Royal New Zealand Air Force

[gf0012-aust]

Well, they are territorial disputes between Greece and Turkey, Canada and Denmark & also USA and Canada (in the Greenland/Arctic)- all are in NATO. India and Pakistan are both in the British Commonwealth, but can't agree on Kashmir. So, when there is no big external threat and there is need to secure markets/resources, etc., those treaties may go out the window!

again, there's no point in listing countries unless they have relevance to NZ's threat matrix.

again, what countries in your list are on NZ's threat matrix? you are aware of the constitutional links betweem australia and NZ? the chances of our two countries being resource competitors are so remote its not funny.

the examples you list above have no parallel with those you listed initially.

this isn't woolworths where you go out and buy gear willy nilly. Strategic thinking and procurement are done with consideration.

 

[Firehorse]

matrix

I never heard the term "threat matrix". Please explain it and who is involved in its creation?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I never heard the term "threat matrix". Please explain it and who is involved in its creation?

a threat matrix is a strategic risk assessment and analysis done against a series of variables. When applied to a countries strategic interests it will include issues such as threats to SLOC, vulnerabvility of EEZ, what countries are able to threaten national interests, how these threats can materialise, timeframes to counter the threat, alliances, soft power influences,

The overall threat/vulnerability and risk analysis methodology is summarized by the following flowchart.

Flowchart depicting the basic risk assessment process (non country assessment)

A similar process is applied to procurement. eg, when we make reccomendations on what equipment to buy for the military, we will have a series of variables which are graded for relevance against the platform. eg, stability of the supplier. political imperatives (eg will the suspend components if they are idealogically opposed). cost issues, local content etc.....

Decision making is a complex process.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Well, it's better to look at capability, so, let's see:
Australia;
With mid-air refueling-France, USA, India, China, Indonesia, Chile. The first 3 nations may also use their carrier borne aviation. I don't include Russia as she has plenty of untapped resources in her own backyard, including the Arctic.

Well, gf0012-aust says it for me. I think that if you look beyond simple one dimensional ideas such as direct attack on the physicality of New Zealand and look to those other, indirect, things that would have effects on New Zealand you get a much better idea of what is required for the defence of the nation.

The logistics and the actions of other powers make a direct and sustained attack on NZ improbable. However, if you look at what underpins New Zealand's way of life and standard of living, trade and beliefs about ourselves as a nation, then you begin to see why we have always had highly effective ground based expeditionary forces for that is something we could do with a degree of comparative agvantage, to defend our way of life and standard of living.
And for that we become a target.


That we have had good land forces has meant that those enemies that can do something to us have, but those measures have been asymmetrical in nature principly because that is all that can be done, when the main enemy is other great powers who prevent any real attempt on us, and is probably seen as proportional given the resources to hand and the nature of the threat we present.

That is not to undermine the other two services, but one need to put things in the proper perspective: New Zealand has never been able to command the seas nor dominate the air and no one has ever expected us to. But there has been an expectation that we can defend against asymmetric threats such as mine laying or commerce raiding, raids against our strategic targets such as communications facilities or important industrial targets, that is to say local defence. While the army uses its comparitive advantage of quality in ground warfare to defend our interests overseas, other nations use their comparitive advantages in the interests of the overall effort, which also protects those areas that we cannot provide for ourselves.

Interestingly enough ,the most recent action against our interests of this indirect type, was from the French and did not involve any military threat at all, after the sinking of Rainbow Warrior that is. Those French agents who did the deed were effectively let go, from a murder sentence. The reason for this was because France told us that if we did not comply, that our ability to export butter to Europe would be effectively closed off, and given the state of our economy at the time this was a big deal, we backed down and the agents went home. NZ did not possess any counter leverage to protect its own interests on the matter, militarily or otherwise.

 

[Firehorse]

objectivity

OK, but whoever is going to work on the matrix may overlook something, and besides, international situations change all the time. History is full of failed predictions and prognostications- just look at Western & Israeli intell. mistakes regarding the former Soviet Union, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, & Lebanon, to name a few.
I wouldn't depend on others for anything if I could help it. And after the 9/11/01, are you going to send a helicopter or a P-3 over the Tasman sea to deal with a haijacked B-747 or -777-787? Or how about superjumbo A-380, not to mention cargo jets?

