AHC: Have the RNZAF acquire a light attack capability

[Ian_W]

I`m not so sure they would get ignored. Larger nations often like the optics of having smaller nations allied to them and been willing to participate in joint operations. I suspect the larger nation would try and work with the smaller nation to figure out how to find a viable role that the smaller nation can afford, while still being of some use to the larger nation.

A number of nations in NATO during the cold war operated quite old equipment that was probably of limited usefulness on occasion but they were not ignored. While there certainly was some grumbling about the contributions some nations made, there was a perceived benefit in having the nations at the table so to speak.

Their air contribution will be what gets ignored.

NZ didn't acquire any air to air capability, because a brigade of light infantry equipped to a roughly 1970 standard is useful for your allies in a way that fighter jets equipped to a roughly 1970 standard are not.

You can lend anti-tank capability to allied infantry, but you can't lend all-weather look-down radars.

 

[Errolwi]

Their air contribution will be what gets ignored.

NZ didn't acquire any air to air capability, because a brigade of light infantry equipped to a roughly 1970 standard is useful for your allies in a way that fighter jets equipped to a roughly 1970 standard are not.

You can lend anti-tank capability to allied infantry, but you can't lend all-weather look-down radars.

And oddly enough, the NZDF trains to operate with capabilities that they don't currently have, precisely so they can make use them being lent or acquired. Note they have also gone with P-8s to replace (at last, talk about badly managed equipment replacement) the Orions, rather than sensors on a bizjet. Absolutely frontline equipment for maritime patrol.

 

[Ian_W]

And oddly enough, the NZDF trains to operate with capabilities that they don't currently have, precisely so they can make use them being lent or acquired. Note they have also gone with P-8s to replace (at last, talk about badly managed equipment replacement) the Orions, rather than sensors on a bizjet. Absolutely frontline equipment for maritime patrol.

Yeah, they are prioritising what they really need (maritime patrol) over what they dont (air to air capability).

 

[Blue cat]

Their air contribution will be what gets ignored.

NZ didn't acquire any air to air capability, because a brigade of light infantry equipped to a roughly 1970 standard is useful for your allies in a way that fighter jets equipped to a roughly 1970 standard are not.

You can lend anti-tank capability to allied infantry, but you can't lend all-weather look-down radars.

Actually I suspect the air contribution would be accepted if the small nation wanted to send it, so long as they were reasonably capable of doing what they said they could do and were clear about what they could not do. I can think of a number of reasons why a smaller nation might want to deploy a squadron of fighters vs an infantry brigade to a conflict zone.

Anyways I don`t think we will agree on this topic so I expect I will stop posting re this.

 

[bsmart]

Why would NZ need any combat aircraft other than Maritime Patrol? Until someone other than an ally has an aircraft carrier capability who do they have to worry about intercepting. Having an air to air refueling capability (both give and receive) would increase their utility for coalition operations Maybe a variant of the US P-8 or a similar design based on an Airbus aircraft

 

[alspug]

The P-8 has an extremely wide range of munitions available for use already ands could easily gain more in the future.

Some of the weapons that have been tested are decidedly not common to MPA's

JDAM in 500 to 2000lb sizes
SDB mark I and II .
decoys
Land attack missiles like AGM-84E

I would also point out that if needed the interface likely already supports any missile that the USN uses. This would include AMRAAM. The onboard radar likely needs a new mode to provide targeting but this would not take long.

I can not find what the payload of weapons for the aircraft is. I have however noticed that 4 of the 6 external hardpoints seem to be 2000lb class at least. The 5 internal hardpoints are a different kettle of fish being sized around the Mk-54 a 2.74metre long weapon minus any parachute equipment and capable if handling at least 750lb weapons possibly more.
So the RNZAF could if pushed arm it's P-8A with a mind boggling array of capabilities fairly easily at no extra cost. A P-8A with twin or quad(look at F-15X images) Amraam could have 24 long range air to air missiles on station 1200nm off the coast for 4 hours. Or it could have 8AMRAAM, 4 Harpoon or JASSM-ER plus 5 MK-54 and make even a Chinese CVBG think twice.
KIWIS are fairly inventive and will likely once needed make full use of the possibilities.

 

[Rickshaw]

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.

The Kiwis didn't withdraw from A**US. They were expelled by the US (and with Australian compliance) on the basis they had with their anti-nuclear stance offended the USA. The US however quickly changed their own policy and removed all nuclear weapons from US Navy Ships. Which rather rended their expulsion null and void. Then, with the reported "pressure" being applied to the Kiwi Government by the US one over Afghanistan it rendered their expulsion rather moot.

 

[Rickshaw]

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).

Airbus Displayed a Comprehensive Range of Weapons for Armed C295 at Dubai Air Show

Roketsan`s Unique Designed Products, the L-UMTAS, “Cirit” Laser Guided Missile and the Teber-82 Laser Bomb Guidance Kit were on Display at the Dubai Air Show

www.defenceturkey.com

Airbus Military reveals more details of C295 firefighter programme

www.airbus.com

The CN295 is a light transport. There is no way they would be aquired to replace the C-130. The RAAF chose instead, the C-27 Sherpa. Which had the same engines, cockpit and fuselage width as the C-130J. What you have claimed for the CN295 could also hold true for the C-27, if the US had not backed out of the project.

