NZDF LTDP 2006 update

[Tasman]

While I don't disagree, why not just use the MB-339s? They have yet to be sold, still have airframe hours and have modern avionics (which I am sure can be upgraded). However if they are sold then I would support the procurement of Hawks.

As for interception and CAS, the ability to generate CAS out into the Pacific is extraordinarily difficult, even the RAAF with 70 F-18s and the 24 SHs would find it difficult to support and maintain the sortie rate required to maintain a meaningful CAS presence out into the Pacific. The AAR aircraft would be the first problem, then there are the airframes needed to maintain this as well, not to mention the crews!

When you consider the Pacific environment with the distance and lack of threat I think something like the AC-130 might be more appropriate (just as expensive, if not more so), or precision guided munitions off an MPA or UAV that has the range and persistence.

Interception of a Cessna, would require any aircraft to be pre-positioned to intercept and the recognition of the threat. Although I agree that such aircraft would operate well where there was an event on (APEC, Rugby World Cup) and the airspace was closed and monitored. But even the Rugby World Cup, there would be games in 5 cities across the country!!

I would put the MB339s back in service if they can't be sold off, which seems to be the case at present. They would be better than nothing and I have supported their retention in earlier posts. However, given a choice, the Hawks seem to me to have more capability and would provide a common platform with the RAAF, simplifying pilot exchanges and joint training.

Special events like a Rugby World Cup or a visit by an important dignitary were what I had in mind when I talked about an ability to intercept. Even in Australia, CAPS are only arranged over cities in this sort of situation. For example, FA-18A Hornets flew CAP over Melbourne during the Commonwealth Games in 2006.

For light strike against shipping I see the Hawks handling targets closer to the coast that have found their way inside the outer screen of AShM armed P3Ks.

I concede that there would be difficulties in many potential Pacific trouble spots in getting the Hawks to where they could fly CAS. This is probably a job for helos flown from the new MRV or from RAN LHDs (hopefully F-35Bs in the future - OK, maybe that's a dream! ). I would have thought, though, that there would still be spots where the Hawk could be deployed, sometimes through the invitation of another Pacific country.

Cheers

 

[Whiskyjack]

The MB 339s in my opinion have limitations doing the Maritime role much like the A4s. The MB339s were built as a trainer, but i believe that they have limited range and speed and weapon load such as the hawke.

Don't disagree, but if you already have the airframes....

As to the CAS into the pacific if this was so difficult then why did NZ buy the A4 in the first place.? The Hawk has an operating range of 550km and i would assume the A4 would have been the same, and this would be more than adequate to police and take responsibility in hand for any eventualities. The same for the Tasman Sea ops. The other thing is that our crew can also get the training with our auzzie brothers with the same type. I believe that this would speed up the processes of establishing our front line air combat wing.

The RNZAF got the A4 because the Govt of the day wouldn'y buy them the F4! More seriously if you talk to the pilots that flew it about CAS into the Pacific they will die from laughter.

Lets not get Strike and CAS confused here.

If a potential enemy is so close that it requires a fast jet strike (as opposed to a terrorist fishing/merchant ship/boat) from the coast of NZ, then IMHO we will have nothing to stop this enemy as it has already come past the ADF and USN.

A terrorist fishing/merchant ship/boat can be sunk (if that is what is required) by a P3/UAV attack. A UAV could drop a 250lb/500ln PGM from 30,000-40,000ft and be safely outside all Shoulder launched SAMs. Cheaper, more useful for the NZDF Environment.

I am all for having the 339/Hawk but lets not create missions for them that can be easily handled by existing or more cost effective assets.

I do agree that using them for a CAP at a high level event makes a lot of sense.

 

[Markus40]

If the issue is about CAS then the Goshawk which i am a supporter of does have a range of 1400 Kms with 13,000 pounds (5,897 kg) approx. and with Internal fuel capacity 2,893 pounds (1,312 kg) making it more suited to our geographical location. So the issue regarding the CAS from New Zealand really isnt an issue. As to the cost im not sure but i would imagine well with in a National Partyies ability to fund it seriously.

