NZDF General discussion thread

[t68]

Agree an ACF is probably beyond the point of no return in a traditional sense of overwhelming superiority of a hypothetical invasion of New Zealand, but in context of a future JATF having the ability of a rapid response Air Ground Task Force which when used as a combined-arms unit with the capabilities to conduct the full range of operations, from humanitarian aid and disaster relief to projection of power from the sea. When combined with other assets it is a self-mobile, self-sustaining force and be capable of responding to a range of crises.

It’s interesting that when world opinion does turn and leaders from around the froth at the mouth and demands something happen like the 2011 military intervention in Libya it generally falls to a select few who always seem to be putting out, unfortunately your PM is exactly like our ex PM when it comes to the heavy lifting and I quote,

“New Zealand is offering diplomatic and political support for military action to enforce the United Nations ceasefire in Libya, but could not practically offer military support”

"To stop the slaughter of civilians and innocent people I'm firmly behind intervention to prevent that happening. The wider question is how to resolve the situation within Libya itself rather than simply leaving it at an impasse." Prime Minister John Key says.

This is exactly the type of operation were a nation like NZ can make a limited contribution along with Australia. He also went on to say that “New Zealand was too far away to offer military support and NATO had more than enough resources.” You can’t demand others do things that you are not prepared to do yourself. No one is expecting NZ to go out and buy 5/6 Squadrons of fast jets but NZ does have the capacity to responded in a fashion that shares the burden of interventions where the government of the day see a moral burden to intervene.

 

[Volkodav]

Realistically it would be cheaper to expand the MPA fleet and increase the numbers and capability of the frigate fleet than to rebuild the ACF. Considering the distances involved, even if China established a forward base in a belligerent Fiji you would still be better off with a full squadron of P-8s and a squadron of four or five high end ANZAC replacements. NZ could even look at a pair of proper LPDs and possibly some armed or even purpose designed attack helos, so you can independently move and support more of your excellent land force to where it may be needed.

Manning cost would be similar to existing levels, maintenance costs of modern improved platforms should actually be better than legacy ones, the issue as always will be the sticker shock of the initial acquisitions. A future frigate class acquired one ship at a time over an extended period to replace the ANZACs and OPVs could be affordable. Including a volume search radar, SM-6 and possibly SM-3 in addition to ESM or Sea Ceptor such ships could actually add a lot to national air and missile defence as well as for fill roles that an ACF couldn't on the international stage. Same applies to the P-8, the capabilities it brings are phenomenal. Not just ASW but anti surface strike, even potentially land attack with stand off weapons, ISR, ELINT, ESM more acronyms than I can guess the meaning of.

All costs money but would likely cost less than a reconstituted ACF and deliver greater flexibility and capability while building on existing capabilities. If it is unaffordable just look to Norway, Denmark and Singapore and think about how much money you will make from your off shore resources (as well as how others may covet them)

P.S. Again look at Norway and like them make sure NZ gets the money from the natural resources rather than as has happened in Australia with it mostly going to a collection of fat lazy billionaires (as well as multi nationals) who claim to be patriots and economic saviours but in truth want nothing more than to turn the majority of Australians into indentured servants or to replace them with imported slave labour. :flaming (still annoyed about Gina Rinehart's "age on entitlement piece" she is making Palmer look like a level headed philanthropist).

 

[MrConservative]

Agree an ACF is probably beyond the point of no return in a traditional sense of overwhelming superiority of a hypothetical invasion of New Zealand, but in context of a future JATF having the ability of a rapid response Air Ground Task Force which when used as a combined-arms unit with the capabilities to conduct the full range of operations, from humanitarian aid and disaster relief to projection of power from the sea. When combined with other assets it is a self-mobile, self-sustaining force and be capable of responding to a range of crises.

It’s interesting that when world opinion does turn and leaders from around the froth at the mouth and demands something happen like the 2011 military intervention in Libya it generally falls to a select few who always seem to be putting out, unfortunately your PM is exactly like our ex PM when it comes to the heavy lifting and I quote,

“New Zealand is offering diplomatic and political support for military action to enforce the United Nations ceasefire in Libya, but could not practically offer military support”

"To stop the slaughter of civilians and innocent people I'm firmly behind intervention to prevent that happening. The wider question is how to resolve the situation within Libya itself rather than simply leaving it at an impasse." Prime Minister John Key says.

This is exactly the type of operation were a nation like NZ can make a limited contribution along with Australia. He also went on to say that “New Zealand was too far away to offer military support and NATO had more than enough resources.” You can’t demand others do things that you are not prepared to do yourself. No one is expecting NZ to go out and buy 5/6 Squadrons of fast jets but NZ does have the capacity to responded in a fashion that shares the burden of interventions where the government of the day see a moral burden to intervene.

John Key made the right call with respect to the Arab Spring. I also doubt there was much appetite for Aust to be involved within ADF circles. Gillard made the right call on that too. The western Med is not our theatre - NATO / AU responsibility frankly, NZ/OZ have our issues to confront within our own hemisphere. Key is right diplomacy can and does work and often is the best form of solution or contribution. NZ has generally always been very good on the Diplomacy front - a small country that diplomatically has medium sized country cachet. He is right that we were too far away and it would have been reckless tokenism that would have achieved nothing tangible but over straining pressured forces. The symbolic gesture can be achieved through diplomacy then through running to the military option at first drop as if it is the only way to solve things. NZ and Aust can also contribute and influence the stability and enhancement of liberal democracy in other ways that can indirectly support either diplomacy or military actions.

To say we NZ do not do heavy lifting as you infer is nonsense. We have made a pragmatic contribution and useful when we could, not bad for a country that is basically just the population of Queensland. We have been in every military situation that the ADF has been in except for Iraq 2003 and then we did actually provide a reconstruction team post the initial action. How many other small countries have consistently been contributing for the last 100 years?

For us to provide troops along with Australia as part of an Anzac contingent into the Arab Med in 2011 would be completely ill conceived and actually hugely damaging. Both the Aust and NZ Defence Forces have been worked hard over the last 15 years from Timor through to Astan - our work is in this part of the global unless there is a clear and present risk to our national interests.

Both New Zealand and Australia have already done their heavy lifting in North Africa and the Med. There are a few very old men still around who will tell you how awful it was.

 

[t68]

John Key made the right call with respect to the Arab Spring. I also doubt there was much appetite for Aust to be involved within ADF circles. Gillard made the right call on that too. The western Med is not our theatre - NATO / AU responsibility frankly, NZ/OZ have our issues to confront within our own hemisphere. Key is right diplomacy can and does work and often is the best form of solution or contribution. NZ has generally always been very good on the Diplomacy front - a small country that diplomatically has medium sized country cachet. He is right that we were too far away and it would have been reckless tokenism that would have achieved nothing tangible but over straining pressured forces. The symbolic gesture can be achieved through diplomacy then through running to the military option at first drop as if it is the only way to solve things. NZ and Aust can also contribute and influence the stability and enhancement of liberal democracy in other ways that can indirectly support either diplomacy or military actions.

Agree on the diplomacy front but when that is exhausted and then leadership call on the big stick approach and you actually support that approach, actions speak louder than words.

To say we NZ do not do heavy lifting as you infer is nonsense. We have made a pragmatic contribution and useful when we could, not bad for a country that is basically just the population of Queensland. We have been in every military situation that the ADF has been in except for Iraq 2003 and then we did actually provide a reconstruction team post the initial action. How many other small countries have consistently been contributing for the last 100 years?

Don’t get me wrong I do value the contribution that NZ makes within the constraints of current capability and operational tempo.

For us to provide troops along with Australia as part of an Anzac contingent into the Arab Med in 2011 would be completely ill conceived and actually hugely damaging.

I am not arguing the intervention in 2011 was the right or wrong thing to do, but for what was put on the table in the end and PM Rudd/Keys supported a no fly zone and in Rudd’s case was one of the first to actively pursue that line of response and he knows full well that Australia has the capacity to make a honest contribution it smacks of hypocrisy

Both the Aust and NZ Defence Forces have been worked hard over the last 15 years from Timor through to Astan - our work is in this part of the global unless there is a clear and present risk to our national interests.

Agreed that our combined contributions over the years has been quite taxing on the defence forces of each nation and they need a respite to reorganize, but there are times when there is no clear and present risk to our respective sovereign national interests and need to step outside of our comfort zone and I stand by the belief you either put up or shut up

 

[KiwiRob]

Realistically it would be cheaper to expand the MPA fleet and increase the numbers and capability of the frigate fleet than to rebuild the ACF. Considering the distances involved, even if China established a forward base in a belligerent Fiji you would still be better off with a full squadron of P-8s and a squadron of four or five high end ANZAC replacements.

I was thinking along the same lines today, but I would probably not even bother with the frigates, I would get 5-6 big opv's like The Netherlands Holland Class, or the USCG Legend Class (I think Northrop Grumman have offered a cheaper patrol version). The question needs to be asked do we really need frigates? The NZ ANZAC's are so dumbed down as it is we might as well replace them with modern large helicopter equipped Patrol Vessels.

I think of far greater value to NZ would be a full squadron of P8's they really are NZ's eyes and ears. If they are built to the same standard as the US and Australian versions and updated with the same updates they will slip into a coalition type emergency easily and be of more benefit they our existing frigates.

P.S. Again look at Norway and like them make sure NZ gets the money from the natural resources rather than as has happened in Australia with it mostly going to a collection of fat lazy billionaires (as well as multi nationals) who claim to be patriots and economic saviours but in truth want nothing more than to turn the majority of Australians into indentured servants or to replace them with imported slave labour. :flaming (still annoyed about Gina Rinehart's "age on entitlement piece" she is making Palmer look like a level headed philanthropist).

NZ has had to wave a large carrot in front of the oil companies to get them to drill in NZ, unless we find some very large reserves we won't be in a position to set the same rules as the Norwegian model. We also don't have the infrastructure like Norway had (they were a big shipbuilding nation before oil) so we can't make the same local content and construction demands as the Norwegians did. Norway also didn't (and still doesn't) have a loony green element hell bent on destroying their economy like we have in NZ.

 

[Volkodav]

This is where high end naval assets come into their own. Had Australia and NZ gone for a more capable platform to fill the ANZAC slots either could have dispatched on to support operations off Libya.

I actually wonder if NZ should be specifying an AWD type platform to replace the ANZACs in the long term. This would provide much greater flexibility and capability within the region but also critically in terms of participating in global affairs.

 

[t68]

Realistically it would be cheaper to expand the MPA fleet and increase the numbers and capability of the frigate fleet than to rebuild the ACF. Considering the distances involved, even if China established a forward base in a belligerent Fiji you would still be better off with a full squadron of P-8s and a squadron of four or five high end ANZAC replacements. NZ could even look at a pair of proper LPDs and possibly some armed or even purpose designed attack helos, so you can independently move and support more of your excellent land force to where it may be needed.

Off the bat what you have said would be the most logical solution, but in respect to a JAFT and Force 35 it is envision that NZ will have,

“by 2035 we will be operating new amphibious, air transport and surveillance, and improved C4ISR capabilities. We will have a generational change in our Total Defence Workforce approach and its focus on integration”

NZDF - Future35 - Our Strategy to 2035

What this new amphibious capability will be is what will define the future JATF, by 2035 an Aviation combat element working within the confines of a JAFT is doable. It can provide a tailored ACE with rotary-wing or fixed-wing aircraft in other words it provides the means to back up diplomacy with a tailored response or a show of force by other means.

 

[recce.k1]

And what compounds it is that the corporate and institutional knowledge, minute that it is, is 15 years out of date with respects to systems and modus operandi.

True (and fully agree with the points being made by CD and yourself) however would it be fair to say the NZDF is basing this ever diminishing possibility on the premise of re-establishing a fully functional, traditional, independent ACF of old eg one full operational squadron and one training/conversion unit? (75 and 2 Sqn's reincarnated. Perhaps for example with second-hand F-16's etc)?

If so I wonder if, in the current and planned future environment (NZDF Force 2035 etc), that this is the wrong approach?

Forget the 1960's+ emphasis of old of protecting the NZ Army on deployment (which was never realistic for a tiny ACF anyway) and concentrate on the needs of today and the future, which is primarily, maritime strike and secondary, contributions to Coalition ground forces support and the enforcement of UN sanctioned no-fly zones.

What could be more practical for NZ's foreign policy interests (putting additional funding requirements aside) is a smaller, fully inter-operable short squadron of contemporary 5th generation aircraft, fully network enabled etc. In essence that would mean a detachment of perhaps 6-8 front-line aircraft embedded into a RAAF squadron. These aircraft would need to be identical in every way (so these are either Super Hornets or the JSF depending on the timeframes ... with kiwi roundels ).

What this could provide for the support of NZG foreign policy (and Defence) could be the following.

1. For the Force 35 structure and closer to home ... we are seeing emphasis put on the NZDF to be able to project and sustain operations both jointly (with other nations) as well as independently within the SW Pacific. This of course means having fit-for-purpose (and allied interoperable) maritime/satellite ISR assets, air-sea transport and naval combat forces etc.

The RNZAF "ACF" short-sqn contribution would form part of that greater RAAF ACF, tasked to support NZDF and ADF operations in the SWP (if/when warranted) or more likely to support the ADF (and NZDF contributions) further "west" i.e. SE Asia or judging by recent PLA(N) exercises off Australia, the Indian Ocean. The premise for this is to ensure a stabilised SE Asia etc will protect the SWP and NZ interests etc.

In terms of worse case scenarios, in the SWP when things hot up expect there to be more covert ISR/armed surface vessels operating - the P-3's (or future P-8/UAV's) may need to vector in some fast-air to prosecute.

2. Multinational exercises in NZ ... Although the NZ Army can now conduct JTAC training with contemporary air forces overseas and at a much greater standard to that the RNZAF could have ever offered, what happens when multinational exercises happen in NZ? At present NZ would have to invite allied air forces in to conduct such training. How feasible is that as I would envisage mostly not likely most of the time, unless NZ could contribute its own small "embedded" ACF and bring in its bigger RAAF brothers and thus other nations etc.

At other times I would envisage greater opportunities to bring the joint NZ-RAAF contingent over to NZ for mountain terrain flying practice and other such training opportunities.

3. For other contemporary world events ... NZG has the option of providing a small contribution to support Coalition ground forces (including NZ Army) and to enforce no-fly zones. After all the RAAF contribution to Afghanistan was a handful of aircraft at any one time - no different to what I'm suggesting here for NZ.

The advantage here is that it frees up the Army (or Naval Combat Forces) from on-going peacekeeping efforts which for example has drained the Army when deploying for so long. In other words deploy the Army when needed, at other times let the Army re-energise and re-build skillsets for the "next" operation (both Regulars and SF's) by the NZG contributing a handful of fast-jets to take their place even if in another theatre (and the costs to sustain half-dozen pilot and aircraft systems can be more attractive compared to the costs to sustain an Army Company as well as the associated logistics tail and getting combat and support equipment in and out of theatre etc).

For NZG, small contributions provide many brownie points! But having said that, such an initiative would have to come from additional new funding (not by robbing the defence budget by squeezing out current capabilities) so would be something for the future perhaps when more oil and gas can be exploited.

The RNZAF/NZDF need to face up to the fact that an independent ACF squadron at $4B+ is indeed a dead duck and they need to think more smartly about the joint allied environment NZ is now in. The NZG doing nothing (current stance) IMO is not an option when the balance of power in the wider Asia-Pacific region is changing and the US expect other nations to be more self-sufficient. Whilst the NZG is good at playing good cop bad cop (to the advantage of its allies too) least re-establishing a small ACF wouldn't "alarm" other great powers. It may help with that perception thing with other Asian nations - NZ isn't a warmonger but has a small but dangerous stick behind its back and are in the company of others...

A small detachment into the RAAF is also a building block that should future circumstances require greater emphasis on air and maritime combat, could be built-up with its small cadre of imbedded experienced personnel and via the knowledge of its allies.

Granted there may be an additional contribution in terms of training aircraft (if RAAF Hawk numbers aren't sufficient?) but at least the RNZAF had the foresight to select the T-6 for its initial pilot training (which could still be conducted in NZ perhaps).

 

[t68]

True (and fully agree with the points being made by CD and yourself) however would it be fair to say the NZDF is basing this ever diminishing possibility on the premise of re-establishing a fully functional, traditional, independent ACF of old eg one full operational squadron and one training/conversion unit? (75 and 2 Sqn's reincarnated. Perhaps for example with second-hand F-16's etc)?

If so I wonder if, in the current and planned future environment (NZDF Force 2035 etc), that this is the wrong approach?

Forget the 1960's+ emphasis of old of protecting the NZ Army on deployment (which was never realistic for a tiny ACF anyway) and concentrate on the needs of today and the future, which is primarily, maritime strike and secondary, contributions to Coalition ground forces support and the enforcement of UN sanctioned no-fly zones.

What could be more practical for NZ's foreign policy interests (putting additional funding requirements aside) is a smaller, fully inter-operable short squadron of contemporary 5th generation aircraft, fully network enabled etc. In essence that would mean a detachment of perhaps 6-8 front-line aircraft embedded into a RAAF squadron. These aircraft would need to be identical in every way (so these are either Super Hornets or the JSF depending on the timeframes).

What this could provide for the support of NZG foreign policy (and Defence) could be the following.

1. For the Force 35 structure and closer to home ... we are seeing emphasis put on the NZDF to be able to project and sustain operations both jointly (with other nations) as well as independently within the SW Pacific. This of course means having fit-for-purpose (and allied interoperable) maritime/satellite ISR assets, air-sea transport and naval combat forces etc.

The RNZAF "ACF" short-sqn contribution would form part of that greater RAAF ACF, tasked to support NZDF and ADF operations in the SWP (if/when warranted) or more likely to support the ADF (and NZDF contributions) further "west" i.e. SE Asia or judging by recent PLA(N) exercises off Australia, the Indian Ocean. The premise for this is to ensure a stabilised SE Asia etc will protect the SWP etc.

In terms of worse case scenarios, in the SWP when things hot up expect there to be more covert ISR/armed surface vessels operating - the P-3's (or future P-3/UAV's) may need to vector in some fast-air to prosecute.

2. Multinational exercises in NZ ... Although the NZ Army can now conduct JTAC training with contemporary air forces overseas and at a much greater standard to that the RNZAF could have ever offered, what happens when multinational exercises happen in NZ? At present NZ would have to invite allied air forces in to conduct such training. How feasible is that as I would envisage mostly not likely most of the time, unless NZ could contribute its own small "embedded" ACF and bring in its bigger RAAF brothers and thus other nations etc.

At other times I would envisage greater opportunities to bring the joint NZ-RAAF contingent over to NZ for mountain terrain flying practice and other such training opportunities.

3. For other contemporary world events ... NZG has the option of providing a small contribution to support Coalition ground forces (including NZ Army) and to enforce no-fly zones. After all the RAAF contribution to Afghanistan was a handful of aircraft at any one time - no different to what I'm suggesting here for NZ.

The advantage here is that it frees up the Army (or Naval Combat Forces) from on-going peacekeeping efforts which for example has drained the Army when deploying for so long. In other words deploy the Army when needed, at other times let the Army re-energise and re-build skillsets for the "next" operation (both Regulars and SF's) by the NZG contributing a handful of fast-jets to take their place even if in another theatre (and the costs to sustain half-dozen pilot and aircraft systems can be more attractive compared to the costs to sustain an Army Company as well as the associated logistics tail and getting combat and support equipment in and out of theatre etc).

For NZG, small contributions provide many brownie points! But having said that, such an initiative would have to come from additional new funding (not by robbing the defence budget by squeezing out current capabilities) so would be something for the future.

Very well said, you were able to express yourself better than I could and hit the nail on the head.

 

[MrConservative]

True (and fully agree with the points being made by CD and yourself) however would it be fair to say the NZDF is basing this ever diminishing possibility on the premise of re-establishing a fully functional, traditional, independent ACF of old eg one full operational squadron and one training/conversion unit? (75 and 2 Sqn's reincarnated. Perhaps for example with second-hand F-16's etc)?

If so I wonder if, in the current and planned future environment (NZDF Force 2035 etc), that this is the wrong approach?

Forget the 1960's+ emphasis of old of protecting the NZ Army on deployment (which was never realistic for a tiny ACF anyway) and concentrate on the needs of today and the future, which is primarily, maritime strike and secondary, contributions to Coalition ground forces support and the enforcement of UN sanctioned no-fly zones.

What could be more practical for NZ's foreign policy interests (putting additional funding requirements aside) is a smaller, fully inter-operable short squadron of contemporary 5th generation aircraft, fully network enabled etc. In essence that would mean a detachment of perhaps 6-8 front-line aircraft embedded into a RAAF squadron. These aircraft would need to be identical in every way (so these are either Super Hornets or the JSF depending on the timeframes ... with kiwi roundels ).

What this could provide for the support of NZG foreign policy (and Defence) could be the following.

1. For the Force 35 structure and closer to home ... we are seeing emphasis put on the NZDF to be able to project and sustain operations both jointly (with other nations) as well as independently within the SW Pacific. This of course means having fit-for-purpose (and allied interoperable) maritime/satellite ISR assets, air-sea transport and naval combat forces etc.

The RNZAF "ACF" short-sqn contribution would form part of that greater RAAF ACF, tasked to support NZDF and ADF operations in the SWP (if/when warranted) or more likely to support the ADF (and NZDF contributions) further "west" i.e. SE Asia or judging by recent PLA(N) exercises off Australia, the Indian Ocean. The premise for this is to ensure a stabilised SE Asia etc will protect the SWP and NZ interests etc.

In terms of worse case scenarios, in the SWP when things hot up expect there to be more covert ISR/armed surface vessels operating - the P-3's (or future P-8/UAV's) may need to vector in some fast-air to prosecute.

2. Multinational exercises in NZ ... Although the NZ Army can now conduct JTAC training with contemporary air forces overseas and at a much greater standard to that the RNZAF could have ever offered, what happens when multinational exercises happen in NZ? At present NZ would have to invite allied air forces in to conduct such training. How feasible is that as I would envisage mostly not likely most of the time, unless NZ could contribute its own small "embedded" ACF and bring in its bigger RAAF brothers and thus other nations etc.

At other times I would envisage greater opportunities to bring the joint NZ-RAAF contingent over to NZ for mountain terrain flying practice and other such training opportunities.

3. For other contemporary world events ... NZG has the option of providing a small contribution to support Coalition ground forces (including NZ Army) and to enforce no-fly zones. After all the RAAF contribution to Afghanistan was a handful of aircraft at any one time - no different to what I'm suggesting here for NZ.

The advantage here is that it frees up the Army (or Naval Combat Forces) from on-going peacekeeping efforts which for example has drained the Army when deploying for so long. In other words deploy the Army when needed, at other times let the Army re-energise and re-build skillsets for the "next" operation (both Regulars and SF's) by the NZG contributing a handful of fast-jets to take their place even if in another theatre (and the costs to sustain half-dozen pilot and aircraft systems can be more attractive compared to the costs to sustain an Army Company as well as the associated logistics tail and getting combat and support equipment in and out of theatre etc).

For NZG, small contributions provide many brownie points! But having said that, such an initiative would have to come from additional new funding (not by robbing the defence budget by squeezing out current capabilities) so would be something for the future perhaps when more oil and gas can be exploited.

The RNZAF/NZDF need to face up to the fact that an independent ACF squadron at $4B+ is indeed a dead duck and they need to think more smartly about the joint allied environment NZ is now in. The NZG doing nothing (current stance) IMO is not an option when the balance of power in the wider Asia-Pacific region is changing and the US expect other nations to be more self-sufficient. Whilst the NZG is good at playing good cop bad cop (to the advantage of its allies too) least re-establishing a small ACF wouldn't "alarm" other great powers. It may help with that perception thing with other Asian nations - NZ isn't a warmonger but has a small but dangerous stick behind its back and are in the company of others...

A small detachment into the RAAF is also a building block that should future circumstances require greater emphasis on air and maritime combat, could be built-up with its small cadre of imbedded experienced personnel and via the knowledge of its allies.

Granted there may be an additional contribution in terms of training aircraft (if RAAF Hawk numbers aren't sufficient?) but at least the RNZAF had the foresight to select the T-6 for its initial pilot training (which could still be conducted in NZ perhaps).

Recce I agree - there is merit in working through this concept even if it is for now an intellectual exercise. There is no merit however in working through shopping lists of x type aircraft of y numbers + z amount of LIFT types to recreate the pre 2001 ACF. A short squadron of Shornets could be manageable and achievable and would add to the weight of the ANZAC alliance and solve some issues. I have said in the past it is actually the only realistic option if we wanted a fast air component. It will take a fair bit of hand holding nevertheless from the ADF and USN.

Normally as a Mod I am usually quite blunt about talk of reconstituted dreams for a Kiwi air combat force, cause wishful thinking will not make it so. That said I do realise that if a plausible concept can be floated within the narrow constraints of cost, timeframes and capability. It is worth considered and pragmatic discussion.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Recce I agree - there is merit in working through this concept even if it is for now an intellectual exercise. There is no merit however in working through shopping lists of x type aircraft of y numbers + z amount of LIFT types to recreate the pre 2001 ACF. A short squadron of Shornets could be manageable and achievable and would add to the weight of the ANZAC alliance and solve some issues. I have said in the past it is actually the only realistic option if we wanted a fast air component. It will take a fair bit of hand holding nevertheless from the ADF and USN.

