I tend to think a two service structure would work so long a the nzdf as a whole reached that conclusion. The Canadian experience didn't work because the services never supported what was a political decision. However regardless of the structure used its up to the NZDF to convince its masters about the type of equipment we need.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
As Ngatimozart indicated, DT is not quite the place to talk politics. However, I do feel obligated to point out that Labour has not exactly done right by the NZDF, particularly in terms of funding.
The Fifth Labour gov't had charge of NZ from 1999 until 2008. Looking at a NZDF funding chart over time here which covers a span from 1991 until 2010, the four lowest funding years occurred when Labour was in charge. Indeed, the one notably low funding year when National was in charge was the 1993-1994 year, which also happens to correspond to when some tough economic times in NZ finally turned around. Granted, some of the years with the highest Capital injection also occurred when Labour was in charge, but given the circumstances I do not exactly consider that something to Labour's credit.
IIRC one of those years was when the M113's were retired and replaced with the NZLAV's. NZ finally got around to replacing Vietnam era APC's, Labour just happened to be the ones in charge. The single highest funding year also occurred when Labour was in charge, and that year IIRC was when Project Protector was largely paid for. Basically a NZ$500 mil. injection to replace some existing patrol capabilities, and regain some others following RNZN ship decommissionings without replacement. The one new capability which was sort-of added was the MRV which was supposed to be an ice-strengthened patrol vessel and sealift ship for ~NZ$130 mil. if memory serves. Unfortunately the capabilities required for the two roles are a bit different, essentially meaning that the MRV cannot realistically perform patrol duties and given the limitations imposed by such a limited budget Canterbury lacks a number of features of a 'good' sealift/amphib.
Fortunately for NZ, bad things have not really occurred in a way which has a direct impact on NZ. Unfortunately, that situation at some point will most likely change. What gov't (either/both parties) needs to realize, as does the populace, is that if the NZDF is not actually funded to a reasonable level, and that realistic assessments on NZ's security risks need to be made, with rational responses to likely threats be available. Again, not going into politics but want to illustrate a point. During one of the major national elections (either 2008 or 2011), the Green Party's defence position or platform was 'passive non-compliance by the populace if invaded'. Basically an unrealistic response to an unlikely scenario.
-Cheers
There have been a number of reports or force structure modelling exercises into the restructing of the NZDF by the NZ Govt into a single force stemming from the late 1980s right up into again recently as part of DWP10. The hybrid model we now have - One Force Three Services with operational aspects viz DLOC et al as part of the existing JFNZ structure and now with that maturing into the Post 2015 Joint Amphibious Force is the right course.
The argument as for "paperwork" that the Army has to provide the RNZAF or any branch of the NZDF providing a specialist capability for another service is not going to disappear if they all of a sudden came under the one NZDF "brand." The paperwork is their for numerous reasons - cost control. safety, mission planning. mission evaluation, communicative synergy to name a few,the bottomline is that it will still exist in any professional organisation as a necessity.
It is all very well saying you have numerous contacts in the NZDF, and don't we all, however the rubber hits the road in who they are and at what level and experience they operate at. And I must add that nuances within developing a coherent national security policy are far more sophisticated and broader than a simplistic brain fart of lets turn the NZDF into some NZ style Marine Corp. The focus in your argument where you mention the word "current" requirements will keep on locking us into the bad old days of a decade ago with its continuation of the fussy logic behind the adhoc Defence Sustainability Iniative. The DSI and the even the LTDP focused on the current at best and at worst focused on a geo-strategic outlook whereby planning, force structures, acquistions, rationalisations of capability and roles were subsumed into a defence posture that spoke of of this is how we NZ want the world to be, how we want to see ourselves and self-indulgently how we wished the world to see us. It had little examination of emerging geo-political trends, it was far too simplistic and had little relationship with orthodox military doctrine. It was once described as a post-modernist approach to a defence force, which I find charmingly ironic, considering that it had its ideological birth in the early 1990's and that post-modernist theory became an intellectual joke post 2000.
