NZ hypothetical: Reconstitute strike role with surplus USN S3's

[Supe]

US Navy in bid to 'grant' Vikings to customers

STEPHEN TRIMBLE JDW Washington Bureau Chief
Singapore


The US has proposed transferring S-3Bs at no charge but recipients will assume all future operating and modification costs

South America is regarded as the region with most potential for transferring the aircraft



The US Navy (USN) has intensified efforts to find international customers for Lockheed S-3B Viking patrol aircraft facing early retirement in Fiscal Year 2009, offering to transfer the surveillance aircraft at no cost to the receiving country.

Bulgaria and Romania have previously inquired about S-3B pricing and availability, but the new offer to grant the aircraft has generated a new round of interest, said Commander HT Fink, S-3 programme manager for Naval Air Systems (NAVAIR) Command.

"We are further into the process than ever before," said Cdr Fink, who attended the Asian Aerospace 2006 air show, Singapore, to continue an international sales drive.

Fink's next stop is the FIDAE 2006 air show in Santiago, Chile, a region where he now sees the most potential for transferring the 30-year-old jets with patrol, surveillance, attack and air tanker capabilities.

The S-3Bs are not being retired because they are obsolete or near the end of their service lives, but to make room for deliveries of new Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, Fink said. A detailed study last year showed the S-3B airframe has a service life of about 23,000 flight hours. The average S-3B in the USN inventory has about 12,000 flying hours.

The aircraft are equipped with an inverse synthetic-aperture radar for maritime surveillance and a forward-looking infra-red (FLIR) radar for over-land patrols.

The USN is seeking authorisation to 'grant' the aircraft to interested countries, rather than sell them as a direct commercial sale or through a Foreign Military Sales contract. Under the terms of such grants, the customer takes ownership of the aircraft at no charge, but assumes all future operating and modification costs.

Lockheed Martin, meanwhile, is seeking to sign up foreign companies to create a consortium of regional support centres for future S-3B operators.

The USN campaign to transfer the S-3Bs, however, is being initiated with other US federal agencies. NASA has already accepted one S-3B at no cost to conduct de-icing tests. The US Forest Service is considering the S-3B to augment its aerial firefighting fleet. Finally, the USN has approached the US Coast Guard. source credited to AMTP10E

As per topic. According to the article, many of the USN S3's have substantial flight hours left on them. The Kiwis could negotiate cherry picking the best of the S3's.

Considerations:

1. Would U.S even part with S3's given past history?
2. Are these S3's maintenance intensive? Too many manhours going into keeping them operational won't make such a deal, worthwhile.
3. Internal political/public considerations within New Zealand - the questioned worth of reconstituting strike squadron(s)

Yeah, I know it's a crazy idea but S3 aquisition could be a tremendous boon to NZ defence (and interests). Whether it is coalition type operations, peacekeeping, or alliance maintenance, S3 aquisition could prove to be an astute move for NZ gov. The capabilities of the S3 'patrol, surveillance, attack and air tanker capabilities' should at least have NZ Gov give them a look in.

 

[Sea Toby]

The history of the S-3 Vikiing aircraft:
187 S-3As were built for carrier deployed ASW aircraft. During 1987-1994, 132 were updated to S-3B configuration with APS-137 sysnthetic aperture radar, Harpoon ASM launch capabiliy, ALE-40 contermeasures dispenser, and other updated avionics. ASW dedicated equipment have been removed from the aircraft beginning in 1998, and the surviving aircraft are now being dedicated to surveillance, photo reconnaisance, and aerial refueling missions. Starting in 2002 all remaining aircraft are to be retired, the last leaving service by 2009. Several of the non updated S-3As were used as CODs for Indian Ocean operations, but they were withdrawn before 1999.

Simply put, why would New Zealand want another surveillance aircraft with a 1,150 nautical miles patrol range with 9.5 hours of endurance when New Zealand already has Orion maritime surveillance aircraft with a 2,380 nautical miles patrol range with 14.5 hours of endurance?

While the Vikings may be of some interest in South America as more modern cheap replacements for the ancient S-2 Tracker aircraft these countries are still flying, the Orion aircraft meets New Zealand's longer range requirements better, especially in the South Pacific. Brazil will probably be the most interested for a handful, as this aircraft will be very useful with its former French aircraft carrier. The only other nation with a catapult carrier is the French, who might also be interested, but they already have in their inventory the superior Hawkeye AWACS aircraft for surveillance as does seemingly the American Navy

Lockheed also received the contract to upgrade and extend the life of the old Greyhound aircraft for 20 more years. This suggests that the American Navy prefer Greyhounds over Vikings for the COD mission.

