NZDF - Now and the Future.

[Markus40]

Re: Upgrade RNZAF P-3

I agree with you and there should be upgrades made for ASW and Military Mission applications. There are now an increasing number of countries on our trade route who do opearte Subs.

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.

 

[Whiskyjack]

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 don't think thats right, from MoD website,

The mission systems and the communication and navigation systems on the six P-3K Orion aircraft operated by the Royal New Zealand Air Force are to be upgraded. The scope of this project includes the replacement of the data management, sensor, communications and navigation systems, and the provision of associated ground systems

 

[Markus40]

Re: RNZAF P-3

Yes thats right the RNZAF does operate 6 Orions. A typo error, sorry.
However this doesnt exclude my original text on the operating proceedures of the P-3 and its limited ability to fly into a war zone or behind it using a Harpoon or a Penguin or Maverick. I still think your impressions are flawed for future applications because as anti air missile technology is way more sophisticated its way more likely to shoot down a P-3 despite flares and Magnesium.

I see you noted the P-3 can operate out of Fiji, and no doubt it can, however i doubt you would if the war zone we are talking about does happen in Fiji. No one in their right mind is going to operate their assets out of a country they are at war with unless they have assets designed for forward operations like the Harrier.

your question:

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?

Answer: Easy. Actually a stinger has a further range than 5-6 kms. With the new updated versions having a 15 km range. The Russian equivalent have a 15-30 Kilometer range. The RNZAF P-3 doesnt have the equipment to support early warning detection of a launched missile making it even more vulnerable. A P-3 will not know what hit it, with a small crew on the ground that fired a missile at it. Its crazy to think that a P-3 should be armed with expensive and heavy ASMs and expect to manuever out of a path of a missile. Its better to shot down without them than with them, at least the aircraft had a chance of getting out a path of a sam unloaded than it being loaded with a ASMs.

your question:

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.

Answer:

I have some serious doubts over your assumptions that the P-3 was used as a strike package with the A-4s. Maybe as a strike package doing a different job. Remember the P-3s are and were designed for anti sub warfare. Not to be used as survellience as they never had equipment to do this job. If this was the case then that government who bought them should have used them as cannon fodder for their exercises.!

Its simple. A P-3 loaded with JASSM or SLAM-ER is a slow target rich asset. Just take a look at how easy with a simple "nick" from a chinese fighter that brought down the EP-3 near Haman island.

Secondly, with no range and loiter option carrying the harpoon or similar this is a no choice option. If i was to stand between a P-3 and a fighter armed with ESM and ECM and delivery systems with the same weopon, i know what i would pick. Thats if i could fly one! Sorry but i wouldnt go to war with you riding on a Harpoon laden P-3.

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: P-3 Orion

Not according to the NZ Defense web site. All the upgrades will have some military appliocations upgrades like FLIR and LANTERN etc but the primary "Mission" upgrade is for detecting yaghts and upgrading navigation equipment and flight systems. Sorry no military upgrades in this package.

I don't think thats right, from MoD website,

The mission systems and the communication and navigation systems on the six P-3K Orion aircraft operated by the Royal New Zealand Air Force are to be upgraded. The scope of this project includes the replacement of the data management, sensor, communications and navigation systems, and the provision of associated ground systems

 

[Lucasnz]

I have some serious doubts over your assumptions that the P-3 was used as a strike package with the A-4s. Maybe as a strike package doing a different job. Remember the P-3s are and were designed for anti sub warfare. Not to be used as survellience as they never had equipment to do this job. If this was the case then that government who bought them should have used them as cannon fodder for their exercises.!

I can confirm that the A-4's did fly with P-3 on martime strike missions. There was an article in the Press about 4-5 years ago, about a training mission against a visting T42 destoryer.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Yes thats right the RNZAF does operate 6 Orions. A typo error, sorry.
However this doesnt exclude my original text on the operating proceedures of the P-3 and its limited ability to fly into a war zone or behind it using a Harpoon or a Penguin or Maverick. I still think your impressions are flawed for future applications because as anti air missile technology is way more sophisticated its way more likely to shoot down a P-3 despite flares and Magnesium.

