Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Todjaeger]

This might sound a bit surprising to some, but if the minor party does gain enough political influence to cause the ACF to be reconstituted, unless a number of conditions are met beforehand, then I hope they do not keep that particular policy plank.

While I would like the RNZAF to have an ACF, and the current lack of one is causing all sorts of capability gaps which, for now, have not YET caused a major problem... I do feel that one has to be pragmatic about it.

IIRC from discussions here on DT about a decade ago, the annual operating cost for an ACF of about 24 aircraft was ~$200 mil. p.a. While I do not know what NZ's average rate of inflation is, I would not be at all surprised if the annual operating costs would be somewhere around, if not past, $300 mil. p.a. Again, that is operating costs, not initial costs to (re)establish an ACF like purchasing aircraft, modifying or upgrading existing facilities, or establishing a cadre of personnel trained to flying, maintain, or otherwise support the aircraft, who could then be used establish a training programme so that there is a stream of new personnel for the ACF establishment.

I cannot honestly guestimate the cost to make the needed acquisitions, because there are so many variables, like which platform is selected, how many, what support package, what munitions package, etc. Unless extremely small numbers (like low single digits) are involved, any selection is likely to run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, just to initially setup the capability, never mind sustain it. It is also worth noting that for the first few years, the ACF programme would need to focus on just training before it could be reasonably expected to be capable and ready for deployment or operations. Again, IIRC the old estimates were ~5 years before the ACF would reach the competence the old ACF had, or $1 bil. over that time period.

Given the wide range of other areas and capabilities within the NZDF as a whole that either are coming up for upgrade and/or replacement, plus the other capabilities which have been allowed to wither, I think there are better ways to spend such funding. Especially if the ACF is not established in such a way that it could not, again, be disbanded following another change in gov't.

If I had a choice between the RNZAF getting 4 P-8A Poseidons, plus 10 each of KAI's T-50 and FA-50 Golden Eagles, or the RNZAF getting a total of 6 or 7 P-8A Poseidon's, I would go with getting more P-8A's. IMO it would be a far wiser decision to properly fund current capabilities, so that they can be done fully/correctly, rather than trying to 'stretch' the defence budget by doing things on the cheap and ending up with a capability which is half-donkeyed by have too few to be effective, or lacking important subsystems, etc.

Unfortunately the NZDF is full of such issues, like too few frigates, too few NH90's, too few A109's, etc. I am not aware of an occasion where such decisions caused a capability shortfall which can be directly tied to a Kiwi fatality, but it is bound to happen at some point, if it has not happened already.

Now if the minor party is able to arrange additional funding for the NZDF, sufficient to permit proper support for existing capabilities and their upgrades, as well as to establish and then sustain an ACF, I would be all for it. Unfortunately though, I strongly suspect it would a case of either Peter or Paul getting robbed to pay Mary, and then who knows what happens after then next change of gov't.

 

[recce.k1]

If I had a choice between the RNZAF getting 4 P-8A Poseidons, plus 10 each of KAI's T-50 and FA-50 Golden Eagles, or the RNZAF getting a total of 6 or 7 P-8A Poseidon's, I would go with getting more P-8A's. IMO it would be a far wiser decision to properly fund current capabilities, so that they can be done fully/correctly, rather than trying to 'stretch' the defence budget by doing things on the cheap and ending up with a capability which is half-donkeyed by have too few to be effective, or lacking important subsystems, etc.

Tod, on the whole I generally agree with your post but I've quoted the above because I feel it is the most pertinent. Properly funding current capabilities is the key.

IMO the even during the Cold War when NZ was expending 2% GDP on defence (with 4 Frigates & ACF) it could be argued capabilities weren't properly funded, nor were truly sustainable (eg ACF without ECM, lacking capable radar and smart weapons until the upgrades towards the end of the Cold War, lack of AAR capability etc).

So to "today" and next month's election, if hypothetically the Govt and support party(s) decided to increase expenditure back up to 2% GDP over time (I'm sure I've heard someone else in the NZ First party suggest this ages ago, but I might be wrong), back of the envelope calculations to "properly fund current capabilities" would "only" suggest potentially a 3-4 Frigate fleet, 2-3 more OPV's, funding for a replacement "proper" LHD or similar type around 2030, those few additional LUH/MUH rotary numbers, optimal FAMC numbers and platform mix, agree with additional 3-4 P-8A types, give Army/SF more broader, lethal, expeditionary and support capabilities and personnel for these, new SAM capabilities for both Air Force and Army (how on earth can we not have any), increased inter-operable ISR and cyber warfare capabilities etc.