I had a wee laugh over your fighter planes comment and you thinking that Cobras are the business. Wow what an insight. Here is something you may not understand. NZ has not flown fighter aircraft since the 1950s. So I agree we do not need fighter planes. Wanting Cobras means of course you do believe in some form of air combat capability. Now explain to us how you are going to use them? What are the additional operational components as part of your force structure that you are going to need to operate that specific platform? Logistics chain? Intra-theatre protection? What other aspects of air combat capability are you going to need that will assist in your demand for greater force projection (Now remember you are advocating a greater emphasis in the maritime role). So how does that all work? Is the Cobra a cost effective solution with respect to other options? Does there exist other options that could for instance provide greater role flexibility and do both land combat and maritime combat support?
It all depends at what rank level those contacts are, I've heard the same discussions usually from those that hold the rank of Sgt or below or YO level we are three separate services but one NZDF that's where our strength is,
Its a lot easier for Navy to borrow from the main user (Army) than to go thru the ordeal of justifying a small purchase to suit there needs which always comes down to staff work usually by an Navy Officer of Army Captain rank equivalent. I think these Young Officers have better work to accomplish justifying needs more pressing to there service don't you think.
As a Warrant Officer I have never had a problem filling paper work to use the RNZAF RW, its part of the job you go thru the same process during Operations even in Afghanistan without that paper work how do you think the RNZAF or any other force can prioritize who or what call sign has priority?.
Well for me I'll prefer to have FW support Bamiyan province was 20min flight time for Fast air to respond where as RW in some cases took 2hrs before our patrols had guns over head. In the real world you need both they complement each other both have strengths and weaknesses but for those that have called in live air nothing sounds better than hearing those jets over head.
I've been thru many Governments since 1985 and to be honest they are both the same they will both cut the Defence vote to put money into other areas knowing full well Defence does not get you elected in this country.
CD
In my opinion, if NZDF requires an aerial fire support capability beyond the increased capability it is acquiring through the SH-2G(i) SeaSprites, the easiest and most cost effective approach, would be to acquire a precision air to ground weapons capability (in addition to their extant anti-ship capability) for those SeaSprites and for the AW109 LUH fleet to cover littoral and overland missions.
An expanded AW109 LUH fleet would be easily and quickly obtained, straightforward to introduce into service for the RNZAF and would be cost effective. Armed AW109's would have little in the way of developmental risk, given weaponised AW109's are quite common in airforces around the world, as the attached photos indicate and as specified by the manufacturer with various armament and equipment options available:
AW109 LUH | AgustaWestland
Australia used to maintain an "operational" capability for armed helicopter operations based on 6 UH-1H Bushranger helicopters, so an "operational" fleet of 6 or so armed AW109's could provide a genuine operational capability for precision aerial fire support for your land forces. Deployed as a two-ship mini-flight, such a capability would greatly enhance the combat capability of any deployed NZ force.
For the higher end warfare roles, an anti-ship missile / stand-off land attack capability for your P-3K Orions (and possibly the ANZAC Class frigates) would provide a potent capability to secure your maritime routes and contribute in a greater manner to regional security operations in the Asia-Pacific region and combined with the SeaSprite / Penguin ASM combo would offer significant flexibility and attack options for any Asia Pacific conflict scenario you might like to consider.
For the same price as a flight of new-build AH-1Z Cobras, you could acquire much of the above capability for NZDF and I think the all-round capability benefit doesn't lie with the Cobras...
I try to avoid these 'we should have...' discussions on weapons but I must admit I am a big fan of creating an armed-recon A109 capability within NZDF. I am well aware of the limitations of such a platform compared to say a ADF Tiger, Cobra, Apache etc etc, but the key thing for NZDF is it would be an affordable but still useful capability that suits the likely threat levels that our JATF is likely to expect in SouthPac deployments.
Even if it was limited to a door-gun & a combined cannon + rocket pod it would be a good platform to provide top cover for troops in the 'East Timor' type scenarios that we are most likely to be deployed to relatively independently. Obviously up against big players and/or without theatre air-superiority they should be kept well away.
