Except Kiwi P-8s are not fully armed we don't have any anti ship missles at all!! (well only the penguin, but that is too stort ranged!!) that should be one of the first items procured ASAP!! to give the RNZAF some offensive capability!!
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
An attack on NZ would likely be in conjunction with an attack on Australia either concurrently or previously so they would be very busy protecting themselves, as they have a huge area to defend with only a modest force to do it and any help from elsewhere could be some time away so an initial defence ability to protect ourselves is required until help does arrive. This because help could be some time away, depending on the overall strategic situation. The US at this point in time cannot be relied on, Japan and Korea could have the aggressor between them and us, and European help would take significant time. So we need to be able to look after ourselves at least initially.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
Not an expert but I have long agreed with the line of thought you have clearly outlined above. I acknowledge other have made good arguments for fast strike. People are cought up with platform vs platform without considering standoff range, low observability etc of ranged munitions.
We have to weigh up the costs and feasibility of more p8s with LRASMs vs a new fleet of fast air with LRASMs and all the cost time and political capital needed to achieve it.
Ideally with >2% GDP we could work towards both. I still think a handful of sea guardians (forward deployed to Fiji etc) would be a useful affordable way of stretching out our maritime surveillance. And of course... More frigates.
Hawkeye69
Member
Agreed with Sea Guardian, they just successfully dropped sonabouys from one, very handy piece of kit.
Chinas ambassador to Australia stated Australia needs to get use to Chinese warships of their coast as plenty more will be regular visitors down this way.
New Zealand needs to purchase 2x P-8s ASAP to bring the fleet up to 6, then alongside 6 x Sea Guardians, also LRASMs ,12 x MH-60Rs, 2 x OPVs that are fitted out with a decent weapons/sensor systems eg VLS, MH-60R etc then 4 x Frigates again with VLS including antiship missiles, anti air eg SM series etc etc.
Which gives the navy some offensive punch and more Mass/force when needed!!!
The RNZAF needs 3 x C-130J, 16 x T6's some for training x 4, most used for light strike, COIN Sqn which at least gives an option we don't have!! also replace the plastic NH-90s with 18-20 of the latest MH-60s able to then do more tasks than currently!! 9 x AW109x as training/light rotary transport for a total of 14 airframes.
The army needs a 3rd RF batt, replace light 105 arty with the Archer system far more mobile, longer ranged, then Anti Air/drone systems ASAP, More anti armour kit, then look at replacing the LAV III's with what Oz has bought!!
Update comms gear, increase Support units size add 2000 pers to the army give it some actual mass!! to be able fight well!!
Sort out thehousing/wages ASAP
This would be a very good start in the next 2-5 years.
If new equipment such as the above was purchased they may find recruitment might be a bit easier due to modern gear/not looking like run down broken force(with an actual lack of force!!)
The cost would be north of $25 Billion but the purchases will be spread out over 10 years, but the longer the government that is in power leaves this the more expensive it will cost and then we will go back to what has happened over the last 25-30 years, nothing gets done!!
While any improvements are welcome, we must remember that first of all we need to defend NZ followed by assisting in regional defence. We are a maritime nation surrounded by sea and air and the only way here is by air or sea, so these must be the first lines of defence. We must know what goes on in that area around us and be able to counter threats in the air and sea around us. This is followed by having the ability to deploy and assist in regional defence as required.
So the priorities need to be kept in mind in their correct order, which is often lost when our defence is mentioned especially by our pollies.
So the priorities need to be kept in mind in their correct order, which is often lost when our defence is mentioned especially by our pollies.
Catalina
Active Member
Ditch artillery and specialize in drones.
Drones are dual use - in times of peace they can be used for Search and Rescue and Human Assistance & Disaster Relief, during war they can be used for highly flexible Reconnaissance and Strike.
Our artillery is a waste of resources and money in peace time. Our artillery in wartime is a logistical drain and a tactical vulnerability. We can't protect large artillery pieces nor their required logistic trains. On any battle field where we might want to use artillery it will be pulverized and eliminated by enemy drones or naval strikes. Understanding this the USMC 3rd Marine Littoral Regiment - which needs to be the base of our future marine setup, dropped its armour and artillery in favor of drones and naval strike missiles.
We need flexible squad sized recon and strike drone units that can deploy rapidly to Antarctica, the South Pacific Islands, Australia, or as World War Three breaks out the South China Sea or Europe.
We can't rely on importing expensive imported artillery rounds and artillery pieces that in peacetime drain our defence budget and that in wartime are a logistical nightmare and vulnerable target, we need to, and can rely on, and build up our national drone industry.
Last edited:
Protecting our fixed military assets (Air bases, Army bases and Naval infrastructure). When does that get looked at.
Catalina
Active Member
Adequate protection requires adequate threat definition.
Are we to defend ourselves from
1. Communist Chinese InterContinental Ballistic Missile strikers?
As per the CCPs launching of its Dongfeng 5 ICBM into the South Pacific on 26th Sep 2024?
2. Communist Chinese Naval Strikes?
As per the CCPs naval power projection of the potential 176 land attack and ant-ship missiles loaded on the Xianyang* and Nanning** which the CCP deployed just two days sailing time north of NZ on 23rd Oct 2024.
3. Communist Chinese Naval Blockade and Interdiction?
As per the CCPs naval firepower demonstration by the Zunyi* and Hengynag*** on 21st to 22nd Feb 2025.
To cover all three threats the only solution is a BMD equipped warship equipped with SM-2 Block IV (being phased out), SM-3, or SM-6. Such is probably beyond us, and the thought for the left wing peace groups that New Zealand is nuclear target of Communist China would give the left wing peace groups no end of concern and call for closer friendship with the Dragon.
Giving up on sabotage protected BMD defence and concentrating on protecting ourselves from threats 2 and 3 again brings us back to a four frigate force supported by a full squadron of LRASM equipped P-8s dispersed randomly between 6 airports
* a Type 055 Renhai Class Cruiser
** a Type 052D Luyang III Class Heavy Destroyer
*** a Type 054A Jiangkai II Class Frigate
Last edited:
Ireland is apparently going to buy fighter aircraft
www.irishtimes.com
if they do actually go ahead with that, it would be a great case study for New Zdaland to see how much it costs to build up a fighter wing from scratch.
Costings sought for massive expansion of Irish military including purchase of fighter jets
Proposal to double Naval Service’s fleet and equip Army with modern armoured vehicles
if they do actually go ahead with that, it would be a great case study for New Zdaland to see how much it costs to build up a fighter wing from scratch.
Catalina
Active Member
To what end? In what skies are you envisaging NZ combat aircraft will engage in air to air combat and with whom?Ireland is apparently going to buy fighter aircraft
Costings sought for massive expansion of Irish military including purchase of fighter jets
Proposal to double Naval Service’s fleet and equip Army with modern armoured vehicles
it would be a great case study for New Zdaland to see how much it costs to build up a fighter wing from scratch.
As an aircraft owning pilot with many thousands of hours in a wide variety of aircraft, including aerobatics and air shows, the emotive gung-ho appeal of fighters is attractive, but then so was my ex-wife, and look at what a wasted effort that was.
When considering any military purchase in 2025 you must always first consider how does it protect itself from all that our Communist Chinese enemies can throw at it.
Any airfield in NZ is completely defenseless against Communist Chinese attack be that attack from Communist submarines, warships, drones, or saboteurs.
Effective air combat is a game of advanced technology, and any fighters we may wish to buy would soon become obsolete. Obsolete and short ranged.
The Pacific is one of immense distance. The Realm of New Zealand stretches over 4,500nm and 600 islands from Antarctica to Tokelua. Our Poseidon's have a 1,200nm combat range with a four hour loiter. An F-35A has a 590nm combat radius with a few minutes combat window, an F/A-18E Super Hornet a combat radius of some 390nm. What is it within that range of Ohakea that NZ fighters would engage in air to air combat with?
As well as an ineffective air to air effect, any strike capability of any fighters NZ purchased, those that were not taken up by a surprise Communist covert forces/sub/surface launched missile strike could only influence localized affairs a few hundred miles off our shores.
Naval air defences have a much greater chance to take out both Communist Chinese missiles and aircraft - across the entire expanse of the Realm of New Zealand than any fighter jets could possibly have.
Four Mogami class frigates, equipped with helicopters and drones, become effective self sustaining mobile power projecting and defence shielding units able to perform such a variety of tasks as defending Ohakea from a missile strike, escorting an essential fuel tanker across submarine infested seas, raiding an enemy port, bombarding enemy holdouts, and taking down a Communist Chinese task force, especially in conjunction with the only maritime strike aircraft we need, a full squadron of 12 Poseidons equipped with LRASM.
