NZDF General discussion thread

[Hawkeye69]

I agree those Paywalls are annoying, I would like the MH-60R to come out on top but cost and delivery timeframes could likely sink it, the Wildcat team look to be throwing everything at their bid to get it across the line, but the real one to watch I feel is the NH-90 NFH, reasons, we have experienced personnel trained on the platform, logistics wise advantage including cost savings on training as we already have a simulator and the big one is Airbus will likely offer a deal we simply cannot say no to and delivery time way ahead of the Wildcat and Seahawk.
People will say NFH is too big for current fleet but current fleet is all been replaced and today just about every naval vessel can accomodate a medium 10 tonne chopper….if NFH gets the tick of approval it will be no surprise.

 

[RegR]

I agree those Paywalls are annoying, I would like the MH-60R to come out on top but cost and delivery timeframes could likely sink it, the Wildcat team look to be throwing everything at their bid to get it across the line, but the real one to watch I feel is the NH-90 NFH, reasons, we have experienced personnel trained on the platform, logistics wise advantage including cost savings on training as we already have a simulator and the big one is Airbus will likely offer a deal we simply cannot say no to and delivery time way ahead of the Wildcat and Seahawk.
People will say NFH is too big for current fleet but current fleet is all been replaced and today just about every naval vessel can accomodate a medium 10 tonne chopper….if NFH gets the tick of approval it will be no surprise.

Exactly, another factor is numbers and cost, especially if DF want 9 frames which makes sense as they have gone through the issues of trying to run a small fleet in a naval environment and maintain availability which has been their biggest problem in the past. Quality over quantity or quantity over ideally, it's a hard one, especially in a financial crunch.

 

[Hawkeye69]

Paywalls are a pain! So far it looks as though it's the wildcat, NFH and Romeo. This will be an interesting watch but guessing the wildcat, hoping the Romeo but outside chance with the NFH. Guess it will come down to the sales pitch as all have their pros and cons in wide arcs.

My personal choice would be MH-60R but overall cost and delivery timeframe will likely kill it off, the Wildcat team are throwing everything into their bid but the real wildcard is the NH-90 NFH, in its favour is the experience we already have built up with operating our NH-90, the maintenance benefits with skillsets already in place, same with training with a NH-90 simulator already in place and pilot experience with the platform including operating from a ship and the logistics side. Having just 2x helicopter platforms would be attractive to the bean counters. But the big draw card could be the fact Airbus give us deal of the century on them, think the cancellation from Norway and the fact New Zealand is role model operator of the NH-90.
People will argue it’s too big for our current naval vessels but the entire fleet is due for replacement in the next decade, and most new naval vessels built today can accommodate a 10 tonne medium helicopter.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Hawkeye69]

Exactly, another factor is numbers and cost, especially if DF want 9 frames which makes sense as they have gone through the issues of trying to run a small fleet in a naval environment and maintain availability which has been their biggest problem in the past. Quality over quantity or quantity over ideally, it's a hard one, especially in a financial crunch.

The bean counters will like the fact we already have crew trained on the NH-90 platform including ship based operations and we have a decade of operating the type and having just a 2- fleet helicopter type keeps things simple.
Airbus will be looking to off load those ex Norway NFH and New Zealand is a poster child operator of the type.

 

[Todjaeger]

I'm not ignoring any point unless you know something about NZ having been/being invaded that I must have somehow missed? I'm going off actual fact, we did not use the jets and we have not needed the jets since axing them, it's not rocket science, nothing even remotely close to NZ being threatened has literally happened in a lifetime! We havnt had this detterant you speak of for over 2 decades so perhaps no one got the memo and still believe we have some vintage skyhawks or vanilla F16s so they are still dettered from invading by mistake? Or, maybe NZs just not high on the invasion list it would seem so we are not actually dettering, anything or anyone? The way you are talking is as if there has been a spate of invasions around the place and any country without jets has been snapped up, by someone (we're still figuring that one out) and we are about to be next! Guess I missed that one also.

Ukraine has jets, hasn't dettered Russia. It's as if Russia doesn't even care right? Guess they don't follow the invasion rulebook either, badass.

It is a government services department, thats how they get to call the shots, literally. Call it want you want if it makes you feel better, it still doesn't make a squadron of jets in NZ any more viable, likely or warranted.