 

[Stuart Mackey]

OK, but whoever is going to work on it may overlook something, and besides, international situations change all the time. History is full of failed predictions and prognostications- just looked at Western & Israeli intell. mistakes regarding the former Soviet Union, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, & Lebanon, to name a few.

I know what you are saying with respect to failed predictions, but to whom are you replying and what are you replying to? What is the context of your post?

 

[gf0012-aust]

OK, but whoever is going to work on it may overlook something, and besides, international situations change all the time. History is full of failed predictions and prognostications- just looked at Western & Israeli intell. mistakes regarding the former Soviet Union, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, & Lebanon, to name a few.

and the relationship with NZ lies where?

what is it that NZ has that is valuable?
what is it that a foreign power would be compelled to apply military force to NZ and risk the automatic involvement of Australia, the UK and US, if not an oblique ability to invoke the FPDA?

examples have to have a basis in logic - otherwise we can argue that russia will generate a pre-emptive strike on china to remove any opportunity for china to reclaim eastern siberia.

NZ is not in a volatile threat environment - and that gives a degree of buffer as the threats must evolve, and have sufficient mass to generate a counter military response

 

[Lucasnz]

NZ is not in a volatile threat environment - and that gives a degree of buffer as the threats must evolve, and have sufficient mass to generate a counter military response

IMHO it seems to me that the discussion has jumped to large scale threats to NZ again. I just don't see that happening, given the distance and current force structures of France, China, India etc. In support of this the Official History of WWII (I forget what volume), there was some debate in official circles as to the threat the Japanese posed to NZ. The largest threat was a single division, but some comentators noted that a brigade was more likley. So the question I have is why we keep coming back an issue that focuses on invasion when a significant power such as Japan, couldn't even achieve that when fully mobilised.

Should not the discussion focus on the short notice threats that for what ever reason are more probable (i.e Rainbow Warror type situation and trying to secure the release of prisioners). From an NZ prespective thats more likley to require an air & naval response. At the same time NZ role in the South Pacific / Defence of Australia may also bring some direct military intervention to NZ, should a wider issue emerge and these need to be factored into any discussion.

My concern about the current threat matrix used by the NZDF (Employment Contexts) are that when it comes to meeting the primary role of the a defence force they are very lacking in some areas.

P.S: I'm chasing up the LUH project with MOD to see what progress has been made recently.

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I don't think we could beat France in a war re Rainbow Warrior. Were the prisoners worth dead New Zealanders? Not my death, certainly.

I don't think our lack of ability to fight France is the point. What should be of concern is that we had absolutely no options, for a variety of reasons, and effectively had our sovereignty undermined as a result.

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

If you are talking of having our sovereignity undermined, then France is the point. A country with 4 million could not take on a country the size/ and capability of France in a war or in a fight over a billion dollars in trade with the European Economic Union as it was then (butter was the start but it would not have been the end). Why should we feel ashamed enough to risk dying over Alain Marfart and Dominique Prieur - or the dearly departed Fernando Pereira? We are not in a school yard where the worst that could happen is a bloody nose!

Would you have willingly died in a no win war over the Rainbow Warrior? A war that would not have given us access to the EU markets.

We live in the real world.

I am not suggesting that NZ should have fought France over that issue, or should have attempted to do so. What I am doing is using that issue to illustrate the point our vital interests are not simply to be found in the South Pacific, that threats are more than one dimensional and go well beyond physical attacks, yet can have many of the same effects. I am also suggesting that we need to take a much wider view of the world and how it works to gain a more realistic view of what can constitute a threat to this nation.

 

[recce.k1]

I don't think our lack of ability to fight France is the point. What should be of concern is that we had absolutely no options, for a variety of reasons, and effectively had our sovereignty undermined as a result.