What I'm getting at is, like you, not included is the ACF, because I feel unless it is a small "training" capability, I suggest even 2% GDP wouldn't be enough to sustain a fully-functional combat capability (eg on peer with the ADF), unless "current capabilities were not properly funded" i.e. NZDF is compromised everywhere else to achieve this. We shouldn't go back there!

But without sounding wishy-washy, if we could squeeze in say a dozen FA-50 (or second hand F-16 types) for "combat training" (i.e. non-deployment operational purposes - simply to contain costs) into the mix post election (even without a hypothetical 2% GDP increase) that would be the start of something better for down the track, as it will provide the means to start to build-up the necessary skill-sets.

I still think, if the Singaporean basing goes ahead, that would provide the ideal opportunity and justification. If NZ were smart it could contract back services like dissimilar air-to air combat to give the F-15SG's something to contend with whilst undertaking its strike training (i.e. NZ is paid to do so - a bean counters dream - and a bit like the Norwa basing agreement in which the AuGovt paid the NZG for naval strike training for the RAN). (Hey, someone suggest this to the NZ First Party, because if it is "their" initiative then they can "force" the government's hand to make it happen ).

Looking down the track I feel a fully capable ACF on peer with the ADF may have to fall under a MAP arrangement with the US .... NZ isn't "rich" enough to afford a couple of squadrons and OCU for 5th gen aircraft. For NZ to so independently of a MAP I feel would be a 2.5% GDP exercise and short of all out war not many countries spend that much themselves (eg bar the US).

Or, as Rob C says as "defending yourself" is the no1 priority, perhaps NZ at 1.4-1.5% GDP expenditure affords its own squadron of 4th gen ex-US reconditioned F-16/F-18 types equipped primarily for NZ/South Pacific maritime strike "defence", in coordination with the P-8's and FAMC types equipped for AAR support?

 

[Novascotiaboy]

MrC and RobC

In response to yours.

NZ has no direct threat requiring an ACF for interdiction or interception as hostile military aircraft do not have the range to get there without support from an aircraft carrier. China, India, France, the U.K., Russia and the US are the only nations with such capability. The logistics required to deploy an aircraft carrier are immense and not all these nations have that supply chain.

So with no direct threat that leaves expiditionary exploits for an ACF and I don't see NZ looking to conquer any states close to the realm yesterday or today.

For these reasons I reinterate that the decision at the time was correct to suspend the ACF.

The Wolverine aircraft have the ability to support the low threat environment of the South Pacific with eyes and a weapons delivery capability. These same abilities offer an option during training of ground forces. No I do not see NZ involved in COIN operations but the AT6 offers an air policing capability that is far more efficient in non contested air space. A look at the last quarter century has NZDF personnel operating in PNG, the Solomans and Bougainville. Each of these ventures could have benefited from the ISR capabilities of such a low cost platform.

I agree whole heartedly in more replacements for both FAMC and FASC but not getting more at the expense of acquiring an ACF and all it's supporting tail.

If in a perfect world we could have everything I would truly like to see RNZAF equipped with some form of fast jet but it's not a perfect world and the money that would be spent acquiring and supporting them can and should be used where it will be able to make the most impact.

 

[Rob c]

MrC and RobC

In response to yours.

NZ has no direct threat requiring an ACF for interdiction or interception as hostile military aircraft do not have the range to get there without support from an aircraft carrier. China, India, France, the U.K., Russia and the US are the only nations with such capability. The logistics required to deploy an aircraft carrier are immense and not all these nations have that supply chain.

So with no direct threat that leaves expiditionary exploits for an ACF and I don't see NZ looking to conquer any states close to the realm yesterday or today.

For these reasons I reinterate that the decision at the time was correct to suspend the ACF.

The Wolverine aircraft have the ability to support the low threat environment of the South Pacific with eyes and a weapons delivery capability. These same abilities offer an option during training of ground forces. No I do not see NZ involved in COIN operations but the AT6 offers an air policing capability that is far more efficient in non contested air space. A look at the last quarter century has NZDF personnel operating in PNG, the Solomans and Bougainville. Each of these ventures could have benefited from the ISR capabilities of such a low cost platform.