The current fleet of 5 A109 (when / if the promised extra 3 trainer-only models arrive) would be a suitable sized fleet and given this is a proven extension of capability for a current platform - it would be comparably affordable.
Yes it would require spend on up-armouring (seats etc), FLIR, gun-pods & supporting wiring etc, but that's a fraction of the cost of a dedicated ARH - and you need to be realistic - the NZDF will never be given the nod for a dedicated ARH unless things get real twitchy in the SouthPac.
I agree. Capability should be dictated by requirements of course, not "I reckon a few of these would be good" types of ideas.
The addition of an aerial fire support capability to the AW109 just seems like an absolute given to me. It would add significant capability to deployed NZDF forces, most notably the capability to provide light fire teams, the capability to provide escorts for your own NH-90 helicopter operations, the capability to train your own JTAC's with a credible platform and they'd provide an airborne ISR capability, given the sensors and systems they'd need to have.
The real weakness is the ability to operate at the high intensity tempo's. Eventually we will get there with hopefully the P-8 + SLAM-ER and by that stage (15 years out) it will have been bedded down with Increment 3 - MAC, HAASW and other goodies yet to come. It is a long time to wait to plug the maritime strike gap and a hell of a lot can go wrong in the meantime. Sprites + Penguin can only do so much if turns to custard, but it is way better than what we had recently had (or not) and I dont think we ever want to go back to having P-3's spend months and months getting each one wired up for Stand-off.
AD is right - half a dozen or so "warmed up" Mako's would also go along way to help fire support and the cost effective solution. CD though being the man on the ground notes his preference through experience for FW support - though he and I know that even that silver bullet solution in the wider context of the NZDF is ruled out more on ignorant prejudice than cost/benefit/capability. One of the big plus points about the 10 new Sprites + Penguin is that being the bargain that it is, means that with the relatively high NZ dollar we have more fiscal wriggle room to afford an extra tranche of LUH's. I would like to see for example a further 4 warmed up Mako's ordered alongside the 3 T-Birds that are planned, with the current 5 legacy Mako's then upgraded to second tranche standard. That would be a major leap forward and give us at least some form of operational independence at the lower conflict thresholds.
Over the next 15 years we are going to see what is essentially the biggest re-equiping of the RNZAF since the 1960's. With the economic outlook starting to look much more positive and the Defence spend again incrementally rising, the VfM starting to give some payoff, then the mooted big ticket purchases highlighted in the DWP/10 to replace much of the fixed wing fleet look more certain. So what is likely in the years ahead? The C-130/B757 replacement(A-400's with some C-27J's will do nicely thanks Dr Coleman), the new trainers (Texan II ticks the boxes, and the B-350ER+MM is a no brainer while we are at it), the 10 Sprites keeping us in the maritime rotary business, and of course the P-8 to replace the venerable P-3 (T.I.N.A). That is quite a solid flightline. Some extra Mako's would be the icing on the cake.
Cheers MrC
AD is right - half a dozen or so "warmed up" Mako's would also go along way to help fire support and the cost effective solution. CD though being the man on the ground notes his preference through experience for FW support - though he and I know that even that silver bullet solution in the wider context of the NZDF is ruled out more on ignorant prejudice than cost/benefit/capability. One of the big plus points about the 10 new Sprites + Penguin is that being the bargain that it is, means that with the relatively high NZ dollar we have more fiscal wriggle room to afford an extra tranche of LUH's. I would like to see for example a further 4 warmed up Mako's ordered alongside the 3 T-Birds that are planned, with the current 5 legacy Mako's then upgraded to second tranche standard. That would be a major leap forward and give us at least some form of operational independence at the lower conflict thresholds.
Over the next 15 years we are going to see what is essentially the biggest re-equiping of the RNZAF since the 1960's. With the economic outlook starting to look much more positive and the Defence spend again incrementally rising, the VfM starting to give some payoff, then the mooted big ticket purchases highlighted in the DWP/10 to replace much of the fixed wing fleet look more certain. So what is likely in the years ahead? The C-130/B757 replacement(A-400's with some C-27J's will do nicely thanks Dr Coleman), the new trainers (Texan II ticks the boxes, and the B-350ER+MM is a no brainer while we are at it), the 10 Sprites keeping us in the maritime rotary business, and of course the P-8 to replace the venerable P-3 (T.I.N.A). That is quite a solid flightline. Some extra Mako's would be the icing on the cake.
