NZDF - Now and the Future.

[Padman]

Low level bombing in a P-3? Against anyone with more than a .22? Good god, my old man could hit the damn thing with his shotgun. Wouldn't want to go up against anyone with more capabiity than Fiji, perhaps even the Cook Islands.

Regarding expense of reestablishing NZ air combat force. Maybe start off with jet trainer such as Hawk, could borrow some Aussie pilots, plus lot of former A-4 and Macchi pilots currently employed by RAAF and RAF in combat and training roles. Many now experienced Hawk pilots. Maybe try tempting them back. Offer better wages, plus bonus of serving own country again. Having combat aircraft again would boost RNZAF recruiting, afterall we all joined up to fly combat jets not transport (no offence intended to our very professional transport community).

 

[Boolag]

Low level bombing in a P-3? Against anyone with more than a .22? Good god, my old man could hit the damn thing with his shotgun. Wouldn't want to go up against anyone with more capabiity than Fiji, perhaps even the Cook Islands.

Ha.. I agree, But the evidence is in the link i posted before your last thread..its shows a P-3K dropping bombs at low level on a target during Ex Firestarter '99..the vids worth watching simply to see the skyhawk playing with lots of ordanance..the P-3 comes in at the tailend of the footage..check it out.

The P-3K's also make use of the left over inventory of Mk82's as depth bombs as well, No.5 sQn lists this configuration on its Spec boards at airshows and on the RNZAF website..I have no idea of what kind of conversion they've done to the weapons to enable them to work effectivley in such a manner..I'd also like to know if NZ was the first to come up with such an idea in lieu of a purpose built weapon?

the A-4 alley site listed ealier also has a vid of a T-bird doing a belly up at ohakea? quite interesting..

 

[Padman]

A different approach to Army personnel levels

How about having two levels of reserve, a combat reserve and the current territorial reserve?

The combat reserve would be recruited on a nationwide basis and provide round out for current regular units, plus maybe provide personnel for a third battalion of mech infantry, and maybe another of motorised. It could also provide artillery, recon and support troops. A force of about 3000 training one weekend a month and two full weeks a year. This force would be prepared to deploy at shortish notice say one week. But unless in time of all out war any member would only deploy for six months at a go. Provide job protection to reservists and tax incentives to employers of reservists, enough to cover costs of temps.

The territorials would still be recruited on a regional basis and would provide for local security, civil defence etc. A force of say 1500-2000. Individual members could volunteer to deploy with regular forces, but would not be expected to. Same job protection and tax incentives as above.

A good way to get recruits would be to provide for a special tax rate for all payed military service, say only 10cents in the dollar.

Any comments on this idea? Would it work or would it not?

 

[Whiskyjack]

How about having two levels of reserve, a combat reserve and the current territorial reserve?

The combat reserve would be recruited on a nationwide basis and provide round out for current regular units, plus maybe provide personnel for a third battalion of mech infantry, and maybe another of motorised. It could also provide artillery, recon and support troops. A force of about 3000 training one weekend a month and two full weeks a year. This force would be prepared to deploy at shortish notice say one week. But unless in time of all out war any member would only deploy for six months at a go. Provide job protection to reservists and tax incentives to employers of reservists, enough to cover costs of temps.

The territorials would still be recruited on a regional basis and would provide for local security, civil defence etc. A force of say 1500-2000. Individual members could volunteer to deploy with regular forces, but would not be expected to. Same job protection and tax incentives as above.

A good way to get recruits would be to provide for a special tax rate for all payed military service, say only 10cents in the dollar.

Any comments on this idea? Would it work or would it not?

An interesting idea, but I think you would be lucky to get funding or recruitment for more than 500-1000 ready reserves (RR). Also I think they would be lucky to deploy without 4-6 weeks prep. I would definately look at units that were logistic/combat support etc. Front line combat troops are much harder to train and keep prepared and would need a longer work up before deployment.

But if you did have more support units in the RR you might be able to look at placing more regular troops into combat units.

 

[Padman]

How about using Reserve as round outs as done by US and Australia? Or have it as a motorised bat force plus support elements that could be stood up over six weeks? Have regular training, one weekend a month, plus one full week every six months, plus take part in annual regular force exercises. Could recruit allot of ex-regular force personnel, those who need to leave full time military due to family needs, but who do not want to leave military completely behind.

