AHC: Have the RNZAF acquire a light attack capability

I have posted another thread about the Royal New Zealand Air Force ("RNZAF") retaining an air combat capability, which can be read here for those that are interested.

A summary is found in the quote below:

In 1998 New Zealand government ordered 28 F - 16A/B Fighting Falcon to replace their A - 4 K Skyhawk fleet. This order was cancelled by the incoming Labour government in 1999, who then disbanded No. 2 (Skyhawk), No 75 (Skyhawk) & 14 (Aeremacchi) squadrons, leaving the RNZAF without an air combat capability. From Wiki - by 2003 the RNZAF was reduced to 53 aircraft and approximately 2,500 personnel.

Now something that I've been considering is what if the RNZAF acquires a squadron of light attack aircraft such as the Super Tucanos, which then allow them to fulfil a light attack / observation niche capability that is pertinent for low intensity conflicts or even peace keeping operations. If the RNZAF had this capability than it could have proven relevant to East Timor (hard to argue escalation if you deploy propeller driven aircraft), Afghanistan, the Solomon Islands (limited utility here) & possibly Iraq.

The key question is when does this decision need to be made and how can it be made? Personally, I think the decision needs to be made prior to 1998 and it is a capability that is demonstrated by chance in East Timor, then subsequently retained by the Labor government.

Although happy for suggestions about other aircraft options and for PODs to do so.
 
Suspect odds are they'd end up hanging onto their MB-339 advanced trainers (kitted out to take AGM-65s and AIM-9s, giving a decent ground attack capability) rather than buying anything new. Not sure how to make it happen though...

Agree, there's no reason for the RNZAF to buy replacements for the Macchis. In fact, most of them - 17 of the 18 purchased - are still in storage down at Ohakea, so they're available. I think OP is correct: the decision would have to be made before 1998. Perhaps the government decides to downgrade the air combat wing of the RNZAF rather than eliminate it entirely, on the basis that a future government might want that capability and ramping up an existing capability is quicker and easier than establishing one from scratch. This argument was made IOTL, along with others, but didn't get enough traction to prevent a complete air-force-ectomy. ITTL, they get rid of the A-4s as planned, but keep the Macchis, which switch roles to primarily light attack. As a bonus, this also gives the army and RNZN easier access to an air force for training with/against.
 

Riain

Banned
Perhaps something specifically for COIN like a Rockwell Bronco. The Kiwis could argue that these are multi purpose platforms perfect for supporting the NZSAS cheaply with their 5 passenger capacity, light weapons, STOL and good loiter. They'd be a revelation in Afghanistan.
 

Errolwi

Monthly Donor
Agree, there's no reason for the RNZAF to buy replacements for the Macchis. In fact, most of them - 17 of the 18 purchased - are still in storage down at Ohakea, so they're available

They were for some time, but have since been disbursed to Museums. One even taxis!
www.facebook.com/classicsoftheskytauranga/videos/218949359126647/UzpfSTIwOTY3NDkxNTc5MDUwNDoyNzMyNzM0MDU2ODE3ODk4/

One issue with selling them is their unique engine, making support a complete pain.
 
Have the RNZAF become more involved in peacekeeping / enforcing missions abroad in the 90s?
 
Couldn't the RNZAF use its light helicopters for ground support?

They were still using Hueys until they were replaced by the NH 90 and then only in the troop transport role. However, there were also problems with sourcing spares due to restrictions placed on the NZDF by the US, following their semi withdrawal from ANZUS.
 
Perhaps something specifically for COIN like a Rockwell Bronco. The Kiwis could argue that these are multi purpose platforms perfect for supporting the NZSAS cheaply with their 5 passenger capacity, light weapons, STOL and good loiter. They'd be a revelation in Afghanistan.
I wonder about the survivablity of the Bronco in Afghanistan ? Would it have had the needed payload to carry flares, jammers, maybe armour etc ?

Still it seems like a nice idea.
 
Last edited:
I have posted another thread about the Royal New Zealand Air Force ("RNZAF") retaining an air combat capability, which can be read here for those that are interested.

A summary is found in the quote below:



Now something that I've been considering is what if the RNZAF acquires a squadron of light attack aircraft such as the Super Tucanos, which then allow them to fulfil a light attack / observation niche capability that is pertinent for low intensity conflicts or even peace keeping operations. If the RNZAF had this capability than it could have proven relevant to East Timor (hard to argue escalation if you deploy propeller driven aircraft), Afghanistan, the Solomon Islands (limited utility here) & possibly Iraq.