I agree whole heartedly in more replacements for both FAMC and FASC but not getting more at the expense of acquiring an ACF and all it's supporting tail.

If in a perfect world we could have everything I would truly like to see RNZAF equipped with some form of fast jet but it's not a perfect world and the money that would be spent acquiring and supporting them can and should be used where it will be able to make the most impact.

The no direct threat by combat aircraft except for aircraft carriers is the very reason why a ACF is the best option for the defence of NZ, as it presents a huge problem for possible aggressors, a bigger problem than anything else we could afford. As I have said before, we don't know what the future will bring as we cannot see into the future. Maybe ISIS or some other rogue organization may think that we are an easy target and use airliners to fly here. The point is that with an ACF we have a very good deterrent that can quickly move to were it is needed, and as JFK once said the best defence dollars you will ever spend are the ones you never have to use.(for combat that is) The idea is not to have to fight to defend your freedom, but make it too difficult for anyone to try you on, so you are left in peace. when you structure your defence force it should be to cover what will hurt you the most, not what is the most common duties that they will carry out, especially those duties which don't involve a threat to your security. this does not mean that these other duties such as peacekeeping, resources protection, humanitarian aid in a disaster, etc are not important, they are. But the number one priority is always your own security.
As has been stated by others, we do not need 5th generation ACF, something a little simpler would do.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Rob

Let's assume an airliner is overtaken by rogue elements and it maintains its flight plan to ditch into the Auckland CBD how would any type of ACF counter this?

If the fools told you they were coming are you planning on maintaining a QR aircraft at all times? If not how long to get an aircraft prepped and armed to respond? If NZ was bordered by aggressive neighbours like Eastern Europe or the Middle East or parts of Asia I can see it. As has been said the lack of AAR and EW aircraft make the ACF only part of the equation.

If it is a ship that has been taken over and it is loaded with an armed force intent on creating a beach head I think starvation and lack of resources will stop that after a week or two and in that time they would get a damn bloody nose from NZ Army and SAS.

During WW2 the Japanese were only a threat because of air craft carriers and submarines directly to NZ.

Now is not the time to fight the last war or wars. Preparations need to be made to support likely operations the NZDF will be engaged in independently and via a coalition.

 

[MrConservative]

MrC and RobC

In response to yours.

NZ has no direct threat requiring an ACF for interdiction or interception as hostile military aircraft do not have the range to get there without support from an aircraft carrier. China, India, France, the U.K., Russia and the US are the only nations with such capability. The logistics required to deploy an aircraft carrier are immense and not all these nations have that supply chain.

So with no direct threat that leaves expiditionary exploits for an ACF and I don't see NZ looking to conquer any states close to the realm yesterday or today.

For these reasons I reinterate that the decision at the time was correct to suspend the ACF.

Thanks for making your position clear.

The abolition of the ACF in 2001 and cancellation of the F-16’s had negative consequences for RNZAF recruitment and retention across all trades - arguably felt to this day. Morale dropped markedly as did public support. It also affected both Land Force and Naval Combat training outputs to the point that they were judged as at being at risk of being combat ready for Chp VII level operations (Land) and in the case of the Navy where assessed by a RN examiner at one stage to not be able to provide adequate self protection. But the real cost was loss to New Zealand of considerable political capital in both Canberra and Washington - that affected trade and diplomacy. It had a direct effect on New Zealand’s inability to attain an FTA with the United States in 2003. In 1999 post ASEAN in Auckland that FTA was all go – but in March 2000 the phone went off the hook to Washington trade wise.

I made this point before a couple pages back about the old ACF not having its primary task as intercepting foreign aircraft intruding into NZ airspace. Its primary role was anti-ship, battlefield interdiction and close air support as expeditionary elements in support of regional coalitions. I also made the point that looking ahead EW capabilities, interdiction and anti-ship were the primary future roles that any future air combat capability would need to address. That was the direction that the F-16's would have moved towards over time. You may have missed reading that point.

If we had retained the F-16's I believed we would have eventually deployed them to A/Stan as part of ISAF. We would have had them requested and to stop thrashing the NZSAS as our only tier 1 contribution at that time we would have happily done so.

The Wolverine aircraft have the ability to support the low threat environment of the South Pacific with eyes and a weapons delivery capability. These same abilities offer an option during training of ground forces. No I do not see NZ involved in COIN operations but the AT6 offers an air policing capability that is far more efficient in non contested air space. A look at the last quarter century has NZDF personnel operating in PNG, the Solomans and Bougainville. Each of these ventures could have benefited from the ISR capabilities of such a low cost platform.