 

[Whiskyjack]

How about using Reserve as round outs as done by US and Australia? Or have it as a motorised bat force plus support elements that could be stood up over six weeks? Have regular training, one weekend a month, plus one full week every six months, plus take part in annual regular force exercises. Could recruit allot of ex-regular force personnel, those who need to leave full time military due to family needs, but who do not want to leave military completely behind.

It will depend, it is a matter of scale and geography. One weekend a month, where would the unit be based? Where will the majority of the reserves be living? How far will they travel for one weekend?

I think a round out unit is a good idea, but it requires a regular unit to be partially understrength. What sort of units are you thinking of?

 

[Padman]

Last time I looked NZ Army was partially understrength anyway. Was simply thinking aloud about alternative methods of dealing with this, especially as it would seem increasing regular force strength is going to be difficult. Thought it could be good way of insuring more of the people currently leaving regular force still stay in army.
If using as round outs especially in support services could simply serve one week every six months with assigned regular unit.
If creating a regular reserve combat unit base it at Burnham, close to a hub airport. Then still have one training week every six months, with requirement to keep up basic skills at local territorial barracks. US army reserves travel long distance to serve with their assigned units, knew one guy flew from L.A. to Fort Bragg in Georgia.
Or maybe could develop territorials to level that could deploy a motorised battalion given 6 weeks notice.

 

[Markus40]

Project Proctector and Anzacs

Sorry for not keeping to the subject, but i was interested to see that the Labour Minister of Defense for NZ and the Australian counterpart had a meeting to discuss NZ pulling its weight militarily. This is what Goff said. Also with close meetings with the US about having closer working relationship with the US military. Im scratching my head and wondering with what resources does NZ have could we work alongside the US? We have 5 P-3s with outdated weopon delivery systems along with seriously dated computers for detection. We have 2 ANZACS that do have capabilities but as we assign them on lengthy deployments with the Australian Navy, the Navy is hard pushed and stressed to carry out its own duties in its own territorial waters.

The OPVs are not properly armed for self defense and the MRV the same, and so this government wants to send our forces into harms way and leave gaping holes in our role of being able to defend itself across the spectrum of contingencies. I think the Army do have better fighting support than before with new equipment like anti armour and low level anti aircraft missiles. Tank warefare is something of the past and i agree that NZ concentrate on anti armour. However we are without serious air cover if the Navy deploys at sea, and so are the air elements if we dont have an air to ground and air to air element in our armed forces. Keeping the A-4s would have been a better idea than to have scrapped them. Spending the $100 Million at least to keep them would have been a better option than scrapping them.

We need desperatly a third ANZAC. Harpoon armed.This is to free up the sea obligations of the Navy. The OPVs need to be better defended with Phalanax or a CWIS. The Airforce needs a small but well equipped air arm that can protect our own aircraft and Navy during battle operations. F-16C would do the job. Would welcome your input and suggestions.

 

[Boolag]

The OPVs are not properly armed for self defense and the MRV the same.

Excellent point..When I was working for the CDHB last year we had a guy in electronics who had recently left the navy, He reckoned he had been involved in the early stages of project protector.

Anyhow I asked him about procedures for the ANZAC frigates deploying thru the pirate infested waters of southeast asia..He explained that the ship goes on alert +armed watch parties patrol the vessel at all times and all external hatches are locked.

I then asked him if procedures would be the same for the lower crewed and less well armed MRV...He just looked at me and laughed..
His impression was that the MRV would NOT deploy on its own in such hostile waters..as it is a training and transport ship and not a combatant/patrol vessel, therefore It would require an escort i guess...although I suppose an army company on board would add to ship security in a dire situation.

Finally..I recall reading an article in a shipping magazine about 7-8 years ago about a Russian frigate?(maybe krivak..but not sure) travelling the same reigon that was boarded at night by pirates..evidently they got their ship identification charts all wrong..and they paid for it, the russians woke up pretty fast, and after a brief but violent gun-battle on deck the surviving pirates were shot and dumped overboard..it must have worked..cos I havent heard anymore stories like this..If you got any credible pirate vs. navy tales-Please share!!!

 

[gf0012-aust]

I havent heard anymore stories like this..If you got any credible pirate vs. navy tales-Please share!!!

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4516&highlight=pirates

 

[Boolag]

Cheers for the link.

 

[Markus40]

Re: MRV and OPVs

Thanks for your reply. You mentioned " The OPVs are not properly armed for self defense and the MRV the same." My argument and this has to run through the minds of the crewman who man the Patrol Ships and that is what happens if we are attacked.? Its an absolute certainty that an IPV or OPV will sail alone patrolling the Antarctic and taking up patrolling duties in the South Pacific. If we look at the recent events in the South Pacfic i think there would be cause for concern in an unarmed Naval vessel.

