NZDF General discussion thread

[Gooey]

Great, that means that we should acquire, say 3 of either the Airbus A400M (shudder) or the KHI C-2 and 3 more C-130J-30.

Completely ack the great job that 40 Sqn 757 does and the lads; however, they are another NZ unit (eg most of the RNZN) operating an old piece of orphaned kit with no economy of scale. The VLR / VIP air mission is a lower priority over air lift. With so many gaps in NZDF capability due to funding and in terms of operational value for money, the 757 should be retired now. The utility, training benefits, logistics, and scale of 8 C130 over 5 plus 2 757 is a means by which RNZAF can get more bang per buck.

 

[Gooey]

The point you miss is that the AFC is rapidly deployable and can react to threats far quicker than deploying ground based units ...

Rob c & recce.k1

Absolutely.

It is of course why the RNZAF is a separate service to enable the kinetic benefits of this domain, due to their unique characteristics over sea and land (cough, sorry and space & cyber domains too... ha). The ACF brought to NZ Gov the option for extreme violence to be inflicted to distance enemies with flexibility and speed. It was also of course expensive, although that was a relative thing, and as we all know if it had not been for PM Clark, who made a political decision against the advice of her system, RNZAF would be operating F-16 today with the corporate experience to fight MoD and Treasury for its continued existence. Instead the way things are our air force may as well fold into a coast guard sort of thing and continue to be out-foxed by army.

While defence against physical attack and security of our nation (invasion) is the ultimate aim of NZDF, as per the 1936 reference from recce.k1, with our small resources and very distant SLOC this has always been best performed as part of an alliance off our shores. This offers our limited but integrated forces to a greater utility; eg we used to add 20% more aircraft to RAAF FJ.

The Boeing P-8 Poseidon are very good reconnaissance aircraft which are too few in number and too vulnerable to have throwing spears at PLAN. The rest of our air force are a tiny number of auxiliary aircraft. UAV/UAS and GBAD are inflexible, mission limited, and have little offensive capability. Point being that we should attempt to jointly build our priority NZDF missions. That includes the ability for NZ Gov to have a fighting navy, ACF, and a small well-equiped army.

 

[John Fedup]

Rob c & recce.k1

Absolutely.

It is of course why the RNZAF is a separate service to enable the kinetic benefits of this domain, due to their unique characteristics over sea and land (cough, sorry and space & cyber domains too... ha). The ACF brought to NZ Gov the option for extreme violence to be inflicted to distance enemies with flexibility and speed. It was also of course expensive, although that was a relative thing, and as we all know if it had not been for PM Clark, who made a political decision against the advice of her system, RNZAF would be operating F-16 today with the corporate experience to fight MoD and Treasury for its continued existence. Instead the way things are our air force may as well fold into a coast guard sort of thing and continue to be out-foxed by army.

While defence against physical attack and security of our nation (invasion) is the ultimate aim of NZDF, as per the 1936 reference from recce.k1, with our small resources and very distant SLOC this has always been best performed as part of an alliance off our shores. This offers our limited but integrated forces to a greater utility; eg we used to add 20% more aircraft to RAAF FJ.

The Boeing P-8 Poseidon are very good reconnaissance aircraft which are too few in number and too vulnerable to have throwing spears at PLAN. The rest of our air force are a tiny number of auxiliary aircraft. UAV/UAS and GBAD are inflexible, mission limited, and have little offensive capability. Point being that we should attempt to jointly build our priority NZDF missions. That includes the ability for NZ Gov to have a fighting navy, ACF, and a small well-equiped army.

Sadly voters don’t understand the consequences of electing $hit for brains pollies. NZ did that with Clark, Canada did it with senior, Chrétien, and later junior. A superpower neighbour, in Canada’s case, made this possible. Our neighbour is absolutely going to rectify this IMHO, regardless of who wins in 2024!

 

[Gibbo]

The point you miss is that the AFC is rapidly deployable and can react to threats far quicker than deploying ground based units and you are covering only one threat in your argument, An AFC can react to all military threats apart from submarines. An air defence system capable of defending all of NZ would be extremely expensive, as some of the better long range missiles are very expensive for instance depending on the variant a single patriot missile can cost up to $6 MILLION and that is just for a missile, not including the launcher , controlers and radars. You are also assuming the threat in would be slow to build up, but with good planning significantly it could easily larger than our total army before the day was out. The other problem you don't address is the high number of casualties that would be incurred. On top of this what about the sea.

