NZDF - Now and the Future.

[Whiskyjack]

At the end of the day the thing that protects NZ also makes it difficult to project the NZDF fast. Distance that is expensive to overcome.

 

[Markus40]

Sure on take of and landing i understand but if the aircraft is cruising at altitude this situation doesnt come into play. When an aircraft like the C130 takes on more fuel=more weight, this might have a small effect on usage but will still extend the aircraft further due to the aerodynamic forces and cruising flight being less at that altitude. I think we saw a dramatic example of this type of scenario during the Falklands war, and the extreme distances with the RAF carrying weopons and supplies.

Its interesting to note that the RNZAF does not openly disclose its range with the C130 due to securitry reasons, and so im wondering whether the information on its website about Gross Laiden weights and distances are truely correct. I have a friend who is in the Air force and based at Whenuapei and i am going to check some of these issues out and get the speculations out of the way.

Markus regardless of the weight of cargo the aircraft still has a maximum load it's can't exceed. If you get your C-130 in to the air with a heavy load, you can't keep adding extra fuel (which = extra weight) while it is in the air once it has reached a certain level (max gross weight). Likewise a C-130 converted to aerial refuelling duties can't carry a maximum cargo weight of fuel very far, because of both maximum gross weight and maximum take off weight.

 

[KH-12]

You probably could exceed MAUW in the air, as the additional fuel weight will be in the wings , but as a practice it would not be reccommended, you will be dealing with comprimised handling issues at the least, I remember about a case in Vietnam were a C130 took off with around 350 people on board, I dont think you would want to do that on a routine basis.

 

[Markus40]

What do you mean compromised handling issues? Are you talking about the art of refueling mid air? I hope not. There is no issue in refueling mid air and having a larger than normal payload delivered at longer distances by a tanker. Im still totally unconvinced with the weak arguments so far that the current fleet of C130s couldnt achieve this given our location. We wouldnt be doing this job every day as this is an emergency situation, but if the British could do it in the Falklands with their C130s then the RNZAF can do it too.

Taking off with 350 people is a little different to delivering a smaller number of personel and its equipment over a longer distance.

You probably could exceed MAUW in the air, as the additional fuel weight will be in the wings , but as a practice it would not be reccommended, you will be dealing with comprimised handling issues at the least, I remember about a case in Vietnam were a C130 took off with around 350 people on board, I dont think you would want to do that on a routine basis.

 

[Whiskyjack]

What do you mean compromised handling issues? Are you talking about the art of refueling mid air? I hope not. There is no issue in refueling mid air and having a larger than normal payload delivered at longer distances by a tanker. Im still totally unconvinced with the weak arguments so far that the current fleet of C130s couldnt achieve this given our location. We wouldnt be doing this job every day as this is an emergency situation, but if the British could do it in the Falklands with their C130s then the RNZAF can do it too.

Taking off with 350 people is a little different to delivering a smaller number of personel and its equipment over a longer distance.

I agree, unless you are talking specialised supplies (such as the Falklands) or a SAR mission, the amount that can be delivered is inconsequential, to the effort involved.

So at what point is it economically viable, when you have friendly airports to make use of?

 

[Markus40]

I dont think its a question of economics when the military use everything at their disposal. They load and go. The bill is left to the military planners and politicians. I think our pilots would agree that making multiple stops enroute is rather taxing. If the C130s could use the friendly airports enroute then our need for longer range brand new transport aircraft would quickly fade into the night and we wouldnt need to have the refueling upgrade if this was offered. So lets just keep using them until they are fully expendable. They are are doing a fabulous job and im sure we could rapidly get 4 LAVS to Darwin within a 12 Hour period, via Sydney and lets hope none of the props dont fall off if we have engine failure. Obviously they do a good job flying through Townsville or Sydney.

I agree, unless you are talking specialised supplies (such as the Falklands) or a SAR mission, the amount that can be delivered is inconsequential, to the effort involved.

So at what point is it economically viable, when you have friendly airports to make use of?

 

[Rocco_NZ]

I dont think its a question of economics when the military use everything at their disposal. They load and go. The bill is left to the military planners and politicians.

You'll find the squadron commander will find himself in a serious amount of trouble if he excedes his allocated flying hours without permission. Likewise the CDF will find himself in no end of hot water if he excedes what has been appropriated by parliament.

 

[gf0012-aust]

to give a different perspective on what issues are choking NZ:

NZ to send replacement generator to Niue
By Peter Lewis in Auckland

New Zealand plans to send a new generator and an electrical engineer to the tiny Pacific island of Niue after a major fire on the island last night left most of the population without power.

But the timing of the aid is dependent on the availability of an Air Force Hercules transporter to get it there.

Most of Niue's 2,000 inhabitants have been without power or phones for the past 24 hours after fire destroyed one of two generators in the island's power station.

Niue's acting Premier Fisa Pihigia says the biggest problem is the impact on water supplies that rely on electrical pumps.

"We have used portable generators to assist with the pumping of water from underground to the reservoir and also from the reservoir to some of the households," the Premier said.

