Royal New Zealand Air Force

[t68]

You make a great point about using Wolverines in the Pacific. There is also the advantage of having a less 'threatening' aircraft that an RAAF F-35.

The main issue I see operating the Wolverine in the Pacific is range. For operations against Fiji you would either need to operate from Futuna Island (FR) which is 550km from Suva or Tonga which is 750km from Suva. Otherwise you would need to capture either an island or mainland airport in Fiji which would need to be secured by naval forces before hand, although after some areal reconnaissance a remote island airstrip could probably be captured by landing a C-130 with some troops.

Depending on the type of op, can't see NZ operating alone against one of the Oceania nations. Even if you did there was a number of senerio's in one of the kiwi threads on what NZ could achieve.

NZ land forces are a limited expeditionary force,JATF would be used for POE such taking a terminal or airport to stage from. A future P8 will be your most prized asset and would be used for long range ISR and perhaps surgical stand off strikes then in country AT-6 will become your limited CAP/CAS/FAC/strike weapon of choice. A lot different from air interdiction over NZ skies.

Also the idea of an extra 2 aircraft to cover a perceived lack of capabilty dosnt take into account the need to have one of the aircraft fueled bombed up sitting on the tarmac with an on call air crew waiting for a call to intercept, something I'm not even sure the RAAF do as the cost is prohibative, if you are close enough for some unfreindly advance as they are in Europe there might be a perceived need.


Video: Watch the RAF’s Quick Reaction Alert in action - Telegraph

 

[RegR]

NZ will only be purchasing enough P-8's to patrol our waters, if we were going to use them to provide a always available interception capability then we would need at least 2 more air-frames, at a cost of 400-600 Million NZD. With that sort of money we could buy a few F-35's or a squadron of cheaper jets. Either of which would be much more capable at interception than a P-8.

How have you come to this conclusion exactly? If we were getting a platform to patrol only NZ waters then we would not infact need P8 to do this. I see no change in their employment re deployment, regardless of smaller numbers bar losing more of the "local" and even some of the regional (dependant on type selected) to the mooted shorter range MPA or UAV.

I would argue we would get as much airtime in 4 P8s vs the current 6 P3s due to reliability of both AC and systems (P3s like our hercs go u/s quite abit). All 6 orions are rarely available at anyone time due to maintainence, faults, upgrades etc which is more prevalent due to age and scope (pitfall of an aircraft with multiple complex mech/tech systems), new builds are less succeptable to these limitations due to their modern avionics and plug and play systems which can be swapped out rather than grounding the whole aircraft to repair.

The P8 would have a lesser workload if we also get a secondary type to compliment so in fact should be all relative combined with sims, multicrewing, maint regimes etc.

 

[Rob c]

With increasing cost of new aircraft and thus smaller orders, lines will be shut down much earlier than in past. No company will keep line open in case of future orders. Thay may possibly make a few extra at end of line for future orders, but don't count on it as that is expensive if they are not sold quickly.

Also, with fewer in each countries services, there are few if any prospects of a benevolent secondhand sale to a friend in need.

I am sure that there will be a capable aircraft available for the RNZAF to replace the P3's when the time comes to do this. There is still over 40 Breguet Atlantic's in the French and italian airforces and 80 plus P3's (not counting those being replaced) that will need to be replace in the next 10 to 15 years, a lot of them would I think be in the next 10 years. A significant number of these countries would not want a second tier aircraft, for instance NATO countries.The date given to the RAF may have simply been a end date to achieve the RAF's time line.

 

[Rob c]

I would really want to avoid any opposed landing anywhere in Fiji if it ever came to that. Casualties for the invading force would be very high to say the least. The situation would have to be pretty rotten for NZ to consider the possibility of undertaking an opposed armed incursion into Fijian territory.

Totally agree, I really don't think we have the ability to do an opposed landing anywhere. I would think that the only times we would try a landing would be as part of a coalition force or to reinforce an island's defences should they come under external threat. We should also remember that Fiji has more infantry than we have and they have a reputation of being very good fighting soldiers. taking them on in their home territory is not a good idea, I would not go there

 

[halogen]

The point about radar is very good as when the ACF was disbanded the primary radar that was used by them was shut down and has since been dismantled. the only radar in NZ now is secondary radar, (Apart from weather radar) which relies on the aircraft's transponder to know were the aircraft is, If an aircraft has no transponder or it is turned off then air traffic control have no idea were it is of if an aircraft is even about at all.

Primary surveillance radar remains in use at Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch. This is detailed in the NZ AIP. Secondary surveillance is in use throughout most of the rest of the country.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Depending on the type of op, can't see NZ operating alone against one of the Oceania nations. Even if you did there was a number of senerio's in one of the kiwi threads on what NZ could achieve.
[/url]

It's an interesting mental exercise though. Out of interest, should we be aiming at achieving this kind of capability, as a goal. Links to said discussion would be appreciated if anyone can be bothered.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

I agree that NZDF is unlikely to deploy on its own to deal with an issue in the SP. But a similar occurance to Bourgainville occurring in say 10 years what should a response look like based upon lessons learned the first time?