Cheers MrC
WRT the Mako - yes I'd definitely be keen to see a further tranche of already up-armed Makos puchased for a armed-recon type role. I think the complication is that such a requirement needs to actually be driven by Army rather than the RNZAF.
I'd like to think that once the NZDF sit down & do a comprehensive 'end-to-end' analysis of 'lessons learnt' from Afghanistan (I appreciate this will have been done to some degree from day #1 of the deployment) that they'll see that dependence on top-cover even in a relatively benign environment is best delivered when it is done so quickly - waiting up to 2 hours is untenable. I appreciate the NZDF will never be able to have Makos continually flying overhead Army movements but having something dedicated to that role handy is a big step in the right direction.
Am I confident Army could identify a armed-recon (or similar) requirement from this? - probably! Will that translate to an identification of an uparmed Mako as a potential resolution? - not so sure - that's where this concept could founder.
Identifying & plugging such a gap is very much a 'joint' discussion. With the increasing focus on a JATF I'm quietly confident the opportunities for identifying such 'cross-service capability' will improve.
Then it's just a case of getting the pollies on board - thats the real hard bit!
t68
Well-Known Member
Surely instead of buying more helicopters it would be more practical using the equipment you already have those 5 current sprites would not be more prudent to modernize these and bring it up to standard which is similar to Kaman H2 Tomahawk.
Integrating Hellfire, Hydra 70 and twin M134 Minigun should not be out of the realms of doable if the MH-6 little bird can I would imagine Sea Sprite having little difficulty.
Kaman H-2 "Tomahawk" helicopter - development history, photos, technical data
File:SAS 2010 AH-6.JPG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Integrating Hellfire, Hydra 70 and twin M134 Minigun should not be out of the realms of doable if the MH-6 little bird can I would imagine Sea Sprite having little difficulty.
Kaman H-2 "Tomahawk" helicopter - development history, photos, technical data
File:SAS 2010 AH-6.JPG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The crux of my support specifically for the A109 is that is it a new platform that the NZDF has & is very comfortable with, plus it is used widely around the globe in both civvy & military roles which affords it an excellent support network. It's known to have a long-life ahead of it, and has a 'up-arming suite' that is offered largely off the shelf & supported by the aircraft manufacturer.
I'm afraid whilst a big fan of the Sprites, they have a known limited support network and the mix of weapons you mention requires specific integration effort & cost which would be a huge factor against them in the specifically NZDF context.
The other point is that IMHO NZDF is unlikely to gain political support (& therefore funding) for any missile capability (Penguin purchase with Sprites is another purpose - and discussion) on an Army support platform - at least in the short to mid term until JATF proves a need).
Therefore the A109 offers a not only a cheaper & more easily attainable option, the other key factor here too is that by the very nature of it's low-level capability, best suited to lower end SouthPac JATF roles (East Timor being my preferred example) - it makes it a much easier sell to the sceptics, especially those holding the cheque book! Also the value of choppers in East Timor is understood by many outside of NZDF whereas the need for a missile capable chopper (as yet) isn't.
There will be natural, if not ill-informed, public & polly resistance to getting anything significantly lethal for the 3 sqn chopper fleet - the cost vs need argument won't stack up for them. However a gun-pod & rocket capability is a hell of the lot cheaper both upfront & over their lifetime and much easier PR sell, whilst still offering useful (if not limited) capability.
Therefore I would say that even getting missile capability for the A109 wouldn't even get off the ground (unavoidable pun!).
The key to getting such a platform is keep the requirement small, relevant to known operations (ET again) easy & cheap to obtain - arguments pollies & public are more likely to buy into.
Further to the points that Gibbo raised.
