RNZAF [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

cribble

7th Aug 2009, 09:01

Yeoman,
NZ hasn't really had a viable air defence capability except for the distances baddies would have to go to bomb our sheep. Preventing interdiction of our trade routes is another matter. We did have a limited attack capability, enhanced toward the end of its existence, but still limited.

We have never had GCI capability (no disrespect to the Ohakea ATC folks who used to help during international exercises), for example, nor the passive defence elements that anyone serious about air defence has.

The only jet fighters we have had were Vampires and Venoms (the latter leased, IIRC, and only used in Cyprus and Malaya-both as part of larger forces).

As I wrote at the time, " It is not unusual for individual politicians to commit treason, but it is quite novel for a government to do so". So it was with the Clark government.

aw ditor

7th Aug 2009, 09:52

Cribble

Thought you (NZ) had a private Hunter?

aseanaero

7th Aug 2009, 10:24

1946, 1000 aircraft and 45,000 people.

2009, 53 aircraft, approx 2000 staff.

I can see the headlines now

RNZAF 1,000% overstaffed , government announces efficiency review to reduce staff to 4.5 personnel per aircraft ....

Consolidate all the aircraft into one base , reduce staff to 250 and you'll have a nice active flying club

Not being mean with these comments , I don't think NZ can go on like this without some fast jets

Gainesy

7th Aug 2009, 10:40

You should put out an ITT for a threat.

The only jet fighters we have had were Vampires and Venoms

And A-4s and F-16s on order?

Octane

7th Aug 2009, 15:05

OK, assuming we (NZ) have to do it on the cheap, like really really cheap, what aircraft do we get.......?

Ground attack: Shouldn't need them, see below, otherwise;

1. Buy cheap 2nd hand A10's or,

2. Reopen production line at Fisherman's bend (Oz) and pump out 100 or so Bristol Beaufighters. Modern rockets/ cannon. Got to be good value, all you Chieftan/ Baron pilots out there can kick arse, you've just got to believe in yourselves (slight horsepower differential but you'll get used to it...)

Antishipping:

No brainer, we're going hi-tech, couple squadrons of Blackburn Buccaneers with laser guided weapons etc etc.

Fighters: Don't need them, the Buccs sunk the carriers.....

Cheers

Octane

glad rag

7th Aug 2009, 16:21

Plenty of F3 going pretty cheap too one would imagine.....

Octane

7th Aug 2009, 17:14

Aw ditor,

Thanks to Peter Jackson, we have squadrons of WW1 aircraft, I'm serious. All the WW2 stuff got melted in the mid sixties..... Except the old bugger who has a Mustang and Mossiie in his garage.....

Schnowzer

7th Aug 2009, 17:38

In 1945 there were over 1000 aircraft just in Lincolnshire on 46 airfields. Amazing how times hange.

Biggus

7th Aug 2009, 20:17

aseanaero,

I think your maths is a bit out there....

1,000 aircraft 45,000 people equates to 45 people per aircraft, not 4.5.

So, 53 aircraft would mean 2385 staff (53 x 4.5) and they actually have 2,000.

Or were you making some subtle joke I was far too thick and tired to grasp?

goudie

7th Aug 2009, 20:27

Well the thought's there

// RNZAF Mission Statement

OUR MISSION:

To carry out military air operations to advance New Zealand's security interests, with professionalism, integrity and teamwork.
OUR VISION:

We will be an Air Force that is the best in all that we do.
OUR COMMITMENT:

We are prepared, if necessary, to risk our lives to protect the security interests and people of New Zealand;
We will ensure that our personnel are trained and equipped to carry out their duties; and
We will undertake all tasks needed to produce the assigned New Zealand Defence Force outputs, as required by the Government.
OUR VALUES:

We value and take pride in our:

Service and allegiance to New Zealand.
Professionalism, as we constantly seek better ways to meet all challenges.
Integrity, knowing that in all we do, we must be open, honest and trustworthy.
Teamwork which, with a common sense of purpose, our loyalty to each other and open communication, allows us to work together to achieve the mission.
Traditions and history, which motivate our future efforts.
Discipline that allows us to conduct ourselves in a responsible manner.

henry crun

7th Aug 2009, 21:36

To provide a comparison, does anyone have the numbers for the RAF in 1945 at the end of the war and now ?