I would put the MB339s back in service if they can't be sold off, which seems to be the case at present. They would be better than nothing and I have supported their retention in earlier posts. However, given a choice, the Hawks seem to me to have more capability and would provide a common platform with the RAAF, simplifying pilot exchanges and joint training.

Special events like a Rugby World Cup or a visit by an important dignitary were what I had in mind when I talked about an ability to intercept. Even in Australia, CAPS are only arranged over cities in this sort of situation. For example, FA-18A Hornets flew CAP over Melbourne during the Commonwealth Games in 2006.

For light strike against shipping I see the Hawks handling targets closer to the coast that have found their way inside the outer screen of AShM armed P3Ks.

I concede that there would be difficulties in many potential Pacific trouble spots in getting the Hawks to where they could fly CAS. This is probably a job for helos flown from the new MRV or from RAN LHDs (hopefully F-35Bs in the future - OK, maybe that's a dream! ). I would have thought, though, that there would still be spots where the Hawk could be deployed, sometimes through the invitation of another Pacific country.

Cheers

 

[Whiskyjack]

If the issue is about CAS then the Goshawk which i am a supporter of does have a range of 1400 Kms with 13,000 pounds (5,897 kg) approx. and with Internal fuel capacity 2,893 pounds (1,312 kg) making it more suited to our geographical location. So the issue regarding the CAS from New Zealand really isnt an issue. As to the cost im not sure but i would imagine well with in a National Partyies ability to fund it seriously.

I think you may be mistaken there, that gives a radius of 500Km, the closest Islands to NZ are 1000Km, Australia is 2000km. CAS requires an aistrike to be called in from ground troops within minutes...

You would need aircrafdt to be loitoring around the target area, the math just does not add up.

BAe claims a CAS radius of 230Km.

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRH9703/FR9703g.htm

 

[Markus40]

To be honest the MB339s are better used for training our pilots. They could be used as a secondary role. But not as a primary asset for nuetralising a threat.

Im not really interested in discussing the F4 issue as that now is a pipe dream that simply didnt happen. The A4 in hind site is an aircraft that has similar characteristics to the Hawk and Goshawk. These are the type of jets that i am looking at which would have more relevance than any other platform in my opinion.

I have already indicated that they have the "safety margins" for New Zealands immediate security issues and would be good to have as a safety net for any sea, air threats.

Another thing to consider is this. I really wouldnt want to be relying on the Australian Navy or the USN to be just carrying out what should be our area of security responsibilities, if we had the air assets like described to carry out that mission. I dont believe for one minute that a sea or air target off shore at around 500km is too close for New Zealand to not take a preemptive option against that target should it be required quickly. New Zealand has a 200 kilometer exclusion zone and i would view that as a danger zone for action thus requiring our fast attack assets.

Don't disagree, but if you already have the airframes....



The RNZAF got the A4 because the Govt of the day wouldn'y buy them the F4! More seriously if you talk to the pilots that flew it about CAS into the Pacific they will die from laughter.

Lets not get Strike and CAS confused here.

If a potential enemy is so close that it requires a fast jet strike (as opposed to a terrorist fishing/merchant ship/boat) from the coast of NZ, then IMHO we will have nothing to stop this enemy as it has already come past the ADF and USN.

A terrorist fishing/merchant ship/boat can be sunk (if that is what is required) by a P3/UAV attack. A UAV could drop a 250lb/500ln PGM from 30,000-40,000ft and be safely outside all Shoulder launched SAMs. Cheaper, more useful for the NZDF Environment.

I am all for having the 339/Hawk but lets not create missions for them that can be easily handled by existing or more cost effective assets.

I do agree that using them for a CAP at a high level event makes a lot of sense.

 

[Tasman]

I think you may be mistaken there, that gives a radius of 500Km, the closest Islands to NZ are 1000Km, Australia is 2000km. CAS requires an aistrike to be called in from ground troops within minutes...