I gather from this you are not really up to speed on what the Melanesian support and stabilisation missions were about. If we wanted JTAC training and accreditation all we would need to do is modify the current T-6C to Plus standard. Low level ISR wise small tactical UAV's are an even cheaper platform. With OPV, CY, LWSV and Frigate based small UAV's coming along and the DTA working with industry on what replaces Kahu that dimension is covered.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

MrC

There is no debating the damages caused to recruitment and retention because the sharp end was deleted. I have witnessed that in other services as quality and quantity were reduced as a result of financial restrictions and political decisions. The loss of face because the pointy end was gone is a conversation that I'm not so certain of. The deployment of a token ACF contribution to Afghanistan would only have taken more treasury funds. The decision to be anti nuclear I think did more damage to NZ relations than the scrapping of the ACF.

NZ can make a very valuable tier 1 contribution to coalition operations via an increased frigate force IMHO. The increased numbers of frigates directly serves the protection of NZ if properly equipped with long range SSM and sensors supported by naval helicopters.

From my chair here in Canada I could make the same claim regarding our own ACF since we maintain but a token force at a very high cost. Canada has no external direct threat and we are not an imperialist nation. Our ability to contribute more than a six pack of fighters out of a fleet of 80 has been all we could muster. With only a small force what kind of numbers could NZ have contributed to ISAF operations without affecting NZ protection.

As always just my opinion.

 

[Todjaeger]

MrC

There is no debating the damages caused to recruitment and retention because the sharp end was deleted. I have witnessed that in other services as quality and quantity were reduced as a result of financial restrictions and political decisions. The loss of face because the pointy end was gone is a conversation that I'm not so certain of. The deployment of a token ACF contribution to Afghanistan would only have taken more treasury funds. The decision to be anti nuclear I think did more damage to NZ relations than the scrapping of the ACF.

NZ can make a very valuable tier 1 contribution to coalition operations via an increased frigate force IMHO. The increased numbers of frigates directly serves the protection of NZ if properly equipped with long range SSM and sensors supported by naval helicopters.

From my chair here in Canada I could make the same claim regarding our own ACF since we maintain but a token force at a very high cost. Canada has no external direct threat and we are not an imperialist nation. Our ability to contribute more than a six pack of fighters out of a fleet of 80 has been all we could muster. With only a small force what kind of numbers could NZ have contributed to ISAF operations without affecting NZ protection.

As always just my opinion.

From my POV it was not a loss of 'face' as you put it, but rather a change in the perception of NZ by NZ's major ally (Oz) and a friendly superpower (the US).

Consider for a moment, the impact deleting the RNZAF ACF had on the NZDF's ability to conduct training and/or deployments. Without the exposure to work with, or against CAS and maritime strike, elements of the RNZN, RNZAF, and NZ Army became less capable of fully operating in a combined arms battlespace. From the prospective of international defence relationships, partner-nations that would expect to operate alongside Kiwi forces in potential combat situations recognized a need for additional pre-deployment workups so that deficiencies Kiwi forces had in interacting with combat aircraft could be rectified. Also from a training perspective, the ADF ended up having to reallocate some of it's forces to cover a training gap created when the ADF could no longer utilize an RNZAF A-4 Skyhawk detachment. Lastly, on multi-national training exercises not only could NZ no longer contribute combat aircraft to the mix, it also essentially forced other nations to contribute combat aircraft to the exercises.

I can easily imagine NZ finding itself in a situation not unlike Taiwan did during the start of the Korean conflict, where Taiwan offered to contribute troops to defend South Korea. The offer was declined because any troops provided would have required both training and to be properly kitted out before they would have been a useful contribution.

Left unchecked, Kiwi forces will having diminishing capabilities to operate in modern battlespaces, and thus will have diminished relevance in coalition operations. With the coalition relevance being diminished, there will be a corresponding reduction in NZ participation and influence within a coalition environment. It can be rather hard to get a seat at the conference table, especially one which can influence decisions and outcomes, if a nation's participation amounts to a token deployment. If that same nation becomes essentially unable to even provide a token contribution, then it might find itself not just without a seat at the table, but also being excluded from the room.

