Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Lucasnz]

If the white paper was to promote the reinstatement of the ACF, it will need to get around the need to fund any additional tax cuts, over that already budgeted for and any down turn in the tax take. The easy way out would be to reinstate the MB-339 with an upgrade, as a transitional step to regaining full capability. Plan B might be something like we had before the surplus A-4's were purchased: 14 Advanced aircraft and 17 Strikemasters which carried out COIN duties.

A recent email from Murray McCully indicated that the public were to get a say in this white paper, so we'd better all write in or the loony left will do more damage.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

SNIP
it should rejoin ANZUS and enhance its forces in a specialized manner to be able to effectively assist the US and Australia, not just in its territory, but also other territories (which will also enable capabilities to be enhanced through real battlefield experience rather than notional).

Right, learning on the job,and take causalities as a result, just like 1940..you really don't study history do you?
Rejoining ANZUS to enhance our forces? what the hell does that mean? your talking in invented jargon again, and its not an argument.

The most effective way to do that is by channeling funds into creating a few useful world class capabilities, rather than lots of mediocre ones. New Zealand then will be respected - in any given world crises, New Zealands sovereign decision whether or not to take part with the Australians or Americans (or anyone else), will have impact, because New Zealand would then have the capability to contribute something useful / world class, instead of something pathetic.

You cannot have any forces that are combat capable unless they train and operate within balanced, well funded, forces, why do you not understand this?
And stop parroting Labour policy, its annoying.

 

[moahunter]

You cannot have any forces that are combat capable unless they train and operate within balanced, well funded, forces, why do you not understand this?
And stop parroting Labour policy, its annoying.

Since you don't understand what ANZUS was, I will explain. It was a defense alliance. If New Zealand is attacked, the U.S. and Australia will be obligied to defend it, just as New Zealand will be obliged to help out if the U.S. or Australia is attacked. Instantly New Zealand would be defended by the most powerful nation on earth. Additionally, by taking part in ANZUS, and even expanding the terms of ANZUS to be more akin to NATO (with dedicated forces), New Zealand troops will obtain oportunities to train in a much more integrated way with world class forces, being Australia and the U.S. New Zealand should drop it's illogical policies against nuclear weapons and nuclear powered ships so that ANZUS can be reactivated.

The U.S. is a balanced forced. To the extent New Zealand develops useful capabilities that can operate with the U.S. and Australia, it will be able to participate with those balanced forces, and gain real combat experience. I'm not sure why you do not understand that New Zealand is incapable of developing a world class submarine fleet, world class air craft carriers, world class air strike capability, world class air superiority capability, world class ... it simply can't - at best, if NZ increases its defense spend it can develop one or two combat capabilities to a world class level that can take part in real problems, anywhere in the world, with its allies.

The alternative, which you like, is to not be world class, but rather pathetic, at lots of things - a few second hand strike planes, a few second hand subs, a few... a bit like many South American countries who don't have the friends or opportunity to be part of something bigger - just enough to make its second rate neighbors think twice. The second rate model for a second rate country. Not as inspiring or politically powerful a focused but first rate force which is able to play a more useful role in Afghanistan, Iraq, or other hot spots as a valued component of allied forces.

As to developing a small world class strike combat arm (as opposed to a pathetic / second rate one) - it could be done, if New Zealand did it seriously. But to do so, would require not only an enourmomus increase in GDP spend (which is needed regardless), but to redirect talent from other forces given the manpower / infastructure that would be needed. I don't think that's the best bang for buck for NZ though given that Austalia and the US already have the infrastructure required for that. Much better to focus on forces that maybe New Zealand industry and universities can help develop (like perhaps UAV's, or a small FCS). As to what is the best bang for buck to play a role - that should be looked at and decided, not on its own, but in conjunction with the US, Australia, and perhaps other relevant allies (like Singpore). Ideally, NZ should develop first rate capability at least one thing with sufficient expertise and industry / research backing that it won't just be a spending drain, but eventually, could be an export earner.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Since you don't understand what ANZUS was, I will explain. It was a defense alliance. If New Zealand is attacked, the U.S. and Australia will be obligied to defend it, just as New Zealand will be obliged to help out if the U.S. or Australia is attacked.