What war zone is there in the South Pacific?

I see you noted the P-3 can operate out of Fiji, and no doubt it can, however i doubt you would if the war zone we are talking about does happen in Fiji. No one in their right mind is going to operate their assets out of a country they are at war with unless they have assets designed for forward operations like the Harrier.

What tactical situation are you talking about? I must have missed the news that gave the Fijians Fighters and advanced SAM systems.

Answer: Easy. Actually a stinger has a further range than 5-6 kms. With the new updated versions having a 15 km range. The Russian equivalent have a 15-30 Kilometer range. The RNZAF P-3 doesnt have the equipment to support early warning detection of a launched missile making it even more vulnerable. A P-3 will not know what hit it, with a small crew on the ground that fired a missile at it. Its crazy to think that a P-3 should be armed with expensive and heavy ASMs and expect to manuever out of a path of a missile. Its better to shot down without them than with them, at least the aircraft had a chance of getting out a path of a sam unloaded than it being loaded with a ASMs.

There is currently no manpad that operates at over 8km, the reason it is LINE OF SITE, how can a manpad launch against a target it can’t see? If it is being cued it is giving a signal so ESM and ECM come into play. Check your source dude, it is not right.
My understanding is that ESM is one of the main parts of the upgrade….and if not it can be added.

Once again , the P3 WILL be launching outside the risk envelope.

Answer:

I have some serious doubts over your assumptions that the P-3 was used as a strike package with the A-4s. Maybe as a strike package doing a different job. Remember the P-3s are and were designed for anti sub warfare. Not to be used as survellience as they never had equipment to do this job. If this was the case then that government who bought them should have used them as cannon fodder for their exercises.!

I have read multiple sources for this, also my cousin flew both, so I have no doubts about that. How do you think the A4s were finding targets?
Once again look at the above the P3 is a ASW & ASuW platform and yes maritime surveillance is the main part of the job.

Its simple. A P-3 loaded with JASSM or SLAM-ER is a slow target rich asset. Just take a look at how easy with a simple "nick" from a chinese fighter that brought down the EP-3 near Haman island.

Yes quite right, when talking about the Chinese fighter….but this is a completely different scenario not a war time tactical use and once again where are your fighters in the South Pacific?

Secondly, with no range and loiter option carrying the harpoon or similar this is a no choice option. If i was to stand between a P-3 and a fighter armed with ESM and ECM and delivery systems with the same weopon, i know what i would pick. Thats if i could fly one! Sorry but i wouldnt go to war with you riding on a Harpoon laden P-3.

Just to summarise what are your strategic and tactical drivers? I am talking about operating an aircraft in a low risk environment where the P3 will be launching strikes against ground and sea targets that are not US carrier strike groups, or anything close.

The P3 is a well suited strike surveillance aircraft for the area of operation it operates in.

Please tell me what you scenario is as I think you are overstating the risk and are not showing an understanding of the P3 role and capabilities.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Not according to the NZ Defense web site. All the upgrades will have some military appliocations upgrades like FLIR and LANTERN etc but the primary "Mission" upgrade is for detecting yaghts and upgrading navigation equipment and flight systems. Sorry no military upgrades in this package.

You may be right on the basis of ECM and ESM but the upgrade to the mission equipment is military in nature and follows other P3 upgrades.

The ESM and ECM can be added much easier. It is also part of the LTDF to add missiles to the P3s.

 

[Markus40]

Re: RNZAF Operations.

Sure, in a limited maritime exercise, and maybe i didnt make myself clear about the role of the P-3. The P-3 is designed for anti Maritme roles such as anti submarine warefare. I beleive in this exercise that the A-4s were training to destroy the T42, while the P-3s gave co ordinates and visual. At least the P-3s had air cover. My argument is that they cant operate without air combat cover. They are simply sitting ducks, and arming them with ASMs for anti maritime missions is slowing them down and restricting their operating time over a field of operations. Especially if we have only 6 of them.

