Get the title correct please. It was an Air Combat Force. Then have a good read around and figure out that it is not an invasion force per se but other things such as maritime strike, some air defence, ground attack and other taskings as required. Secondly, whilst I have said "not an invasion force per se" the possibility always exists. How probable that possibility is varies from time to time. Thirdly, we do have treaty obligations as well. Fourthly, the world especially in the Asia Pacific region is not benign, no matter what the pollies and the trendy lefties reckon. Fifthly, NZ is a maritime island nation; the most isolated nation on the planet that depends upon maritime shipping for 99.4% of all of it's exports and imports. We do not have our own international shipping line so are dependant totally upon foreign shipping companies, so have a good think about what would happen to NZ Inc if those shipping services were seriously impaired with or even halted. These are our SLOC - if we lose those we are well and truly up the proverbial creek. Last of all, Joe does have quite a valid point, NZ is bludging off the ADF defence wise because our pollies are being to narrow minded and stingy.Joe,
Save the day against What?
I can understand the logic in an argument of NZ requiring an Attack Combat Force to contribute to a coalition force in a overseas mission but do not see any realisitc scenario where NZ would require a ACF to save it from the mythical military hordes of an invading country.
Please spell out your thinking for when NZ would require a force of Fast Movers to protect it so that it would not have to rely upon the might of the RAAFs F-18/F-35s which depresses you so much
Budget my friend, comes down to budget.
Well we could fly the pollies to Invercargill on it. Give them a air conditioned nice seat on the top deck
I'm just throwing it out to see what people think, that's all. It's something new and worth throwing in the pot for a look.
I disagree slightly about the potential value of a LIFT which can perform some CAS/CAS training, as well as some air intercepts. Fortunately at this point, the risk of someone hijacking an aircraft in or near NZ is fairly unlikely, as is another nation intruding into NZ's airspace.
I agree to a point. The amphibs offer force projection which I think is a more of a sea control approach. My view of maritime defence / protection is a naval and airborne approach. You are right very definitely right about the surface / subsurface / aerial component. I think many people see it as a two dimensional issue when in fact it is very much a three dimensional issue and I would argue even four dimensional, if you include time as the fourth dimension. In fact I believe that people generally forget the temporal dimension and don't realise that it takes a lot of time (and treasure) to build up a maritime force from scratch, which we basically will have to do when (not if) we get into a half decent scrap. We do need to work with the RAN in layered maritime defence and I believe that NZ has to bring a lot more to the party than just two under-armed frugates and the P3K2s that have no ASuW capabilities. At least when we had the A4Ks we did have a respectable maritime strike capability.
I am totally with you and agree with all the points made....
You cannot compare the contestation level that currently presents itself to the Philippines and extrapolate to NZ's entirely different security context.
You don't need the threat of invasion to have the building blocks of a creadable defence force, after all who has the ability to invade Australia
The Orions are getting an ASW sensor upgrade apparently.
IIRC to mount missiles on the P3K2s they have to rewire the wings which is a major, expensive and time consuming job. Subs in the RNZN is pure rubbish. It was first suggested back in the 1980s and shot down big time then as impractical and expensive. I know that the Mavericks are short legged with regard to enemy SAM cover but a fast jet has just that extra bit of manoeuvrability than an Orion or similar. Unfortunately beggars can't be choosers.
I recall someone saying back in the late 1950's early 60's it was mooted that the kiwis would have a carrier and submarine force, can't remember who brought it up but was very surprised when I read it. Aspirations and budget are two very different things.
Yeah, keep believing that... Look the world is so unstable and things can change rapidly. Situation can deteriorate at a pace where no one would predict. I would think that it is prudent to have a minimum credible capability, organic and capable of defending one's national territory and national interest and contribute to a collective defense with like-minded neighbours. If the lessons of WW2, and the recent resurgence of China in South China Sea are not painful enough to wake up the pollies in NZ and get them to start putting a little more into their defence budget, they are similar showing the world that they are nothing but a bludger true and true... relying on Australian and the American protecting them.
It was in the late 40's after the War. The Admiralty, keen to offload their excess small carriers, are said to have made an informal approach to the then Naval Boardor possibly the then CNS Faulkner.
As nice it would be to be back in the fast jet game what realistically would a squadron (yet another one in the region) of jets actually do? What did our last squadrons do? Flying laps of the country or maybe the odd trip overseas for simulation for decades and decades (actually) is not really a wise use of scarce funds just because it looks good on an orbat or at an airshow. Too many other more benficial and useful capabilities we could concentrate on that would actually fit in with our allies better, Aus included.
Fast jets (esp Skyhawks) typically cannot outrun/outmanouver missiles. I think range is the key in this scenario rather than speed and turn and burn.