Polls when the strike wing was disbanded showed 72% of the population wanted it retained and a poll published in the paper around 2018 ( Either the Dom or the Standard) I remember had 68% wanted a strike ability reinstated. Around that time another poll in the newspaper said 39% wanted an increase in the defence budget, 31% wanted it to stay the same and the rest either wanted it reduced or had no opinion. What we need to guard against is assuming that the very vocal anti defence minority represent more of the population than they actually do due to the amount of noise they make, this of course is a deliberate tatic on their part to try and give a false impression of the size of their support base.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
Canterbury can carry up to eight containers of ammunition and up to two with hazardous materials (and could be expanded upon... which would be able to accommodate limited weapons for any attack or armed helo...
The DCP2019 states that the 2nd Enhanced Sealift vessel will most likely will have this capability ... and was part of the 20 billion dollar roos over 15 years defence expenditure. Although with the current situation in the world and budget blown etc etc etc most like will now become a rowboat with a paper dart launcher...
I think if you do something you do it properly or not at all.
In the context of NZ Fast, air the question is simple................Will these aircraft be sent into harms way.
I appreciate it's a blunt but broad question for a multi role aircraft which as it's name imply's ,conducts many roles!
Many of the roles conducted by today's multi role aircraft can be performed by other assets with various degrees of efficiency.
If NZ deems the need for a high end Air superiority platform then this will be expensive.
Purchase the appropriate Western 5 gen aircraft in sufficient numbers to have at least a full Sqn, plus aircraft for attrition and training.
What are we looking at .................probably at least 28 plus aircraft.
Now add to the mix the training fleet of aircraft to train fast air pilots with the type of aircraft found in the RAAF - PC-21 / BAE Hawk.
Quite an investment.....................Now I'm not saying it's not needed, just that when you look at this sort of capital investment you need to look at the best "bang for your buck."
Suggest if some "dosh " was to be found then "some" of the "multi role" capability could be satisfied with an increase in numbers of in service platforms - Boeing P-8 - NH Industries NH-() - -T-6 Texan 11.
Add numbers and weapons to these platforms would I suggest would be the starting point.
Regards S
While all the areas you mention could very well be improved, None of them really provide a significant deterrent factor. I believe in the J.F.K. saying that is "The best defence dollars you can ever spend are the ones you never use" when he was talking about deterrence. The object being to deter aggression towards you so that your young men and women are not put in harm's way. A compdent ACF is the most effective way NZ could achieve this with the deterioration of the world situation, which is predicted to continue to get worse.
Takao
The Bunker Group
In all honesty though, is there anything that the NZDF can do that would have a real deterrence value? Perhaps within the cyber realm, but other than distance, there is nothing that would deter a decent threat from targeting NZ.
That isn't a dig at NZ either. For all Australia's talk of deterrence, I'm not convinced there is anything that would deter a threat. Other than distance. For deterrence to work, there needs to be significant mass or destructive power; neither country can do that.
Yes very true in that NZ would never have the resources to effectively deter a direct attack... with such a vast coastline and a quick mining of or harbours our economy would be stopped dead in it's tracks overnight, let alone anyone even needing to shoot at us!
However there is one key thing that NZ can do that is a very effective deterrent, and something NZ currently pays lip service to.... strong international defence partnerships...most effective deterrent we will ever have. I think all of us here get that... and I'd suggest even most political parties in NZ seem to grasp that - to varying degrees! This gets back to the question of how best to contribute... but I prefer not to do wish-lists.
Ultimately this means we need to increase defence budgets - that aspirational 2% of GDP is always a good target number. However only recently have we seen any real conviction from a Defence Minister toward improvement... and as a small coalition partner he could well be out on his arse in a few months (NZ elections due Sept. unless Colonel COVID leads a coup).
IMHO the current DCP is the best starting point as it seeks to maintain current capabilities by bringing them into the modern world... then assuming the funds were there (ok now we've gone hypothetical) my initial focus would be largely focused on boosting airframe numbers within the current DCP framework in order to give the fleet some depth... then and only then would I look to expand (back) into higher-end capabilities. The same approach would apply to NZ Army & RNZN in my book.