We saw in the Falklands war that the A-4 was extremly successful just using a conventional bomb. So was the Super Etendard with the Exocet. A squadron of these will do a lot more damage and have a "surety" of target because of its speed. If our P-3s was as updated as the Australians along with Super Etendards that this option would give NZ a way better option for long distance and have more respect from the enemy.

I can confirm that the A-4's did fly with P-3 on martime strike missions. There was an article in the Press about 4-5 years ago, about a training mission against a visting T42 destoryer.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Sure, in a limited maritime exercise, and maybe i didnt make myself clear about the role of the P-3. The P-3 is designed for anti Maritme roles such as anti submarine warefare. I beleive in this exercise that the A-4s were training to destroy the T42, while the P-3s gave co ordinates and visual. At least the P-3s had air cover. My argument is that they cant operate without air combat cover. They are simply sitting ducks, and arming them with ASMs for anti maritime missions is slowing them down and restricting their operating time over a field of operations. Especially if we have only 6 of them.

We saw in the Falklands war that the A-4 was extremly successful just using a conventional bomb. So was the Super Etendard with the Exocet. A squadron of these will do a lot more damage and have a "surety" of target because of its speed. If our P-3s was as updated as the Australians along with Super Etendards that this option would give NZ a way better option for long distance and have more respect from the enemy.

This was not done as a limited exercise but as a tactical doctrine.
The A4 were not providing air cover as the standard fit out for the A4 was 2 mavs and 2 drop tanks, no AAW missiles.

Once again I think your assumptions are flawed. Unless the enemy is operating carriers or under air cover from land bases the P3 is not threatened. This situation does not exist in the SP if by some small chance it did, then we are fighting with the US, Australia etc… but it is not going to happen as no potential enemy has the capability to force project into the SP.

For the record I would like to see a strike force, but it is low on the list of priorities for the NZDF when modern tech like UAVs and modernised P3s will do the job better than a air strike force can in the SP. IMO Air strike is for deployment not defence.

 

[Markus40]

Re: P-3 RNZAF

What tactical situation are you talking about? I must have missed the news that gave the Fijians Fighters and advanced SAM systems.

Answer: Im giving you a scenario that if put against the P-3 then the P-3 is gone. If we did have a low level war with Fiji in this example then of course its possible sophisticated SAMS could be used by Fiji. Currently the P-3 will NOT be able to detect them, even with their upgrade and the upgrade currently does NOT support the carriage of ASMs. The P-3 have no ESMs and ECMs.



What war zone is there in the South Pacific?

Answer:

None at present. Im giving you a hyperthetical scenario that could happen and most likely would.


What tactical situation are you talking about? I must have missed the news that gave the Fijians Fighters and advanced SAM systems.

Answer:

No recent news. The P-3 is simply a sitting duck to a SAM and wouldnt know if one was fired at it, despite the ability of launching a ASM out side the field of risk.


There is currently no manpad that operates at over 8km, the reason it is LINE OF SITE, how can a manpad launch against a target it can’t see? If it is being cued it is giving a signal so ESM and ECM come into play. Check your source dude, it is not right.

Answer: There are man pads including Russian made that do. Check your information.! The man pads are also being made by the Russians that have a fire-and-forget option. These are easily transportable and WILL bring down a P-3. As said already a missile launched against a laiden P-3 is a dead duck.

My understanding is that ESM is one of the main parts of the upgrade….and if not it can be added. Once again , the P3 WILL be launching outside the risk envelope.

Answer:

The ESM from what i have read isnt part of the upgrade and probably wont be for the forseeable future. Saying it could be is talking fantasy. And once again despite a RNZAF P-3 launching a ASM outside its risk envelope will not stop a SAM taking it out. I made mention that the missile could be launched from any vessel, even a motor pleasure craft. I doubt very much under the CURRENT capabilitys of the P-3 crew of them picking this up outside 100km away with the current equipment on board.


I have read multiple sources for this, also my cousin flew both, so I have no doubts about that. How do you think the A4s were finding targets?


Answer: By limited radar now outdated and visual.

Once again look at the above the P3 is a ASW & ASuW platform and yes maritime surveillance is the main part of the job.

