NZDF General discussion thread

[Gibbo]

Hi Bugglerbilly,

Reestablishing a combat wing will take time, but its not impossible. We dont need to bring back our pilots but we can look within the framework of our own RNZAF and into the pilot training schemes across the country and start from there. Instructors can be hired from Australia on the Hawk 200 which is a good choice of aircraft. And very similar to the A4.

Yes there will need to be an investment of probably 2 billion for aircraft and spares but at least that is a major start up point for establishing our combat wing. NZ doesnt need expensive and extremely fast jets to make us capable. I agree now is a good time to purchase aircraft from the US as the dollar is low. That would be a smart move. It would seem that with the current facilities at Ohakea there would be ample room to park the Hawk. I do think that due to our location in the pacfic that we need to have some air to air refueling ability and this is where Australia could come in on some arrangement to help refuel NZ aircraft being deployed to Australia on humanitarian or military deployments.

The C130s are good till 2015 and so will the P3s. It is extremely unlikely in my opinion that UAVs will be used in the short term as we operate the P3. The other thing is this that NZ Defence has invested in a $100 Million Defence satellite for its own use for communications. Excellent move, If we are to be able to independantly shuffle our forces around.

The one big hole in our capability right now is the stretched operational side of our ANZACS. They are too busy for the 2 we have. One in the Gulf and the other in dry dock or on exercises. We need a third ANZAC. We could do this by perhaps buying the Australian HMAS ANZAC, and the RAN supplementing a 4th AAW Destroyer instead of three to cover the short fall.

However in general all Things are moving in the right direction

$2Bn will never get the go ahead now - more recent talk from Wayne Mapp & National is downplaying air-combat force.

Army still working on evaluating small UAV's - likely to occur as part of ISR project in LTDP.

AFAIK the Comms satellite is still only under consideration (it's a commercial satellite but NZDF has the option to purchase dedicted bandwidth) - althought offer due to expire real soon I believe.

 

[buglerbilly]

I think the State Department's concern had something to do with the advanced avionics present aboard the Project Kahu A4's

Possibly BUT that's an easy fix, take the gear out its not necessary for Training levels they talked about.

Instructors can be hired from Australia on the Hawk 200 which is a good choice of aircraft. And very similar to the A4.

And which Instructors might these be? RAAF ones or using their Hawk 127's? Neither of which is feasible in my opinion.

HAWK 200 is waste of funds for the RNZAF and provides a capability that is fundmanetally useless. Certainly we cannot take it abroad/overseas to anywhere more threatening than the Solomons or Fiji. In Afghansitan it would be a sad joke period.

The funds would be better spent elsewhere.

We need a third ANZAC. We could do this by perhaps buying the Australian HMAS ANZAC, and the RAN supplementing a 4th AAW Destroyer instead of three to cover the short fall.

Now WHY would the Australians want to do that? We've lost the opportunity to gain another ANZAC as a new-build or in any other format.

Money would now be far better spent buying a second MRV plus one more OPV, and then complete a major upgrade to the ANZAC's as already outlined in RNZN future programmes (ESSM, SSM capability, etc).

Regards,

BUG

 

[Markus40]

Hi Tasman, yes im back . Have been tied down with studies relating to math as i want to commence a 2 year Aircraft Engineering course next year.

I understand that the configuration of the RAN Seasprites were different to the RNZN seasprites as there were integration aspects to the RAN seaprites that apparently wasnt working with the RAN main frame. The RNZN seasprite was bought off the shelf new i believe and thus we havent suffered the same consequence, and this has been a great relief obviously for the war planners in the beehive.

Yeah, me too i have to agree that a one helo option across the board is going to save dollars and integration and pilot training issues as well.

Cheers, mate.

Hi Markus - good to hear from you.

There seems to be little doubt that the blame for the Seasprite fiasco in Australia can largely be blamed on poor mangement by the Commonwealth. It does appear now that the Defence Minister has been 'rolled' re the Seasprite and it might escape the 'chop'. It will be interesting to see if it gets a mention in next week's budget. It would be good to see them in service to give the RAN frigates a helo armed with a capable AShM. In RNZN service it seems to be doing a good job but I still think the RAN would have been better off with one platform for its FFGs and FFHs. However, if the Oz Seasprite finally gets 'fixed', I'll be very happy.