I am not interested in fantasy responses of fast air and unrealistic numbers but a real discussion of whether NZ could lead an operation based around the likely JATF. The scenario is a non opposed, receptive government, intervention to restore order after a breakdown in civil authority. The main airport is available as is a port to off load but the main area of operations is distant from these facilities requiring a seabased C&C. Local militias have been supplied with Sino / Russian equipment upto HMG and RPG plus a few mortars.

Could this be accomplished? Now or in the future with the funding being proposed.

 

[Sam W]

I agree that NZDF is unlikely to deploy on its own to deal with an issue in the SP. But a similar occurance to Bourgainville occurring in say 10 years what should a response look like based upon lessons learned the first time?

I am not interested in fantasy responses of fast air and unrealistic numbers but a real discussion of whether NZ could lead an operation based around the likely JATF. The scenario is a non opposed, receptive government, intervention to restore order after a breakdown in civil authority. The main airport is available as is a port to off load but the main area of operations is distant from these facilities requiring a seabased C&C. Local militias have been supplied with Sino / Russian equipment upto HMG and RPG plus a few mortars.

Could this be accomplished? Now or in the future with the funding being proposed.

In this proposed scenario can the NZLAV traverse the country from the port to the area of operations?

I suspect that the Canterbury would only be a glorified transporter in this scenario moving NZLAV's and NH90's into the main port. Trying to transport supplies and Armor cross country would be open to ambush and right now we have a severe lack of air support for this sort of situation. This would be where some Wolverine's would be great.

I think that is could be very costly with our current capabilities. However if we had a LHD type ship which we could base both rotary and LAV missions operations off, much closer to the area of operations I think that it would be well within our capabilities.

I think that you need more than helicopters when the enemy have HMG's and RPG otherwise you end up with NH90 Down


I have even less knowledge on this particular topic than most other defense topics, so I look forward to being corrected on a bunch of things, as that is a great way to learn.

 

[t68]

I agree that NZDF is unlikely to deploy on its own to deal with an issue in the SP. But a similar occurance to Bourgainville occurring in say 10 years what should a response look like based upon lessons learned the first time?

I am not interested in fantasy responses of fast air and unrealistic numbers but a real discussion of whether NZ could lead an operation based around the likely JATF. The scenario is a non opposed, receptive government, intervention to restore order after a breakdown in civil authority. The main airport is available as is a port to off load but the main area of operations is distant from these facilities requiring a seabased C&C. Local militias have been supplied with Sino / Russian equipment upto HMG and RPG plus a few mortars.

Could this be accomplished? Now or in the future with the funding being proposed.

The reality is no they cannot, the above was played out to a degree in ET. The ADF was stretched during the intervention. All NZ could hope to achieve by themselves would be to seize a terminal or airport and hold it long enough to secure the evacuation of embassy staff or nationals able to get to the location for evacuation.

A good read is the "STRATEGIC AND MILITARY LESSONS FROM EAST TIMOR" and the stand out portion for NZ is this paragraph,

http://www.victoria.ac.nz/hppi/cent...ions/strategic-briefing-papers/East-Timor.pdf

East Timor reinforced lessons learnt on other peacemaking operations. These lessons include the importance of maintaining deployable (with sufficient logistic and strategic transport) forces at a high state of readiness; that ground forces must provide their own protection, mobility and fire power and be able to call in heavier naval gun fire support and close air support at short notice; all ground forces must be able to interoperate with forces from other states as well as the other services (navy and air force).

Also it has to be noted that that governments must have the means of sending a message, as in the case with interfet the RAAF was used as a tool in diplomatic speak of talking softly but carrying a big stick if thing's escalated to a higher threat level, something which unfortunately NZ now lacks.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Thank you T68.

Based upon that link since that time the following improvements have taken place; MAN trucks, NH90, A/LUH, LAV, new radios and C4i, Canterbury MRV, engineering support vehicles and bridging. What hasn't improved is the transport aircraft and the lack of close air support.

So with the transport review under way I think the AT6 can fill that remaining void. A recent Iraqi buy of twenty four AT6 for US$780 million equates to NZ$45 million per aircraft. Therefore a fleet of six aircraft would be NZ$270 million.

The training and support side is already in place with the T6 fleet at Ohakea. With the EO turret and a minimal gun armament and additional drop tanks these aircraft could perform a MR tasking out to the limits of the EEZ.

I'm the previously noted scenario armed Wolverines would be able to perform many functions in a very cost effective manner offering government that stick needed when a slap on the arse is needed.

