NZDF General discussion thread

[ngatimozart]

I realise that it can be difficult to have this discussion without being platform centric. First of all banging on about ex RAAF F18F Shornets in RNZAF livery is pointless because as already explained more than once, it ain't going to happen. So forget and bury that idea. Moving on, IMHO the better approach is to discuss the necessity and reasoning for or against particular capabilities vis à vis an ACF as an example.

A couple of quick replies. Yes Swerve I know we couldn't flown our A4s in the Falklands; I was using the war as an example, that's all where the colonials didn't get an invite. We would have turned up too especially if free beer was on offer

RegR, I wasn't favouring the current govt in my post at all and FYI I very strongly believe that they can do far better regarding defence.

We need to move away from an Army centric defence force. For an island nation in the middle of the worlds largest ocean, it is somewhat ludicrous. There has to be a broadening of capability and capacity with a focus on maritime combat and ISR capabilities and capacity, both airborne and surface. This will in turn provide better overland airborne combat and ISR capabilities. I have not forgotten the maxim that ultimately it is boots on the ground that hold territory because a navy nor an air force cannot ultimately hold ground. Their missions are to create the conditions in a maritime and aerial environment for the army to hold that ground. In a Kiwi context the NZLAV cannot swim nor fly, nor can the Kiwi soldier march or run across water (yet :soldier nfloorl: ) to reach areas where historically we have fought.

 

[Rob c]

I realise that it can be difficult to have this discussion without being platform centric. First of all banging on about ex RAAF F18F Shornets in RNZAF livery is pointless because as already explained more than once, it ain't going to happen. So forget and bury that idea. Moving on, IMHO the better approach is to discuss the necessity and reasoning for or against particular capabilities vis à vis an ACF as an example.

A couple of quick replies. Yes Swerve I know we couldn't flown our A4s in the Falklands; I was using the war as an example, that's all where the colonials didn't get an invite. We would have turned up too especially if free beer was on offer

RegR, I wasn't favouring the current govt in my post at all and FYI I very strongly believe that they can do far better regarding defence.

We need to move away from an Army centric defence force. For an island nation in the middle of the worlds largest ocean, it is somewhat ludicrous. There has to be a broadening of capability and capacity with a focus on maritime combat and ISR capabilities and capacity, both airborne and surface. This will in turn provide better overland airborne combat and ISR capabilities. I have not forgotten the maxim that ultimately it is boots on the ground that hold territory because a navy nor an air force cannot ultimately hold ground. Their missions are to create the conditions in a maritime and aerial environment for the army to hold that ground. In a Kiwi context the NZLAV cannot swim nor fly, nor can the Kiwi soldier march or run across water (yet :soldier nfloorl: ) to reach areas where historically we have fought.

Agree with this, the first point of contact in the NZ area should always be in the air or sea. and the idea that just because we have not used a capability we can delete it is not correct. It would be like saying that just because you have not had a road accident that you can remove the seat belts and air bags from your car. You just never know.

 

[Rob c]

I think it somewhat disingenuous to blame the USG for NZG failures. The NZG would have, or should have, been fully conversant with the USG ITARS disposal requirements. If they weren't then they need to have their heads handed to them on a plate.

I think that you need to read wider. Up until 2001 RNZAF ACF pilots were quite comparable in air to air combat skills with any other of the ABCA air forces. The skill levels were kept high despite the fact that we could no longer attend US exercises such as RIMPAC or Red Flag. IF it is decided that an ACF is to be reactivated, then appropriate platforms will be investigated and one or two types eventually approved. If this decision was made tomorrow then the Shornet acquired via FMS from Boeing would IMHO be most likely the logical decision because it is in service with the RAAF and the USN. Regarding twin engine Vs single engine - it's not just about cost. If you want to look at cost what is the more expensive option -operational costs for a twin enginef aircraft or having to replace the aircraft because of engine failure? That argument is valid and a reason why the USN prefer twin engined aircraft. Look at the wider connotations besides the simplistic cost view. Addressing your F16 comment, most of the F16s in the Boneyard that are able to be economically made airworthy are destined for the QF16 target drone program replacing the QF4s. They are also mostly A and B models requiring significant funding for regeneration and upgrading. The USAF is currently keeping it's F16C & Ds in service at IIRC the Block 50 standard.

