NZDF General discussion thread

[shanes_world_05]

Oh great another Consipracy Theorist mate contribute or get off now back to the topic, well I see positive things for Army in the WP, Mr C I think your right Rangers might be coming back, but they need to be based in Auckland & under Command 1NZSAS. I still remember when Rangers came down to Linton & 1RNZIR it did not take long before they lost there skills sets due mainly to CO's who did not know how to use them properly IMO your either a Commando/Ranger or not
we tried before to make them do both roles & it failed lets hope we learn our lessons well.

Well this is from my very biased self interest but would it be feasible to have the Ranger/Commando unit based in the nations capital? There are a number of group guys down here that might be interested. And it might just secure Trentham camps future considering the CIT grounds are large, next door and un-utilised. I no its just a poguey camp but a ranger unit there would be a respectable addition. Although Ohakea would give aerial mobility like nothing in Wellington could. And its abit close to media/public scrutiny. But Papakura isnt exactly hidden I guess.
The parliament grounds whilst not being a likely target at all does look like abit of a soft one. Having something close by in Trentham might be a good idea? Regarding the EEZ and Rod Oram, he does point to a interesting idea of satellite surveillance incorparating the efforts of private and military interests which might have overcome that little issue we had I think in 2007/2008 in trying to get our own satellite in the sky (please correct me where I am wrong here).

Cheers

 

[MrConservative]

Well this is from my very biased self interest but would it be feasible to have the Ranger/Commando unit based in the nations capital? There are a number of group guys down here that might be interested. And it might just secure Trentham camps future considering the CIT grounds are large, next door and un-utilised. I no its just a poguey camp but a ranger unit there would be a respectable addition. Although Ohakea would give aerial mobility like nothing in Wellington could. And its abit close to media/public scrutiny. But Papakura isnt exactly hidden I guess.
The parliament grounds whilst not being a likely target at all does look like abit of a soft one. Having something close by in Trentham might be a good idea? Regarding the EEZ and Rod Oram, he does point to a interesting idea of satellite surveillance incorparating the efforts of private and military interests which might have overcome that little issue we had I think in 2007/2008 in trying to get our own satellite in the sky (please correct me where I am wrong here).

Cheers

I think they will flog off Trentham Shane05 as it is smack bang in surburbia and thus will fetch a good price from Bob Jones and his mates. I think the NZDF will reduce to a depot size in Wellington other than Defence House. A place really to store and oganise for the frequent Ceremonials and such things as AR parade nights, which they will probably be forced to share with the Rockies.

Cadre Dave. Your right about the revised unofficial Rangers unit - in a perfect world should be at Rennie Lines and not Ohakea/Linton. However if the unit has a policy that its CO and CSM are ex NZSAS or seconded from NZSAS then based in thr Manawatu just might be OK. Yes the Army has done well out of this with extra troops mooted and reorganised so as to eventually get a third deployable Battalion.

OK so far so good - lets start lobbying for a Marine focused Squadron.

Lucasnz in my opinion Rod Oram is a media idiot. The multi-national plan to look after NZ's interests is absurd and so is the use of a military satellite that would have to be devised to do additional roles at great expense. Not with standing having to change the orbital characteristics to do both roles. To come out and state that the EEZ is in peril is simply stupid and attention seeking. The guy is a socialist mutt. Should stick to so called business reporting.

 

[Twickiwi]

I think they will flog off Trentham Shane05 as it is smack bang in surburbia and thus will fetch a good price from Bob Jones and his mates. I think the NZDF will reduce to a depot size in Wellington other than Defence House. A place really to store and oganise for the frequent Ceremonials and such things as AR parade nights, which they will probably be forced to share with the Rockies.

Cadre Dave. Your right about the revised unofficial Rangers unit - in a perfect world should be at Rennie Lines and not Ohakea/Linton. However if the unit has a policy that its CO and CSM are ex NZSAS or seconded from NZSAS then based in thr Manawatu just might be OK. Yes the Army has done well out of this with extra troops mooted and reorganised so as to eventually get a third deployable Battalion.

OK so far so good - lets start lobbying for a Marine focused Squadron.

Lucasnz in my opinion Rod Oram is a media idiot. The multi-national plan to look after NZ's interests is absurd and so is the use of a military satellite that would have to be devised to do additional roles at great expense. Not with standing having to change the orbital characteristics to do both roles. To come out and state that the EEZ is in peril is simply stupid and attention seeking. The guy is a socialist mutt. Should stick to so called business reporting.

Can you clarify for me Mr C: is the new ready reaction company a new extra comapny?