 

[RegR]

The thing is Bougainville was handled completely different to East Timor as was the Solomans, in short all scenarios are different and require a different response in kind for fear of worsening the situation and alienating the population. Even the 2 Timor missions (99 & 06) were different and required a somewhat different tact each time.

It's not all send in the big guns everytime for best results, in fact Bougainville was an un-armed mission where the troops were kitted out with guitars, smiles and kia oras. A LAV would have acheived nothing in this instance and would be as helpful as sending HMNZS Te Kaha to Afghanistan to support the PRT.

 

[Gibbo]

Thank you T68.

Based upon that link since that time the following improvements have taken place; MAN trucks, NH90, A/LUH, LAV, new radios and C4i, Canterbury MRV, engineering support vehicles and bridging. What hasn't improved is the transport aircraft and the lack of close air support.
....

And weirdly enough an air defence system (i.e: 'provide own protection') was bought (was this post ET?) and yet has since been dumped.

Yes I know AA wasn't needed in ET and in theory we will only ever deploy to an environment that requires AA as part of a joint task force, but I have never really agreed with Mistral not being replaced.

In an ET situation imagine an airport been taken & secured by NZ JATF - even a commandered civvy chopper with some nutter brandishing a HMG out the side door could cause NZ issues with movement around the airport perimeter & even damage to a/c on the ground - i.e.: my point is AA isn't always about dealing with dedicated strike a/c.

 

[t68]

The thing is Bougainville was handled completely different to East Timor as was the Solomans, in short all scenarios are different and require a different response in kind for fear of worsening the situation and alienating the population. Even the 2 Timor missions (99 & 06) were different and required a somewhat different tact each time.

It's not all send in the big guns everytime for best results, in fact Bougainville was an un-armed mission where the troops were kitted out with guitars, smiles and kia oras. A LAV would have acheived nothing in this instance and would be as helpful as sending HMNZS Te Kaha to Afghanistan to support the PRT.

Agree, every situation is different. But I think all here agree that NZ needs broad range of equipment across the broad spectrum, were not talking 1st day action against China or Russia, NZ needs the ability to shape its immediate needs in the AO but hold a stick big enough for goverments to use as part diplomatic speak.

The problem NZ face is how do they react to the possibility of a new cold war play out in the SCS and possibly moving into Oceania if China starts to have military basing right in Fiji, initally with advisor then surveillance aircraft then ultimately combat aircraft.

These are the issues facing NZ now on how it wants to contribute, as we all now it takes many years to stand up new capabilty, I believe AT-6 is a measured capabilty increase not only for NZ ability to increase the capabilty force structure of the NZDF, but ultimately it buys time for NZ to see which way the wind blows in regards to Chinese intension, whilst also giving RNZAF the very basic principles of an ACF if it so desires in the future, without alarming greater sensativities inviting warmongering scenarios.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

In a hypothetical scenario of NZ acquiring a small force of AT6 what aerial weaponry would be a realistic mix for NZ Conops?

I know MK82 are in the current inventory and these can be upgraded to Accommodate precision guidance but what else is still available? Are the Mavericks still in inventory?

I would think that precision 2.75" rocket pods, HMG pods and possibly small diameter bombs would be a good mix. Personnally can't see Hellfire being acquired and I don't think Penguin has been integrated to the platform.

In my earlier post I suggested a modest acquisition of 6 to 8 aircraft for deployment. Would this be sufficient for the low intensity situations that may present themselves? With their range I can see them participating in training exercises in OZ as well as in support of NZDF training as aggressors.

The more I think about this the more it makes sense and with t68's comments regarding this as a stepping stone to deal with changes in the strategic environment it gives government an option for growth.

 

[Rob c]

In a hypothetical scenario of NZ acquiring a small force of AT6 what aerial weaponry would be a realistic mix for NZ Conops?

I know MK82 are in the current inventory and these can be upgraded to Accommodate precision guidance but what else is still available? Are the Mavericks still in inventory?

I would think that precision 2.75" rocket pods, HMG pods and possibly small diameter bombs would be a good mix. Personnally can't see Hellfire being acquired and I don't think Penguin has been integrated to the platform.

In my earlier post I suggested a modest acquisition of 6 to 8 aircraft for deployment. Would this be sufficient for the low intensity situations that may present themselves? With their range I can see them participating in training exercises in OZ as well as in support of NZDF training as aggressors.

The more I think about this the more it makes sense and with t68's comments regarding this as a stepping stone to deal with changes in the strategic environment it gives government an option for growth.

The general idea you have has merit, but while the AT6 would be able to fit into the current structure easily, would it be the best long term solution when you can get more capable aircraft in the same price range. You mentioned that Iraq got 24 AT6s, for US$780m, recently Indonesia got 16 T50's for US$400m. The T50 has similar abilities to a very modern Skyhawk (Range ,weapons load avionics etc) but goes a lot faster. In the FA50 version it has modern radar and E.C.M but this costs more naturally.