The MRV isnt in this argument so intensley because as you and i agree that it would be under escort by one of our ANZACS. Low intensity warefare is the most likely form of engagement NZ forces would be directly involved with, however i would be assured by the Te Mana or Te Kaha close by. The MRV going into a war zone should have at least a CIWS.

The OPV will have a Seasprite, but will have no self defense against small arms fire or mortar or naval gun fire. If fired upon how can the OPV engage the other vessel? Crawl away? Its outrageous.

Excellent point..When I was working for the CDHB last year we had a guy in electronics who had recently left the navy, He reckoned he had been involved in the early stages of project protector.

Anyhow I asked him about procedures for the ANZAC frigates deploying thru the pirate infested waters of southeast asia..He explained that the ship goes on alert +armed watch parties patrol the vessel at all times and all external hatches are locked.

I then asked him if procedures would be the same for the lower crewed and less well armed MRV...He just looked at me and laughed..
His impression was that the MRV would NOT deploy on its own in such hostile waters..as it is a training and transport ship and not a combatant/patrol vessel, therefore It would require an escort i guess...although I suppose an army company on board would add to ship security in a dire situation.

Finally..I recall reading an article in a shipping magazine about 7-8 years ago about a Russian frigate?(maybe krivak..but not sure) travelling the same reigon that was boarded at night by pirates..evidently they got their ship identification charts all wrong..and they paid for it, the russians woke up pretty fast, and after a brief but violent gun-battle on deck the surviving pirates were shot and dumped overboard..it must have worked..cos I havent heard anymore stories like this..If you got any credible pirate vs. navy tales-Please share!!!

 

[Markus40]

P-3 Harpoon Armed

I agree that its fool hardy loading a P-3 with a harpoon for sea protection. If this is an option for the NZ government to bridge the gap of the combat fighter force then we have some very serious issues within our military thinking. Without self protection from our own air combat force or the Australian F-18s they are sitting ducks, to any surface to air or air to air engagement.

A P-3 primary role is the detection of submarines and surface units either friendly or not. I personally think that this government has had difficulty in believing or holding onto the P-3 because it appeared to be a "cold war" deterrent to some degree, especially in the detection of submarines. As we no longer have the "cold war" there has opened up a gap of its functionality within the armed forces. Its attention has been drawn to rescueing yaghts and vessels in distress. We now use these aircraft for mission exercises with Australia, but we have gaping holes in their capabilities with the Auzzies, because they have updated and kept their P-3s capable with Military applications on board through military mission computers. Through limited short term thinking and the lack of taking our armed services seriously and keeping our equipment valid we have lost sight of our ability to work with the Australians and other partners, by having our assets non credible and of non equal working ability to our partners.

I think the government maybe, i say just maybe coming round to think that it might have been a better idea to have kept a small air combat force as an investment should it be required to act and support our sailors and soldiers in our Navy and on Land with the Army. I believe that the A-4s could have been replaced with the Bae Hawke or a 16 plane squadron of F-16s. The deal the US gave us for the 28 plane purchase was too good and was even supported by some members of the Labour caucus. Its too late now to cry over spilt milk but i believe that if we kept a squadron of Australian F-18s in agreement with the NZ government at Ohakea, that this might be a satisfactory solution over our air combat issue. Facilities might need to be expanded for this but this would open up a closer tie with the Australian armed services and give us the ability to operate together. Perhaps the NZ government could operate a "code share" arrangement with a squadron of say 12 F-18s to be based here and put that into our military budget. If anyone reads this i would be interested in your feed back.

 

[mug]

I think the government maybe, i say just maybe coming round to think that it might have been a better idea to have kept a small air combat force

Really? Unfortunately I can't see Helen et al deviating from the LTDP (?) or any of their other policies at all.

Is this just an itchy feeling in your big toe or is their some substance to your hunch?

 

[Markus40]

Air Combat force.

I did find an ex air force pilot who shared this same belief. An article in fact was written up about it recently in a NZ magazine where he was interviewed about the future of the RNZAF. I agree with you in saying that Helen Clark herself seems to have no military understanding in this area it wud seem and hope that the National Defense policy will take these views in line if they can get into power next election.

Really? Unfortunately I can't see Helen et al deviating from the LTDP (?) or any of their other policies at all.