The current 5 sprites need a lot of taxpayers money to be spent on them. I have no knowledge of the costing estimates for such an upgrade, but the cost/benefit analysis must have pointed out that buying the ex Aussie Sprites to replace them indicates that it was not an attractive proposition. The current Sprites require a major upgrade to at least sustain them past 2015 as flyers and then would need a further uncosted package to bring them to the attack configuration you envisage. It is far too expensive, resource draining and time consuming to do this in my view. They are also far more expensive to operate p/fh than a Mako. Which actually is huge consideration within the MoD/DPMC.
The 5 current Mako's were bought for the pilot training role and supplementary MAOT and general training support roles. There were not sufficent Mako's numbers acquired to deploy them other than a very short one off contingency. So to add a further major role such as deployed combat support would require additional airframes. Thankfully the Mako is relatively cheap, proven and OTS.
Four weeks on the RNZN thread I suggested the following:
I know more expensive the MOTS Mako but it would bring something to the party that would also be usable in a less than benign environment as well. The other cons are that it will be another type in the fleet and that we'd have to buy Stingers and Hellfires etc. Just another option that is all. I realise t68 said that the NH90 can be armed but in NZs case we wouldn't be really wanting to put missiles on a NH90TTH because of costs and our low number of airframes.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
If we were going to go down this road, why not add this capability to the nh90s/sprites as well/instead.
There are plenty of pics online of the nh90's with 20mm cannon pods mounted. Rocket pods can be easily fitted. We allready have the pylons (used for aux fuel tanks). I don't imagine a guns and rockets combo will break the bank.
For econonomy sake, arm a a109 for aerial gunnery training.
In my mind if we were going to deploy a helo to an operation it would more likely be the nh90, so add this capability to it, rather than having to deploy a separate helo type as well. Add capability to the airframes that we have rather than buying more aircraft to fly a narrower range of missions.
cheers
There are plenty of pics online of the nh90's with 20mm cannon pods mounted. Rocket pods can be easily fitted. We allready have the pylons (used for aux fuel tanks). I don't imagine a guns and rockets combo will break the bank.
For econonomy sake, arm a a109 for aerial gunnery training.
In my mind if we were going to deploy a helo to an operation it would more likely be the nh90, so add this capability to it, rather than having to deploy a separate helo type as well. Add capability to the airframes that we have rather than buying more aircraft to fly a narrower range of missions.
cheers
So how will this work? Deploy 4 NH-90's to support a CATG tasked with Battle Lift and Combat Service Support (4 is the minimum you can get away with that is why there are 4 slots inside the CY to park them - 4 Hueys in ET to support that rotation profile) and then somehow find the time to also be a Combat asset, for example 3 rifle companies widely dispered across their AOE? The headache and potential for disaster doing that would outway significantly the bother of having another 4 LUH's attached. So if you are still keen are you going to order more mega expensive NH-90's and then have all 8 kitted out? The NZDF is razor thin in terms of deployed battle lift as it is and ensuring improved battle lift was one the key areas that the US Army noted ex Astan - so why on earth would one want to load up another role on what will be a very high tempo situation.
t68
Well-Known Member
Those ex RAN Sea Sprite were 40 year old airframes and we refurbished those with modern avionics suite.Refurbising the airframes cannot be that expensive after all you went down that route with the 5x C-130H which in 2008 cost NZD$234million and you are spending NZD$352million, I cannot imagine that updating the current fleet would exceed that after all as part of the buy in for the ex-RAN birds is to bring the flight controls back to NZ standards. Using the A-109 LUH as an armed LOH would only bring more problems for JATF you then would have to support 3 different types instead of 2.
What I do not understand is the sustainment issue on getting parts, if it was difficult before what has changed now by getting the ex-RAN birds if Kaman had trouble before what has changed?
Five-year wait to repair chopper - national | Stuff.co.nz
If the 5 legacy birds are to be used for parts for the ex-RAN birds because you cannot rely on Kaman for backup then sorry to say you have backed the wrong horse.
ngatimozart is correct although the SH-60 is a heavier aircraft it provides a better pathway for the future with support from the USN with ASW and a Battlefield Reconnaissance Helicopter
What I do not understand is the sustainment issue on getting parts, if it was difficult before what has changed now by getting the ex-RAN birds if Kaman had trouble before what has changed?
