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

[alexsa]

How about a converted merchie with mines?

How about a very real threat, a converted merchant ship carrying drugs. I don't see anybody trying to mine NZ waters at the moment, however, rhere is money to be made in drugs and governments willing to sponsor it.

This is slightly off topic (which was air strike capabiliy) but endevouring to get back to it. It would seem to be better value for NZ dollars if defence purchases were seemless with Australia as this should reduce life costs and allow industry participation. As an example I am a fan of Australia having an OPV and if Australia were to purchase the NZ OPV (purely speculative) there appears to be an opportunity here for common equipment with an industry involvment advantage to NZ.

The same should go for the air strike situation. If NZ were to choose an option that wihtin the current or anticpated Australian equipment, JSSM on P-3K perhaps or at the extreme end of the scale ex-RAAF HUG F/A-18 with new centre barrels. The 'adoption' of a small number of ex USN S-3 may have viabliltiy and cost issues in the long run.

 

[Sea Toby]

I have noticed that Estonia has purchased three new Sandown class minehunters from the United Kingdom today, April 7, 2006 for American $62.5 million. New Zealand could do the same, which would run around NZ $100 million for three minehunting ships. Sandown class ships have small crews, and would give New Zealand a better minehunting capability.

I was under the impression the Sandowns cost more, but at this price New Zealand should be able to afford them.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

How about a very real threat, a converted merchant ship carrying drugs. I don't see anybody trying to mine NZ waters at the moment, however, rhere is money to be made in drugs and governments willing to sponsor it.

*Points at the German mines off Lyttleton Harbour* Just because no one wants to at this point in time does not mean it cannot happen. Drug dealers, be they criminal organisation or dodgy governments, are hardly going to damage their market as that would be bad for business, and as such its a police and customs matter, sometimes supported by defence forces.

This is slightly off topic (which was air strike capabiliy) but endevouring to get back to it. It would seem to be better value for NZ dollars if defence purchases were seemless with Australia as this should reduce life costs and allow industry participation. As an example I am a fan of Australia having an OPV and if Australia were to purchase the NZ OPV (purely speculative) there appears to be an opportunity here for common equipment with an industry involvment advantage to NZ.

The same should go for the air strike situation. If NZ were to choose an option that wihtin the current or anticpated Australian equipment, JSSM on P-3K perhaps or at the extreme end of the scale ex-RAAF HUG F/A-18 with new centre barrels. The 'adoption' of a small number of ex USN S-3 may have viabliltiy and cost issues in the long run.

Where is the justification for S3's/F18's?. Economies of scale with Australia is beside the point, what can such aircraft accomplish that P3's with harpoons cannot?. Also what is the life cost of such aircraft? what about logistics and maintainance support?.
By and large NZ has to deal with low level threats and most of that is fish poachers, hardly a target worthy of maintaining F18's.

If one were to widen the policy scope to include a need for maritime strike in medium/high level warfare in Asia then granted there might be a need, but I would want to see evidence that NZ could maintain sufficiant number of such aircraft as to make a difference in such a senario; this is especially true when NZ cannot move, protect, and support any independent force into asia, or any where else, as a whole.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I have noticed that Estonia has purchased three new Sandown class minehunters from the United Kingdom today, April 7, 2006 for American $62.5 million. New Zealand could do the same, which would run around NZ $100 million for three minehunting ships. Sandown class ships have small crews, and would give New Zealand a better minehunting capability.

I was under the impression the Sandowns cost more, but at this price New Zealand should be able to afford them.

Its not a bad idea that, such vessels would also be a nice supplement to the inshore patrol vessels.

 

[Pursuit Curve]

Back on topic, I think as a naval strke aircraft the S3 has some merit, but I would not want to have it as a strike aircraft simply because it is an anti submarine aircraft, and a surface (Naval) strike aircraft. I think NZ would be better advised to take the F 16 and possibly S3's to do what they were designed to do, hunt nuke armed subs and maratime surveillance. Maybe some clarification on the definition of what kind of strike roles the S3 would be expected to undertake would be a good idea?

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Back on topic, I think as a naval strke aircraft the S3 has some merit, but I would not want to have it as a strike aircraft simply because it is an anti submarine aircraft, and a surface (Naval) strike aircraft. I think NZ would be better advised to take the F 16 and possibly S3's to do what they were designed to do, hunt nuke armed subs and maratime surveillance. Maybe some clarification on the definition of what kind of strike roles the S3 would be expected to undertake would be a good idea?

Why buy S3's when the P3's should be able to deal with the missions that NZ actually does?
F16's? what justifies having F16's?

It seems to me that when the subject of of NZ having an air stike capability comes up that people tend to argue for a capability for the sake of having that capability, without doing some kind of reasoned analysis of why would you want it.

 

[alexsa]

Why buy S3's when the P3's should be able to deal with the missions that NZ actually does?
F16's? what justifies having F16's?.

Hi Stuart

This was the point I was trying to make in regards to the P-3K and Harpoon issue so I quite agree with you.

