AHC: Have the RNZAF maintain an air combat capability

[Errolwi]

They have the P3K for that. Iirc they're looking at replacement for thise aircraft atm.

The P-8A has been selected. There is of course a trade-off in capability vs numbers in a cost-constrained environment. The Orions have been a significant part of NZ's contribution to maintaining global [stability|oppression]. Next up is the C-130H(NZ) replacement <cough> C-130J.

 

[Mumbles]

Hush kits is only the tip of the iceberg: the same iceberg operational types don't care about until they walk out of their morning weather briefing to find their jet can't fly because there wasn't enough money to buy the books to maintain it or join the 5 F16 user groups or pay the fuel or redirect the highway for security.

I'm still massively intrigued by what kind of hush kit one fits to an F-16. . .

 

[Julius Vogel]

The deal must have been ropey as it seemed super easy to walk away from. NZ government procurement processes for high value stuff tend to be pretty involved (although not sure if same for 1990s/defence).

Anyway, think NZ First is a good idea as they are the only party around then or now who would conceivably put that in a coalition agreement.

 

[Blue cat]

Why would instability in Solomon Island require the deployment of fighters?

The problem is that force development is the result of threat perception. With collective defence in place, there isn't any justification for the acquisition of fighters for the RNZAF.

As far as I know none of New Zealand's allies keep fighter air craft in New Zealand on a regular basis for "air sovereignty" tasks. I'm a bit un happy that the New Zealand govt gave up that ability but it seems the majority of New Zealanders don't agree with me.

 

[Father Maryland]

As far as I know none of New Zealand's allies keep fighter air craft in New Zealand on a regular basis for "air sovereignty" tasks. I'm a bit un happy that the New Zealand govt gave up that ability but it seems the majority of New Zealanders don't agree with me.

I can kind of see why. There aren't any nearby conventional threats and despite New Zealand's prohibition of nuclear powered vessels New Zealands ultimate protector from any distant threat is the USN.nd

Though if New Zealand was to try and rebuild some sort of conventional combat aircraft force I would think something along the lines of the BAE Hawk or the Korean T50 would probably be best for the budget. F16's even cheap older aircraft sold at a bargain are still expensive aircraft to operate on a small budget. Light, cheap to purchase, and cheap to maintain aircraft capable of carrying AA missiles and auto cannon are probably best. The biggest obvious problem with either of those would be the fact that they're pretty short ranged craft.

 

[white crowe]

I can kind of see why. There aren't any nearby conventional threats and despite New Zealand's prohibition of nuclear powered vessels New Zealands ultimate protector from any distant threat is the USN.nd

And anyone capable of projecting power to New Zealand is, realistically, also going to be able to swat aside anything the RNZAF can realistically field.

 

[sparky42]

And anyone capable of projecting power to New Zealand is, realistically, also going to be able to swat aside anything the RNZAF can realistically field.

Pretty much the same argument though taken across the board here in Ireland.

 

[Riain]

I'm still massively intrigued by what kind of hush kit one fits to an F-16. . .

I don't know anything about it other than it cost $7m apiece, driving the price of the F16 deal up by almost $200m.

Bear in mind it only has to quiet the F16 to something approaching the A4, not make it silent.

The P-8A has been selected. There is of course a trade-off in capability vs numbers in a cost-constrained environment. The Orions have been a significant part of NZ's contribution to maintaining global [stability|oppression]. Next up is the C-130H(NZ) replacement <cough> C-130J.

Yes, I believe the Kiwis were looking at the Japanese P1 as well. These are the first really expensive things NZ has bought since the ANZAC frigates 25 years ago, it's a really big thing nationally on such a small budget.

 

[Riain]

I can kind of see why. There aren't any nearby conventional threats and despite New Zealand's prohibition of nuclear powered vessels New Zealands ultimate protector from any distant threat is the USN.nd

Though if New Zealand was to try and rebuild some sort of conventional combat aircraft force I would think something along the lines of the BAE Hawk or the Korean T50 would probably be best for the budget. F16's even cheap older aircraft sold at a bargain are still expensive aircraft to operate on a small budget. Light, cheap to purchase, and cheap to maintain aircraft capable of carrying AA missiles and auto cannon are probably best. The biggest obvious problem with either of those would be the fact that they're pretty short ranged craft.

And anyone capable of projecting power to New Zealand is, realistically, also going to be able to swat aside anything the RNZAF can realistically field.

The idea was that the F16s would operate in a Wing with RAAF Hornets and/or F111s, much like the ANZAC battlegroups the 2 armies field regularly. The usual arrangement in these situations is the Kiwis hold 2IC position, and such a wing would be based where part of its duties cover NZs needs: ie it wouldn't be based in Perth when there are RAAF fast jets on our Pacific coast Thus any threat in the South West Pacific would be dealt with collectively and NZ would play its part.

 

[Blue cat]

And anyone capable of projecting power to New Zealand is, realistically, also going to be able to swat aside anything the RNZAF can realistically field.

I would suggest that in this day and age having at least a nominal ability to intercept aircraft in your own air space is a reasonable goal for a first world nation. Even if one doesn't care about the consequences that failure to intercept an air craft may result in, I've read comments in the press (with regards to other nations contemplating getting rid of their fast jets) that it could be difficult to host meetings with certain heads of state or host functions such as major international sporting events without that ability. I suspect there are other practical consequences to not having a basic air defence capability. I suppose this could be outsourced if needed, but then why not outsource other defence functions as well ?

I don't live in New Zealand any more so this isn't really a big deal for me but I was rather un impressed that the govt couldn't fund a modest air defence capability (using interceptor / fighter aircraft.) Having a strike capability is another matter and I can accept that New Zealand probably can't afford that any more.