The key question is when does this decision need to be made and how can it be made? Personally, I think the decision needs to be made prior to 1998 and it is a capability that is demonstrated by chance in East Timor, then subsequently retained by the Labor government.

Although happy for suggestions about other aircraft options and for PODs to do so.
Perhaps the Canadians could have sold them the upgraded F5's that I believe went to Botswana ? (I am not 100 percent sure if the dates would work out ?) I seem to recall the Canadians planned to use them as fighter lead in trainers (presumably for their F18 pilots) so perhaps the Australians might have been involved in this as well vis a vis their F18 force ? Maybe Australia gets some modest use from them as well and partially pays for them ?

Maybe they get a package deal with LAV's, C7, C8 rifles etc :)
 
Last edited:

Ian_W

Banned
It's probably ASB, but lets assume the RNZAF and RAAF have a screaming attack of sensible.

Both air forces spend a lot of their time doing humanitarian work, COIN and disaster relief. This should also include firefighting.

They go and jointly acquire the Airbus C295 as the Hercules replacement. This aircraft can be fitted with a number of different kits, including ground attack (because Turkey does COIN too, only with less subtlety).


 
This scenario fails on account that anyone objecting to this waste of money with "what the hell do we need them for?" just presented an almost insurmontable argument against it.
Especially the whole COIN thing. New Zealand bombing people on the other side of the planet? Thats a capability they may well refuse if it came for free.
 
This scenario fails on account that anyone objecting to this waste of money with "what the hell do we need them for?" just presented an almost insurmontable argument against it.
Especially the whole COIN thing. New Zealand bombing people on the other side of the planet? Thats a capability they may well refuse if it came for free.
If (and it is a huge if IMHO) the Australians were on board with the concept of New Zealand buying a small fleet of air craft that were useable as fighter lead in trainers for their F18's force, the what do we need them for argument might go something like this..

New Zeland helps its most important ally and retains a modest fixed winged air combat capability to keep that skill set alive in the RNZAF. Presumably the Australians would have been paying for a pro rata share of any op costs. I also recall that the New Zealand A4's were at least some what based in Australia ?

I'm thinking in practice the air craft would have been mostly used as fighter lead in trainers by the Australians but New Zealand would have had a notional fast jet air combat capability ? If international tensions picked up there could probably be a viable plan for New Zealand to acquire its own fleet of F18's (the Canadians might even give New Zealand a formal option to buy some of theirs second hand subject to U.S. approval.
I suspect there would have been a lot of details regarding likely operating costs to work thru for such an arrangement to have even been considered.

I also seem to recall the Australians made an effort to recruit former members of the Canadian military in the late 90's / early 2000's ? So there may have been some opportunities to get qualified people from Canada to help out with such a project ?
 
Last edited:
Perhaps something specifically for COIN like a Rockwell Bronco.

The Bronco was horrifically vulnerable though. One, of the many problems with it, which manifested itself in Vietnam, was excessive heat build-up in the cockpit. AFAIK that was never resolved.
An AT-29, or a Hawk can do anything a Bronco can, and much better.
 
This scenario fails on account that anyone objecting to this waste of money with "what the hell do we need them for?" just presented an almost insurmontable argument against it.
Especially the whole COIN thing. New Zealand bombing people on the other side of the planet? Thats a capability they may well refuse if it came for free.

You’re absolutely right - it’s a complete non-starter for political reasons. The best argument to retain an air combat capability is to enforce sovereignty. An earlier September 11 might also have helped in that regard.

What would have made sense - if possible - was for New Zealand was to pursue cost savings through a closer alignment with Australia. Let Australia provide lead-in and conversion training, and perhaps the RNZAF simply maintains a squadron of Hornets - maybe as few as 12 - and plugs into the RAAF maintenance systems.
 
You’re absolutely right - it’s a complete non-starter for political reasons. The best argument to retain an air combat capability is to enforce sovereignty. An earlier September 11 might also have helped in that regard.

What would have made sense - if possible - was for New Zealand was to pursue cost savings through a closer alignment with Australia. Let Australia provide lead-in and conversion training, and perhaps the RNZAF simply maintains a squadron of Hornets - maybe as few as 12 - and plugs into the RAAF maintenance systems.
Yes that would have been nice. However I suspect that the ongoing costs would have been prohibitive.
 
Top