I do think that NZers as a whole are starting to show a growing maturity around the need for an effective defence force. That seems to be the result of a realisation that the NZ public needed to be gently massaged with stories of HADR, SAR & resource protection to convince them the NZDF has a valid role in modern NZ. Getting back to the deterrent power of strong international defence partnerships, my only concern is that many NZers still seem to display a significant ignorance of the need for, and benefits of, strong defence relationships with key allies, and the need therein for effective military capability contributions... yes the nasty that goes 'bang'!
FoxtrotRomeo999
Active Member
Is there a way of providing an unmanned ACF capability for New Zealand? RAAF "Loyal Wingman" prototype, once developed, could offer a cheap yet effective unmanned deterent capability for New Zealand and lessen the need for a manned ACF. Loyal Wingman program marks key milestone - Australian Aviation (quotes below are from this document).
Of course, it is still vapourware, a concept under development.
- It should have a capable aerial capability. "ATS features artificial intelligence to fly independently or in support of manned aircraft while maintaining a safe distance between other aircraft. It will have a range of more than 3,000 km, giving it a four to five-hour combat endurance, well beyond that of manned fighter-sized aircraft." And it should have low visiblity.
- It should be configurable to RNZAF system requirements. "Customers will be able to tailor ATS sensors and systems based on their own defence and industrial objectives." This would include weapons systems.
- The platform is intended to be available to other nations and is intended to be cheap. "BAE Systems Australia chief executive Gabby Costigan said the company was proud to be working with Boeing in Australia to bring a new defence capability to life, “one that offers enormous potential for the RAAF as well as future export markets,”
- You won't need a manned ACF to use it. Loyal Wingman is planned to be controllable from the ground (Boeing unveils ‘loyal wingman’ drone) and from a variety of non-combat aircraft. "The Australian-designed fighter-sized unmanned system is designed to act as a ‘loyal wingman’ in conjunction with high value assets such as the P-8A Poseidon or E-7A Wedgetail, or with combat aircraft like the F-35A or F/A-18F. "
- The future platform compatability with at least the RAAF permits other countries assets to network with the Kiwi force.
Of course, it is still vapourware, a concept under development.
I agree with your views.
Re- introducing the jet trainer for pilot developement and seeking an agreement with one of our allies to seccond advanced trainees on an exchange or contributing program would be a meaningful contribution if accepted. With the massive cost of re-establishing an ACF unit I can only see its introduction happening in increments.
We as a group need access to pro defence journalists to push our ideals into the open media arena. Of course with a budget the "greenies" are masters of this.
Re- introducing the jet trainer for pilot developement and seeking an agreement with one of our allies to seccond advanced trainees on an exchange or contributing program would be a meaningful contribution if accepted. With the massive cost of re-establishing an ACF unit I can only see its introduction happening in increments.
We as a group need access to pro defence journalists to push our ideals into the open media arena. Of course with a budget the "greenies" are masters of this.
Absolutely correct... re-establishing an ACF unit could only happen in increments, which could be fairly drawn-out. Also yes to having exchanges with allies, RAAF in particular, that would be a key aspect of this. I guess it would start with the purely 'human' element of providing (and paying for!) aircrew to be trained overseas who then operate as fully integrated aircrew in allied squadrons for a set period of time, who are then posted home to bring that knowledge in-house from where it is incubated!?! To incubate this we'd have to have a suitable advanced trainer in place to support weapons & combat tactics training otherwise the whole thing would fall flat on it's face and be a complete waste of time & resources.
The AT6 Wolverine does excite me and I do accept it probably has very limited operational combat value for NZ (even though I see it could've been damned useful in East Timor), but I wonder if it could provide a suitable platform from which to provide that weapons & combat tactics training... much like 14sqn used to when it had jets. The beauty is it is by & large an advanced version of a type already on the books with a high % of common parts to support and T6C graduates could jump in & fly it immediately.
A small fleet could do this as well as valuable local JTAC training for Army. Hell maybe the NZDF could even then realise that in some circumstances it could be useful deployed to certain operations (think East Timor where it would've been a great platform to spot & track insurgent movements... plus provide an option for top-cover for choppers)... hey it could even beat-up foreign fishing vessels caught doing the dirty who decide they don't want to stop (thinking NZ6206 here!)... but in reality it would provide most it's value as a locally based advanced trainer.... as you can see I'm totally thinking a role like 14sqn of old. Hell even the Irish Air Corps manage to justify & maintain a light ground-attack capability with their PC9M!
Nope because of sovereignty issues first and foremost. Then in the NZ context the technology is and would be seen as very risky from an acquisition POV. Also in a contested environment there is no guarantee that the manned platform will be able to communicate with the loyal wingman. Even if you put AI into the loyal wingman, that would probably be a leap to far for Kiwi pollies, purely because of the ethical issues and I would not blame them, because I have the same issues. In a NZ context such a concept as the loyal wingman is a non starter at the moment and for the foreseeable future.
Due to the distance from possible locations to attack NZ there is a lot we can do to deter aggression against us as we are well outside the range of possible air support for any aggressor. An ACF with a good supply of both anti shipping and anti aircraft missiles would be a daunting prospect to any would be aggressor knowing that they would be without air support but having to go up against a competent ACF. The big thing that NZ has on it's side is the tyranny of distance and that combined with a ACF will supply a significant form of DETERRENCE.
In other words an aggressors commander would know that any attack either by sea or air would be attacked by missiles for a significant period of time while they headed for NZ without them being able to do anything about it. That would be a deterrent to any one.
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
Not necessarily the Argentines had far closer supply lines to help defend the Falkland,. I wouldn't say the British were victorious convincingly I think they just had more luck on their side with HMS Conqueror. but having full spectrum capability goes a long way and anyone contemplating going after NZ will need all the capability
I don't think anyone realistically will invade either NZ or AU for that matter but they will certainty might want to blockade and deny the use of any defence infrastructure or use of a staging area alas WWII, and both nations need the capability to be able to break out of the immediate area. If the Kiwis were fair dinkum with deterrence they would need to have full spectrum capability of air land and sea with an emphasis of naval (Air Warfare destroyers & submarines) and air assets ( extra P8's and E7A F35 for maritime and BARCAP) but we know that's not going to happen
Takao
The Bunker Group
Not really....
How many fighters can the RNZAF maintain? I saw 28 mentioned above - let's take that as a given. That's a strike of no more than 20. What aircraft are they? F-35? That gives you a chance - stealth + 2x JASM-esqe weapons. Anything else? Nope. You compromise stealth and weapons load. A F-15E like platform will carry the weapons, but I'll lay a bet the RNZDF can't afford 28.... Also note you need to by the -ER, and how many can you afford?
What's the threat likely to be? Lets be 'realistic' and assume a blockade of SLOC to the east. The west and north is defended by Australia, so you don't need to worry about that. But, this is Five-Eye's waters, so the Red Team is going to be the best it can be - with a focus on air defence (to stave off the CVBG's). That's Type 052Ds at a minimum - probably Type 055s (knocking out NZ is going to be a major, if not main, effort). It's also going to have some Type 054As with it - and there's probably 2 - 3 SAGs. That's 250 - 300 VLS tubes for each SAG - and you have 3x P-8, 20x fighters and 40x ASMs.... Unless you want to cough up $$ you don't have an over-the-horizon targeting capability either, so something crewed has to come close...
The maths don't add up. You may kill one ship, but you lose your fighter capability. You can't afford submarines. You can't afford ANZAC upgrades to CFAR and you can't afford to replace them, so you've no navy worth anything. You have 3x P-8's, and you'll probably loose one. So when the SAGs leave and the SSNs role in, you'll have no way to defend or kill them. You've probably killed your Army too - F-35s are expensive.
So, for giving up your fighting Navy and your fighting Army you've killed ~1.5% of the PLA-N's major surface combatants. Maybe. If a Type 003 or Type 004 rocks up (unlikely I grant) your ACF dies even quicker - because you can't afford AAR or AEW&C. And because of that, you can't go north to support Australian or US operations in the SCS or anywhere else in the Pacific. They barely have enough tankers and AEW&C for themselves!
When you run those maths it's easy to see you don't have a deterrence factor by adding some fighters. You can barely find submarines, you gut the NZDF and to what end? Even worse, without the Navy, Army, AAR and AEW&C you are reasonably useless to coalition efforts - so your ability to support US, British or Australian operations (and garner those 'brownie' points for future use)* is reduced or negated. So without that guaranteed big sibling your deterrence effect takes a hit.
BLUF: An ACF for NZ dies quickly and undermines it's realistic deterrence
* not a criticism; it's a traditional central plank of Australian strategy
Agreed.
thats why I reckon that a reconstituted ACF will be justifiable only as close support of ground assets, rather than fast moving theatre centric capability.
helo gunships provides organic close sustained fire, (and an enhanced) onboard ISR capability embedded directly in the paddock with the packages they’re supporting. They potential benefit every arm of the DF, so are worth the the argument with govt, and they provide govt with extra clout at the negotiating table.
of course, they’re expensive, and don’t solve current more urgent NZDF needs, and thats a chapter we need to play out first.
thats why I reckon that a reconstituted ACF will be justifiable only as close support of ground assets, rather than fast moving theatre centric capability.
helo gunships provides organic close sustained fire, (and an enhanced) onboard ISR capability embedded directly in the paddock with the packages they’re supporting. They potential benefit every arm of the DF, so are worth the the argument with govt, and they provide govt with extra clout at the negotiating table.
of course, they’re expensive, and don’t solve current more urgent NZDF needs, and thats a chapter we need to play out first.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #8,216
I agree with those who have argued for firstly ensuring the existing capability of the RNZAF is enhanced, and as Gibbo brought it stated "moved into the modern world". For me that means maximizing the use of the aircraft operated that are weapons capable. Within a low level South Pacific context that is viable, once you move to a mid-intensity operation forget it (depending on who's definition of mid intensity you use). Ngatimozart raises a excellent argument from a NZ perspective about UAV in a combat role at a political level, which I fully agree with.
I do disagree with those who do not distance combined with an air combat force a being a viable solution for NZ. Takao has however raised some valid points, especially in relation to over the horizon targeting, but even if we argue the hostile force consists of 2 - 3 PLAN SAG, the logistics to support and sustain such a force makes any conventional powered SAG vulnerable. Though I have to admit 250 + plus VLS is a significant issue to overcome, though a number would in all likely be focused on a land attack role. The fundamental premise I seem to take from Takao's argument is that the starting point is a peace time ACF that allows no time for additional resources or support being obtained, during the time its takes for what would effectively be a wartime deployment of a SAG.
I'm not yet convinced about the need for the AH capability. In the context of the South Pacific it effectively forces NZ down an LPHD route (the size of Endurance 170). While this is for the navy thread the acquisition of LPHD has in my view potential force structure implications for the RNZN unless it becomes the 4th surface combatant. My biggest concern with a AH force is that it lacks the flexibility of a fast jet in terms of the roles it can perform. For a country NZ's size flexibility in force capability is in my view an enabler. Accepting that an AH force is where NZ is likely heading in terms of the DCP and acquisition of a second amphibious ship; it is effectively creating an army centric expeditionary capability and the question for a maritime nation is that the right capability for the defence of NZ and for operations in the South Pacific.
Apologies if I've rambled, but I haven't had my caffeine fix yet.
I do disagree with those who do not distance combined with an air combat force a being a viable solution for NZ. Takao has however raised some valid points, especially in relation to over the horizon targeting, but even if we argue the hostile force consists of 2 - 3 PLAN SAG, the logistics to support and sustain such a force makes any conventional powered SAG vulnerable. Though I have to admit 250 + plus VLS is a significant issue to overcome, though a number would in all likely be focused on a land attack role. The fundamental premise I seem to take from Takao's argument is that the starting point is a peace time ACF that allows no time for additional resources or support being obtained, during the time its takes for what would effectively be a wartime deployment of a SAG.
I'm not yet convinced about the need for the AH capability. In the context of the South Pacific it effectively forces NZ down an LPHD route (the size of Endurance 170). While this is for the navy thread the acquisition of LPHD has in my view potential force structure implications for the RNZN unless it becomes the 4th surface combatant. My biggest concern with a AH force is that it lacks the flexibility of a fast jet in terms of the roles it can perform. For a country NZ's size flexibility in force capability is in my view an enabler. Accepting that an AH force is where NZ is likely heading in terms of the DCP and acquisition of a second amphibious ship; it is effectively creating an army centric expeditionary capability and the question for a maritime nation is that the right capability for the defence of NZ and for operations in the South Pacific.
