NZDF General discussion thread

[mattyem]

http://www.defence.govt.nz/reports-publications/ltdp-2008/contents.html

Its good to see a governing party which has views aligned with the LTDP in terms of a High Readiness Infantry Company or "ranger" type unit.

It would be good to see more funding to go along with this unit to better equip troops of that capacity

 

[MrConservative]

We have a new Centre-Right Government in New Zealand formed between National and the pro Defence ACT Party. This is actually a very good result for us who care about our Defence Force and its capability. ACT will play a positive role in giving National a bit more spine in correcting the disasterous Defence direction Labour has taken us down.

 

[RubiconNZ]

We have a new Centre-Right Government in New Zealand formed between National and the pro Defence ACT Party. This is actually a very good result for us who care about our Defence Force and its capability. ACT will play a positive role in giving National a bit more spine in correcting the disasterous Defence direction Labour has taken us down.

I agree, it will be interest to see where to from here, couldn't happen at a worse economic time though however, the upside is however, increasing unemployment is good for recruiting. NZ and Aus should see a boost from this.
I await the White Paper with great anticipation.

 

[Stryker001]

Don’t worry the Collins are now not for sales land of the long white cloud, in 2020-2025.

Mod edit: Warning issued. This post is fftopic, nonsensical and a one-liner to boot. This is also not the first time there has been a problem with your posts or that you have been warned regarding them. If there is a further occurance of posting violating the forum rules, the bann will be for a minimum of six months.
-Preceptor

 

[recce.k1]

NZDF Briefing to the new Govt

Defence issues are dominating Radio NZ reports at the moment. No doubt there will be more on Radio NZ Checkpoint (see RNZ website later for audio reports) today after 5pm NZDT.

From http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2008/12/10/12438565ffa6

Updated at 4:31pm on 10 December 2008

Defence Minister Wayne Mapp has been warned about personnel shortages in the Defence Force and problems with equipment purchases and upgrades.

Mr Mapp says the briefing for the new National-led Government confirms the need for a White Paper review to re-establish credible and sustainable defence priorities.

The briefing highlights problems with the navy's $500 million Project Protector purchase of seven new vessels.

Mr Mapp is told that, as a matter of urgency, he will be asked to consider the direction of the project, which is being hampered by disputes with main contractor BAE Systems Australia.

The briefing also says the Defence Force is struggling to retain experienced staff, and there remains a lack of skilled personnel in a number of critical trades and ranks.

Staff shortages in the navy are affecting its ability to put ships to sea.

Mr Mapp says the White Paper review will also look at how to better manage the capital and operational budgets - which the briefing says are under "significant pressure."

See also the Beehive site for DefMin Mapp's press release today http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/holding+defence+bim

Link to related MOD/NZDF Briefing to the new Govt
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/Defence_BIM.pdf

 

[recce.k1]

It's been a very busy day news wise in NZ today, lot's of local events gained coverage so RNZ only featured defence in its news on the hour but TVNZ managed to broadcast a report in its main bulletin (see below). Interesting comments by Lance Beath that for NZ a maritime focus is of more importance than the previous Govt's land-centric focus and the Army should be smaller, but more capable and focused along the lines of the USMC. Alas the sound-bite didn't expand further upon his thinking but I wonder whether with the current high tempo of deployments whether the Army could be any smaller than it is, not unless perhaps he is advocating dropping the LAV specialisation of one of the battalions for example? Or artillary etc, so that there are more troops but a lesser range of traditional roles and capabilities? Interesting none the less, would like to know more of his thinking if anyone could expand upon etc. Should make for some interesting submissions by people to the Whitepaper etc.

The Defence briefing to the new Govt makes interesting reading. I can't do it justice by simply looking at a few of the points, but what the heck in terms of discussion here, some interesting points include:

* Project Protector, as a matter of urgency, Govt direction required on a number of issues etc.

* People - Navy, filling every position with the right people by 2014. Army, DSI funding was to grow the Army from 4700 to 5400 personnel but the Army Transformation Plan has identified a funding shortfall to meet this target and infrastructure. Air Force, at present planning levels, 100 more personnel than the DSI target of 3041 are required.

* RNZAF, "requirements to maintain operational outputs is affected by both a reduction of personnel and aircraft available for operations due to the concurrent requirements of the upgrades/replacement programmes". [#139].