 

[Supe]

I was thinking not just in terms of ASW (though that's still applicable) but a potential for use as a strike delivery vehicle using the new stand-off type weapons and in a pinch, PGM's. Then there's those of the opinion that lacking strike aircraft to train with, can inhibit Army's effectiveness. I've read the Kiwis use leased Lear jets for this role. A minor point is the refueling capability of the S3, offering possibilites in partnership roles with Australia.

Armament: Up to 3,958 pounds (1,781 kg). Including the AGM-84 (Harpoon & SLAM-ER), AGM-65
Maverick, torpedoes, mines, rockets and general purpose or cluster bombs.
source

Can the Vikings be flown solo? Unless aircraft has been tasked with ASW role, I can't see requirement for having another three bodies on board.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I've read the Kiwis use leased Lear jets for this role.

They're using an Australian company for that role. The Lears also act as aggressors for RNZDF/RNZAF and for the RAAF.

A small piece of trivia, the Lear Jet was originally conceived as a stopgap fighter jet.

 

[Supe]

Thanks for the info on the Lears.

Alas methinks I am clutching at straws. There's no real incentive (or money in the budget) for NZ to attain these jets.

 

[Sea Toby]

Oh, the money is available, New Zealand could have used something like one percent of last year's surplus to fund the operations of its former air combat force last year. More than likely half of that amount just to fund the air trainers alone. Its whether your Labour government wishes to spend the funds, not whether the funds are available.

And with the sweetheart deal National used to lease the cream puff F-16s, the operational budget would have been ten times the term of the lease. But that deal is water over the dam.

However, another sweetheart deal of new F-16s could probably be finance with the United States, whereby the lease term maybe half or a quarter of the operational budget. The similar cheaper sweetheart deal could be made with either the Americans or the British for the Hawk aircraft as well with the operational costs for even less.

Possibly a National government will reinstate the air combat force in the near future. Obviously, this Labour government won't. This government did not see the need to keep at least the jet trainers around.

And you can bet your last dollar that the formation of an air combat force will be brought up quickly by New Zealand's allies once a National government is elected. Its probably first on the agenda, even above whether New Zealand will accept visits by American nuclear propelled submarines or aircraft carriers. It did before.

 

[Lucasnz]

I agree the surplus is there and all that is lacking is governement will power, Just remember that the surplus is not a cash surplus, but an accounting surplus.

The Vikings are obsolete, why go down that round. We'd be better of with surplus F-16 out of the bone yard, but before we even get there we need to define the roles of the strike force. I would suggest - Maritime Strike, Close Air Support with secondary air defence. This would drop the interdication role the pervious air combat force had.

From there we get down to numbers. 1 Sqn for operational deployment, with a second sqn providing home defence and acting as an OCU. So say 24 (14 in 75 sqn and 10 in 14 Sqn as an example) aircraft, with say 3 attrition / Maintenance pool. Lead in Training would be shared with the RAAF or NZ would join the NATO Flight Training school I think operates in Canada.

Building up the ACF to man these planes will take time, but the process could be speeded up by recuriting ex RAF / RAAF personnel (which might include some former Kiwi personnel). Running 3 to 4 Basic Flying courses a year and streaming those selected for jet into both NATO/RAF/RAAF lead in training, through there might be issues there. Some secondment on completion of flight training to RAF / RAAF units would help develop operational experience.

 

[steve33]

It is hard to see the strike wing being reactivated in the near future because at the last election National wouldn,t even commit to bringing it back,National always talks a big talk but delivers nothing.

In the 1990,s when they were in office for nine years they were going to purchase F-16 fighters but they didn,t nothing for the Army so when National slag off Labour for what they are doing in defence it is laughable.

The Nuclear issue is a no go zone for any political party in New Zealand because regardless of what other countries want the majority of New Zealanders don,t want the ships here nuclear powered or armed,that may change down the road but i can,t see it happening in the near future because New Zealand at the moment is very Anti American and anti military.

The large majority of people i have spoken to don,t have much good to say about America,it is something i have never seen so bad in my life time and a lot of the teachers in New Zealand are left wing liberals so they are not going to teach New Zealand kids that the military is a good thing and America is good quite the opposite.