Siggie

7th Aug 2009, 21:54

teeteringhead,

(do kiwis call us poms too?)

Kiwis are sometimes known as South Sea Poms, amongst other things. :}

Wiley

7th Aug 2009, 23:58

Am I missing something cribble?The only jet fighters we have had were Vampires and VenomsI suspect there'd be the odd Kiwi A4 driver out there who might have a quibble with you on that point.

Unless, of course, you're an old fashioned purist who doesn't rate the Skyhawk as a 'pure' fighter.

NURSE

8th Aug 2009, 01:18

and to think New Zealand has an area roughly the size of the UK and it gets by with an Air force the size it does.....for crissake don't let Bob & Gordo know!!!!!

cribble

8th Aug 2009, 03:02

Wiley
The meaning of technical terms doesn't change much: granted "...the term "fighter" is also sometimes used colloquially for dedicated ground-attack aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-attack_aircraft)".... (can't be arsed finding the AP - or its modern equivalent-definition so have gone to Wikipedia).

With around 1500 hours on the jet over three tours, I don't say lightly that I don't see the A4 as a fighter (except when poking piss at trash-haulers).

For the last 20 -plus years a if jet can't reach out and touch someone BVR and turn 6G+ sustained, then it can't claim to be a fighter IMHO. It may be a great interceptor or a tough mud-mover, but fighter? Not in my book, except in the bar.

aseanaero

8th Aug 2009, 03:11

Well all is not lost , you Kiwis have a stack of privately owned warbirds that you can use at a pinch.

With a long weekend and Kiwi ingenuity fueled by some tinnies who knows what's possible.

Kiwi A-10s ? ... I wouldn't want to be a Deer on a lonely hill somewhere.

Buster Hyman

8th Aug 2009, 04:01

New Zealand needs about the same air power as Ireland. Still a bit over manned, I think.
Very true, in the sense that they aren't a readily accessible target & do a good job of not upsetting other Nations...(with some exceptions) ;)

However, they are signatories to certain defence pacts & with that comes a responsibility. I'm not sure ANZUS is still active anymore, but there was some tension recently, however I can't recall if that was over capability or methodology.

Octane

8th Aug 2009, 08:33

Buster, the "tension" you are refering to would be when NZ in 1986 I think it was told the Yanks that nuclear powered/ armed machines (ships, aircraft etc) are not welcome in the land of the long white cloud....

The Yanks got a bit shirty about the whole business, you know, pissy tin pot country telling them what they could do and not do....

Buster Hyman

8th Aug 2009, 09:22

That's probably it. For me, the jury's still out on that. They have every right to make that choice, but every choice has a consequence.

Piss off your biggest & strongest ally, then reduce your capability...you don't need a slide rule to figure that one out! :(

herbaceous

8th Aug 2009, 10:24

Let’s face it, all the best will in the world, NZ are never getting a combat force back. My humble opinion is the NZ Govt should invest (and a modest one too at approx $10m USD a copy) in a small fleet of reapers. They can provide persistent surveillance over our larger expanse of water. They also can enforce this with their weapons capability. Also they will provide overland surveillance, if required, over our major cities. Hell I'm sure they would be able to strap an asraam on it as well.
Opening the floor......

dat581

8th Aug 2009, 15:01

New Zealand will call on big brother just across the ditch to intervene if they get into trouble. Although a few hornets on a CAP over Bondi would protect a fair chunk of the New Zealand population....:p

Ian.Ellis

9th Aug 2009, 09:19

I'm not sure about you not having Air Defence/GCI. When I was an Aircraft Apprentice at RAF No 1 Radio School (87th Entry 1957-60), there was a contingent of RNZAF lads doing the same courses with a few in each entry. I'm sure I remember some of them doing the Ground Radar C&R soeciality (Radar Type 80/FPS6/Fixed Coil) and if you had that kit you had Air Defence.

henry crun

9th Aug 2009, 11:08

Ian : They might have done that course, but I can assure you NZ has never had a type 80 radar.