 

[MrConservative]

Twikiwi

It is not really a new company in nominal terms - its is the resourcing of a missing rifle company re-roled into what (Im suspecting from talks/emails from a year or so ago with a number of people) - the resurrection of the old Rangers Company. CadreDave is the one who might be more on the job on this than me as months ago I shifted back to the Northen Hemisphere and have not being able to get weekly gossip sessions likr I used to. .

 

[Cadredave]

Well this is from my very biased self interest but would it be feasible to have the Ranger/Commando unit based in the nations capital? There are a number of group guys down here that might be interested. And it might just secure Trentham camps future considering the CIT grounds are large, next door and un-utilised. I no its just a poguey camp but a ranger unit there would be a respectable addition. Although Ohakea would give aerial mobility like nothing in Wellington could. And its abit close to media/public scrutiny. But Papakura isnt exactly hidden I guess.
The parliament grounds whilst not being a likely target at all does look like abit of a soft one. Having something close by in Trentham might be a good idea? Regarding the EEZ and Rod Oram, he does point to a interesting idea of satellite surveillance incorparating the efforts of private and military interests which might have overcome that little issue we had I think in 2007/2008 in trying to get our own satellite in the sky (please correct me where I am wrong here).

Cheers

The main obstacle to Trentham is this there are no training areas close, the rifle ranges have been closed to NZDF for many years now, CIT building require major money to bring it upto scratch & all the support elements are up North, Auckland provides the following parachuting is conducted in Whenuapai, basic cliff assault can be done out of Whangaparoa camp, amphib can be tied in with the Navy IPV & OPV, a detachment of 3 Sqn is in direct support of 1NZSAS but more importantly you are part of a culture that promotes excellence, lets be honest Trentham like Waiouru will downsize period nothing is going to save those two camps.

 

[Cadredave]

Can you clarify for me Mr C: is the new ready reaction company a new extra comapny?

We currently have whats called a High Readiness Company based out of 2/1RNZIR in Burnham, this company is not a Comando/Ranger Company in any form they are a basic Rifle Company held at a higher standby level cant remember the time frame. My understanding of the Def WP is that the Rifle Company to support the SAS will be trained to carry out the nescessary Insertion methods that a Ranger would use, etc Para/Amphid & Ciff assault as well as the normal Rifle Company role to seek out & close, what we dont know yet is this coy coming from one of the two Infantry Battalions or is it going to be raised from scratch if it's new then watch this space as they will take over the tier two green role tasks currently being carried out by the SAS leaving the boys up north to concentrate on tier 1 roles only once qualified to DLOC.

 

[MrConservative]

We currently have whats called a High Readiness Company based out of 2/1RNZIR in Burnham, this company is not a Comando/Ranger Company in any form they are a basic Rifle Company held at a higher standby level cant remember the time frame. My understanding of the Def WP is that the Rifle Company to support the SAS will be trained to carry out the nescessary Insertion methods that a Ranger would use, etc Para/Amphid & Ciff assault as well as the normal Rifle Company role to seek out & close, what we dont know yet is this coy coming from one of the two Infantry Battalions or is it going to be raised from scratch if it's new then watch this space as they will take over the tier two green role tasks currently being carried out by the SAS leaving the boys up north to concentrate on tier 1 roles only once qualified to DLOC.

Cheers Dave - that last post very helpful indeed. In particular the reference to Whangaparoa as well the other SF training areas around the Auckland region.

If I might be so bold to suggest, if the joint base at OH goes well then it maybe that WP might be on the cards for for the same joint base treatment. The reason for that is that I lobbied Key at a dinner back in 2006 and again in 2007 directly over using WP as a joint base. Back then it looked like WP was for the chop under Phil Goof and Bob Harvey wanting his own airport. I outlined that a joint services base proposal would give the current base greater military utility and thus be less likely to be sold off in the future by making it as indespensible as OH. He warmed to the idea as he felt that there must continue to be elements of all 3 services in our only true metropolitan area. I have lobbied other MP's as well from time to time - even Mapp and Coleman. To be honest I half expected this White Paper to outline this WP option and like many was suprised over the Linton-Ohakea proposal in the White Paper. When a lot of the required roles "Rangers" will need are provided up North facilities wise and close proximity to Rennie Lines, I can see the Rangers ending up at WP at Joint Base Auckland in a few years possibly as the core of a new "3 Land Force Group" structure along with a specialist Marine Company and specialist Recconaisance Company ( as part of a fully realised 3/1 RNZIR), along with the 3rd Support Group outlined in the White Paper, as well as the HQ for the 3 AK/NTH Reserves and maybe 6 Hauraki Reserves. The Naval presence a given with Devonport so close and 6Sqd on site.

