Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Gibbo]

Two things. While I agree that sending a P-8 into contested airspace, unless there really was no other option available, would be foolish, the potential capabilities (assuming it was suitably kitted and armed... yes I know what is can mean to assume) might not put a P-8 into a contested space.

I am particularly thinking of if hostile vessels threatening NZ's SLOC. The sensors on a P-8 could potentially detect hostile naval vessels from 200 n miles away, which should be well outside the engagement range of a vessel's air defences. If the P-8 was armed with standoff AShM, of which there are several possibilities, that could permit engagement of threats to the SLOC.

As for the pollies and bureaucrats needing to pull their heads out of the sand, I tend to disagree on that too. I suspect (strongly, given the smell) that they need to pull their heads out of a part of their own anatomy and not sand...

You're certainly on the money with the stand-off capabilities... it seems logical to me to assume we all pretty much agree one reason the P8 was chosen over other proven MPA options was that it slots nicely into a 5-eyes operation, especially wrt RAAF & USN. There's a number aspects to that... sensor capabilities; data handling; and RPA control etc... all of which can be networked AIUI. Another part is likely to be weapons... and I know the NZDF looks to be going with P3-K2 status-quo, but I put money on the longer term intention is that will change over time.

So how possible is a scenario where the RNZAF could work with the RAAF where the latter was able to facilitate provision of weapons training in stand-off weapons for NZ? Could this possibly even extend to the point where 5sqn do all such training in Aussie with NZ $$$ contributions to cover purchase of a enough such weapons to allow annual live firing etc... enough to retain currency? This would likely be a more cost-effective and, dare I say it, more palatable option that keeps such weapons training largely out of direct view of the whingers in NZ, whilst allowing 5sqn to develop such a capability. Yes granted having no stocks of our own has a bunch of limitations, but purchasing weapons is a lot more straight forward & quicker if the heat starts coming on and has far less lead times that trying to introduce a new capability from scratch.

That then brings me to my next point, about using the P8 to protect NZs SLOC. Those SLOC stretch a fair distance away from NZ itself and in doing so are, in many places, the same SLOC of concern to other nations, particularly Aussie. So say NZ does indeed find a way to get and maintain currency in stand-off weapons on the P8, when the heat goes on somewhere, could small stocks be ordered fairly easily, probably as a tag-on to an RAAF order who may be facing the same concern for their SLOC?

It is perfectly logical then that if those SLOC were threatened the RNZAF would look to deploy a P8 overseas to an area closer to the threat source where combined with RAAF and others NZ would be seen to be a highly visible component of a joint operation well prepared and sending a clear message of intent with respect to the security of those SLOC.

Which is ultimately a long-winded way of saying yes I think you're right to suggest the NZ P8 could well end up armed with stand-off weapons and providing the core element of defence of NZs SLOC... that however doesn't automatically suggest it will be on it's own based out of Ohakea. I would suggest that's more likely to happen to the North and or North-East of Australia under an umbrella of significant assets from the ADF, amongst others. That is the area where airspace is likely to be more-contested... as are SLOC, constrained as they are by land masses.

 

[south]

So how possible is a scenario where the RNZAF could work with the RAAF where the latter was able to facilitate provision of weapons training in stand-off weapons for NZ? Could this possibly even extend to the point where 5sqn do all such training in Aussie with NZ $$$ contributions to cover purchase of a enough such weapons to allow annual live firing etc... enough to retain currency? This would likely be a more cost-effective and, dare I say it, more palatable option that keeps such weapons training largely out of direct view of the whingers in NZ, whilst allowing 5sqn to develop such a capability. Yes granted having no stocks of our own has a bunch of limitations, but purchasing weapons is a lot more straight forward & quicker if the heat starts coming on and has far less lead times that trying to introduce a new capability from scratch.

The danger that you have with trying to do it this way is that there is no guarantee that you will get access to weapons, e.g. why would the Aus/US give up their weapons, at the time when they probably need them most?

Secondly - if your armourers have never handled weapons before, never loaded them before, never armed them before, do you have the ground equipment required? Do you have the ability to store weapons prior to use in a certified facility/location?

 

[Gibbo]

......

IMHO we won't see fast jets again unless something really big gives pollies & joe public the absolute shits... by which time it's way too late anyway. I think such frights will see an initial focus on boosting existing capability (eg: longer-range weapons for the P8, more transports & choppers) depending on lessons learnt from such a crisis (assuming we aren't all talking Swahili after same!)