Eventually we will have to regenerate an ACF and if you are going to spend a significant amount of national treasure doing so, you do want to acquire platforms that will perform the capabilities required well and cost effectively. We will need to look at platforms that give us the best bangs for bucks and that has the range and endurance that we need.

The A4s were not used in any conflicts because of NZG unwillingness or inability to send them to Gulf War 1 - we actually sent the minimum that we could get away with. We didn't get an invite to the Falklands and they were constructively kept out of East Timor. Historically we have used air power outside of World War for national purposes with 14 Squadron operating Venoms in Cyprus and 75 Squadron operating Canberras on bombing missions in Malaya. Holyoake refused to send the Canberras to Vietnam or put the RNZN on the gun line. I think if it was a British war he would've been in like Flynn.

We were caught in 1937 - 39 with a very obsolete and run down Air Force and Army. Back then it took millions of pounds sterling and three years to bring them up to strength. However with the RNZAF modernisation it wasn't until 1942 that it had modern fighters in NZ and the Pacific albeit it P40s. Today it takes billions of dollars and many years to regenerate an Air Combat Force with pilot training measured in years rather than months. This is what we face.

This discussion needs to be had and bought out into the light of day from the closet. It needs to be outed and wrestled back from the pc brigade and those in the media who have ties with the left wing, anti defence brigade who control the discourse at the moment and give it a biased slant.

The biggest problem with reactivating ACF is not the aircraft but getting pilots up to scratch, we have not even got the combat aircraft trained instructors to start this, let alone the pilots with command experience on any level. minor correction,it was Vampires in Cyprus and Venoms followed by Canberra's in Malaya

 

[gf0012-aust]

The biggest problem with reactivating ACF is not the aircraft but getting pilots up to scratch, we have not even got the combat aircraft trained instructors to start this, let alone the pilots with command experience on any level. minor correction,it was Vampires in Cyprus and Venoms followed by Canberra's in Malaya

I'm kind of loathe to contribute to hypotheticals in case it continues to derail the thread - but it's not unachievable

USAF, RAAF and RAF have combat trainer schools, there's also a few Kiwis in the RAAF and I would imagine that a lazarused RNZAF would see some of them seeking transfers back.

NZDF have embeds in JOC, and some US and UK headsheds, so there are transferable and concurrent big shop skills.

 

[Rob c]

I'm kind of loathe to contribute to hypotheticals in case it continues to derail the thread - but it's not unachievable

USAF, RAAF and RAF have combat trainer schools, there's also a few Kiwis in the RAAF and I would imagine that a lazarused RNZAF would see some of them seeking transfers back.

NZDF have embeds in JOC, and some US and UK headsheds, so there are transferable and concurrent big shop skills.

True, but you still have to build up the pilots to become section leaders, then the section leaders to become flight leads and the same thing again for squadron leaders. The number of positions would also be constrained so local training units would have to be formed and instructors trained, to get the numbers. So what do you equip the training unit with? should those aircraft have a combat ability, where do you base all this. It would be unlikely that a fully trained combat squadron would be available much before 2030. That we should have this capacity will get more urgent as time goes on, with the rise of asian military strength, and the longer we delay means the longer it will take. In the end it will be the politics not the logic that will decide

 

[Todjaeger]

Gents

A fascinating discussion conversation over the last few days; I have learnt a few things and have much to think about.

I normally try to keep politics out of this forum, and apologise in advance for linking to a political blog. For the non-kiwis, the author of Kiwiblog works closely with the National Party, our current governing centre-right party.

