AHC: Have the RNZAF acquire a light attack capability

Blue cat

Zheng He said:
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.
Click to expand...
From what I can find on the Internet New Zealand is only going to acquire (or has acquired ?) 4 P8 air frames. I would be curious to know how feasible it would be to actually deploy them for any sort of non maritime mission (while still being able to accomplish the maritime mission) ?

I seem to recall the Canadians have flown their maritime patrol aircraft over Afghanistan so there might be an opportunity for New Zealand to do something along the same lines if they have enough air frames and the needed equipment ?
 
Last edited:

Blue cat

sparky42 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm curious does the RAF handle any needed peace time intercepts of air craft in or near Irish air space ?
 
Last edited:

jsb

What about simply upgrading (or new build) the C-130H(NZ) to J types with Harvest HAWK type capability, RNZAF can sell it as for civilian disaster relief in a post cold war era but keep the ability to help allies by transporting/tanking that are lacking in many other smaller allied nations closer to the action and in a last defence role for NZ carrying ASMs?
 

Blue cat

jsb said:
What about simply upgrading (or new build) the C-130H(NZ) to J types with Harvest HAWK type capability, RNZAF can sell it as for civilian disaster relief in a post cold war era but keep the ability to help allies by transporting/tanking that are lacking in many other smaller allied nations closer to the action and in a last defence role for NZ carrying ASMs?
Click to expand...
I suppose having 5 C130 air frames vs 4 P8 air frames would be a step in the right direction, if one wants to use them for a different role :)
 

Hammerbolt

Donor
What really made aircraft like the Super Tucano efective was the proliferation of lightweight guided weapons, as well as miniaturized eletronics allowing the guindance of such weapons, as well as night/bad weather flight & combat (albeight limited). In the past 5-10 years, light missiles. The abilty to put, say, 4-6 Hellfire-class missiles, or 2-4 laser guided weapons on such a small aircraft is not that recent, not to mentiong being to to stuff basic ECM/EW inside the plane. So, I'm not sure if this is possible in the 1995-98 period we are considering, since afaik such equipment was not that widespread; such aircraft didnt' really have anything to use than light guns and dumb bombs. The Super Tucano didn't even exist...
 

jsb

Blue cat said:
I suppose having 5 C130 air frames vs 4 P8 air frames would be a step in the right direction :)
Click to expand...
I was thinking that they could get more, OTL RNZAF already kept 5 C130s and due to the "less/none warlike" nature of transports they might more easily sell having more of them post cold war?
They then bolt on AA refuelling and strike capability later once they have them.

Most small nations are short of the support aircraft like tankers/transports so NZ that has little direct threat could simply argue that its trying to balance this out?
 

Blue cat

jsb said:
I was thinking that they could get more, OTL RNZAF already kept 5 C130s and due to the "less/none warlike" nature of transports they might more easily sell having more of them post cold war?
They then bolt on AA refuelling and strike capability later once they have them.

Most small nations are short of the support aircraft like tankers/transports so NZ that has little direct threat could simply argue that its trying to balance this out?
Click to expand...
This seems reasonable me to me, but my views probably don't align very well with most New Zealanders. I suspect funding such a project would likely require something else to be de funded, choosing what to de fund in order to afford this would probably be difficult.
 
Last edited:

sparky42

Blue cat said:
I'm curious does the RAF handle any needed peace time intercepts of air craft in or near Irish air space ?
Click to expand...
Pretty much yeah, there’s been an agreement for about a decade and they responded on 9/11. They handle monitoring Russian Bears of the West Coast as well. Right now at the utmost is some debate about installing better Radar coverage.
 

Blue cat

sparky42 said:
Pretty much yeah, there’s been an agreement for about a decade and they responded on 9/11. They handle monitoring Russian Bears of the West Coast as well. Right now at the utmost is some debate about installing better Radar coverage.
Click to expand...
Interesting thanks.
 

Rickshaw

Blue cat said:
In my view affordable for the RAAF and affordable for the RNZAF in the context of this thread are two different things.
Click to expand...

Then from my perspective, it could be time for the Kiwis to get real. Alternative they need to recognise that what they want is realisable.
 

jsb

bsmart said:
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
Click to expand...
Peg Leg Pom said:
You mean somewhere like say the Peoples Republic of China?
Click to expand...
yulzari said:
Agh! Someone has named the elephant in the room.
Click to expand...
Why would NZ really want to try and intercept a CVs air wing, would simply using very long ranged (P8 or other) missile shooters to kill/drive away the CV not be more effective?

NZ has huge a distance advantage to use for its benefit, look at some samples....
Auckland - Sydney 1275 nautical miles
Auckland - HK 5053 nautical miles

for comparison,
Shanghai - Seattle 5094 nautical miles

Add that AUS is in the way of almost any possible opponent and attaching NZ with anything other than ICBMs (that are in more demand to attack CONUS) is very unlikely?

If we want a "light attack" (150 kg to a 500 km Sun synchronous orbit) capability over that sort of distance does the electron by rocket lab not show that NZ has the capability to go for high tech systems.....
 
Last edited:

Zheng He

Blue cat said:
From what I can find on the Internet New Zealand is only going to acquire (or has acquired ?) 4 P8 air frames. I would be curious to know how feasible it would be to actually deploy them for any sort of non maritime mission (while still being able to accomplish the maritime mission) ?

I seem to recall the Canadians have flown their maritime patrol aircraft over Afghanistan so there might be an opportunity for New Zealand to do something along the same lines if they have enough air frames and the needed equipment ?
Click to expand...

It's four P-8s to replace six P-3s.
 
WILDGEESE

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
Here's another idea.

Why not 2nd hand A-10's with their GAU-8's replaced by bog standard M-61 20mm guns?
 

Peg Leg Pom

If, and it's a big if the RNZAF was ever again to get back into the ground attack game this would do anything they could conceivably need and wouldn't cost all that much either as it's basically a heavily armed kit plane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_ARES

1582516587972.png

1582516653117.png
 
WILDGEESE

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top