It seems to me that when the subject of of NZ having an air stike capability comes up that people tend to argue for a capability for the sake of having that capability, without doing some kind of reasoned analysis of why would you want it.

Again no real argument noting I stated the HUG f/A-18 was that exetreme end of the scale and in the curent polictical climate I don't see NZ getting a fast jet capability. I could be wrong but it does not seem to be a vote winner at this stage. My real point is that if NZ do want ot increase or renew a capablity if practical alighning that capability with Australia would appear to make sense for training, interoperability and cost reasons. The NH-90 seems to be a good buy for this reason.

 

[Jezza]

The S3 would be an awesome aircraft for NZ if they didnt have the P3.

During 2001 and 2002 the US Navy carried out a development testing program of the S-3B Maverick Plus System (MPS). MPS gives the S-3B the capability to carry the Raytheon AGM-65E laser-guided and AGM-65F infrared-guided Maverick missile and to control Boeing AGM-84H/K SLAM/ER Stand Off Land Attack/Extended Range missiles. 40 S-3B aircraft are being fitted with the MPS (to be designated AN/AGM-32B(V2)) by 2009 and plans are to convert the whole of the fleet.
Using the MPS, the S-3B Viking crew can control SLAM/ER missiles which have been launched from another aircraft in the post-launch phase. Terminal guidance control of the SLAM/ER Missile is through data link with the AN/AWW-13 Extended Range Data Link Pod. SLAM/ER is a day and night, all weather, over the horizon precision strike land attack cruise missile with a range of over 278km.
The Viking S-3B can also deploy the Boeing AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missile with an over the horizon range of more than 60nm.
The maximum weapons payload is 1,781kg and weapon options include missiles, torpedoes, rockets and bombs. The aircraft has split weapons bays with clamshell doors. Internally stored ordnance includes Mark 46/50 torpedoes, B57 nuclear depth charges, Mark 82 and Mark 36 bombs. Weapons that can be mounted externally under the wings include Mark 82, 83, 86 bombs, Mark 52,55,56, 62,65 mines, LAU-10C, -68A and 69A rocket pods, SUU-44A flare pods, Rockeye Mark 20 rockets and anti-ship and anti-surface missiles.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/s-3b/

 

[Pursuit Curve]

I feel that the S3 by itself, dropping bombs, shooting off maverick missiles or deploying harpoons would be great as long as theer is no serious air opposition. Don't forget that the S3 was designed to operate with the organic fighter cover and support of a carrier air wing, something that I do not think NZ has.

On the other hand, if theer was adequate escort for the S3, then that would be useful.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Any air strike (A/S) needs to be configured in the context of perceived or greatest potential threat to NZ interests.

From this any equipment/capability planning would have to be based on one of the two following:

1. A/S in a coalition would come from other coalition assets
2. NZ forces must never be in a position where NZ cannot provide it’s own AS assets to NZ forces.

So lets look at 1. If NZ is operating in a coalition operation, such as East Timor in ’99, the Air Cover was being provided by the RAAF. Afghanistan and Iraq have are a similar scenario.

IMO A/S in the NZ context needs to be considered where NZ would be operating alone. This raises other issues. If NZ wishes to conduct A/S independently of other countries, where will it conduct it? The only possible answer I can come up with is the South Pacific, and possibly (but unlikely) the Eastern region of South East Asia.
Now this is where logistics comes into play for unless there was a build up before hand any A/S would have to be based form NZ given logistics if we are talking F-16 type platforms then it will need tankers to get the strike to any of the Islands in the region. If we are talking maritime strike then it can operate closer to home but only from bases that are set up to handle such missions.

Also any A/S from NZ IMO could not be a CAS mission as that would require an ability to loiter over the area NZ troops were operating in, that requires more platforms and tankers and the ability to afford this is marginal at best.
A/S will also require NZ to have an ability to find targets, so some form of Recon is needed as well. Given the nature of threat level in the Pacific Fighter and SEAD are not necessary. Given the threat level in the Pacific, A/S in the form of a F-16 like platform is also a marginal option.

IMO the best platform for NZ is a long range high endurance platform capable of carrying, stand off precision strike munitions. In other words the current P-3 (another 2-4 four would be nice) or future MPA aircraft such as the P-8, and/or UAVs like the Mariner.

Why buy S-3s, with the associated logistics and training when you can deliver your required capability from a P-3? (Which is also capable of ASW, Maratime Surveillance, SAR etc...)

Having said that NZ needs to look at a fast mover platform like the T-50, Hawk etc that can be used to train CAS with troops and train with the Navy (Hawk buy preference to leverage off the RAAF).

2 requires a high level of investment in looking at platforms that are configured for all levels of threat and the cost accordingly.

 

[Supe]

Just on strike capability: I reckon UCAVs be a good fit for NZDF. Any talk/rumour on NZDF acquiring UCAVs?

 

[Pursuit Curve]

I personally think that a country should not base its future defense requirements on what others will assist with. The plan or strategy should be based on being alone, because frankly with the USN and other countries doing more with less, the possibility of having no assistance coming is a grim reality.