The New Zealand mindset at the moment is totally peacenik so don,t expect to see much offensive capability given to our armed forces.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

The large majority of people i have spoken to don,t have much good to say about America,it is something i have never seen so bad in my life time and a lot of the teachers in New Zealand are left wing liberals so they are not going to teach New Zealand kids that the military is a good thing and America is good quite the opposite.

The New Zealand mindset at the moment is totally peacenik so don,t expect to see much offensive capability given to our armed forces.

No, it is not. What it is is uninformed. And I think that you will find that opinion here, if you look a little bit closer is anti-american foreign policy, not anti America per se.

It is also a gross genralisation to claim that teachers are mostly 'left wing liberals who will teach millitary and America is bad', or would you care to post some actual evidence to back that up?

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Yeah, I know it's a crazy idea but S3 aquisition could be a tremendous boon to NZ defence (and interests). Whether it is coalition type operations, peacekeeping, or alliance maintenance, S3 aquisition could prove to be an astute move for NZ gov. The capabilities of the S3 'patrol, surveillance, attack and air tanker capabilities' should at least have NZ Gov give them a look in.

They wont. Aside from what has been mentioned already, these planes would be orphans before long. Its better to get aircraft that are in production and can be easily supported.

 

[Gaenth]

Aside from some countrie's (like mine or New Zealand) anti-conflict political stand, and the fact that this S-3 offer looks attractive considering the capabilities this Weapon-System has, the truth is that it it doesn't fit most requirements in South America or the South Pacific. Chile may find the ASW and Attack capability useful, but they already have enough equipment to fill their needs. Besides, they've become more cooperative with their neighbor's navies than threat-posing. Brazil? I know that it hasn't been easy for them to squeeze the juice out of their carrier, I see a lot of technical difficulties and costly tests they'd have to go through to make S-3s sea-going, with arguable results. The rest of Latin America is more or less as unlikely to take them. Mexico, for instance would find the range, the surveillance capabilities and already proven compatibility with E-2Cs attractive, but the weapons this thing launches are rather expensive (kind of a waste to throw a Maverick on some drug-dealer boat) and no Air-to-Air capability. And as for RNZAF, it doesn't make much sense to me to reactivate their fighter fleet if it's not with a multirole platform. And lastly Australia or Singapore have different ideas of a capable up-to-date ASW and Strike platforms.

 

[steve33]

All the teachers i had in my day were left wing i talked about joining the army and didn,t get any support from one of them and it would sure be interesting to see how many schools would support the military recruiting on there grounds.

There is a strong anti military mindset in New Zealand and that is why the army is so short on people it,s not just about a strong civilian job market it is simply
not something that is encourged to secondry school pupils.

And i stand corrected people do hate American foreign policy not Americans.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

All the teachers i had in my day were left wing i talked about joining the army and didn,t get any support from one of them and it would sure be interesting to see how many schools would support the military recruiting on there grounds.

So, in short, you dont have any evidence to back up that statement? Just because that may have been the case for you does not in any way mean that is true of every teacher, pupil or school in the entire nation.

There is a strong anti military mindset in New Zealand and that is why the army is so short on people it,s not just about a strong civilian job market it is simply
not something that is encourged to secondry school pupils.

Evidence?

And i stand corrected people do hate American foreign policy not Americans.

No problem.

 

[steve33]

Well again Stuart i am speaking from my experience all the people i know that have gone through the system in recent years have not had the military encourged as a positive career.

I mean you don,t want to be a country of war mongering crazies but at the same time we have swung to far in the other direction and i feel a lot of people are not being realistic about the world we live in,there is an attitude that we are little ole New Zealand and no one is threatening us so don,t worry,we never had to use our planes so we don,t need any and it made me laugh when that guy stole the plane and threatened to fly it into sky tower and there was nothing anyone could do if it had been a terrorist we would have been powerless.

We need to find more balance to our defence policy not as i said war mongering but also not pacifist.

And i still believe if we want to solve our recruitment shortages we still need to promote the military as a more positive career i don,t know about you maybe you have had people encourage the military to you but i never experienced it,military doesn,t have to be a dirty word but to so many people i have met it seems to be,maybe i just walk in the wrong circles.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Well again Stuart i am speaking from my experience all the people i know that have gone through the system in recent years have not had the military encourged as a positive career.

But that does not mean that that is true of the entire nations.

