NZDF - Now and the Future.

[Sea Toby]

I don't buy the argument that a light figher cannot influence events in Fiji. As long as the light fighter has the range to reach Fiji, and use runways in Fiji, they can influence events in Fiji. Both the Hawk and the Golden Eagle have the ferry range to reach Fiji. Yes, the Americans and the Australians can, so why not New Zealand?

As I mentioned before a long time ago earlier on this thread, there may be a time when the Australians are too busy elsewhere, and it will be up to New Zealand to take the lead and squash anarchy in the South Pacific.

New Zealand will soon have 3 OPVs, one of them being the MRV, 4 IPVs, and 6 Orions to patrol their EEZ. Even some of their Hercules could be used for ocean patrol if needed. In my mind a few more aircraft, even light fighters, can patrol their EEZ better and quicker than a few more OPVs. One new Hercules and/or Orion costs considerably more than one light fighter, say $150 million US versus $15 million US for a Hawk 127, plus I would say these numbers are conservative.

Israel bought a F-16 simulator from Lockheed last year for $18 million. The USAF bought a C-130J simulator from Lockheed last year for $28 million. Frankly, light fighters are much cheaper than fighters, which are far cheaper than Orions and/or Hercules per aircraft.

 

[RubiconNZ]

DDG's and Scooters

Heck if it can launch an Aim 9x, Maverick, some zuni rockets, and Laser guided bombs then it does the trick, Kiwi pilots as far as I heard are hot sh*t on the stick, I remember chatting to a CPO on the old HMAS Brisbane, now this guy didn't give compliments away for free, the amount of expletives he mentioned when talking about the Manoora and Kanimbla anyway, he said the skill level of the Pilots was just unbelievable, they would come in low and quick he told me how a Scooter shot through between the Bridge structure and the rear structure, now of course this was a old sea salt, but for those who know the like they are harldy going to compliment the Kiwis for no reasons, he spoke of them with true respect, which I was impressed with to be honest. Anywhoo, you give em back something half decent and theyll soon be doing there thing.

 

[Markus40]

Im glad some of us can see the "light" on a light air trainer air combat squadron that can do the job for NZ and our immediate area of the pacific, namely Fiji and others. It makes perfect sense and gives us the ability to be able to influence our neighbours that we are serious about the security in our own region without having to call on Australia for help.

There are also other benefits that NZ can make use of if we have a Trainer/combat aircraft like the Hawke, as we dont need to spend anything more on fancy , fast and expensive combat aircraft, not that NZ had them to begin with. We would also have an interoperability with Australia on this aircraft type as well.

I don't buy the argument that a light figher cannot influence events in Fiji. As long as the light fighter has the range to reach Fiji, and use runways in Fiji, they can influence events in Fiji. Both the Hawk and the Golden Eagle have the ferry range to reach Fiji. Yes, the Americans and the Australians can, so why not New Zealand?

As I mentioned before a long time ago earlier on this thread, there may be a time when the Australians are too busy elsewhere, and it will be up to New Zealand to take the lead and squash anarchy in the South Pacific.

New Zealand will soon have 3 OPVs, one of them being the MRV, 4 IPVs, and 6 Orions to patrol their EEZ. Even some of their Hercules could be used for ocean patrol if needed. In my mind a few more aircraft, even light fighters, can patrol their EEZ better and quicker than a few more OPVs. One new Hercules and/or Orion costs considerably more than one light fighter, say $150 million US versus $15 million US for a Hawk 127, plus I would say these numbers are conservative.

Israel bought a F-16 simulator from Lockheed last year for $18 million. The USAF bought a C-130J simulator from Lockheed last year for $28 million. Frankly, light fighters are much cheaper than fighters, which are far cheaper than Orions and/or Hercules per aircraft.

 

[Markus40]

Yeah, they were good, and i too heard alot about their skill when they were up against the singapore air force with the A4. The pilots of the F16s at the SAF were shocked to see themselves "shotdown" during a South Asia exercise many years ago. Of course they are now serving with the other services abroad and this is gut renching after the government took a chain saw to the air combat wing and cut it down.

I am a believer that it is still possible that if a training wing was slowly implemented and professional trainers brought in from overseas to train our new pilots we might start seeing some of our good pilots back again.