To recap: So initially the "Rangers" are likely to be OH based, within the current 1/1 Batt, and be part of 2 LFG (or its possibly under a new name as I feel that may change) whilst the Army transforms and gains the extra personnel to establish its third effective Battalion, however eventually when WP morphs into being a joint base and a Marine focused company is raised, the "Rangers" will transfer North and become part of a core part of a new "3rd Land Forces Group". There is room at WP for expansion and quite a few hectares of farmland on its western boundary so it is very much doable in that regard. :smilie

 

[shanes_world_05]

The main obstacle to Trentham is this there are no training areas close, the rifle ranges have been closed to NZDF for many years now, CIT building require major money to bring it upto scratch & all the support elements are up North, Auckland provides the following parachuting is conducted in Whenuapai, basic cliff assault can be done out of Whangaparoa camp, amphib can be tied in with the Navy IPV & OPV, a detachment of 3 Sqn is in direct support of 1NZSAS but more importantly you are part of a culture that promotes excellence, lets be honest Trentham like Waiouru will downsize period nothing is going to save those two camps.

Hey CadreDave,
What you say makes alot of sense and would seem alot more likely than my pie in the sky, but last couple of days when I go for my run past CIT there have been a few older looking guys uniform roaming about checking out thingsabout the campus. I am sure there were a few crowns in there too. Probably means nothing or if it means something then could be just looking for the end of year christmas booze up. Just thought I'd throw it in there. Heavily salted.
The fact that SAS are up there and the navy with Airforce not far away all makes sense for this company to start or move to Auckland. But am I right in thinking that it still leaves Wellington with a terratorial prescence only where it might make sense to have a reasonable sized RF unit. You can look at guarding against "terror" and all that but Iam more thinking like Chch earthquake and giving another option for guys (and girls now) with families where Wellington might be preferable to Auckland or say Ohakea. Brits used the same reason with moving units from the Shot to Essex and it kept the para reg up to reasonable strength. But I am speculating you would be closer to it on that one than me.

Different question. You dont know if there are any plans to acquire like the Brits and like the US a DM rifle for section level? I have heard from mates in UK that they are loving those AR10 like things and the US is apparently doubling the number of marksmen courses so wondering if that has currency for us?

Cheers

 

[Cadredave]

Hey CadreDave,
What you say makes alot of sense and would seem alot more likely than my pie in the sky, but last couple of days when I go for my run past CIT there have been a few older looking guys uniform roaming about checking out thingsabout the campus. I am sure there were a few crowns in there too. Probably means nothing or if it means something then could be just looking for the end of year christmas booze up. Just thought I'd throw it in there. Heavily salted.
The fact that SAS are up there and the navy with Airforce not far away all makes sense for this company to start or move to Auckland. But am I right in thinking that it still leaves Wellington with a terratorial prescence only where it might make sense to have a reasonable sized RF unit. You can look at guarding against "terror" and all that but Iam more thinking like Chch earthquake and giving another option for guys (and girls now) with families where Wellington might be preferable to Auckland or say Ohakea. Brits used the same reason with moving units from the Shot to Essex and it kept the para reg up to reasonable strength. But I am speculating you would be closer to it on that one than me.

Different question. You dont know if there are any plans to acquire like the Brits and like the US a DM rifle for section level? I have heard from mates in UK that they are loving those AR10 like things and the US is apparently doubling the number of marksmen courses so wondering if that has currency for us?

Cheers

Hey Shane,
Mr C is much closer to the mark, Wellington will become the main location for NZDF/JFHQ so no great change there CIT will house TTS (Trade Training School) & YDU / LSV schemes Trentham will become Base Depot staffed mainly with civi's, there was never a plan to base a RF unit in the Wellington area the Minister has made it clear he would like to see a Joint base in Ohakea as the main hub for the front line forces. We are already starting to see the immediate impact of the WP now, with all military adminsitrators being given the choice of trade changing or getting out, and that trade no longer exsisting come 31 Nov.

For me Trentham /Wellington offers nothing Linton is only 1 1/2 hours down the road, if a major earth quake occurs that RF unit would be very limited in its support it can provide, as all the heavy plant/communication/medical support is located in Linton. Im just looking forward to the day that CA briefs Army on the future shape & make up of his Army. One last thing Linton wont close 1RNZIR has some of the most upto date AFV workshops & facilities to house the LAV my guess you are looking at $40 - 70 million spent in the last 10 years for this unit no Govt will scrape that to build again in another location Linton will down size but my guess Ohakea will house the thirld manouvre unit & CSST

As for the markman rifle its on the horrizon we are currently trialing two types the HK417 & SCAR H that could change but the recession has slowed that project down, my fav to shoot was the HK417 very nice but then im biased as I from the M16/SLR generation.