Answer: Glad you agree. But a Harpoon laiden RNZAF P-3 without targeting and military applications on board is simply not going to cut it.


Yes quite right, when talking about the Chinese fighter….but this is a completely different scenario not a war time tactical use and once again where are your fighters in the South Pacific?

Answer: It still gives us a picture of how vulnerable the P-3 is. It would appear that the Chinese could have quite easily have used a SAM to shoot it down. Your last sentence is irrelevant to this conversation.



Just to summarise what are your strategic and tactical drivers? I am talking about operating an aircraft in a low risk environment where the P3 will be launching strikes against ground and sea targets that are not US carrier strike groups, or anything close. The P3 is a well suited strike surveillance aircraft for the area of operation it operates in.

Please tell me what you scenario is as I think you are overstating the risk and are not showing an understanding of the P3 role and capabilities.

Answer: To summarise your perspective i think you are underestimating the ability of an enemy taking out a P-3 . Again i will repeat my self.

1-The RNZAF doesnt have the necessary equipment to CURRENTLY support ASMs
2-The government hasnt put into its budget that there will be a ESM or ECM suite into the P-3s for the forseeable future.
3-The P-3 is way to vulnerable to a Mobile SAM from a small maritime craft.
4-The P-3 laiden with the Harpoon will be too heavy to carry out a long reach mission to take out a target. Thats if we know one is there.!
5-The P-3 CANNOT loitre and carry out survellience work with such weopons for any extended length of time.
6-The P-3 doesnt have a refueling capability to carry out such a mission.
7-The P-3 cannot fire a Harpoon beyond visual range operations and identify a target because its limited radar and targeting acquisition.
8-If the P-3 was bought with the A-4 as some say then there was a good reason for this. That was to operate with a strike combat force alongside. It cant operate alone.! Simple.
9-The P-3 cant get to target fast, and having a jet laiden A-4 or similar with all the combat suites is going to do the job faster and quicker.
10-The P-3s limited manuvurability(spelt that wrong sorry) in a war zone is asking for trouble. It needs an escort for protection.

To summarise again: Please tell me why in my wildest dreams would this government want to arm a Harpoon onto a P-3.? Thats why we need our strike force back. Or to have an arrangement with Australia to have a squadron of their F-18s based at Ohakea.

 

[Markus40]

Re: A-4s

Actually the A-4s were fitted out with AIM 9 s for air to air missions shortly after they arrived into NZ and then later the maverick.

It still doesnt address the overall question of protecting the Navy and Army in their field of operations as is desperatly needed today. Seems for now we need to rely on the Austalians.

For this reason i am totally convinced you dont have a sound military education otherwise you would have seen this. UAVs are extremely pricy and as they would be handy in a limited military action over land, for maritime applications we would need a UCAV or Global hawke or similar to reach the outer exclusion zone to see whats there. To have one would be in a war with Australia and the US. Not likely at this stage. If you read my previous message you will understand why we need the A-4 or similar.


This was not done as a limited exercise but as a tactical doctrine. [/FONT]
The A4 were not providing air cover as the standard fit out for the A4 was 2 mavs and 2 drop tanks, no AAW missiles.

Once again I think your assumptions are flawed. Unless the enemy is operating carriers or under air cover from land bases the P3 is not threatened. This situation does not exist in the SP if by some small chance it did, then we are fighting with the US, Australia etc… but it is not going to happen as no potential enemy has the capability to force project into the SP.

For the record I would like to see a strike force, but it is low on the list of priorities for the NZDF when modern tech like UAVs and modernised P3s will do the job better than a air strike force can in the SP. IMO Air strike is for deployment not defence.[/QUOTE]

 

[gf0012-aust]

Note to all​

Can everyone ensure that they use the forum editing tools when quoting others. It makes it awfully difficult to keep track of conversations and reference points etc...

ie, when responding to another poster, go to their thread and hit the "quote" button so that it brings up their text in the proper format.

If they have multiple comments, then top and tail each of their comments in the same format as the quote layout shown in the first response "quoted"

 

[Whiskyjack]

Okay Marcus, lets start at the beginning.