* Army, "re-rolling of units to support current operations not only means they must forgo training in their primary role but also precludes their participation in major collective training activities, in particular those which prepare the Army for unforeseen or short-warning combat operations". [#136].

* Navy, "key decisions are required in the short term around the ANZAC Self Defence upgrade, and in the medium term around the replacement of Endeavour (tanker), Manawanui (dive tender) and Resolution (survey) and the future of the Navy helicopters (Seasprites). [#133].

* Navy, Project Protector, "the delays are now starting to have a negative effect on retention". [#132].

* See #105 for replacement programme considerations post LTDP 2012 (eg C-130's, P-3's, ANZAC's) and the need for funding etc.

* Capital funding pressures to complete the current LTDP projects already identified (eg shortfall of funding of $1.4-2.2B). [#103].

* In a nutshell, Defence commitments to Afghanistan, Timor & Solomons etc is stretching defence personnel, when they are being expected to bring into service many new or upgraded platforms across the three services. Experienced personnel required to lead deployments are the same ones required to train up others on the new equipment and capabilities etc. The small NZDF is overstretched. Retention has suffered although is being addressed with some success. But basically the question needs to be asked, could this have been managed better (at the political/funding level)?

* Etc etc, read the briefing, many issues related to funding which is rather ironic considering the previous Govt lambasted the National Govt of the 1990's for commencing their project plan/fundings late and when they did, projects were underfunded long term etc. Although kudos to the previous govt for implementing a more systematic project funding plan, although this too ironically has been shown up to be underfunded long term (as we here have noted over the years) and which now presents the new Govt a major headache into the 2010's etc. I do hope this does not cause the new Govt to cut capabilities further to match available funding options, but rather capabilites are actually increased in some areas and the way to do so would be to accept that Defence requires a greater proportion than the 1% GDP currently allocated eg incrementally grow eg to 1.3->1.5->2.0% ideally etc.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1318360/2371312 (+ video)
Minister briefed on defence problems
Dec 10, 2008 12:24 PM

The new Defence Minister Wayne Mapp has been told by the top brass that the defence force is running short of trained people and that its planned equipment upgrades have been plagued by delays.

The new government will shortly begin a year-long review of the New Zealand Defence Force in an attempt to fix the ongoing issues.

Mapp was told of the shortages on Wednesday in his first briefing from military officials.

Officials also told him that due to overseas deployments, the army is spread so thin,it has been reducing collective training, and increasing the use of reserves and civilians.

Also, personnel shortages are limiting ships' availability and that the limited availability of both people and aircraft due to upgrades remains a significant challenge for the air-force.

Mapp is promising a White Paper, a comprehensive review of New Zealand's defence needs, to deal with the challenges.

"It's a big challenge to get it right and that's why we're doing a full-scale review, a white paper," says Mapp.

Experts suggest now is the perfect opportunity to reshape the armed forces with a naval rather than land-based focus.

Victoria University defence expert Dr Lance Beath says he would see a smaller but much more capable army emerging from the review. He says that would be the sort of army young New Zealanders would want to join.

Beath says adopting a model similar to that of the US Marine Corps, an elite fighting force attached to the Navy, would be effective given that New Zealand is a remote island nation.

"The former government's focus on land-centric defence force is wrong in terms or our strategic geography and yes we're a maritime country, living in a maritime zone, and the requirements are certainly going to be maritime," says Beath.

But while experts may have their suggestions, the government has made it clear that it does not want radical changes to come out of the white paper.

"It's much better that our specialist capabilities that we use overseas, our provincial reconstruction team, the SAS, the Orions, that they can do their job properly, that we give them the tools to do the job properly," says Mapp.

The minister says his aim is much simpler.

The government plans to get six naval vessels, ordered in 2004, finally out in our waters and the air-force upgrades completed quickly in order to stay out of the firing line and the headlines.

 

[recce.k1]

Radio NZ Morning Report item on the defence briefing:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/nati...he_new_government_-_cleaning_up_defence_force
Various people interviewed. (Maybe it's just me but I find former defmin and new opposition leader Phil Goff continual lack of honest assessment quite frustrating, his defence modus operandi always seems to be to gloss over issues and never ever accept at least some fault or criticism that things could have been done better etc).