CD

 

[shanes_world_05]

Cheers for the reply,

Hey Shane,
Mr C is much closer to the mark, Wellington will become the main location for NZDF/JFHQ so no great change there CIT will house TTS (Trade Training School) & YDU / LSV schemes Trentham will become Base Depot staffed mainly with civi's, there was never a plan to base a RF unit in the Wellington area the Minister has made it clear he would like to see a Joint base in Ohakea as the main hub for the front line forces. We are already starting to see the immediate impact of the WP now, with all military adminsitrators being given the choice of trade changing or getting out, and that trade no longer exsisting come 31 Nov.

For me Trentham /Wellington offers nothing Linton is only 1 1/2 hours down the road, if a major earth quake occurs that RF unit would be very limited in its support it can provide, as all the heavy plant/communication/medical support is located in Linton. Im just looking forward to the day that CA briefs Army on the future shape & make up of his Army. One last thing Linton wont close 1RNZIR has some of the most upto date AFV workshops & facilities to house the LAV my guess you are looking at $40 - 70 million spent in the last 10 years for this unit no Govt will scrape that to build again in another location Linton will down size but my guess Ohakea will house the thirld manouvre unit & CSST

As for the markman rifle its on the horrizon we are currently trialing two types the HK417 & SCAR H that could change but the recession has slowed that project down, my fav to shoot was the HK417 very nice but then im biased as I from the M16/SLR generation.

CD

Hi Cadre Dave.
That would explain it then. Looks pretty logical when you put it like that.
Except (sorry for doing this) for the earthquake thing.
I have had a very small part in some of the contractors briefings with Civil Defence because of an old job. Basically the two arterial routes wellington relies on are the Rimutaka hill road and the coast road. If an earthquake the size of Chch were to strike you would have millions of cubic metres of material to move for either route. The airport and harbour (both built on reclaimed land) would be right offs and having the first off fuel, water, personnel and some earthmoving gear (a couple of twenty tonners and a few JCB's might not sound lots but its a definite help) would be a good idea in my idea. Anything north of these two roads will be able to work in the northern portions of the slips fine with refuel and servicing readily accessible. But southern side would be relying on whatever already overstretched air and sea connections would be strung together.
I dont know what tonnage you need to move day to day to keep a couple of hundred thousand people hanging in there after an earthquake but it would have to be alot. To have Army assets in the disaster zone before the physical cutoff occured would be better in my view. At least as long as the earthmoving gear is here with fueland lubrication and the personnel are encamped with it and supplies to be self sufficient and productive. My view anyway. Actually since I had that job I know the pool of decent sized machines in wellington has gone down and more importantly more contractors are relying less on bulkfuel storage and more on oncall fuel delivery so compounds the issue.

417 sounds good. Any truth in the rumour of regulars (and terra's...fingers crossed) getting those FN Mk 48's?

Cheers.

 

[Cadredave]

Hi Cadre Dave.
That would explain it then. Looks pretty logical when you put it like that.
Except (sorry for doing this) for the earthquake thing.
I have had a very small part in some of the contractors briefings with Civil Defence because of an old job. Basically the two arterial routes wellington relies on are the Rimutaka hill road and the coast road. If an earthquake the size of Chch were to strike you would have millions of cubic metres of material to move for either route. The airport and harbour (both built on reclaimed land) would be right offs and having the first off fuel, water, personnel and some earthmoving gear (a couple of twenty tonners and a few JCB's might not sound lots but its a definite help) would be a good idea in my idea. Anything north of these two roads will be able to work in the northern portions of the slips fine with refuel and servicing readily accessible. But southern side would be relying on whatever already overstretched air and sea connections would be strung together.
I dont know what tonnage you need to move day to day to keep a couple of hundred thousand people hanging in there after an earthquake but it would have to be alot. To have Army assets in the disaster zone before the physical cutoff occured would be better in my view. At least as long as the earthmoving gear is here with fueland lubrication and the personnel are encamped with it and supplies to be self sufficient and productive. My view anyway. Actually since I had that job I know the pool of decent sized machines in wellington has gone down and more importantly more contractors are relying less on bulkfuel storage and more on oncall fuel delivery so compounds the issue.

417 sounds good. Any truth in the rumour of regulars (and terra's...fingers crossed) getting those FN Mk 48's?

Cheers.

Hey Shane I hear you ref the earthquake, having been involved with the Cristchurch event, Army first priority was security & communications under the umbrella of NZPOL, there was no heavy military earthmoving equip down south, Army has gone to leasing arrangements now as its just not practical holding onto machines we hardly use anymore, Chirstchurch first point of call was civilian contractors as they have the expertise for large scale earthmoving, Army expertise was also found in the TF who provided Civi Engineers/Inspectors etc as the RF dont have that capability.