Agree with this statement (and your earlier ones tonight). "We" certainly didn't have to "fight" France as such. As you are implying, options could have been non-military eg included diplomatic and economic etc - except alas NZ was in no position to exercise these other options. EG French Polynesia doesn't rely on NZ trade to feed its inhabitants thus a trade embargo wouldn't work. French Polynesia receives alot of financial assistance from France thus a NZ tourism boucott wouldn't have hurt very much either. Expelling the French ambassador would have had repercussions with trade access to Europe etc. We couldn't call upon say the US and UK to apply pressure as the NZ Govt of the day managed to upset them (and hand the USSR a small public relations victory) by making the anti-nuke issue turn out worse than Lange had perhaps intended. Indeed our sovereignty was effectively undermined as a result.

 

[recce.k1]

Skyhawk update

TV3 NEWS
Mon, 08 Oct 2007 06:01p.m.
Video report http://www.tv3.co.nz/VideoBrowseAll/NationalVideo/tabid/309/articleID/36430/Default.aspx
Skyhawks to be wrapped up

The Air Force’s mothballed Skyhawk fleet is about to suffer more ignominy.

Once the pride of the RNZAF, the aircraft are to be covered in latex and stored outside their Blenheim airbase hangar, while the long wait for a buyer continues.

The jets have spent six years inside a hangar, after a controversial policy change saw the fleet grounded.

But open-air storage is the future of the 17 disbanded aircraft, as the hangar is now needed for a more pressing project.

National says shifting the jets outside is a sign the $155 million deal with a US-based flight training school is becoming increasingly less-likely to go ahead.

The aircraft are now being taped up, with a layer of latex applied to them to protect them from the elements.

The Government says they can be stored outside with no detrimental effect.

However the Airforce say UV rays will likely further damage their already peeling paintjob.

A decision on the sale is expected from the State Department before the end of the year.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Does anyone believe, despite the RNZAF's best efforts under the circumstances:

That applying latex will ensure the aircraft "can be stored outside with no detrimental effect" as claimed, in a windy and wet environment in winter and blazing hot sun in summer? Apparently the hydraulics are leaking, what effect will internal fluids have under a latex seal?

That the State Department is likely to give sale approval in due course? (We've heard that one before)!

BTW last month saw the second anniversary of their "sale". See Close Up: Skyhawks (video) http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/410965/1349920

It's interesting. Has anyone noticed too that alot of the media (tv and newspapers) are not letting the ACF issue go? Most of their reporting has been sympathetic.

 

[jase1]

A mate of mine posted some pics I took of the Skyhawks pissing out fluids from the front under carridge and fuel from the wings, and when I say pissing out I mean pissing out! (pics are on the Wings over NZ site) so one can only wonder what will happen when out-side.
My mate who is working on the Skyhawks himself says that out-side storage will knacker the Skyhawks and at a meeting with Safe-Air Management went on record with those views.
I will ring him to-night to get an up-date.
When the Skyhawks go into outside storage they will be under the watch of a6 infared cameras! We have a real paranoid goverment thats for sure!
Also the Air-Force is considering keeping up to 6 UH_1Hs after the NH-90 has entered service and using them for the search-rescure etc role, its only an idea but an idea that has come straight from management at Safe-Air, one to watch thats for sure.
Guys...we let the goverment do this to our combat-wing so we must bear some blame for this mess......F_:K YOU HELEN!!!!

 

[KiwiRob]

Well put stuart, we don't now nor have we ever really needed a combat air wing to defend NZ, what we do need is maritime patrol aircraft, probably a few more than what we currently have. I think what we should do is tag onto any Australian order for the P8, when they retire their P3's sometime next decade. That's a much better use of our resources than fighters which really only give the public something to look at at airshows.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

As I have long said on such subjects "Why". If you are talking about what amounts to fishery protection 'Why' would you want an aircraft designed to combat a similar kind for air superiority?.
The question of combat aircraft such as fighters needs to be taken within the context of a nations overall strategy with respect to threats to its interests. Unless one can decide on such matters, shopping lists are quite pointless.

Thats why I think around 10-12 attack helicopters could be used for close air support for RNZF troops in Afganistian. They do have 105mm artillery guns but they are not as moble as helicopters, but still deadly never the less.