And this is a rather classic example of 'sea blindness' by making the false argument revolving around an invasion of NZ. There are so many other ways that adversaries, both state actors and non-state actors, can threaten or even harm NZ and NZ interests.

Having a properly resourced NZDF can help NZ both directly mitigate risks from current and future adversaries, but also contribute to both global rules based order as well as the collective security of NZ friends, allies and trading partners.

Attempting to compare the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, which involves a largely land-based conflict between two nations that share a land border is only really relevant if one it talking at a tactical level. The strategic situation that Ukraine finds itself in is quite different from NZ and therefore what the two nations might need for security would be quite different.

BTW right off the top of my head I can think of at least four security situations which NZ has faced since I joined DT, which did not occur on NZ proper, within the confines of territorial waters or even the EEZ, where unfortunately NZ had little ability to respond because of how limited the NZDF had become in terms of overall capabilities. IIRC in one instance, a planned evac mission had to be scrubbed because there was only a single platform available to deploy and that suffered an equipment malfunction when it attempted to deploy.

One needs to recognize that NZ's interests do not end at the waters edge, or even at the edge of the EEZ, but instead extend well beyond that, because NZ is both involved in and dependent on global trade, since NZ is not totally self-sufficient. One cannot honestly and rationally claim otherwise.

Side note: I lack specific proof, but I strongly suspect that the conflict going on in Ukraine has had a negative impact on global food production and distribution, either through a reduction on grain harvests, issues with grain distribution, or both. This in turn would likely have lead to an increase in global prices for at least some foodstuffs. Now NZ being a global dairy producer might have in some ways been able to profit off of this, it is also quite possible that the reduced availability and increased prices for grains would have raised some food prices within NZ. Even if this were not the case, NZ would likely have been negatively impacted because some of NZ's trading partners would have either had reduced financial resources to trade with NZ due to having to spend more coin on food, or because of an increase in political and social instability within those trading partners due to the reduced availability and increased costs for grain and related food products.

Since China has been mentioned repeatedly consider the impact of a conflict between mainland China and Taiwan. Even if no other nations become involved, such a conflict would almost certainly have some significant negative impacts upon global trade, simply because of how dominant Taiwan is in the global production of advanced chips. If Taiwanese chip foundries were to be damaged or destroyed within the next few years (i.e. before some of the new chip foundries being built outside of Taiwan come online) then there would very rapidly be a global chip and semiconductor shortage. Given how many devices now have chips and PCB's built into them, we are talking about production for many modern devices would be either reduced or outright cease completely. If there was another global chip shortage, NZ would be negatively impacted, and should an armed conflict erupt between Taiwan and mainland China in the near future, it is almost certain that such a chip shortage would occur.

 

[Todjaeger]

The bean counters will like the fact we already have crew trained on the NH-90 platform including ship based operations and we have a decade of operating the type and having just a 2- fleet helicopter type keeps things simple.
Airbus will be looking to off load those ex Norway NFH and New Zealand is a poster child operator of the type.

There is an ugly reality though, should the NZDF seek to acquire and operate NFH90's as replacements for the SH-2G(I)'s and that is there are only two vessels which can embark and hangar NH90-sized helicopters current serving in the RNZN and at least one of them lacks a hangar magazine. This means that the RNZN would only have a very limited naval helicopter capability at least until whatever will replace the ANZAC-class frigates start to enter service. IIRC that is currently sort of planned to take place about a decade from now (mid-2030's) which would mean that the NZDF would have to go several years without organic naval helicopter support.

 

[RegR]

And this is a rather classic example of 'sea blindness' by making the false argument revolving around an invasion of NZ. There are so many other ways that adversaries, both state actors and non-state actors, can threaten or even harm NZ and NZ interests.

Having a properly resourced NZDF can help NZ both directly mitigate risks from current and future adversaries, but also contribute to both global rules based order as well as the collective security of NZ friends, allies and trading partners.

Attempting to compare the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, which involves a largely land-based conflict between two nations that share a land border is only really relevant if one it talking at a tactical level. The strategic situation that Ukraine finds itself in is quite different from NZ and therefore what the two nations might need for security would be quite different.

BTW right off the top of my head I can think of at least four security situations which NZ has faced since I joined DT, which did not occur on NZ proper, within the confines of territorial waters or even the EEZ, where unfortunately NZ had little ability to respond because of how limited the NZDF had become in terms of overall capabilities. IIRC in one instance, a planned evac mission had to be scrubbed because there was only a single platform available to deploy and that suffered an equipment malfunction when it attempted to deploy.