Actually it does not say that at all. Anzus only is a a requirement to consult, QED.

Instantly New Zealand would be defended by the most powerful nation on earth.

See above for why this is wrong.

Additionally, by taking part in ANZUS, and even expanding the terms of ANZUS to be more akin to NATO (with dedicated forces),

Which it is not, don't try to strawman, its sad.

New Zealand troops will obtain oportunities to train in a much more integrated way with world class forces, being Australia and the U.S.

Is that an admission of free loading? Why should those nations make up for our deficiencies? they may as well comm, are, if you and you labour friends had your way.

New Zealand should drop it's illogical policies against nuclear weapons and nuclear powered ships so that ANZUS can be reactivated.

Moot point on nuclear weapons, it wont be, although the nuclear power bit may be dropped in future, but for other reasons.

The U.S. is a balanced forced. To the extent New Zealand develops useful capabilities that can operate with the U.S. and Australia, it will be able to participate with those balanced forces, and gain real combat experience.

One gains combat experience by being in combat and you want to repeat hisory by putting NZ forces into a fight, without any relevant knowledge of modern systems, all so we can gain combat experience? nfloorl: I am sure that will be of great comfort to those families who suffer deaths because of non-existent training again, just like during WW2

I'm not sure why you do not understand that New Zealand is incapable of developing a world class submarine fleet,

Never said we should have submarines, are you saying I have? If so where?

world class air craft carriers,

Never said we should have carriers, are you saying I have? If so where?

world class air strike capability,

We did, more or less from 1945 until 2000. Guess you just lied.

world class air superiority capability, world class

Never said we should have are you saying I have? If so where?

... it simply can't - at best, if NZ increases its defense spend it can develop one or two combat capabilities to a world class level that can take part in real problems, anywhere in the world, with its allies.

Aside from airstrike, which you are demonstrably, historically, wrong, you seem to be doing an awful lot of lying about what I may or may not have said.

The alternative, which you like, is to not be world class, but rather pathetic, at lots of things - a few second hand strike planes, a few second hand subs, a few...

Oh, well done a black and white fallacy not overly surprising, however. It does not hold that our forces should be either 2nd rate and underfunded or over specialised, troll.
With respect to your post, ,none of which I have said with respect to subs and if I have mentioned strike aircraft I have said they should be new, Mr Lie..Indeed I have always maintained that NZ forces should be well funded. Nice to see that you are, indeed, a dishonest troll.

a bit like many South American countries who don't have the friends or opportunity to be part of something bigger - just enough to make its second rate neighbors think twice. The second rate model for a second rate country. Not as inspiring or politically powerful a focused but first rate force which is able to play a more useful role in Afghanistan, Iraq, or other hot spots as a valued component of allied forces.

More black and white fallacious nonsense with no evidence or any form of logical argument. Typical troll material.

 

[moahunter]

More black and white fallacious nonsense with no evidence or any form of logical argument. Typical troll material.

You can call me whatever you want, it's a classless way to try and win an argument you are losing. I haven't called you a troll or a liar, even though you have accused me of things I am not (like a labor party supporter). Some people understand the concept of specialization, and being the best / world class at the things that you put effort into. Others, just like being pathetic at lots of things. NZ defense forces realize they can't do it all, and NZ's allies realize that too. Smart choices need to be made which will benefit NZ, and allies, even if it does mean stepping on a few toes within military bureaucracy. It was a smart choice to not go out and ever buy submarines, just as it is a smart choice not to buy second hand F16's, and it's a smart choice not to try and buy F35's and all of their infrastructure. I am hoping National will make the right choices, invest heavily yet smartly, re-build and expand military relationships that the looney Greenpeace fringe under Lange and subsequent Labour has damaged, and combine and focus the forces such that NZ can have a great niche military, but time will tell.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

You can call me whatever you want.