You would need aircrafdt to be loitoring around the target area, the math just does not add up.

BAe claims a CAS radius of 230Km.

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRH9703/FR9703g.htm

That's why mentioned the situation of the Hawks being in another Pacific country through the invitation of the legitimate government. The Hawks would then be based in that country alongside their army colleagues.

However, I think strike, air defence and CAS would just be side benefits of the Hawk. The most important issue to me is the development and maintenance of a group of pilots, support staff and facilities for a basic air combat force that could be expanded and equipped with front line aircraft if the need arises in the future.

Cheers

 

[Whiskyjack]

To be honest the MB339s are better used for training our pilots. They could be used as a secondary role. But not as a primary asset for nuetralising a threat.

Agreed

Im not really interested in discussing the F4 issue as that now is a pipe dream that simply didnt happen. The A4 in hind site is an aircraft that has similar characteristics to the Hawk and Goshawk. These are the type of jets that i am looking at which would have more relevance than any other platform in my opinion.

fair enough

I have already indicated that they have the "safety margins" for New Zealands immediate security issues and would be good to have as a safety net for any sea, air threats.

Another thing to consider is this. I really wouldnt want to be relying on the Australian Navy or the USN to be just carrying out what should be our area of security responsibilities, if we had the air assets like described to carry out that mission. I dont believe for one minute that a sea or air target off shore at around 500km is too close for New Zealand to not take a preemptive option against that target should it be required quickly. New Zealand has a 200 kilometer exclusion zone and i would view that as a danger zone for action thus requiring our fast attack assets.

Two points:

1: if the threat is a navy task group then my point is valid, the USN and ADF have been defeated and nothing we have will be able to stop them, including Hawks, 339s, P3s etc...

2: If the target in question is a Fishing Boat, merchant ship, etc... then before it can be attacked it must be found, which will be by P-3 or UAV, so why not have the P-3, UAV sink it? For it to be sunk by a Hawk or 339 would mean they would have to be forward based as they only have an attack range of 500km FROM THEIR BASE!

I believe that the NZDF needs 339s or Hawks to provide specialist training for the Army and Navy, it will also keep NZ in the fast jet game. I also agree that in extreme circumstances they could be used for combat duty. But based on the training alone they are justified, trying to justify them in terms of combat usage will IMO actually hurt the case for them as those opposed will shoot down the combat argument in the arena of public perception.

 

[Whiskyjack]

That's why mentioned the situation of the Hawks being in another Pacific country through the invitation of the legitimate government. The Hawks would then be based in that country alongside their army colleagues.

However, I think strike, air defence and CAS would just be side benefits of the Hawk. The most important issue to me is the development and maintenance of a group of pilots, support staff and facilities for a basic air combat force that could be expanded and equipped with front line aircraft if the need arises in the future.

Cheers

I agree, the potential is there in certain circumstances, but it would be the exception not the rule.

As I have posted above I believe they are justified in terms of training (Air, Sea and Land) alone.

 

[Markus40]

I dont know where you got your info from my dear friend. I would assume also that the air attack assets would have external fuel tanks to be able to extend their range. The other important point here is I DONT WANT TO GO TO AUSTRALIA OR THE ISLANDS.!!! I only want to go to where the threat is between Australia or between the islands, Somewhere. The kind of scenario i am talking about is one closer to home but within the jets operating radius. The Hawk definitly has the capability and has the ability to reach out into the ocean at reasonable distances.

Specifications (Hawk 128)
Data from Royal Air Force,[4] BAE Systems,[5] and Air Vectors[6]