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

Interesting. I just got a letter back from Wayne Mapp after advertising my proposal on the Defence forces needs on this thread and sending that letter to him and i found that he was open to the Air combat wing option, and that National will look at this possibility when they come into power. So from that i believe that this option is still on the table.

I think a small UAV for the Army is a good intelligence tool and im sure there are options available to enhance the Armys "eyes" in theatre, but its highly unlikely that there will be UAVs for the RNZAF at this stage and for at least the next 2 decades. Im also of the opinion that Australia wont operate UAVs alongside the Wedgetail, F18Fs, and F111s in the immediate stage at least.

As is detailed in the latest Long Term Development Plan, the New Zealand Defence Force is considering linking to a New Zealand satellite project to provide strategic communications around the world.

Presently the NZDF’s satellite capability is organised using commercial or coalition partner satellites, neither of which can guarantee secure, uninterrupted capability.

Dedicated NZDF transponders would mean the defence force could guarantee secure communications to its deployed forces, improve interoperability with coalition partners including Australia and the Pacific, while supporting whole-of-government emergency management and enforcement operations.

Planned new joint command and control systems and the combined information flow from NZDF P-3K aircraft, RNZN ships and New Zealand Army components will require significant increase in high band-width capability. This would be available from the capability provided by the New Zealand satellite.

Ground stations for communications would be provided through a Joint Communications Modernisation project and an Army Tactical Trunk Communications project proposed for next year.

The satellite is planned for launch in 2010 and would have a life of 15 years.

$2Bn will never get the go ahead now - more recent talk from Wayne Mapp & National is downplaying air-combat force.

Army still working on evaluating small UAV's - likely to occur as part of ISR project in LTDP.

AFAIK the Comms satellite is still only under consideration (it's a commercial satellite but NZDF has the option to purchase dedicted bandwidth) - althought offer due to expire real soon I believe.

 

[NZLAV]

About the UAV's. How much use would they be? Could the provide air cover and strike?

 

[AGRA]

About the UAV's. How much use would they be? Could the provide air cover and strike?

Predator Bs would seem ideal for the NZDF, the can swap out weapons for radar and switch roles. However Preds have a lot of trouble with crosswinds and NZ certainly has crosswinds... Maybe they should look at some of the new systems like the Killer Bee from Northrop.

 

[Markus40]

The more advanced options can like the predator, but dont have self protection systems. Quite honestly its way better to let the OPVs and Orions do their patrol work at this stage. UAVs are the technology of the future and they do a good job in many war fronts around the world, but having them here for little use, will in effect make redundant the specialised skills that we have in the P3 and other skills within the RNZAF. UAVs doing patrol work are costly and NZ wouldnt need them in relation to Australia that does in the Northern part for illegal immigrants and drug runners.

About the UAV's. How much use would they be? Could the provide air cover and strike?

 

[Markus40]

No mate. Regardless of their roles and abilities and even if there wasnt crosswinds UAVs are an expensive white elephant with very little use for the RNZAF. Give some thought to the comments i have made to NZLAV. Cheers.

Predator Bs would seem ideal for the NZDF, the can swap out weapons for radar and switch roles. However Preds have a lot of trouble with crosswinds and NZ certainly has crosswinds... Maybe they should look at some of the new systems like the Killer Bee from Northrop.

 

[jase1]

Hi guys,new to this forum,really interesting reading the thoughts so time to post my 1st thoughts.
My personal thoughts are that we need to join OZ in the ANZAC tradition,make our defence forces part of the OZ forces,talking to various ex-airforce it will be pretty much mission impossible to rebuild the combat wing,not only did the goverment disband the Skyhawks etc it also destoryed 80 odd years of know how,tradition etc,the combat wing is long gone.
National has mentioned that joining OZ would be an option and a bloody 1 at that! Most of our Skyhawk pilots such as Jason Easthope who is respected world-wide as a fighter pilot have joined the RAAF and by creating a join ANZAC force will give us the F-35,Superhornet,C-17 and of course the new Abrams MBT etc,we are,imagine the force that can be projected with Kiwi and OZ joining togetheMy uncle and a mate who are both ex RNZAF and now work at Safe-air have recently said that the Skyhawks will be on there way soon,they reckon that the MB-339 simulator and container loads of A-4K spares have already gone to the States and that recently the Skyhawks were being checked out with 8 of the Skyhawks in bad need of 517 (?) rear frame rebuilds and just before retirement were only cleared for straight and level flight,the story goes that 1 of the Skyhawks flown by Jason Easthope during the last displays will prob never fly again as the wing spars are badly cracked as the plane was deliberatly pushed to its limits,sort of a up yours to the goverment.
I miss our combat wing but Aunty Helen has seen that destoryed and never to be reserected