I will call you what you merit.

I haven't called you a troll or a lyer,

That's because I haven't lied and you know that you cannot prove I have?

even though you have acused me of things I am not (like a labor party supporter).

Given that your posts read like a Labour media release its hardly surprising

Some people understand the concept of specialization,

You would be one of them?, Your problem is that you don't know enough about what you speak to understand the consequences of it.

and being the best / world class at the things that you put effort into.

Which we used to do so, more or less, once upon a time.

Others, just like being pathetic at lots of things.

And who would that be? Provide the evidence please.

NZ defense forces realize they can't do it all, and have to make smart choices.

Given that the NZ defence forces don't have a choice, by law, this is blatant factual error to say nothing of a logical fallacy..you just keep getting more ignorant and dishonest by the post don't you?

It was a smart choice to not go out and buy submarines,

When did I ever say that NZ should?. Back this up with evidence.

just as it is a smart choice not to buy F35's and all of their infrastructre.

I want evidence, right now, that any party or government has ever made such a suggestion.

I am hoping national will make the right choices and spend wisely

This should read;"Do as I want with out any rational though as to the outcome.

- and focus the forces even more, such that NZ can have a great military, but time will tell.

I want you to back this up, with evidence; How does such over specialisation give NZ 'great military'?. I want numbers.

Indeed, I want you to start backing up everything you say with evidence, Indeed the forum rules require you to do so, because I am getting sick of your dishonesty.

Now, I asked you in my previous post for evidence of where I have said that NZ Should have submarines, carriers or the ability to achieve air superiority (I do note that you do not say where, nice attempt to set up a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy Btw) now answer me, troll boy, or show yourself as a lier .

 

[moahunter]

Now, I asked you in my previous post for evidence of where I have said that NZ Should have submarines, carriers or the ability to achieve air superiority (I do note that you do not say where, nice attempt to set up a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy Btw) now answer me, troll boy, or show yourself as a lier .

I never once wrote that you wanted submarines. My point (I know you are struggling to understand this), is that New Zealand has survived without a submarine capability. It was never capable of affording that, and accordingly, has never had a fully balanced force. It's fine to look in the mirror and say, "yes, NZ once had a strike capability, so we should have one now", but looking at what NZ was once capable of is IMO not the way to decide what it should do in the future. NZ forces should instead invest in capabilities it can be one of the best in the world at, and ideally even, create an export industry in.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

You can call me whatever you want, it's a classless way to try and win an argument you are losing. I haven't called you a troll or a liar, even though you have accused me of things I am not (like a labor party supporter). Some people understand the concept of specialization, and being the best / world class at the things that you put effort into. Others, just like being pathetic at lots of things. NZ defense forces realize they can't do it all, and NZ's allies realize that too. Smart choices need to be made which will benefit NZ, and allies, even if it does mean stepping on a few toes within military bureaucracy. It was a smart choice to not go out and ever buy submarines, just as it is a smart choice not to buy second hand F16's, and it's a smart choice not to try and buy F35's and all of their infrastructure. I am hoping National will make the right choices, invest heavily yet smartly, re-build and expand military relationships that the looney Greenpeace fringe under Lange and subsequent Labour has damaged, and combine and focus the forces such that NZ can have a great niche military, but time will tell.

I wonder if there is a rule about editing post to change the meaning of said post? Editing for posting grammar and spelling mistakes are one thing, but changing the the meaning is quite another I guess I was right about you being dishonest. Fortunately your original post is preserved by me below.