 

[recce.k1]

A mate of mine posted some pics I took of the Skyhawks pissing out fluids from the front under carridge and fuel from the wings, and when I say pissing out I mean pissing out! (pics are on the Wings over NZ site) so one can only wonder what will happen when out-side.
My mate who is working on the Skyhawks himself says that out-side storage will knacker the Skyhawks and at a meeting with Safe-Air Management went on record with those views.

Thanks for the update there Jase. Read a comment there about this job being done on the cheap as the RNZAF don't have the funds for a proper job (why the govt doesn't cover the cost to do the job properly is beyond me, as surely the "sale" will cover the costs. If the "sale" was going to happen then you would think the govt would want the aircraft kept in top condition. Let's be realistic eh, the sale isn't going to go ahead, the sooner the govt admits that then the better for all concerned! (And some A-4's could go into ground maintenance training roles).

When the Skyhawks go into outside storage they will be under the watch of a6 infared cameras!

Hmm could make a few good souvinier pieces eh? Someone might grab a piece and put a real Skyhawk part on Trade Me and actually get more money than what the govt will, which will be zip! That would be embarrassing

Also the Air-Force is considering keeping up to 6 UH_1Hs after the NH-90 has entered service and using them for the search-rescure etc role, its only an idea but an idea that has come straight from management at Safe-Air, one to watch thats for sure.

Thanks for the heads up. I do hope that this idea, at this stage, is in addition to new T/LUH's. The RNZAF needs new T/LUH's with glass cockpit etc for their intended training roles eg stepping stone to NH90 etc (and need them as asoon as possible to overcome the Bell 47 training inadeqacies etc).

So if some UH-1's are to be retained for SAR (hopefully the spares issues won't be an issue)? then there could be some merit in this(?) Also does this mean the new T/LUH won't need to be so capable as to be filling the LUH role as envisaged (i.e. purchase a simple trainer)?

Might explain the hold ups (and as SM reckons, the MOD needing to scrimp and save where they can due to NH90 cost blowout)?

 

[recce.k1]

Well put stuart, we don't now nor have we ever really needed a combat air wing to defend NZ, what we do need is maritime patrol aircraft, probably a few more than what we currently have. I think what we should do is tag onto any Australian order for the P8, when they retire their P3's sometime next decade.

Well we could use a combat air wing as part of NZ's contribution to defending its interests overseas. This overseas aspect is something that SM has been hammering away at (but it seems one or two people don't seem to get it)? Anyway whether the contribution is ACF or warships or whatever is now academic. I'm realistic in that once the ACF was disbanded it will take alot more effort, time and money to re-establish it and at present it is not going to happen.

So hopefully you realise I'm not saying this is what I think is a high priority and in fact personally, I feel the same as you in that a higher funding priority would be a highly capable and equipped P8/UAV type combo etc (or even more P3's & UAV's in the interim. 6 aircraft doesn't cut it eg only 1 or 2 can de deployed leaving 1 or 2 for local use including SAR). NZ is a maritime nation with obligations to its Pacific, Southern, Australian and some SE neighbours. Having capable long range maritime patrol assets with the appropriate reconnaissance, survellience and realtime data managment systems, and appropriate stand off weaponry, would seem a more practical need for both NZ's contribution to regional stability and if the need ever arises, local defence (particularly those asymetrical threats that SM and Lucas described).

Perhaps also a few more MRH90 type helos but with search radars, dipping sonar, mine-detection and ASW/ASuW weaponry would be of benefit for deployment on ships and local harbour defences here in NZ and the Pacific etc to counter any asymetrical threat (or sneaky subs dropping off/picking up sabateours or looking to take out strategic assets at minimal risk eg oil and gas rigs, refineries, shipping etc). Useful for local defence, UN enforcement and our regional contributions

 

[KiwiRob]

recce we never sent the combat wing overseas on any combat missions when we had them and I doubt that if we had a new combat wing thatg would ever go overseas either. Having an air combat force is pointless for NZ, the money is much better spent elsewhere.