Royal New Zealand Air Force

[tongan_yam]

Because the lack of fixed wing airpower in NZ is nothing to do with resources and everything to do with political ideology. A fixed wing combat capability is well within NZ's resources, but some there think that taking the Ostrich approach to real world issues is the best way to deal with things...

I whole heartily agree, as Mr C has also alluded to, this lack of political will to increase spending in the area of the defense of our sovereign land. As much as we 'want' our military to acquire kit and personal to serve our strategic interests, we are meet by a lack of 'will' by our political leaders.

I know it's a glib saying, but I feel history will repeat itself in that our trade corridors will close (like Japan and Russia achieved in our past) and something will need to shift in our national psyche to realise that defence spending is a better insurance than what currently is being spent.

 

[RubiconNZ]

I think the Aermacchi's will be the the interesting thing to watch, there is a lot of support for bringing them back, at a interested public level, in terms of submissions, these would be valuable at least providing a Cadre capability, with basic Air to Air support ground support at least in a training capability. Not to mention provided some reassurance that the NZDF is interested in a Blue Beret Army. Reading what information is available, it seems it has not been totally ruled out though I am not holding my breath.

 

[KiwiRob]

What support is there for bringing back an air combat force in NZ, the only people who have any interest in it are people who hang out on webpages like this, I don't even think the Airforce are interested, if they were I'm sure any inkling of support from the public would be jumped on energetically.

 

[Todjaeger]

What support is there for bringing back an air combat force in NZ, the only people who have any interest in it are people who hang out on webpages like this, I don't even think the Airforce are interested, if they were I'm sure any inkling of support from the public would be jumped on energetically.

One of the first questions which springs to mind on whether the RNZAF is interested, has to do with why they would not be interested. Given the relative lack of funding available, and how poorly some of it has been spent (C-130 Herc SLEP comes to mind) is the RNZAF not interested because the funding would come at the expense of other capabilities the RNZAF has managed to keep, and would also need?

As for why places like DT would have people potentially interested in the ACF returning, but other places would not... Apart from places like DT, where else do people with a knowledge and understand of Defence and defence issues, who also have knowledge of NZ, congregate? I could be mistaken, but the impression I have gotten is that the average Kiwi is rather ignorant of the condition of the NZDF. Making matters worse (for the NZDF) is that the general Kiwi public has been somewhat conditioned to think of the NZ defence situation from a particular point of view, which is not necessarily in line what is likely or possible. The Green Party's pre-election defence platform which was arguing for reductions in the NZDF while adopting a doctrine of passive non-compliance in the event of invasion serves as a fairly good example of how distorted some view NZ defence matters.

Are there any valid arguments to re-establishing an ACF of some form or another? Absolutely! Whether or not doing so is fiscally or poltically viable in the current financial, political and social environment is another matter entirely.

Arguments I would use to support some form of ACF would be that the ACF would provide training opportunities which the NZDF currently lacks without outside cooperation from allies. As a consequence, Kiwi personnel can find of less use, or at greater risk (or both) on some deployments. Or allies might not even want to be supported by Kiwi personnel due to potential shortfalls in operational performance. Incidentally, this training shortfall was demonstrated when some RAAF Hornets underwent a training deployment to NZ earlier this year, to provide Kiwi personnel opportunities for combined arms training with and making use of air support.

An ACF could also provide limited air defence capabilities. The current NZDF air defence systems are those aboard the Anzac FFH's, namely the 20 mm Phalanx CIWS and the RIM-7 Sea Sparrows, or Mistral IR manpad in use by Army. All three systems are ground/sea-based SAM or AA systems which have either short or very short range. This means that if an air threat appears or presents itself, unless it occurs within range of one of the mentioned systems, the NZDF has no mechanism to respond.

Lastly, an ACF could potentially provide a rapid response/strike capability in and around NZ. The current rapid response method is dependent on how long it could take the NZDF to get an Orion or helicopter aloft and into the relevant area. Given the comparatively large distances in and around NZ, as well as the low speeds and available numbers for current assets, it could be several hours between the detection of a potential threat, and any NZDF response.

These are just some of the possible arguments which IMO are valid. Do I think it likely to happen, at least any time in the near future? Not likely, unless something happens which forces the issue.

-Cheers

 

[dave_kiwi]

First C-130H LEP Handed over to RZNAF

"The Government and L3 Communications have reached agreement on completing the Air Force's C130 Hercules aircraft Life Extension Programme, Defence Minister Wayne Mapp announced today".

Beehive - Agreement reached to finish C130 upgrade

Mapp sure is moving these projects/contracts along!

