Royal New Zealand Air Force

[bruceedwards]

I personally still do not think it a myth that NZ cannot increase its defence spending. OTOH, I have also always felt that the reason an increase cannot be done was not so much an economic issue as a political/social issue. There is money available the question is, where do the people/pollys want to spend it...

-Cheers

Yep, you are 100% on that Todj. It seems that any increase in defence spending has to be snuck through these days, or the opposition throws a hissy fit and asks why we are spending money on bullets and planes when it could be much better spent on baby blankets and ACC.

It is interesting that for the last few years the Defence Force has been receiving more positive press, and the media seems less intent on attacking where the money goes - unlike when the ANZACS were purchased, and the reporters couldn't wait to leap on the bandwagon and decry new Frigates a wasteful, terrible expense.

Hopefully this signals the beginning of a slow sea-change in NZ policy and thinking, and a willingness to slowly increase spending.

Of course, I guess we'll know for sure once the big ticket items (Hercules, P-3, ANZACS) are up for replacement.

 

[t68]

Okay, here is my rough outline on how the RNZAF could potentially re-introduce an ACF and/or a fast-jet training programme. Please keep in mind, while I do indeed believe that the NZDF does need to have at least a basic ACF, I am cognizant of the fact that the NZDF has limited resources available to it, and many other demands for these same limited resources. Therefore this post is not one of me advocating for the RNZAF to take the actions I have specified, rather it is a possible plan should Government/the NZDF/RNZAF decide to restore the ACF.

I would expect that it would take ~ 10 years from the time of programme initiation until FOC is reached.

Once it is decided to proceed towards an ACF/fastjet capability, an RFI would be placed to evaluate suitable aircraft. My personal preference would be the KAI T/A-50 (or is it F/A-50?) Golden Eagle, but other possible contenders are the Aermacchi M-346, the Aero Vodochody L-159B, or a BAE Hawk variant combining the features of the Mk 128 and Mk 203/208/209. An initial order for ~12 aircraft would be placed, with the possibility of additional orders for another ~12-24 aircraft to be placed in the future. Yes, I am aware that at first glance, the RNZAF operating ~36 examples of a fastjet trainer & light attack aircraft might seem a laughable idea, but I am going somewhere with this idea...

Simultaneously, a new recruiting drive should be launched to swell the number of RNZAF personnel since the RNZAF is going to see an increase in personnel demands due to the additional aircraft entering service. Even if just a dozen aircraft are purchased, I would estimate that at least an additional 50 personnel would be required to for manning the unit without stripping personnel from other units. Failure to start this drive early could result in a similar situation which the RNZN has been concerned about with the Project Protector fleet, which there are more ships in service requiring personnel than are available to crew them.
End of Year 1.

Assuming that the decision on which aircraft is made within a year, I would then send an initial detachment of RNZAF personnel to the nation/air force/manufacturer of the chosen design for training. I would imagine that this initial detachment would total approximately two dozen personnel, divided between pilots and ground crew drawn from experienced RNZAF personnel. Initial training and utilization for the aircraft could likely be completed within ~6 months, but I would imagine that a 12 or 18 month training regime would allow the RNZAF detachment sufficient time to build up the necessary expertise on the aircraft so that these personnel could then act as trainers within NZ.
End of Year 2.5

At this point, roughly half of the RNZAF pilot detachment would return to NZ to setup the unit at Base Woodbourne on South Island, along with the trained ground crew and an initial batch of aircraft. They would then work to reach IOC with however many aircraft are included with the initial delivery (likely 2-4 aircraft). As part of this, training would commence within NZ to pass on the ability to operate and maintain the aircraft.

At the same time, the other half of the RNZAF pilot detachment would be posted to a training centre(s) in Australia/the UK/Canada/USA to allow these pilots to gain the piloting and planning skills needed for CAS, strike/maritime strike and (limited) air to air missions. This would be intended to only build up sufficient skill for the RNZAF pilots to then train and pass on the skills to other RNZAF pilots and personnel. I would be mistaken, but I believe this too would take ~12-18 months and then the detachment would return to NZ.
End of Year 4.

Following the return of all RNZAF personnel engaged in overseas training, the trainers would begin a programme to cross-train each other in the various skills which they have developed, as well as slowly increasing the numbers of trained fastjet pilots and ground crew. At this point, the unit (at least if 12 aircraft are ordered) should have reached full manning pilots and ground crew.
End of Year 5.

Training would now begin to allow the RNZAF ACF to rebuild the strike and CAS capability to the degree it was prior to the ACF being disbanded. At the same time, there would be a low level of training conducted to pass on the fastjet and basic ACF skills to the rest of the fixed wing pilots within the RNZAF. This would likely take ~ 5 years to reach the same degree of skill and FOC.
End of Year 10.

Now, onto costs.
I estimate that the initial costs for the aircraft, simulators, pilot and ground crew uptraining, etc. would likely run ~US$700 million for ~12 aircraft, spread out over the first three years. If additional aircraft and related ancillary equipment (sims, etc) were ordered, that would likely cost ~ million per dozen aircraft. Additionally, if there was a stocking order placed for weapons, that would likely run between US$50-100 million, but of course being very dependent on the weapons and quantities desired.