 

[Mr Brown]

The idea of joint Aussie-Kiwi armed forces would work ok if NZ and Oz always followed a common foreign policy. Most of the time we do, but we diverge in some major areas, such as Iraq. How would you deal with the problem of joint assets, been required to deploy to places that NZs govt does not want them to go?

 

[Todjaeger]

The idea of joint Aussie-Kiwi armed forces would work ok if NZ and Oz always followed a common foreign policy. Most of the time we do, but we diverge in some major areas, such as Iraq. How would you deal with the problem of joint assets, been required to deploy to places that NZs govt does not want them to go?

I agree, if Australia and New Zealand had a common foreign/defence policy then a joint ADF/NZDF would work. However, due to different political policies, there would be potential political problems with deployments. I don't see this changing short of Australia and New Zealand merging into one country. IIRC there was (is?) a provision during Federation, for New Zealand to merge with the other colonies that became Australia. But I'm digressing into a political, not military, question.

The more advanced options can like the predator, but dont have self protection systems. Quite honestly its way better to let the OPVs and Orions do their patrol work at this stage. UAVs are the technology of the future and they do a good job in many war fronts around the world, but having them here for little use, will in effect make redundant the specialised skills that we have in the P3 and other skills within the RNZAF. UAVs doing patrol work are costly and NZ wouldnt need them in relation to Australia that does in the Northern part for illegal immigrants and drug runners.

Not sure I agree with this assessment of the value of UAVs for NZ. NZ has a very large ocean area to patrol, particularly for the resources currently available to patrol it. Once the OPVs are available for deployment, it will get better, but that will still leave a maximum force available for patroling of 6
P-3K Orions, 2 Anzac FFHs, 2 OPVs and the HMNZS Canterbury. Having something like BAMS would augment, not replace the current capacity IMV. As for the use of purchasing armed variants, that might make sense further down the line, but I'd rather have NZ get better ISR assets first.

-Cheers

 

[Markus40]

Hi Jase, and welcome to the forum . To be frank NZDFs are in actual fact part of the overall alliance with Australia. We have very strong defence relationships on all levels of defence training and even future procurement for our own defence forces is part and parcel of the contribution we make that works alongside their defence arrangements.

Yes i do agree that facilitating further Australian Air assets in NZ at our bases would in actual fact solidify our "hole" in our air defence structure and give our own forces valuable training experience with those air assets such as the Hawk, F18, F111, F35, C17, Wedgetail etc.

However i do not believe it is impossible to not put together and rebuild a Air combat wing based on the Hawk used in Australia. It would take time and investment but it could still happen. I have written a thread on the practicalities of this exercise in a past thread in this column. Cheers.

Hi guys,new to this forum,really interesting reading the thoughts so time to post my 1st thoughts.
My personal thoughts are that we need to join OZ in the ANZAC tradition,make our defence forces part of the OZ forces,talking to various ex-airforce it will be pretty much mission impossible to rebuild the combat wing,not only did the goverment disband the Skyhawks etc it also destoryed 80 odd years of know how,tradition etc,the combat wing is long gone.
National has mentioned that joining OZ would be an option and a bloody 1 at that! Most of our Skyhawk pilots such as Jason Easthope who is respected world-wide as a fighter pilot have joined the RAAF and by creating a join ANZAC force will give us the F-35,Superhornet,C-17 and of course the new Abrams MBT etc,we are,imagine the force that can be projected with Kiwi and OZ joining togetheMy uncle and a mate who are both ex RNZAF and now work at Safe-air have recently said that the Skyhawks will be on there way soon,they reckon that the MB-339 simulator and container loads of A-4K spares have already gone to the States and that recently the Skyhawks were being checked out with 8 of the Skyhawks in bad need of 517 (?) rear frame rebuilds and just before retirement were only cleared for straight and level flight,the story goes that 1 of the Skyhawks flown by Jason Easthope during the last displays will prob never fly again as the wing spars are badly cracked as the plane was deliberatly pushed to its limits,sort of a up yours to the goverment.
I miss our combat wing but Aunty Helen has seen that destoryed and never to be reserected

 

[Markus40]

I think our defence arrangements with Australia is strong enough to the point where there is a recongintion and understanding that we have a seperate foreign policy agreement that stands outside the foreign policy of Australia.