Be interesting to see whether the new Govt scales back the Afghanistan committment once the current scheduled end date late 2009 is reached etc. Or not.

NZ Herald picks up the issue this morning.

Navy ships project hard to keep afloat
4:00AM Thursday Dec 11, 2008
By Patrick Gower

The Navy's $500 million "Project Protector" is floundering, with six of its seven ships still undelivered - even though the taxpayer has paid the bulk of the bill.

The ships are already more than a year overdue, and the delivery date is officially defined as "unclear".

Official advice to Defence Minister Wayne Mapp is that the delays are affecting morale and causing much-needed personnel to leave the Navy.

And the advice shows that personnel shortages are limiting the availability of the ships it does have for sea duty.

The Navy is refusing to accept the Project Protector ships until outstanding problems are fixed by makers BAE Systems.

Dr Mapp would not give an exact figure, but said "the bulk" of the bill had been paid and there would be no walking away from the deal.

He conceded the taxpayer was losing out and said seeking compensation from BAE Systems was an option. He said the ships were needed as soon as possible to address the retention problems.

"You can't hire then train a whole lot of people, assign them to particular vessels, then not get the vessels," Dr Mapp said yesterday.

Project Protector was supposed to improve the Navy's capabilities, but the only ship delivered is the HMNZS Canterbury, which is sub-standard, plagued with problems and needs another $20 million spent on it.

The two offshore patrol vessels have been sent back to Melbourne and the 70 crew that were stationed with them brought home.

Dr Mapp said the ships had a weight problem - at about 100 tonnes overweight they could not sail in Antarctic waters as required.

The four inshore patrol vessels are also delayed, with health and safety issues preventing them getting a warranty.

The Ministry of Defence briefing to the incoming minister showed a myriad of problems across the Navy, Air Force and Army.

The ministry says $884 million is available to pay for planned projects by 2012, but between $1.4 billion and $2.2 billion is needed - a shortfall of up to $1.3 billion.

Dr Mapp said what funding was needed "depends on what you get".

The briefing says National's policy of keeping Whenuapai as a military base will require "a very substantial capital injection".

It says work has been proceeding since 2002 to close Whenuapai and move to Ohakea which is being prepared for the extra workload.

Dr Mapp said Whenuapai would get funding for "deferred maintenance".

The Air Force also faces delays for its major projects beyond the Boeing 757s that were out of action when required to evacuate New Zealanders from the recent unrest in Bangkok. The briefing shows the C-130 Hercules and P-3 Orion are also delayed, meaning operations have to be juggled.

The briefing also points to problems the Army has getting enough personnel to maintain operations.

Project protector

Multi-role vessel: HMNZS Canterbury is in service but plagued with problems. $177 million + $20 million to fix.

Two offshore patrol vessels: HMNZS Otago and Wellington finished below standard and sent back. $90 million each.

Four inshore patrol vessels: Not accepted. $143 million altogether.

 

[tongan_yam]

Afghanistan escalating

Given the international importance that Afghanistan is receiving I would enter into the fray and wager that we’ll see an escalation of NZDF commitment. It would be a bold move by the new Government and would show the international community that there has been a change of ideological guard here in NZ.

My prediction is an increase to a company level, maybe battalion. Well battalion, that would be one tour and we would have emptied the personnel cupboards!! My point is internationally we are going to see an escalation of manpower in the region, and our EU coalition seems reluctant to add, let alone commit to further tours.

From a geo-political view point this would be seen as a handy gesture consider we are heading into a equipment buying phase with the upcoming white paper. Uncle Sam makes some pretty tasty kit

 

[recce.k1]

Given the international importance that Afghanistan is receiving I would enter into the fray and wager that we’ll see an escalation of NZDF commitment. It would be a bold move by the new Government and would show the international community that there has been a change of ideological guard here in NZ.

My prediction is an increase to a company level, maybe battalion. Well battalion, that would be one tour and we would have emptied the personnel cupboards!! My point is internationally we are going to see an escalation of manpower in the region, and our EU coalition seems reluctant to add, let alone commit to further tours.

From a geo-political view point this would be seen as a handy gesture consider we are heading into a equipment buying phase with the upcoming white paper. Uncle Sam makes some pretty tasty kit

IMO that's certainly a possibility.