General characteristics
Crew: 2: student, instructor
Length: 12.43 m (40 ft 9 in)
Wingspan: 9.94 m (32 ft 7 in)
Height: 3.98 m (13 ft 1 in)
Wing area: 16.70 m² (179.64 ft²)
Empty weight: 4,480 kg (9,880 lb)
Useful load: 3,000 kg (6,600 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 9,100 kg (20,000 lb)
Powerplant: 1× Rolls-Royce Adour Mk.951 turbofan with FADEC, 29 kN (6,500 lbf)
Performance
Never exceed speed: 1.2 Mach
Maximum speed: .84 Mach (1,028 km/h, 638 mph) at altitude
Range: 2,520 km (1,360 nm, 1,565 mi)
Service ceiling: 13,565 m (44,500 ft)
Rate of climb: 47 m/s (9,300 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.65
Armament
Note: all armament is optional.
1× 30 mm ADEN cannon, in centreline pod
Up to 6,800 lb (3,085 kg) of weapons on five hardpoints, including:
4× AIM-9 Sidewinder or ASRAAM on wing pylons and wingtip rails
1,500 lb (680 kg), limited to one centreline and two wing pylons (Hawk T.1)

As far as loiter is concerned our targets we are talking about are sea targets at 20-30 Knots. Not at 500-800 Km / hour.!!! Therefore loitre isnt required and not needed to take up fuel. The stats above dont equal yours.

I think you may be mistaken there, that gives a radius of 500Km, the closest Islands to NZ are 1000Km, Australia is 2000km. CAS requires an aistrike to be called in from ground troops within minutes...

You would need aircrafdt to be loitoring around the target area, the math just does not add up.

BAe claims a CAS radius of 230Km.

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRH9703/FR9703g.htm

 

[Whiskyjack]

I dont know where you got your info from my dear friend. I would assume also that the air attack assets would have external fuel tanks to be able to extend their range. The other important point here is I DONT WANT TO GO TO AUSTRALIA OR THE ISLANDS.!!! I only want to go to where the threat is between Australia or between the islands, Somewhere. The kind of scenario i am talking about is one closer to home but within the jets operating radius. The Hawk definitly has the capability and has the ability to reach out into the ocean at reasonable distances.

Specifications (Hawk 128)
Data from Royal Air Force,[4] BAE Systems,[5] and Air Vectors[6]

General characteristics
Crew: 2: student, instructor
Length: 12.43 m (40 ft 9 in)
Wingspan: 9.94 m (32 ft 7 in)
Height: 3.98 m (13 ft 1 in)
Wing area: 16.70 m² (179.64 ft²)
Empty weight: 4,480 kg (9,880 lb)
Useful load: 3,000 kg (6,600 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 9,100 kg (20,000 lb)
Powerplant: 1× Rolls-Royce Adour Mk.951 turbofan with FADEC, 29 kN (6,500 lbf)
Performance
Never exceed speed: 1.2 Mach
Maximum speed: .84 Mach (1,028 km/h, 638 mph) at altitude
Range: 2,520 km (1,360 nm, 1,565 mi)
Service ceiling: 13,565 m (44,500 ft)
Rate of climb: 47 m/s (9,300 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.65
Armament
Note: all armament is optional.
1× 30 mm ADEN cannon, in centreline pod
Up to 6,800 lb (3,085 kg) of weapons on five hardpoints, including:
4× AIM-9 Sidewinder or ASRAAM on wing pylons and wingtip rails
1,500 lb (680 kg), limited to one centreline and two wing pylons (Hawk T.1)

As far as loiter is concerned our targets we are talking about are sea targets at 20-30 Knots. Not at 500-800 Km / hour.!!! Therefore loitre isnt required and not needed to take up fuel. The stats above dont equal yours.

Markus the Range of an aircraft is usually given CLEAN (no weapons but full external and internal fuel), it is the Ferry Range. As soon as you load it and send it on a mission the range reduces significantly. For instance the A4 had a range of 3600kms but a combat strike radius of 550km loaded with weapons!!!

So you will understand that the 230km range is valid and does come from a reputable source talking about weapon loads etc...

as for Range/Strike problems etc please see my comments above.

 

[Markus40]

Point 1- Agreed. However thats not going to happen in the immediate future so lets cross that one out.

Point 2-Its probable that the target in question may not be identified till its closer to NZ waters. IE Fishing boat, merchant ship, or even a flying aircraft that has slipped through with Bios. on board.