The joint Kiwi-Aussie alliance is unique and despite the non involvement in Iraq it doesnt compromise the basic fundemental arrangements that NZDFs has with Australia. Especially in the defence industry as an example and in our area of the world, and even with Afganistan. So there is very little that NZ doesnt agree with Australia in our overall common defence arrangements.

The idea of joint Aussie-Kiwi armed forces would work ok if NZ and Oz always followed a common foreign policy. Most of the time we do, but we diverge in some major areas, such as Iraq. How would you deal with the problem of joint assets, been required to deploy to places that NZs govt does not want them to go?

 

[Markus40]

I am personally convinced that UAVs as effective as they are, are not a requirement that NZ needs at this stage. Australia does as i have already laid out, but with NZ the only thing we need to look at is illegal fishing and the P3s do a good job at this and will have a better capability with the ASM. Its highly unlikely that naval assets can reach targets or potential terrorist targets immediatly as would the P3, and we should develop this system more so we keep this platform going. This does seem the way things are going right now as the government is pouring millions into mission computers and self protection systems for the P3. So thats good logic and with the new OPVs coming soon this too will augment the patrol and interdiction role thats needed for our coastline. Cheers.

I agree, if Australia and New Zealand had a common foreign/defence policy then a joint ADF/NZDF would work. However, due to different political policies, there would be potential political problems with deployments. I don't see this changing short of Australia and New Zealand merging into one country. IIRC there was (is?) a provision during Federation, for New Zealand to merge with the other colonies that became Australia. But I'm digressing into a political, not military, question.



Not sure I agree with this assessment of the value of UAVs for NZ. NZ has a very large ocean area to patrol, particularly for the resources currently available to patrol it. Once the OPVs are available for deployment, it will get better, but that will still leave a maximum force available for patroling of 6
P-3K Orions, 2 Anzac FFHs, 2 OPVs and the HMNZS Canterbury. Having something like BAMS would augment, not replace the current capacity IMV. As for the use of purchasing armed variants, that might make sense further down the line, but I'd rather have NZ get better ISR assets first.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

I am personally convinced that UAVs as effective as they are, are not a requirement that NZ needs at this stage. Australia does as i have already laid out, but with NZ the only thing we need to look at is illegal fishing and the P3s do a good job at this and will have a better capability with the ASM. Its highly unlikely that naval assets can reach targets or potential terrorist targets immediatly as would the P3, and we should develop this system more so we keep this platform going. This does seem the way things are going right now as the government is pouring millions into mission computers and self protection systems for the P3. So thats good logic and with the new OPVs coming soon this too will augment the patrol and interdiction role thats needed for our coastline. Cheers.

UAV's can cover a LOT more territory though and can surveill assets for a LOT longer than a manned asset.

Australia for instance is reducing it's 18 strong P-3 fleet to between 8 and 12 "manned" assets once our BAMS (Global Hawk or "Mariner") UAV is chosen and in-service.

Let's face it, the overwhelming majority of "contacts" in the maritime arena are not going to require immediate prosecution are they? 2-3 "Mariner's", (cheaper than Global Hawk but not a WHOLE lot less capable from all reports) and a fleet of 3 or so "manned" P-3's to provide response options is going to be MORE capable than a fleet of 5x P-3K's and with the reduction in long patrol times, your airframe life in P-3K's are going to be dramatically extended.

Your maritime patrol skillset is unlikely to be lost as well.

Seems like "win win" to me...

