked about these types of issues in general before), particularly in terms of the vulnerabilities of patrol aircraft operating on their own, and on the flip side as well as patrol aircraft operating in coordination with other assets.

Haven't seen anything about the RAAF P-8/J-16 incident since the time it happened, but has there been any suggestions since that it was an attempt to force the P-8 down so that, like the Hainan Is./EP-3E incident, it resulted in the CCP being able to examine its sensitive technology?

If so should the likes of P-8's be escorted nowadays when operating over contested air spaces? Should Boeing integrate an air-to-air missile capability (like the Nimrods were during the Falkland Is. conflict)?

I suppose you might be able to put air to air weapons on a P8, but if things are that bad as to warrant it they would be heavily escorted or leaving the vicinity. A converted airliner is in no way designed for, or survivabile in, contested airspace.

 

[recce.k1]

I suppose you might be able to put air to air weapons on a P8, but if things are that bad as to warrant it they would be heavily escorted or leaving the vicinity. A converted airliner is in no way designed for, or survivabile in, contested airspace.

Sorry I meant over the ("international airspace") areas today (SCS, MEO) that were mentioned in the NZ Herald article.

 

[StingrayOZ]

This is what makes an AFC so damn effective as a deterrent as it means that unless the the opposition can bring a significant Carrier based air group into NZ waters, NZ would be able to rule the sky's. This over the sea approaches to NZ will make anyone hesitate before committing themselves to any hostile action against NZ.

If you want 24/7/365 independent fighter capability you will need more than a squadron of fighters. More like 3 squadrons, particularly with modern 5th gen aircraft and their availability rates.. Particularly if you are talking about longer range patrols, beyond sight of NZ mainland. You will need ~6 refuelling aircraft. You will need E7's. This requires the establishment of many new capabilities NZ just doesn't have. One squadron would pretty much just beable to offer capabilities as Todj indicated, OpFor, training, etc.

Even Australia has to forward base their aircraft, 4000km north east of Tindal, at Butterworth to be even remotely "near the fight" in regards to China. With Indonesia it was different, Darwin was front line, and F-111's had the range to buzz airbases in Indonesia and did so. If NZ is looking at combat fighters, then logically the place they would be located is Butterworth, not Auckland. It would be in a forward defence posture. Not a fortress NZ posture. If the force has rolled over Japan, Korea, the US, Singapore, Indonesia and Australia, I would propose that NZ would struggle to resist against such an overwhelming force on its own.

EEZ is best patrolled with P8's and other long ranged aircraft, and ships, presence is everything.

If so should the likes of P-8's be escorted nowadays when operating over contested air spaces? Should Boeing integrate an air-to-air missile capability (like the Nimrods were during the Falkland Is. conflict)?

Part of the P8 is that it is detectable. It gives presence. Being stealthy doesn't particularly help its mission. It is being used for freedom of navigation flights, because literally, everyone can see it on radar doing its job. Its a big, twin engine aircraft, designed for high flight hours.

While unlikely to engage fighter aircraft, there really isn't anything stopping the US integrating SM-6 and having P8 carry it to deter long range bombers. Normally such aircraft would operate well outside the range of fighter aircraft in a hot environment. However, if you are doing freedom of navigation exercises during peace time, they are good aircraft for that mission. Capturing a 737 is not likely to give the Chinese many secrets. Before a P8 lands in China, all the software will be zero'd and most of the hardware trashed. Wearing out China's air force with their fighters and refuellers having to intercept good old 737's works in Australia's favor. Do not assume because China is firing chaff into the P8, doesn't make the P8 a worthless aircraft. Its about rubbing shoulders.

If Australia wanted to escort its P8 patrols. It can.

We are getting p-8. We need to buy more p-8's anyway.

That is the obvious and quickest option for NZ. NZ used to operate 6 P3's. Ideally, operating 5-6 P8's will given NZ a powerful deterrent and capability that could come online within 2-3 years, and before the production line winds down. It would make NZ globally relevant in a conflict and enable NZ to assert itself across its EEZ and friendly region where NZ presence is invited. Which may be hypercritical, because US or AU presence may be seen as a country choosing polarity or aggressive. An NZ P8 can be an NZ P8, and AU P8 can't be an NZ P8. This allows a fleet that can still provide capability while undergoing upgrade or maintenance. Australia is clumsy at Pacific diplomacy at the best of time. A pacific nation leader is unlikely to feel like he can express their wants and needs, concerns when Australia is lock step with the US throwing JASSM at China. NZ is more accessible and has a similar strategic stance to those smaller pacific nations.