For those who question whether or not NZ being left without a voice that is listened to on the international stage could have a major impact on NZ... Keep in mind that the NZ has claims in Antarctica, and should there be further treaties covering that area, of should the existing treaties be terminated or expire, NZ getting excluded from any process would almost certainly be a negative in terms of Kiwi interests.

All of the above is just the potential impacts that NZ either can, or has felt since the dissolution of the ACF, without the NZDF having needed an ACF for a direct combat situation. Had there been actual hostile vessels and/or aircraft threatening the SLOC to NZ or Kiwi airspace, then NZ would have found itself up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

 

[Gracie1234]

Great post Todjaeger, i could not agree more. With the current international climate, reduced stability and the Antartic Treaty due to expire in 20 years, now is the time when NZ needs to lift it capabilities to ensure it has a seat at the table and can influence events that impact us. We need to be aware that the NZ Govt will post a budget surplus of 30 Billion over the next 6 years including accounting for future spending such as the 20 Billion for defense recapitalization. We have the resources available it is a matter of deciding that this is important.
My thoughts on a ACF are a bit mixed, is it better to look to the future and acquire more P8 and future drones. The P8 would act as a central node to support the drones. The drones acting as additional sensor nodes and weapon platforms. This is likely to be 20 years away but considering the timeframes to build capability i feel it is something to take into consideration.

 

[Rob c]

MrC and RobC

In response to yours.

NZ has no direct threat requiring an ACF for interdiction or interception as hostile military aircraft do not have the range to get there without support from an aircraft carrier. China, India, France, the U.K., Russia and the US are the only nations with such capability. The logistics required to deploy an aircraft carrier are immense and not all these nations have that supply chain.

So with no direct threat that leaves expiditionary exploits for an ACF and I don't see NZ looking to conquer any states close to the realm yesterday or today.

For these reasons I reinterate that the decision at the time was correct to suspend the ACF.

The Wolverine aircraft have the ability to support the low threat environment of the South Pacific with eyes and a weapons delivery capability. These same abilities offer an option during training of ground forces. No I do not see NZ involved in COIN operations but the AT6 offers an air policing capability that is far more efficient in non contested air space. A look at the last quarter century has NZDF personnel operating in PNG, the Solomans and Bougainville. Each of these ventures could have benefited from the ISR capabilities of such a low cost platform.

I agree whole heartedly in more replacements for both FAMC and FASC but not getting more at the expense of acquiring an ACF and all it's supporting tail.

If in a perfect world we could have everything I would truly like to see RNZAF equipped with some form of fast jet but it's not a perfect world and the money that would be spent acquiring and supporting them can and should be used where it will be able to make the most impact.

You are missing the point that the primary responsibility of any defence force is to protect the sovereignty of that country. There are other important tasks that they carry out when not doing this, but the first priority is security of the mother country. The easiest way to protect the air and sea approaches to to NZ is by detection by a MPA with AEW and elimination by an ACF. This gives the required area coverage needed. As you pointed out Russia and China have aircraft carriers and from my point of view have not always acted in the most peaceful of ways. The airliner concept was more about a rogue organisation using them multiple times to land troops at say Auckland.
The primary defence of NZ is the first point of call , the items you mention are secondary to this.
The telling point is that as I have said no country in modern history (150 to 200 years) has ever seen a threat in time to rearm to meet that threat. I also noted some years ago that a defence discussion at London university was of the opinion that as time went on wars would be more about living resources, fresh water arable land and living space, items which we have a surplus.
Any threat to NZ will arise far quicker than we can restore the ACF and yet with its wide coverage of both our sea and air approaches it is the easiest way of covering our basic defence needs.
The other point of an ACF is that when committed to operations, whether for defence or supporting the UN or friends is that it puts the lowest number of our servicemens lives at risk.
A lot of what you have talked about regarding equipment is very true but it is the icing on the defence cake not the basic, "ensure NZ's core security and sovereignty cake."

 

[MickB]

Someone brought this up a couple of days ago, I think it's an element missing in the Kiwi line up and I quite like your idea. But from memory they wanted something that can do more.

Also I think it was NG that brought up the Scorpion some time ago and came across this update for USAF Light Attack Experiment

Not that I'm advocating any of them just where showing whee the US is up to.

One of These Planes Will Be the Air Force's New Light Attack Aircraft

If I may allow myself a quick fanboy moment, what about the Rutan ARES?

 

[MrConservative]

Great post Todjaeger, I could not agree more. With the current international climate, reduced stability and the Antartic Treaty due to expire in 20 years, now is the time when NZ needs to lift it capabilities to ensure it has a seat at the table and can influence events that impact us. We need to be aware that the NZ Govt will post a budget surplus of 30 Billion over the next 6 years including accounting for future spending such as the 20 Billion for defense recapitalization. We have the resources available it is a matter of deciding that this is important.

We have do have the financial resources.

The current government has locked down $20B in funding until 2030 and on this pathway will stay under slightly under 1% of GDP. But it is also on target for net core Crown debt is expected to decline as a percentage of nominal GDP to stand at 19.3% by 2020/21, Treasury expects GDP growth to average over 3% for the next 5 years, inflation maintaining the 1%-2% band, unemployment down to 4.3% - though the only issue is labour productivity is lower than it should be – however with all the other indicators positive it is in a better position to correct this. OBEGAL surpluses generated from 2015/16 -2020/21 totalling over $20b with over $7b expected in fiscal 2020/21 alone. On this performance NZ is expected to have a GDP to Debt ratio of 15%. A total GDP output in excess of USD $250b is expected by fiscal 2020/21 and population to pass 5 million by 2020.

Two key points to make:

1. Comparatively, the country is in robust economic health and is in a strong fiscal position - its overall economic performance with other EU/OECD nations. The GDP to Debt ratio exposure is around half of Australia’s (Over 40%) and a quarter of Canada (Over 90%) - such has been the turn around in the last 5 years.
2. NZ has capacity to borrow if need be to further fund and sustain additional defence spending if properly planned – it is one of only three countries under 25% of GDP Debt ratio. The EU average is currently around 80%.

Furthermore, one could argue that the economic performance of New Zealand is outstripping the Governments investment in defence to the point that the $20B over 2015-2030 will see an actual fall in GDP to Defence Spend Ratio not increase it over 1%.

Personally in the short term RNZAF wise I would want locked in - FAMC, P-8, a slight increase in the Rotary Fleet up to near optimal levels (two more NH90 and three A109E for training and two more LUH to the fleet) with the leased KingAir fleet expanded in numbers to conduct MEPT/AWCT/VIP/SR-MISR/SR-SAR. Lock that in then produce a development and funding pathway for restoring an air combat capability over time.

Lets cut to the chase.

Thailand just ordered another eight T-50TH which are essentially the Block 1 FA-50 without Link 16 but with E/LM 2032, MIL-STD-1760, Embedded Tactical Training System (ETTS), CMDS, RWR enabling it to provide both LIFT and air combat capability. Link 16 and BVR can be upgraded later as well as E/LM 2032 to 52 AESA. The package cost including training, spare parts, and some tech support cost was USD$260m. That is the kind of thing I believe the NZ First policy is about and basically what is likely to be considered - a small advanced force of jet trainer and combat aircraft.

That would at least give us an entry level option and a strategic hedge to generate a further capability from that baseline if required. As Recce noted it would maintain wider defence training subsets and competencies and in the incredibly remote chance of an air intrusion something more than - well nothing.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

I appreciate the effects that underfunding can have on a service as it attempts to perform its mission. I remember reading articles about the late 80's and 90's and the economic struggles NZ was going through. From railroad restructuring to hearing of NZ Army training taking place without ammunition. Major changes to all segments of your society took place during these years and defence was not alone in accepting forced change.

With all that's happened over the last sixteen years, Christchurch earth quake, Kaikoura earthquake, 2008 world wide economic downturn, oil price drop and the prices paid for the LAV's and the NH90's going over budget would there have been money to replace the Scooters at any point in time since? I think not. One way or the other the clock was ticking on NZ maintaining its combat squadrons of fast jets and jet trainers. Whether it happened under Helens watch or some other PM since the end was in sight.

Armed drones are the only realistic answer to providing a standoff anti shipping capability going forward. This is why I mentioned a joint buy with the UK for Reapers a couple of months back. Not ideal but it offers more than what is likely otherwise. The cost to operate and maintain a fleet of drones is far more cost effective given the reduced manpower requirements.

In order for NZ to have an offensive capability besides the likely P8 fleet how can NZ move forward to protect itself and its vital sea Bourne trade?

I would like to see a realistic discussion on the subject of options besides fast jets. What is available? What is desired for abilities from an armed UCAV? How many would be required to accomplish likely taskings?