2014 NZ Election Study on the issues | Kiwiblog

If you click the link, look carefully at the first table. It lists a number of policy areas, and looks at whether the public want NZ to spend more, less or the same on them. At the top of the 'spend more' list are health and education, while welfare (ironically) is on the 'spend less' list.

For defence, polled members of the public generally want to spend the same, with those in favour of spending more and less equally matched on 19%. Incidentally, the table doesn't quite add up here, presumably because of errors in rounding to whole numbers.

Of course, not one in a thousand of those polled would be able to say whether NZ defence spending as a percentage of GDP was 0.9%, 1.9% or 9.9%.

The reasons why politicians aren't enthusiastic about spending more on defence couldn't be more clearly demonstrated.

There is little doubt or wonder why the pollies are not interested in defence spending, that has been known for some time. Between statements by Gov't (various gov'ts actually) about NZ security, and the 'high quality' Kiwi defence reporting, the narrative most Kiwis are exposed to is that NZ is safe, all the bad people are far away, and cannot hurt you. All that is needed an NZ military is a few peacekeeping troops who can be sent far away to keep an eye on areas where people have had problems,etc.

The actual world reality is a bit different. In this interconnected, global economy, the situation in a far off location can have a very large impact on NZ. NZ interests expand out much further than just the NZ shoreline, 12 n mile home waters, or even the EEZ areas NZ is responsible for patrolling. That last bit about the EEZ which is itself already one of the largest in the world (4th? 7th?, I forget exactly) also needs to be kept in mind. NZ already has an enormous portion of the world to keep an eye on directly, never mind areas further afield which could impact NZ.

If NZ imports from, and exports to, Asia, the Mideast, Africa, and Europe were to suddenly become erratic and/or expensive due to the situation in the SCS exploding, that would have a very negative impact on normal life in NZ. The combined exports to Europe and China was ~NZD$20 bil. or nearly a third of total Kiwi exports. And yet, Kiwis seem oblivious to what could happen to their normal daily lives if trade should slow or stop through the SCS. Perhaps everyday Kiwis should be asked how they would feel about the price of petrol doubling, or the cost of their new cellphones, tablets and computers suddenly becoming more rare and/or expensive. Or everyone in NZ suffering a drop in their normal income because NZ exports are no longer able to get to market as readily or cheaply, so that importers switch to non-NZ suppliers.

Unfortunately, it does seem that until such a situation arises, or becomes imminent, apathy will reign over proper commitments to NZ security. Too many people too secure in their ignorance of what can happen, and what could impact them.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Kind of what i was trying to say earlier, but with a lot more detail. thanks. Considering the potential loss of export earnings by not doing so, an increase in our defence spending even to a modest Nato requirement of 2% GDP would pay dividends, also in political influence in the Pacific/ and with other overseas deployments. I believe we are 5th largest EEZ in the world.

 

[Todjaeger]

To further illustrate the potential situation for NZ, should a crisis impacting the shipping lanes through the SCS occur, I have gone through some of the NZ trade statistics through December, 2015.

~NZD$37 bil. or ~53% of all NZ exports transit SLOC through or at least skirting the edges of the SCS.

~NZD$41 bil. or ~62% of all NZ imports also transit SLOC through or skirt the edges of the SCS.

If (when?) things go to custard, if NZ lacks sufficient quantities of quality assets to participate in restoring safe passage through the SCS, then NZ might very well find itself without either a voice, or seat at the table when decisions impacting NZ trade get made.

When I speak of quality of assets, the impression I have gotten is that NZDF personnel are well trained, at least with the kit they have and use. With some of the capabilities which have been allowed to die off OTOH... the lack of exposure could cause problems, if the capabilities were provided to NZDF personnel.

 

[recce.k1]

If (when?) things go to custard, if NZ lacks sufficient quantities of quality assets to participate in restoring safe passage through the SCS, then NZ might very well find itself without either a voice, or seat at the table when decisions impacting NZ trade get made.