During the week, the first of the C-130H LEP's was handed over -- the a/c will now under go operational testing & evaluation. Given all the issues with the upgrade, it look's like Wayne Mapp ain't keen to keep the a/c any longer than possible - with a projected eol of around 2015 ??? for the first a/c.

NZDF - Upgraded Hercules returns to Base

and

Radio New Zealand : News : Political : Government prepares to dump ageing Hercules

 

[AnthonyB]

Todjeager,

Another reason for NZ to regain ACF is that their allies would very much value it. Both Australia, NZ most significant ally and also the other FPDA members.

If NZ picked up a Sqd of Super Hornets, I'm sure Australia could supply re-fueling to get them were there needed.

Of course I know it ain't going to happen.

 

[KiwiRob]

Todjeager,

Another reason for NZ to regain ACF is that their allies would very much value it. Both Australia, NZ most significant ally and also the other FPDA members.

If NZ picked up a Sqd of Super Hornets, I'm sure Australia could supply re-fueling to get them were there needed.

Of course I know it ain't going to happen.

Do you really think any NZ govt would send fighters overseas even if we had them, the last time NZ deployed was Malaya in the 50's.

 

[Todjaeger]

Do you really think any NZ govt would send fighters overseas even if we had them, the last time NZ deployed was Malaya in the 50's.

It depends on what one defines as "overseas". IIRC a squadron of Kiwi Skyhawks spent a good deal of time stationed at Nowra, providing an anti-shipping capability, as well as training opportunities for ADF and NZDF personnel.

And I do think, if some serious event were to occur which threatened Australia, then New Zealand would contribute what it could, since the reality is that what threatens one threatens the other.

-Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

Of course I know it ain't going to happen.

The problem is, when the RNZAF ACF was gutted, made redundant were several hundred experienced air and ground crews with the institutional knowledge etc.

Whilst personally I would love to see an operational RNZAF ACF Sqn reformed (I believe there is still a requirement), the difficulty is, firstly it just isn't feasible under the current funding structure i.e. something else would have to be given up in order to accomodate this. With the NZDF's small capabilities (and relatively small funding) as it is I would be loathe to see any other capability given up.

So the obvious solution is, the NZ Govt needs to increase defence funding.

A few problems with this though, firstly the extra funding required would be a lot more than simply buying some aircraft as in addition, hundreds of more support staff would be required and they would also need experienced NCO's & officers to lead and train them, so finding (and costing) these people would be an issue (not an insurmountable issue, but a major practical issue nonetheless).

Secondly, with the NZ Govt still borrowing money (although proportionally compared to some other countries the ratios aren't too frightening) and with existing Defence replacement/procurement short falls, the next Govt headache is prioritisation, many billions will need to be committed from 2015 and 2020 onwards to replace exisiting assets etc. Where would NZ $2 billion + for ACF fit into the mix? (Granted the Govt needs to stop pussyfooting and get hard, it could be done, but they won't listen to me or us here)!

Thirdly, with the likes of Afghanistan, Al Queda reportedly yesterday on the verge of over running 5 states in North Africa etc, the need to help shore up Timor, Solomons, potential for troubles in Tonga, Fiji, and a few other Island nations, Govt and Defence priorities are naturally allocated towards these current (and near future) troublespots (as is the case with other likeminded countries etc). And in these environments, a NZ ACF is not a priority for either NZ or the likes of the US etc (eg why a handful of NZ aircraft, probably not fully equipped and capable with the current stat eof the art targeting and delivery systems, when the US etc can call upon hundreds of their own aircraft?).

The reality is, NZ has been out of the fast air game IMO since the ANZUS bustup in terms of NZ seemlessly interoperating with US fast air. Not only would NZ somehow need to acquire her own fast air but spend a few years training again with the US to interoperate. This presumably is one reason why the RNZAF Skyhawks were originally mooted to join GW1 but the then National Govt had to back track (along with the fact at that stage the Kahu upgrades weren't quite finished etc).

So a traditional means of restoring an ACF is very, very unlikely (and I wish it wasn't so, but these are the cards dealt and we have to deal with our hand, despite it not being a good hand etc).

So let's explore other options.

The first option advocated by a number of forum members here including me, is rebuild up baseline skills by reactivating the Macchi trainers (apparently the Skyhawks are stuffed in that spare parts and orphan air combat systems are now uneconomic to support), to provide advanced pilot training again, and some training functions for the Army and Navy etc. Within a few or several years, other options would then be possible (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) ....

Another option is to put money towards buying in training with eg the RAAF (or RSAF etc). I would support this too. Might be a bit complicated though in that eg NZ might have to buy some Hawks (great!) but then what to do with surplus but still capable Macchis etc.