In terms of ongoing training and operational costs, I would expect would be on the order of ~NZ$100 million per dozen aircraft annually starting at around Year 4.

Now, for the explanation of why NZ might wish to purchase as many as 24 or 36 fastjet trainers... As I have mentioned before (at least twice IIRC) there is the possibility of some nation creating a flight training centre to provide advanced and LIF training in the ASEAN/South Pacific Region. By getting appropriate agreements in place with various potential client-states, such a training centre could allow for economies of scale which would be otherwise difficult for the various nations to achieve, were they to operate their own advanced training centre. IMO the two nations in the region best able to setup and operate such a facility are Australia and New Zealand, both being advanced nations with comparatively sizeable economies, and also possessing significant airspace available for training flights. I am certain that from an economic and technical perspective Singapore could also operate such a facility, but IMO it lacks sufficient ground & air space to do so properly.

I look forward to others thoughts on this, please comment on any areas of ambiguity or where corrections are needed.

-Cheers

Very well thought out plan, it was a pleasure to read.
Is it possible to bring back the A4skyhawks as an interim platform til the new build ta/50 arrive or even possible to upgrade to RSAF Super Skyhawk standard?

New pilots could plug into the Australian training school’s system might off set some of the start up cost for an ACF,i am sure an Australian government would look favourable at reducing the start up cost to the NZ government to get the ball rolling in the short term ,in the long term cost sharing the school with possible benefit’s to the RAAF for new pilots as well.

Specifications (A-4SU)
General characteristics
• Crew: 1 (2 in TA-4SU)
• Length: 41 ft 9 in (12.72 m)
• Wingspan: 27 ft 6 in (8.38 m)
• Height: 15 ft 0 in (4.57 m)
• Wing area: 259.8 ft² (24.1 m²)
• Empty weight: 10,250 lb (4,650 kg)
• Max takeoff weight: 22,500 lb (10,205 kg)
• Powerplant: 1× General Electric F404-GE-100D turbofan, 10,800 lbf (48.4 kN)
Performance
• Maximum speed: 1128 km/h (609 kts, 701 mph)
• Range: 1,700 nm (2,000 mi, 3,220 km ferry range with 3 drop tanks)
• Service ceiling: 12,192 m (40,000 ft)
• Rate of climb: 55 m/s (10,913 ft/min)
• Wing loading: 70.7 lb/ft² (344.4 kg/m²)
• Thrust/weight: 0.55
Armament
• Guns: 2× 30 mm (1.18 in) ADEN cannons, 150 rounds/gun
• Hardpoints: 4× under-wing & 1× under-fuselage pylon stations holding up to 9,900 lb (4,490 kg) of payload:
• Rockets:
o 2× LAU-5003 rocket pods (each with 19× CRV7 70 mm rockets); or
o 2× LAU-10 rocket pods (each with 4× Zuni 127 mm rockets); or
o 2× Matra rocket pods (each with 18× SNEB 68 mm rockets)
• Missiles:
o Air-to-air missile: 4× AIM-9 Sidewinder
o Air-to-surface missile: 2× AGM-65 Maverick
• Bombs:
o Paveway series of Laser-guided bombs (LGB); or
o Mark 80 series of unguided iron bombs (including 3 kg and 14 kg practice bombs)
• Others:
o up to 3× 300/330/370 US Gallon Sargent Fletcher drop tanks for ferry flight or extended range/loitering time.
Avionics
• Stewart-Warner AN/APQ-145 Mapping & Ranging radar
• GEC/Ferranti 4510 Head-up display (HUD)/weapons delivery system
• Litton LN-93 Inertial navigation system (INS)
• BAE Systems MED-2067 Multi-function displays (MFD)
• AN/AAS-35V Pave Penny laser tracker for use with Paveway LGBs

 

[Todjaeger]

Very well thought out plan, it was a pleasure to read.
Is it possible to bring back the A4skyhawks as an interim platform til the new build ta/50 arrive or even possible to upgrade to RSAF Super Skyhawk standard?

New pilots could plug into the Australian training school’s system might off set some of the start up cost for an ACF,i am sure an Australian government would look favourable at reducing the start up cost to the NZ government to get the ball rolling in the short term ,in the long term cost sharing the school with possible benefit’s to the RAAF for new pilots as well.

I suppose it might be possible for the RNZAF A-4 Skyhawks to be and trainers to be reactivated. From memory, it would require ~$35 million to be spent refurbishing them to a flyable standard, at least as far as the possible sale to TAS is concerned. Unfortunately, IMO that would likely completely kill any chance of selling the aircraft. Also, given the march of time, I no longer think the Skyhawks and trainers to be particularly useful, without commiting to system upgrades. That might be a less expensive path back to an ACF in the short term, mid to long term I expect it be more costly, since the Skyhawks themselves are so old they would likely require replacement fairly soon after returning to RNZAF service.