Heck if it can launch an Aim 9x, Maverick, some zuni rockets, and Laser guided bombs then it does the trick, Kiwi pilots as far as I heard are hot sh*t on the stick, I remember chatting to a CPO on the old HMAS Brisbane, now this guy didn't give compliments away for free, the amount of expletives he mentioned when talking about the Manoora and Kanimbla anyway, he said the skill level of the Pilots was just unbelievable, they would come in low and quick he told me how a Scooter shot through between the Bridge structure and the rear structure, now of course this was a old sea salt, but for those who know the like they are harldy going to compliment the Kiwis for no reasons, he spoke of them with true respect, which I was impressed with to be honest. Anywhoo, you give em back something half decent and theyll soon be doing there thing.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I don't buy the argument that a light figher cannot influence events in Fiji. As long as the light fighter has the range to reach Fiji, and use runways in Fiji, they can influence events in Fiji. Both the Hawk and the Golden Eagle have the ferry range to reach Fiji. Yes, the Americans and the Australians can, so why not New Zealand?
snip

I have a book by a former NZ Army officer by the name of Lee Hughes, 'Shooting from the lip, A Kiwi Soldiers Millitary Mischeif'. In this book he discribes the events of the first Fiji coup and NZ's reaction to it. In short, he and his fellow officers thought that NZ could not acheive a lodgment and would have been creamed if we had tried.

If NZ does not have enough amphibous transtport to move at least a battalion group this nation cannot do anything in the South Pacific because even the longest ranged plane cannot take and hold territory. And untill we can move the army by ourselves, where we want it, and keep it supplied, talk of a restored combat arm for the airforce is just unrealistic nonsense, sorry.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I have a book by a former NZ Army officer by the name of Lee Hughes, 'Shooting from the lip, A Kiwi Soldiers Millitary Mischeif'. In this book he discribes the events of the first Fiji coup and NZ's reaction to it. In short, he and his fellow officers thought that NZ could not acheive a lodgment and would have been creamed if we had tried.

That was also the Australian assessment at the time. It was as a result of the deficiencies hilighted in our rapid insertion capability for the first Fiji Coup that Aust decided to change the weight and structure of how we deployed forces into places like Micronesia.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

That was also the Australian assessment at the time. It was as a result of the deficiencies hilighted in our rapid insertion capability for the first Fiji Coup that Aust decided to change the weight and structure of how we deployed forces into places like Micronesia.

Indeed, a change that NZ has yet to make, truth be known.

 

[Magoo]

Has anyone got any further information on the progress of the NH90 and the LOH?

I've heard from a very well placed source in NZ that the NH90 deal may now not go ahead, and my Eurocopter sourcs just shrugged their shoulders when asked to confirm. No other info sorry.

Magoo

 

[Lucasnz]

Indeed, a change that NZ has yet to make, truth be known.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this Stuart. The purpose of the MRV by Labour is direct response to its inability to respond to the Fiji crisis. A significant proportion of the cabinet were in ministers during the 1980's. Since the 1980's there as been an increased focus on the South Pacific. In fact I think the 1990 defence review highlighted the need (I might be wrong here)

Its interesting to note that when Labour returned to power in the 1980's, its naval investments were in a tanker (NZ had to rely on Australia for fuel during the Murora protests) and a diving tender.

I think the trend under a Labour government is to buy equipment for which New Zealand has a proven need for. The Javelin for example was selected under a National government, but Labour cancelled the purchase while it re-evaluted all the defence projects underway at the time. It finally arrived 6 years later.

Im glad some of us can see the "light" on a light air trainer air combat squadron that can do the job for NZ and our immediate area of the pacific, namely Fiji and others. It makes perfect sense and gives us the ability to be able to influence our neighbours that we are serious about the security in our own region without having to call on Australia for help.

There are also other benefits that NZ can make use of if we have a Trainer/combat aircraft like the Hawke, as we dont need to spend anything more on fancy , fast and expensive combat aircraft, not that NZ had them to begin with. We would also have an interoperability with Australia on this aircraft type as well.

I see the need for an aircombat force but without inflight refuelling or a Pacific Island centre of operations no combat aircraft has the range to influence events in the Pacific. A precision stand off capability on the P-3's would be a far superior option (Marverick, Laser Guided bombs etc), if we had to.