Your scenario needs to be based on a realistic situation that the P3 will find itself in. It is not realistic,

If we did have a low level war with Fiji in this example then of course its possible sophisticated SAMS could be used by Fiji.

This is not realistic:

• What evidence is there that Fiji is aiming to buy such systems?
• How long does it take to order, deliver, train and implement them?
• How is Fiji paying for them?
• Who is selling them.
• What high tech equipment does the Fijian military operate that even suggests they have the capability to integrate and use such advanced systems?

Make a scenario realistic.

Currently the P-3 will NOT be able to detect them, even with their upgrade and the upgrade currently does NOT support the carriage of ASMs. The P-3 have no ESMs and ECMs.

No but the Govt has stated its intention to do this. I believe that as far as the addition of ASMs much of the current upgrade will provide fore this, e.g. radar, infra red, mission systems. And I am sure that the systems being installed by L3 have the ability to add systems into them quickly. My understanding is that there is some ESM capability and this would make sense from a surveillance viewpoint (type of radar emission etc).

The P-3 is simply a sitting duck to a SAM and wouldnt know if one was fired at it, despite the ability of launching a ASM out side the field of risk.

How many P3s have been lost to SAMs? This is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but you are not taking into account the fact that the stand off nature of modern warfare means that the aircraft has survivability. The fact remains that launching the Harpoon from 100km will put the P3 out side the range of even the RAN (until it receives the SM-2).

Answer: There are man pads including Russian made that do. Check your information.! The man pads are also being made by the Russians that have a fire-and-forget option. These are easily transportable and WILL bring down a P-3. As said already a missile launched against a laiden P-3 is a dead duck.

I have rechecked and I can’t find them, give me the name and your source, until you do I will have to believe the sources and resources I have built up over the last 10+ years.

The ESM from what i have read isnt part of the upgrade and probably wont be for the forseeable future. Saying it could be is talking fantasy. And once again despite a RNZAF P-3 launching a ASM outside its risk envelope will not stop a SAM taking it out. I made mention that the missile could be launched from any vessel, even a motor pleasure craft. I doubt very much under the CURRENT capabilitys of the P-3 crew of them picking this up outside 100km away with the current equipment on board.

I think, as stated above, that it is part of the mission systems. And it is not like we don’t have ESM/ECM in the ANZACS and Seasprites. It makes sense that it would be these P3s are to be able to operate up to the Gulf.

Make up your mind mate, because the CURENT risk is nil as well. A terrorist could sit in speed boat and take out a 747 off Auckland airport as well.

Your sense of tactical employment is not accurate and therefore I find myself wondering if UFOs are a danger as well?

For the record all I have ever suggested is that the P3s be upgraded to offer a sea and land attack capability, in conjunction with UAVs. read the other posts.

By limited radar now outdated and visual.

But it was the tactic and still is the tactic used by several western airforces and navies today.

But a Harpoon laiden RNZAF P-3 without targeting and military applications on board is simply not going to cut it.

See above for upgrade comment.

It still gives us a picture of how vulnerable the P-3 is. It would appear that the Chinese could have quite easily have used a SAM to shoot it down. Your last sentence is irrelevant to this conversation.

So are jets, ask the Greek and Turkish airforces and my last comment is goes to the problem with your whole line of thought, it is not realistic in NZs strategic context.

Just to summarise what are your strategic and tactical drivers? I am talking about operating an aircraft in a low risk environment where the P3 will be launching strikes against ground and sea targets that are not US carrier strike groups, or anything close. The P3 is a well suited strike surveillance aircraft for the area of operation it operates in.

Please tell me what you scenario is as I think you are overstating the risk and are not showing an understanding of the P3 role and capabilities.

Answer: To summarise your perspective i think you are underestimating the ability of an enemy taking out a P-3 . Again i will repeat my self.