You can call me whatever you want.I haven't called you a troll or a lyer, even though you have acused me of things I am not (like a labor party supporter).Some people understand the concept of specialization, and being the best / world class at the things that you put effort intthers, just like being pathetic at lots of things. NZ defense forces realize they can't do it all, and have to make smart choices. It was a smart choice to not go out and buy submarines, just as it is a smart choice not to buy F35's and all of their infrastructre. I am hoping national will make the right choices and spend wisely - and focus the forces even more, such that NZ can have a great military, but time will tell.

 

[moahunter]

I wonder if there is a rule about editing post to change the meaning of said post?

If you look at the time of my edit, you will see it is before your post was made.:

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I never once wrote that you wanted submarines.

You quite clearly insinuated it. No one, except you, has mentioned that NZ should have, or not have submarines..or F35's for that matter.

My point (I know you are struggling to understand this), is that New Zealand has survived without a submarine capability.

That was never your point.

It was never capable of affording that, and accordingly, has never had a fully balanced force.

Who said that submarines were needed for a balanced force? only you, just then and quite without evidence to back it up, as usual.

It's fine to look in the mirror and say, "yes, NZ once had a strike capability, so we should have one now", but looking at what NZ was once capable of is IMO not the way to decide what it should do in the future.

"Once"? please show where anyone has used 'what we once had' as an argument that we should get it back? quotes, please.

NZ forces should instead invest in capabilities it can be one of the best in the world at,

We used to one of the best in the world, until relitivly recently, and you have yet to show, even once, why that could not happen again.

and ideally even, create an export industry in.

Oh, marvellous, are you saying that NZ should send its military forces overseas to profit from others misery?

 

[moahunter]

"Once"? please show where anyone has used 'what we once had' as an argument that we should get it back? quotes, please.

We used to one of the best in the world, until relitivly recently, and you have yet to show, even once, why that could not happen again.

You just did it. You said that because we once had a world class force, we are capable of doing it today. I don't think that's true - time has changed - and technology has changed / is changing.

Oh, marvellous, are you saying that NZ should send its military forces overseas to profit from others misery?

Actually - it is a win-win - the people being protected will profit, and NZ will too. As to an export industry - if NZ invested say $2 billion in conjunction with helping, say, the Americans, in trialing and fixing a troubled aspect of their FCS program, or in developing a UAV, then there would be expertise gained, and potential for an export industry. Just an example, there are many others.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

If you look at the time of my edit, you will see it is before your post was made.:

Irrelevant, I was writing as you were editing the content of your post, you finished before I could post, evidence below.

Your post, was posted at 05:25 AM, it was then edited at 05:42 AM and its content, beyond grammar and spelling, was changed, as evidenced by my reply, which has not been edited. as shown onscreen.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

You just did it. You said that because we once had a world class force, we are capable of doing it today

Taking something out of context, another example of your continuing dishonesty.

NZ forces should instead invest in capabilities it can be one of the best in the world at,

We used to one of the best in the world, until relitivly recently, and you have yet to show, even once, why that could not happen again.

The argument being about specialisation, in which you refused to back up your statements as well as neglecting to mention the precipitous drop in defence spending from 1990 onwards which led to the situation we are now in. As the proponent of an argument the onus on you to back it up.
Care to try again, troll?

. I don't think that's true - time has changed - and technology has changed / is changing.

And yet another unsubstantiated argument

Actually - it is a win-win - the people being protected will profit, and NZ will too.

Once again, you show no evidence to show how this might be true.

As to an export industry - if NZ invested say $2 billion in conjunction with helping, say, the Americans, in trialing and fixing a troubled aspect of their FCS program, or in developing a UAV, then there would be expertise gained,

What makes you think we have such expertise? not that I expect you show any evidence

and potential for an export industry. Just an example, there are many others.

And still no evidence

 

[moahunter]

Once again, you show no evidence to show how this might be true.

What makes you think we have such expertise? not that I expect you show any evidence

And still no evidence

Well - Australia has an export industry (take for example the ANZAC class frigates). I am sure there must be some technology being developed somewhere in the world with respect to military, that New Zealand forces, in conjunction with New Zealand companies and universities could contribute too or develop the expertise in? Or do you think NZ is too pathetic to be capable of that?