 

[t68]

The general idea you have has merit, but while the AT6 would be able to fit into the current structure easily, would it be the best long term solution when you can get more capable aircraft in the same price range. You mentioned that Iraq got 24 AT6s, for US$780m, recently Indonesia got 16 T50's for US$400m. The T50 has similar abilities to a very modern Skyhawk (Range ,weapons load avionics etc) but goes a lot faster. In the FA50 version it has modern radar and E.C.M but this costs more naturally.

What was the level of support and was spares and munitions included in those price's?

Naturally it comes down to a level of capabilty needed of course the FA-50 will be a better overall capabilty than AT-6, but it would also have a higher cost of ownership overall another logistical tail etc

AT-6 gives RNZAF more advanced capabilty from a platform which all ready has a footprint within the logistical system of NZDF, not only does it give a limited offensive capabilty it also goes along way for training land forces for JATC controllers, my personal view is if they go down the jet path then it should be something that works within RAAF orbat and capabilty and logistical stream.

 

[Rob c]

What was the level of support and was spares and munitions included in those price's?

Naturally it comes down to a level of capabilty needed of course the FA-50 will be a better overall capabilty than AT-6, but it would also have a higher cost of ownership overall another logistical tail etc

AT-6 gives RNZAF more advanced capabilty from a platform which all ready has a footprint within the logistical system of NZDF, not only does it give a limited offensive capabilty it also goes along way for training land forces for JATC controllers, my personal view is if they go down the jet path then it should be something that works within RAAF orbat and capabilty and logistical stream.

As far as I can find out and I must say I could not find a definitive answer the price included delivery and spares but not weapons. While the T/Fa 50 would provide a capability between the Hawk and the F35 for us to align with their logistical stream is totally impracticable except for weapons and even the AT6 won't do that, nor would the AT6 fit anywhere.within the RAAF orbat (order of battle).and us having the F35 is simply not practical. On a bang for bucks bases, the T/FA 50 is a country mile ahead of the AT6. We must also remember that the current T6c's are pylon and external stores capable, so could be upgraded to at least weapon training status,

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Rob c at sometime in the future I expect that there will come a need for the capability offered by KA50 type aircraft but right now I feel the need of an armed fixed wing aircraft that can provide a multitude of taskings at a minimal cost is a far easier to sell capability. The fact that the infrastructure exists already to support a modest fleet of AT6's keeps the acquisition cost to a minimum.

Using the AT6 as a lead in to the next level allows interest and proficiency to build. The geographical fact of remote location is ultimately NZ's best defence. For all the reasons that have been listed for the AT6 to be employed one can find a rationale in Kiwi colours.

I don't expect this to happen but it has been a good conversation about what if.

 

[Rob c]

Rob c at sometime in the future I expect that there will come a need for the capability offered by KA50 type aircraft but right now I feel the need of an armed fixed wing aircraft that can provide a multitude of taskings at a minimal cost is a far easier to sell capability. The fact that the infrastructure exists already to support a modest fleet of AT6's keeps the acquisition cost to a minimum.

Using the AT6 as a lead in to the next level allows interest and proficiency to build. The geographical fact of remote location is ultimately NZ's best defence. For all the reasons that have been listed for the AT6 to be employed one can find a rationale in Kiwi colours.

I don't expect this to happen but it has been a good conversation about what if.

The problem with some time in the future is by the time you realise that you need the capability it is already to late to get it. It has been stated by the RNZAF that to restore the ACF back to the level it was at prior to it,s disbandment would take 15 years. This may seem excessive but first you have to train your pilots to be able to operate the required aircraft effectively, then you have to let them get experience until you can train them up to be section leaders, repeat the process to get them to flight leader standard, same again to squadron comander. Just to build up the expertise to be effective takes a long time. I think that 15 years will get you a unit that is effective, but to be top notch you will even need more time. When you find you need an ACF it will be to late to get one.The problem with the AT6 is that with it"s range restrictions it is not very deployable and if you you just wanted it for training, this could be carried out with minor mod's to the current T6C's

 

[htbrst]

An incident involving an Orion at Whenuapai that requires Aucklands entire fleet of fire engines has been reported. NZDF say the incident does not involve the 'crash' of an aircraft

Incident at Auckland's Whenuapai Airport | Stuff.co.nz

EDIT: Doesnt look as bad as first reported:

Initial reports from emergency services indicated a plane had crashed and large numbers of fire fighters and police were on their way to the scene.

However, a Defence spokeswoman has since said no plane had crashed and a statement would be released shortly.

A police spokeswoman said a plane had landed safely.