As we now know for sure the Hawk has a range of 2500 Km. Even with external fuel tanks it can reach and loitre the target and nutralise it. No question about that.

Yes. i agree with you on your last statement and some peoples, usually as the small minority will want to make this a political matter and link it to the anti nuclear issue. However in any case they will need to be "seen" as combat aircraft for the security of NZ by the military establishment.



Two points:

1: if the threat is a navy task group then my point is valid, the USN and ADF have been defeated and nothing we have will be able to stop them, including Hawks, 339s, P3s etc...

2: If the target in question is a Fishing Boat, merchant ship, etc... then before it can be attacked it must be found, which will be by P-3 or UAV, so why not have the P-3, UAV sink it? For it to be sunk by a Hawk or 339 would mean they would have to be forward based as they only have an attack range of 500km FROM THEIR BASE!

I believe that the NZDF needs 339s or Hawks to provide specialist training for the Army and Navy, it will also keep NZ in the fast jet game. I also agree that in extreme circumstances they could be used for combat duty. But based on the training alone they are justified, trying to justify them in terms of combat usage will IMO actually hurt the case for them as those opposed will shoot down the combat argument in the arena of public perception.[/QUOTE]

 

[Markus40]

Hi Whiskyjack. Im still having trouble with your stats. You talk about the ferry range of the hawke being 230km. Right? Well two things. The following site states Ferry range at 3094km. Now if this was wrong if we halved it that would still give us 1500km and secondly with externals, that would increase the ferry range significantly. This would give NZ full autonomy almost on the Tasman Sea.

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/uk/bae_systems/hawk/hawk1.htm


Specifications
BAE SYSTEMS Hawk T.Mk.1
Crew: Two (Instructor - Rear cockpit, Trainee - Front cockpit)
Dimensions: Length 38 ft 11 in (11.86 m) incl. nose probe, 36 ft 7.75 in (11.17 m) excl. nose probe; Height 13 ft 1.24 in (3.99 m); Wing Span 30 ft 9.75 in (9.39 m); Wing Area 179.60 sq ft (16.69 sq m)
Engines: One Rolls-Royce/Turbomeca Adour Mk151-01 rated at 5,200 lb st (23.13 kN) dry
Weights: Empty Equipped 8,040 lb (3647 kg); Normal Take-off 11,100 lb (5035 kg); Maximum Take-off 12,566 lb (5700 kg)
Armament: Normal maximum external ordnance 1,500 lb (680 kg), Absolute maximum external ordnance 6,800 lb (3084 kg) on three hard points. Loads may comprise single 30-mm gun pod under the fuselage, and two AIM-9L Sidewinder air-to-air missiles or light bombs or [Export versions only] two underwing drop tanks of up to 190 Imp gal (228 US gal, 864 litres)

Performance: Maximum level speed 560 kt (645 mph, 1038 km/h) at 11,000 ft (3355 m); Maximum rate of climb at sea level 9,300 ft/min (2835 m/min); Service ceiling 50,000 ft (15240 m); Standard range 1310 nm (1509 miles, 2428 km); Ferry range 1670 nm (1923 miles, 3094 km)

Markus the Range of an aircraft is usually given CLEAN (no weapons but full external and internal fuel), it is the Ferry Range. As soon as you load it and send it on a mission the range reduces significantly. For instance the A4 had a range of 3600kms but a combat strike radius of 550km loaded with weapons!!!

So you will understand that the 230km range is valid and does come from a reputable source talking about weapon loads etc...

as for Range/Strike problems etc please see my comments above.

 

[KH-12]

Realistically , the P3's with PGM could fulfill all of the foreseen "strike" requirements and they have (all will have once the upgrade is finished) very good sensors for both air to air and air to surface tracking and targeting as well as a pretty good mission radius, just need to sort out those damn smokey T56's

I agree with WJ we should use the MB339's as we have already paid for them and they still have a reasonable airframe life left on them, not sure the step up to something like the Hawk is justifiable for the relatively small increase in capability.