Catriona McDiarmid of the NZAID agency says a replacement generator and an engineer will be sent to restore power as soon as an Air Force Hercules aircraft is available.

They are currently busy ferrying troops and equipment to East Timor.

 

[Whiskyjack]

You'll find the squadron commander will find himself in a serious amount of trouble if he excedes his allocated flying hours without permission. Likewise the CDF will find himself in no end of hot water if he excedes what has been appropriated by parliament.

Imagine:

'Hey boss we were up in Hawai the other day and I decided to upgrade the sqaudron at my own discretion.....so we now have 5 C-17s....is that all right?'

 

[Whiskyjack]

to give a different perspective on what issues are choking NZ:



They are currently busy ferrying troops and equipment to East Timor.[/b]

Yes, from my perspective the airstrike was retired to shift resourses into more needed areas, the RNZDF needs either an extra 3 C-130s, or a third 757.

The ability to keep an eye on the region is important for both economic and physical security reasons, so another 2 P3s would have been nice.

Essentially an increase in the NZDFs transport and surveillance capabilities, to make up for the airstrike.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

Imagine:

'Hey boss we were up in Hawai the other day and I decided to upgrade the sqaudron at my own discretion.....so we now have 5 C-17s....is that all right?'

Ah mate that's just fairy tale stuff. It's more likley to be

'Hey boss we were up in Hawai the other day and me and the boys found some C-17s just sitting there that some stupd bugger had left the keys in. Would have been rude not to help overselves boss!"



Did you forget about "Freyberg and his forty thousand thieves"

 

[Whiskyjack]

Ah mate that's just fairy tale stuff. It's more likley to be

'Hey boss we were up in Hawai the other day and me and the boys found some C-17s just sitting there that some stupd bugger had left the keys in. Would have been rude not to help overselves boss!"



Did you forget about "Freyberg and his forty thousand thieves"

Your not wrong.

 

[Whiskyjack]

IMO the issue is not about how much air lift (just to contradict myself a bit) but about strategic planning’

Where are my forces likely to be needed in a hurry in the national interest and how do I structure them, equip them, position them (or their equipment).. This not the same as what do I want my forces to do and how do I equip them etc…

So this is what I propose for the first, to be achieved in 10 years time (this includes ordered for delivery by 2020);

• 1 x Battalion (LAV ), approx 700.
• 1 x Battalion (light), approx 700
• 1 x QA Regt (Cav), approx 550

Now this takes into account the 1500 extra the army is supposed to get in the current 10 year plan and should be possible to get this force structure, I think that it is where the army is heading anyway.

This allows for 9 front line coys and 3 HQs + 3 sets of support structures. This allows for a mix n match ability, e.g. 1 coy group or a two coy group with any mix to suit the mission. Once again heading in this direction.

Now the big difference is that I propose the purchase of two ships. They would be basically LPDs, similar to the UK’s Bay Class in capability and around 14,000-16,000 tons. Each one would be able to:

• carry the basic equipment needed by a task force of 3 companies,
• land it over a beach
• support it over the beach
• provide C&C, Medical facilities etc..
• Carry stores for at least two weeks
• carry an embarked force of 500-600 for periods of no more than 45 days (similar to Australian requirements.)
• Aviation facilities for 4 NH-90s and 2 LUH

Now these ships would obviously be used for the following:

• Projecting the NZDF into the Pacific (independently) and South East Asia (with Australia)
• participating in UN and Coalition operations.
• Disaster relief
• Floating hospital
• Evacuations (civil unrest, disaster etc…)
• pre-positioning equipment. (eg sent to Darwin with forces flown in when needed)

Added to this I would like to see the following assets:

• 12 NH90s
• 12 LUHs
• 6-8 A400M (or J if this does not eventuate)
• 6 MPA (P3 replacement already ordered) with precision strike capability JASSM and Mav
• 5 Regional UAVs (Mariner etc)
• Small tactical UAVs
• NLOS-LS (in both Naval and ground)

And if Funding permits (but not likely):

• 3rd competent fitted to upgraded ANZAC standards (same as RAN)
• Replacement for Endeavour
• UCAV option (if development permits)

Funds will be the problem, but I think the assets would see the NZDF able to conduct operations in the National Interest and be a welcomed partner in the wider world.

 

[mug]

That's a nice looking force, but wouldn't the 2 x LPDs be an unrealistically huge increase on what we have?

Loosely on topic (from NZ Herald

Fate of Skyhawk sale is up in the air as costs mount

Thursday June 1, 2006
By Mike Houlahan

Protracted efforts to sell the Airforce's fleet of Skyhawk fighter bombers and air trainer planes may have stalled.

The aircraft were decommissioned in 2001 and it was not until last year that the Government found a buyer for the 14 Skyhawks and 16 Aermacchi jets.

Last night One News reported that the $155 million deal with American company Tactical Air Services could be off. It was reported that the approval of the United States State Department - needed for the sale to go ahead because US military equipment is fitted into the planes - was understood not to have been granted.

Tactical Air Services is an American flight training company founded by two retired US Navy captains.