Having chewed over this earlier post I was racking my brain to think what such a thing could be... ie: to give NZer's the shits & result in a rethink about the ACF. I now think a short-sharp shock won't be the answer... it would be over before we know it, in which case I contend it's likely to have the opposite effect in that it would convince many NZers (wrongly) that it would have been pointless waste trying to throw a bunch of very expensive fast-jets at trying to stop such an event. It's not like the ADF will ride in like knight's in shining armour... in all probability they'll be equally facing the same threat.

I kind of think it would then have to most likely be something that builds up over time, like where it becomes hassle, then a nuisance, then a pain in the arse, and finally something that needs push-back. To my mind that's most likely to be new players in the block playing at subtle intimidation, like what Russia does so well... although not saying it would be them, not even PRC necessarily... I'm leaving the 'who' undetermined. If so then perhaps a re-constituted ACF may more likely have intercept, possibly even fast recon, as it's primary role rather than strike.

 

[Gibbo]

The danger that you have with trying to do it this way is that there is no guarantee that you will get access to weapons, e.g. why would the Aus/US give up their weapons, at the time when they probably need them most?

Secondly - if your armourers have never handled weapons before, never loaded them before, never armed them before, do you have the ground equipment required? Do you have the ability to store weapons prior to use in a certified facility/location?

Yes all totally valid... my hypothetical scenario is that all the above are taken care of as part of a formal Govt level agreement whereby, as I mentioned (but probably not clearly) that from the get-go NZ buys it's own stock for use; pays to have them shipped to Aussie; pays for share of the storage costs (including facilities) and then flies it own armourers over as required for training etc, alongside the flight crews.

My thinking was along the lines of the agreement where 2sqn operated A4s out of RAN Nowra... surely that wasn't a weapons-free basing arrangement!?! Mind you I'm only thinking this for any high-end standoff weapons that the RAAF would also use.... if we did it at all we'd probably fire about 2 every 18 months so such an agreement wouldn't seem too insurmountable. As for all other weapons (ala P3-K2) currency & own stocks should be maintained in country as at present. Highly hypothetical at this point but not beyond the realms of possibility.

I know that seems to be counter-intuitive but it maybe a way to achieve currency with less $$$ overhead...and less local resistance.

 

[Rob c]

Gday Rob. I see the threat, plenty of threats. If you want peace prepare for war etc etc... I’d also love to have NZ having a decent ACF, provided it was resources appropriately.

Please elaborate though - by sovereignty and deterrence are you talking NZ mainland?

Yes that would what you would initially aiming to achieve, how ever having set up your armed forces to achieve that you would be in a position with a few additions to help your neighbouring states more effectively. But it is in any country's best interests to first and foremost protect there own sovereignty first .

 

[ASSAIL]

Any thought of a return to fast jet for the RNZAF is a wet dream IMHO. there is no support for it either by your political leaders or by the public who would much prefer a different kind of “virtue signalling”.
There is however, an argument to be made for a Kiwi contribution to both CAS and COIN, particularly in the Immediate Areas of strategic importance to both ANZAC partners.
instability in Fiji, The Solomon Is or PNG/West Papua, particularly after such possible catastrophes as COVID-19 is a real concern and these scenarios provide an ideal situation where the RNZAF Texans and their derivative, the AT6 Wolverine, could make a real contribution.
The Texans exist as trainers and new Wolverines could be easily sourced customised for the role, personnel are trained in both operation and sustainment and importantly they can operate from very basic strips.
Helicopters have advantages but They still need sophisticated support, they’re slow and their range/endurance doesn’t compare, in comparison the Wolverine ticks many boxes.
Thanks to t68 for jogging my memory about the T6 a few posts back.

 

[Todjaeger]

Having chewed over this earlier post I was racking my brain to think what such a thing could be... ie: to give NZer's the shits & result in a rethink about the ACF. I now think a short-sharp shock won't be the answer... it would be over before we know it, in which case I contend it's likely to have the opposite effect in that it would convince many NZers (wrongly) that it would have been pointless waste trying to throw a bunch of very expensive fast-jets at trying to stop such an event. It's not like the ADF will ride in like knight's in shining armour... in all probability they'll be equally facing the same threat.