 

[KH-12]

Hi Whiskyjack. Im still having trouble with your stats. You talk about the ferry range of the hawke being 230km. Right? Well two things. The following site states Ferry range at 3094km. Now if this was wrong if we halved it that would still give us 1500km and secondly with externals, that would increase the ferry range significantly. This would give NZ full autonomy almost on the Tasman Sea.

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/uk/bae_systems/hawk/hawk1.htm


Specifications
BAE SYSTEMS Hawk T.Mk.1
Crew: Two (Instructor - Rear cockpit, Trainee - Front cockpit)
Dimensions: Length 38 ft 11 in (11.86 m) incl. nose probe, 36 ft 7.75 in (11.17 m) excl. nose probe; Height 13 ft 1.24 in (3.99 m); Wing Span 30 ft 9.75 in (9.39 m); Wing Area 179.60 sq ft (16.69 sq m)
Engines: One Rolls-Royce/Turbomeca Adour Mk151-01 rated at 5,200 lb st (23.13 kN) dry
Weights: Empty Equipped 8,040 lb (3647 kg); Normal Take-off 11,100 lb (5035 kg); Maximum Take-off 12,566 lb (5700 kg)
Armament: Normal maximum external ordnance 1,500 lb (680 kg), Absolute maximum external ordnance 6,800 lb (3084 kg) on three hard points. Loads may comprise single 30-mm gun pod under the fuselage, and two AIM-9L Sidewinder air-to-air missiles or light bombs or [Export versions only] two underwing drop tanks of up to 190 Imp gal (228 US gal, 864 litres)

Performance: Maximum level speed 560 kt (645 mph, 1038 km/h) at 11,000 ft (3355 m); Maximum rate of climb at sea level 9,300 ft/min (2835 m/min); Service ceiling 50,000 ft (15240 m); Standard range 1310 nm (1509 miles, 2428 km); Ferry range 1670 nm (1923 miles, 3094 km)

I thought the reference was to an effective combat radius (with weapons) rather than a maximum range with all external hardpoints loaded up with fuel tanks, and cruising at a moderate power setting at high altitude, which is what you would need to do to get the 3000km.

 

[Markus40]

My point is with the the information you see in front of you its obvious, and doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Hawk can do the job effectively using external tanks and hardpoints to even get to a 1000km radius and come home without having to "suck" for gas. The Ferry Range info is obvious for all to see.

The range i was referring to was only an indication than going on about a combat radius. To be honest the Hawk being used as a Maritime tool can "select" the weapons it needs for the mission without all the extras like air to air weapons which it obviously doesnt need.

I thought the reference was to an effective combat radius (with weapons) rather than a maximum range with all external hardpoints loaded up with fuel tanks, and cruising at a moderate power setting at high altitude, which is what you would need to do to get the 3000km.

 

[Markus40]

The MB339 isnt a combat aircraft in its true form. I know that the Argentine Airforce tried to use them in the Falklands Campaign to nil effect. They have serious limitations in my view to operating a fast jet squadron like the hawk.

However in saying that, they still could be used in the training of future pilots in the role of training strike pilots for the Hawk. The Hawk is a significant increase in capability to the MB339. Just chk out the stats. And if you say for the small increase in capability then its better to scrap the MB339s and train the pilots on the Hawks like RAAF does with their pilots. Makes sense and dollars right?

Realistically , the P3's with PGM could fulfill all of the foreseen "strike" requirements and they have (all will have once the upgrade is finished) very good sensors for both air to air and air to surface tracking and targeting as well as a pretty good mission radius, just need to sort out those damn smokey T56's

I agree with WJ we should use the MB339's as we have already paid for them and they still have a reasonable airframe life left on them, not sure the step up to something like the Hawk is justifiable for the relatively small increase in capability.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Hi Whiskyjack. Im still having trouble with your stats. You talk about the ferry range of the hawke being 230km. Right? Well two things. The following site states Ferry range at 3094km. Now if this was wrong if we halved it that would still give us 1500km and secondly with externals, that would increase the ferry range significantly. This would give NZ full autonomy almost on the Tasman Sea.