As for the FN Mk 48 they are still under trial & no definate outcome has been finalised, & only the two RF Infantry Battalions were going to get them (depending on which weapon won the trial) only because of the amount of funding available at that time, unfortunately with the recession nothing has changed. hopefully we will se the first upgraded steyr in the next couple of years.

 

[shanes_world_05]

That comes as bit of a surprise to be honest. Thought there would still be a significant fleet of machines. But fair enough.

Cheers for that on the Mk48. I thought it abit surprising at the time that TF would get them at the same time as regulars. There seems to enough MAG's about for the TF sections so thought they would wear them out first.
On the DMR thing would the UK'schoice of that L129 over the 417 play any factor once the energy returns to the project? And will this filter down to TF?

Cheers for the replies

 

[Cadredave]

That comes as bit of a surprise to be honest. Thought there would still be a significant fleet of machines. But fair enough.

Cheers for that on the Mk48. I thought it abit surprising at the time that TF would get them at the same time as regulars. There seems to enough MAG's about for the TF sections so thought they would wear them out first.
On the DMR thing would the UK'schoice of that L129 over the 417 play any factor once the energy returns to the project? And will this filter down to TF?

Cheers for the replies

Hey Shane,
What ever weapon wins will be distributed to Combat first, Combat Spt & then CSS with the release of the WP you will see RF & TF merging & the current system (RF/TF) will disappear to what extent will be known after the TF review NZDF does not have the monetary resources to outfit all three services with a Mk 48 type weapon IMO TF/reserves will become a part of an RF unit like 1RNZIR so they can train on all weapon systems that are available to that unit. I think the days of having weapons spread across NZ & held in TF units is drawing to a close there will be a major shake up of NZDF/Army in the next few years.

 

[RegR]

I have been following the outcomes on here from the white paper and seems all three services are getting some useful and interesting tangible benefits that should at least keep the force at a credible minimum for what we do and hopefully take us into the future. Some of the proposals are still quite a while off and many(if not most) in the defence force will not even see them come to fruition between now and 2030. I just hope they seriously start looking into platforms/plans/policys soonish rather then just write this paper now only to leave it for years and end up taking a different path down the track or even conveiniently forget about alltogether.

The extra A109s is very welcome as with just the initial 5 I could not really see them being deployed without causing a strain back here plus will free up more smaller jobs from the expensive NH90s. Talk of using the C130s past the 10 years of the SLEP is just downright irresponsible, you can't keep scraping the bottom eventually you fall through, the slated 10 is even a push IMO, begin the long replacement process soon to avoid delays later on or at least fast track the MPA/medium transport/trainer to releive pressure. Same deal with the P3s. Obviously no surprises with the ACF debate, dead and buried unless NZ wins the global lottery.

The new tanker/minor sealift ship will not only keep us compliant but also help out the Canterbury as she seems quite busy with tsunamis, earthquakes, DOC work etc let alone her core military work. Frigate upgrade, about time and hopefully extensive. Combining Reso and Manawanui into a more capable module type ship will most probably be a good idea, was not sure why civis could not take on more of the hydrography role anyway.

I also agree the new Ranger coy should co-locate with NZSAS, like minded people/mentality/oppourtunities, it breeds excellence and avoids duplication of certain training. Was wondering why they could not just expand commandos into a coy+ and have a rotation process of black green role similar to pre commando SAS. Not to sure about the idea of having them in Whenuapai, no real benefit, just expand the support trades in Papakura instead of setting up more elsewhere + lots of room to build in the old Pap lines.
Although it looks as though a 3rd battalion will be raised I think we should look at just adding an extra company to each existing Bn at this stage and properly support and equip them first, surely that would be an easier transition than raising a entire battalion from the ground up and still give us the extra numbers to maintain long term ops.
The loss of 15 LAV rather than the earlier stated 35 should mean 20ish maybe converted to support types such as ambulance, C + C etc. I still think bushmaster would better suit these roles however at least we are not losing them completely now, they must have found some excess crews somewhere.
Also not to sure why the consolidation at Ohakea, Linton has some major facilities and now they want to build new ones in Ohakea? Don't really see how that saves money if you are going to keep both anyway. What trades are duplicated in both services? transport, supply, mechanics, medical surely not enough to warrant major moves, maybe cut back in certain areas and transfer services across city between the two but a wholesale move of units seems abit excessive and did'nt we try this with Whenuapai awhile ago and that was within the same service with most infrastructure already built. IMO If they want to save money then close the whole of Trentham and move them.