It seems odd to me that Army and Navy seem to be fairly well equipped for over seas operations but the Airforce can't launch fighters to defend home air space ?

 

[Mumbles]

I don't know anything about it other than it cost $7m apiece, driving the price of the F16 deal up by almost $200m.

Bear in mind it only has to quiet the F16 to something approaching the A4, not make it silent.

Physical modification for noise abatement wasn't a concern for the A-4K, and would not have been for the RNZAF F-16. The base at Ohakea is close to rural, and noise abatement for operational flying of F-16's in NZ as recently as 2017 has not been a significant requirement as far as I am aware. A proposal is being worked through for F-15's to be operating out of Ohakea as we speak, and they are louder. F-16's were operating out of Christchurch earlier this year and again few if any restrictions seemed apparent.

Not meaning to jump on you but I've never heard of any kind of hush kit being fitted to an afterburner equipped combat aircraft.

Also the aircraft were being leased, not purchased, which factors significantly into the costs.

 

[Mumbles]

And anyone capable of projecting power to New Zealand is, realistically, also going to be able to swat aside anything the RNZAF can realistically field.

I can kind of see why. There aren't any nearby conventional threats and despite New Zealand's prohibition of nuclear powered vessels New Zealands ultimate protector from any distant threat is the USN.nd

Though if New Zealand was to try and rebuild some sort of conventional combat aircraft force I would think something along the lines of the BAE Hawk or the Korean T50 would probably be best for the budget. F16's even cheap older aircraft sold at a bargain are still expensive aircraft to operate on a small budget. Light, cheap to purchase, and cheap to maintain aircraft capable of carrying AA missiles and auto cannon are probably best. The biggest obvious problem with either of those would be the fact that they're pretty short ranged craft.

These aren't the right arguments.

Literal defence of NZ soil against a foreign aggressor has seldom, if ever, been something the NZDF has been capable of on its own. The concept has long been operating with NZ allies (occasionally in NZ but mostly overseas) to defend and further NZ interests. The air combat wing was a significant element of this concept, but as it did this work overseas it was largely unknown and unappreciated in NZ, and thus able to be used as leverage in selling the disbandment decision to the public.

 

[Blue cat]

Pretty much the same argument though taken across the board here in Ireland.

Except Ireland has a near by neighbour who could probably fly their own fighter air craft into Irish air space in a timely fashion if needed.

I don't believe you can say that about New Zealand.

 

[Mumbles]

As far as I know none of New Zealand's allies keep fighter air craft in New Zealand on a regular basis for "air sovereignty" tasks. I'm a bit un happy that the New Zealand govt gave up that ability but it seems the majority of New Zealanders don't agree with me.

More that they don't care, or get fixated on the "who's going to attack NZ anyway" non-argument and don't know any different. Like I said earlier, defence isn't a big voting issue here, let alone informed defence discussion. There is also a significant anti-American element to defence discussion here that goes back to the 60's, and for many maintaining a well equipped defence force, or retaining combat aircraft is seen as simply continuing to be able to fight American wars (even when buying P-8's to replace 50 year old P-3 airframes).

 

[Blue cat]

More that they don't care, or get fixated on the "who's going to attack NZ anyway" non-argument and don't know any different. Like I said earlier, defence isn't a big voting issue here, let alone informed defence discussion. There is also a significant anti-American element to defence discussion here that goes back to the 60's, and for many maintaining a well equipped defence force, or retaining combat aircraft is seen as simply continuing to be able to fight American wars (even when buying P-8's to replace 50 year old P-3 airframes).

Yet IIRC the Army has armoured fighting vehicles and the Navy has frigates ?

Edit to add.. I wonder if in theory at least the P-8's could some how intercept another air craft ? Maybe add a .50 cal gun pod with tracers for firing warning shots and a few AAM's and call it done

 

[Mumbles]

Therefore, how can the RNZAF maintain an air combat capability to the present day and, what changes would be needed to achieve it?

.

One change could be to pursue a replacement for the A-4 in the original intended timeframe of 1983-84 - public perception of 15 year old aircraft is better than that of upgraded 30 year old ones. Jaguar, F-16, F-18, F-5E etc were all considered, but the cost of new aircraft was deemed prohibitive so acquiring the RAN A-4's and updating the expanded fleet to F-16 avionics standards was the route chosen instead.

 

[Mumbles]

Yet IIRC the Army has armoured fighting vehicles and the Navy has frigates ?

Two frigates instead of an originally planned 3, and many more LAVs than the army needed or can effectively employ. The apocryphal story is the army asked for twice as many as they needed expecting the number to be cut, then couldn't backpedal when the original request was approved

The whole thrust of the early 2000's reshaping of the NZDF was to push it more towards a peacekeeping/humanitarian role than a warfighting one.

 

[Nick P]

I'm sure they'd be better concentrating on the need/desire to support NZ Army operations overseas as part of UN missions. Light strike with a minimal AA weapon such as 2x AIM-9 and a cannon. The real trick would be the ability and willingness to deploy them overseas for long periods.
Ireland has this capability on their PC-9 which are also used as training aircraft for their larger transports.

 

[sparky42]

I'm sure they'd be better concentrating on the need/desire to support NZ Army operations overseas as part of UN missions. Light strike with a minimal AA weapon such as 2x AIM-9 and a cannon. The real trick would be the ability and willingness to deploy them overseas for long periods.
Ireland has this capability on their PC-9 which are also used as training aircraft for their larger transports.

No we don't, the PC9's mount 70mm unguided missiles and .5" machine guns, moreover right now the AC is still pretty much not deployed.

 

[Mumbles]

The deal must have been ropey as it seemed super easy to walk away from.

It really wasn't. There was a cost penalty, and political ramifications like the US government waiting until 2011 to approve the sale of the A-4's to another operator.