I kind of think it would then have to most likely be something that builds up over time, like where it becomes hassle, then a nuisance, then a pain in the arse, and finally something that needs push-back. To my mind that's most likely to be new players in the block playing at subtle intimidation, like what Russia does so well... although not saying it would be them, not even PRC necessarily... I'm leaving the 'who' undetermined. If so then perhaps a re-constituted ACF may more likely have intercept, possibly even fast recon, as it's primary role rather than strike.

I doubt that there would be an 'event' which would serve as an adequate trigger. What could possibly happen is a change in the strategic environment, and of equal importance would be a recognition of that change both on the part of Kiwi policymakers and the public.

This might be things like foreign "fishing vessels" being escorted by their national "coast guard" vessels operating within the EEZ of NZ, or within the EEZ of S. Pacific island-nations that NZ is responsible for patrolling or assisting with the patrolling of. And of course there is the potential for increasing conflicts along the SLOC, particularly at points of contention.

However, I would expect that should such changes occur, it the outcomes would be less specific than re-raising an ACF and instead would (possibly) raise the priority of funding the NZDF as a whole, alongside actually establishing warfighting capabilities.

 

[Gibbo]

I doubt that there would be an 'event' which would serve as an adequate trigger. What could possibly happen is a change in the strategic environment, and of equal importance would be a recognition of that change both on the part of Kiwi policymakers and the public.

This might be things like foreign "fishing vessels" being escorted by their national "coast guard" vessels operating within the EEZ of NZ, or within the EEZ of S. Pacific island-nations that NZ is responsible for patrolling or assisting with the patrolling of. And of course there is the potential for increasing conflicts along the SLOC, particularly at points of contention.

However, I would expect that should such changes occur, it the outcomes would be less specific than re-raising an ACF and instead would (possibly) raise the priority of funding the NZDF as a whole, alongside actually establishing warfighting capabilities.

Yes I'd agree that any catalyst is more likely to be a new pattern of 'uncomfortable behaviour' rather than an event. Also agree that issues involving shipping will be dealt with by P8 & Naval assets, hence they'd get any funding identified rather than a fast-jet ACF. It would have to specifically be an airborne nuisance for the thinking to even consider investment in fast-jet assets... perhaps like what the Russian do with their Tu-142 'Bears' around the UK etc, but I'm sure the NZ Govt would simply defer to the Australian Govt in such situations.

 

[t68]

Any thought of a return to fast jet for the RNZAF is a wet dream IMHO. there is no support for it either by your political leaders or by the public who would much prefer a different kind of “virtue signalling”.
There is however, an argument to be made for a Kiwi contribution to both CAS and COIN, particularly in the Immediate Areas of strategic importance to both ANZAC partners.
instability in Fiji, The Solomon Is or PNG/West Papua, particularly after such possible catastrophes as COVID-19 is a real concern and these scenarios provide an ideal situation where the RNZAF Texans and their derivative, the AT6 Wolverine, could make a real contribution.
The Texans exist as trainers and new Wolverines could be easily sourced customised for the role, personnel are trained in both operation and sustainment and importantly they can operate from very basic strips.
Helicopters have advantages but They still need sophisticated support, they’re slow and their range/endurance doesn’t compare, in comparison the Wolverine ticks many boxes.
Thanks to t68 for jogging my memory about the T6 a few posts back.

Yep I agree from an Anzac point of view a Tiger ARH(or replacement) & AT-6 would work well together. There also the advantage it could be a spotter and marker for the fast movers in a role like the A1 Skyraider in Vietnam or even as escorts overwatch for either tactical landings for cargo aircraft or even medical flights

I think AT-6 Wolverines have a place within RNZAF

 

[Wombat000]

Helicopters have advantages but They still need sophisticated support, they’re slow and their range/endurance doesn’t compare, in comparison the Wolverine ticks many boxes.