There have been proposals in the past to station RAAF Shornets in NZ under base sharing scenarios.

Similar to what the Sings do in Qld and in the US)

 

[Volkodav]

Well a sponsor arrangement could make it happen. Deployed aircraft and maintainers local personnel shadowing and when the opportunity arises undertaking formal trained through the same schools as the sponsors. Slowly build the expertise and institutional knowledge and eventually take over the deployed platforms and support equipment.

May be worth looking at with the SH or even Growler as the govt could pretend that is not a combat aircraft.

Then again if there should be that sort of money available would it not be better invested in expanding and modernising the MPA/MPS fleet with P-8s and supplementing then replacing the ANZACs with more capable assets?

 

[aussienscale]

This is where high end naval assets come into their own. Had Australia and NZ gone for a more capable platform to fill the ANZAC slots either could have dispatched on to support operations off Libya.

I actually wonder if NZ should be specifying an AWD type platform to replace the ANZACs in the long term. This would provide much greater flexibility and capability within the region but also critically in terms of participating in global affairs.

So does this come back to earlier suggestions that Australia and possibly NZ adopt the AWD Hull as the baseline for an Anzac II Frigate ?

 

[Volkodav]

So does this come back to earlier suggestions that Australia and possibly NZ adopt the AWD Hull as the baseline for an Anzac II Frigate ?

I like the F-100 but it is getting long in the tooth and the are newer superior options out there, Type 26 and FREMM for starters. There are already serious obsolescence issues with the current build due to the age of the basic design that would make ordering a fourth hull hard enough to carry on with a follow on based in the same hull would be pointless.

Basically the auxiliary and propulsion systems would have to be so different that you would lose any advantage of adapting the platform, so you may as well go for something new and better. Aim for increased reliability, reduced cost of ownership, reduced manning and higher performance, forget the F-100 which was nothing really special anyway.

 

[MrConservative]

There have been proposals in the past to station RAAF Shornets in NZ under base sharing scenarios.

Similar to what the Sings do in Qld and in the US)

I knew about the legacy Hornets idea as that concept was floating around circa 2005 / 2006 when the current government was in Opposition. Almost like the reverse of the Nowra agreement. It was discussed within the opposition caucus but went no further. I was not aware of Shornet proposals ... intriguing

 

[Volkodav]

I knew about the legacy Hornets idea as that concept was floating around circa 2005 / 2006 when the current government was in Opposition. Almost like the reverse of the Nowra agreement. It was discussed within the opposition caucus but went no further. I was not aware of Shornet proposals ... intriguing

Well the SHs are interesting as the initial 24 are leased so that opens up all sorts of possibilities once the Growlers are inducted and the F-35 deliveries start.

 

[MrConservative]

Well the SHs are interesting as the initial 24 are leased so that opens up all sorts of possibilities once the Growlers are inducted and the F-35 deliveries start.

So is RAAF 1Sqd still going to get all 24 SHs once all the growlers show up at 6Sqd from 2017? I thought that was the plan. Don't they come off their lease in 2021?

Possibilities Volk??? What do you have in mind? .

 

[KiwiRob]

So does this come back to earlier suggestions that Australia and possibly NZ adopt the AWD Hull as the baseline for an Anzac II Frigate ?

There is already a frigate version of the F100 the Norwegian Nansen Class, no need to redesign the wheel when someone's already done it for you.

 

[RobWilliams]

Norwegian requirements =/= NZ requirements, so some modifications will have to made in any case, can't imagine it'd be a whole lot easier to modify a design of a frigate they've never handled as opposed to modifying the design of a hull and superstructure which - Australia at least - is getting to be quite familiar with.

 

[ngatimozart]

There is already a frigate version of the F100 the Norwegian Nansen Class, no need to redesign the wheel when someone's already done it for you.

The F100 is a frigate design and it is now old. The RAN AWDs have been labelled Destroyers by the ADF and their tonnage is in that class. However the base hull is still a Navantia F100 frigate hull.