As I have pointed out before , while an economic blockade would be uncomfortable it would be survivable and how are you going to blockade us from Australia? In war desperate measures are taken, governments take total control and losses are accepted, In WW2 3000 merchant sips were sunk by the German Uboats but trade continued.
the reason we get back to invasion is that is how you lose your freedom and sovereignty, that how our way of life is destroyed, It is the worse case scenario and with an AFC is far less likely,. The projected defence idea is great if you have the time when things build up over time, but does have problems if we have a Pearl Harbour pulled on us. As for allies, we currently have only one and they will be tied up dealing with there own problems. As I have pointed out before an AFC does make invasion unpalatable.
On the question of cost, as has been pointed out before, we don't need the latest gen 5 aircraft as in the main they can operate unopposed, just the ability to carry modern anti air and sea missiles. second hand would achieve this a lot cheaper than the numbers of anti air and surface to surface missiles that would be required to give reasonable coverage.
The reasons I like an AFC is that with a modest force you can cover a large area, it is quickly deployable, It is flexible and covers both the sea and air, it puts the least number of lives at risk and it is a very good deterrent which is best as you don't want to fight a war if you don't have to.

Yes I agree invasion would be crippling but I'd have to disagree with you on the impact of a blockade and the ability to blockade us from Australia wouldn't be hard in the modern day. Since WW2 we have become heavily dependent on imported product (fuel now being a particularly critical one) let alone export receipts and the great unwashed would get pretty uppity pretty quickly these days if they can't get their morning coffee (reminds me.. 9am and I haven't had my first yet!). NZ society is no longer the 'number 8 wire' type that is was back then & just like we saw with COVID lockdowns there are elements that would very quickly go rabid... it'd be far worse in an effective, extended blockade. Social dislocation is a deliberately orchestarted and highly effective outcome of an adversary in a blockade.

Therein lies the other point... a modern-day blockade would be extremely effective if the adversary was intending to do just that...bring NZ to our knees. The reason being of course that these days all approaches, including the Tasman can be monitored by satellite and long-range aircraft that are much faster and have highly capable long-range detection capability. Then you have air & sea borne platforms with the capability to make a surface kill from a distance out of sight of the target.

Commercial vessels on the other hand aren't particularly fatser than vessels were in WW2 so a rat-run across the ditch would be far more lethal... and modern NZ would not tolerate 1000's of vessels attempting it & being lost. The other modern-day factor is insurance companies these days rule so much & they would refuse to cover any commercial vessels pronto if a few were sunk & I guarantee no commercial shipping company, nor crew, would agree to set sail in those scenarios. Also virtually every vessel running our IMEX trade are overseas owned & crewed so they won't be wanting to expose themselves to any conflict that could very probably not involve their 'flag' nations. Convoys appear an option but those pesky insurance companies would quickly say 'no', plus convoys got hammered badly in WW2 & barely kept the lights on long... the Maltese people of WW2 remind us all about that.

There is a relatively modern example of the power of a blockade... the Falklands in 1982. After the Belgrano was sunk, the Argentinian Navy stayed in port...boof, job done! Different scenario but if one sub can keep a Navy in port, don't expect to see commercial shipping moving.

 

[Gibbo]

Completely ack the great job that 40 Sqn 757 does and the lads; however, they are another NZ unit (eg most of the RNZN) operating an old piece of orphaned kit with no economy of scale. The VLR / VIP air mission is a lower priority over air lift. With so many gaps in NZDF capability due to funding and in terms of operational value for money, the 757 should be retired now. The utility, training benefits, logistics, and scale of 8 C130 over 5 plus 2 757 is a means by which RNZAF can get more bang per buck.

My take is Luxon doesn't want to spend any more so a B757 replacement won't happen...it will stay at 5 x C130J-30.

 

[Rob c]

The reason being of course that these days all approaches, including the Tasman can be monitored by satellite and long-range aircraft that are much faster and have highly capable long-range detection capability. Then you have air & sea borne platforms with the capability to make a surface kill from a distance out of sight of the target.

I think that the RAAF at Williamstown may have something to say about that and it does strengthen the augment for an ACF.

Commercial vessels on the other hand aren't particularly fatser than vessels were in WW2 so a rat-run across the ditch would be far more lethal...

The cargo ship of the WW2 period cruised at around 9 to 10 knots, the liberty ship had a max speed from memory of 11 knots, modern container ships cruise in excess of 20 knots and some as high as 25.
Fuel is a problem due to the closure of Masden point, I don't know if it has been moth balled or dismantled, if mothball then we would have some fuel as we exported $500M 0f 0il last year.