Tod - in your view, what/how many quantities (of quality assets) should a nation like NZ have, ideally, for these important roles (bearing in mind NZ's actual wealth to fund, operate and periodically upgrade such vessels, to be comparable/interoperable with its "AUSCANNZUKUS" counterparts)?

Most Kiwis here would say at least an additional (3rd) Frigate, to have one at sea/work up/dockside.

Or some may advocate 4 such vessels, as was the case in the latter Cold War years.

But wouldn't a figure of 6 such vessels (as it was earlier during the Cold War) be the "ideal", in terms of 2 vessels on station (perhaps surging to 4 easily if circumstances required that)?

That would be my "ideal" (plus a couple of other types of "quality" assets) but we're probably looking at GDP/expenditure for defence of around 3-3.5% to maintain/sustain such a naval force (and other related, desirable assets).

So what would be more realistic in your view?

When I speak of quality of assets, the impression I have gotten is that NZDF personnel are well trained, at least with the kit they have and use. With some of the capabilities which have been allowed to die off OTOH... the lack of exposure could cause problems, if the capabilities were provided to NZDF personnel.

I'm not so sure any "lack of exposure" is much of a major issue especially nowadays - it seems that with NZ back in the US fold so to speak, quite a bit of effort, unglamorous as it may seem (to the likes of the MSM anyway and thus public perception), and expenditure has been put towards regaining interoperability with NZ's ABCA partners including training etc. Any introduction/ reintroduction to new assets/capabilities for NZ would be done in under the guidance of its bigger and experienced allies etc.

 

[Todjaeger]

I'm not so sure any "lack of exposure" is much of a major issue especially nowadays - it seems that with NZ back in the US fold so to speak, quite a bit of effort, unglamorous as it may seem (to the likes of the MSM anyway and thus public perception), and expenditure has been put towards regaining interoperability with NZ's ABCA partners including training etc. Any introduction/ reintroduction to new assets/capabilities for NZ would be done in under the guidance of its bigger and experienced allies etc.

Prepping for work now, so I will address the first question this evening or tomorrow morning.

For the above, I am speaking more about some of the skills required for joint operations like FAC. The NZDF has it, but without aircraft able to provide CAS, even in a training environment, FAC skills are more difficult to practice and maintain. An example of this would be when RAAF aircraft deployed to NZ to participate in a Kiwi exercise, to enable the Kiwi forces to practice FAC and operating with CAS prior to a deployment (to Afghanistan IIRC).

Another example would air defence training. With the retirement of the Mistral MANPADS, the only air defence capabilities within the NZDF is aboard the ANZAC-class FFH's. If Army personnel were to find themselves operating in an environment where there was some sort of air threat (even something as simple as hostile recon drones), Army would have no way of responding. If a friendly/allied force were to provide such a capability by 'loaning' a few MANPADS or something similar, there is essentially no training stream for NZDF personnel to have exposure and practice utilizing them. I am sure that there are others where either capabilities have been lost, or are utilized infrequently so skills would accurately described as, 'rusty' but I think people get the picture.

 

[recce.k1]

Prepping for work now, so I will address the first question this evening or tomorrow morning.

For the above, I am speaking more about some of the skills required for joint operations like FAC. The NZDF has it, but without aircraft able to provide CAS, even in a training environment, FAC skills are more difficult to practice and maintain. An example of this would be when RAAF aircraft deployed to NZ to participate in a Kiwi exercise, to enable the Kiwi forces to practice FAC and operating with CAS prior to a deployment (to Afghanistan IIRC).

Another example would air defence training. With the retirement of the Mistral MANPADS, the only air defence capabilities within the NZDF is aboard the ANZAC-class FFH's. If Army personnel were to find themselves operating in an environment where there was some sort of air threat (even something as simple as hostile recon drones), Army would have no way of responding. If a friendly/allied force were to provide such a capability by 'loaning' a few MANPADS or something similar, there is essentially no training stream for NZDF personnel to have exposure and practice utilizing them. I am sure that there are others where either capabilities have been lost, or are utilized infrequently so skills would accurately described as, 'rusty' but I think people get the picture.