But on the other hand, IMO unless the new Govt decides to pump a lot of money into Defence and soon (but surely not a lot will happen any time soon until the Whitepaper is completed anyway), then something has to give.

Defence is overstretched. Even Mapp has been hinting at this in recent years.

IMO NZ's priorities are committments to this region, and Australia, and that means that we can't pull the detachment out of the Solomon Islands nor the Company from Timor (well unless we can interest a nearby Asian power like Singapore, to replace NZ in Timor?).

So that could make Afghanistan the place where NZ withdraws? NZ's PRT has been there since what 2003? Like any Western nation, one does not envisage being there for more than a year or two etc, and now some 5 years has gone by. The area has what, a medium to low threat level, perhaps politically some other EU nation might want to go in there instead of to a higher threat area? Also ideally IMO after 5 years the local Afghan defence force should have trained up a small force eg another Coy to look after the Province themselves. Perhaps it is time they stepped up, a small nation like NZ can't be there forever?

Like after the Timor battalion deployment 1999-2002, the NZ Army needs to regenerate and Afghanistan is another drain on our small defence force. Too many personnel are leaving, is it worth the effort now?

Anyway this is just an opinion, I do not say what I write above is what I believe should happen, more that this is what I see the situation as being.

As you say, on the other hand, there could be good reasons to stay and as NZ probably shifts back to its traditional allies, staying the course in Afghanistan may be politically the more savvy move for various other reasons. But do so would have to see something give somewhere.

IMO the Afghan experience has been good for NZDF and the Govt, it's just a pity we don't already have a bigger Army to sustain the PRT and NZ's other committments, training and requirements to get up to speed with new hardware.

In terms of tasty US kit, in this depressed world economy, one wonders about the decisions of the former Govt to buy just as tasty EU kit when the result is the need to also buy extensive spares (and training). The advantage of US kit is that we don't need to keep extensive spares as we simply plug into the US spares inventory when we need something. This is why the NH90's & A109's, beaut as the are, are excessively expensive IMO.

 

[steve33]

Victoria University defence expert says that a smaller more capable army will come from the review well how much smaller can it get we only have two battalions now.

He states that it will be an army that young New Zealanders want to join well what is wrong with the one we have now if it had been taken seriously by past governments and been given up to date equipment and decent pay it would be in better shape.

 

[Lucasnz]

Victoria University defence expert says that a smaller more capable army will come from the review well how much smaller can it get we only have two battalions now.

He states that it will be an army that young New Zealanders want to join well what is wrong with the one we have now if it had been taken seriously by past governments and been given up to date equipment and decent pay it would be in better shape.

I'd agree with you on that, you can't shrink the army. The only realistic option if NZ is continue current operations is to expand the army to 7,000, (maybe based on the RM, not the USMC like TVNZ was quoted), to maintain a 3 battatlion RF brigade. Lets get rid of the regimental corp structure. Expansion is the only way the army is going to be able to maintain and develop core combat capabilities.

The Victoria university expert made it clear that as an Island nation the focus should be on a maritime capable defence force. I think the Victoria Unversity expert is correct in the basics of his thinking - we're an Island Nation, so a maritime focus makes sense, especially given the consitutional responsbilities of the Defence Force in the Defence Act 1990. How you acheive this in the context of a limited budget and a undersized army remains to be seen.

 

[Todjaeger]

I have been reading Recce's comments with interest. Unfort have not had the time I would like to make a detailed comment, so here is a quick one.

Depending on the intent behind some of the recent commentary on the state of the NZDF there seem to be two ways to interpret them.

The first, and what I am hopeful of, is that National considers the resources devoted to the NZDF insufficient for what it is/has been tasked with, and/or any additional roles/capabilities National would like to see the NZDF field. The idea being that showing some of the weak spots within defence, and how many of them can either be fixed with additional funding or could have been avoided/prevented initially by allocating additional funding earlier on, the NZDF budget could be increased.

The flip side of course, is that National, on seeing the state of the NZDF, chooses to keep the overall level of funding the same, but make further reductions in NZDF capabilities and deployments, with the aim of having a force that is small enough to be sustainable with the current level of funding. This prospect I find worrisome for what I hope are obvious reasons.

