Royal New Zealand Air Force

[King Wally]

Just a thought given some of the comments been thrown around about the ACF etc. But I noticed the USAF is reviewing the AT-6B Wolverine as a possible solution to some of their air combat needs into the future. Particularly as they have reported that over the last 26 years "99% of all our missions have been flown in a permissive environment".

USAF mulls real-world OA-X combat demonstration | Jane's 360

Given the RNZAF already operates the T-6 trainer surely down the track that may get some folks thinking twice if the USAF introduces the AT-6 into their mix.

 

[John Fedup]

Interesting debate on the possible threats NZ could face in the future. I tend to agree that given the budget realities, MPAs along with frigates make more sense than reducing their numbers in favour of a ACF capability. Tod's scenario of a single ship with cruise missiles threatening NZ is certainly possible and early detection would be important. More importantly, the emerging Superpower in the area will likely have decent and quiet subs capable of launching cruise missiles very soon. Extra P-8s will be very desirable then as opposed to 12 fast jets!

NZ's decision to abandon the ACF has an important lesson for the fools in charge in my country, once this capability is lost it is damn near impossible to get it back given buget pressures and pollies needing every cent they can get to bribe their electorate to re-elect them.

 

[Todjaeger]

Just a thought given some of the comments been thrown around about the ACF etc. But I noticed the USAF is reviewing the AT-6B Wolverine as a possible solution to some of their air combat needs into the future. Particularly as they have reported that over the last 26 years "99% of all our missions have been flown in a permissive environment".

USAF mulls real-world OA-X combat demonstration | Jane's 360

Given the RNZAF already operates the T-6 trainer surely down the track that may get some folks thinking twice if the USAF introduces the AT-6 into their mix.

Much of that permissive environment has to do with where the USAF has been operating, and how the US military fights. An early objective the US seeks to achieve in conflicts now is air supremacy. Once that has been achieved the threat level US aircraft face drops dramatically. As long as the US retains the ability to establish air supremacy early in a conflict, then resources can be diverted to acquiring less complex or expensive bomb trucks.

 

[John Fedup]

As long as the US retains the ability to establish air supremacy early in a conflict, then resources can be diverted to acquiring less complex or expensive bomb trucks.

Given the budget problems the US faces (18 trillion dollar debt and continuing trade deficits), USAF and USN planners probably have significant concerns as to how future combat jets can be funded in order to maintain the ability to achieve air supremacy. Unless the US gets its house in order soon, it may face the same defence cuts the U.K. Is now facing (granted it will take awhile to reach this point). Strong defence needs a strong economy. Some leadership would help as well.

 

[KiwiRob]

It is not so much about whether it could not be done, but that such a programme would have a cost and risk to enable a P-1 to have the same degree of communication that a P-8 will have with US, Australian and Kiwi forces. Japan has little incentive to develop and integrate the kit required because their forces do not particularly need it, in part due to the size of the JMSDF and then the tendency for Japan to not deploy forces in international/coalition operations.

What do you mean by little incentive, they have a lot of incentive to do it, if they can get an export order for it the incentive is there. They also have active bids with Thailand and Vietnam, so I expect that they are willing to do what it takes to get an order.

 

[Todjaeger]

Regardless of whether the King Air or the CN235 is utilised, sensors, work stations etc., will have to be procured. The point of them being modular is that less of these have to be acquired than the number of aircraft being acquired. Also the operating system doesn't have to be FITS. Possibly it could be the current one that the P-3K2, or its replacement, use. It would simplify training and conversion of students from the training environment to the operational environment. Regardless of the platform for the training / 2nd tier MPA role, NZDF is / will be providing the sensors as GFE.

As I understand it, Airbus Military's FITS is the systems architecture which enables the modular workstations to connect to, control, and receive from the various potential sensors and/or weapons stations and hardpoints. As such, if having workstations on pallets which can be inserted and connected, or disconnected and removed as needed, then using FITS seems necessary.

What I am less certain on is how much the sensor and avionics fitout of a King Air kitted out for MP/SAR would resemble the fitout for an HC-144. Another potential question would be what sensors and systems if any, could be pulled from the P-3K2 Orions and be re-used in such a modular CN-235.

I suspect that due to a CN-235 being a larger aircraft, in addition to having more room to mount larger workstations internally, larger sensors could be mounted externally. I also suspect a CN-235 would have a larger power budget for the sensors and workstations, as well as a greater capacity for cooling the various systems, or able to carry more coolant during operations.

 

[Rob c]

Interesting debate on the possible threats NZ could face in the future. I tend to agree that given the budget realities, MPAs along with frigates make more sense than reducing their numbers in favour of a ACF capability. Tod's scenario of a single ship with cruise missiles threatening NZ is certainly possible and early detection would be important. More importantly, the emerging Superpower in the area will likely have decent and quiet subs capable of launching cruise missiles very soon. Extra P-8s will be very desirable then as opposed to 12 fast jets!

NZ's decision to abandon the ACF has an important lesson for the fools in charge in my country, once this capability is lost it is damn near impossible to get it back given buget pressures and pollies needing every cent they can get to bribe their electorate to re-elect them.

My reasoning for the reintroduction of an ACF is to do with the basic defence of NZ. I would not support the loss of any other abilities to achieve this especially in the MPA field.
But a modest ACF while not solving all possible scenarios takes away simple threat options to NZ.
Currently NZ is open to very simple threats that could be carried out using civilian logistical assets such as transport and airline type aircraft or ro.ro and other shipping or a combination of both, and there would be little we could do about it as the initial move could be seen to be legitimate.
An ACF takes that approach out of the equation and means any threat to us has to be on a lot higher military level and this would pose significant logistical problems to achieve which are unlikely to go unnoticed.
As has been said before any regional conflict to that level would involve Australia, so help would not come from there and the US could be days or even weeks away, so we need to look after ourselves in the interim.
The one ship surprise attack I think is very unlikely due to the distance it would need to travel to get here while avoiding detection would involve significant logistical support, if detected basic disbursement of NZ limited military means would mean the any effect would be very limited and as we are not in any position to challenge another country's ambitions (where the USN at Pearl harbour was to the Japanese) why would you bother when you would only manage to piss off other friends of ours for no good effect while putting in a significant effort and taking a significant risk.

 

[t68]

why would you bother when you would only manage to piss off other friends of ours for no good effect while putting in a significant effort and taking a significant risk.

Well from my pov it's for those very reason that if the need to re-invest (i belive you do)in a fast jet capabilty it would primarily be for expeditionary operations. So you would infact have a requirement for more than light jet trainer in those circumstances.

 

[ngatimozart]

The one ship surprise attack I think is very unlikely due to the distance it would need to travel to get here while avoiding detection would involve significant logistical support, if detected basic disbursement of NZ limited military means would mean the any effect would be very limited and as we are not in any position to challenge another country's ambitions (where the USN at Pearl harbour was to the Japanese) why would you bother when you would only manage to piss off other friends of ours for no good effect while putting in a significant effort and taking a significant risk.

Back in WW2 we had Deutsche Kriegsmarine subs, surface ships and Imperial Japanese Navy subs operating in our waters attacking surface shipping, laying mines and undertaking aerial reconnaissance. After the war there were Soviet subs poking their snouts around inside and outside of NZ territorial waters. Russian SSBNs are now undertaking patrols which enable them to launch missiles over Antarctica to targets in the northern hemisphere. Chicom SSBNs are getting better in quality and capability each year so no reason why they won't poke their snouts in around the South Pacific and NZ. Whilst an ACF would be nice to have, I would not want it at the expense of MPA and frigate capability and capacity.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Ngati

What is your rational for the C235 instead of the C295. The C295 is a lengthened version of the C235 with a improvements allowing a higher load and speed. Would not the advantages offered by the C295 make it more versatile in RNZAF service if this class of aircraft were returned to service with the air force.

Is there a possibility that a general service aircraft fleet could be established for use by the government that were not directly controlled by the Defence Force. A fleet of fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft to perform duties for conservation, fisheries, customs, etc... that would be funded from those departments.

 

[Todjaeger]

Ngati

What is your rational for the C235 instead of the C295. The C295 is a lengthened version of the C235 with a improvements allowing a higher load and speed. Would not the advantages offered by the C295 make it more versatile in RNZAF service if this class of aircraft were returned to service with the air force.

Is there a possibility that a general service aircraft fleet could be established for use by the government that were not directly controlled by the Defence Force. A fleet of fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft to perform duties for conservation, fisheries, customs, etc... that would be funded from those departments.

The C-295 is a larger aircraft, but whether or not it would be more versatile in RNZAF service depends on a number of other factors. Probably the most important two would be what platforms are selected to replace the tactical and strategic airlifters currently in RNZAF service.

If either/both are replaced by the A400M, then there could be some value in choosing the C-295. IIRC the cargo area of the C-295 can take a pallet sized to fit aboard the A400M provided it does not exceed the C-295 floor weight limit and is rotated 90 degrees. An A400M pallet if memory serves it a little too large to fit directly onto a CN-235 and would need to be broken down.

As a side note, one of the advantages of the C-130J and C-27J was that cargo pallets would be moved freely between the aircraft, since the volume and floor weight limits were the same. The difference between the aircraft was the max total cargo and max number of pallets.

If the NZDF had a light/medium airlifter to take over some of the missions the old Andovers used to perform, that would be good. Unfortunately however, one always has to keep in mind the limitations the NZDF budgets impose (inflict?) on the range of options available. So far it does appear that the costs associated with maintaining and operating a light/medium airlifter for such missions would exceed what it costs to use medium/heavy airlifters for such missions as well as medium/heavy and/or long-ranged airlift missions.

 

[Rob c]

Back in WW2 we had Deutsche Kriegsmarine subs, surface ships and Imperial Japanese Navy subs operating in our waters attacking surface shipping, laying mines and undertaking aerial reconnaissance. After the war there were Soviet subs poking their snouts around inside and outside of NZ territorial waters. Russian SSBNs are now undertaking patrols which enable them to launch missiles over Antarctica to targets in the northern hemisphere. Chicom SSBNs are getting better in quality and capability each year so no reason why they won't poke their snouts in around the South Pacific and NZ. Whilst an ACF would be nice to have, I would not want it at the expense of MPA and frigate capability and capacity.

I certainly would not want any reduction in the frigate numbers and especially the MPA numbers. I consider the ACF more than nice to have as the would remove us out of the soft target easybeats into something requiring significantly more effort to threaten and while subs certainly can cause us considerable damage, it would be hard to take our sovereignty and freedom from use with a sub or a lone wolf attack from a ship. Our freedom is what everything we have springs from, without it we have nothing and in my view, maintaining it is the start point of how you plan your defence structure.

 

[Todjaeger]

I certainly would not want any reduction in the frigate numbers and especially the MPA numbers. I consider the ACF more than nice to have as the would remove us out of the soft target easybeats into something requiring significantly more effort to threaten and while subs certainly can cause us considerable damage, it would be hard to take our sovereignty and freedom from use with a sub or a lone wolf attack from a ship. Our freedom is what everything we have springs from, without it we have nothing and in my view, maintaining it is the start point of how you plan your defence structure.

Realistically, there are only a handful of countries now that could seize NZ and end sovereignty. NZ is just too remote for almost every country in the world to be able to project sufficient power to invade and then hold ground, never mind subjugate the populace.

Of those nations, NZ is either friendly with or allies of most of them. For the nations which is neither friendly or allied with, the world community generally reacts with hostility to one country conquering or even attempting to conquer another. Also, those same friendly or allied nations which could project the requisite power would IMO react particularly badly, and given that three of them are permanent members of the UN Security Council with veto power and nuclear weapons...

IMO what is are more feasible and likely threats to NZ security and interests. These would be man-made events which harm or exploit NZ resources, circumstances which adversely impact NZ access to trading partners, events within the borders of trading partners which adversely impact either the function of the market or need/relevance of Kiwi goods within that market.

Among the least likely of events would be a direct strike on or against NZ. Part of my thinking this is because of the remoteness and difficulty which makes projecting power so difficult, also makes carrying out a strike at such a distance very difficult. More countries could accomplish a strike than an invasion, but it still is not a long list and in most scenarios there is not a nation with sufficient animosity and/or potential gain to launch such a strike. That and the world community generally and NZ's friends and allies would again not take kindly to such an attack.

To provide some additional context regarding the difficulty in accomplishing an invasion and subjugating the populace consider the following. Given the effectiveness of past insurgencies, it can take an occupation force on average 7-10 troops per insurgent to effective suppress them. NZ per the 2013 census has a population of 4,242,048. That means if just 1% of the populace were to actively resist an occupation, that would be a force of ~42,000 resistance or guerrilla fighters. That would also mean the aggressor nation would need to be able to deploy an occupying force of 296k - 420k troops and then sustain that force over the very long SLOC to NZ.

IMO there is really only a single nation which could accomplish that at present, and unless the leader of that nation suddenly decides they want to own a golf course, resort, or some other such real estate, there is little danger of invasion from them...

 

[ngatimozart]

Ngati

What is your rational for the C235 instead of the C295. The C295 is a lengthened version of the C235 with a improvements allowing a higher load and speed. Would not the advantages offered by the C295 make it more versatile in RNZAF service if this class of aircraft were returned to service with the air force.

My rationale is that the CN235 is in between Kingairs and the C295 and could cover both roles. If something needs to be airlifted that is too large / heavy for the CN235, then the KC-130J / KC390 could do that. I just think that in the NZ context, the C295 / C-27J is too large for MEPT / ACO training and the CN235 could offer more versatility than the Kingair. However if it was a choice between a twin TP and chooks, I'd rather have the chooks.

Is there a possibility that a general service aircraft fleet could be established for use by the government that were not directly controlled by the Defence Force. A fleet of fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft to perform duties for conservation, fisheries, customs, etc... that would be funded from those departments.

I don't think so because there is no real political will to do so. My belief is that if NZDF undertakes taskings for those ministries, then said ministries should pay NZDF for such taskings. I don't know if that happens or not.

 

[ngatimozart]

Realistically, there are only a handful of countries now that could seize NZ and end sovereignty. NZ is just too remote for almost every country in the world to be able to project sufficient power to invade and then hold ground, never mind subjugate the populace.

Of those nations, NZ is either friendly with or allies of most of them. For the nations which is neither friendly or allied with, the world community generally reacts with hostility to one country conquering or even attempting to conquer another. Also, those same friendly or allied nations which could project the requisite power would IMO react particularly badly, and given that three of them are permanent members of the UN Security Council with veto power and nuclear weapons...

IMO what is are more feasible and likely threats to NZ security and interests. These would be man-made events which harm or exploit NZ resources, circumstances which adversely impact NZ access to trading partners, events within the borders of trading partners which adversely impact either the function of the market or need/relevance of Kiwi goods within that market.

Among the least likely of events would be a direct strike on or against NZ. Part of my thinking this is because of the remoteness and difficulty which makes projecting power so difficult, also makes carrying out a strike at such a distance very difficult. More countries could accomplish a strike than an invasion, but it still is not a long list and in most scenarios there is not a nation with sufficient animosity and/or potential gain to launch such a strike. That and the world community generally and NZ's friends and allies would again not take kindly to such an attack.

To provide some additional context regarding the difficulty in accomplishing an invasion and subjugating the populace consider the following. Given the effectiveness of past insurgencies, it can take an occupation force on average 7-10 troops per insurgent to effective suppress them. NZ per the 2013 census has a population of 4,242,048. That means if just 1% of the populace were to actively resist an occupation, that would be a force of ~42,000 resistance or guerrilla fighters. That would also mean the aggressor nation would need to be able to deploy an occupying force of 296k - 420k troops and then sustain that force over the very long SLOC to NZ.

IMO there is really only a single nation which could accomplish that at present, and unless the leader of that nation suddenly decides they want to own a golf course, resort, or some other such real estate, there is little danger of invasion from them...

The biggest threat to NZ sovereignty is a naval blockade, and such things are still in the book of naval strategies and tactics. The next threat is interruption to our SLOC by nefarious forces, either nation / state or non state actors. Generally speaking NZ pollies and the great hairy unwashed remain ignorant of that threat, which is classic sea blindness, especially for a maritime island nation.

 

[MrConservative]

The biggest threat to NZ sovereignty is a naval blockade, and such things are still in the book of naval strategies and tactics. The next threat is interruption to our SLOC by nefarious forces, either nation / state or non state actors. Generally speaking NZ pollies and the great hairy unwashed remain ignorant of that threat, which is classic sea blindness, especially for a maritime island nation.

For now but looking ahead over the medium-long term the most likely evolutionary direct security threat to NZ and indeed Australia's and the South Western Pacific's interests over the medium term are long range RPAS IRS and EMS disruptors launched off adversary-hostile maritime assets.

 

[ngatimozart]

For now but looking ahead over the medium-long term the most likely evolutionary direct security threat to NZ and indeed Australia's and the South Western Pacific's interests over the medium term are long range RPAS IRS and EMS disruptors launched off adversary-hostile maritime assets.

They are just tools that can be used in a naval blockade. Why invade when you can blockade? Achieves the result of forcing a nation to adhere to your desires.

 

[Rob c]

Realistically, there are only a handful of countries now that could seize NZ and end sovereignty. NZ is just too remote for almost every country in the world to be able to project sufficient power to invade and then hold ground, never mind subjugate the populace.

Of those nations, NZ is either friendly with or allies of most of them. For the nations which is neither friendly or allied with, the world community generally reacts with hostility to one country conquering or even attempting to conquer another. Also, those same friendly or allied nations which could project the requisite power would IMO react particularly badly, and given that three of them are permanent members of the UN Security Council with veto power and nuclear weapons...

IMO what is are more feasible and likely threats to NZ security and interests. These would be man-made events which harm or exploit NZ resources, circumstances which adversely impact NZ access to trading partners, events within the borders of trading partners which adversely impact either the function of the market or need/relevance of Kiwi goods within that market.

Among the least likely of events would be a direct strike on or against NZ. Part of my thinking this is because of the remoteness and difficulty which makes projecting power so difficult, also makes carrying out a strike at such a distance very difficult. More countries could accomplish a strike than an invasion, but it still is not a long list and in most scenarios there is not a nation with sufficient animosity and/or potential gain to launch such a strike. That and the world community generally and NZ's friends and allies would again not take kindly to such an attack.

To provide some additional context regarding the difficulty in accomplishing an invasion and subjugating the populace consider the following. Given the effectiveness of past insurgencies, it can take an occupation force on average 7-10 troops per insurgent to effective suppress them. NZ per the 2013 census has a population of 4,242,048. That means if just 1% of the populace were to actively resist an occupation, that would be a force of ~42,000 resistance or guerrilla fighters. That would also mean the aggressor nation would need to be able to deploy an occupying force of 296k - 420k troops and then sustain that force over the very long SLOC to NZ.

IMO there is really only a single nation which could accomplish that at present, and unless the leader of that nation suddenly decides they want to own a golf course, resort, or some other such real estate, there is little danger of invasion from them...

While you are correct as to the current situation this can change far faster than we can rearm. We must also not forget the emergence of rogue organisations who do things that defy logic and they have away of quickly subjugating a population. Who is going to resist them if they know their whole family will be executed if they try.When we look back on past conflicts we see that a lot did not have a lot of logic involved and that the resisting population was a very small part of a percent of the population which took a significant period of time to build and often had to rely on extensive outside help to achieve significant results. As a worst case scenario we could be subjected to ethnic cleansing. the point being we don't know what the future will bring and my thoughts are that we should project sufficient deterrent to ensure that no rogue nation or organisation tries any half baked ideas in our direction. The simple truth is that we are ignorant as to the future and we tend to project our minds into the future on the basis of what is happening now and how that will play out. It is one of history's quirks that there are sudden changes in direction. Who would have foreseen the rapid rise of ISIS say 10 years prior to their advances, or say the Falklands war in say 1973 or for that mater most conflicts. No one did. Our strategic situation will change with time sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse and that is what we need to be prepared for. We just need to remember that just because we cannot see any possible way that we may be threatened does not mean that someone else cannot come up with something we did not think of. The limits of anyone particular person's mind is not the limits of someone else intent on usurping them in some way or other.

 

[Rob c]

My rationale is that the CN235 is in between Kingairs and the C295 and could cover both roles. If something needs to be airlifted that is too large / heavy for the CN235, then the KC-130J / KC390 could do that. I just think that in the NZ context, the C295 / C-27J is too large for MEPT / ACO training and the CN235 could offer more versatility than the Kingair. However if it was a choice between a twin TP and chooks, I'd rather have the chooks.

.

I had not thought of the C235 in that way, I was always looking at the C295, probably on the basis of the bigger is better, but it makes sense.

 

[ASSAIL]

As a side note, one of the advantages of the C-130J and C-27J was that cargo pallets would be moved freely between the aircraft, since the volume and floor weight limits were the same. The difference between the aircraft was the max total cargo and max number of pallets.

It's been said before but.....even more important than the common pallet size is the common glass cockpit and common engines. In a low numbers environment such as NZ this greatly enhances the sustainment task.