Last edited:
Catalina
Active Member
4 Mogami Class Frigates and 12 AGM-158C LRASM Poseidons
Self protectable - Mogamis ✓
Strategically, Operationally, and Tactically capable ✓
Relevant for the next 25-50 years ✓
Interoperable with Australia ✓
Strengthens ties with ally and partners ✓
Independent action possible ✓
Long range ✓
Can cover the Realm of New Zealand ✓
Deployable world wide ✓
Levers existing institutional know how ✓
Within budget ✓
Publicly acceptable ✓
Self protectable - Mogamis ✓
Strategically, Operationally, and Tactically capable ✓
Relevant for the next 25-50 years ✓
Interoperable with Australia ✓
Strengthens ties with ally and partners ✓
Independent action possible ✓
Long range ✓
Can cover the Realm of New Zealand ✓
Deployable world wide ✓
Levers existing institutional know how ✓
Within budget ✓
Publicly acceptable ✓
Catalina
Active Member
New Zealand's only Over the Horizon critical standoff strike capability
Ahoy jbc388 yes as posted above I agree with your enthusiasm for a larger navy.
I understand that our remotorized Penguin Mk2 Mod 7 anti-ship missile (AshM) provides our Navy Combat Force with the only critical standoff, over the horizon, strike capability our nation currently posses. This OTH capability, in the hands of a skilled naval commander provides options that not all nations have.
Can anyone confirm if Mh-60R Seahawks or AgustaWestland AW159 Wildcat's can likewise provide an OTH strike capability?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
TBH I am rather skeptical that the Penguin Mk 2 provides an OTH capability, at least from the launching platform. IIRC the range of a Mk 2 is ~34 km though I cannot recall at what altitude the launching platform is, to be able to reach out 30+ km. It is distinctly possible that a launching helicopter, flying below the radar horizon of a potential target ship, might need to get much closer than 34 km in order to hit it with a Penguin.
It is also my understanding that the Penguin has been integrated for launch from various models of the S-70/SH-60 Seahawk. Of potentially greater value is a helicopter-launched version of the NSM which would certainly be considered a standoff, OTH AShM.
Wildcat doesn't at present. Sea Venom integration is scheduled to be complete and reach full operating capability later this year, then it will have OTH strike.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
The Penguin and Sea Vennon have similar ranges with the Penguin having slightly more...
Penguin 34km (18nm - 20nm)
Sea Venom 20km (11 -13nm)
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Sea Venom is also a distinctly lighter missile with a mass of ~120 kg vs. 385 kg for a Penguin Mk 2. The warhead of a Mk 2 is about the same as the mass of a Sea Venom missile.
Unfortunately I do not believe that at this point Penguin will provide the RNZN with a significant capability given the missile's distinct range limitations as well as the limited number of missiles which could be launched at one time.
I would not envisage air to air combat if it could be avoided except for against long range aircraft such as military transports which could initiate an airborne invasion of NZ if we don't have an air combat ability.
Not in our case as the aircraft simply become ways of delivering the weapons, you will note that the F15 and F16 are still in production having entered service in the 1970's the weapons themselves are what do not stand the test of time.
As a small nation we will never have the capacity to cover this hole region, what is this fixation on air to air combat?
That is the very point, as first of all you need to defend NZ as your first priority and if you can deny access locally this is achievable.
The limited number of naval units we could ever deploy will never have a great influence over such a vast area as the abilities are very localised in a small area around the ship it self and the ship can only change its area of operation in a relatively slow pace, meaning that it will inevitably be at the wrong place at the wrong time to provide effective area defence for NZ.
How $ frigates is going to achieve all this and have any chance of surviving is beyond me, Maybe a full size US carrier strike group would be capable. For instance protecting Ohakea which is a significant distance from the coast and the frigate would have to stand a significant distance of shore, plus the need to rotate the frigates for reprovisioning, maintenance and resting the crew would take up all 4 frigates and probably be ineffective due to distance. this would leave none for any other tasks. Modern frigates can be very capable and I think 4 is a good idea however they are a small bubble of capability in a vast ocean.
As I have said before our first priority is to defend NZ, this is what any countries first priority is for their defence force.
In a time of conflict any strike force we had should be dispersed out of Ohakea as the Sweden does with its air force as Ohakea is an an obvious target. they even use straight roads etc to achieve this leaving the enemy with to many possible targets to attack all. Unfortunately this is not possible with the P8 as the only runways suitable for it are Auckland and Christchurch international and to a lesser extent Ohakea which due to the cancelled runway extension is not long enough for max weigh operations this would make them very vulnerable to being taken out in the absence of a ACF.
If you leave a weakness for your enemy to exploit, they will do so, and leaving the country open to airborne invasion is doing just that as all they need to do is take over an airfield and they can fly in what they want in numbers that we could not stand against.