I also do not think the RNZAF would get much of a jump in training time, since the pilots would need to get trained on the trainer to operate fast jets, with the instructor pilots requiring training first... And then everyone would need to transition to the Skyhawk, and then the process would start all over again once the replacement trainer/light attack aircraft entered service.

As for taking the A-4 Skyhawks and upgrading them to the Super Skyhawk standard... I would imagine that could be accomplished as well. The question there is whether or not it would be worthwhile. My expectation is that it would not. IIRC the RSAF A-4SU Super Skyhawks are due to be replaced in the near future as the aircraft themselves are old and potentially less competetive/servicable when compared with more modern aircraft. Additionally, it would likely be a significant and expensive upgrade for an aircraft which is over 30+ years old. To my mind it would be better value for money to just outright replacement with new aircraft able to perform both training and attack roles at a per unit cost of ~US$27 million.

In terms of RAAF assisting the RNZAF in "jump starting" the RNZAF fast jet/ACF training, I am not certain how much assistance the RAAF would (or could) provide. The impression I have is that the RAAF Hawk 127 LIFs are essentially fully utilized in meeting RAAF needs for pilots and there is not sufficient spare capacity to train RNZAF pilots. That in fact is one of the other reasons why I would like to see the RNZAF setup a fast jet training programme again... In the event that something happened, or that circumstances in the world or region begin to change, there is some additional training capacity to allow for additional pilots to be trained.

My sense is that the RAAF could provide assistance in training for combat and/or strike missions, once RNZAF pilots are qualified on the T/A-50, but that the RAAF would not be able to help significantly to get Kiwi pilots ready before that point.

-Cheers

 

[t68]

I suppose it might be possible for the RNZAF A-4 Skyhawks to be and trainers to be reactivated. From memory, it would require ~$35 million to be spent refurbishing them to a flyable standard, at least as far as the possible sale to TAS is concerned. Unfortunately, IMO that would likely completely kill any chance of selling the aircraft. Also, given the march of time, I no longer think the Skyhawks and trainers to be particularly useful, without commiting to system upgrades. That might be a less expensive path back to an ACF in the short term, mid to long term I expect it be more costly, since the Skyhawks themselves are so old they would likely require replacement fairly soon after returning to RNZAF service.

I also do not think the RNZAF would get much of a jump in training time, since the pilots would need to get trained on the trainer to operate fast jets, with the instructor pilots requiring training first... And then everyone would need to transition to the Skyhawk, and then the process would start all over again once the replacement trainer/light attack aircraft entered service.

As for taking the A-4 Skyhawks and upgrading them to the Super Skyhawk standard... I would imagine that could be accomplished as well. The question there is whether or not it would be worthwhile. My expectation is that it would not. IIRC the RSAF A-4SU Super Skyhawks are due to be replaced in the near future as the aircraft themselves are old and potentially less competetive/servicable when compared with more modern aircraft. Additionally, it would likely be a significant and expensive upgrade for an aircraft which is over 30+ years old. To my mind it would be better value for money to just outright replacement with new aircraft able to perform both training and attack roles at a per unit cost of ~US$27 million.

In terms of RAAF assisting the RNZAF in "jump starting" the RNZAF fast jet/ACF training, I am not certain how much assistance the RAAF would (or could) provide. The impression I have is that the RAAF Hawk 127 LIFs are essentially fully utilized in meeting RAAF needs for pilots and there is not sufficient spare capacity to train RNZAF pilots. That in fact is one of the other reasons why I would like to see the RNZAF setup a fast jet training programme again... In the event that something happened, or that circumstances in the world or region begin to change, there is some additional training capacity to allow for additional pilots to be trained.

My sense is that the RAAF could provide assistance in training for combat and/or strike missions, once RNZAF pilots are qualified on the T/A-50, but that the RAAF would not be able to help significantly to get Kiwi pilots ready before that point.

-Cheers

You are correct i think it would be better for the long term in getting new aircraft and not waste money on a thirty year old airframe, the thirty five million would be better spent on infrastructure and training facilities. Looking more into the RSAF super skyhawk they have retired them and moved on to the F16D.

With regards to RAAF lif training i suspect hawk will be replaced soon as it was only to be in service for twenty five years according to the RAAF website, i have conflicting info when hawk came into service one site say 1993 another 1998, if you take 1993 as the time frame hawk should be replaced around 2017,i would imagine that ordering new aircraft would be in the vicinity of 2012,RAAF lif school could be expanded to take into account of the Kiwi’s need and possible RSAF.

Do the RAAF still use a civilian pilot school in Tamworth NSW initial flying training?
Could the Kiwi’s make use of the school as well or would it be in their best interest using a similar concept in NZ?

 

[Todjaeger]

You are correct i think it would be better for the long term in getting new aircraft and not waste money on a thirty year old airframe, the thirty five million would be better spent on infrastructure and training facilities. Looking more into the RSAF super skyhawk they have retired them and moved on to the F16D.

With regards to RAAF lif training i suspect hawk will be replaced soon as it was only to be in service for twenty five years according to the RAAF website, i have conflicting info when hawk came into service one site say 1993 another 1998, if you take 1993 as the time frame hawk should be replaced around 2017,i would imagine that ordering new aircraft would be in the vicinity of 2012,RAAF lif school could be expanded to take into account of the Kiwi’s need and possible RSAF.