Is this just an itchy feeling in your big toe or is their some substance to your hunch?

 

[Whiskyjack]

I agree that its fool hardy loading a P-3 with a harpoon for sea protection. If this is an option for the NZ government to bridge the gap of the combat fighter force then we have some very serious issues within our military thinking. Without self protection from our own air combat force or the Australian F-18s they are sitting ducks, to any surface to air or air to air engagement.

A P-3 primary role is the detection of submarines and surface units either friendly or not. I personally think that this government has had difficulty in believing or holding onto the P-3 because it appeared to be a "cold war" deterrent to some degree, especially in the detection of submarines. As we no longer have the "cold war" there has opened up a gap of its functionality within the armed forces. Its attention has been drawn to rescueing yaghts and vessels in distress. We now use these aircraft for mission exercises with Australia, but we have gaping holes in their capabilities with the Auzzies, because they have updated and kept their P-3s capable with Military applications on board through military mission computers. Through limited short term thinking and the lack of taking our armed services seriously and keeping our equipment valid we have lost sight of our ability to work with the Australians and other partners, by having our assets non credible and of non equal working ability to our partners.

I think the government maybe, i say just maybe coming round to think that it might have been a better idea to have kept a small air combat force as an investment should it be required to act and support our sailors and soldiers in our Navy and on Land with the Army. I believe that the A-4s could have been replaced with the Bae Hawke or a 16 plane squadron of F-16s. The deal the US gave us for the 28 plane purchase was too good and was even supported by some members of the Labour caucus. Its too late now to cry over spilt milk but i believe that if we kept a squadron of Australian F-18s in agreement with the NZ government at Ohakea, that this might be a satisfactory solution over our air combat issue. Facilities might need to be expanded for this but this would open up a closer tie with the Australian armed services and give us the ability to operate together. Perhaps the NZ government could operate a "code share" arrangement with a squadron of say 12 F-18s to be based here and put that into our military budget. If anyone reads this i would be interested in your feed back.

I couldn’t disagree more, I think it makes more sense arming the P3s with Harpoon/SLAM-ER/JASSM etc than it does to have an air strike force. It provides the ability to conduct a strike 1000s of kms from NZs coast. Something you will never get from a Jet. While the P3 is an ASW aircraft Anti Shipping is and always has been a role for the P3 in international service.

IMO NZ needs to have the P3s backed up by the Mariner (I would like Globalhawk but can’t see the expense getting through Cabinet), or similar UAV. The only time a P3 would be threatened in such a role is if it was going up against a task force that had air cover, and I don’t see that as likely in the South Pacific.

As far as reconstituting air strike I think it is not going to happen, short of a major strategic shift to the region.

 

[Markus40]

P-3 Harpoon Loaded.

Thank you for responding to my proposal. Sorry, but its simply not credible to arm a P-3 unless its for self protection. First the P-3 has a flying envelope that is way less than thousands of miles as you have suggested. With a load of Harpoons this would restrict its operations to a far closer shore based option, not to mention a much shorter loiter option without air to air refueling. Something this government will not consider.

Secondly, if we had a limited and low key war in the south pacific and we had P-3 s armed with Harpoons, all we need is a trawler armed stinger missile crew that fires a missile and "bang" we have lost an expensive asset not to mention all the Harpoons on board. Then we have only 4 remaining and much needed patrol craft to operate. If we have a small squadron of fighters then we have a package of ESMs and ECMs and missile warning systems and offensive weopons like the Harpoon or penguin that can inter operate with Australias systems and we probably would have the support of in flight refueling as well if an Australian 707 was based at Ohakea for such operations. Put it this way its going to be easier for a fighter to strike its target with the Harpoon without being seen than a P-3 lumbering across the sky where the crew of a stinger could easily knock it out. Makes logical military sense to me.

The P-3 could be armed as a secondary option but not as a first strike option. Thats suicide for the crew. No government would consider that, or would they? Im unsure with this one.

I couldn’t disagree more, I think it makes more sense arming the P3s with Harpoon/SLAM-ER/JASSM etc than it does to have an air strike force. It provides the ability to conduct a strike 1000s of kms from NZs coast. Something you will never get from a Jet. While the P3 is an ASW aircraft Anti Shipping is and always has been a role for the P3 in international service.

IMO NZ needs to have the P3s backed up by the Mariner (I would like Globalhawk but can’t see the expense getting through Cabinet), or similar UAV. The only time a P3 would be threatened in such a role is if it was going up against a task force that had air cover, and I don’t see that as likely in the South Pacific.