Five-year wait to repair chopper - national | Stuff.co.nz
If the 5 legacy birds are to be used for parts for the ex-RAN birds because you cannot rely on Kaman for backup then sorry to say you have backed the wrong horse.
ngatimozart is correct although the SH-60 is a heavier aircraft it provides a better pathway for the future with support from the USN with ASW and a Battlefield Reconnaissance Helicopter
Besides what Mr C has said, the NH90 wouldn't be operable off the FFH flight decks, so besides tying up troop lifting, you don't have another deck / liilypad to fly them off. One of the reasons I like the refurbished SH60F DAP is that it will fly off a FFH and if need be the Sprite off the FFH can be flown off an OPV lillypad. The Endeavour replacement is going to have a decent sized hangar and a lillypad possibly able to take a chook, so no probs fitting a couple or three SH60F DAPs on it. Another of my reasons is that the SH60F is already marinised, so it has a known sea going capability which would be IMHO far better than any Mako. The DAP also IMHO gives a greater firepower capability than the ADF Euro Tiggers and I think we should add the AGM65 Maverick capability to that. the Penguin doesn't have a land attack capability which the Maverick does and
that is something we shouldn't lose.
Of course we could attempt to fit a bolt on gunship option to the new Sprites. Rockets, fixed cannon / .50cal and maybe Hellfire and keep the Maverick option. But my next question is how would that integrate into the avionics systems already on board? We don't want to end up doing a RAN Sprite software integration repeat.
Looking in the longer term, although I poo pooed this last year, I do now think that for the RNZN FFH replacement we should look at something along the lines of the Danish Absalon class ship, not necessarilly that class but that type. The problem I really have with the Absalon is the Stanflex module system which is inique to Denmark, so a more broader modular system would be better. IMHO this needs to b a broad cross Navy approach and how the naval component fits into the NZDF and Govt planning and operational concepts. So I would think 3 x Absalon like vessels and maybe 3 or 4 OPVs that can utilise the modular system as well so you can re-role a vessel quickly and easily. This would fit into a greater ANZAC naval force bringing greater versatility.
The more modern avionic suite in the rebuild (I's) is an attractive proposition, thats why they bought them as a NZ$240m package of 10 airframes (8 birds + 2 Spares), plus support. systems and spares for literally many 100's of millions less than than what they would have needed to stump up for to replace the current NZ's, which were going to require avionic and other system upgrades.
The NZDF did 12 months due diligence on the I's and from what I understand scoped a number of options including new builds and used rebuilds from a range of parties and manufacturers. They also looked at rebuilding the NZ G's - not a goer, plus not enough airframes and the opportunity cost was deemed poor. Spoke to everyone who was anyone. It was not rushed into and carefully negotiated.
The NZDF currently flies 3 rotary types and nobody is adding another unique platform. Some extra Mako's to provide fire support / recon capability for a deployed NZ Force in a LIC to MIC Chp7 scenario would reduce not magnify any problems planners at JTFNZ would have. Having two rotary types to support a battalion group is not usual in the least if you want a sembalance of contributing even partial spectrum support for the diggers.
The following reasons should illuminate why RW support was 2 hours away:
1. NZDF did not have a platform that was/is capable of high altitude hot/dry environment flight - UH1H, this will not be a problem in the future with the NH90.
2. Kiwi Base was the furthest outpost from the Brigade which held a FARP, all RW had to call into Kiwi Base to refuel before heading north to support the K patrols which took 2 hours,
3. Kiwi Base held the lowest priority in the Brigade for the simple reason other Units in the US Brigade were in areas of high kinetic action our area was seen as being less kinetic than those other units.
Sorry for the break in the conversation, this is the Vote: NZDF document from Treasury and it shows a $460 million increase in Vote: NZDF for the 2013/14 financial year. That's the way I read it anyway.
Vote Defence Force - Estimates of Appropriations 2013/14 - Budget 2013
Vote Defence Force - Estimates of Appropriations 2013/14 - Budget 2013