Do the RAAF still use a civilian pilot school in Tamworth NSW initial flying training?
Could the Kiwi’s make use of the school as well or would it be in their best interest using a similar concept in NZ?

AFAIK the $35 million to be spent on the ex-RNZAF MB-339CB and A-4K Skyhawks will be to return them to a flyable condition, which as I understand it is a requirement for their sale to TAS. IIRC the A-4K Skyhawks are currently parked outside after having had a protective latex coating applied.

For the RSAF A-4SU Skyhawks, I believe some of them are still active as a training squadron in France, with the rest having been put into storage (~50 aircraft IIRC). The aircraft I believe can be reactivated in the event of an emergency, but are not in active service at present.

For the RAAF, the Hawk 127 entered service in October of 2000, according to this RAAF site. I can easily believe that some individual examples of aircraft were built prior to that date, since that strikes me as the FOC, as opposed to IOC date.

From memory, ADF pilot training is initially provided by a private company under contract, and uses ~50 of NZ's Pacific Aerospace CT-4 Airtrainer to provide basic flight training at Tamworth. From there ADF pilots move onto either rotary wing training (RAN & Army), while RAAF pilots are next trained on the Pilatus PC-9/A Advanced Turbo Trainer, and from there move onto either multi-engine or fast jet training. Those pilots intended for service on fast jets like the F-111, F/A-18 Hornet or the upcoming F-35 JSF/Lightning II jets are then trained on the 33 Hawk 127 LIF trainers.

While the RAAF Hawks were originally intended for 25 years service as LIF/jet trainers, I do recall reading somewhere that there were concerns about stress to some aircraft and/or cracks occuring in some wings or airframes. Perhaps Magoo and/or one of the other Oz DefPros could confirm this or provide additional information. I would imagine though that barring significant problems with the Hawks, the RAAF would not be looking at replacing them within the next decade. They might be initiating the search for a replacement, as a number of ADF programmes take a decade+ from initial programme definition to FOC, but IMO that would be too late for RNZAF purposes unless the NZDF was willing to wait until 2020+ for a fast jet trainer...

-Cheers

 

[StevoJH]

Do the RAAF still use a civilian pilot school in Tamworth NSW initial flying training?
Could the Kiwi’s make use of the school as well or would it be in their best interest using a similar concept in NZ?

It seemed to still be there when I was at Tamworth Airport on the 12th of December.

Seemed to be a fairly decent sized complex of buildings etc.

 

[south]

I think if you bothered to do some research you will find that the RAAF have deployed F/A-18's on a few ocassions over the last 10 years.

You seem to be like a large number of people in New Zealand that do not understand the fundamental difference between 'fighter' aircraft and 'attack' or 'strike' aircraft . Since you are going away on holiday you will have the chance to do some research and find out.

Mr Conservative - you should never assume, to do so makes an Ass of U and Me....

1. I am familiar with RAAF Fighter deployments.
2. I am extremely familiar with the difference between a "fighter" aircraft to an "attack" aircraft or a "strike" aircraft, although such aircraft designations/roles these days are far from exclusive, given the multirole abilities of aircraft stretching back to the F-4, and improved upon with the F-16, FA-18, F-15E etc. I’m also familiar with the actual dollar cost per hour to operate the RAAF Assets.

What is this Timor handled by the RAAF stuff? Maybe in the Air Superiority role - but what if it came to us needing CAS? There was always that understanding that the RAAF would provide the umbrella and the A-4's could do their specialist taskings at the tactical level. Fairly presumptious - have you asked them if it was OK or is this some sort of unpaid expectation appealing to the Goodwill of the Australian people. The ADF through the Australian taxpayer do not buy extra resources just so they can cover New Zealands defensive needs as well as their own. They dont go Hmmmm I think we better add another 14 strike aircraft to the order just so we can cover NZ needs.

Also a Battalion Group of 1200 is just as highly symbolic and probably more visable than a squadron of 12 deployed strike aircraft. I dont know where you get these ideas from...

Now we are just getting silly. Do I think that the ADF looks at the RNZAF Orbat and tries to plug their gaps? No. Did I mention anywhere a Battalion group? No.

If it came to needing CAS there were Pigs bombed up ready to go, and a squadron of FA-18's at Tindal that could have done the same job. There were two further squadrons of FA-18's that could relocate to Darwin/Tindal in a day. The Aussie jets were available, integrated into the operation and received daily tasking orders. The only reference that I can find to the NZ Skyhawks was that they were withdrawn from training exercises in Malaysia for air support should it become necessary. I haven’t seen any reference to any “understanding" that the FA-18’s would only be used for top cover and the Kiwi’s were allocated CAS, though I would welcome it if it could be provided.

I also think that NZ does not need fighter aircraft, but believe we need aircraft that can perform the CAS role. To simplify the concept for you. We dont need air superiority or air defence but need strike & anti-ship.