Seems our forces still need to save alot of money to pay for outputs however I wonder how many floors of high ranking officers they got sitting in Wellington coming up with cost cutting measures. a good start would be consolidating some of their jobs and maybe culling out the excess high paying salaries.

 

[Lucasnz]

Interesting discussion on the future of the NZDF in Wellington. I can't really see the need for retaining Trentham, but I do see the need to avoid the concentration forces on fewer location. On that basis keep Linton and disperse the roles at Trentham - JFHQ to Ohakea, Staff College to Woodbourne (and I would suggest maybe basic training for all three services to Woodbourne) etc etc.

Given that the TF contributed to the Christchurch earthquake recovery and other local civil defence emergencies around the country I would suggest that the loss of TF barracks will only occur in the minor cities like Invercargill etc. Also in the South Island you would have no defence unit South of Burnham. Regardless of location the TF is long overdue for a shake up - I could see the 6 TF units reducing to 2 more active and better equiped units, intergrated with RF planning but separate and more operationally capable.

Interesting read on Defence Projects on the MOD site.

 

[KiwiRob]

What will happen to the 15 LAV's? Will we try to sell them or cannibalise them for parts?

 

[MrConservative]

Per - Defence Projects Report

Reading between the lines it seems that the NZDF were not able to get defence officials and the cabinet to fund them better. This is suprising because a number of times in the requirements analysis section of this report, it seemed as if the cabinet default position was to give them slightly less than the lowest acceptable requirement. The LUH section has quite some variance between the 2003 version and the 2006 version over airframes. It seems that the 03 version was rather in depth and then the 06 version slanted to a more acceptable fiscal position. The best and final offer scenario came from a political decision and not an operational one. The NZDF got its MUH - but not enough.

When reading the report in terms of the MUH-LUH buy the benchmark position should be Option 5C. That is 10 medium utility aircraft (NH-90 TTH) and 10 training and light utility aircraft (AW-109). The report stated that 10 LUH was the effective and optimum mix to meet all key operational requirements, in tasks such as humanitarian aid and disaster relief operations, suitable for intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance roles. Of which 4 would be available for training. The 5 bought by the Labour government were only for training. All the extra role stuff was for media spin. Option 5B of 9 MUH and 8 LUH was the baseline it seems. Even then option 5B may delay response for counter terrorism due to concurrent tasking and no allowance had been made for attrition. It seems we are now going to meet option 5B - well maybe. The 9th MUH in a box is that attrition airframe one could say. The report is not clear on this - whether it is 9 operational MUH of 8 with a spare to achieve the option 5B level. However I note that due to favourable FX conditions the total cost of the project is $84m less than the original $777m. This means that a further NH-90 is possible, which will mean that Option 5B would be definately achieved if that funding is allowed to complete the projects capability ojectives.

Without the extra 3 airframes been purchased it seems as if the LUH would not have been able to offer much more than training. Though we were going to get one further LUH the inadequacies of Option 3A would have remained. Five LUH would not meet level four capability requirements, would provide inadequate counter terrorism capability and have little capacity for other government agency support. Also with just 5 there would be higher operating costs per aircraft. With eight aircraft we can now at least enable pilot and aircrew training, provide limited capacity for deployments of short duration (in the Pacific), and enable a limited amount of tasking in support of the NZDF, the Government and other departments and agencies. However, the optimum purchase of 10 LUH's (5C) would be best as it would offer the NZDF the right amount of flexibility. Again 4 LUH training aircraft and the ability to deploy 3 aircraft at DLOC with rotations. What I would like to see is the NZDF work towards achieving option 5C. This would mean that a third tranch of 2 LUH and a second tranche of 2 NH-90 (one of which has current funding capacity within the project allocation) to be purchased.