A good example is Canada's space program. Canada didn't spend billions building its own rockets that would have just done the same thing as other people rockets. Instead, it produces the robotic arm for the space station. Canadians are proud of it, you see the maple leaf on shots of the space station all the time. A nice little aerospace / robotics industry has built up around it. There is no reason NZ couldn't do the same thing with respect to aspects of its military - maybe that might even stop some of the best and brightest kiwis from leaving?

 

[ASFC]

Can you name anything currently used or about to be used by the NZDF (apart from ships, because that shipyard is about to be closed) that NZ could create an export Defence industry around? Because until you do, this idea of building specialised equipment for the rest of the world (or at least your allies) is dead in the water.

And your notion of 'specialisation' in the NZDF is dead as well. In alliances like NATO, it works because those countries that do it (like the baltic states) know they can rely on the rest of NATO to provide those areas that they don't 'specialize' in if they are attacked. Is NZ a member of, or has ever been a member of an Alliance where other countries have the capacity to defend NZ if it is attacked, therefore allowing the NZDF to 'specialize'.

I have met NZ pilots in the RAF here in the UK, who would love to fly to defend their home nation, but can't because some wacko in power has decided NZ does not need an Air Force to defend itself. The talent is there, the basic Air Force is there, the money is there. The only reason why NZ does not have an ACF is because of politics. I think when poorer countries than NZ can afford to run a Sqn or two of Fighter Jets, the idea that NZ 'cannot afford' an ACF is false.

Your Navy and your Air Force are your first line of Defence, yet they are ignored or turned into Coastguards and taxi providers for the Army. Much better to maintain a small capability that can be expanded in times of need than no capability at all.

[/gets off soapbox]

 

[moahunter]

Can you name anything currently used or about to be used by the NZDF (apart from ships, because that shipyard is about to be closed) that NZ could create an export Defence industry around?

I suggested a possibility above - but I am sure there are others. For example, NZ Forces could trial or prepare an aspect (not all of) the software code for a future combat system (for the US, UK or another ally). New Zealand software companies and universities would be more than capable of that. That's just one idea - another might be to prepare some of the code or controls for a new UAV. Or maybe NZ forces could be involved in a new communication system for naval communications. The US has projects on all the time, that NZ could contribute too, if it was a trusted ally in a real alliance.

There is no way that NZ industry is ever going to meaningfully contribute to developing the next F35, or an enhanced version of an F16 (if a second hand aircraft is the best we could do). Imagine if we gained some UAV capability though, perhaps even maritime patrol UAV's? On a bang for buck basis, a few billion building a research lab to do this, perhaps under joint control of a New Zealand university, the military, with private contributors / contractors, would go a lot further not just for NZ, but also in helping the US and Australia.

 

[recce.k1]

Much better to maintain a small capability that can be expanded in times of need than no capability at all.

That is so true, and the major flaw in our PM's final decision that she did not want NZ to have an ACF. The PM had thrown out decades worth of institutional knowledge, that in times of need could be expanded upon. She must have a fantastic crystal ball to know what the future holds. One thing is for sure, which is when this decision was under active consideration in the late 1990’s, the world then (and this part of the world especially) was a lot more stable than today. What have we had since the ACF was disbanded that may or can have an effect on NZ? An expanding China in the public domain, Putin’s resurgent Russia, Al Qaeda etc, Solomon Islands implode, Timor’s fragile nation building etc, energy and resources under even more strain. What’s to come next? I don’t know for sure but I do know that the PM’s crystal ball won’t be painting a rosy picture!

But then again where there's a will there's a way ...

Mr C: good to hear some are still willing to make the case to retain a balanced air force (after all the Navy and Army are still balanced). Best of luck to them!

My only comment would be the arming of the P-3's, or lack of, to me that seems like a means to boost the justifications for obtaining an "air to surface combat capability" (lets just call it ASCC).