Having combat trainers would allow the army and air force to maintain air defence skills, but we could never deploy them operationally. If NZ is ever going to maintain an aircombat arm it must be an operationally deployable one. Personally I'd perfer JAS39 / AMX / A-10 over the MB-339C.

 

[Markus40]

LUCASNZ

I see the need for an aircombat force but without inflight refuelling or a Pacific Island centre of operations no combat aircraft has the range to influence events in the Pacific. A precision stand off capability on the P-3's would be a far superior option (Marverick, Laser Guided bombs etc), if we had to.

Having combat trainers would allow the army and air force to maintain air defence skills, but we could never deploy them operationally. If NZ is ever going to maintain an aircombat arm it must be an operationally deployable one. Personally I'd perfer JAS39 / AMX / A-10 over the MB-339C

MARKUS40

Im sorry but i dont support your argument on this. NZ can conduct an extended operation using the Hawkes to Fiji by equiping at least 2 C130s with a air refueling function. This could have been done with the recent upgrading of the C130s if there was more forsight. Arming the P3 with mavericks or harpoons is a lost cause as well and what can P3s do to look after our troops in the field with 3-4 AGMs? As i have posted before its way better to have a forward officer to call in fast attack aircraft that can take out targets with rockets and guided munitions than firing off an $150000 harpoon on one target. I think most people would see sense in that.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this Stuart. The purpose of the MRV by Labour is direct response to its inability to respond to the Fiji crisis. A significant proportion of the cabinet were in ministers during the 1980's. Since the 1980's there as been an increased focus on the South Pacific. In fact I think the 1990 defence review highlighted the need (I might be wrong here)

Its interesting to note that when Labour returned to power in the 1980's, its naval investments were in a tanker (NZ had to rely on Australia for fuel during the Murora protests) and a diving tender.

I think the trend under a Labour government is to buy equipment for which New Zealand has a proven need for. The Javelin for example was selected under a National government, but Labour cancelled the purchase while it re-evaluted all the defence projects underway at the time. It finally arrived 6 years later.



I see the need for an aircombat force but without inflight refuelling or a Pacific Island centre of operations no combat aircraft has the range to influence events in the Pacific. A precision stand off capability on the P-3's would be a far superior option (Marverick, Laser Guided bombs etc), if we had to.

Having combat trainers would allow the army and air force to maintain air defence skills, but we could never deploy them operationally. If NZ is ever going to maintain an aircombat arm it must be an operationally deployable one. Personally I'd perfer JAS39 / AMX / A-10 over the MB-339C.

 

[KH-12]

I've heard from a very well placed source in NZ that the NH90 deal may now not go ahead, and my Eurocopter sourcs just shrugged their shoulders when asked to confirm. No other info sorry.

Magoo

What would be the reason for this ? too expensive , and what would be the alternative, 20-30 EC145's ?

Maybe they are holding out for the AW149 a military development based on the AW139

http://www.flightglobal.com/Article...d+development+of+new+75t+multirole+AW149.html

Might be a bit cheaper than the NH90.

 

[Markus40]

Sure you are absolutely right, however thats why this government or the next for that matter, needs to see the importance of having all 3 triad NZDFs operating at equal strength. If you operate the Navy and Army with out adequate air cover, and put them out to any field of operations you are then making them vulnerable. Its as simple as that.

It becomes pointless in having a combat air arm when the Navy cant operate and deploy properly our troops to foreign shores in our area of the pacific. Thats why both need to work hand in hand to work properly. Good Point.

I have a book by a former NZ Army officer by the name of Lee Hughes, 'Shooting from the lip, A Kiwi Soldiers Millitary Mischeif'. In this book he discribes the events of the first Fiji coup and NZ's reaction to it. In short, he and his fellow officers thought that NZ could not acheive a lodgment and would have been creamed if we had tried.