 

[MrConservative]

I appreciate the effects that underfunding can have on a service as it attempts to perform its mission. I remember reading articles about the late 80's and 90's and the economic struggles NZ was going through. From railroad restructuring to hearing of NZ Army training taking place without ammunition. Major changes to all segments of your society took place during these years and defence was not alone in accepting forced change.

With all that's happened over the last sixteen years, Christchurch earth quake, Kaikoura earthquake, 2008 world wide economic downturn, oil price drop and the prices paid for the LAV's and the NH90's going over budget would there have been money to replace the Scooters at any point in time since? I think not. One way or the other the clock was ticking on NZ maintaining its combat squadrons of fast jets and jet trainers. Whether it happened under Helens watch or some other PM since the end was in sight.

This has been well covered in the past here at DT and the timeframe is really in the past now 20 years on. Even the affordability issue over the F-16 - basically the move then was ideological not fiscal. There was always the money - it was that defence was a low priority to the Clark government at the time who had different agenda.

Armed drones are the only realistic answer to providing a standoff anti shipping capability going forward. This is why I mentioned a joint buy with the UK for Reapers a couple of months back. Not ideal but it offers more than what is likely otherwise. The cost to operate and maintain a fleet of drones is far more cost effective given the reduced manpower requirements.

In order for NZ to have an offensive capability besides the likely P8 fleet how can NZ move forward to protect itself and its vital sea Bourne trade?

I would like to see a realistic discussion on the subject of options besides fast jets. What is available? What is desired for abilities from an armed UCAV? How many would be required to accomplish likely taskings?

This is all well and good and you are welcome to invite people to address your questions.

But right now a political party on the eve of a General Election, a party who will decide the next government has a policy position that in my view as Moderator should be explored further.

 

[t68]

But right now a political party on the eve of a General Election, a party who will decide the next government has a policy position that in my view as Moderator should be explored further.

I don't follow NZ politics, and on a quick check from what I understand they are a minor party that may or may not hold the balance of power, reconstituting an ACF is a very substantial policy shift, yes they may hold the balance of power but they cant mandate a shift either

 

[Novascotiaboy]

MrC I am surprised by your implied acceptance of NZ First party.

Should be an interesting election.

Stick to the topic. Cheers MrC

 

[Lucasnz]

MrC and RobC

In response to yours.

NZ has no direct threat requiring an ACF for interdiction or interception as hostile military aircraft do not have the range to get there without support from an aircraft carrier. China, India, France, the U.K., Russia and the US are the only nations with such capability. The logistics required to deploy an aircraft carrier are immense and not all these nations have that supply chain.

So with no direct threat that leaves expiditionary exploits for an ACF and I don't see NZ looking to conquer any states close to the realm yesterday or today.

For these reasons I reinterate that the decision at the time was correct to suspend the ACF.

The Wolverine aircraft have the ability to support the low threat environment of the South Pacific with eyes and a weapons delivery capability. These same abilities offer an option during training of ground forces. No I do not see NZ involved in COIN operations but the AT6 offers an air policing capability that is far more efficient in non contested air space. A look at the last quarter century has NZDF personnel operating in PNG, the Solomans and Bougainville. Each of these ventures could have benefited from the ISR capabilities of such a low cost platform.

I agree whole heartedly in more replacements for both FAMC and FASC but not getting more at the expense of acquiring an ACF and all it's supporting tail.

If in a perfect world we could have everything I would truly like to see RNZAF equipped with some form of fast jet but it's not a perfect world and the money that would be spent acquiring and supporting them can and should be used where it will be able to make the most impact.

I think the aircraft carrier argument as been the only reason for an ACF died with the advent of ship launched land attack missiles. You no longer need an aircraft carrier to conduct strikes against NZ. A single ship capable of carrying in either canister or VLS land attack capable missiles poses problems for NZ. Given the advent of extended range naval gun munitions like Volcano or the proposed rail gun naval forces now have even cheaper options. IMHO an ACF is the only effective deterrent given the positioning of naval combat forces takes time.

I agree with your view that the use of the Texan Training Aircraft in low intensity situations is a viable option and in my view a starting point for regeneration of ACF capabilities via basic weapons carriage and operation (2.75in rockets, 12.7 pod mount HMG, light bombs and a limited precision fire capability).