 

[Rickshaw]

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 ?

The RAAF chose the Hawk 125 for their Lead In Fighter training aircraft and light strike aircraft. Why shouldn't the Kiwis choose the same aircraft?

 

[Errolwi]

Why would NZ need any combat aircraft other than Maritime Patrol? Until someone other than an ally has an aircraft carrier capability who do they have to worry about intercepting. Having an air to air refueling capability (both give and receive) would increase their utility for coalition operations Maybe a variant of the US P-8 or a similar design based on an Airbus aircraft

Because the best way to increase the chances of your bigger allies coming to your aid when you need it (or having them even listen to you about anything) is by assisting those allies when they find it useful. Deployable armed forces are a good, public tool for this. Also, when you have an export-dependent economy, you want the international trading system operating in a stable fashion.

 

[Blue cat]

The RAAF chose the Hawk 125 for their Lead In Fighter training aircraft and light strike aircraft. Why shouldn't the Kiwis choose the same aircraft?

That sounds like a reasonable plan assuming the aircraft are affordable ?

 

[jazzer01]

Also of note for the discussion on the decision. The NZDF had reached force obselence in all 3 arms. The RNZN had secured the purchase of the ANZAC frigates and were therefore secure in terms of capability. The RNZAF and NZ Army were then both lining up thier replacement spends... the Army won and got in thier new kit purchases which emptied the bucket for the Airforce to replace the attack wing. Many of the previous posters have also pointed out the mission profiles made the army a priority in spend.

 

[Rickshaw]

That sounds like a reasonable plan assuming the aircraft are affordable ?

Of course they are affordable. Why else would the RAAF buy them? Anyway, you can always lease them if you cannot afford them outright.

 

[Julius Vogel]

Noting an earlier snide comment about "left wing governments", my experience of living in NZ (i'm a Kiwi) is that there was no strong political interest in a strong defence budget on the right either. Yes they were slightly more likely to talk the talk, but that didn't really turn into much. I remember speaking to National MPs and the like on a semi regular basis (NZ is small and my family is National) and they didn't seem invested in spending political capital on the issue at all. Suspect they judge their voters quite well.

The military is also pretty invisible in everyday life, unless you live near a base. I don't recall there being any proper bases south of Christchurch now (although there are training grounds and TA halls). It is also noteworthy that I, someone who comes from a rural area can think of one person from my age cohort who joined up. Although I do know a few TA types. I remember going online in the late 90s and being mildly surprised that everyone seemed to either be ex military or know someone close who was serving - the Internet being almost all American then!

Probably the best bet for more NZ spending is NZ First -their deputy leader is ex Army and I suspect a driver for their present coalition support.

Get Labour in coalition with NZ First in 1999 instead of the Alliance/etc and that may help. Although NZ First being a hot steaming mess in 1999 (they imploded in 98) won't help.

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

 

[sparky42]

The puzzling part is that Ireland, a neutral island country with no enemies, maintains a small Air Corps with ground attack capabilities. It is only 8 Pilatus PC-9 that can have rocket or machine gun pods attached but it is still a potent force that can be deployed to on UN Peacekeeping missions.

That's more a simple policy of the DF trying to hold what it had, the aircraft they replaced had such capability therefore what was to replace it had to have it. Outside of training missions off the coast they've never been used and will never be deployed outside the state, and really could only operate in the most permissive of environments (if you could get the DOD to go into a corner and shut up), like NZ the AC have never been able to make a convincing argument to get public/political support to buy anything more than that.

 

[jsb]

Royal New Zealand Air Force ("RNZAF") retaining an air combat capability

light attack aircraft

No exactly light attack but if we are talking about prior to 1998 why not have NZ join the UK MR4 program, this making RAF select a new Airbus derived model.....

 

[Zheng He]

As somebody pointed out the P-8 can employ a wide suite of weapons and the P-3 can employ Maverick, Harpoon, and SLAM-ER so technically the NZ always retained some attack capability. Not sure if they had the weapons or if the crews trained to that mission but that capability was there, on paper at least.

 

[Kevin Renner]

Here's an idea.

Second hand Jag's from the RAF?

Only if they're drop tops. With the 3.8 or 4.2. No V-12s. Preferably in red, but BRG is OK too. 👍

Oh, you mean the other Jaguar

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Until someone other than an ally has an aircraft carrier capability who do they have to worry about intercepting.

You mean somewhere like say the Peoples Republic of China?

 

[Blue cat]

Of course they are affordable. Why else would the RAAF buy them? Anyway, you can always lease them if you cannot afford them outright.

In my view affordable for the RAAF and affordable for the RNZAF in the context of this thread are two different things.