Around 14 KAI F/A-50 would be substantially less to buy and operate than 24 of the Aussie Shornets. The A-4 was a second tier multi-role aircraft so their is no reason that NZ should not again have a second teir air combat capable aircraft like the multi-role F/A-50. I think it is unrealistic to think of us buying the high end sort of kit as the Shornet or F35 however i think it is just as unrealistic for NZ to have no kit at all. I believe (Im not the only one) if the RNZAF were told to go buy 14 F/A-50's which are around the price of a Mk200 Hawk and given 5 years to get an operational squadron together. They would do it. They perform little miracles that go unnoticed everyday. :smilie

Fair enough, those are your beliefs. Can you please explain to me why the RNZAF need an aircraft that can perform CAS, Strike and antiship? I cannot predict the future, but find it hard to see NZ deploying a battlegroup into an environment where such a significant threat is going to require CAS (let alone strike or antiship) where a coalition effort cannot provide air support for the troops on the ground. Whilst you note that the NZ economy is going well, it still comes down to the Budget that the NZ Govt is willing to spend on the NZDF. Without a large, unexpected amount of capital being outlayed, any reconstruction of a NZ ACF will place a massive strain on the budget.

The question to be really asked is that will the money spent on a NZ ACF provide an increased combat effectiveness to NZDF as opposed to if that money is spent elsewhere? Without a significant increase to the budget to get it up and running and sustained – probably not. Will a NZ ACF place a significant strain on the manpower of the RNZAF – yes. Would say 4-6 FA-50’s produce a worthwhile combat effect? IMHO no.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If it came to needing CAS there were Pigs bombed up ready to go

more to the point, there was a flight of pigs that were gunned up to go to jakarta if the indons had escalated things in ET.

The only reference that I can find to the NZ Skyhawks was that they were withdrawn from training exercises in Malaysia for air support should it become necessary. I haven’t seen any reference to any “understanding" that the FA-18’s would only be used for top cover and the Kiwi’s were allocated CAS, though I would welcome it if it could be provided.

having seen the air planning aspects of ET, I cannot recall seeing anything involving RNZAF beyond extra trucks (Hercs). I've never seen anything regarding a RNZAF Lo-mix dealing with CAS. There was no need as the Hornets were able to go from the day that Dili was secured by the specials. Hornets were kept in Australia for a reason, ie to manage the visibility of escalation of forces. They could have gone and been on station running strike packages at very very short notice. The only aircraft at higher readiness were the flight of pigs aimed at Jakarta.

 

[ThePuss]

From memory, ADF pilot training is initially provided by a private company under contract, and uses ~50 of NZ's Pacific Aerospace CT-4 Airtrainer to provide basic flight training at Tamworth. From there ADF pilots move onto either rotary wing training (RAN & Army), while RAAF pilots are next trained on the Pilatus PC-9/A Advanced Turbo Trainer, and from there move onto either multi-engine or fast jet training.
-Cheers

A small point but RAN pilots continue training with the RAAFies and go RAAF Pearce for 40 weeks training on the Pilatus. When the finish that they get their "Wings" but then go and do another 25 weeks helicopter conversion training at HMAS Albatross. After that ends they get their "Helicopter Wings" but still need to do their "Type" conversion.

A breakdown of RAN pilot training can be found at Employment Training | Navy Pilot | Defence Jobs

All up one year navy training, then three years to get a degree at ADFA and then two years pilot training or six years before you start your "Type" conversion. No wonders the poor suckers have to sign on for 13 years! :fly

 

[T.C.P]

if new zealand is so suffering for funds it could purchace ex- US fighter air craft. I mean an air force with no combat aircraft is no air force at all

 

[MrConservative]

Lets clear this up Mr South.

1. The way you worded your post using"fighters" alerted me to the usual misjudgement that many Kiwi's make. Sorry I jumped on you about it but it does irritate. I would argue that their is a spectrum of MRCA from F/A-50's through to F-15 Strike Eagles. Some are more multi than others but it is a good point.

2. There was an understanding right back from the days of SEATO and during the period of time when NZ was more fully engaged with ANZUS that the RAAF (and USAF/USN) would provide the umbrella for which 75 Squadron could carry out CAS / Interdiction principally in support of a deployed NZ Battalion Group. When we bought the A-4’s in 1970 it was on the policy understanding that NZ needed to provide its own CAS/Interdiction capability and not a more sophisticated aircraft such as the F-4 / Mirage which could provide fighter cover. The provision of CAS/Indiction by 75 sqd might not have been in the planning in the case of ET as things were in a state of flux regarding 75 Sqd as we all know– but nevertheless that we can/could/should provide indigenous CAS/Int/A-Shp has been the historical understanding and the way we saw it. It was also politically and fiscally the way we NZ wanted it. That is why when we deployed to Malaya in the 50’s and Borneo in the 60’s we took along our own CAS/Interdiction with 14th Sqd. Not just for ourselves but as part of a coalition. There was always a word used around these parts – Crete. A lesson learn that shaped much of our post war thinking regarding air support of troops. The cornerstone of our Defence Policy right up until 1999 - was in a short pithy phrase "self reliance in defence."

3. During ET 75 Sqd were in SEA on FPDA training. They were placed by the NZ Govt on standby to deploy if required and held over in Malaysia for 2 weeks. That was communicated to the Australian Govt and Martyn Dunne certainly knew about it. A bit like the Pigs at Darwin. If the Pigs were sent to Jakarta by John Howard - then Shipley would have had to definately OK the A-4's. Thank goodness that that never happened.

4. NZ has exactly the same reasons to provide CAS/Interdiction and A/Shp as Australia does. If you assume that NZ does not require these things then I must assume that you think that the ADF does not need them as well. Now I know you dont think that but tell me what is the difference between NZ requiring this capability or Australia. Im sorry but we never joined the Federation 100 years ago. To think otherwise patronising and arrogant. If there is a need to for Australia to committ itself to some expeditionary combat situation, viz a viz there is also a need for New Zealand.

5. An RNZAF A-4 cost around $22,000 per flight hour in 2000/1 to operate. 75 Sqd was budgeted for 2600 hours at around $58m p.a. Korea estimates that F/A-50's would cost around 32-33 Billion Won at flyaway. 14 aircraft which is all the RNZAF would need would fall under the half billion mark and would provide 10 operational examples - the NZDF was satisified with that during the 2000 ACF stocktake. A modest ACF would require the NZDF budget to lift by 10%.

Oh - yes the point about the flight of six aircraft - that was the number of RNZAF Canberra's used in 1965 in Borneo to support 1RNZIR. Did a fine job by all accounts.

Happy New Year!

 

[gf0012-aust]

3. During ET 75 Sqd were in SEA on FPDA training. They were placed by the NZ Govt on standby to deploy if required and held over in Malaysia for 2 weeks. That was communicated to the Australian Govt and Martyn Dunne certainly knew about it. A bit like the Pigs at Darwin. If the Pigs were sent to Jakarta by John Howard - then Shipley would have had to definately OK the A-4's. Thank goodness that that never happened.

The flight of Pigs tentatively tasked for Jakarta were never in Darwin. They were forward based in NW-WA at RAAF Curtin. They were placed in RAAF Curtin as it was a bare base and was easily managed. F-111's at Darwin would have drawn too much attention and made it publicly clear of intentions. Nobody knew of the F-111's at Curtin because the media had no chance of even seeing the facilities even from the air (its way outside any civil access)

Again, I've seen the original air planning for ET and none of it included kiwi fixed wing combat air. The important assets required were the trucks (Hercs) and poss P3K's to provide relief to RAAF Orions which were fitted with GMTI capability.

The other reason why we didn't need kiwi combat air was because the americans made it very clear that if it turned into a significant shooting war they were going to move their expeditionary groups forward (one was hanging off Dili) - they had Marine Harriers onboard.

 

[MrConservative]

The flight of Pigs tentatively tasked for Jakarta were never in Darwin. They were forward based in NW-WA at RAAF Curtin. They were placed in RAAF Curtin as it was a bare base and was easily managed. F-111's at Darwin would have drawn too much attention and made it publicly clear of intentions. Nobody knew of the F-111's at Curtin because the media had no chance of even seeing the facilities even from the air (its way outside any civil access)

Again, I've seen the original air planning for ET and none of it included kiwi fixed wing combat air. The important assets required were the trucks (Hercs) and poss P3K's to provide relief to RAAF Orions which were fitted with GMTI capability.

The other reason why we didn't need kiwi combat air was because the americans made it very clear that if it turned into a significant shooting war they were going to move their expeditionary groups forward (one was hanging off Dili) - they had Marine Harriers onboard.

Darwin or Curtin – is splitting hairs. South mentioned Darwin I fired off a response to that. Where the Pigs were based at the time is inconsequential. Yes you may have seen the original air tasking for ET – I have never said 75th Sqd were part of the original tasking.

Again the point is this - 75 Sqd was placed on Standby by the Shipley Govt whilst they were in Malaysia. They were held there for two weeks before they eventually came home. That decision had nothing to do with what Planners in the ADF wanted, felt, thought or was drawn up on their plans. Placing 75 on standby was entirely made by the New Zealand Government as events unfolded.

Some people in the CCS, RNZAF and some National MP's were lobbying Cabinet to have the A-4's in Australia because they feared that with an election coming and a potential labour victory which would kill the F-16 deal and the ACF they wanted the the A-4's to be seen to be doing something.

 

[south]

Lets clear this up Mr South.
4. NZ has exactly the same reasons to provide CAS/Interdiction and A/Shp as Australia does. If you assume that NZ does not require these things then I must assume that you think that the ADF does not need them as well. Now I know you dont think that but tell me what is the difference between NZ requiring this capability or Australia. Im sorry but we never joined the Federation 100 years ago. To think otherwise patronising and arrogant. If there is a need to for Australia to committ itself to some expeditionary combat situation, viz a viz there is also a need for New Zealand.

Happy New Year!