As for the SeaSprite rumours. I have read some good arguments for and against continuing with the SH-2G on other boards. My thoughts are as follows. If Kaman can get the (I) model FAA'éd and if they are to be offered at an attractive deal, then I would go for it as solution for an interim period. This will allow for a number of issues to be resolved - namely the future frigate / Canterbury replacement. By then the RAN decision will be long settled, which would allow for good project referencing. The question then is how many? As I have indicated in a previous post that there is likely to be 7 vessels in the RNZN which have hanger-deck facilities. This would mean that 3 operational for 5 airframes that we have at present would need to be lifted. The current SH-2G(NZ)'s have done a decade of dogged service an need a LEP in a couple of years. It would seem that buying "new" (I)'s would require them to be put out to pasture or at least INST airframes / attrition parts. With 11 of the (I) models up for grabs it might seem that the number is too many for the NZDF needs. However two things are to be bought to mind. Firstly, that I agree with some views that the excess (I)'s would be sold by the vendor(s) (Kaman/OZ Govt who expect something for all their trouble) as a total package. Might be that if the NZDF want the (I) and they wanted 8 airframes, then the deal might fall over as Kaman would not be so happy to have odds and ends unsold, unless there was another buyer willing to split the purchase. Secondly, if the RNZN acquired all 11 it would give the NZDF something of a luxury that they have not experienced with ships or aircraft for decades - spare tasking and/or attrition capacity. They could keep 8 flying happily in support / training of the RNZN vessels as well keep 3 in Reserve whilst canabilising the older (NZ)'s if needed. If the NZDF decide to get something truly multi-role down the track - for instance a German MESHD to replace the Endeavour or a small LHD like the Endurance 160 / 14K tonne baby Mistral, then those "spare" SH-2(I)'s would be soon gainfully employed. The Endurance / Mistral would provide for an adequate ASW platform if embarking a couple of (I)'s as could a MESHD vessel as well.

BTW as an aside - my personal view is that if we were offered $150m for the Canterbury - deliverable in 36 months to say the Phillipines who have / may have 7 Billion Peso's to spend on a MRV then I would say do it and then get the MRV that we actaully need for the future along the lines of a Endurance 160. Unfortunately that wont happen. Reading the current Report and again having a look at the Coles Report quickly today - I cannot stop thinking that it was possibly the worst decision we made. Though the C-130 upgrade and F-16 MLU would be a close run thing. ( If we were to get the Phillipines to buy the Grey Ferry we could squeeze some of those 17 A-4K's which will need a new home in a few weeks - chuck them in as a suprise) :laugh

One thing further, since I am on a paragraph roll, is that the only thing that would worry me regarding a further Protector OPV to be used as the basis of a Littoral Warfare Support vessel would be that its archilles heal - its two engines are not isolated / protected from each other - would mean that that would have to be addressed. Also the puny 25mm upfront. OK for EZZ patrols but if the vessel were to get actually in the real littorals - anything larger than a 25mm onshore if say the vessel is operating close to shore, would put it under a great risk of being immobilised. Militia's or any other motely group with access to cheaper - old weaponry with a better range than 2500m and the stuff is out there, would be a problem. So it has to be able to cope with nutters with technicals. If those issues can be sorted then it might be a passible solution. Nevertheless, the Protector OPV is still a flawed vessel in many ways and I also have reservations whether we should build another vessel just because we have one of a type anyway. (That is why I am not convinced over us building a Canterbury based JSS type vessel.) A JSS type vessel yes indeed, but not to the extent of digging ourselves deeper into a hole. As Lucas says a module system is best and I also agree with him that a vessel that can also fufill some presence and projection would be a big plus. And yes a survey module in the RNZN as NIWA are not the most objective of agencies.

 

[chis73]

As for the SeaSprite rumours. I have read some good arguments for and against continuing with the SH-2G on other boards. My thoughts are as follows. If Kaman can get the (I) model FAA'éd and if they are to be offered at an attractive deal, then I would go for it as solution for an interim period. This will allow for a number of issues to be resolved - namely the future frigate / Canterbury replacement. By then the RAN decision will be long settled, which would allow for good project referencing. The question then is how many? As I have indicated in a previous post that there is likely to be 7 vessels in the RNZN which have hanger-deck facilities. This would mean that 3 operational for 5 airframes that we have at present would need to be lifted. The current SH-2G(NZ)'s have done a decade of dogged service an need a LEP in a couple of years. It would seem that buying "new" (I)'s would require them to be put out to pasture or at least INST airframes / attrition parts. With 11 of the (I) models up for grabs it might seem that the number is too many for the NZDF needs. However two things are to be bought to mind. Firstly, that I agree with some views that the excess (I)'s would be sold by the vendor(s) (Kaman/OZ Govt who expect something for all their trouble) as a total package. Might be that if the NZDF want the (I) and they wanted 8 airframes, then the deal might fall over as Kaman would not be so happy to have odds and ends unsold, unless there was another buyer willing to split the purchase. Secondly, if the RNZN acquired all 11 it would give the NZDF something of a luxury that they have not experienced with ships or aircraft for decades - spare tasking and/or attrition capacity. They could keep 8 flying happily in support / training of the RNZN vessels as well keep 3 in Reserve whilst canabilising the older (NZ)'s if needed.

I hope that the government gives the Seasprite option very serious consideration before signing up for more A109s. To me, the A109 is too light for the utilty role (especially slung load performance). Now it seems that they won't be operable from the MRV or OPVs either (a requirement in the just released Major projects report).