NZ society is no longer the 'number 8 wire' type that is was back then & just like we saw with COVID lockdowns there are elements that would very quickly go rabid... it'd be far worse in an effective, extended blockade. Social dislocation is a deliberately orchestarted and highly effective outcome of an adversary in a blockade.

They are more resilient than that, as they did quite well during the covid lock down.

Commercial vessels on the other hand aren't particularly fatser than vessels were in WW2 so a rat-run across the ditch would be far more lethal...

In the event of war the same would happen as happened during WW2, the government takes responsibility for losses.
The combination of the RAN and the RNZN frigates, pluss the RAAF and RNZAF P8's would be of concern to any submarine in the Tasman sea, I remember when I was in defence headquarter that I was told of the existence of SONA cables in the Tasman, whether these still exist or were they where, I don't know. However being land locked on both sides with modern anti sub ships and aircraft available would make the Tasman a dodgy place for a submarine to take up residence.

 

[kiwi in exile]

I still think we are very unlikely to be attacked directly by combat aircraft. Therefore we dont need combat aircraft to counter them.

Any attack from the sea: P8s armed with suitable standoff munitions (some sources give LRASM a range of 900kms) would have the same on target effects as fast air. Plus we allready have the platforms. While response may be marginally slower we would likely have some early warning from satelite and allies unless it was a sub. Saying our P8s are too few/too valuable to fulfill this mission negates their ASuW role.

 

[John Fedup]

I still think we are very unlikely to be attacked directly by combat aircraft. Therefore we dont need combat aircraft to counter them.

Any attack from the sea: P8s armed with suitable standoff munitions (some sources give LRASM a range of 900kms) would have the same on target effects as fast air. Plus we allready have the platforms. While response may be marginally slower we would likely have some early warning from satelite and allies unless it was a sub. Saying our P8s are too few/too valuable to fulfill this mission negates their ASuW role.

An expanding PLAN with future new CATOBAR carriers along with a new carrier jet (J-31) plus the possibility of an unstable political situation in the US hardly reduces the likelihood of aerial attack on NZ.

 

[swerve]

I still think we are very unlikely to be attacked directly by combat aircraft. Therefore we dont need combat aircraft to counter them.

Any attack from the sea: P8s armed with suitable standoff munitions (some sources give LRASM a range of 900kms) would have the same on target effects as fast air. Plus we allready have the platforms. While response may be marginally slower we would likely have some early warning from satelite and allies unless it was a sub. Saying our P8s are too few/too valuable to fulfill this mission negates their ASuW role.

Attacking anything at that range needs targeting data. Not easy to get.

 

[Rob c]

I still think we are very unlikely to be attacked directly by combat aircraft. Therefore we dont need combat aircraft to counter them.

The other point is even in the absence of other aircraft, an AFC allows us to dominate the area and this is a very good deterrent, It is the only weapon that we could afford that has this ability and lets not have to fight if we can deter an aggressor.
The point also missed is that an AFC does so much more than most other weapon systems, it apart from anti air, it also can dominates both land and the sea.

 

[John Fedup]

The other point is even in the absence of other aircraft, an AFC allows us to dominate the area and this is a very good deterrent, It is the only weapon that we could afford that has this ability and lets not have to fight if we can deter an aggressor.

It is also the only asset that could be acquired in a reasonable amount of time albeit training will be a challenge.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Attacking anything at that range needs targeting data. Not easy to get.

If you know there is a threat you likely have some targeti info. Data can be shared from a third party eg a satellite. LRRASM has a degree of autonomy in terminal targeting.

 

[kiwi in exile]

It is also the only asset that could be acquired in a reasonable amount of time albeit training will be a challenge.

This has been discussed here before and the process of building an acf from scratch would take years. Planning and acquisition and delivery process for first fast jet trainers then the combat jets. Building relevant infrastructure. Training pilots and ground staff. Lack of institutional knowledge. Convincing politician an acf is needed will take years. We are not just buying a capability off the shelf. Althea while the threat is evolving.

I could make your argument re submarines which are also an excellent deterrent.

 

[Rob c]

Saying our P8s are too few/too valuable to fulfill this mission negates their ASuW role.

Why. Submarines usually don't carry AA weapons for the simple reason that any attempt to target an aircraft immediately gives away the location of the submarine. There was some research in the 70's and 80's on this and it was canned because of this factor.

