NZDF General discussion thread

[t68]

I actually sense a shift within New Zealand defence thinking that though it may not be prevalent within the time frame of this forthcoming white paper but a movement on the negative to a more neutral position concerning a component of air combat capability within the NZDF.

I'd actually say it was always there bubbling away under the surface, but not wanting to risk putting there head above the parapet. But when that thinking reaches parliamentary level then more people in certain positions will raise there heads.

The DWP will mention that there is growing contestability within our wider region.

Agree the overall strategic environment over the next 15-20 years is not certain. And the risk of a conflagration in the greater region is more prevalent. The cold war of the Atlantic is likely to move SEA.If anything the air campaign now going on in the ME should be showing the air power is more than actions against traditional state actors.

This alternative concept that I am raising is essentially about finding an equilibrium between doing nothing - an option that is becoming incrementally untenable through to reconstituting an ACF which yes I agree is not an option on fiscal and over-reaching grounds.

Your quite right perceptions will have to change within the greater NZ society as well and putting a toe in the water, Gauging the reaction to stationing fast jets in NZ may overcome these perceptions.

Come 2023 when the RAAF has hopefully all it's 72 F35A's then the 12 F/A18F's could be stationed in NZ and manned with a mix of RAAF/RNZAF ground and flight crews with cost split between both nations to form an Anzac Squadron, a low cost way of initial capability then forming NZ Squadron.

 

[40 deg south]

I actually sense a shift within New Zealand defence thinking that though it may not be prevalent within the time frame of this forthcoming white paper but a movement on the negative to a more neutral position concerning a component of air combat capability within the NZDF. The DWP will mention that there is growing contestability within our wider region.

Defence Assessment 2014 Contents [Ministry of Defence NZ]

This is the publicly-available official document on global/regional issues that informs the Defence White Paper. No doubt there will be more confidential assessments that feed into it as well.

Regarding timing of the White Paper, I heard a hint that it may not be out until about mid-year, but have no idea how reliable this is.

 

[40 deg south]

The world population is doubling every 50 years and running short of fresh water and arable land, we have a surplus so we could become an attractive target .

It's a minor point, but this is no longer true. Current world population is 7.4 billion. Most mid-range projections have world population peaking at 9-10 billion around 2050 and then slowly declining. Most recent revisions to growth projections have been downwards. Japan and most of Western Europe already have negative population growth if migration is excluded, and birth rates are dropping (albeit unevenly) across the developing world.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

It's a minor point, but this is no longer true. Current world population is 7.4 billion. Most mid-range projections have world population peaking at 9-10 billion around 2050 and then slowly declining. Most recent revisions to growth projections have been downwards. Japan and most of Western Europe already have negative population growth if migration is excluded, and birth rates are dropping (albeit unevenly) across the developing world.

China just by themselves is putting a strain on global population, and now they have dropped the restrictions on having kids, things are only going to get worse over the next few decades.No wonder they are doing a land and resource grab in the South China seas. Plus their pollution rates from overproduction means they will need clean pastures and water supply to feed a population explosion. At some point there will be major conflict between china and its neighbours, something we are already seeing evidence of.

 

[Rob c]

It's a minor point, but this is no longer true. Current world population is 7.4 billion. Most mid-range projections have world population peaking at 9-10 billion around 2050 and then slowly declining. Most recent revisions to growth projections have been downwards. Japan and most of Western Europe already have negative population growth if migration is excluded, and birth rates are dropping (albeit unevenly) across the developing world.

Any population increase from the present event to 10 billion is still going to place huge stress on those already stretched resources. That would be an increase of 35% on resources that are already very stretched in areas of high population densities. Several defence analyst sections at major universities and defence departments including our own have identified this as a major problem and a likely cause of conflict.

 

[Rob c]

I agree with your first sentence. What I would add is that by looking after points 2 through to 7 that I made with respect to NZDF priorities is that point 1 is substantially looked after.

Interdependency with our allies in the region underpins what we do whether it is through formal relationships such as CDR, FPDA and the Washington - Wellington declarations as well as FYES.

The lack of an air combat capability is a real concern, however even that has to be looked through the lense of alligned capabilities and platforms with our closest defence partners, particularly the RAAF. Post 2022 when the Growlers are well bedded down with 6 Sqd, F-35 is starting to build significant fleet numbers and legacy Hornet is phasing out, a conversation should now be started with respect to the potential of RNZAF 'buy in and shared involvement' in operating the 24 RAAF superbugs in 1 Sqd, with a view for example of 12 of them operating out of Ohakea instead of 24 at Amberley could very well suit everyone. That is a conversation which I think is worth taking further. I have looked closely at the reconstituted ACF on the model we had pre 2001 and fiscally it is impossible to replicate with anything approaching a viable modern defence capability that could be sustained.

I would disagree with your first sentence as points 2 to 7 are in far better shape than point one. Infact points 2 to 7 have reasonable coverage, though there is always room for improvement. We however have an extremely limited ability in the area of point one. Your second paragraph is however an interesting option.

 

[t68]

Defence Assessment 2014 Contents [Ministry of Defence NZ]

This is the publicly-available official document on global/regional issues that informs the Defence White Paper. No doubt there will be more confidential assessments that feed into it as well.

It interesting to note in that link that there will be a capabilty gap between the ADF and the NZDF

Complementary capabilities

Due to the highly advanced nature of many of Australia’s planned acquisitions, the gap in capability between our forces is expected to increase. This will not affect our level of interoperability (which remains high) or our ability to operate together in the South Pacific, where it matters most.

Surley that is the same as the ADF found in the 1st Gulf War when it came as a shock about the level of interoperability between our capabilty fitting in with the US and we are talking ground forces. I don't think NZ can be in a position to let there capabilty to decrease further. Tough decisions have to be made and they will have an impact on treasury.

 

[Rob c]

Would NZ and her allies be better served by more of and more capable P-3's and her replacements than a reformed ACF?. Say 8-12 P-3's (total) with SLAM and Harpoon with say a commitment to similar 4-10 P-8's similiar equiped (Big price I know)? Devils advocate as I can't see the Aussie electorate viewing it well and NZ electorate being occupied with the whiners and whingers clawing their way to the news networks microphones first. If we offered P-3's in numbers, A400m for aerial refueling and a few more NH90 specialised in CSAR maybe we count ourselves back in that way with good dual use for more civil assistance type stuff?

We still need to be able to have a basic level of an ability to defend ourselves until our allies may arrive,( to hold the fort) The easiest way to do this is airpower. to achieve this by other means requires huge increases in manpower scope and equipment.

 

[Rob c]

But it isn't a 'fast' jet, hence why it is so cheap. It is subsonic, with a very limited performance envelope. Even other subsonic aircraft like Hawk's or A-4's leave it for dead performance-wise.

Cost is one thing. Capability is another. I'm not certain what it is Scorpion brings to the table that NZDF actually requires, that justifies it's cost compared to a more traditional solution.

If CAS is what is needed what does that look like? AT-6C Texan II can provide it cheaper even than a Scorpion and it has commonality with the T-6C's already in NZ service, reducing TLS.

Scorpion doesn't have the performance needed to replace a genuine combat aircraft and can't match the cost price of a prop like an AT-6C or a Super Tucano...

Probably why no-one has bought them...

We need to establish what we would want the aircraft to achieve. I would suggest the following.
1. Ability to intercept transport and airline type aircraft with speeds up to 900kmh.
2. Ability to launch anti shipping missiles.
3. Ability to support land forces and use stand of weapons (with the proliferation of man portable AA missiles you don't want to get to close)
A possible candidate would be the KAI T50 Golden eagle
Indonesia got 16 T50's for $us 400 and the Philippines 12 of the more capable FA50's for $US 415.
This would cover both advanced training and medium level combat

 

[MrConservative]

I would disagree with your first sentence as points 2 to 7 are in far better shape than point one. Infact points 2 to 7 have reasonable coverage, though there is always room for improvement. We however have an extremely limited ability in the area of point one. Your second paragraph is however an interesting option.

The point being made was that by looking after points 2 to 7 was that point 1 looks after itself. Point one is an overarching provision, points 2 through to 7 were enabling provisions to attain point one. Kind of like s5 of the Defence Act 1990 is the key provisioning section in the act and everything else is an enabling clause.

 

[ADMk2]

True, nobody has bought yet but it is still early days. Although it costs about 3 times as much the Scorpion offers a 9,000 pound payload, 150 knot higher speed and longer range.

Yep, but the fundamental reason RNZAF doesn't operate a fast jet is ideology. Secondly it is financial.

It is pointless referring to the Scorpion's advantages over a prop capability in the first instance ignoring the ideological reason there is no fast jet capability in RNZAF service but touting the cost benefit, whilst simultaneously advocating the capability argument over a prop capability, when that capability is marginal compared to a true fighter jet and then using lower cost to justify it...

If RNZAF needs to get back in the fast jet game from a capability perspective, then it needs a fast jet. Not a watered down capability whose only operational benefit is cost.

From an ideological POV there is no real difference (IMHO) between a Scorpion, a Gripen or an F-16 for that matter. Cost is a factor obviously but so is capability, once you get past the main roadblock...

 

[MrConservative]

Yep, but the fundamental reason RNZAF doesn't operate a fast jet is ideology. Secondly it is financial.

And the financial reason is also ideological more than actual reality.

To illustrate NZ's GDP is now in excess of a quarter trillion, GDP per capita of $42000, crown public debt is now at 26.3% trending to 20% by 2020, it has its budget in surplus, gdp growth trending above 3%, interest rates are low, inflation is within the band targets. Very few economies are doing as well with respect to those economic data sets. Its population is expected to hit 4.7 million later this year and the 5 million mark by around 2021 with those demographics changing outlooks. It is a different country in many ways compared to 10 years ago, and for the better.

 

[Rob c]

The point being made was that by looking after points 2 to 7 was that point 1 looks after itself. Point one is an overarching provision, points 2 through to 7 were enabling provisions to attain point one. Kind of like s5 of the Defence Act 1990 is the key provisioning section in the act and everything else is an enabling clause.

I am afraid that i disagree with that as some of the functions needed for point one would not be required for 2 to 7 and significant number of functions in 2 to 7 are not required for one. we need to get the priority right first then deal with the less long term important later. to do 2 to 7 first is a bit like putting the cart before the horse. Our core defence is our insurance policy on our freedom and sovereignty and you may not use it for many years, but when you need it you had better be fully insured or else everything this country stands for could be out the window. It is like house insurance , it is to late contacting your insurance company to reinsure when you first see smoke.

 

[Rob c]

And the financial reason is also ideological more than actual reality.

To illustrate NZ's GDP is now in excess of a quarter trillion, GDP per capita of $42000, crown public debt is now at 26.3% trending to 20% by 2020, it has its budget in surplus, gdp growth trending above 3%, interest rates are low, inflation is within the band targets. Very few economies are doing as well with respect to those economic data sets. Its population is expected to hit 4.7 million later this year and the 5 million mark by around 2021 with those demographics changing outlooks. It is a different country in many ways compared to 10 years ago, and for the better.

Totally agree with the above and considering were the rest of the world is at, quite remarkable. and I think you are correct regarding the ideology. an interesting note is that just after the announcement to end strike wing, a poll was taken and 74% were against the axing. wonder how much work it would take to get the figure back there?

 

[Todjaeger]

Acf

The lack of an air combat capability is a real concern, however even that has to be looked through the lense of alligned capabilities and platforms with our closest defence partners, particularly the RAAF. Post 2022 when the Growlers are well bedded down with 6 Sqd, F-35 is starting to build significant fleet numbers and legacy Hornet is phasing out, a conversation should now be started with respect to the potential of RNZAF 'buy in and shared involvement' in operating the 24 RAAF superbugs in 1 Sqd, with a view for example of 12 of them operating out of Ohakea instead of 24 at Amberley could very well suit everyone. That is a conversation which I think is worth taking further. I have looked closely at the reconstituted ACF on the model we had pre 2001 and fiscally it is impossible to replicate with anything approaching a viable modern defence capability that could be sustained.

A question I have about a potential ACF would be, "what sort of combat capability is desired?" Answering this is important IMO because that would drive what type of platform is desired and thus avenues of approach to achieving it.

As has been witnessed by USAF operations, ground attack/CAS roles do not need to be provided by fast jets, but can also be done very effectively using PGM's deployed from long-range aircraft loitering aloft with large munitions capacities. If the RNZAF were to expand the current/future MPA fleet, as well as acquire the requisite PGM's, then the NZDF would have an organic CAS capability.

Now if an air defence/interceptor role was desired, that IMO would definitely require some sort of fast jet, which would require additional/different flight training from what RNZAF pilots currently get.

 

[MrConservative]

I am afraid that i disagree with that as some of the functions needed for point one would not be required for 2 to 7 and significant number of functions in 2 to 7 are not required for one. we need to get the priority right first then deal with the less long term important later. to do 2 to 7 first is a bit like putting the cart before the horse. Our core defence is our insurance policy on our freedom and sovereignty and you may not use it for many years, but when you need it you had better be fully insured or else everything this country stands for could be out the window. It is like house insurance , it is to late contacting your insurance company to reinsure when you first see smoke.

Feel free to disagree but I take it you are not familar with Joseph Nye or the Rice doctrine.

The insurance policy analogy has been regarded as too simplistic by International Relations specialists for many years now. Defence in the modern 21st Century context is all that but it is also also an economic enabler, diplomatic relationship enhancer, as well as possessing and using soft & smart power capabilities as well as traditional ‘hard’ combat power. The policy orientations of the NZDF as directed by the NZ government are from that perspective that are revealed by capabilities and resourcing beyond guns and bombs. Viz some of those points from 3 to 7.

For example the huge role Japan played in 2013 following the Philippines Typhoon was a classic case of smart power being used by the Japanese Govt via the JSDF. There was a major HADR operation undertaken but the mission had the clear communication of a implicit diplomatic message – we are friends we help … the PRC does not. It also sent a further message - how well the JSDF can be organised and deployed into urgent mission responses.

There is no doubt was a certain amount of smart power being used with respect to the responses by the OZ and NZ governments following Cyclone Winston in Fiji. Yes it is about the HADR aspect but it is also about repairing trust and strained relationships, and that Fiji can rely on its larger Pacific neighbours.

 

[MrConservative]

A question I have about a potential ACF would be, "what sort of combat capability is desired?" Answering this is important IMO because that would drive what type of platform is desired and thus avenues of approach to achieving it.

As has been witnessed by USAF operations, ground attack/CAS roles do not need to be provided by fast jets, but can also be done very effectively using PGM's deployed from long-range aircraft loitering aloft with large munitions capacities. If the RNZAF were to expand the current/future MPA fleet, as well as acquire the requisite PGM's, then the NZDF would have an organic CAS capability.

Now if an air defence/interceptor role was desired, that IMO would definitely require some sort of fast jet, which would require additional/different flight training from what RNZAF pilots currently get.

What I raised was not about resurrecting an ACF per se. That has been clearly ruled out by me with respect to cost and other priorities. It was looked through the lens off the F/A-18F and in particular an arrangement with the RAAF which is outlined in previous posts.

As a guide the following have been the historically recognised roles within a NZDF air combat capbility Post Kahu upgrades until 2001;

CAS, interdiction, maritime strike, the training for and the provision of within a coalition task force environment and around 850 training support hours per annum for joint service training exercises. Post 2001 if the F-16 had been introduced the RNZAF was to have widened the ACF outputs to also include CAP in support of no fly zones. We would have also continued the 1200 p.a hours at Nowra.

Studies/Reports were undertaken through out the late 1980s and ealy 2000s that endorsed the multi-role strike platform within the NZDF over adding increments of single task platforms. Even the Quigley Report which terms of reference was basically to ideologically kill off the F-16s, argued that it was necessary though smaller than what national wanted. (Heck we know all this). The pure reason was cost and complication. The multi-role strike platform had better cost benefits within a smaller defence force. They also have wider capability sets, though not a major operational rationale for a NZDF acquisition do have their occasional place within the context of a defence force. Intercept / air defence as you stated, and good old fashion show of force / deterrence or air space denial in a constabulary sense.

 

[John Fedup]

And the financial reason is also ideological more than actual reality.

To illustrate NZ's GDP is now in excess of a quarter trillion, GDP per capita of $42000, crown public debt is now at 26.3% trending to 20% by 2020, it has its budget in surplus, gdp growth trending above 3%, interest rates are low, inflation is within the band targets. Very few economies are doing as well with respect to those economic data sets. Its population is expected to hit 4.7 million later this year and the 5 million mark by around 2021 with those demographics changing outlooks. It is a different country in many ways compared to 10 years ago, and for the better.

Damn impressive numbers, especially compared to the new data about Canada's perforformance under the guidance of junior.

 

[Todjaeger]

What I raised was not about resurrecting an ACF per se. That has been clearly ruled out by me with respect to cost and other priorities. It was looked through the lens off the F/A-18F and in particular an arrangement with the RAAF which is outlined in previous posts.

Okay, that clears a few things up.

I see a few potential paths which could be taken, with an end goal of the NZDF having access to some fast jet support/operations.

However, I also see a few potential hurdles to overcome which are largely outside of any Kiwi control.

One step would of course get RNZAF pilots trained in the operation of fast jets via an advanced jet trainer. The RAAF might have some slots which could be made available on their Hawk jet trainers. Similarly slots in RAF, USAF, USN/USMC FAA advanced jet trainer classes could be pursued. There is also a NATO flying school which operates out of Canada to train pilots in fast jet operations which routinely has a few pilots from non-NATO allied nations attend. Done gradually, this could allow the buildup of pool of Kiwi pilots with the skills suitable to handle fighter aircraft like the F/A18-F.

Once a pilot has achieved the desired skills, then it might be possible to arrange either with the USN/USMC or more likely the RAAF, some sort of programme where a serving RNZAF pilot is seconded to the host service. The goal being to be trained on the Super Hornet, and then spend a considerable amount of time serving with the host serve to make the training worthwhile. I have in mind something like a 3-5 year period of service once trained. Once enough pilots have been through this pipeline, or are in the pipeline, then the RNZAF might have enough pilots to operate a half squadron of Super Hornets. At that point, then working on an agreement to host some of the Super Hornets in NZ might be workable. Especially if during the time where pilots were being skilled, ground crews were also going through a similar process.

Potential stumbling blocks that I see (outside of the internal Kiwi specific ones of course) is that NZ would need to make it worthwhile for other nation's specific pilot training programmes be opened up to allow Kiwi participation. Secondly, NZ would need to make it worthwhile for Oz to allow participation with RAAF Super Hornets. Third, US permission might be required, especially if Super Hornets were to be based in/operated by NZ. FMS rules can get a bit peculiar after all.

 

[RegR]

This scenario is all based on if Aus would even end up willing to part with their super hornets, the way the F-35 program is going they could well end up keeping them for their full life due to costs (causing F-35 cutbacks) or even capability provided, even as a '2nd tier' platform. Is there an actual gain for Aus to essentially share their fighter squadrons with us anyway?

The biggest issue I see with any such arrangement anyway is our govts willingness to commit any air combat force to any air combat requiring force. As has been shown in the past our 2 govts often have differing foreign policies so what happens if one commits to say bombing in Iraq and the other does'nt? The aircraft are no use without the pilots and vice versa and if under a share arrangement who has final say? Which is why regardless we would really need to own the jets outright to retain control and therefore decision making, kind of making a shared deal difficult at best. Could be pulled off with certain other capabilities but combat platforms with a solely combat output would cause issues in both parliaments at times and no doubt critical times at best.

Again if our govt is not prepared to train as we fight and fight as we train, with the actual intention of using said capability in real time then it is actually just a waste of money. If we brought back fast jets just for air shows, coastal flights and the odd overseas excersise then I would rather we channel that funding into things we will actually use (transport, mpa etc) otherwise in 30 years time when finances get tough again they will just use the same excuses to axe again to 'save' ie lack of actual use, too complex to upgrade/maintain etc. We could have been bombing daesh infrastructure with our F16s right now but then again would we or would that be alittle too out there for our current govt? (Or any nz govt) therefore a change in stance is required first. As much as I would love to see us back in the ACF game no point having all the bells and whistles if all we do is talk about the bells and whistles.