I have an idea of what to do with the extra Seaprites (should we acquire all 11 of them at a firesale discount). Set up at least 3 as the ASW version with dipping sonar as per the Egyptian aircraft. The remaining 8, convert back to something like the HH-2 (ie utility role without radar). These would become the LUH. Keep the 5 A109s for training, reconnaissance, light SAR & liason duties (but mainly training & liason).

Advantages of such a Seaprite option:

• Same size cabin as A109 (3-4 passengers, 1-2 stretchers)
• Massive increase in operational range & slung load capability
• Fully marinized airframe, operable from naval vessels
• Should make spares cheaper with more airframes in service
• Proven performer. The H-2 made it's name as a utility & combat SAR chopper in vietnam before it was ever considered as a frigate ASW copter. It has proven itself in the utility role in NZ service.

Disadvantages:

• more expensive to operate
• spares & support from a small manufacturer. Not many airframes in service globally (ie the same problems that we currently have with the SH-2G)

Having said that, support from a big manufacturer for an aircraft in widespread production (the NH90) hasn't been that flash either.

The ASW SH-2 with dipping sonar (perhaps removable?) would become the frigate version, the current SH-2G(NZ) could then operate from the MRV & OPVs, with the Air Force operating the remaining "UH-2G".

Of course, I expect this will never happen, but I would like to see it considered as a serious option.

Chis73

 

[recce.k1]

Interesting options, as I believe a Seasprite would be more appropriate for current RNZN operations than these non-maranised AW109LUH's on order.

I like the ASW dipping sonar option as suggested, as the RNZN lacks this capability at present (assuming it's feasible) and as you say not all machines would need to be equipped, just enough for Frigate operations, a backup and for training (so 3, maybe 4).

I wouldn't take off the search radar though, as these are invaluable (even for less complex OPV and Canterbury use), especially seeing they already exist. I'm also not sure whether the remaining should be converted to basic utility work and wouldn't think the RNZAF would want them (except you might have a point in that it could fill the Huey gap i.e. inbetween the AW109LUH and NH90, but I suspect RNZAF would want to keep it simple and simply acquire more NH90's to give 10 as the Major Project Report suggests is the optimum number for operations etc).

What perhaps could be done though with any potential extra Seasprites, rather than dumb them down for utility roles, is to work out whether they could also be deployed for land support operations (a la like RN helicopter assets being deployed to Afghanistan) due to their additional radar/sensor fit out? If this is feasible with a Seasprite(?) then why not, seeing we are now seeing traditional (upgraded) maritime patrol aircraft such as the P3 and Nimrod providing overland survellience and intelligence gathering.

So how useful would a Seasprite be in this role for the NZ Army? The Major Projects Report suggests that the AW109 could be deployed for "Command, control and communications" support on operations (whilst the NH90's be used for air assault, air movements, aerial sustainment and combat ops etc). Perhaps then there would be some sort of modular or basic fitout for the AW109's to perform this role? But seeing the AW109's are primarily training and homeland light utility workhorses, would the more capable Seasprite be more appropriate?

 

[RegR]

I thought the ex RAN seasprites were second hand frames with upgraded avionics that would not mesh whilst ours were new build frames with baseline avionics that did the job so therefore why would we buy the ex aussie 11 for operational use and relegate ours to the attrition pile? If our newer sprites are due for a LEP then why would someone elses second hand models(that are still yet to work) be favoured as the soloution. I would have thought we would go for a smaller number of the RAN frames ie 3, and use the least combat capable to operate off the OPVs/future tanker where they will mainly be used in more of a utility role such as ship to shore/ship transfers, DOC lifts etc. That would mean Kaman would still have a relatively large fleet to sell to another potential customer otherwise we would probably have to take the lot and end up with more sprites then we can shake a stick at and every ship could have one, HMNZS Cant even 2 + spares and attrition however not a requirement as every ship will generally not be at sea at once let alone require helo support on all tasks. Maybe 3 seaprites to satisfy naval demand if possible and 3 A109s to fullfill air force tasks but not 11 aged failed seasprites to fill both roles.
Also why would the Resoloution/Manawanui replacement require armament larger then 25mm or even armament at all? Hydro and diving support??? the current ships are no where near that armed and do the job effectively, that would just add more expense at no real gain, a helo deck would be more beneficial. The OPVs are not for WWIII, they have their purpose and are armed to suit otherwise if we wanted big guns and all the whistles we would have combined the 2 OPVs into a small frigate, agreed some improvements could be made but lets not go overboard if there is no need, they are not our combat fleet they are part of our patrol fleet.