What I would like to see National, or for that matter, anyone within the MoD, gov't or just recently exited the MoD or gov't state the actual level of real funding the NZDF gets. From reading various budget reports and the analysis done by various NZ groups, if the NZDF is "receiving" funding at the level of 1% GDP, then after taking in the deductions associated with the Capital Charge and another charge (GST? do not remember what it is called exactly, need to refresh the memory...) then the actual level of 'real' funding available to the NZDF is closer to `0.63% GDP IIRC. This is what would be used to cover things like payroll, training, operations, purchase of new capabilities or expansion of existing ones, upgrades, etc and also I believe some would be used to fund replacement of some existing equipment and capabilities.

It would be interesting to see what the 'real' numbers are, and what the Kiwi public thought of them...

-Cheers

 

[RegR]

alittle change off the political side.

Australias new Canberra class helo platforms coming online in a few years will have the ability to operate STOVL aircraft but Aus at this stage is not aqquireing any dedicated aircraft for this role.

Since we have lost our air combat role but can't seem to lose the aircraft was maybe thinking we should reinstate the aermachhis, buy a squadron of surplus harriers off our good friends America and institute some kind of ANZAC maritime force.

Aus would have their landing ships with helicopter mobility + the added protection of air support and NZ would have a form of air combat force again, win win situation.

The canberras are stated to take between 16-24 Aircraft each so a flight of 6-8 harriers per ship + 10-14 helos, with more or less jets/helos depending on task, makes for a very useful assault force combined with the 1000 or so troops C/W vehicles also to be carried.

The harriers would need to be based in Australia but has been done before when 2 squadron was based in Nowra supporting the RAN. A small number of harriers would need to be based in NZ anyway for conversion after pilots training on the machhis.

The NZ based harriers and machhis would then also be able to work with our army and navy and bring back those capabilities lost when the ACF was scrapped. Im sure it would also do wonders for the RNZAF, and NZDFs morale, and aid with recruitment and retention.

 

[old faithful]

alittle change off the political side.

Australias new Canberra class helo platforms coming online in a few years will have the ability to operate STOVL aircraft but Aus at this stage is not aqquireing any dedicated aircraft for this role.

Since we have lost our air combat role but can't seem to lose the aircraft was maybe thinking we should reinstate the aermachhis, buy a squadron of surplus harriers off our good friends America and institute some kind of ANZAC maritime force.

Aus would have their landing ships with helicopter mobility + the added protection of air support and NZ would have a form of air combat force again, win win situation.

The canberras are stated to take between 16-24 Aircraft each so a flight of 6-8 harriers per ship + 10-14 helos, with more or less jets/helos depending on task, makes for a very useful assault force combined with the 1000 or so troops C/W vehicles also to be carried.

The harriers would need to be based in Australia but has been done before when 2 squadron was based in Nowra supporting the RAN. A small number of harriers would need to be based in NZ anyway for conversion after pilots training on the machhis.

The NZ based harriers and machhis would then also be able to work with our army and navy and bring back those capabilities lost when the ACF was scrapped. Im sure it would also do wonders for the RNZAF, and NZDFs morale, and aid with recruitment and retention.

never going to happen....several reasons....Aust gets involved in a conflict that the kiwis dont want to know about....The AV8B,s are a fairly capable A/C, but they will be obsolete in the very near future and their A-A capability is lacking. the JSF is still a faint hope, the Stol version, if the RAAF got 12-14 then i think thats the only way we will see fixed wing AC on the Canberra,s.

 

[RegR]

yes agree Aus and NZ have differing foreign policies at times and NZ would not always go head first into combat ops but the way I see it the Canberras do not have this capability in the first place so any form of fast jets on board is a bonus. Not every mission will be the same, may not agree with Iraq, but are in Afghan as is Aus(abit overkill for Timor and sollies), could provide air cover for ships when transiting, beach assaults etc so would have to sit down and come to agreement based on situation, but if we had them I believe we would use them this time so future governments could not use the excuse 'we never have so axe them'.

I only mentioned Harriers as being a realist from the NZ side and cheap goverment prob would not fork out for the latest toys on the block, but hey anythings better then nothing (yes latest F35/JSF would be the ideal). And if and when Aus decides they need the capability and tag on the STOL jets to the order then we could just bring the jets back to NZ and go back to the good old days, no harm done. Sneaky way to try and revive a ACF for NZ as I doubt we would ever just start one back up without some kind of reason.