Pontius Navigator

9th Aug 2009, 17:20

To provide a comparison, does anyone have the numbers for the RAF in 1945 at the end of the war and now ?

Henry, I would have said about a million then and 42,000 now but Google is your friend:

By the time the war ended, the strength of the RAF was 963000 personnel. When the war-time forces were demobilized in 1945, however, the total strength of ...
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/.../The-Royal-Air-Force -

or

During the Second World War the RAF reached a total strength of 1208843 men and women. Of these, 185595, were aircrew. The RAF also had the services of ...
Royal Air Force (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWraf.htm) - Cached - Similar

and now

Royal Air Force
Trained 8,450 (officers) 30,620 (men)
Untrained 1,270 2,960
Defence Personnel Totals - Strength of UK Regular Forces - Deployment in Budgetary Area - Overseas Deployment - Recruitment of UK Regular Forces - Outflow of UK Regular Forces - Reserve Forces - Cadet Forces - m13 -Armed Forces (http://www.armedforces.co.uk/mod/listings/l0013.html)

As a matter is interest:

As at 1 November 2007, the nominal strength of the RNZAF stood at 2,866, and the DSI target is to grow to 2,996 by the end of the 07/08 financial year. This remains an ambitious target necessitating the recruitment of some 420 personnel this financial year (about 160 more than the number recruited last financial year).

Yeoman_dai

9th Aug 2009, 17:28

Well with a defense Budget of $1.1bn (2008) that wouldn't even get you 1xT45...

However, as an island nation... maybe just keep the Navy? Get say 4x decent air defense destroyers, stick one over Wellington and bobs your uncle...

Some Reapers and helo's manned by Naval Aviation bods - reckon Reaper could fit Sea Skua or Penguin?

Looking at the NZ Army they have nothing that couldn't be taken and inserted within a Marine Force structure...

Suggest put 'tongue in cheek' detectors on gentlemen

henry crun

9th Aug 2009, 21:48

Pontius Navigator: I did Google and came up with similar numbers to you.

RAF May 1st 1945 total strength 1,079,835; and 9,200 aircraft.
1st April 2009 total strength 39,600.

What I could not find out was the total number of aircraft as at 1st April 2009, and I suppose if I were to ask for it here someone will shout Beadwindow. :)

Using my numbers the RAF now has only about 3.7% of the 1945 strength, whereas the RNZAF has about 4.5%.

Trojan1981

10th Aug 2009, 00:45

reynoldsno1

10th Aug 2009, 01:47

Unless, of course, you're an old fashioned purist who doesn't rate the Skyhawk as a 'pure' fighter.

40Sqn B727 drivers used to take great delight informing the A4 drivers that they had the 2nd fastest jets in the Air Force .....:}

Buster Hyman

10th Aug 2009, 03:47

Are they the only ones with jets now? :sad:

henry crun

10th Aug 2009, 04:26

No Buster, other jet powered aircraft still fly regularly from Ohakea.

Pontius Navigator

10th Aug 2009, 06:22

Henry, ah, I obviously missed the inference.

As for numbers of RAF aircraft, there are public figures and of course there will be different numbers.

In 1945 civil aviation was very much a minority and the bulk of passenger aircraft available were State aircraft such as the Dakota and the Lancastrian. Then it was likely that the bulk of the aircraft were combat aircraft with relatively few trainers although many obsolete types, such as the Wellington, were to remain as trainers until the 50s.