As far as reconstituting air strike I think it is not going to happen, short of a major strategic shift to the region.

 

[Lucasnz]

I couldn’t disagree more, I think it makes more sense arming the P3s with Harpoon/SLAM-ER/JASSM etc than it does to have an air strike force. It provides the ability to conduct a strike 1000s of kms from NZs coast. Something you will never get from a Jet. While the P3 is an ASW aircraft Anti Shipping is and always has been a role for the P3 in international service.

IMO NZ needs to have the P3s backed up by the Mariner (I would like Globalhawk but can’t see the expense getting through Cabinet), or similar UAV. The only time a P3 would be threatened in such a role is if it was going up against a task force that had air cover, and I don’t see that as likely in the South Pacific.

As far as reconstituting air strike I think it is not going to happen, short of a major strategic shift to the region.

I agree that the Orion is best suited for Long Range maritime strike in the South Pacfic. Fitted with SLAM-ER and JASSM it would provide a significant force enhancement for the NZDF. I would like to see the ASW capability ungraded at some point, given the importance of maritime trade to NZ (Wasn't there a comment made that this would be done as a minor project at some point or am I dreaming?).

Does anyone have the cost of any of the UAV's.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Thank you for responding to my proposal. Sorry, but its simply not credible to arm a P-3 unless its for self protection. First the P-3 has a flying envelope that is way less than thousands of miles as you have suggested. With a load of Harpoons this would restrict its operations to a far closer shore based option, not to mention a much shorter loiter option without air to air refueling. Something this government will not consider.

Secondly, if we had a limited and low key war in the south pacific and we had P-3 s armed with Harpoons, all we need is a trawler armed stinger missile crew that fires a missile and "bang" we have lost an expensive asset not to mention all the Harpoons on board. Then we have only 4 remaining and much needed patrol craft to operate. If we have a small squadron of fighters then we have a package of ESMs and ECMs and missile warning systems and offensive weopons like the Harpoon or penguin that can inter operate with Australias systems and we probably would have the support of in flight refueling as well if an Australian 707 was based at Ohakea for such operations. Put it this way its going to be easier for a fighter to strike its target with the Harpoon without being seen than a P-3 lumbering across the sky where the crew of a stinger could easily knock it out. Makes logical military sense to me.

The P-3 could be armed as a secondary option but not as a first strike option. Thats suicide for the crew. No government would consider that, or would they? Im unsure with this one.

I think some of your basic assumptions are flawed.

First the RNZAF operates 6 P3s

Second from Global Security Site on the P3

Primary Function
Antisubmarine warfare(ASW)/Antisurface warfare (ASUW)


The AIP package also includes the Maverick missile system, primarily designed for anti-surface target utilization and the SLAM missile system designed for use against land targets. Chaff and flare dispensers will provide self protection for the P-3 in hostile environments.

It is US Navy Doctrine to use the P3 for anti surface warfare and in more recent times littoral using the Maverick! The P-3 has the ability to conduct an Anti-shipping/land strike out to Fiji, about three times the radius of a strike aircraft!

A stinger (or other manpad for that matter) has a 5-6km range and an engagement altitude of 3500m. How then with a Harpoon launched at 100km+ is a P3 going to be shot down?

Using UAVs or even the standard sensor suite in an upgraded P3 means it never has to get close.

It was standard RNZAF tactics to use the P3 as part of a A4 strike package, which meant that the P3 was getting close to the target to id and guide in the A4s. With JASSM or SLAM-ER the P-3 is actually meaner and more capable. The new upgrades (with maybe some more) will give an ESM and ECM capability far above a strike aircraft.

 

[Markus40]

Re: RNZAF P-3

The RNZAF P-3 upgrade only includes a navigation and flight systems upgrade. Currently underway. Not military mission upgrades such as the ESM or ECMs suites and Military application upgrades unfortunatly. I mentioned before that the P-3 could be used as a secondary measure, but for trade routes its role would be to have some survelleince for an ANZAC, but to be honest the ANZACS are more than capable to close the door on this issue, using a Seasprite with a Maverick.

I agree that the Orion is best suited for Long Range maritime strike in the South Pacfic. Fitted with SLAM-ER and JASSM it would provide a significant force enhancement for the NZDF. I would like to see the ASW capability ungraded at some point, given the importance of maritime trade to NZ (Wasn't there a comment made that this would be done as a minor project at some point or am I dreaming?).

Does anyone have the cost of any of the UAV's.