 

[MrConservative]

IMO that's certainly a possibility.

In terms of tasty US kit, in this depressed world economy, one wonders about the decisions of the former Govt to buy just as tasty EU kit when the result is the need to also buy extensive spares (and training). The advantage of US kit is that we don't need to keep extensive spares as we simply plug into the US spares inventory when we need something. This is why the NH90's & A109's, beaut as the are, are excessively expensive IMO.

I agree. The NH-90 fleet were far too expensive. It has been a purchase that has cut off a number of other important purchasing options. It needs to be examined in context. The US Marines have according to defencenewsdaily.com recently purchased a tranch of 11 UH-1Y Venom and 4 AH-1Z new build helicopters for US$210m off Bell under a delivered fixed price contract. Basically modern updates of the venerable Huey and Cobra.

The problem with the NH-90 is that if 2 were sent up in the future to say the Solomons for a low level Peace Support Mission, that is a quarter of our all our NZDF utility rotary assets tied up right there and $180mil of equipment potentially at risk.

That is why I think that eight NH-90s are enough. There is patently a shortfall in rotary assets in the NZDF we need something tough and cheap like 6-8 new build Huey's or even Huey II rebuilds to do the low level stuff around the South Pacific and at home.

 

[moahunter]

I only mentioned Harriers as being a realist from the NZ side and cheap goverment prob would not fork out for the latest toys on the block

An air combat force would IMO be nonsensical for NZ because:

1. It would be horribly expensive - this would just take money away from the Navy / Army
2. It is very hard to retain pilots with the limited opportunities NZ can provide - spend a fortune training them, only to have them leave for other air forces
3. There is not the scale of infrastructure to support a first rate force, it will only ever acheive limited occasional capability with outdated aircraft. For example, even a country as wealthy as Canada as trouble affording to keep its CF18's up to date / useful.
4. UAV's are replacing many of the combat force roles NZ would target anyway and would provide more effective capability for the same money (e.g. close air support and eventually maritime).

A UAV program (esp. a maritime one) may make a lot of sense though - especially if a University or two and some local businesses could get involved in the engineering of it, perhaps as a small component of a US program (even just a software role). A niche industry could be created with export capability.

The other thing I think should be looked at closely is the Canadian model of one combined force. Canada made the mistake of removing separate uniforms (this has since been rectified), but overall, it seems a more efficient structure that promotes closer integration of air sea and land.

 

[Todjaeger]

An air combat force would IMO be nonsensical for NZ because:

1. It would be horribly expensive - this would just take money away from the Navy / Army
2. It is very hard to retain pilots with the limited opportunities NZ can provide - spend a fortune training them, only to have them leave for other air forces
3. There is not the scale of infrastructure to support a first rate force, it will only ever acheive limited occasional capability with outdated aircraft. For example, even a country as wealthy as Canada as trouble affording to keep its CF18's up to date / useful.
4. UAV's are replacing many of the combat force roles NZ would target anyway and would provide more effective capability for the same money (e.g. close air support and eventually maritime).

A UAV program (esp. a maritime one) may make a lot of sense though - especially if a University or two and some local businesses could get involved in the engineering of it, perhaps as a small component of a US program (even just a software role). A niche industry could be created with export capability.

The other thing I think should be looked at closely is the Canadian model of one combined force. Canada made the mistake of removing separate uniforms (this has since been rectified), but overall, it seems a more efficient structure that promotes closer integration of air sea and land.

A few points here...

A roughly 2 sqd/24 aircraft ACF was estimated a few years ago to cost approximately NZ$200 million annually to operate... This is of course assuming that the aircraft had already been purchased, etc etc. Whether or not this is a huge amount for Defence to spend is dependent on a few things, one of which is the size of the NZDF annual budget. Given the current NZDF budgetary allocation of ~1% GDP including the Capital Charge and GST works out to about 0.65% GDP in real terms, or in other words, of ~ NZ$1.9 billion budgeted, there is only about NZ$1.2 billion available to spend... Then yes NZ$200 million is quite a bit.