Then pivot to building up navy to beyond 4. 6 should be a min

4 frigates would be an excellent goal. 5 gives sustainable deployment of multiple frigates. 2 currently gives you nothing sustainable, and as you have found with the upgrade, zero capability for extended periods while upgrading and refitting. NZ can afford and historical has operated 4-5 Frigates. Similar sized nations (Norway, Singapore etc) also have operated 4-5 frigates. The enemy will apply pressure when you are at your weakest, which for NZ means when you have no ships available at all.

Modern frigates could even be armed with LRASM or TLAM, giving NZ a ~1500 km+ stand off range for antishipping. The air defence of a frigate will be significant for NZ. Type 31, F110, Mogami, italian PPA, all offer low crew options where NZ could split its existing crew across four ships. I understand the RNZN has a staffing problem, well smaller crewed ships helps solve that. A ship can go to sea much easier if you just need to put a crew of ~80 together instead of a crew of ~200. There is more chance at promotion, more opportunity, more flexibility.

With so many areas that I can see with opportunities to improve on existing skills and capabilities, fighter aircraft doesn't really get a look in. Cool, you get 6 P8's, 5 Frigates, weapons, modernise Army, triton drones, etc, well yeh, maybe some fighters could add to the combined fight, but even then, unlikely to be based in NZ proper.

 

[Stuart M]

If you want 24/7/365 independent fighter capability you will need more than a squadron of fighters. More like 3 squadrons, particularly with modern 5th gen aircraft and their availability rates.. Particularly if you are talking about longer range patrols, beyond sight of NZ mainland. You will need ~6 refuelling aircraft. You will need E7's. This requires the establishment of many new capabilities NZ just doesn't have. One squadron would pretty much just beable to offer capabilities as Todj indicated, OpFor, training, etc.

Even Australia has to forward base their aircraft, 4000km north east of Tindal, at Butterworth to be even remotely "near the fight" in regards to China. With Indonesia it was different, Darwin was front line, and F-111's had the range to buzz airbases in Indonesia and did so. If NZ is looking at combat fighters, then logically the place they would be located is Butterworth, not Auckland. It would be in a forward defence posture. Not a fortress NZ posture. If the force has rolled over Japan, Korea, the US, Singapore, Indonesia and Australia, I would propose that NZ would struggle to resist against such an overwhelming force on its own.

Snip

With so many areas that I can see with opportunities to improve on existing skills and capabilities, fighter aircraft doesn't really get a look in. Cool, you get 6 P8's, 5 Frigates, weapons, modernise Army, triton drones, etc, well yeh, maybe some fighters could add to the combined fight, but even then, unlikely to be based in NZ proper.

If NZ goes down the ACF path again, I suspect it won't be 5th Gen aircraft, but a good case could be made for F15EX, excellent range, payload, airframe life and avionics. Ideally we'd need about 40, which means about 32 at best imo, and ideally yes we would need some tankers and E7s.

There is zero chance any primary NZ combat force will be based in Australia, that will no more happen than basing the frigates in Sydney or the NZ infantry battlions in Brisbane.
A good case can be made for sub units, eg the '2nd squadron' in Nowra for training for both AU and NZ however.

No one is suggesting such fanciful notions as someone steamrolling the US and others you mention, but there is no reason to think that in event of war that NZ won't come under threat, intimidation or even attack short of invasion if it fails to adopt certain policy positions. Nor is anyone suggesting NZ would be involved in such a war by itself, anymore than we faced the Nazi hordes by ourselves.
This has happened before and there is no reason that it cannot happen again.

 

[Rob c]

If you want 24/7/365 independent fighter capability you will need more than a squadron of fighters. More like 3 squadrons, particularly with modern 5th gen aircraft and their availability rates..