1-The RNZAF doesnt have the necessary equipment to CURRENTLY support ASMs
2-The government hasnt put into its budget that there will be a ESM or ECM suite into the P-3s for the forseeable future.
3-The P-3 is way to vulnerable to a Mobile SAM from a small maritime craft.
4-The P-3 laiden with the Harpoon will be too heavy to carry out a long reach mission to take out a target. Thats if we know one is there.!
5-The P-3 CANNOT loitre and carry out survellience work with such weopons for any extended length of time.
6-The P-3 doesnt have a refueling capability to carry out such a mission.
7-The P-3 cannot fire a Harpoon beyond visual range operations and identify a target because its limited radar and targeting acquisition.
8-If the P-3 was bought with the A-4 as some say then there was a good reason for this. That was to operate with a strike combat force alongside. It cant operate alone.! Simple.
9-The P-3 cant get to target fast, and having a jet laiden A-4 or similar with all the combat suites is going to do the job faster and quicker.
10-The P-3s limited manuvurability(spelt that wrong sorry) in a war zone is asking for trouble. It needs an escort for protection.

1. no they don’t, that is why I am advocating an upgrade to this role.
2. No but doesn’t mean they can’t or wont or even that the threat exists to justify it
3. Only if the RNZAF starts flying dumb all of a sudden you tailor your mission to the threat, like they did in the Gulf.
4. Depends on the mission profile e.g. UAV or other P3 providing recon, also the P3 still has considerable range with two Harpoons.
5. So what? see above
6. irrelevant
7. That’s why it is upgraded!!!!!! And supported by UAVs
8. Yes it can
9. Show me the war zone in the South Pacific

To summarise again: Please tell me why in my wildest dreams would this government want to arm a Harpoon onto a P-3.? Thats why we need our strike force back. Or to have an arrangement with Australia to have a squadron of their F-18s based at Ohakea.

Ask the RAAF, JSDF, USN, RAF, RCAF, German, French, Italian, they all arm their MPA aircraft. Why would the RAAF base F-18s 1000km from their northern boarder when the P-3 can do the job here?

 

[Whiskyjack]

Actually the A-4s were fitted out with AIM 9 s for air to air missions shortly after they arrived into NZ and then later the maverick.

It still doesnt address the overall question of protecting the Navy and Army in their field of operations as is desperatly needed today. Seems for now we need to rely on the Austalians.

For this reason i am totally convinced you dont have a sound military education otherwise you would have seen this. UAVs are extremely pricy and as they would be handy in a limited military action over land, for maritime applications we would need a UCAV or Global hawke or similar to reach the outer exclusion zone to see whats there. To have one would be in a war with Australia and the US. Not likely at this stage. If you read my previous message you will understand why we need the A-4 or similar.

Yes I know, but they can only carry 2 drop tanks and 2 mavs or AAMs, so a maritime attack sortie, no AAMs.

In the 14 years I have studied military affairs both formally, postgraduate, and through other means I have never been questioned on my lack of military knowledge. That includes various Chiefs of the Defence Force, Senior and Junior officers, Academics, Minister of Defence and opposition spokesman for defence and the defence industry. So I am now beginning to wonder where you are coming from in all this? What is your experience?

Tell me, exactly what is the price for 5 Global Hawks, or Mariners or Predators and upgrading the P3s to carry out strike missions. Compared to a strike force?

The last part makes no sense. clarify please?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Before this gets out of hand. Lets all remember to "play the ball and not the man"

Stay on topic folks. Credibility is always determined by consistency and quality of logic in the debate.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Before this gets out of hand. Lets all remember to "play the ball and not the man"

Stay on topic folks. Credibility is always determined by consistency and quality of logic in the debate.

Thanks for the reminder, might be time for a beer.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thanks for the reminder, might be time for a beer.

No worries.

I just don't want to see another potentially good thread get locked up due to posting frustrations.

 

[Markus40]

Re: P-3 Orion RNZAF

I think something stronger than a Beer? Whisky maybe?


Having a Degree in Political Science and having completed a stint in the RNZN im fully aware of the Geo political nature of our region and its Defensive networks and especially our defensive posture.

Im going to start at the beginning again and if you havent had anyone question you over this issue then its about time there was. Its seriously up the coos. Sorry.