Thanks Tod, I better get where you were coming from now. Yes I do agree with your viewpoints, however the NZDF's stated view appears to be they can acquire "much better" FAC/JTAC training via their overseas counterparts (than via should NZ have the means to do so itself, which would be limited in scope anyway). I guess though it all comes down to funding (or lack of).

Perhaps CD could comment (or correct) any of this etc.

The Army itself states they won't be deployed to a contested area without being part of a broader Coalition, which would have the necessary air defence systems in place. That may be true ... and after all the only area the NZ Army could self-deploy to (invited that is) would be the South Pacific (where there is no air threat at all).

But personally I don't think that's good enough for the NZDF, which should be providing the likes of Manpads or an air defence system to the RNZAF instead who could deploy them for self-protection when rotary or air transport assets are operating from/to a forward base. Of course this all requires new funding ..... so the chances are ....

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Wouldnt the Nz Army Javelin missile launchers be capable of knocking out a drone or low flying aircraft?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Wouldnt the Nz Army Javelin missile launchers be capable of knocking out a drone or low flying aircraft?

on a "hail mary" shot if you're lucky. RPG's have knocked over helicopters etc but the circumstances need to be right - eg they were committed on a landing etc or energy mgt meant that they were vulnerable.

but wrong seeker and wrong dynamics

its also an expensive shot if you miss.

 

[t68]

Another example would air defence training. *With the retirement of the Mistral MANPADS, the only air defence capabilities within the NZDF is aboard the ANZAC-class FFH's. *If Army personnel were to find themselves operating in an environment where there was some sort of air threat (even something as simple as hostile recon drones), Army would have no way of responding. *If a friendly/allied force were to provide such a capability by 'loaning' a few MANPADS or something similar, there is essentially no training stream for NZDF personnel to have exposure and practice utilizing them. *I am sure that there are others where either capabilities have been lost, or are utilized infrequently so skills would accurately described as, 'rusty' but I think people get the picture.

It's for these reason's I think that an AT-6 Wolverine or a Super Tucano would suit NZ needs, as it could do about 60-70% of the require tasking so that they can embed qualified personnel on exercise or conduct limited self support operations reasonably quickly without calling in support from coalition partners, for a reasonable outlay of approx 12m USD per copy makes it a bit cheaper for the bean counters than compared to a SAAB Gripen for about 70m USD. You can buy a lot of support infrastructure for the price of one of the above fast jets. A small stepping stone to getting your feet wet in the future.

An old article comparing the two aircraft and some of the pro's and con's
Light Attack Aircraft: The Super Tucano, the AT-6 and the Blue Kool-Aid | Defense Media Network

 

[Todjaeger]

on a "hail mary" shot if you're lucky. RPG's have knocked over helicopters etc but the circumstances need to be right - eg they were committed on a landing etc or energy mgt meant that they were vulnerable.

but wrong seeker and wrong dynamics

its also an expensive shot if you miss.

Speaking of "hail mary" shots, IIRC at one point the Israelis were claiming the ability to shoot down a helicopter using the main gun from a Merkava. AFAIK they managed to actually do that once, to unfortunate demise of the Israeli pilot (which was Hughes MD-500 I believe...)

Lots of things can, under the correct circumstances shot down hostile aircraft, otherwise trashfire would not occur. The ability to do so reliably is another story. The notion of NZDF personnel deployed some where, and potentially being forced to rely upon trashfire for air defence does not sit all that well.

The more in-depth response should be coming in an hour or two.

 

[MrConservative]

It's for these reason's I think that an AT-6 Wolverine or a Super Tucano would suit NZ needs, as it could do about 60-70% of the require tasking so that they can embed qualified personnel on exercise or conduct limited self support operations reasonably quickly without calling in support from coalition partners, for a reasonable outlay of approx 12m USD per copy makes it a bit cheaper for the bean counters than compared to a SAAB Gripen for about 70m USD. You can buy a lot of support infrastructure for the price of one of the above fast jets. A small stepping stone to getting your feet wet in the future.