Apologies if I've rambled, but I haven't had my caffeine fix yet.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
IMO armed helicopter gunships would provide little benefit to any branch other than Army, and would cost a fair amount of coin to raise, train and sustain. If the NZDF were to opt to go down the route of armed helicopters, then IMO it would be much better off expanding the size and capabilities of the armed naval helicopter fleet. They are already kitted out to increase the SA of forces they work with and have potential anti-shipping as well as CAS roles. Having the hypothetical naval helicopter able to be armed with the NSM or Hellfire as needed, that would provide a standoff anti-shipping capability alongside the potential to detect a valid standoff target, as well as an anti-smallcraft or CAS role using the Hellfires. Not to mention having the flexibility to augment ASW forces as well as overall SA. Also such capabilities can be utilized both in 'local' areas around NZ, when embarked from RNZN vessels, or if/when deployed overseas. Aside from perhaps joint training with Army, I do not see how armed helicopter gunships would bring all that much to either the RNZN or RNZAF in terms of capability outputs when operating in NZ.
While the idea of a RNZAF ACF has (yet again) done a Lazarus, people still seem to forget that in order for an ACF to provide any sort of useful service outputs, there are a number of complementary capabilities which would also need to be established. That or accept that the service outputs would only cover a limited range of scenarios.
For example, people have raised the idea of a maritime strike role for the ACF. From my POV that would only provide a very limited capability, as NZ would need to detect and track the target(s) in order for an ACF strike package to get within launching range. Since NZ does not, to my knowledge, have any sort of broad area radar or satellite system which can monitor and track aerial and surface contacts approaching NZ, the NZDF would be forced to either have such target/contact data get relayed from another country which does have the capability, or have another NZDF asset like a frigate or P-3/P-8, or even a naval helicopter, detect the contact and them relay that to scramble an ACF sortie. I would much rather just have the RNZN frigates, or naval helicopters, or MPA able to carry out their own engagement if/when needed, rather than locate a target and then remain on station while a sortie goes out to actually carry out the maritime strike.
What this would mean then is that NZ would need to invest in one or more (more would be better) systems to establish and maintain domain awareness, so that any maritime strike ACF would have any relevance. Otherwise the aircraft would not know when there is a target, or where to go to engage it.
If there is seen to be a need for armed helo support then perhaps an armed utility helecopter might be a better solution.
I know that a multirole aircraft won't have the full capability of a dedicated platform but consider a batch of S70s that can act as both an armed helo to support troops and in the utility role reduce the workload on the NH90.
Once these are in service a batch of ASW S70s can be bought to replace the Seasprites thus reduce the number of helo types in service.
I know that a multirole aircraft won't have the full capability of a dedicated platform but consider a batch of S70s that can act as both an armed helo to support troops and in the utility role reduce the workload on the NH90.
Once these are in service a batch of ASW S70s can be bought to replace the Seasprites thus reduce the number of helo types in service.
First I would not that in an NZ context the Falklands is a bad example as the Islands were at the extreme operational radius of the Argentine air force combat assets and this allowed the pom carriers to sit outside of this radius and still provide cover for there troops and the vast majority of Argentine losses were to the air cover and that the the poms were lucky in that the Argentines only had a small number of exocet missiles (5 from memory)and had to rely on dumb bombs which for them had a distressing habit of not going off. Had the Argentine's been able to arrange a fully equipped air base on the islands with appropriate aircraft and weapons I doubt the poms would have even tried to retake them. thought this conflict does remind us to expect the unexpected.Not necessarily the Argentines had far closer supply lines to help defend the Falkland,. I wouldn't say the British were victorious convincingly I think they just had more luck on their side with HMS Conqueror. but having full spectrum capability goes a long way and anyone contemplating going after NZ will need all the capability
I don't think anyone realistically will invade either NZ or AU for that matter but they will certainty might want to blockade and deny the use of any defence infrastructure or use of a staging area alas WWII, and both nations need the capability to be able to break out of the immediate area. If the Kiwis were fair dinkum with deterrence they would need to have full spectrum capability of air land and sea with an emphasis of naval (Air Warfare destroyers & submarines) and air assets ( extra P8's and E7A F35 for maritime and BARCAP) but we know that's not going to happen
As to whether anyone will or will not invade I will say again we are blind to the future and expect the unexpected as that is why we need armed forces in the first place.