I mean you don,t want to be a country of war mongering crazies but at the same time we have swung to far in the other direction and i feel a lot of people are not being realistic about the world we live in,there is an attitude that we are little ole New Zealand and no one is threatening us so don,t worry,we never had to use our planes so we don,t need any and it made me laugh when that guy stole the plane and threatened to fly it into sky tower and there was nothing anyone could do if it had been a terrorist we would have been powerless.

Peoples lack of knowledge is not an indication of pacifism or hawkishness only that they probably dont have enough information on which to make an informed decision.

We need to find more balance to our defence policy not as i said war mongering but also not pacifist.

Lol, given the nature of both National and Labour, I dont think thats going to happen anytime soon.

And i still believe if we want to solve our recruitment shortages we still need to promote the military as a more positive career i don,t know about you maybe you have had people encourage the military to you but i never experienced it,military doesn,t have to be a dirty word but to so many people i have met it seems to be,maybe i just walk in the wrong circles.

Perhaps you do walk in the wrong circles. But its not as simple as not promoting the defence forces in a positive light, there is a lot more to it than that.

 

[steve33]

I agree it,s not just about promoting the military in a positive light you have wage issues and also equipment issues people don,t want to be part of a military if it is run down and not really crediable it must be embarrassing when you have to borrow vehicles which is what i heard our soldiers had to do when they first went to Afganistan,but encouraging young people to join the military is part of the issue because that is when they are thinking about career choices and there needs to be more effort to put it on the table in front of them and give them the chance to make an informed desicion.

I agree about Labour and National,National from 1990-1999 was going to replace the Skyhawks with f-16 and if i recall correctly they purchased new frigates but did nothing for the army and now we have labour doing a good job with the army but not a great deal with the air force but they are looking at new helicopters which is good.

What do you think of the desicion to not buy a New Frigate and purchase the other ships they are getting from what i understand there is going to be a multi role ship and some off shore and in shore patrol boats.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I agree it,s not just about promoting the military in a positive light you have wage issues and also equipment issues people don,t want to be part of a military if it is run down and not really crediable it must be embarrassing when you have to borrow vehicles which is what i heard our soldiers had to do when they first went to Afganistan,but encouraging young people to join the military is part of the issue because that is when they are thinking about career choices and there needs to be more effort to put it on the table in front of them and give them the chance to make an informed desicion.

Alot of the basic equipment issues are being taken care of. But career prospects in a small force are not great.

I agree about Labour and National,National from 1990-1999 was going to replace the Skyhawks with f-16 and if i recall correctly they purchased new frigates but did nothing for the army and now we have labour doing a good job with the army but not a great deal with the air force but they are looking at new helicopters which is good.

The Orions and the C-130's are being refitted and going through life extention. National only got the two ANZAC frigates, we had options on two more.

What do you think of the desicion to not buy a New Frigate and purchase the other ships they are getting from what i understand there is going to be a multi role ship and some off shore and in shore patrol boats.

Thats probably best discussed in the naval forum..but we could have done with the extra frigate in some respects. The seven Project Protector ships look ok and should do their jobs well allthough they are somewhat underarmed for my liking. You can find out more at www.navy.mil.nz

 

[steve33]

Good talking to you Stuart i,m going to watch TV might catch you tommorow.

 

[chrishorne]

I find it really interesting that using 2nd hand Vikings for the rnzaf was mentioned. In terms of ability I actually think it would be a good idea - I don't think the Vikings would be a good fit in other respects thou (actually just having a asw ability means labour would not be interested)

I've been thinking for a while that nz needs a mixture of aircraft to perform the martime/economic zone survailance. The orions while capable aircraft are quite resource hungry - both in the fact they are old 4 engined aircaft and also that they require 11 crew. In the shorter term I would like to see an aircraft like the ERJ145 based P-99 (or S-3) that is cheaper to keep in the air, requires less crew and can carry a useful miltary payload (torpedo, or more likely Maverick, Harpoon II (radar or gps guidance) or in the best instance Slam-ER. In the longer run, Global Hawk could do for nz what it will do for australia. An armed varient especially would be useful - actually does any one produce guided paint bombs? Good for getting the attention of unwanted ships I would think.

Sorry rambling just a bit now, but you prob get the idea.

 

[Jezza]

How about new build Hawks mk127 or mk128s LIFT

Mavericks and Sidewinders with mk 82 bombs.
This would be safer option to defend NZ.


http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/lift/