Ummm, I’m not so sure about that?
i have no doubt that the Texan (+ derivative) are outstanding aircraft, and I think Wolverine would be a stunning addition to RNZAF, but I don’t think it will happen. This is why:
*The motivation for standing up such a capability would be close tactical support for deployed NZ Army, and its allies. It’s primary task is as a tactical platform requirement, not a theatre one, so the necessity for range(endurance) and speed is not the imperative.
its the same employment specs that validate why the AH-1Z (& all attack helicopters) exists to begin with.
*An AT6 cannot co-locate in remote field FOBs with its NH90 brothers.
*An AT6 cannot fly close supporting tactical flight profiles of the NH90s
*one could argue that an AT6 does not have the sustained loiter firepower advantage that a lingering attack helicopter would provide to Army, as an AT6 by being fixed wing and has a pass/orbit flight profile, plus transit times from its closest airfield.
*An AH-1Z is I suggest easier to move than an AT6, Actually it’s probably easier to move than the NH90 and probably easier to move than a UH-1H. Therefore it’s relevant to Army because it’s most likely going to be deployed to begin with.
A AH-1Z is self deployable by RNZAF, I’m unsure if an AT6 is?
The RNZAF has an operational history of deploying helicopters, to the argument that they’re more difficult is not valid.
A AH-1Z is possibly no more difficult than a deployed NH90 (I’m not a maintainer, but they strike me as being a modified Huey with upgraded specific avionics. A maintainer can correct me)
- so why would Army bother asking Govt for an AT6?

*An AT6 cannot operate from an Amphib, or lilypad off a ship with a hello deck.
So why would Navy bother advocating for an AT6, when it’s practically useless to them?

An AH-1Z gives Navy a step into a definitive supported amphib realm, that could deploy organic fire support to landed assets.
there is a relevance to Navy.

So i suggest that if RNZAF actually wants a strike role, then it must be relevant to its NZDF partners.
To do that they need to envisage a forward, and co-deployed close support platform (ie helicopter) that actually has a chance to be practically deployed to begin with.

 

[ngatimozart]

The public attitude towards defence has changed in the last 10 years with a more positive attitude towards defence. Hence I believe that the reestablishing of the ACF won't garner much opposition, apart from the minority of usual anti US & everything else left wing activists.

The PRC is the threat at the moment because of its behaviour under its current leadership and the conditions that the world will find itself in over the next few years, will encourage its behaviour even more as nations struggle to recover from this twin crisis. At the same time other nations within the region will be struggling with the possibility of some becoming destabilized. This includes the Polynesian and Melanesian nations, already prime targets for mischief making by Beijing.

The PRC is primarily after resources and food, but it wants total control of them as well. For example it's devastated its traditional fishing grounds and then is doing the same the fishing grounds further out. Now they are fishing areas world wide taking everything in the water. This brings them into conflict with other nations as fish stocks diminish, especially for nations, such as Pacific Island nations, who are highly dependent upon fishing for their protein.

The tactics that the PRC use in the South China Sea, are gray warfare exactly the same as what Russia is doing in the Ukraine. That is what we face and it will come to our region.

Our pollies and their party machines, especially the left wing and its activists, think that the general public, i.e., the voters are thick and don't know or care, but that is not so. I subject myself to torture by reading the comments on various articles in the media, and that is where I've noticed the increase in support for the ACF. The interesting thing is that when someone suggests fast jets they generally don't get shouted down, when 20 - 25 years that would've happened in spade fulls as the left wing activists got wound up.

So what's changed? I think people have grown a bit and realised that maybe a mistake had been made, because the world is not as benign as claimed. Also there are a younger cohort coming through who have a different world view, somewhat more pragmatic about world events. They are the young kids who went to ANZAC Day dawn parades yearly and were bought up with ANZAC in its renaissance. So they understand what ANZAC is and they don't have the blinkered view that their grandparents had.

That's why I think that we have a good chance of getting an ACF back. There is support for it amongst the public and I believe that the pollies will have to make that decision at some stage, as well as increasing defence spending.

That's my 2 pennies worth.

 

[ASSAIL]

Ummm, I’m not so sure about that?
i have no doubt that the Texan (+ derivative) are outstanding aircraft, and I think Wolverine would be a stunning addition to RNZAF, but I don’t think it will happen. This is why:
*The motivation for standing up such a capability would be close tactical support for deployed NZ Army, and its allies. It’s primary task is as a tactical platform requirement, not a theatre one, so the necessity for range(endurance) and speed is not the imperative.
its the same employment specs that validate why the AH-1Z (& all attack helicopters) exists to begin with.
*An AT6 cannot co-locate in remote field FOBs with its NH90 brothers.
*An AT6 cannot fly close supporting tactical flight profiles of the NH90s
*one could argue that an AT6 does not have the sustained loiter firepower advantage that a lingering attack helicopter would provide to Army, as an AT6 by being fixed wing and has a pass/orbit flight profile, plus transit times from its closest airfield.
*An AH-1Z is I suggest easier to move than an AT6, Actually it’s probably easier to move than the NH90 and probably easier to move than a UH-1H. Therefore it’s relevant to Army because it’s most likely going to be deployed to begin with.
A AH-1Z is self deployable by RNZAF, I’m unsure if an AT6 is?
The RNZAF has an operational history of deploying helicopters, to the argument that they’re more difficult is not valid.
A AH-1Z is possibly no more difficult than a deployed NH90 (I’m not a maintainer, but they strike me as being a modified Huey with upgraded specific avionics. A maintainer can correct me)
- so why would Army bother asking Govt for an AT6?

*An AT6 cannot operate from an Amphib, or lilypad off a ship with a hello deck.
So why would Navy bother advocating for an AT6, when it’s practically useless to them?

An AH-1Z gives Navy a step into a definitive supported amphib realm, that could deploy organic fire support to landed assets.
there is a relevance to Navy.

So i suggest that if RNZAF actually wants a strike role, then it must be relevant to its NZDF partners.
To do that they need to envisage a forward, and co-deployed close support platform (ie helicopter) that actually has a chance to be practically deployed to begin with.

I think you’re overstating the “simplicity” of standing up an entire new rotary attack platform. You have this airframe and engine in service, you have pilots familiar, you have qualified maintainers.
You also conflate the need to operate from and amphip and although this is important in certain circumstances, in the realistic scenarios I mentioned, failed states in our region, counter insurgency, as well as close air support for own troops, operation from sea is not necessary apart from a possible initial insertion a la ET.
Further, it is not necesssary to work “with” the NH90s in a tactical situation, they are supplementary capabilities not necessarily complimentary.
The link provided shows the extraordinary capabilities of this light aircraft and although I’m no expert in these matters I presume this far exceeds what is available in your average Attack helo.
Naturally I’d be happy to be corrected by one of our members familiar with these concepts.

Beechcraft AT-6 Wolverine Light Attack / Close-Air Support (CAS) Aircraft

 

[Wombat000]

I think you’re overstating the “simplicity” of standing up an entire new rotary attack platform. You have this airframe and engine in service, you have pilots familiar, you have qualified maintainers.
You also conflate the need to operate from and amphip and although this is important in certain circumstances, in the realistic scenarios I mentioned, failed states in our region, counter insurgency, as well as close air support for own troops, operation from sea is not necessary apart from a possible initial insertion a la ET.
Further, it is not necesssary to work “with” the NH90s in a tactical situation, they are supplementary capabilities not necessarily complimentary.
The link provided shows the extraordinary capabilities of this light aircraft and although I’m no expert in these matters I presume this far exceeds what is available in your average Attack helo.
Naturally I’d be happy to be corrected by one of our members familiar with these concepts.

Beechcraft AT-6 Wolverine Light Attack / Close-Air Support (CAS) Aircraft

I do appreciate the complexity required to stand up this capability, so often talked about.
I imagine any new platform is complicated, not just helicopters. I understand that platforms require great effort and even more effort to field them expertly. But RNZAF is already a very competant fielder and proven deployer of helicopters, so just cos its a chopper is no great deal breaker.
I appreciate that not every tasking requires a AH-1Z to work with deployed NH90s infact thats the position we are in now. But a AT6 does not offer the same flexibility as a 1Z.
Jyst cos it may not be always required doesnt mean it often wouldnt be if it was available as a key enabler/multiplier.
A .1Z can actually be paddock deployed with the package its supporting.

A AH-1Z is not only a gun ship deterent/support asset, but also has an ISR capabilities on board, correct? Better than a NH90? that can deploy on an amphib could it not?

Im not saying the AT6 is no good, im saying the AH-1Z is more flexible, deployable, and a more relevant platform that would be embraced by the whole of NZDF, not just those who want to see planes on a flightline.

If it happens, thats the reasons why.

--i hope im explaining my points clearly. Im contributing to this chat opportunistically on the run.

 

[Todjaeger]

I do appreciate the complexity required to stand up this capability, so often talked about.
I imagine any new platform is complicated, not just helicopters. I understand that platforms require great effort and even more effort to field them expertly. But RNZAF is already a very competant fielder and proven deployer of helicopters, so just cos its a chopper is no great deal breaker.
I appreciate that not every tasking requires a AH-1Z to work with deployed NH90s infact thats the position we are in now. But a AT6 does not offer the same flexibility as a 1Z.
Jyst cos it may not be always required doesnt mean it often wouldnt be if it was available as a key enabler/multiplier.
A .1Z can actually be paddock deployed with the package its supporting.

A AH-1Z is not only a gun ship deterent/support asset, but also has an ISR capabilities on board, correct? Better than a NH90? that can deploy on an amphib could it not?

Im not saying the AT6 is no good, im saying the AH-1Z is more flexible, deployable, and a more relevant platform that would be embraced by the whole of NZDF, not just those who want to see planes on a flightline.

If it happens, thats the reasons why.

--i hope im explaining my points clearly. Im contributing to this chat opportunistically on the run.

Given the specialist capabilities required for an armed attack/recon helicopter, I just do not see that as being something NZ would devote to raising a capability any time soon. IMO the numbers just would not work out.

As mentioned previously, the eight NH90's in service are themselves really too few in number and should have been 10+ in order to maintain availability as well as in order to have a large enough pool of personnel available to operate and maintain the helicopters, plus have a supply chain in place. Look at the difficulties NZ had keeping the five SH-2G(NZ) in service. With that in mind, there would be the question of how many dedicated attack helicopters NZ would require in order to maintain a viable fleet of them.

Then consider what would be required for them to be deployed by NZ. The Canterbury could currently transport them, but could not sustain armed operations (Canterbury lacks a magazine suitable to arm helicopters). If future amphibious ships are designed with space to support and sustain armed helicopters, this could work. However, any embarked attack helicopters would come at the expense of other helicopters, vehicles, and other pieces of kit. If I had to make a choice, I would rather extra embarked armed helicopters be kitted as naval helicopters, possibly with some CAS capabilities via Hellfire missiles.

Something like armed helicopters could certainly be used by the NZDF, but there are a number of areas which would need to be developed in order for this to happen effectively, and I just do not see such areas being valuable enough or providing enough 'bang for the buck' to justify the resources. Not when there are other areas within the NZDF which can offer greater or more relevant capability.

 

[Xthenaki]

Ummm, I’m not so sure about that?
i have no doubt that the Texan (+ derivative) are outstanding aircraft, and I think Wolverine would be a stunning addition to RNZAF, but I don’t think it will happen. This is why:
*The motivation for standing up such a capability would be close tactical support for deployed NZ Army, and its allies. It’s primary task is as a tactical platform requirement, not a theatre one, so the necessity for range(endurance) and speed is not the imperative.
its the same employment specs that validate why the AH-1Z (& all attack helicopters) exists to begin with.
*An AT6 cannot co-locate in remote field FOBs with its NH90 brothers.
*An AT6 cannot fly close supporting tactical flight profiles of the NH90s
*one could argue that an AT6 does not have the sustained loiter firepower advantage that a lingering attack helicopter would provide to Army, as an AT6 by being fixed wing and has a pass/orbit flight profile, plus transit times from its closest airfield.
*An AH-1Z is I suggest easier to move than an AT6, Actually it’s probably easier to move than the NH90 and probably easier to move than a UH-1H. Therefore it’s relevant to Army because it’s most likely going to be deployed to begin with.
A AH-1Z is self deployable by RNZAF, I’m unsure if an AT6 is?
The RNZAF has an operational history of deploying helicopters, to the argument that they’re more difficult is not valid.
A AH-1Z is possibly no more difficult than a deployed NH90 (I’m not a maintainer, but they strike me as being a modified Huey with upgraded specific avionics. A maintainer can correct me)
- so why would Army bother asking Govt for an AT6?

*An AT6 cannot operate from an Amphib, or lilypad off a ship with a hello deck.
So why would Navy bother advocating for an AT6, when it’s practically useless to them?

An AH-1Z gives Navy a step into a definitive supported amphib realm, that could deploy organic fire support to landed assets.
there is a relevance to Navy.

So i suggest that if RNZAF actually wants a strike role, then it must be relevant to its NZDF partners.
To do that they need to envisage a forward, and co-deployed close support platform (ie helicopter) that actually has a chance to be practically deployed to begin with.

 

[Xthenaki]

If it is practical to intergrate a or two AH-1Z attack helos to support amphibious operations I see this as a positive step. Is Canterbury capable of operating two different sets of helos efficently' If so you are establishing a role that paves the way when the proposed larger LHDs arrive.

 

[Rob c]

To do that they need to envisage a forward, and co-deployed close support platform (ie helicopter) that actually has
So i suggest that if RNZAF actually wants a strike role, then it must be relevant to its NZDF partners. a chance to be practically deployed to begin with.

The reason we need an ACF is to do with the defence of NZ initially and secondly the region, It would be the first responder in the case of a threat to our freedom in both an anti air and maritime , a role that a helicopter could not perform. As to being able to deploy, the Skyhawks deployed several times a year to locations as far away as Thailand, the Philippines, Australia and Hawaii and could do so with little warning and arrive quickly. As the world situation continues to deteriorate we must consider what is needed to defend ourselves firstly and then our region.
If you want deployability then strike aircraft fly them selves there with significantly less support required than helicopters and as I have stated before, the level of deterrence they provide is far greater.

 

[Rob c]

On a brighter note it is nice to hear the T6's out and about again after a long period of silence. I don't know how they achieve the social distancing but I guess that with the seat distancing and that they both wear masks all is well.

 

[anzac3]

Any thought of a return to fast jet for the RNZAF is a wet dream IMHO. there is no support for it either by your political leaders or by the public who would much prefer a different kind of “virtue signalling”.
There is however, an argument to be made for a Kiwi contribution to both CAS and COIN, particularly in the Immediate Areas of strategic importance to both ANZAC partners.
instability in Fiji, The Solomon Is or PNG/West Papua, particularly after such possible catastrophes as COVID-19 is a real concern and these scenarios provide an ideal situation where the RNZAF Texans and their derivative, the AT6 Wolverine, could make a real contribution.
The Texans exist as trainers and new Wolverines could be easily sourced customised for the role, personnel are trained in both operation and sustainment and importantly they can operate from very basic strips.
Helicopters have advantages but They still need sophisticated support, they’re slow and their range/endurance doesn’t compare, in comparison the Wolverine ticks many boxes.
Thanks to t68 for jogging my memory about the T6 a few posts back.

Hi there
I am pretty sure NZFs R Mark has said his personal preference would be for a return to fast jets. ( google it) I personally dont think the NZ public would purposely not re elect a Govt because they leased some FJ or borrowed some from the Singapore Squadron who visit. IMHO NZs biggest problem is the media. It is currently trumpeting the 4 new Poisedons as Sub Killers which doesnt sit well with the working class public.
But the current lolly scramble will finish any funding for anything for a long time.

 

[Wombat000]

Given the specialist capabilities required for an armed attack/recon helicopter, I just do not see that as being something NZ would devote to raising a capability any time soon. IMO the numbers just would not work out.

As mentioned previously, the eight NH90's in service are themselves really too few in number and should have been 10+ in order to maintain availability as well as in order to have a large enough pool of personnel available to operate and maintain the helicopters, plus have a supply chain in place. Look at the difficulties NZ had keeping the five SH-2G(NZ) in service. With that in mind, there would be the question of how many dedicated attack helicopters NZ would require in order to maintain a viable fleet of them.

Then consider what would be required for them to be deployed by NZ. The Canterbury could currently transport them, but could not sustain armed operations (Canterbury lacks a magazine suitable to arm helicopters). If future amphibious ships are designed with space to support and sustain armed helicopters, this could work. However, any embarked attack helicopters would come at the expense of other helicopters, vehicles, and other pieces of kit. If I had to make a choice, I would rather extra embarked armed helicopters be kitted as naval helicopters, possibly with some CAS capabilities via Hellfire missiles.

Something like armed helicopters could certainly be used by the NZDF, but there are a number of areas which would need to be developed in order for this to happen effectively, and I just do not see such areas being valuable enough or providing enough 'bang for the buck' to justify the resources. Not when there are other areas within the NZDF which can offer greater or more relevant capability.

I totally agree,
the standing up of a ACF would be quite a substantial undertaking. Something that not taken lightly and I can only guess would be plausible in response to strong advocacy from the collective DF stakeholders.

i agree that in the longer interim defence will have to make-do without, or adapt workaround solutions.
i also can see that there are convincing present issues (airframe numbers & enhancements etc) that in the status quo will (and probably should) dominate attention first.

the issue of suitability of legacy HMNZS Canterbury is a pertinent one. It does highlight potential relevance issues for something useful for Navy to bother advocating for, and any NZG aspirations to field a further capable amphib capability.
im not aware of projected future Amphib ship design options, but it might be wise to pay focus to numbers of helo spots and their magazine arrangements.

its a very interesting debate.