An old article comparing the two aircraft and some of the pro's and con's
Light Attack Aircraft: The Super Tucano, the AT-6 and the Blue Kool-Aid | Defense Media Network

From Peter Greeners book Timing is Everything: Chapter 5. ‘The Deal of the Century’—The F-16s (2009)

The Report (the Whineray Report)* went into some detail to determine what type of air combat capability was required, and explored a broad range of capability options to assess how each might fulfil New Zealand’s requirements. The study was unequivocal in its findings that the range of operational roles able to be carried out by an air combat capability should remain Close Air Support, Air Interdiction and Maritime Strike. These three roles were said to stand out in terms of their high military and policy utility for a New Zealand air combat capability.

The study explored the capabilities of the current A-4K Skyhawk, F-16 C/D, F-16 A/B, Light attack Aircraft, and a combination of Attack Helicopter and P-3K Orion. These five options were subject to detailed analysis, and Sir Wilson Whineray commented:

This very clearly showed that the type of capability New Zealand requires is of a modern multi-role fighter aircraft; the F-16 C/D was used to represent such a capability in the study. This was by far the best option. None of the other options performed nearly as well.

*Sir Wilson Whineray, Final Report of the Air Combat Capability Policy Study

In my view the required essential roles have not changed. This was a capability required in 1997 when the study was carried out. That very brief incredibly benign period. Very much not the case today and will be compounded in the years ahead.

 

[Todjaeger]

Tod - in your view, what/how many quantities (of quality assets) should a nation like NZ have, ideally, for these important roles (bearing in mind NZ's actual wealth to fund, operate and periodically upgrade such vessels, to be comparable/interoperable with its "AUSCANNZUKUS" counterparts)?

Most Kiwis here would say at least an additional (3rd) Frigate, to have one at sea/work up/dockside.

Or some may advocate 4 such vessels, as was the case in the latter Cold War years.

But wouldn't a figure of 6 such vessels (as it was earlier during the Cold War) be the "ideal", in terms of 2 vessels on station (perhaps surging to 4 easily if circumstances required that)?

That would be my "ideal" (plus a couple of other types of "quality" assets) but we're probably looking at GDP/expenditure for defence of around 3-3.5% to maintain/sustain such a naval force (and other related, desirable assets).

So what would be more realistic in your view?

A few things to keep in mind with my response. I likely see the world differently than others do. I do not see things in black and white, since the world is really black and varying shades of gray. With that in mind, I tend to expect things to go wrong, and plan accordingly.

With that in mind, what I see as appropriate will include some policy changes which I think would improve the situation for the NZDF, even though the chances of the policy changes going through might not be all that realistic.

I will also endeavour to explain why certain capabilities and/or specific bits of kit I think are needed.

On the policy side, I would have the Vote Defence changed around, because the way it has most recently been reported, while it shows numbers, it does not give a very transparent idea of what the funding is going towards.

From the most recent Vote Defence I could find numbers for, the 2014 Main Estimates, the total for Vote Defence was NZD$3.087 bil. or ~1.2% GDP. Digging through the document, I could not find out what the amount was for the Capital Charge. Based off past Vote Defence budgets which I have gone through, it (the Capital Charge) work out to ~40% of the total for Vote Defence. Operating under the assumption that the Capital Charge has not gone away, but is now just being factored into the figures without being specifically named, that would mean only ~NZD$1.85 bil. was being spent on Vote Defence, or ~0.75% of GDP. One of the things I would very much want to do, was eliminate the Capital Charge, so that it became much easier and accurate for people in NZ to see how much (or really, little...) was being spent on defence, both in terms of a dollar figure, but also as a percentage of GDP. For a point in comparison, the 2015 Australian defence budget of ~AUD$31.9 bil. is ~1.9% GDP, which begs the question of "why of is there such a large difference in the GDP% allocated between NZ, and it's closest ally, major nation, and largest trading partner?"