I think that you under estimate what the RNZAF personal are capable of. Firstly note what they achieve with the NH 90 which is 72% overall. When I was in 75 SQN we could deploy overseas with 8 aircraft twice a year at least for periods of up to 10 weeks and at that stage we had only 12 aircraft total as we had crashed a couple and the RAN ones were yet to arrive.
As it has been noted by other posters basically we would be operating in uncontested air space so why would we need 5th gen aircraft? what would be needed are good long range stand off weapons to attack any targets out side of their defensive weapons.
An incident in the late 1970's is of interest high lights how quick 75 could react, when a fishing boat from Taiwan choose to ignore the fifty Cals on a patrol boat. From the time Ohakea was informed that they needed to send Skyhawks to stop the boat until 2 fully armed Skyhawks were rolling with loaded 20mm and 5 inch anti shipping rockets was 20 min.
While 5 gen aircraft sound nice the reality is 4th or 4 1/2 would do the job easily and 20 to 24 aircraft would be enough to achieve the desired result locally

 

[ngatimozart]

I have always regarded an ACF as a primarily maritime strike capability with a secondary role of air defence, and no CAS. If army want CAS they can go buy some ARH. People forget that NZ is a maritime island nation and our lines of defence are:

• To the north, the equator.
• To the east, halfway between here and South America.
• To the south, Antarctica, and
• To the west, halfway between Western Australia and Africa.

That's a lot of water to cover. A P-8A is a good capability but it can't be in two or more places at the same time. It's not just a MPA either and people forget that. If the PRC PLA manage to establish a base in the Solomon Islands this is what the airborne risk is to NZ.



It doesn't make for a comforting picture does it? People don't take into account that the CCP want a military base in the South Pacific and have done so for a long time. It doesn't take a strategic genius to understand why, because it would place them across US SLOC / ALOC between North America and Australasia, making it easy for them to interdict US, allied and coalition logistics. The CCP will have thoroughly studied the Imperial Japanese strategies and operations in the Pacific and the US and allied response. They know where both the IJA & IJN went wrong and won't repeat those mistakes. They also know what they have to do to stymie any perceived US advantages. Unlike the Imperial Japanese, they have the mass to match the Americans and that will be a huge difference.

Despite what people may think, the physical geography of the region hasn't changed overly much and the basics that applied to both sides in 1941 - 45 still exist today. The question is if the PLA become firmly established upon a Pacific Island or Islands, who difficult will it be to evict them? How much effort will be required? If people remember their WW2 history, it took almost two years to clear the Solomon Islands and Rabaul on Bougainville was occupied until after the Japanese surrender. Back then the US had the resources, will and mass to defeat the Japanese, but mostly that was because of Pearl Harbour and the massive manufacture strength of the US. It doesn't have that manufacturing strength anymore and unless the PRC pulls a dirty trick like Pearl Harbour, will there be the say will and determination in the US again?

I am probably more pro arming NZDF to the teeth than most on here, but there is a limit and what may work for Australia and the US doesn't necessarily work for us. For one thing we won't be going out and buy F-35s or B-21s. I would like to see the E-7A Wedgetail being operated by the RNZAF but that's never going to happen. I also have my strong doubts about any G550 or similar based EW aircraft. However, if the KC-30 / A330MMRT or KC-46 were acquired, then ELINT is something that could be incorporated into those aircraft. There is no reason why for example, 3 MRTT and 3 - 4 C-2 couldn't be acquired. There's 41 Sqn re-established. The only thing stopping that is funding. I would also add 3 KC-130J-30 to the mix as well because they can be used on a temporary FOB as a refueler for both air and ground assets. The USMC use them that way; they fly in land, taxi, park, hook up refuel whoever needs it, finish taxi out, take off RTB and repeat if necessary.

WRT to frigates, 5 or more you are dreaming. We simply don't have the money or the people. However 3 large frigates (~6,000 tonnes displacement) would be probable and 4 possible at a stretch. These could be supported by corvettes / light frigates (~3,500 tonnes displacement) that should replace both the OPVs and all of the IPVs. That would give the range, endurance, and capabilities required. They don't have to be Gucci'd but have a viable weapons and sensor capability. They (and the frigates) should also have a modular capabilities system and I have been looking at the SH Defence Cube System that appears to have a lot of potential. We should also have 3 Antarctic OPVs, much like the VARD 7-100-ICE-AOPV that will enable us to handle the Southern Ocean and Antarctic Ocean ice. The govt wants a research vessel but that should come out of NIWA's budget, nor NZDF.