A number of posters have commented on the viability of the T/FA-50 as the starting point for an ACF. I think the Texan are the starting point. The end point is outsourced fast jet training and aircraft with the combat radius and carriage capability to undertake maritime strike. I'm not convinced yet that the FA-50 is the aircraft for the role at this stage, nor in do I think armed drones would be viable at this present stage of development as a maritime strike asset - I'm not aware of any drone capable of carrying a long range standoff missile at present (i.e Harpoon, NSM).

 

[MrConservative]

I don't follow NZ politics, and on a quick check from what I understand they are a minor party that may or may not hold the balance of power, reconstituting an ACF is a very substantial policy shift, yes they may hold the balance of power but they cant mandate a shift either

They have the power to walk away and collapse a government under MMP. They can put their policies as bottom lines in post election negotiations not just at the formation but have considerable influence and consultation throughout the term. Every political pundit and analyst has them as holding the balance of power. On current polling they will get around 10% of the vote and will make up 20% of the governments seats. They will have influence - they after all 20 years ago did force the cancellation of the 3rd Anzac. So it works both ways and they had only 5% of the vote back then. Under MMP the tail does wag the dog!

So lets park the politics and stick to discussing the policy - it may or may not happen - we know that and understand it BUT for the first time in 15 years this is not wish-list stuff but can plausibly happen.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

Personally, I totally support NgatiMozarts DWP15 submission published in the NZDF-General discussion:

Here: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/g...eneral-discussion-thread-6137-216/#post301983

Here: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/g...eneral-discussion-thread-6137-216/#post301986

And here: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/g...eneral-discussion-thread-6137-216/#post302019

Ngati's submission was true back in 2015 and has become overwhelming obvious today that sea-blindness is New Zealand's number 1 threat to its strategic interests and shared prosperity. Under a regime of tax cuts there can be no combination of crown funds that can address the infrastructure deficit that effects NZDF and indeed the entire New Zealand economy which I contend contributes to the New Zealand publics growing sea-blindness.

Low balling conservative estimates of child poverty can be said to be growing at 20k per year. This is clearly unsustainable. Today there's about 1 person working for every one person not working and if these trends are allowed to continue we could be looking at 1 person working for every 1.5 people not working by 2050. Even these heavily suppressed numbers are unsustainable. New Zealanders just don't appreciate how vulnerable New Zealand actual is to all sorts of man made systemic shocks. Why would any one want to hand over there hard earned tax money to this political class full of dud pollies that escape criminal investigations with the slimmest of excuses ie can't be phaqued. And this goes right back as far as any want to look or even mention.

Also it is undeniable that the Himalayan Glaciers are melting at an alarming rate. The Climate conference at Copenhagen was a failure with the Washington consensus still in total denial mode. With these uncomfortable truths in mind. IMO NZDF must maintain the ability to act independently. I believe it's either or, go big or go home because the threats coming over the horizon stemming from climate change, cyber security and political instability being pushed by huge infrastructure deficits all along New Zealand's SLOC and at home, and an ASEAN, the most heavily militarised area in the world, and they've all got beef with China, and North Korea, and a little for India who are dealing with huge problems just to feed billions of people, leading us into a disastrous cocktail of mass migration and New Zealand are already feeling the ill effects.

Personally, what I would like to see out of the Future Frigate program is a minimally competent self defence sweat that protects the best available sensors package and is apart of an integrated air defence array that includes P-8's to screen ahead of the frigates and an ACF that can provide the knock out blow, so the future frigate can play keep away while giving good data for the knock out blow. And an EW with data link connected to land/sea and air assets that can launch a common land/sea attack missile as well as a common air attack missile. NZDF must always reserve the right to maintain these capabilities and scaling them up in conjunction with closing the infrastructure deficit is essential.

 

[htbrst]

I think the potential RSAF training based at Ohakea should be taken into account when considering the reintroduction of the ACF - it has the potential to either remove the requirement from the politicians point of view or help support a restart:

- A reciprocal lease of airspace in return for some F-15 time investigating naughty airliners ticks that box

- A fellow FPDA member with aircraft based in country should NZ come under threat. Not a guarantee if things really do go tits up but perhaps a small positive deterrent to aggressors . Singapore benefited from in the past even if it was the other way around

- NZ could add the requirement for putting a few pilots and maintenance crews through RSAF pipelines and exchanges or personnel in NZ to give RNZAF members experience in operating fast jets again to support the future reintroduction of an ACF