There are other policy changes which I would like to see, again to make the defence allocation more transparent. Among them would be to take out activities which do not actually involve current defence force assets, personnel, and/or their dependents. To further illustrate what I am referring to, the NZD$3.087 bil. in Vote Defence includes over NZD$146 mil. overseen by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. That means 4.7% of the Vote Defence budget (including Capital Charge, most likely) is not involved in covering the current cost of equipment, maintenance, operations, or pay for personnel. Remove the Capital Charge, since that is not actually funding received or spent by Defence, and the budget percentage belonging to Veterans Affairs rises to just under 8% (7.88%). Please keep in mind I am not advocating for the funding Veterans Affairs receives to be cut, I just do not think it belongs under the heading of Vote Defence. On a related side note, there is less than a NZD$1 mil. difference between the amount allocated to Support Youth Development, and Operationally Deployed Forces supporting UN and other international agencies. While NZD$12.27 mil. is not a significant amount how much benefit the NZDF really gets from it, either directly or indirectly. I can see how the NZDF could benefit from supporting the Cadet Forces, but that is it's own entry, to the tune of NZD$3.8 mil.

Also with respect to policy, I have to question some of these whole of/joint gov't agencies programmes which the NZDF is involved with. At times it seems that the NZDF is providing services for other departments, allowing these other departments to provide services or meet tasking they otherwise could not with their respective resources, yet the service or activity is being paid from the NZDF budget. I have no problem with the notion of 'whole of government' initiatives, with different departments and agencies working together to provide an impact which is greater than the sum of the parts. I do take issue with the NZDF either neglecting, or being unable to perform Defence taskings, because it is doing the work of other departments. Examples of this would be the RNZN IPV's and before them, the IPC's, and how MFisheries and Customs wanted the capability for their respective responsibilities, but they are "NZDF" assets. Or when an ANZAC-class FFH was tasked with delivering a load of firewood to Chatham Island (I think it was Chatham), rather than whatever agency was responsible for shipping the firewood either chartering a cargo vessel, or hiring a shipper to arrange delivery. From what I remember of the story, the shipping cost using the frigate was significantly higher than it would have been, had commercial transportation been utilized.

My interest in these changes in policy is so that the actual cost of Defence is made transparent. This could permit a more honest discussion on how well Defence is resourced, as well as what is expected of and appropriate for Defence.

The other policy which I have not yet mentioned, would be for the Vote Defence budget in real terms, to be increased. While I do feel that 2% GDP is quite affordable for NZ to achieve, I doubt that would happen short of a major and glaring change in the regional strategic outlook. Having said that, 1.5% GDP, or even the current 1.2% GDP, both in real terms so not including the Capital Charge, would allow for some significant capability increases (or returns, in many cases).

End of Part I

 

[t68]

From Peter Greeners book Timing is Everything: Chapter 5. ‘The Deal of the Century’—The F-16s (2009)

The Report (the Whineray Report)* went into some detail to determine what type of air combat capability was required, and explored a broad range of capability options to assess how each might fulfil New Zealand’s requirements. The study was unequivocal in its findings that the range of operational roles able to be carried out by an air combat capability should remain Close Air Support, Air Interdiction and Maritime Strike. These three roles were said to stand out in terms of their high military and policy utility for a New Zealand air combat capability.

The study explored the capabilities of the current A-4K Skyhawk, F-16 C/D, F-16 A/B, Light attack Aircraft, and a combination of Attack Helicopter and P-3K Orion. These five options were subject to detailed analysis, and Sir Wilson Whineray commented:

This very clearly showed that the type of capability New Zealand requires is of a modern multi-role fighter aircraft; the F-16 C/D was used to represent such a capability in the study. This was by far the best option. None of the other options performed nearly as well.

*Sir Wilson Whineray, Final Report of the Air Combat Capability Policy Study

In my view the required essential roles have not changed. This was a capability required in 1997 when the study was carried out. That very brief incredibly benign period. Very much not the case today and will be compounded in the years ahead.

yep I agree 100% with what you are saying about the strategic necessity of the capability and 100% in favor of reinstating it, but reestablishing it will have a profound effects that will shape the CONOPS of the entire NZDF and would require a major shift in thinking from the government.

Its just from a political pov reestablishing a fast jet capability will be counter to the company line on why they dropped the capability in the first place. It would be akin to the AusGov proposing on re-establishing a Asw/Strike carrier capability, I doubt very much even with Chinese actions in the SCS and a resurgent Russia it would hard pressed for any government to propose such a thing.

Whilst the DWP hasn't ben released yet the NZ defence assessment of 2014 gives an indication on where defence may increase capability in the future. It appears that government will only consider things as part of a UN mandate with a “coalitions of the willing” but it may increase its capability higher threat environments.

I do question the assessment of a "direct threat" which conjures waves of troops coming ashore over the beach, but containment or using JFK in the Cuban Missile Crises a "blockade" has serious overtones as well. History will be the judge if they cab "re-orientate within the timeframe needed.

New Zealand does not presently face a direct threat of physical invasion and occupation of New Zealand territory. The likelihood of such a threat to the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau and territory over which we have a sovereign claim, emerging before 2040 is judged to be very low, and would be preceded by significant change to the international security environment. New Zealand could therefore expect to have a reasonable amount of time to re-orientate its defence priorities should this be necessary.

Looking at Conflict Trends section 11i have bolded the relevant paragraph which has implications for the Air Transport review, but also could pave the way forward for a harder hitting RNZAF within a JATF concept, with the caveat that RNZN increases its amphibious shipping and escort capability.

11. Undertaking more robust, multidimensional mandates in higher threat environments is driving a shift towards incorporating the kind of advanced military capabilities and equipment normally fielded in traditional combat operations, such as armoured vehicles, remotely piloted systems and helicopter gunships. There is also an on-going shortage of military “enablers” in many missions, such as[ aerial intelligence, planning, reconnaissance and surveillance, and air transport capabilities. The United Nations is conducting a “once in 15 year” review of all aspects of United Nations peace support over 2015. Any recommendations that flow from the United Nations’ report will be carefully assessed for their implications for New Zealand’s national interests and the Defence Force’s ability to conduct its roles and tasks.

It also appears once legalities of the use of UAV is which may reduce risk of casualties for both pilot and civilians, it may be viewed as a more acceptable option over fast jets in the future. I think come the mid 2020's there may be scope for a joint investigation into these capability as the RAAF may or may not go down this route to replace the Super Hornets in the 2030's. AT-6 Wolverine or Super Tucano should/could be seen as an interim capability until a future study into armed UAV into the future

 

[MrConservative]

NZ has a history of making major defence policy decisions over the last 30 years that appear to be driven by ideology, and come at the expense of major allies. With that in mind, absent ironclad agreements which would prevent an NZ policy change especially following a change in gov't or leadership, ending RNZAF involvement with RAAF SHornets, I just do not see things changing.

You have got right to the point Todj.

This is probably where the largest cost of all is measured when we look at the fallout of what happened 15 years ago with the cancelling of the Anzacs after two and then the axing of the ACF.

Trust. Of lack of it. The fear of the next bunch of hippies who may get near the levers of power in Wellington will kill anything off.

That is the biggest barrier of all reading through the comments of the last 5 days. Systems can be managed, protocols can be written, FMS paperwork can be pathwayed, jointness can be done at a number of levels, money exchanged, deals done, anything in the art of politics and business is possible except when there is doubt. When there is distrust about commitment then it simply wont work.

 

[Cadredave]

Wouldn't the Nz Army Javelin missile launchers be capable of knocking out a drone or low flying aircraft?

No they are not designed to engage aircraft very different sighting system from the Mistral if you were forced to use it in such a role then you might as well buy a lotto ticket in which the odds would be better than hitting a rotary wing or drone with Jav.