Another option that could be explored is, seeing the NZ ACF infrastructure has been gutted, is to instead rely on private contractors (and THIS govt is not adverse to private-public partnerships etc!). Many possibilities but one could be NZ acquiring a number of ex-RAF aircraft and contracting the support back to eg BAE Systems. Certainly ex-RAF (and some experienced ex-RNZAF) air and ground crew could be brought into the RNZAF to provide valuable instructors etc.

The skies the limit, but because NZ underfunds defence any solution can't be gold plated. (Damn, there goes my RNZAF SH or Strike Eagle Sqn)!

Any thoughts on doing this?

 

[MrConservative]

Do you really think any NZ govt would send fighters overseas even if we had them, the last time NZ deployed was Malaya in the 50's.

The Canberra's were deployed to Borneo in 65/66 to support RNZIR per interdiction and CAS roles. The leased Venoms were used in Malaya in the 50's. The last "fighters" were the Vampires and at the time were not suitable for the roles required of supporting the Army in Malaya so the Venoms were leased.

So no I canot see us needing fighters, however ground attack aircraft may well be required whether - we have them or not. That is essentially the crux of the argument really.

 

[MrConservative]

The problem is, when the RNZAF ACF was gutted, made redundant were several hundred experienced air and ground crews with the institutional knowledge etc.

Whilst personally I would love to see an operational RNZAF ACF Sqn reformed (I believe there is still a requirement), the difficulty is, firstly it just isn't feasible under the current funding structure i.e. something else would have to be given up in order to accomodate this. With the NZDF's small capabilities (and relatively small funding) as it is I would be loathe to see any other capability given up.

So the obvious solution is, the NZ Govt needs to increase defence funding.

A few problems with this though, firstly the extra funding required would be a lot more than simply buying some aircraft as in addition, hundreds of more support staff would be required and they would also need experienced NCO's & officers to lead and train them, so finding (and costing) these people would be an issue (not an insurmountable issue, but a major practical issue nonetheless).

Secondly, with the NZ Govt still borrowing money (although proportionally compared to some other countries the ratios aren't too frightening) and with existing Defence replacement/procurement short falls, the next Govt headache is prioritisation, many billions will need to be committed from 2015 and 2020 onwards to replace exisiting assets etc. Where would NZ $2 billion + for ACF fit into the mix? (Granted the Govt needs to stop pussyfooting and get hard, it could be done, but they won't listen to me or us here)!

Thirdly, with the likes of Afghanistan, Al Queda reportedly yesterday on the verge of over running 5 states in North Africa etc, the need to help shore up Timor, Solomons, potential for troubles in Tonga, Fiji, and a few other Island nations, Govt and Defence priorities are naturally allocated towards these current (and near future) troublespots (as is the case with other likeminded countries etc). And in these environments, a NZ ACF is not a priority for either NZ or the likes of the US etc (eg why a handful of NZ aircraft, probably not fully equipped and capable with the current stat eof the art targeting and delivery systems, when the US etc can call upon hundreds of their own aircraft?).

The reality is, NZ has been out of the fast air game IMO since the ANZUS bustup in terms of NZ seemlessly interoperating with US fast air. Not only would NZ somehow need to acquire her own fast air but spend a few years training again with the US to interoperate. This presumably is one reason why the RNZAF Skyhawks were originally mooted to join GW1 but the then National Govt had to back track (along with the fact at that stage the Kahu upgrades weren't quite finished etc).

So a traditional means of restoring an ACF is very, very unlikely (and I wish it wasn't so, but these are the cards dealt and we have to deal with our hand, despite it not being a good hand etc).

So let's explore other options.

The first option advocated by a number of forum members here including me, is rebuild up baseline skills by reactivating the Macchi trainers (apparently the Skyhawks are stuffed in that spare parts and orphan air combat systems are now uneconomic to support), to provide advanced pilot training again, and some training functions for the Army and Navy etc. Within a few or several years, other options would then be possible (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) ....

Another option is to put money towards buying in training with eg the RAAF (or RSAF etc). I would support this too. Might be a bit complicated though in that eg NZ might have to buy some Hawks (great!) but then what to do with surplus but still capable Macchis etc.

Another option that could be explored is, seeing the NZ ACF infrastructure has been gutted, is to instead rely on private contractors (and THIS govt is not adverse to private-public partnerships etc!). Many possibilities but one could be NZ acquiring a number of ex-RAF aircraft and contracting the support back to eg BAE Systems. Certainly ex-RAF (and some experienced ex-RNZAF) air and ground crew could be brought into the RNZAF to provide valuable instructors etc.

The skies the limit, but because NZ underfunds defence any solution can't be gold plated. (Damn, there goes my RNZAF SH or Strike Eagle Sqn)!

Any thoughts on doing this?

My thoughts are entirely in synch with yours. I think the solution may need some trans-tasman negotiation but will involve the current RAAF Shornets. My suggestion is that following the end of the current Shornet package a joint ANZAC Shornet Squadron is formed. Bascially we pick up the cost of buy-in and op support of some of the airframes say 6-8 for example and base them in Ohakea. The remaining Shornets can be OZside.

It is some distance ahead before any decision on the RAAF Shornets is definative but, it may well be likely that the Shornets are retained when the current 10 year package is completeted and the RAAF renegoitiates with Boeing/US. That may give us the opportunity to work out a solution to the benefit of all parties. I see it as an extension of CDR and shared resources co-operation. We gain what we lack and the RAAF/ADF saves a substantial bundle which they can switch to other projects. They also effectively don't lose out as there would still be a substantial and reliable Shornet capability in the OZ-NZ region.

With 6-8 Kiwi Shornets based at Ohakea it would be enough to work up the Anzacs and the Land Force Groups here at home, provide a baseline capability for incident response. ( 6 A-4TK's were based in Nowra as 2Sqd so really that is a workable number to give us a BLOC.) However, when operationally required and with integrated training between the 2 forces (sometimes in NZ - sometimes in OZ - hopefully regularly abroad), they would be deployable as part of the Joint Anzac Squadron. Put it this way, even if we had our own full Squadron deployed of anything air combat related we obviously would be having to exist under a joint air component environment anyway.

 

[Lucasnz]

The Canberra's were deployed to Borneo in 65/66 to support RNZIR per interdiction and CAS roles. The leased Venoms were used in Malaya in the 50's. The last "fighters" were the Vampires and at the time were not suitable for the roles required of supporting the Army in Malaya so the Venoms were leased.

So no I canot see us needing fighters, however ground attack aircraft may well be required whether - we have them or not. That is essentially the crux of the argument really.

I'd agree that air defence is not New Zealand's first need in an ACF. However short of acquiring attack helicopters or propellor driven training aircraft, no one's building dedicated CAS aircraft. Acquiring Helicopters or Turbo Props (which I know you not necessarily advocating for) also ignores the fact that NZ needs a maritime strike capability. The MB339 can perform both rolls, starting with some of ex 14/75 Sqn personnel still serving and bringing in other ex RNZAF 14/75 sqn

RECCE highlighted the loss of skill. Most pilots who qalified per 98 are Air Combat trained, plus I understand the RAF will have a surplus of pilots next year when the harrier is withdrawn. Also ex pilots can join the RNZAF TF force, in order to help regenerate some of the lost skill base (though I can understand why they wouln't want do). I under stand that the MB339 use to be flown by a Air Force Reserve officer for test flights, does anyone know if thats still the case?

 

[Todjaeger]

Well, the recent posts from Recce, Mr. C and Lucasnz have given me somethings to ruminate on. Unfort pressed for time so I have not been able to give everything my full consideration, but here are some of my thoughts, at least in brief.

With the loss of the A-4K Skyhawks, and the additional stoppage of fastjet training even on the Macchi's, as Recce already mentioned, it cost the NZDF a significant loss in terms of personnel and institutional knowledge. The potentially very serious impact of this is that while kit is important, having highly skilled and motivated personnel is even more important. As a general rule, a well trained and motivated solider/airmen/sailor that has subpar kit will still out perform a very well equipped but poorly trained or motivated one. With the shutdown of the ACF and fastjet trainers, the RNZAF also lost a significant body well regarded, well trained and motivated personnel. If NZ chose to do so, it could reconstitute an ACF and return it to the previously held level or performance (if not with the exact same equipment...) The timeframe to rebuild the ACF would likely outlast several governments however. Even with NZ being able to draw fastjet personnel from the UK and/or Canda or Australia, it would likely take a minimum of 2-3 years for a fastjet training unit (Macchi's or something else) to be stood up again, and any actual ACF would then be able to start being formed/trained. In order to return to the prior level or proficiency, it would likely take ~5 years or so of training for IOC, FOC, and then skilling. In short, it would likely take 7-8 years for the ACF to be stood up again. That is assuming there is cooperation from friends and allies, that the needed kit is available when needed, and that the various Governments of the day continue providing the levels of funding and support needed to keep the nascent ACF around.

Mr. C's idea of forming some form of joint Oz/Kiwi 'Anzac' squadron is interesting, and could be a way for NZ to get back into the fastjet 'game'. However, from an Oz perspective, IMO there would need to be a number of things done by NZ prior to Oz entering into such an arrangement, based off prior history with both Australia and the US. For one thing, the US (depending on the turns of the FMS) could block the sale/use/deployment of the 'Anzac' SHornets in NZ. The stipulation which comes to mind has to do with whether or not the RAAF/ADF needs to maintain control of the SHornets or NZDF/RNZAF personnel would be allowed operational control of them. The other area which would IMO be very important to Australia, is that NZ would need to codify into NZ law a binding requirement for NZ to continue to appropriately operate, maintain and fund the NZ portion of the 'Anzac' squadron, regardless of the feelings of the populace and/or Government of the day. Part of the reason why the ACF was disbanded in the first place (apart from "saving money...") was that while the Government could not legally dis-establish the RNZAF, as that is provided for by law, the same laws which required the Government to maintain the RNZAF did not specifically require that the RNZAF have an Air Combat Force or be combat capable. Relating to that, and where Australia was impacted by the dissolution of the ACF was that the RAAF OrBat was as I understand setup with the RNZAF A-4K Skyhawks providing a significant portion of the maritime strike in the event of an attack upon Australia. The RAAF F/A-18 Hornets and F-111's would be providing air superiority and strike. When the Skyhawks were taken out of operation, the RAAF needed to add to the capabilities of the RAAF combat elements to cover the potential maritime strike needs. If the RAAF and/or ADF were to include a joint Oz/NZ 'Anzac' squadron, Australia IMV would want to ensure that any potential utility that Australia got from the joint unit would not suddenly "disappear" or leave a gap in the OrBat because a NZ decision was made to disband the unit, or even just part of it.

Lastly, the elements of an ACF which are currently most crucial (and missing) in the NZDF are the CAS and maritime strike roles, both in terms of training and operating with/alongside, as well as defending against. A limited air interception capability is IMO also needed, but for that I have more in mind a "fighter" which is fast enough to intercept a civilian or commercial aircraft, and if need be engage it with cannon and/or WVR missiles like ASRAAM or AIM-9.

That is it for now. More when I have a chance to collect my thoughts further and time to post.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

It depends on what one defines as "overseas". IIRC a squadron of Kiwi Skyhawks spent a good deal of time stationed at Nowra, providing an anti-shipping capability, as well as training opportunities for ADF and NZDF personnel.

Those Skyhawks were a squadron minus and they weren't there to provide anti-ship missile capability on our behalf, but rather training for RAN air defence exercises...

ADF's maritime strike capability was invested in F-111's, Hornets, AP-3C Orions and RAN elements.

Without a modern anti-ship missile capability, the Kiwi A-4K's wouldn't have added a great deal to us, unfortunately. They were much better equipped for CAS and light strike type roles though and would have been useful, but hardly our frontline capability...

 

[Todjaeger]

Those Skyhawks were a squadron minus and they weren't there to provide anti-ship missile capability on our behalf, but rather training for RAN air defence exercises...

ADF's maritime strike capability was invested in F-111's, Hornets, AP-3C Orions and RAN elements.

Without a modern anti-ship missile capability, the Kiwi A-4K's wouldn't have added a great deal to us, unfortunately. They were much better equipped for CAS and light strike type roles though and would have been useful, but hardly our frontline capability...

I do recall that the demi-squadron at Nowra was for RAN air defence training, but I had thought that the rest of the Skyhawks were expected to participate in the event of hostilities. Given the type of ops the Skyhawks normally trained for, they were expected to go after shipping, with RAN and RAAF assets targeting using standoff weaponry like the AGM-142 and Harpoon.

With the retirement of the A-4K Skyhawks, it meant a 20% reduction in the available air combat forces available for operation from Australia/New Zealand. While it was not sufficient to cause a major reduction in the ADF defence posture, it was significant enough to cause the ADF to have to make alterations to planning, operations and training.

With that in mind, I would imagine that Australia would want some form of binding agreement with New Zealand to ensure that any capabilities gained from a joint squadron did not have and undo Australian cost, and/or that any Australian resources devoted to the joint unit did not get wasted.

-Cheers

PS One thing I had forgotten to mention previously. AFAIK the RAAF Hawk 127 LIFT units are pretty much running at capacity to meet ADF fastjet training requirements. Between that, and the amount of airframe hours used I am not certain that the RAAF could provide significant assistance to the RNZAF if NZ did decide to reactivate some form of fastjet training. However, assuming that the RAAF/ADF does choose to replace the Hawk trainers sooner rather than later (IIRC a possibility since some Hawks are suffering structural fatigue) then a join RAAF/RNZAF fastjet buy of South Korean T/A-50's might be a viable alternative in the 2018-2020 timeframe or thereabouts.

 

[MrConservative]

I do recall that the demi-squadron at Nowra was for RAN air defence training, but I had thought that the rest of the Skyhawks were expected to participate in the event of hostilities. Given the type of ops the Skyhawks normally trained for, they were expected to go after shipping, with RAN and RAAF assets targeting using standoff weaponry like the AGM-142 and Harpoon.

With the retirement of the A-4K Skyhawks, it meant a 20% reduction in the available air combat forces available for operation from Australia/New Zealand. While it was not sufficient to cause a major reduction in the ADF defence posture, it was significant enough to cause the ADF to have to make alterations to planning, operations and training.

With that in mind, I would imagine that Australia would want some form of binding agreement with New Zealand to ensure that any capabilities gained from a joint squadron did not have and undo Australian cost, and/or that any Australian resources devoted to the joint unit did not get wasted.

-Cheers

PS One thing I had forgotten to mention previously. AFAIK the RAAF Hawk 127 LIFT units are pretty much running at capacity to meet ADF fastjet training requirements. Between that, and the amount of airframe hours used I am not certain that the RAAF could provide significant assistance to the RNZAF if NZ did decide to reactivate some form of fastjet training. However, assuming that the RAAF/ADF does choose to replace the Hawk trainers sooner rather than later (IIRC a possibility since some Hawks are suffering structural fatigue) then a join RAAF/RNZAF fastjet buy of South Korean T/A-50's might be a viable alternative in the 2018-2020 timeframe or thereabouts.

2 Sqd at Nowra was also the conversion unit. I think from memory they only had a dozen pilots and about 50 something groundies. So after 14Sqd on the 339-CB's pilots went across the ditch to learn their trade. IIRC about 800 hours a year was for the RAN. Funnily enough quite a few of the ex HMAS Melbourne Squarks did their time there.

What is also interesting is that the replacement for the A4K's - the Peacegate F-16's and following their planned MLU which, was to happen circa 06-07 were not able to get Harpoon capability as I understand as they were Block15OCU's - and only Block 20/30 up airframes at the time (1998/1999) were capable of being Harpooned up. Possibly still is the case without I suppose major surgery on the airframe, which I think no one has ever attempted. They were to get eventually all the MCC staged software and do all sort of tricky stuff and could have used the Penguin in lieu of the Maverick for A/Shp but not Harpoon. Nevertheless post MLU+ they would have certainly have been quite a handful for anyone and 22-24 of them a very useful adjunct to our friends in the region, especially the RAAF. Certainly a heck of a lot more useful and able to be more widely applied at the sharp end in a modern context than their predessors, which AD rightly points out.

Tod I agree with your point per the nervousness that the ADF may have in getting in bed with the NZDF over any potential - (and lets be honest here it is very much kite flying) - over some sort of trans-tasman air combat synergy based on post contract Shornets. I have that nervousness also as their sadly remains some political volatility concerning defence spending, policy, and ideology in certain quarters. The old once bitten twice shy thing. Though that is not insurmountable as it is getting better from the low point a decade ago in that regard and maybe towards the end of next decade and with hopefully some sure footed steps such as at least getting the MB-339's earning their keep, it maybe a ripe enough time to do it in a further decade. It also may be the case that the ADF down the track may indeed like to retain all 24 - as that is their perogative. One thing is that the NZ Government can really do what it likes as Parliament is Sovereign - it could have if I remember from my old Constitutional Law Lectures reduce the whole NZDF to the point that it was one guy with swiss army knife and a banana for back-up with a simple house majority and do absolutely anything with a 75% majority include installing a president for life. No second house and actually no formal constitution - just a bunch of limited statutes. In fact the whole political edifice is based on the goodwill of so-called Constitutional conventions which can change by whim from the 9th floor of the Beehive via the Cabinet manual. You see that banana I just mentioned will come in handy when Royal in the RNZAF stands for Republic.

Your mentioning of the T-50 as a LIFT platform is interesting as a future RAAF Hawk replacement with a possible tie in with the RNZAF if we are to head back into that territory. I suppose the winner of the USAF T-38 replacement possibly will have some bearing on what the ADF decides. As you know I have rated the F/A-50 as a nice orthodox 2nd teir fit for the RNZAF. It will be interesting how much comment emerges over the next few years regarding why the Singaporean boys went with the Italians and not with the Koreans. I thought that the APEC / Regional thing may have swayed the game in the Koreans favour. Was it only cost? No dobt someone will have something to say in due course.

 

[recce.k1]

A couple of other points to raise in relation to these various "possibilities".

It's been said (here and elsewhere, hopefully the following is correctly paraphrased) that one of the lessons learned from East Timor in 1999 and subsequent international interventions that followed in other locations etc, in some circumstances there's absolutely no point in various nations all turning up with the same piece of kit (for certain capabilities) whilst there are gaping holes in other capabitlities. Eg there's no point in every nation turning up with hundreds of ACF aircraft as their main contribution for an intervention, when in fact only 25% would be needed but instead eg more transport aircraft would have been useful. So nowadays, with interventions being the norm due to fragile states and breakdown of rule of law etc, the international powers (and middle powers eg Australia) are more adept in planning etc.

For a small country like NZ then, I can see the logic that, perhaps NZ operating a squadron of sophisticated strike aircraft may be somewhat unncessary in the wider scheme, in terms of deploying them to a coalition force.

This doesn't mean to say I don't believe NZ should operate sophisticated strike aircraft for its own soverneign needs, eg defence of her interests and collective defence. But if NZ were to have the equivalent capabilities (in proportion) to say, Australia, we wouldn't be talking A-4's we would have been talking (back in day) of F-111's or the latest top-end, but also with all the bells and whistles which the NZ ACF tended to lack (eg constantly updating the ECM's, target aquistion and delivery systems and ordanance etc). We still see this problem to this day eg 2-3 cancellations of the P-3 upgrades (now finally rectified - mostly), Harpoons first mooted post-Falklands still not acquired, ANZAC Frigates having their weapon upgrades delayed etc. So a sophisticated NZ ACF would likely need to see defence spending near doubling if not more, and possibly some 50%+ of the defence budget allocated to an ACF - somehow I don't think this would be politically viable and for a NZ defence budget to be prioritising an ACF to such an extent, it would seem to be at odds to the reality of NZ's strategic environment where there is no definable and present threat pointing this way waiting just over the horizon etc. (The previous A-4/Macchi ACF would have cost approx less than 10% of the current defence budget to operate, and that's without updated bells and whilstles etc).

To cut this short, the best solution IMO, is for NZ to get back into the fast jet game by reestablishing a fast jet "training force" eg train up the army and navy etc. Some limited air defence would be nice. The Macchis would probably be the most cost effective means but realistically what would be better, in the medium term, would be the likes of eg second hand F16A/B's (or C/D's) or similar eg T-50 (maybe Grippen due to lower cost in relation to other comparable aircraft). It could fulfill all the training functions (and provide limited air-air interceptions), get some sensor upgrades(to allow compatibility with navy and army JTAC's learning to interoperate with other nation's "real" fast air on deployment etc). These aircraft wouldn't necessarily need the bells and whistles in terms of advanced stand-off weaponry, as mostly they would be simulating strikes. But at the very least, a baseline would be established that could be expanded upon with eg "real" weaponry if the need arose.

An proper NZ ACF though, would certainly be "aspirational". Perhaps this is where the ANZAC "Shornet" concept fits in. If the RAAF were interested, then certainly the top 1 or 2 etc pilots flying the Macchis (etc) could progress onto the RAAF each year. From there perhaps occasionally one of them might get to go on exchange with another air force to gain further invaluable experience. The end result is a number of experienced pilots (and support crew) that one day could be the future training instructors if politically it was deemed necessary for NZ to restore an functioning ACF (seeing this would take some 10 years approx, I believe). Or that ACF could in fact be as Mr C suggests, a NZ financial contribution to additional RAAF aircraft to form a type of ANZAC squadron.

Let's see what the Govt here decides in a couple or so weeks when the Defence Review is released in terms of restoring a basic training capability...

 

[Todjaeger]

One thing is that the NZ Government can really do what it likes as Parliament is Sovereign - it could have if I remember from my old Constitutional Law Lectures reduce the whole NZDF to the point that it was one guy with swiss army knife and a banana for back-up with a simple house majority and do absolutely anything with a 75% majority include installing a president for life. No second house and actually no formal constitution - just a bunch of limited statutes. In fact the whole political edifice is based on the goodwill of so-called Constitutional conventions which can change by whim from the 9th floor of the Beehive via the Cabinet manual. You see that banana I just mentioned will come in handy when Royal in the RNZAF stands for Republic.

It is worth noting that, if that were to pass and the NZDF reduced to a guy with a Swiss Army knife and a:dbanana, the New Zealand would quickly fall to Australia and the ADF. As can be seen in the clip [nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RenRILqwhJs[/nomedia], the propaganda groundwork has already been laid down...

Now for something a bit more serious than the fun above...

Your mentioning of the T-50 as a LIFT platform is interesting as a future RAAF Hawk replacement with a possible tie in with the RNZAF if we are to head back into that territory. I suppose the winner of the USAF T-38 replacement possibly will have some bearing on what the ADF decides. As you know I have rated the F/A-50 as a nice orthodox 2nd teir fit for the RNZAF. It will be interesting how much comment emerges over the next few years regarding why the Singaporean boys went with the Italians and not with the Koreans. I thought that the APEC / Regional thing may have swayed the game in the Koreans favour. Was it only cost? No dobt someone will have something to say in due course.

I certainly agree that whatever the USAF chooses as its T-38 replacement can have an impact upon the rest of the West's LIFT aircraft choices. Having said that, I see the RNZAF and the RAAF as having fundamentally the same requirements for a fastjet trainer. My personal preference for the T/A-50 stems from the following. The aircraft itself is of South Korean origin (with significant US imput IIRC), which means that the point of origin is significantly closer than a European-based manufacturer. Given the changing economic and diplomatic dynamics of the world, IMO Australia and NZ need to cultivate closer times to PacRim nations. Beyond that, in terms of training aircraft capabilities, the T/A-50 based off spec sheets appears to be one of the most capable and advanced fastjet trainers available. The trainer itself is capable of low supersonic flight, and has sufficient avionics to allow a 2nd tier fighter/attack/strike role. It would of course hopefully never have to be used in anger, but the ability of training aircraft to be re-roled on an emergency basis and still provide a useful combat capability IMO should not be overlooked. AFAIK, the RAAF's current Hawk 127 LIF can if needed conduct subsonic aircraft intercepts with the ability to engage using gun pods and/or AIM-9 Sidewinders, but it lacks a radome or datalinks, which seriously limits the possible SA of any pilots aboard. From a strike or attack perspective, the Hawk 127 can carry a limited amount of external stores and/or gun pods, but lacks any sort of targeting pod or the electronics to make use of one, and any attacks would be limited to strafing runs with rocket or gun pods, or just dropping 'dumb' bombs.

From the place such a LIFT would have in the RNZAF and NZDF, the aircraft would provide NZ with limited air to air, CAS/ground attack and maritime strike capabilities which NZ is currently completely lacking in. Of even greater importance, the aircraft would allow NZ to resume training programmes which NZ currently is incapable of at present without outside assistance, to provide NZDF personnel with the skills needed to operate alongside allied CAS, attack and strike aircraft and also to hone defensive skills against attack and strike aircraft.

In terms of Kiwi contributions to international missions and interventions, combat aircraft are often not needed as Recce mentioned above. What has apparently been seriously overlooked in Kiwi political/defence circles is that Kiwi troops, even if they lack their own organic attack/CAS elements, need to have the institutional knowledge to correctly/safely utilize the attack and CAS capabilities of friendlies. The inabilitiy to do so consistently would then mean that any Kiwi contributions would be at greater risk and/or be of less value than that from other nations. The other potential use of an advanced fastjet trainer is that such a training element could become the cadre of a resumed ACF, which depending on what way the world goes in the next few years or decades, could be invaluable.

According to current guesstimates, it would likely take the NZDF 10+ years or more to establish a highly trained and qualified ACF unit. That is assuming that all the needed aircraft were available immediately when required and no time was lost in making decisions about the what and when of aircraft ordeering.

If the NZDF was able to restart even a limited fastjet training cadre, that could possibly shorten the time until IOC for a RNZAF ACF if/when a decision was ever made to reconstitutte one. In an emergency or pending emergency situation, reducing the training time required by several months or years could be invaluable.

-Cheers

 

[MrConservative]

With the announcement that the RAF are to cull the C-130J's over the next decade and replace them with the A-400, it may well be an opportunity for us who will be in the market for a medium to large tactical transport at good prices in the next few years to grab a few. Yes they may be "used", but I don't see that as an insurmountable issue. Ex RAF C-130J's are another ingredient to throw into the mix.

 

[ASFC]

With the announcement that the RAF are to cull the C-130J's over the next decade and replace them with the A-400, it may well be an opportunity for us who will be in the market for a medium to large tactical transport at good prices in the next few years to grab a few. Yes they may be "used", but I don't see that as an insurmountable issue. Ex RAF C-130J's are another ingredient to throw into the mix.

They are not just used, they WILL need work, whoever takes them. They have an OSD of 2022 simply because by then they will be exhausted, as they have gone though their airframe hours faster than anticipated, what with Iraq and then Afghanistan, and the K Hercs retiring without replacement (until A-400 turns up).