US Embassy spokeswoman Janine Burns was unable to clarify the status of the sale of the aircraft.

National Defence spokesman Murray McCully said the sale was starting to look like a major bungle.

"Eight months after the announcement and five years after the Government scrapped the airstrike wing, no deposits have been paid, no planes have been prepared for delivery, no consents have been given by the US State Department, and no one in the Airforce believes the transaction will proceed.

"It's about time the Government explained this strange state of affairs."

The planes are stored in a Marlborough hangar. They are not in flying condition but the engines are regularly started to keep them operational. Maintenance work is is understood to cost about $300,000 a month.

"When the transaction was announced we were told that the cost of making the sale would be an estimated $35 million - a figure that has to be deducted from the total price of $155 million," Mr McCully said.

"I want to know how much of that cost has been incurred so far."

Acting Defence Minister Jim Sutton could not be contacted for comment last night.

 

[Whiskyjack]

That's a nice looking force, but wouldn't the 2 x LPDs be an unrealistically huge increase on what we have?

No not really, many of the LPD designs use a combination military/commercial standard. For instance a 16,000 ton Bay Class is crewed by 60 men. The base crew is responsible for running the ship, the embarked forces bring there own support as needed, cooks, maintanence etc...

So personnel wise it is not a huge increase.

Operating costs would not be much either.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

No not really, many of the LPD designs use a combination military/commercial standard. For instance a 16,000 ton Bay Class is crewed by 60 men. The base crew is responsible for running the ship, the embarked forces bring there own support as needed, cooks, maintanence etc...

So personnel wise it is not a huge increase.

Operating costs would not be much either.

One of the problems the Navy had until recently has been a shortage of training berths at sea. When canterbury commisions she will have 35 training bunks, as well as extra capacity if the troop areas are used. The OPVs also have training berths. I don't have the figures on hand but I suspect by the time the Project Protector vessels are all delivred the RNZN would have had an overall increase in training berths at sea of around 250%.

 

[Whiskyjack]

One of the problems the Navy had until recently has been a shortage of training berths at sea. When canterbury commisions she will have 35 training bunks, as well as extra capacity if the troop areas are used. The OPVs also have training berths. I don't have the figures on hand but I suspect by the time the Project Protector vessels are all delivred the RNZN would have had an overall increase in training berths at sea of around 250%.

Yes an important consideration.

I have specified 2 LPDs because it allows foe one available for operations at all times, at short notice. The other can either be in maintanence or supporting operations elsewhere, e.g. UN operations transporting UN troops to a 'hotspot'.

Also if a operation eventuates that is vital to NZ interests it may allow for both to be used. Includes earthquake in NZ etc..

 

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

So this is what I propose for the first, to be achieved in 10 years time (this includes ordered for delivery by 2020);

• 1 x Battalion (LAV ), approx 700.
• 1 x Battalion (light), approx 700
• 1 x QA Regt (Cav), approx 550

snip.

I have seen this talk about QAMR; can someone point me to some proper evidence for this outfit being a properly constituted third battalion sized unit? because from what I have seen QAMR are effectivly taxi drivers for 2/1 RNZIR should there be a need for it, and work within 2/1 to that end.
It would not surprise me if QAMR was slated for the chop, were it not for the fact that they would have needed someone to operate the LAV's and QAMR was the only group with anything like the knowledge to do it.

I suspect that the additional funded army recruits are for the Logistics btn's and the REME battalion as well as the existing infantry units.

 

[Lucasnz]

I have seen this talk about QAMR; can someone point me to some proper evidence for this outfit being a properly constituted third battalion sized unit? because from what I have seen QAMR are effectivly taxi drivers for 2/1 RNZIR should there be a need for it, and work within 2/1 to that end.
It would not surprise me if QAMR was slated for the chop, were it not for the fact that they would have needed someone to operate the LAV's and QAMR was the only group with anything like the knowledge to do it.

I suspect that the additional funded army recruits are for the Logistics btn's and the REME battalion as well as the existing infantry units.

Refer CA Directive issued 3 May 05 - Between now and 2010 QA to transition from a squadron to 3 subunit cavalry unit at DLOC. This directive changed the title from QA Squdaron to QAMR Mounted Rifles Regiment.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

I have seen this talk about QAMR; can someone point me to some proper evidence for this outfit being a properly constituted third battalion sized unit?

From Parliamantary Written Question Database

Question: What plans does Army have for a "3rd manoeuvre group," as
mentioned by Colonel Dave Gawn in Issue 350 of the publication Army News?

Portfolio: Defence

Minister: Hon Phil Goff

Date Lodged:26/04/2006

Answer Text: The transition of the Queen Alexandra’s Mounted Rifles
Squadron into the New Zealand Army’s third combat manoeuvre unit with a
cavalry role is intended in part to maintain the Army’s reconnaissance
capability, and to support the growth of the Army under the Defence
Sustainability Initiative. The transition should be complete by December
2010 as part of a programme to create a Network Enabled Force.

Attachment: None

Date Received:09/05/2006