In regard to needing the full spectrum of abilities I think this is wrong for the following reasons,
We have a large moat around us with a minimum with of 2200 km, this means we can only be reached by air or sea over a considerable distance,which is well outside the combat radius of all but some long range transports or bombers. So as I have always said we do need to improve our surveillance so additional P8's and a basic AEW ability. the E 7 would be a total overkill. The ability to destroy or neutralise what was deemed hostile would be needed and this is more about the weapons than the aircraft, Second hand aircraft in the F15,16,18 range would be perfectly adequate if fitted with a good radar and a modern fire control ability say using possibly the CAMM ( similar to what our navy has) for airborne targets and the AGM 158 for surface targets. F 35 again would be overkill
The first priority of any countries of any countries armed forces is to protect that countries sovereignty and the freedom of its citizens and not just to be there to gain brownie points. that is a secondary consideration that you do when you can achieve the main task. The NZ defence force is not an adjunct To the ADF. As for submarines while they are a grave threat to our comunications and I certainly would like more P 8's they are not a threat to our sovereignty.
The Idea that you lose all your combat aircraft when attacking ships with missiles is somewhat simplistic especially with modern medium to long range missiles as you have a directing aircraft outside missile range and the attacking aircraft come in under the radar horizon until in range and either fire by data link from the directing aircraft or pop and fire then drop before any defence missiles arrive. The only stealth required would be provided by the AGM 158
As to what NZ can afford our Debt to GDP ratio is 19.2% one of the lowest in the world. for comparison Australia is in excess of 40% and most of Europe is closing in on 100% or in some cases over that figure. From memory our budget has been in surplus for all but about 3 years since 1991. The Government has a pension investment fund for future requirements of 50 Billion, on a per person basis we could probably afford more than just about anyone else.
I repeat our first priority must be the preservation of our freedom before we go after brownie points and while cooperation should where practical be encouraged we are not an adjunct to Australia and neither are our armed forces.
That's enough for now as I have gone on long enough even though I have more to say.
There has been too much discussion about the RNZAF defending NZ against invasion by some foreign ogre, to me that’s simply implausible and lacks geopolitical reality.
So, what capability does the Airforce need to support NZ strategic interests in the region?
Let me pose a scenario that is not totally off the planet but is illustrative of a number of scenarios to our northern regions.
The Chinese have created a base in Tulagi in the Solomon Islands. The Honiara government is burdened by huge debt to the Chinese, is unable to make the repayments and places a moratorium on any future repayments.
This angers the CCP so they plan to overthrow the government and to this end the begin arming rebels who believe their future lies firmly with courting the Chinese and thus becoming a puppet government.
As well as controlling Tulagi, they occupy Santa Isobel and Malaita and are preparing, with Chinese help, to invade Guadalcanal/Honiara.
Naturally the Aust and NZ governments find this totally unacceptable, have backed the Honiara government and have deployed COIN Ops forces to assist.
So, what can the RNZAF bring to the operation which adds to or is complimentary to the ADF?
Fast jets? No. Armed Helos? No but what?
And this is where I bang my favourite drum;
AT6 Wolverines! Perfect for this, they can perfectly compliment the ADF Tigers, they can add all their capabilities, FAC, ISR, CAS et al.
They can self deploy, Auckland to Noumea, 900 nms, Noumea to Honiara/Henderson 800nms.
They provide a real contribution to a COIN Operation which is unique.
This is not an unrealistic scenario and could be true for any number of possible failed states in our region.
So, what capability does the Airforce need to support NZ strategic interests in the region?
Let me pose a scenario that is not totally off the planet but is illustrative of a number of scenarios to our northern regions.
The Chinese have created a base in Tulagi in the Solomon Islands. The Honiara government is burdened by huge debt to the Chinese, is unable to make the repayments and places a moratorium on any future repayments.
This angers the CCP so they plan to overthrow the government and to this end the begin arming rebels who believe their future lies firmly with courting the Chinese and thus becoming a puppet government.
As well as controlling Tulagi, they occupy Santa Isobel and Malaita and are preparing, with Chinese help, to invade Guadalcanal/Honiara.
Naturally the Aust and NZ governments find this totally unacceptable, have backed the Honiara government and have deployed COIN Ops forces to assist.
So, what can the RNZAF bring to the operation which adds to or is complimentary to the ADF?
Fast jets? No. Armed Helos? No but what?
And this is where I bang my favourite drum;
AT6 Wolverines! Perfect for this, they can perfectly compliment the ADF Tigers, they can add all their capabilities, FAC, ISR, CAS et al.
They can self deploy, Auckland to Noumea, 900 nms, Noumea to Honiara/Henderson 800nms.
They provide a real contribution to a COIN Operation which is unique.
This is not an unrealistic scenario and could be true for any number of possible failed states in our region.