The difference is that the ADF can conceivably lead or even go it alone on operations* into badhat land where the threat level may dictate that CAS will be required (i.e. I'm not talking peace keeping). NZ rightly or wrongly, unfortunately does not have the same ability and will have to be part of a coalition with larger partners.

I'm not one to advocate "piggybacking" off another nations defence resources, though I feel that in NZ's case with respect to an ACF it makes sense.

*ET is an example of the size and complexity of operation. Whilst CAS was not required, it was only because the Indonesians fortunately played nice. Whilst you can probably argue that the NZDF could provide a reinforced battalion group for an opertion somewhere, I cannot see a scenario where they are going to deploy where 1. they are going alone with such a force. 2 they are going to put a relatively small combat force in somewhere where a substantial enough threat exists that will likely require CAS/BAI support.

 

[MrConservative]

The difference is that the ADF can conceivably lead or even go it alone on operations* into badhat land where the threat level may dictate that CAS will be required (i.e. I'm not talking peace keeping). NZ rightly or wrongly, unfortunately does not have the same ability and will have to be part of a coalition with larger partners.

I'm not one to advocate "piggybacking" off another nations defence resources, though I feel that in NZ's case with respect to an ACF it makes sense.

*ET is an example of the size and complexity of operation. Whilst CAS was not required, it was only because the Indonesians fortunately played nice. Whilst you can probably argue that the NZDF could provide a reinforced battalion group for an opertion somewhere, I cannot see a scenario where they are going to deploy where 1. they are going alone with such a force. 2 they are going to put a relatively small combat force in somewhere where a substantial enough threat exists that will likely require CAS/BAI support.

The point about the need to have CAS/Interdiction & A/Ship in NZ hands is not about “going it alone” as you put it. The point is the comfort level I and many others have in total reliance on ADF supplied CAS-A/Ship or any other national entity that we may work with, when our commanders on the ground request it and might I also add retention of a reasonable enforcement capability within our own territorial and resource interests, which indeed cover a massive area of the earths surface and are increasingly valuable. There is now that reliance and I frankly find it inconscionable. I’m primarily all for putting more muscle back into the NZDF not neutering it. I’m also not one for entirely piggy backing off another country, some is obviously in existence as per the US-Australian reliance and the Australian-New Zealand reliance. However the slide has gone too far and the trend needs to be reversed. By putting more muscle back into the NZDF it also helps the ADF and at the same times gives back the capacity to help ourselves and claw back the increased dependence the previous Government placed us in. Sorry but I don’t buy into NZ being subjudicated or patronised to quite yet.

 

[OPSSG]

Happy new year to all and I must say that I really enjoy the interaction in this thread and the posts are a joy to read. I'm sorry about butting in uninvited but south's reply prompted a question that has stuck in my head.

*ET is an example of the size and complexity of operation. Whilst CAS was not required, it was only because the Indonesians fortunately played nice. Whilst you can probably argue that the NZDF could provide a reinforced battalion group for an operation somewhere, I cannot see a scenario where they are going to deploy where 1. they are going alone with such a force. 2 they are going to put a relatively small combat force in somewhere where a substantial enough threat exists that will likely require CAS/BAI support.

I'm sorry about asking... I'm just curious and no offence is intended in my question below:

Is the NZDF capable of BAI?

(i) If your answer is yes, then explain the resource equation in a scenario of combat peace keeping escalating into a 'hot war'.

(ii) If your answer is no, then the goal of new aircraft acquisition is to enable CAS. You should remove the BAI reference in your above post.​

Diagram explaining BAI and CAS

Definition of Terms in the above diagram

FSCL = Fire Support Co-ordination Line
FEBA = Forward Edge of Battle
CAS = Close Air Support (occurring below the FSCL)
BAI = Battlefield Air Interdiction (overlapping with the FSCL)
AI = Air Interdiction (above the FSCL)

I know my one question and associated doubts/thoughts are kind of technical in nature but since you guys are conversant in the lingo, I thought I'll just ask.

 

[south]

Not sure if OPSSG is talking to me, and not entirely sure of the question.

At the moment, the NZDF is not capable of BAI, due to having no platform capable of performing the role. In response to part (ii) If they were to purchase an aircraft capable of CAS, it will also be capable of BAI, as it is a very similar role, effectively the same role, further along a line in a map.

Whether they will be allowed to perform BAI will be something that will be determined by the politicians and lawyers.


More detailed JCS definitions from TACAIR MISSIONS AND THE
"fire support coordination line (FSCL)-A line established by the appropriate ground commander to insure coordination of fire that is not under his control but may affect current tactical operations. The fire support coordination line is used to coordinate fires of air, ground or sea weapon systems using any type of ammunition against surface targets. The fire support coordination line should follow well-defined terrain features. The establishment of the fire support coordination line must be coordinated with the appropriate tactical air commander and other supporting elements. Supporting elements may attack targets forward of the fire support coordination line without prior coordination with the ground force commander, provided the attack will not produce adverse surface effects on, or to the rear of, the line. Attacks against surface targets behind this line must be coordinated with the appropriate ground force commander."

close air support––Air action against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces and that require detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces.

air interdiction––Air operations conducted to destroy, neutralize, or delay the enemy's military potential before it can be brought to bear effectively against friendly forces, at such distance from friendly forces that detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of friendly forces is not required.