 

[jase1]

The 1 thing that most people will agree on is that the RNZAF is very good at Transport and Maritime suvellance and we get the most and more out of our C-130s and the P-3 and that the aircrew do the best with what they have,so why cant the Goverment approch Australia and say "we will pull above our weight in these 2 roles and you concentrate on the Fighter combat role,both countries would benefit from this agreement,it worked with the Nowra agreement so why cnt an agreement but on a bigger scale work again.
The same thinking could be applied to the LAVs of the Army,sent these with their crew to reinforce the top-end of OZ? We dont need 100 odd LAVS on NZ soil.
I just think that we need to really work with our OZZIE brothers a lot more closely than we are now,at 1st we would gain more than OZ but in time with a bit of effort and commitment Australia would benefit from a closer tie with NZ too.
Id love to see a Combat wing flying in NZ again but the effort required would be huge,id be more than happy to see OZ Hornets,F-111s and in the future the Superhornet and F-35 flying in NZ skys either based here or on rotation , crewed and maintained by a joint OZ- kiwi unit.
With the growth of China and Muslim extremists growing in number in the region and countries like Indonesia,Malaysia starting to assert attitudes against OZ something will have to done and something that NZ will have to deal with,we need more than Blue Helmets..we need more teeth!

 

[Markus40]

Im sure they are and are a white elephant to NZ requirements too. It would be overkill to start employing UAVs on maritime duties when we have several defence resources to cover this job as stated. For such a benign region its a no brainer. Just MAYBE in the next two decades things could change and we could employ such assets. I would suggest that UAVs at this stage do not carry the ASM as would the P3 and this must be something to consider. It maybe possible for Intel survelliance duties that we could employ one or two UAVs but the overlap of both assets are really hard to define.

The P3s life will run out in 2015 and the government will be hard pressed to fill the role of the P3 and what ever manned purchase will be expensive replacements. The P8 is a good runner up and i can see NZ employing this technology in the forseeable future along with them armed with ASM than a unarmed UAV. The other thing to consider is that any replcement will need to be integratable with other defence forces assets and most likely these will be manned patrol aircraft such as the P8. This gives NZ valueble training in the role they are supposed to be in.

I do think the government is on the right track with the employment of the OPV and P3 as the right mix for our coastal duties and beyond. To conclude i think its common sense the way the government is going in our maritime survelliance policies.

UAV's can cover a LOT more territory though and can surveill assets for a LOT longer than a manned asset.

Australia for instance is reducing it's 18 strong P-3 fleet to between 8 and 12 "manned" assets once our BAMS (Global Hawk or "Mariner") UAV is chosen and in-service.

Let's face it, the overwhelming majority of "contacts" in the maritime arena are not going to require immediate prosecution are they? 2-3 "Mariner's", (cheaper than Global Hawk but not a WHOLE lot less capable from all reports) and a fleet of 3 or so "manned" P-3's to provide response options is going to be MORE capable than a fleet of 5x P-3K's and with the reduction in long patrol times, your airframe life in P-3K's are going to be dramatically extended.

Your maritime patrol skillset is unlikely to be lost as well.

Seems like "win win" to me...

 

[Markus40]

Well my friend i have been trying to spread this message in varying degrees on this forum for some time. I do believe that NZ and Australia are doing more these days than in the past in relation to deployment and exercises and integration of assets within the force structures.

The people you really need to talk to and put your message to is the National party by writing a letter to Wayne Mapp outlining the concerns you have raised. The option of bringing back a Squadron of Hawks within the NZDF is going to offer more jobs and provide more money within the economy. Yes it will cost billions BUT alot of that money will go back into the economy and i am a strong advocate of economy defence related industrys like the Tenix and ANZAC industry. The money can be drip fed into a long term funding plan to have a squadron up and running within 5 years. Having these aircraft for training our pilots and our own defence forces as well as security within our region is going to add value to our regional security.

The rotational idea of basing fighter aircraft on NZ soil to train both pilots and our defence force personell will be invaluable. I have repeated this idea on this forum many times and still believe that this is another option that could be employed to fill the "gap" of air defence. Cheers.

The 1 thing that most people will agree on is that the RNZAF is very good at Transport and Maritime suvellance and we get the most and more out of our C-130s and the P-3 and that the aircrew do the best with what they have,so why cant the Goverment approch Australia and say "we will pull above our weight in these 2 roles and you concentrate on the Fighter combat role,both countries would benefit from this agreement,it worked with the Nowra agreement so why cnt an agreement but on a bigger scale work again.
The same thinking could be applied to the LAVs of the Army,sent these with their crew to reinforce the top-end of OZ? We dont need 100 odd LAVS on NZ soil.
I just think that we need to really work with our OZZIE brothers a lot more closely than we are now,at 1st we would gain more than OZ but in time with a bit of effort and commitment Australia would benefit from a closer tie with NZ too.
Id love to see a Combat wing flying in NZ again but the effort required would be huge,id be more than happy to see OZ Hornets,F-111s and in the future the Superhornet and F-35 flying in NZ skys either based here or on rotation , crewed and maintained by a joint OZ- kiwi unit.
With the growth of China and Muslim extremists growing in number in the region and countries like Indonesia,Malaysia starting to assert attitudes against OZ something will have to done and something that NZ will have to deal with,we need more than Blue Helmets..we need more teeth!