By 2009 the State could call on its flag carrier and does charter others to instantly bulk up its airlift capacity. The numbers of training aircraft from the primary trainers (with civil registration), through other non-combat types such as the Dominie, Tucano, Hawk and sundry training helicopters would be a far higher proportion of the total today.

For real teeth you only have to look at Tornado GR4, F3 is going soon, GR7/9 and the Typhoon. These numbers are not classified at all.

GK430

10th Aug 2009, 08:36

If you listen to Prof. James Lovelock, N.Z. will be one of the nations that survives rising sea levels.
Imagine the millions who will be looking for refuge.

We need an A.F. and maybe a few submarines.

Arclite01

10th Aug 2009, 10:29

If anyone in UK had any sense they would give the retiring F3's to NZ and BAE would make money out of maintaining it and upgrading the capability. With it's range and loiter it'd be terrific for the job. 1 squadron on North island, One on South island and an OCU - terrific.

I thought that the sad thing about the lack of an RNZAF is that you never see them (apart from the Red Checkers - waste of time and space IMHO). New Zealanders treat them like they just don't exist. Even Wanaka relies on RAAF visitors to actually give the show some heavy metal capacity...........

Really sad................

Air capability - as they say here - 'Yeah Right !!'

NURSE

10th Aug 2009, 10:35

we could always do wht we've been doing for the Baltc states, Commonwealth countries could take it on rotation to provide QRA for New Zealand. Its not as if we're not used to supporting a detached flight of AD aircraft on the other side of the world!;)

Arclite01

10th Aug 2009, 12:51

It's bigger than QRA though - well, it will be in a few years when the Chinese start fishing NZ fishing grounds to destruction.................. you are looking for a combined capability from within the air arm. Auntie Helen did not just sh@ft the fast jet blokes - she did them all (metaphorically)............and got rid of all the underwing stores too - try and find any offensive stores in NZ - not a chance

....................unless you include the Warehouse or Farmers Bro.................

:}

Arc

henry crun

10th Aug 2009, 23:44

Arclite01; I take it you do not classify the Maverick or dumb HE bombs as offensive stores, is that correct ?

Samuel

11th Aug 2009, 03:43

Hmmm, and here I was thinking an Arclite would do just that, throw some light on a topic. Hyperbole just doesn't do it;) Tongue in cheek perhaps, but ill-informed nevertheless:ugh:

The RNZAF is the politically neutral arm of whichever government is in power, and when a vindictive leader of that government decrees what the RNZAF will have, then professional ethos determines what happens next. The RNZAF might not have the newest and shiniest toys, and arguably never has had, but it is second to none in what it delivers. Arclite might just have to ask the 100-plus ex-RAF people who have transferred about that:ok:

Arclite might also want to look at the RNZAF contribution to the RAF: how many Kiwis have won the Sword of Honour at Cranwell,[I know of at least three, two of which were brothers], or perhaps take a look at the Battle of Britain Memorial on the embankment and count the number of Kiwi pilots; or perhaps the 1,850 Kiwis lost in Bomber Command, a huge percentage of the [then ] population of New Zealand. Then there are the number of fighter aces in the top ten of the RAF, people like Alan Deere and Colin Grey; and at least one Kiwi CAS and CDS UK, one Marshal of the RAF Lord Elworthy,perhaps best remembered as Chief of Air Staff and then Chief of Defence Staff during the era when Britain made the crucial decision to relinquish its military role east of Suez and concentrate its main defence effort within Nato.

Yeah right, I hear you say, but that's all history; but it's OUR history, of which we are rightly proud. So don't knock what you don't know.....

The RNZAF has professionalism and that good old-fashioned ANZAC ethos in buckets, and it boxes way above its weight compared to many countries of similar size, or bigger, and actually is seen if you know where to look, notwithstanding Arclite who clearly doesn't.:8

L J R

11th Aug 2009, 03:56

Whoever wants the F3 as an AD aircraft in NZ needs to re-think his (her) thoughts....