One needs to recognize that NZ's interests do not end at the waters edge, or even at the edge of the EEZ, but instead extend well beyond that, because NZ is both involved in and dependent on global trade, since NZ is not totally self-sufficient. One cannot honestly and rationally claim otherwise.

Side note: I lack specific proof, but I strongly suspect that the conflict going on in Ukraine has had a negative impact on global food production and distribution, either through a reduction on grain harvests, issues with grain distribution, or both. This in turn would likely have lead to an increase in global prices for at least some foodstuffs. Now NZ being a global dairy producer might have in some ways been able to profit off of this, it is also quite possible that the reduced availability and increased prices for grains would have raised some food prices within NZ. Even if this were not the case, NZ would likely have been negatively impacted because some of NZ's trading partners would have either had reduced financial resources to trade with NZ due to having to spend more coin on food, or because of an increase in political and social instability within those trading partners due to the reduced availability and increased costs for grain and related food products.

Since China has been mentioned repeatedly consider the impact of a conflict between mainland China and Taiwan. Even if no other nations become involved, such a conflict would almost certainly have some significant negative impacts upon global trade, simply because of how dominant Taiwan is in the global production of advanced chips. If Taiwanese chip foundries were to be damaged or destroyed within the next few years (i.e. before some of the new chip foundries being built outside of Taiwan come online) then there would very rapidly be a global chip and semiconductor shortage. Given how many devices now have chips and PCB's built into them, we are talking about production for many modern devices would be either reduced or outright cease completely. If there was another global chip shortage, NZ would be negatively impacted, and should an armed conflict erupt between Taiwan and mainland China in the near future, it is almost certain that such a chip shortage would occur.

And exactly none of that will require NZ having a squadron of fast jets will it? Would the air force (air servivce if it helps) have sent the 2 seater skyhawks or F16s to do shuttles for the Evac?? Maybe send the 6 frigates? Would 16 fighters jets sitting in Ohakea solve the whole supply and demand issues caused by a war on the other side of the planet or sway Chinas industrial output in our favour? How exactly?? Not very likely scenarios are they, abit of a theme it would seem.

I have absolutely no qualms in the govt spending more on defence and am actually advocating for more to be spent, just on other more useful, beneficial and let's be honest realistic capabilities within the NZDF that actually provide tangible results pertinent to NZ and it's interests. Fast jets are definately way down on that list of capabilities and in fact there are other, new, capabilities I would still now rather see entertained before any re-imagining of a fast jet ACF. NZ is not flush with cash and Im not sure where this idea that it is is coming from because the country, much like the defence force, is struggling and buying jets now would be akin to buying a Lamborghini during a recession,I mean yea it's fast, the neighbours will think you are rich but it's not very practical for driving the kids to school and going to work when the vans alot more practical, cheaper and does everything else as well.

The irony is the ACF was a drain on the NZDF budget, waste even, for little to no gain other than being in the boys club but you guys are going on about govts lack of spending on defence, yet are advocating watching it fly laps around the country literally after-burning through funding like a wild fire? Like I said there are alot more priorities within defence that will need addressing with just this current "spend up" with people and infrastructure alone taking the lions share and any future "boosts" will be needed just to maintain/upgrade/replace what we've got not to go off on a hooray splashing $billions on a nice to have fleet of jets that we may use as a possible detterant in an unlikely invasion by an unknown enemy with undecided intentions sometime in the not to dissimilar future who knows, maybe?

 

[RegR]

There is an ugly reality though, should the NZDF seek to acquire and operate NFH90's as replacements for the SH-2G(I)'s and that is there are only two vessels which can embark and hangar NH90-sized helicopters current serving in the RNZN and at least one of them lacks a hangar magazine. This means that the RNZN would only have a very limited naval helicopter capability at least until whatever will replace the ANZAC-class frigates start to enter service. IIRC that is currently sort of planned to take place about a decade from now (mid-2030's) which would mean that the NZDF would have to go several years without organic naval helicopter support.

This could force them to bring the frigate replacement project forward in kind or even supplement. I'm relatively sure any new ships from now on will have built in growth potential, hangers included, to better future proof them a we have already been caught out a couple of times now with weight margin issues already. I'm still a firm believer in building towards the future not basing off the past.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

there are only two vessels which can embark and hangar NH90-sized helicopters current serving in the RNZN and at least one of them lacks a hangar magazine.

HMNZS Aotearoa, Canterbury both can accommodate and hanger NH-90 it is only HMNZS Manawanui and ANZAC's that can not hanger... and of course the OPV's deck is to small

 

[Redlands18]

There is an ugly reality though, should the NZDF seek to acquire and operate NFH90's as replacements for the SH-2G(I)'s and that is there are only two vessels which can embark and hangar NH90-sized helicopters current serving in the RNZN and at least one of them lacks a hangar magazine. This means that the RNZN would only have a very limited naval helicopter capability at least until whatever will replace the ANZAC-class frigates start to enter service. IIRC that is currently sort of planned to take place about a decade from now (mid-2030's) which would mean that the NZDF would have to go several years without organic naval helicopter support.

One thing we shouldn't underestimate in this competition is Sikorsky/LMs ability to support a Romeo fleet, by the time NZ get their first Helo, Australia will be operating a fleet of Seventy-Six (36 MH60R, 40 UH60M) H-60 Hawk family Helicopters and that will mean a major Sikorsky presence in Sydney, with extensive stocks of spare parts, an extensive ability to provide training, logistics, maintenance. There would be no doubt the Ausgov would be fully supportive of any such move.

The bean counters will like the fact we already have crew trained on the NH-90 platform including ship based operations and we have a decade of operating the type and having just a 2- fleet helicopter type keeps things simple.
Airbus will be looking to off load those ex Norway NFH and New Zealand is a poster child operator of the type.

The NH-90 is not solely an Airbus product, Leonardo is also a major shareholder, and they of course produce the Wildcat so any competition involving both the NFH-90 and Wildcat has some complications.

Also the current RNZAF NH-90s will be 15-20 years older than then any NFH-90s, unless NZ picks up the six Norwegian aircraft

 

[recce.k1]

In the late 1990's the Foreign Affairs, Defence & Trade Parliamentary Select Committee's Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000 laid the foundation for the actual disbandment of the "Air Combat Force" (the A-4's and their intended F-16 replacements). The then Labour/Alliance Opposition parties actually (and unusually) had a majority on the Select Committee and in essence drove the outcomes. (Incidentally the report also proposed cutting 2/3 of NZDF's combat capabilities (ACF/Frigates/P-3 Orions) preferring to instead prioritise the Army in order to better support UN Peace Keeping operations).

Now perhaps normally this wouldn't matter ... except when the Labour Party won the 1999 general election a few months later they were in prime position to action the Inquiry/report outcomes.

In essence there was an agenda at play (a long running one but won't get into NZ domestic left-wing politics, but many a commentator has highlighted these issues here in the past). (BTW I voted for Labour during these times, for other reasons other than defence, I simply state this to not appear too partisan).

Some defence analysts raised concerns about the Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000 and questioned how they reached their conclusions.

I could easily list a dozen or so quotes from the following Independent Review of the Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000 and its Interim Report written by Dr David Dickens (the then Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies at VUW) calling out the Inquiry and its logic.

https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/strategic-studies/documents/working-papers/wp-13.pdf

Dr Dicken's review is worth reading for context. It holds true, both then and now. In fact he highlighted back then many issues we are now seeing playing out in contemporary global geo-politics (eg in terms of NZ Govt/NZDF responses and structures etc).

Now for my partisan views. Back then these left-wing politicians (and for balance some on the right) and their so-called Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000 group-think and subsequent perspectives and policies are wrong. Wrongly wrong. Wrongly wrong wrong so f'ing wrong!

So embarasingly wrong they just need to get the heck of contemporary debate and need to stop undermining current (and even the previous Govt's) efforts to re-establish connections with like-minded allies and partners and re-build capabilities.

Yes there are many capabilites and new technologies the NZDF will require, across the spectrum, which will need to be prioritised. Clearly personnel and infrastructure are vital and so is "mass" (building upon what we already have experience in operating and sustaining).

But for the pupose of singling out the current debate here on "jets", I still think the views of Dr Dickens still holds true back in 1999 as it does today in terms of NZDF jet training and operational aircraft. So I will quote this part in full:

Air Combat Force
I found the Interim Report’s handling of the issues relating to the air combat force weak. The authors of this section of the Report did not appear to grasp the importance of the air combat force in contemporary land and maritime contexts (the main roles for the New Zealand air combat force). There are good reasons for retaining and modernising the air combat force. The air combat force meets New Zealand’s defence needs. An air combat force is a versatile contribution (for maritime strike, close air support and interdiction roles) that can be dispatched quickly on conventional or peacekeeping operations for maximum effect and minimal risk of casualties. Modern effective air combat force contributions are sought by our allies and friends for both coalition and peacekeeping operations. The No 2 Squadron detachment at Nowra, on the Southern New South Wales coast, is one of the most sought after New Zealand contributions to Closer Defence Relations (CDR) with Australia.

If New Zealand is to provide either ground, air or maritime units for active service overseas they will need to be thoroughly trained in joint operations. Trends in modern peacekeeping and conventional warfare stress the growing fusion of sea‐air and land‐air operating methods. This means that our frigates, Orions, and ground forces need to be thoroughly familiar with fast jet strike before they deploy from New Zealand. This interoperability takes skill, is technically complicated, and must be routinely refreshed in individual and collective training. This trend in seamless jointary is increasing in importance. Joint operations of the future will require even closer inter‐ service teamwork. This is why fast jet strike is so important for New Zealand. The effectiveness of this country’s other units (ANZACs, Orions, battalion groups) are dependent on fast jet strike.

If New Zealand discards its fast jet strike the combat viability of its ANZACs, Orions and ground forces will be significantly degraded. For these units will not be able to train with fast jet strike. If they don’t have the knowledge and skills needed to operate with fast jets then they will be of limited viability in either a peacekeeping or coalition environment.

The Interim Report resorts to a straw men argument to support its general view that there are good grounds to question the future of the air combat force. The Interim Report insinuates that the air combat force is not as useful as the A4s “have never been used in combat” (p 29). This is not the point. Hopefully we will never use our forces in combat. It is also selective. The C 130s, Iroquois, and Orions have never been used in combat either.

The Interim Report also dismissed the MoD assessment that it would take up to 15 years to build a air combat force up from scratch. The Interim Report claims the MoD “overstates the difficulties and is quite hypothetical, taking into account the wide range of institutional knowledge that would continue to reside in other parts of the Air Force” (p30). Yet aside from this speculation what evidence does the Interim Report provide in support of its assertion. If the air combat force goes how could the air force keep up to date with new developments in the field. If the air combat force was to be disbanded why would fast jet weapons, avionics, engineering and air crew specialists stay on in the air force. What future would they have?


As it will take a number of years to rebuild capabilities (recruit and train pilots and maintainers etc) there are ways to help this such as lateral recruitment, utilising contractors and training providers. And we don't need to spend billions and purchase new types because we can learn the basics on cheaper second hand aircraft in the interim. And to be viable one squadron's worth won't cut it, so suggest the orginal post war plan be re-adopted (and updated) over time.

Initially perhaps we could re-introduce jet trainers back into the advanced training syllabus (for example multi-role trainers are available now eg M-346 or T-50 etc) or start with private providers?

In terms of funding an ACF capability, longer term defence spending would need to start rising reach to 2% of GDP but surely upcoming Defence Capability Plans would be providing future pathways showing increasing NZDF capabilities/mass across the spectrum over time (as expenditure is projected to increase).

Ideally with the global strategic situation being re-shaped (eg by a number of non-democratic nations) the NZ Govt should be following their counterparts such as Australia and the UK by defining when expenditure targets are to be reached (eg 2% GDP in 5 years time, 2.5-3% in 10 years time and so on).

Finally one last point about an ACF capability (and land/sea based anti-air capabilities), where and when does NZ factor in the "revolution" in mass/drone warfare, like what we are seeing in Ukraine and via the Houthies in the Red Sea (and in the near future in the Indo-Pacific)? Does NZ need to restore a "dedicated" fighter air-to-air capability, that was lost many decades ago when it was thought that manned fighters would become obsolete (i.e. when we followed UK policy), to patrol and defend its Pacific interests (in association with joint sea, land and space based systems)?

 

[Rob c]

And there's that word, were, as in past tense, as in in the past. Times have changed yes, obviously some think otherwise though still thinking defence can only come from a jet? And still, the question remains, defence from what????? Of course people said keep them, that's the whole point of any study is to show both sides of the coin, pros and cons, benefits for and against, it doesn't mean it's then binding as that's not really how expert advice works, hint, it's in the wording, advice.

I'm not ignoring any point unless you know something about NZ having been/being invaded that I must have somehow missed? I'm going off actual fact, we did not use the jets and we have not needed the jets since axing them, it's not rocket science, nothing even remotely close to NZ being threatened has literally happened in a lifetime! We havnt had this detterant you speak of for over 2 decades so perhaps no one got the memo and still believe we have some vintage skyhawks or vanilla F16s so they are still dettered from invading by mistake? Or, maybe NZs just not high on the invasion list it would seem so we are not actually dettering, anything or anyone? The way you are talking is as if there has been a spate of invasions around the place and any country without jets has been snapped up, by someone (we're still figuring that one out) and we are about to be next! Guess I missed that one also.

Ukraine has jets, hasn't dettered Russia. It's as if Russia doesn't even care right? Guess they don't follow the invasion rulebook either, badass.

It is a government services department, thats how they get to call the shots, literally. Call it want you want if it makes you feel better, it still doesn't make a squadron of jets in NZ any more viable, likely or warranted.

`This will be my last post on this subject.
1. Using the Ukraine/ Russian war as an example shows a complete lack of any military knowledge or understanding. That is a land battle well within the combat radius of Russian combat aircraft. See my earlier post regarding combat radius and the fact we are surrounded by sea and it is this fact that is the most telling, or is this too hard to comprehend.
2.I am talking about our future, the past and what happened is irrelevant.
3. You seem to think because something has not happened in the past it wont happen in the future, Wrong.
4. A lot of people ( maybe you) look into the future and see no threat not realising that the reason they see no threat is because they cannot see into the future and would not see a threat even if one was in the future, or is this a little to complicated.
5. You are constantly trying to misquote or misinterpreted me , I am not trying to say a any of those over the top rubish you are pretending.
6. Check "spell check" before you post.
7. You still have not answered the question, do we need a defence force and if not what do we do. As you seem to be of the opinion that there will never be a threat, then logically we don't need a Defence force at all, do we.
8. Please desist from the emotive and non logical and name calling. I have tried to give logical explanations for what I have said and the replies have been emotive, lacking logic and showing a lack of grasp of military matters
9. Just remember, the future is an unknown and not to be prepared for different eventualities is less than intelligent.
Thank you for an interesting week, but I now have other things to do
Rob C

 

[Rob c]

In the late 1990's the Foreign Affairs, Defence & Trade Parliamentary Select Committee's Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000 laid the foundation for the actual disbandment of the "Air Combat Force"

That was the interim report and it said replace the A4's or disband the force, the final report said that we needed to replace the Skyhawks with a limited number of F16C's.
Yep it was Labour lead and HC was in charge of Labour at the time and she was a "My way or the highway" style of leader.

 

[Hawkeye69]

One thing we shouldn't underestimate in this competition is Sikorsky/LMs ability to support a Romeo fleet, by the time NZ get their first Helo, Australia will be operating a fleet of Seventy-Six (36 MH60R, 40 UH60M) H-60 Hawk family Helicopters and that will mean a major Sikorsky presence in Sydney, with extensive stocks of spare parts, an extensive ability to provide training, logistics, maintenance. There would be no doubt the Ausgov would be fully supportive of any such move.


The NH-90 is not solely an Airbus product, Leonardo is also a major shareholder, and they of course produce the Wildcat so any competition involving both the NFH-90 and Wildcat has some complications.

Also the current RNZAF NH-90s will be 15-20 years older than then any NFH-90s, unless NZ picks up the six Norwegian aircraft

Personal preference is MH-60R but I feel we will be getting the 6x ex Norwegian aircraft and at a bargain price.

 

[Rob c]

Finally one last point about an ACF capability (and land/sea based anti-air capabilities), where and when does NZ factor in the "revolution" in mass/drone warfare, like what we are seeing in Ukraine and via the Houthies in the Red Sea (and in the near future in the Indo-Pacific)? Does NZ need to restore a "dedicated" fighter air-to-air capability, that was lost many decades ago when it was thought that manned fighters would become obsolete (i.e. when we followed UK policy), to patrol and defend its Pacific interests (in association with joint sea, land and space based systems)?

As there is a lot of sea around us(over 2000 km) only very long range drones, which have yet to make an appearance, would be of concern. This would apply for most of the south Pacific. It is also noted that manned fighters are being used to shoot down some of the larger drones in combination with other means.

 

[Gooey]

Gents,

I still have trouble comprehending how NZ fell so far, and so quickly, in terms of defence capability.

I was young when the Skyhawks arrived in kiwi and they were a constant companion growing up there. So I find the subject of their disbandment, and the logic that went behind this, frankly incomprehensible. Thank you recce.k1 and Rob c for your pieces within. I had forgotten about the black arts that went into the Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000 but can safely say that their collective knowledge about air power went something like "the dot represents what you know about air operations, the entire rest of the paper what I know."*

I think it was on day one of the RAF that I had drummed into me what characterised the effectiveness of airpower, aka fast air: speed, flexibility, firepower. Each of these have a plethora of reasoning behind them. What Dr Dicken's CSS:NZ 1999 review of Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000 on the air combat force misses is the share kinetic punchiness that these three rationals bring to a nations defence capability. In a stroke, NZ national security lost its ability to have long range violence being smited upon its enemies as an option in lawful armed warfare.

There is a reason why small and medium countries such as Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Israel, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, Czech Republic, and UK have selected the F-35, while still paying for hospitals, schools, and the social welfare abyss. And its not because they like fast shiny Lamborghini Huracáns.

The worst impact of this kiwi disease of stupidity is not the waste of capability, resources, and talent that impacted RNZAF and our nations self esteem and security. The second and third order effects of losing the air combat force, over the past twenty years, has seen the individual warrior kings and collective professional mastery of the NZDF castrated. Any rebuilding of this esprit de corps is something that will take longer than 15 years to restore.

As a maritime, First World nation, to have decided in the 90's that the NZ Army supporting the UN was to become our defence rational can now be seen as the Greek tragedy that we conjured up all by ourselves.

*As well as a historic and memorable line in army bashing, George Kenney's South West Pacific decentralised command and control has recently come back into USAF fashion again as a counter to CCPs rocket forces through dispersing Blue Air assets:

Dynamic Command, De-Centralized Execution

By examining how authority has been delegated historically, this article considers the application of mesh-node architecture in the military’s command hierarchy to

www.airuniversity.af.edu

 

[Gooey]

Personal preference is MH-60R but I feel we will be getting the 6x ex Norwegian aircraft and at a bargain price.

For whats its worth; just like acquisition of the P-8s, the only war fighting ASW answer is MH-60R due to logistical, electronic, and secure integration with our Allies. Anything else is a bed-wetters solution from Treasury etc.

 

[RegR]

`This will be my last post on this subject.
1. Using the Ukraine/ Russian war as an example shows a complete lack of any military knowledge or understanding. That is a land battle well within the combat radius of Russian combat aircraft. See my earlier post regarding combat radius and the fact we are surrounded by sea and it is this fact that is the most telling, or is this too hard to comprehend.
2.I am talking about our future, the past and what happened is irrelevant.
3. You seem to think because something has not happened in the past it wont happen in the future, Wrong.
4. A lot of people ( maybe you) look into the future and see no threat not realising that the reason they see no threat is because they cannot see into the future and would not see a threat even if one was in the future, or is this a little to complicated.
5. You are constantly trying to misquote or misinterpreted me , I am not trying to say a any of those over the top rubish you are pretending.
6. Check "spell check" before you post.
7. You still have not answered the question, do we need a defence force and if not what do we do. As you seem to be of the opinion that there will never be a threat, then logically we don't need a Defence force at all, do we.
8. Please desist from the emotive and non logical and name calling. I have tried to give logical explanations for what I have said and the replies have been emotive, lacking logic and showing a lack of grasp of military matters
9. Just remember, the future is an unknown and not to be prepared for different eventualities is less than intelligent.
Thank you for an interesting week, but I now have other things to do
Rob C

You can go do whatever you want anytime you want and are you telling me its your last post for my benefit or yours? The funny thing is when people generally do that, it actually isn't..

1. Well actually someone has to give some kind of example, because no one else is as everytime time I ask for what this is all based on? What's set the precedent? What's caused this? No one can actually answer. Try reading back through the thread, people used the whole "the world is a changing place", "look at Ukraine", "Ukraine has shown this and that", "China's doing something in our region", "Chinese aggresion" blah blah blah and funny as soon as I ask for an actual example of why we need an ACF for this then everyone goes quiet and starts spouting freedom and sovereignty quotes instead. So got it, nothing's happening anywhere that warrants or requires fast jets, but we should have them anyway, just in case something completely unrelated happens...
2. If the past is irrelevant then what exactly is this all based on, nothing? The military, any military, doesn't aqquire anything for nothing.
3. You seem to think something IS going to happen in the future, so then what is it? And more importantly why do you think a squadron of fighter jets is going to do about it, whatever it is? I think NZ is going to be swallowed up by the ocean so we should have a fleet of nuclear submarines as well but we're not going to do that either are we.
4. And alot of people (maybe you) think they do know the future and the answer is a few F16s sitting in a hanger. That seems a rather specific soloution to a rather particular problem, sounds like a job for a submarine.
5. I have no clue what you are trying to say actually as I can't get any clear answers other than "freedom and sovereignty".
6. Spell check, got it. That should solve it.
7. We do have a defence force, you seem to think we need jets for that defence force to defend NZ yet, here NZ is, big as day with more freedom and sovereignty than most ironically with them, weird. Again feel free to change the name though if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. Freedom and sovereignty force perhaps?
8. Name calling?? I don't call you anything so that's weird. As for logic, we have not needed, required or used an ACF for the last 20+ years so obviously my "logic" is working, and saving us $billions in the process. Yours is based on could be, possibly, maybe anything, nothing, something might happen, even though it hasn't and isn't likely to at all, so we need a few fighter jets. You sure did explain it.
9. So the future is unknown but the answer is known. We best get some submarines then!

I do like me some lists.
Reg R

 

[Rob c]

Would 16 fighters jets sitting in Ohakea solve the whole supply and demand issues caused by a war on the other side of the planet or sway Chinas industrial output in our favour? How exactly?? Not very likely scenarios are they, abit of a theme it would seem.

I did say I would not carry on but I read this after, but nothing we currently would either and I would not want them to, our own back yard is more than big enough. I personally would stick to the south Pacific.

The irony is the ACF was a drain on the NZDF budget, waste even, for little to no gain other than being in the boys club

This is an insult to a very skilled and dedicated group of professionals, i personally have memories of doing 20 + hour days when required and there was a lot of continuous training required to stay on the top of our game. The reality which which I know you will not accept is that they were our only real defence.
I apologies for the name calling remark, I miss read a word.
If you don't understand Freedom and sovereignty look it up or visit North Korea in regard to the freedom. But our very way of life is dependent on it.
.

You seem to think something IS going to happen in the future, so then what is it

As I have said time and time again, we don't know, I certainly Don't have any abilities to see into the future, I don't do fortune telling. I do think it is prudent to prepare for possibilities

. As for logic, we have not needed, required or used an ACF for the last 20+ years so obviously my "logic" is working, and saving us $billions in the process.

Not logic just the fortunes of history. As a side note If the f16s had have come, due to the way the deal was arranged treasury deemed it to be capital expenditure neutral and the running costs less than the A4s.
If we are threatened how would you propose defend our selves

 

[RegR]

I did say I would not carry on but I read this after, but nothing we currently would either and I would not want them to, our own back yard is more than big enough. I personally would stick to the south Pacific.

This is an insult to a very skilled and dedicated group of professionals, i personally have memories of doing 20 + hour days when required and there was a lot of continuous training required to stay on the top of our game. The reality which which I know you will not accept is that they were our only real defence.
I apologies for the name calling remark, I miss read a word.
If you don't understand Freedom and sovereignty look it up or visit North Korea in regard to the freedom. But our very way of life is dependent on it.
.

As I have said time and time again, we don't know, I certainly Don't have any abilities to see into the future, I don't do fortune telling. I do think it is prudent to prepare for possibilities

Not logic just the fortunes of history. As a side note If the f16s had have come, due to the way the deal was arranged treasury deemed it to be capital expenditure neutral and the running costs less than the A4s.
If we are threatened how would you propose defend our selves

I'm not "insulting" the operators (yourself included) and never would (NZDF in general really), in fact have nothing but the utmost respect and pride for the former squadron and fully understand how professional and regarded they were. Keyword were. I'm talking about a return to that specific capability WRT now, not from 20 years ago. It's abit like I how respect the kiwi bomber crews and bombers of WWII but I don't see the point in bringing back a bomber squadron.