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/uk/bae_systems/hawk/hawk1.htm


Specifications
BAE SYSTEMS Hawk T.Mk.1
Crew: Two (Instructor - Rear cockpit, Trainee - Front cockpit)
Dimensions: Length 38 ft 11 in (11.86 m) incl. nose probe, 36 ft 7.75 in (11.17 m) excl. nose probe; Height 13 ft 1.24 in (3.99 m); Wing Span 30 ft 9.75 in (9.39 m); Wing Area 179.60 sq ft (16.69 sq m)
Engines: One Rolls-Royce/Turbomeca Adour Mk151-01 rated at 5,200 lb st (23.13 kN) dry
Weights: Empty Equipped 8,040 lb (3647 kg); Normal Take-off 11,100 lb (5035 kg); Maximum Take-off 12,566 lb (5700 kg)
Armament: Normal maximum external ordnance 1,500 lb (680 kg), Absolute maximum external ordnance 6,800 lb (3084 kg) on three hard points. Loads may comprise single 30-mm gun pod under the fuselage, and two AIM-9L Sidewinder air-to-air missiles or light bombs or [Export versions only] two underwing drop tanks of up to 190 Imp gal (228 US gal, 864 litres)

Performance: Maximum level speed 560 kt (645 mph, 1038 km/h) at 11,000 ft (3355 m); Maximum rate of climb at sea level 9,300 ft/min (2835 m/min); Service ceiling 50,000 ft (15240 m); Standard range 1310 nm (1509 miles, 2428 km); Ferry range 1670 nm (1923 miles, 3094 km)

From my above source:

Maritime attack operations with two rocket pods (mission radius 580 km);


Markus if the ferry range is 3000km then that is with max internal/external fuel flying at optimum conditions. As soon as you add weapons and combat flying the range will be significantly reduced as is shown above.

The Hawk does NOT have a 1000km strike radius. You are looking at the specifications but not placing them into the correct context.

 

[Whiskyjack]

My point is with the the information you see in front of you its obvious, and doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Hawk can do the job effectively using external tanks and hardpoints to even get to a 1000km radius and come home without having to "suck" for gas. The Ferry Range info is obvious for all to see.

The range i was referring to was only an indication than going on about a combat radius. To be honest the Hawk being used as a Maritime tool can "select" the weapons it needs for the mission without all the extras like air to air weapons which it obviously doesnt need.

Obviously it does because the Hawk does not have a 1000km strike radius carring weapons in a strike profile configuration, let alone a CAS one. From memory even the early model F-16s we were looking at getting don't have this!

 

[Whiskyjack]

The MB339 isnt a combat aircraft in its true form. I know that the Argentine Airforce tried to use them in the Falklands Campaign to nil effect. They have serious limitations in my view to operating a fast jet squadron like the hawk.

However in saying that, they still could be used in the training of future pilots in the role of training strike pilots for the Hawk. The Hawk is a significant increase in capability to the MB339. Just chk out the stats. And if you say for the small increase in capability then its better to scrap the MB339s and train the pilots on the Hawks like RAAF does with their pilots. Makes sense and dollars right?

The 339s that the RNZAF has are capable of using Mavs and Sidewinders, and were the most advanced model when bought.

Would still have significant range issues though.

 

[Markus40]

You are right WJ. The Ferry Range i believed did have weapons attached but that is obviously not the case.

HOWEVER.....

The Hawks Combat radius, (Hi-Lo-Hi) being at lets say 600km IS sufficient and adequate and justified to meet any situation should this arise from the Tasman or from the Pacific for New Zealands Air Defence and Maritime needs.

From my above source:

Maritime attack operations with two rocket pods (mission radius 580 km);


Markus if the ferry range is 3000km then that is with max internal/external fuel flying at optimum conditions. As soon as you add weapons and combat flying the range will be significantly reduced as is shown above.

The Hawk does NOT have a 1000km strike radius. You are looking at the specifications but not placing them into the correct context.