Another factor to consider, is just what an ACF would (or could) provide NZ and the NZDF. One concern mentioned was pilot retention of an ACF was created. AFAIK, pilot retention got worse following the elimination of the ACF. One of the reasons this happened was that the total number of aircraft in the RNZAF shrank, resulting in less opportunities for pilots (and groundcrew). Also, much of the remaining aircraft in the RNZAF fufills roles not unlike that of commercial aircraft, namely passenger and cargo lift. As such, if pilots wish to further their careers, keep flying, earn money, etc they have few options currently within the NZDF to do so. By re-introducing an ACF, aside from just the operational capabilities an ACF can provide (strike, air defence, recon, CAS etc.) There is the joint training opportunities which other elements of the NZDF can practice either being attacked by aircraft, or operating with air support. Also, it could help to address pilot & crew retention as there would be more opportunities for RNZAF pilots and ground crews.

As for UAVs replacing manned aircraft, yes, that is happening to some extent, and over time, there might be actual dedicated UCAVs in place. At present, there are not, and even the armed UAVs do not fufill the same roles and manned fighter and strike aircraft. Not to mention that for the larger UAVs, some of which can carry weaponry, they are large and expensive. The areas where UAVs really do better than manned aircraft at present are for missions which require high loiter times, an example is the Northrupp Grumman BAMS UAV, which can replace some MPA functions and has a loiter time on station of 24 hours. The other area where currently a UAV can excel vs. a manned aircraft is in some missions in hostile airspace where there is significant risk of loss to the aircraft. The UAV might well be less survivable in such circumstances, but the pilot is not put at risk.

As for the NZDF following Canada into unifying the service arms, I honestly see no advantage in that. I do not really see any particular benefit that Canada received from doing so for that matter. IMO the best way to achieve close cooperation between service branches is to have them train with each other in joint training sessions as well as having the MoD detail responsibilities of the various branches and examine how the different branches can work together. Unfortunately, between the resources available to the NZDF and the type, number and location of deployments, the NZDF does not IMO have very many good opportunities to train and establish inter-service rapport.

-Cheers

 

[moahunter]

I think eventually all forces will require a UAV component, and rather than get into the game later, it may make sense to invest now. The NZ Army will need this capability. At the current rate of progress, I think it is only a matter of time, perhaps only a decade, before all close combat air support (for example, the role of an A-10) will be replaced by UAV's. Air superiority will remain manned for some time, but that is not a role that the RNZAF ever was capable of anyway.

Maritime patrol and/or strike is interesting though - I can't help think that NZ would be a perfect test ground to say, help the US Navy on their work to developing global hawke into a maritime version (or help another US company develop another solution).

 

[Todjaeger]

I think eventually all forces will require a UAV component, and rather than get into the game later, it may make sense to invest now. The NZ Army will need this capability. At the current rate of progress, I think it is only a matter of time, perhaps only a decade, before all close combat support (for example, the role of an A-10) will be replaced by UAV's. Air superiority will remain manned for some time, but that is not a role that the RNZAF ever was capable of anyway.

Maritime patrol is interesting though - I can't help think that NZ would be a perfect test ground to develop say, help the US Navy on their work to developing global hawke into a maritime version.

Regarding UAVs, AFAIK the NZ army is starting to use them. A key thing to remember with UAVs though is all that means is that the aircraft is unmanned. As such, these aircraft can be small enough to be carried in a soldier's pack, to being the size of a fighter aircraft...

The very small aircraft, due to their size are unsuitable to carry munitions, rather they are used for tactical recon and spotting duties. The larger aircraft which can carry some types of munitions are starting to approach fighter aircraft in terms of price.

For instance, IIRC the BAMS, (Northrup Grumman's Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance based off the Global Hawk) UAV costs something like US$55 mil per copy.

As for close air support being provided by UAVs, perhaps, perhaps not. The current trend the US seems looking towards is use of the F-35 at higher altitudes with better sensors and PGM's to provide the needed support.

I do think NZ needs to start getting familiar (or perhaps more familiar) with UAVs, but again, they are not able to do all the same things as an ACF can.

Whether or not NZ really needs an ACF is certainly debatable. What is IMO not debatable is that there are a number of capability gaps in the NZDF, some of which really should not exist in a modern military. But this then largely gets back into a discussion on just how much resources NZ is willing to allocate to the NZDF, and what sort of demands are going to be made of it.

-Cheers