 

[Hawkeye69]

An ACF will never be restored here, no public appetite and no political appetite for it.
The future of the NZDF will be more centred on the ability to respond to those 3x major natural disasters, Alpine Fault, Hikurangi Subduction and Mt Taranaki, all 3 will be hugely defistating on the Country in terms of lose of life, destruction, effects on economy and cost to rebuild and ability to rebuild from within. I can tell you all 3x are are rated as catastrophic events which would require outside assistance on a scale never seen in NZ’s history and that support from heavy transport aircraft would be in relative terms fast but the main support would need to come by ship which is not so fast.
So we would need to be able to respond first and foremost in those critical first 24/48 hours ourselves and we need to have a Defence Force built to respond to such events.
What we are likely to see procurred over the coming years are as follows,
- more helicopters for the airforce, which will likely be extra NH90 and a replacement of the A109 to a more medium lift helicopter such as AW139 and numbers totaling a mixed fleet of 20, thats 7 extra aircraft.

- C-27J Spartan or C-295 to replace the Kingairs, dont be too surprised these will be ex RAAF Spartan, the NZDF and current Govt were very impressed with what the Spartans were able to do in Cyclone Gabriel efforts this year and it highlighted a real gap in our capabilities.

- MQ-9B Sea Guardian x4, again current Govt very impressed with what this platform offers and how it can assist the manned P-8’s, not be surprised to see these in NZ skies soon.

- 3x Harry deWolfe class OPV’s, behind the scenes a lot of interest in these ships and they are much larger than our current OPV’s and size matters moving forwards as does the ability to patrol the Southern Ocean and these will do that well.

- A new multi role ship, again size will be the important factor and don’t be surprised what the UK and Australia are looking at which is the BMT ELLIDA been top of the list, well dock, 50 bed hospital, multi aviation spots, ability to conduct underway replenishment and slightly larger than HMNZS Aoteroa and one to supplement Canterbury and then an extra to replace Canterbury.

As for frigate replacement, don't expect a like for like replacement, if you start thinking 3x Heritage class cutters based off what the US Coastguard are currently getting you will be on track with either an NH90 naval variant helicopter or a medium helicopter based off a commercial model likely front runners to replace Seasprite, I am talking bargain deal to purchase ex European cancelled order of the NH90.



-

 

[kiwi in exile]

An expanding PLAN with future new CATOBAR carriers along with a new carrier jet (J-31) plus the possibility of an unstable political situation in the US hardly reduces the likelihood of aerial attack on NZ.

If the CCP wants to attack us with carrier bourne jets, the world is probably already screwed. We have likely already lost trade. Our infrastructure will have been so disabled with cyber attacks. It's cheaper for them to use other systems to cripple us.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Why. Submarines usually don't carry AA weapons for the simple reason that any attempt to target an aircraft immediately gives away the location of the submarine. There was some research in the 70's and 80's on this and it was canned because of this factor.

Sorry I meant anti surface warefare.p8 have been designed to carry standoff ASMs and perform an anti surface warfare mission. To say ours can't because there are only four and they cost lots is silly.


There are sub launched iris-t variants. Think they are more aimed at helicopters.

 

[swerve]

If you know there is a threat you likely have some targeti info. Data can be shared from a third party eg a satellite. LRRASM has a degree of autonomy in terminal targeting.

If you're getting data like that you're working with allies who have a lot more than you do. And 'autonomy in terminal targeting' over 900 km isn't going to work unless you know there's nothing friendly or neutral that your missile might attack instead.

 

[Rob c]

This has been discussed here before and the process of building an acf from scratch would take years. Planning and acquisition and delivery process for first fast jet trainers then the combat jets. Building relevant infrastructure. Training pilots and ground staff. Lack of institutional knowledge. Convincing politician an acf is needed will take years. We are not just buying a capability off the shelf. Althea while the threat is evolving.

I could make your argument re submarines which are also an excellent deterrent.

I agree with you on this, but introducing submarines would take just as long or longer and be more expensive, both would be brilliant
An AFC could be cobbled together some what quicker and cheaper than subs by say, buying second hand aircraft (RAAF F18A's?) borrowing a small number of pilots from the RAAF and or RCAF (6 to 8)arranging for our pilots to be strike trained by a combination of RAAF, RCAF, RAF, or a commensal trainer such as Draken International, then feed these pilots into the sqn based around the borrowed pilots, with the eventual aim of replacing them.

 

[kiwi in exile]

- C-27J Spartan or C-295 to replace the Kingairs, dont be too surprised these will be ex RAAF Spartan, the NZDF and current Govt were very impressed with what the Spartans were able to do in Cyclone Gabriel efforts this year and it highlighted a real gap in our capabilies

I like both platforms, especially the 27. It has the same engines as the superherc. Apparently c27s are expensive to operate. Both platforms have been discussed at length as EMAC contenders on the rnzaf thread.