If NZ does not have enough amphibous transtport to move at least a battalion group this nation cannot do anything in the South Pacific because even the longest ranged plane cannot take and hold territory. And untill we can move the army by ourselves, where we want it, and keep it supplied, talk of a restored combat arm for the airforce is just unrealistic nonsense, sorry.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this Stuart. The purpose of the MRV by Labour is direct response to its inability to respond to the Fiji crisis. A significant proportion of the cabinet were in ministers during the 1980's. Since the 1980's there as been an increased focus on the South Pacific. In fact I think the 1990 defence review highlighted the need (I might be wrong here)

Its interesting to note that when Labour returned to power in the 1980's, its naval investments were in a tanker (NZ had to rely on Australia for fuel during the Murora protests) and a diving tender.

snip.

If they think a reinforced company is going to cut it against the Fijian army then I suspect that they have listend to advice other than that tendered by millitary profetionals. Either that or they have been listening to the gospel according to Nandor . No, I think the MRV is there for no other reason than for very small scale things like the Solomons and Timor mk 2.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I've heard from a very well placed source in NZ that the NH90 deal may now not go ahead, and my Eurocopter sourcs just shrugged their shoulders when asked to confirm. No other info sorry.

Magoo

Ha! Cullen had a heart attack when he saw the price!

 

[gf0012-aust]

If they think a reinforced company is going to cut it against the Fijian army then I suspect that they have listend to advice other than that tendered by millitary profetionals.

Absolutely. The Fijians are not some tinpot outfit when it comes to soldiering. Maybe they were thinking about the Fijian Air Force?

 

[RubiconNZ]

?

Would Fijian soldiers really fight against the NZ soldiers, though as much as they may be upset the ties to NZ and Aus are very close. In East Timor a Fijian Company served with the NZ Batt group etc, Im just thinking that their presence may be elocmed rather than shunned in the forseeable future.

 

[Lucasnz]

As i have posted before its way better to have a forward officer to call in fast attack aircraft that can take out targets with rockets and guided munitions than firing off an $150000 harpoon on one target. I think most people would see sense in that.

I agree with you when talking about close air support, that the P3 can't do the job supporting troops. Interdication (Long range strikes) are best left to aircraft like the P3, that have the range, payload capability and don't tie up New Zealands limited resources.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Would Fijian soldiers really fight against the NZ soldiers, though as much as they may be upset the ties to NZ and Aus are very close. In East Timor a Fijian Company served with the NZ Batt group etc, Im just thinking that their presence may be elocmed rather than shunned in the forseeable future.

No one is seriously suggesting a fight with Fiji.
But back in 1987, when Rambuka staged his coup, there was a hostage situation on a plane. The NZ PM, David Lange wanted to become involved millitarily, wanted to send the SAS to sort it. My understanding is that the armed forces told him in no uncertain terms that they could not do so as they lacked the capabilities. The cabin staff on the plane solved the problem with a bottle of whisky over the head of the would be hijacker.
The other story is that Lange wanted to depose Rabuka, but the Defence forces told Lange not to be so stupid as we didnt have the capability, and we would be slaughtered if we tried. There was short lived talk of 'Peacekeepers' but that came to naught.

 

[Lucasnz]

Absolutely. The Fijians are not some tinpot outfit when it comes to soldiering. Maybe they were thinking about the Fijian Air Force?

With all due respect I would never underestimate the Fijian Army, or call then a tinpot outfit, but neither is the New Zealand Army. I merely sought to point out that this was Labour's response to the Fiji Coup of 1987.

As to the MRV when the RFP came out I'm sure there was an overload requirement (alas my copy died with the last computer). Maybe someone with a copy can confirm that.

As to the NH-90 I really hope Cullen did have a heart attack when he saw the price, then we'd just need to hope Aunty Helen does to

 

[Stuart Mackey]

With all due respect I would never underestimate the Fijian Army, or call then a tinpot outfit, but neither is the New Zealand Army. I merely sought to point out that this was Labour's response to the Fiji Coup of 1987. snip

He refers to the Fijian airforce, not their army, which is a quality outfit.

Honestly the MRV is for training and patrol work and the troop transport side is a cheap, political, way of saying "umm err, see! troop transportation!, look over there, shiny object!" . Its there to mollify those who dont know any better, and now they an crow that they have provided the army with transport to far off lands and National didnt.
What they wont say openly is that we still cannot transport a battalion, and its gear to Timor sized operations without dependence on foreign powers, but hey they dont need to because the public is saftely distracted by the MRV.
In short, the MRV is the ideal political Strawman argument, and a cheap one at that.