To my way of thinking, one the one hand a dedicated ASCC is important for many reasons that many of us here have discussed (and of course what the experts can better articulate etc). Obviously a smaller, faster, agile jet (and several of them) depending on the nature of the target and its defences, stand a better chance than a lumbering high/medium altitude P-3. Also the P-3’s primary role is not the same as a jet - it is surveillance, intelligence gathering, target co-ordination (of strike aircraft or surface vessels and nowadays land assets) as well as the usual patrol and SAR. It’s certainly not seek and destroy on it’s own (if so, it’s probably not worth putting so few aircraft and 11 or so crew members in direct harms way), but of course it is in co-ordination with other crucial assets.

Having said that and on the other hand, I do not believe these guys should be using the lack-of-arming the P-3’s as a means to justify an ASCC. They are expert enough to point out why P-3’s won’t substitute as an ASCC etc. To my way of thinking I would like to see the Govt follow up on its plan to arm the P-3’s regardless (after all the RAAF and USN have around this region etc). The advantage of an armed RNZAF P-3 is that the P-3 has a much, much greater range and ability to stay aloft for up to 24 hours (more than a jet fighter etc). If there was a conflict in this region (or a conflict in Asia that would have NZ on high alert etc), then having an armed P-3 patrolling the outreaches of the SW Pacific (in NZ’s area of responsibility) and armed, would be critical. NZ has so few “armed” assets but is responsible for a vast area. An ASCC won’t necessarily all be sitting in Fiji or Samoa or the Cook Islands (if the threat likelihood was low) whereas those P-3’s would surely forward base themselves there in times of conflict anyhow.

Thinking back to WW2 and NZ’s decision to gift the Wellington medium bombers back to the UK left NZ and it’s interests nearby (eg Fiji, Kermadec’s etc) exposed to submarines and surface raiders attacking shipping & land based supply depots (lucky for us warfare was still relatively “gentlemanly like” in that the raiders didn’t target civilian buildings, unlike say the raids on Darwin). Nowadays we would have to contend with subs, surface raiders, intelligence gathering “fishing boats” and the like (surface combatants - who knows? WW2 history for NZ would have been interesting if the Graf Spee sailed westwards instead of looking for targets around Sth America that’s for sure)!

 

[MrConservative]

Recce, I don't think they are saying don't arm the P-3's or make them armed capable, but are saying that for dealing with anything a little bit more on the agressive side it would be unsustainable. The issue of replacing a scare and extremely expensive P-3 and a dozen of NZ's finest notwithstanding.

Actually I think the use of the term "balanced force" in the NZ context has always been a bit overplayed. Frigates and Air strike focusing on CAS, interdiction and Anti-ship are not near the full spectrum of a "balanced force" in my view. What the NZ context was and hopefully will be again is that we have combat abilities suitable to New Zealands interests and a provision for landforce training and that are also equally capable of being components to our regional partners in the security / deterence of the the region.

 

[greenie]

Went to the RAAF airshow at Amberley on saturday ,Ahhhhhhhhh , two things struck me,mabe three, the ammount of money being spent by the ADF is huge ,from attack Tiger helo to the C17.Second , the publics accecptance for the millitary is just incredible,and third Not a Kiwi A/C in sight,made me very sad indeed, the yanks, sinapore made it down.
A great show with tonnes of fast and slow stuff to see.

 

[greenie]

Time for a silly Idea, Alenia has just rebuilt and sold 18 G.222 aircraft to the Afgan AF , they apparently have 8 more sitting there and spares, we never replaced the HS Andovers and the Beech replacement is due , I bet they could be scored for a real good price, anything that frees up the C130 and maybe lenthen out there life has to be good.
Also the navy is soon going to be in a postion were it is going to need to move around nz and the pacific the crews for its patrol boats so a cheep to run aircraft with short field performance would be high on my list.