The one thing i do agree on is that on the basis of supplementing and building our offensive capabilities if there is no other option left and to arm the P-3 with the Harpoon i dont have difficulty with. Its a good last ditch option for the government.

However to operate the P-3 with a Harpoon without escort cover from lets say our A-4s or similar is fundementally suicidal. I am talking about a low level war in the south pacfic where nothing should be taken for granted and underestimated. The P-3 cant look after our Army in the field of war because its not designed to do so, and this is essentially what NZ needs. We need to have equipment and weopons to protect them. Thats why i am strong on the argument on bringing our combat force back. Its an essential part of air cover for the Navy and Army. 6 P-3 with Harpoons arent going to do it.

Also the Harpoons themselves are expensive and would be used if absolutely necessary.

So to cap off i will remind you of the reasons why i believe the P-3s cant operate the way you imagine they can:


1-The RNZAF doesnt have the necessary equipment to CURRENTLY support ASMs
2-The government hasnt put into its budget that there will be a ESM or ECM suite into the P-3s for the forseeable future.
3-The P-3 is way to vulnerable to a Mobile SAM from a small maritime craft.
4-The P-3 laiden with the Harpoon will be too heavy to carry out a long reach mission to take out a target. Thats if we know one is there.!
5-The P-3 CANNOT loitre and carry out survellience work with such weopons for any extended length of time.
6-The P-3 doesnt have a refueling capability to carry out such a mission.
7-The P-3 cannot fire a Harpoon beyond visual range operations and identify a target because its limited radar and targeting acquisition.
8-If the P-3 was bought with the A-4 as some say then there was a good reason for this. That was to operate with a strike combat force alongside. It cant operate alone.! Simple.
9-The P-3 cant get to target fast, and having a jet laiden A-4 or similar with all the combat suites is going to do the job faster and quicker.
10-The P-3s limited manuvurability(spelt that wrong sorry) in a war zone is asking for trouble. It needs an escort for protection.

As for the following none of it makes any sense. Sorry.

1. no they don’t, that is why I am advocating an upgrade to this role.
2. No but doesn’t mean they can’t or wont or even that the threat exists to justify it
3. Only if the RNZAF starts flying dumb all of a sudden you tailor your mission to the threat, like they did in the Gulf.
4. Depends on the mission profile e.g. UAV or other P3 providing recon, also the P3 still has considerable range with two Harpoons.
5. So what? see above
6. irrelevant
7. That’s why it is upgraded!!!!!! And supported by UAVs
8. Yes it can
9. Show me the war zone in the South Pacifi

 

[Whiskyjack]

I will definitely like to get some other opinions from members, but this is where I am coming from.
NZ has a large area of responsibility from the Equator in To Antarctica. What it needs is maritime (including island) surveillance. I propose that over the next 10 years that NZ build up a force mix of UAV (Mariner etc..) and MPAs (P3s etc).

To support a strike force in the Pacific would require a minimum of 20 fast jets plus tankers to get them up to the Pacific. This is not realistic and not needed given the environment NZ operates in.

Arming the P3s with a missile like the JASSM (400km range), Harpoon (130km), NSM (160), or the SLAM-ER (240km). Will allow for a force that can find and engage targets (both air and land) pretty much anywhere in NZ area of interest. The assets can also be deployed in coalition operations where coalition fighters provide cover. Missiles are expensive but that is where militaries are moving stand off weapons (e.g. RAAF spending $550m on JASSM)

Now I now P3 have been used in Africa and the Balkans, as well as the Gulf to provide surveillance on both land and sea. I consider these environments to be of greater risk than the Pacific. Now the P3 would be used for precision strikes against Land and Sea targets that had been identified by UAV, other P3s, SAS etc. It is most definitely not intended to provide CAS for the army.

Now logistically NZ is not capable of providing CAS out into the South Pacific. For instance Fiji is 2000km from NZ. To provide CAS out to that distance requires lots of Tanker support. A base closer requires political approval, and still lots of logistics. properly equipped the NZ army can provide its own devastating fire support (120mm mortar, 155mm or NLOS-LS).

Strategically there is nothing in NZs area of operations that currently, or in the medium future, requires NZ to spend on a strike force with tanker capabilities.

So bearing in mind that this is the force structure I envision I will answer your points.

However to operate the P-3 with a Harpoon without escort cover from lets say our A-4s or similar is fundementally suicidal. I am talking about a low level war in the south pacfic where nothing should be taken for granted and underestimated. The P-3 cant look after our Army in the field of war because its not designed to do so, and this is essentially what NZ needs. We need to have equipment and weopons to protect them. Thats why i am strong on the argument on bringing our combat force back. Its an essential part of air cover for the Navy and Army. 6 P-3 with Harpoons arent going to do it.

Also the Harpoons themselves are expensive and would be used if absolutely necessary.

I think that I have replied to this above, but one more point, please give me specific threats and systems that you see in NZs region that will make unescorted P3s suicidal, please remember they will be upgraded and have UAV support. I am interested to see what systems you see threatening them? I honestly can't think, if they were deployed to Timor or Fiji today, of anything that is going to threaten a P3 at 20,000 ft.

So to cap off i will remind you of the reasons why i believe the P-3s cant operate the way you imagine they can:


1-The RNZAF doesnt have the necessary equipment to CURRENTLY support ASMs

Please see above, I will also add that the budget the Govt has given to add ASMs is only $50m so much of the work must be part of the current upgrade.

2-The government hasnt put into its budget that there will be a ESM or ECM suite into the P-3s for the forseeable future.

I have answered that above.

3-The P-3 is way to vulnerable to a Mobile SAM from a small maritime craft.

I disagree and can find many examples of where P3s are used in similar environments, they fly above the threat envelope

4-The P-3 laiden with the Harpoon will be too heavy to carry out a long reach mission to take out a target. Thats if we know one is there.!

I disagree on this point as well a P3 carrying two ASMs can still reach out to Fiji, looked at several sets of specs on this.

5-The P-3 CANNOT loitre and carry out survellience work with such weopons for any extended length of time.

Like any sortie it depends on the mission profile, can't see the logic you are using here?

6-The P-3 doesnt have a refueling capability to carry out such a mission.

Nor would any strike fighters in NZ service, the only difference is that the P3 can reach MUCH further, hence it suits the environment.

7-The P-3 cannot fire a Harpoon beyond visual range operations and identify a target because its limited radar and targeting acquisition.

Depends how they are operated and equipped, your tactics depend on resourses, UAVs, other P3s etc. How is the target going to be found and identified in the first place?

8-If the P-3 was bought with the A-4 as some say then there was a good reason for this. That was to operate with a strike combat force alongside. It cant operate alone.! Simple.

Yes it can and yes it does, many nations do, it all depends on the threat situation and tactical doctrine used. The A4s operated in the days when you had to get 10km away or even closer. Standoff is the new attack method, hence much work had also gone into target identification from a distance

9-The P-3 cant get to target fast, and having a jet laiden A-4 or similar with all the combat suites is going to do the job faster and quicker.

Yes, I find buildings and other main targets don't tend to move. If you have a UAV at 40000-50000, ships don't tend to get away either. How far out are your A4s operating? I think the RNZAF needs to operate at a distance.

10-The P-3s limited manuvurability(spelt that wrong sorry) in a war zone is asking for trouble. It needs an escort for protection.

What do you see as threatening it in the South Pacific?

What do you see the NZDF doing in the South Pacific? Who is going to threaten a P3 etc?

Also remember that the C-130 is used as a tactical transport and would be much more likely to be in danger than a P3.

To my mind intervention into a island state, where recon and precision strike of targets may be needed is the likely scenario, but please let me know what you see as a threat.

 

[Markus40]

Re: P-3 Operations.

Now that you have finished your beer and onto your 3rd whisky, i now realise why the Joint Chiefs of staff decided to drop you from the Joint operations headquarters in Wellington.!! Sounds like we would have no P-3s left and all our stock of 100 Harpoons launched at an encroaching Russian fishing trawler taking on too much Orange roughy.!!




Thanks for the reminder, might be time for a beer.