BAI - Air interdiction (AI) attacks against land force targets which have a near-term effect on the operations or scheme of maneuver of friendly forces, but are not in close proximity to friendly forces, are referred to as battlefield air interdiction (BAI). The primary difference between BAI and the remainder of the air interdiction effort is the near-term effect and influence produced against the enemy in support of the land component commander's scheme of maneuver.10

 

[OPSSG]

Not sure if OPSSG is talking to me, and not entirely sure of the question.

I am.

At the moment, the NZDF is not capable of BAI, due to having no platform capable of performing the role.

I am aware that the NZDF has no current fixed wing CAS capability.

In response to part (ii) If they were to purchase an aircraft capable of CAS, it will also be capable of BAI, as it is a very similar role, effectively the same role, further along a line in a map.

I am doubtful that a theater joint force commander would utilize NZ fixed wing aircraft for such a role even though it is just a little further along on a map.

BAI air assets operate in a very high threat environment. Normally commanders would not want to expose 'less capable' air assets to tier 1 enemy anti-air assets (like SAMs and enemy fighter aircraft).

In a hot war, BAI is usually conducted against Time Sensitive Targets (TST), like enemy armour and vehicles. Further, it is doubtful that NZDF will want to acquire all the necessary elements in the kill chain to be given a meaningful BAI role. Manned fixed wing air assets employed for TST are always on standby to exploit opportunities presented by ISR pull and the pilots involved have a typical alert cycle of 6 hours. These manned fixed wing air assets are typically in an orbiting circuit.

Whether they will be allowed to perform BAI will be something that will be determined by the politicians and lawyers.

No. Subject the rules of engagement, 3 and the commander decides on TST, though 3 may consult a duty lawyer in his recommendation to the commander. For more info in this area, may I suggest that you read "Running the war in Iraqi" by MG Jim Molan, an Austrailian general who served in Iraq as a 3 under Gen. George W. Casey Jr.

 

[south]

I am.



I am aware that the NZDF has no current fixed wing CAS capability.



I am doubtful that a threatre joint force commander would utilize NZ fixed wing aircraft for such a role even though it is just a little further along on a map.

BAI air assets operate in a very high threat environment. Normally commanders would not want to expose 'less capable' air assets to tier 1 enemy anti-air assets (like SAMs and enemy fighter aircraft).

In a hot war, BAI is usually conducted against Time Sensitive Targets (TST), like enemy armour and vehicles. Further, it is doubtful that NZDF will want to acquire all the necessary elements in the kill chain to be given a meaningful BAI role. Manned fixed wing air assets employed for TST are always on standby to exploit opportunities presented by ISR pull and the pilots involved have a typical alert cycle of 6 hours. These manned fixed wing air assets are typically in an orbiting circuit.



No. Subject the rules of engagement, 3 and the commander decides on TST, though 3 may consult a duty lawyer in his recommendation to the commander.

Yah I know you knew about the Kiwi's ACF, just wasnt sure why you worded it the way you did.

Absolutely agree with most of your post.

Para 3 Cold war scenario / Desert Storm agreed but high threat is not always the case, reference for example the latest war on Iraq as there was no real air threat and the Iraqi IADS was not functioning as designed. Hence the SAMS I believe were largely operating autonomously which makes them less effective than as part of an IADS obviously. Due to the reduced threat many air assets were tasked on Armed Recce missions which allowed for the full spectrum of tasks AI, BAI, and CAS if they got the call.

Para 4. If we examine any proposals that people have put forward for NZ to get back into the game I would expect at the very least that they would have a networked platform to operate as part of a coalition environment, as such any assets that they could acquire would not necessarily have to fulfil all parts of the kill chain. In any measure AI may be as simple as another asset getting on the radio and passing coords of something they have seen, it doesnt always have to come from a Networked SAR/GMTI patch from a Global Hawk sitting at 60kft.

Last Para - agreed but the Lawyers and politicians will decide on the ROE that any ACF would use. The Politicians will also meddle with things like acceptable risk levels, collateral damage etc.

 

[MrConservative]

Yes South, I too would expect an NZDF networked capability as well - if the NZDF was operating intra-theatre. NetCap is fast moving to a point where it will be necessary for us to get plugged in just to get to the coalition starting line.

BAI is beyond the capability cut-off point I have in mind. Its tier 1 territory, even when we had the A-4’s upgraded in Kahu they were only ever a tier 2 asset. Its over reaching really.

Don’t worry about blundering into our debate here OPSSG – its all good stuff. Thanks for the heads up on the Molan book I will track down a copy. It will be interesting to read his thoughts on the intersection of ACHL and Command Respensibility.

Here is an interesting hypothetical question.

If the F-16 deal was offered 5 years earlier in 1993 (putting aside the Kahu upgrade) and we took it, including the ECM package and MLU. What impact would that have had to the NZDF and its operational relationship with other FPDA neighbours during the last decade?