 

[Todjaeger]

Im sure they are and are a white elephant to NZ requirements too. It would be overkill to start employing UAVs on maritime duties when we have several defence resources to cover this job as stated. For such a benign region its a no brainer. Just MAYBE in the next two decades things could change and we could employ such assets. I would suggest that UAVs at this stage do not carry the ASM as would the P3 and this must be something to consider. It maybe possible for Intel survelliance duties that we could employ one or two UAVs but the overlap of both assets are really hard to define.

The P3s life will run out in 2015 and the government will be hard pressed to fill the role of the P3 and what ever manned purchase will be expensive replacements. The P8 is a good runner up and i can see NZ employing this technology in the forseeable future along with them armed with ASM than a unarmed UAV. The other thing to consider is that any replcement will need to be integratable with other defence forces assets and most likely these will be manned patrol aircraft such as the P8. This gives NZ valueble training in the role they are supposed to be in.

I do think the government is on the right track with the employment of the OPV and P3 as the right mix for our coastal duties and beyond. To conclude i think its common sense the way the government is going in our maritime survelliance policies.

A question I have to ask, regarding NZ maritime surveillance needs. How many sq km or n miles are there in NZ's EEZ? How many additional sq km/n miles of ocean does NZ patrol because it is in NZ's areas of interest? With figures provided by the WAG Institute , I believe an Orion can cover about 430,000 sq km of ocean at any one time...

Looking at a rough map, it appears that there is more or less 1,200 km between Auckland and Stewart Island. Assuming the range of the P-3K search radar is 200 n miles, then 6 P-3K Orions might just, I repeat just, manage to cover the EEZ around North and South Island if all 6 were airborne at the same time. This would leave the 2 frigates, 2 OPVs and the MRV to provide patrol of the farther EEZs around Niue, Chatham Islands, Cook Islands, etc. Also, these ships would have to conduct all defence-related patrolling as well. How long could the RNZAF keep 6 Orions aloft?

At present, I don't think NZ has sufficient ISR assets to be able to patrol all of the approaches to NZ proper. Adding some maritime UAVs (or ground-based radar) could help close potential gaps in coverage.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Im sure they are and are a white elephant to NZ requirements too. It would be overkill to start employing UAVs on maritime duties when we have several defence resources to cover this job as stated. For such a benign region its a no brainer. Just MAYBE in the next two decades things could change and we could employ such assets. I would suggest that UAVs at this stage do not carry the ASM as would the P3 and this must be something to consider. It maybe possible for Intel survelliance duties that we could employ one or two UAVs but the overlap of both assets are really hard to define.

The P3s life will run out in 2015 and the government will be hard pressed to fill the role of the P3 and what ever manned purchase will be expensive replacements. The P8 is a good runner up and i can see NZ employing this technology in the forseeable future along with them armed with ASM than a unarmed UAV. The other thing to consider is that any replcement will need to be integratable with other defence forces assets and most likely these will be manned patrol aircraft such as the P8. This gives NZ valueble training in the role they are supposed to be in.

I do think the government is on the right track with the employment of the OPV and P3 as the right mix for our coastal duties and beyond. To conclude i think its common sense the way the government is going in our maritime survelliance policies.

I disagree that they are a "white elephant" in ANY environment. For starters the higher end variants possess surveillance, persistence and loitering capabilities that dwarf ANY manned asset in this role.

A manned asset is only necessary (at present) to provide an immediate response option. I could be wrong, but I understood that the RNZAF P-3K's are NOT integrated or fitted with the AGM-65 Maverick missile and their only air to surface weapon is the Mk 46 Torpedo?

If this IS the case then RNZAF has no real capability against the majority of surface targets anyway...

I didn't suggest replacing the P-3 fleet entirely, only 2-3 of your current P-3's and replacing them with Mariner or similar. Such a move would massively increase NZ's surveillance capability...