...yes it is better than nothing....BUT geeeezzzz!

kluge

11th Aug 2009, 04:37

Forewarned is forearmed

YouTube - Australia - Invade New Zealand Tv Ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RenRILqwhJs)

Pontius Navigator

11th Aug 2009, 06:19

Whoever wants the F3 as an AD aircraft in NZ needs to re-think his (her) thoughts....

...yes it is better than nothing....BUT geeeezzzz!

For homeland defence behind a sea there is probably nothing to beat an interceptor rather than a fighter. The interceptor has the legs and its opponent cannot be an agile fighter unless delivered by a carrier.

It would be ideal to intercept an errant airliner or a large bomber.

I grant you that it would not be as effective if deployed to areas where more agile fighters are required. The A4 was really unsuited to operations in NZ but very suitable for deployment.

The P3 was equally suited for maritime surveillance with a low ASW threat.

As said, the RNZAF is a political statement, but then so is the British Army (plc). An interceptor/MPA force would be an effective mix but arguably GA/CAS etc is not required.

Arclite01

11th Aug 2009, 08:15

Guys - I'm on your side. I think the RNZAF is a great air arm and no one is questioning the manpower element.

All I'm saying is that what you have is woefully inadequate for the roles you are - or could be tasked with.

And that you have been badly let down by your political masters.

Arc

henry crun

11th Aug 2009, 08:42

Arclite01: You did not answer my question, are you standing by your statement, quote "and got rid of all the underwing stores too - try and find any offensive stores in NZ - not a chance" ?

Samuel

11th Aug 2009, 13:01

Arclite; you spent time flying in NZ? Flying what and for whom?

Not everything that goes bang is carried underwing by the way. The Orion has a bomb bay!

Runaway Gun

11th Aug 2009, 13:58

Arclite, the Orions drop dumb bombs, and the Navy Seaprites fire the Maverick.

Granted, it's a different capability than employed from the Douglas, or the intended F-16s, but it's something.

Samuel

11th Aug 2009, 20:36

Surely that could equally apply to the RAF?

Could not "woefully inadequate" be applied to the Chinook fiasco, and the ancient transport fleet, and helicopters in Afghanistan? Unless every Service Chief and posters on these threads are wrong, procurement under Blair/Brown has been less than prolific!

The truth is that the RNZAF and the RAF, must work with what they are given, and it has always been a tribute to both that they simply get on with the job. That's the way it is.

reynoldsno1

12th Aug 2009, 00:59

Then there are the number of fighter aces in the top ten of the RAF, people like Alan Deere and Colin Grey
...not forgetting Keith Park, of course

Trojan1981

12th Aug 2009, 06:38

For homeland defence behind a sea there is probably nothing to beat an interceptor rather than a fighter. The interceptor has the legs and its opponent cannot be an agile fighter unless delivered by a carrier.

Granted...

Aircraft Carrier Project - People's Liberation Army Navy (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/cv.htm)

BentStick

13th Aug 2009, 03:11

I think you would have to be certifiable to fly a P3K over a defended target to deliver Mk82s, and criminally negligent to do it with a crew of 12.

Buster Hyman

13th Aug 2009, 04:13

1985 - HMAS Melbourne

In 1985 China purchased the 17,000-ton former Royal Australian Navy aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne as scrap, and she was finally broken up in Dalian, China. According to some reports, as late as 1994 the ship was still in existence at Guangzhou, China, being studied by Chinese naval architects. The hulk had been stripped of all useful equipment prior to sale, but Australian Navy sources reportedly said that the Chinese were particularly interested in the ship's steam catapult, even requesting the operating manuals. It was said that a navy unit had built a simulated flying deck at its airport in northern China. The design of the Melbourne was taken for reference. Reportedly, the airborne troops of the navy used the deck to carry out numerous flying tests. The improved deck adopted the optical landing system designed and developed by China.

:oh: Ooooh...I guess that'll be our fault then...:sad: