Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Todjaeger]

This seems quite a stretch since it ignores a very important historical fact: the Japanese had been interfering in China since 1895 and continued to do so until 1945. From '31 to '41, Europeans and Americans sat by and watched, unwilling or uninterested to be involved. I dread to think what Asia would look like if Japan had successfully annexed China as the Europeans and Americans watched.

Had the Japanese successfully puppeted China without a European war, they would have only gained confidence from the fact that the British, French, and Americans really had not lifted a finger. I suspect they would have only continued their slow expansion southwards since the military had very strong imperialist ideas. Just as Hitler grew bolder with each round of appeasement, so too would Japan as it gobbled up Asia. This gets into the realm of what-ifs, though.

A bit OT, but I doubt the European war was of much concern or interest to Japan, since their interests were in the Asia-Pacific area. IMO unless the British Empire was going to maintain a significantly larger force in the Asia-Pacific theatre had war in Europe not broken out, then issues in Europe were largely irrelevant.

On the main topic, I was wondering why the NZAF doesn't operate Chinooks as a pair would be a good addition to their transport capability.

I suspect cost and the related issue of sustainability. particularly since NZ has maintained a small fleet of helicopters, both in total numbers as well as types. While the NZDF could definitely find uses for CH-47 Chinooks, the resources required to raise such a capability would come at the expense of other, existing capabilities. As it is now, the fleet of eight NH90 TTH's is really too small in number. A fleet of two or three Chinooks would be in a similar situation. As it is, I believe that the Australian Army Aviation fleet of CH-47 helicopters is too small. IIRC they have a total of seven.

 

[SteveR]

abilities. As it is now, the fleet of eight NH90 TTH's is really too small in number. A fleet of two or three Chinooks would be in a similar situation. As it is, I believe that the Australian Army Aviation fleet of CH-47 helicopters is too small. IIRC they have a total of seven.

The Australian Army has 10 CH-47Fs:

Sustaining the Chinook - Australian Defence Magazine

Army’s 10 Boeing 
CH-47F Chinook helicopters not only provide a vital medium lift capability for land manoeuvre operations, but are an integral component of the ADF’s ability to project force across t...

www.australiandefence.com.au

 

[Rob c]

This seems quite a stretch since it ignores a very important historical fact: the Japanese had been interfering in China since 1895 and continued to do so until 1945. From '31 to '41, Europeans and Americans sat by and watched, unwilling or uninterested to be involved. I dread to think what Asia would look like if Japan had successfully annexed China as the Europeans and Americans watched.

The major reason for the attack on Perl harbour and the take over French Indochina and the subsequent invasion of British and dutch colonies was due to sanctions on Japan denying them oil and rubber. The japanese were down to under 18 months of oil and had very limited amount of rubber available so this required the invasion of both Malaya (for rubber Malaya produced 80%of the worlds rubber at that time )and the Dutch east Indies for oil to allow Japan to continue their expansion in China as they were rapidly running out of resources to continue their expansion.
The takeover of French Indochina was necessary to provide bases close to their intended targets.
If there was no distraction in Europe the situation with France, UK and the Dutch in regard to their defence of the region, plus the USA's ability to deploy more of their navy to the Pacific dramatically changes the odds against the Japanese . The French would not have meekly handed over Indochina as they would not have surrendered in Europe and one only has to look how hard they tried to retain Indochina in the 1950', The RN already pre war had assumed that Japan would be an enemy and had plans to counter this which of course were scuttle by the war with Germany. Malaya would have been able to be defended by a far better army instead of the under resorsted under trained green troops, with no armour and very limited numbers of old artillery It must also be remembered that the number of capital ships and aircraft carriers being built for the RN were significantly delayed by the war in Europe and going by the original pre war completion dates the RN would have had by the end of 1941, 4 armoured carriers plus Arkroyal, 4 KG5 battleships plus a significant number of modern cruisers available to bolster there existing fleet which of course would be still intact. One of the items the RN had designed for the pacific were the T class subs and HMS Vanguard.
It must be remembered that all the good modern aircraft and army equipment were tied up in Europe and the same applies to the navy, additionally the French could and probably would have made a significant contribution. The whole reason Japan attacked in the Pacific was due to the pressing need for resources which were being denied because of sanctions to them as this lack of resources would have caused them to have great difficulty in remaining in China, as pursuing a war without fuel and tyres would have been impossible.

 

[ngatimozart]

The major reason for the attack on Perl harbour and the take over French Indochina and the subsequent invasion of British and dutch colonies was due to sanctions on Japan denying them oil and rubber. The japanese were down to under 18 months of oil and had very limited amount of rubber available so this required the invasion of both Malaya (for rubber Malaya produced 80%of the worlds rubber at that time )and the Dutch east Indies for oil to allow Japan to continue their expansion in China as they were rapidly running out of resources to continue their expansion.
The takeover of French Indochina was necessary to provide bases close to their intended targets.
If there was no distraction in Europe the situation with France, UK and the Dutch in regard to their defence of the region, plus the USA's ability to deploy more of their navy to the Pacific dramatically changes the odds against the Japanese . The French would not have meekly handed over Indochina as they would not have surrendered in Europe and one only has to look how hard they tried to retain Indochina in the 1950', The RN already pre war had assumed that Japan would be an enemy and had plans to counter this which of course were scuttle by the war with Germany. Malaya would have been able to be defended by a far better army instead of the under resorsted under trained green troops, with no armour and very limited numbers of old artillery It must also be remembered that the number of capital ships and aircraft carriers being built for the RN were significantly delayed by the war in Europe and going by the original pre war completion dates the RN would have had by the end of 1941, 4 armoured carriers plus Arkroyal, 4 KG5 battleships plus a significant number of modern cruisers available to bolster there existing fleet which of course would be still intact. One of the items the RN had designed for the pacific were the T class subs and HMS Vanguard.
It must be remembered that all the good modern aircraft and army equipment were tied up in Europe and the same applies to the navy, additionally the French could and probably would have made a significant contribution. The whole reason Japan attacked in the Pacific was due to the pressing need for resources which were being denied because of sanctions to them as this lack of resources would have caused them to have great difficulty in remaining in China, as pursuing a war without fuel and tyres would have been impossible.

There's one item that you have overlooked in your summation. Up until 1945, the bulk of the Japanese ground forces were in Kwantung, orientated to face the Soviet Union because they were still seen as the main threat. The IJA always saw the southern war as a secondary operation. It was an IJN operation with the IJA begrudgingly supplying forces, and those forces weren't their best forces. It was after Okinawa and Iwo Jima were captured by the Americans, that the IJA General Staff got serious about the southern war and started moving troops from China and Kwantung to the Home Islands to prepare for the expected invasion of the Home Islands.

If OP DOWNFALL had to been instituted, it would've been a massive bloodbath and untold American, allied including Kiwi, and Japanese lives would have been lost. The butcher's bill would've been in the miĺlions, if not tens of millions.

Trying to bring this back on-topic...

@A4kscooter hits on, what for me is, the actual strategic use of air power. Historically speaking, airpower has, by itself, achieved real strategic impact once, maybe twice. In every other theatre of war and diplomacy air power has been an enabler and, while costing more, could have been negated with no real impact on the final result.

The once was the Berlin Airlift (no other force could have kept Berlin out of Soviet hands and it had dramatic immediate and long-term strategic impacts), the maybe once is Operation Nickel Grass (I go back and forth on this one - at the moment I think it counts). Critically, both are airlift related.

To my view, as much as the RNZAF has become less shooty shooty over the time period, the reality is that air lift offers the greatest strategic impact for an air force - so to remain relevant it's probably the best choice for AFHQ to follow. It would offer NZ significant options and influence as well as fit nicely within (a) their government budgets and (b) FVEY force structure. MPA might work for NZ, especially noting its air-sea rescue zone, but I think that in a constrained budget there may be other options across their 'joint' force.

The only pity is that the solution is not going to be as useful as C-17!

The C-17 ship fell out of the sky 5 years when a certain PM was to scared to spend the money and political capital on a couple of white tails. Stupid boy. With regard to your comment about the MPA, I suggest that it's somewhat ill considered. The maritime surveillance capability has been designated a national strategic asset. For NZ not to have such a capability would be the same as Australia disestablishing either its SSK or maritime surveillance capability.

As far as the air mobility capabilities, both fixed and fling wing, are concerned, you are preaching to the converted choir. I believe that NZ will eventually return to fast jets at some stage, as the geostrategic situation worsens in the next few years. The world post COVID-19 will be different to the one pre-COVID-19 because globalization has diminished, nations are becoming more nationalistic and certain nations have given cause to distrust them. The PRC is now threatening Australia and others with serious trade repercussions if they push for an international investigation into the cause of the COVID-19 pandemic. So our pollies are going to have to make some hard choices in the near future.

 

[John Fedup]

Agree, the post COVID era is going to be unfriendly and dangerous. In NZ’s case, at least your superior fiscal situation will allow for emergency defence spending. This is not the case for NATO members, even the US.

 

[OldTex]

I believe that NZ will eventually return to fast jets at some stage, as the geostrategic situation worsens in the next few years. The world post COVID-19 will be different to the one pre-COVID-19 because globalization has diminished, nations are becoming more nationalistic and certain nations have given cause to distrust them. The PRC is now threatening Australia and others with serious trade repercussions if they push for an international investigation into the cause of the COVID-19 pandemic. So our pollies are going to have to make some hard choices in the near future.

Even if the NZ government had the political desire to return to fast jet operations it would be 10 - 15 years before a credible, if limited, capability was in place. Full spectrum fast jet operations would not be sustainable within NZDF, so the most appropriate capability would have to be identified for development. To my way of thinking that capability would be the light/maritime strike capability to augment the limited capability for defending the maritime approaches offered by RNZN and RNZAF.
Until the NZ government takes up its responsibility for the active defence of NZ it will continue to rely on the 'silver bullet' of distance, and willing allies.

 

[John Fedup]

Allies not only have to be willing, they have to be able. The post COVID world will be very trying for defence budgets (in the West anyway).

 

[Todjaeger]

The Australian Army has 10 CH-47Fs:

Sustaining the Chinook - Australian Defence Magazine

Army’s 10 Boeing 
CH-47F Chinook helicopters not only provide a vital medium lift capability for land manoeuvre operations, but are an integral component of the ADF’s ability to project force across t...

www.australiandefence.com.au

Ack! That is what happens when one is tired and does not manage to research thoroughly. I had recalled that there was interest in expanding the number beyond what had been seven CH-47D Chinooks, particularly since one of them ended up being an aircraft loss IIRC. I just could not find anything that informed me of whether the fleet size had been expanded when the -D models were returned and replaced by -F models.

Having said that though, I am still inclined to think 10 is too small a fleet size.

 

[Rob c]

There's one item that you have overlooked in your summation. Up until 1945, the bulk of the Japanese ground forces were in Kwantung, orientated to face the Soviet Union because they were still seen as the main threat. The IJA always saw the southern war as a secondary operation. It was an IJN operation with the IJA begrudgingly supplying forces, and those forces weren't their best forces. It was after Okinawa and Iwo Jima were captured by the Americans, that the IJA General Staff got serious about the southern war and started moving troops from China and Kwantung to the Home Islands to prepare for the expected invasion of the Home Islands.

Yep agreed. However the pacific/ south east asia was necessitated by the need for resources and the need for defencive space to cover those resources when acquired and without those resources Japan could not have maintained any significant level of operations in China.
My main point is that the great depression was a contributing factor to the second world war which if it had not happened could very well have negated the chances of that war happening or changed its context to something a lot smaller and more localized.
We must also remember that the great majority of the 50 odd million dead happened in the European theater.

 

[Redlands18]

Ack! That is what happens when one is tired and does not manage to research thoroughly. I had recalled that there was interest in expanding the number beyond what had been seven CH-47D Chinooks, particularly since one of them ended up being an aircraft loss IIRC. I just could not find anything that informed me of whether the fleet size had been expanded when the -D models were returned and replaced by -F models.

Having said that though, I am still inclined to think 10 is too small a fleet size.

The RAAF got 12 C models in 1974, one was written off in 1985, the remaining 11 were retired in 1989. In 1993 it was decided to upgrade 4 to D standard and transfer them to the Army, the remaining 7 were sold to the US Army. A further 2 new built Ds were aquired in 1998. 2 Ds were subsequently lost in Afghanistan, 2 US Army Ds were sold to Australia in 2011 to bring the fleet back up to 7. 7 new build Fs were ordered in 2010 to replace the fleet on a one for one basis, then a further 3 in 2015, to bring the number up to 10 Fs.

 

[ngatimozart]

Even if the NZ government had the political desire to return to fast jet operations it would be 10 - 15 years before a credible, if limited, capability was in place. Full spectrum fast jet operations would not be sustainable within NZDF, so the most appropriate capability would have to be identified for development. To my way of thinking that capability would be the light/maritime strike capability to augment the limited capability for defending the maritime approaches offered by RNZN and RNZAF.
Until the NZ government takes up its responsibility for the active defence of NZ it will continue to rely on the 'silver bullet' of distance, and willing allies.

Yep, but I think that when we get back into the fast jet business, it will be something along the lines of F-16 or similar and the emphasis will be on maritime strike with air defence, CAS etc., being secondary. I think in the modern environment, a lightweight fast jet won't cut it in the maritime strike role, because of their limited weapons capability.

Time wise, we could stand up such a capability within 10 years and we could undertake the LIFT within other FVEY air forces training programs by paying for student slots. We would also have to recruit experienced fast jet senior aircrew from those air arms as well until our own aircrew have gained the requisite experience and knowledge.

 

[Rob c]

Yep, but I think that when we get back into the fast jet business, it will be something along the lines of F-16 or similar and the emphasis will be on maritime strike with air defence, CAS etc., being secondary. I think in the modern environment, a lightweight fast jet won't cut it in the maritime strike role, because of their limited weapons capability.

Time wise, we could stand up such a capability within 10 years and we could undertake the LIFT within other FVEY air forces training programs by paying for student slots. We would also have to recruit experienced fast jet senior aircrew from those air arms as well until our own aircrew have gained the requisite experience and knowledge.

I think you are basically right thought we could transition thought light strike with a combat capable training aircraft like the T 50 or similar as these have a weapons loadout similar to a A4, The disadvantage of this type of aircraft is their reduced combat radius when operating with a significant load which can be rectified with air to air refueling if you have the capability.

 

[south]

I think you are basically right thought we could transition thought light strike with a combat capable training aircraft like the T 50 or similar as these have a weapons loadout similar to a A4, The disadvantage of this type of aircraft is their reduced combat radius when operating with a significant load which can be rectified with air to air refueling if you have the capability.

To what end?

What operation recently would a KA-50 be useful in to the NZG? I’m not even sure it can carry a targeting pod from my quick google...

 

[At lakes]

To what end?

What operation recently would a KA-50 be useful in to the NZG? I’m not even sure it can carry a targeting pod from my quick google...

The Lockheed Martin web site states that the their Lockheed Martin AN/AAQ-33 Sniper targeting pod is expandable to the FA50, so I assume that's what you are talking about.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/sniper

.

 

[Cadredave]

Posted in Wrong forum

 

[Wombat000]

To what end?

What operation recently would a KA-50 be useful in to the NZG? I’m not even sure it can carry a targeting pod from my quick google...

Thinking of this issue of RNZAF strike capability and it’s somewhat link to restoring fast air:
South does raise a pertinent point, but I feel that the question of “when” is evolved from “why”.
I think the RNZAF needs to think ‘outside of the square‘ with this.

i suggest that the solution Is a helicopter, not a fixed wing, and that helicopter is the AH-1Z.

A viper is an excellent modern solution to plausible NZDF tactical strike.
Strike in the current NZ context is linked to directly supporting the ground, not the wider ranging theatre.
Not only is Viper (in the theoretical capability sense) an organic CAS capability to deployed NZ ground efforts (& I think this is key) but would be a valuable contribution to any coalition efforts (which makes it politically significant).
It brings overwatch and support fires to the package. = there is a reason for it.

The “When” is the NZG has a history of deploying artillery support to coalition efforts, and more recently deploying helicopters.
It’s not theoretical, it fits within historical and current NZDF practice.
= there is a reason for it.

The Viper most neatly fits as a USEFUL load package in a C130J.
Not only is there a tactical and politically significant deployable role for a Viper, of which there’s a precedence, but it can be strategically moved, by RNZAFs own assets.
It is marinised and easily moved, and deployed directly, by sea by present RNZN capability.
It fits within the wider US supply food chain.

I feel the NZG will not entertain an idea without convincing capability merit.
The Viper fits NZ like a glove, whilst it’s not fixed wing, & it’s not a fast jet, it DOES provide currently realistically plausible tactical scope options consistent with NZDF CONOPS and ready usefulness.

what do you reckon?

- edit : typo of aircraft type subsequently corrected. -

 

[OldTex]

i suggest that the solution Is a helicopter, not a fixed wing, and that helicopter is the AH-1V.

A viper is an excellent modern solution to plausible NZDF tactical strike.
Strike in the current NZ context is linked to directly supporting the ground, not the wider ranging theatre.
Not only is Viper (in the theoretical capability sense) an organic CAS capability to deployed NZ ground efforts (& I think this is key) but would be a valuable contribution to any coalition efforts (which makes it politically significant).

While an armed helicopter may make sense for limited CAS for ground forces it does not make sense for maritime strike due to both the limited range and the ability to use ASMs. The Hellfire does have a very limited anti-ship capabilty against small vessels (e.g. patrol craft) at short range. To interdict larger vessels with this combination would be fruitless (and potentially suicidal for the aircrew).

For a limited CAS role possibly a better candidate would be the MH-6M (or the AH-6S). These can be transported in C-130s (potentially as a pair) and could dual role as both armed reconnaisance/light attack and light assault airlift. This airframe does lack the range of the AH-1Z (232 nmi vs 370 nmi), but that does not preclude it from a possible light CAS role.

 

[Wombat000]

IMHO I think maritime strike, whilst logical, is a distraction.
The P8 is the logical contender for that, and historically perhaps only an A4 may have been able to carry an ASM midline for limited range (happy to defer that to experts)?
I think the case for a ground support/tactical strike platform exists today
In a light weight easily deployable bang-for-buck practical form it’s Viper, but a larger more expansive and expensive platform (encompassing maritime strike) will have too many counter arguers to see it thru.

——edit: my error, I refer to AH-1Z. The latest variant.

 

[south]

The Lockheed Martin web site states that the their Lockheed Martin AN/AAQ-33 Sniper targeting pod is expandable to the FA50, so I assume that's what you are talking about.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/sniper

.

does expandable mean that it isn’t currently integrated, and NZG pays the bills?

I’m just curious again, against what threat and with what weapon does an FA-50 fit the bill for maritime strike? Best I can see it’s got a Maverick, with about 10-12NM (wiki) standoff, which ain’t going to cut it against a modern threat.

 

[south]

Thinking of this issue of RNZAF strike capability and it’s somewhat link to restoring fast air:
South does raise a pertinent point, but I feel that the question of “when” is evolved from “why”.
I think the RNZAF needs to think ‘outside of the square‘ with this.

i suggest that the solution Is a helicopter, not a fixed wing, and that helicopter is the AH-1Z.

A viper is an excellent modern solution to plausible NZDF tactical strike.
Strike in the current NZ context is linked to directly supporting the ground, not the wider ranging theatre.
Not only is Viper (in the theoretical capability sense) an organic CAS capability to deployed NZ ground efforts (& I think this is key) but would be a valuable contribution to any coalition efforts (which makes it politically significant).
It brings overwatch and support fires to the package. = there is a reason for it.

The “When” is the NZG has a history of deploying artillery support to coalition efforts, and more recently deploying helicopters.
It’s not theoretical, it fits within historical and current NZDF practice.
= there is a reason for it.

The Viper most neatly fits as a USEFUL load package in a C130J.
Not only is there a tactical and politically significant deployable role for a Viper, of which there’s a precedence, but it can be strategically moved, by RNZAFs own assets.
It is marinised and easily moved, and deployed directly, by sea by present RNZN capability.
It fits within the wider US supply food chain.

I feel the NZG will not entertain an idea without convincing capability merit.
The Viper fits NZ like a glove, whilst it’s not fixed wing, & it’s not a fast jet, it DOES provide currently realistically plausible tactical scope options consistent with NZDF CONOPS and ready usefulness.

what do you reckon?

- edit : typo of aircraft type subsequently corrected. -

G’day wombat, I’d be more interested in the ‘Who’ and ‘what’. Who is the target, and whatis the underlying strategic environment that drives the requirement?