- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #101
Dude, I have no idea what you are talking about (I hope).Markus40 said:
Give me some specifics and I'll debate them. I am reasonalby confident in my ideas.
NZDF - Now and the Future.
- Thread starter Whiskyjack
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Give me some specifics and I'll debate them. I am reasonalby confident in my ideas.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #102
Okay, I am off to find that beer. Look forward to continuing the debate!
Dude, I have no idea what you are talking about (I hope).
Admin: Deleted comment. That one was a bit unnecessary.
Give me some specifics and I'll debate them. I am reasonalby confident in my ideas.
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
Your answers dont answer my questions and certainly doesnt address these issues and i wish you would debate them logically. I will say it again, the P-3s must work alongside the A-4s as designed for maritime strike. Thats to say we need our strike force back. P3s and c-130s are not an Airforce. Its like a Tiger with no teeth.! The Navy and Army MUST have the Strike force working alongside them to acheive military goals both now and in the future. Australia knows this fact and so does most other 1st and 2nd rated countries throughout the world. To think that a P3 can do this work by itself is in a fantasy world somewhere, and has no handle on military doctrine.
Secondly, we need to pull our weight and protect our own assets at sea and land wherever that may be. That means being able to field weopons that will effectively protect as well as take out potential threats. Whether thats in and around NZ, the South pacific or in Asia , makes no difference. A P-3 loaded with a Harpoon fired outside the field of risk isnt going to fix our air combat issues. In fact they will become a liability if operated with our allies in areas we dont share and yet the enemy has SAMs to take out P3s and such like.
Here is my proposal. And would welcome those for your ideas. I think the P3 should be armed lightly as a secondary offensive weopon only, with a ASM. The main role of offensive duties should go to a air Strike force where they are trained to fast dog fighting action and air to ground missions if so required and can fire their weopons with BVR weopons. This would save the Orion for further survellience work and back up the strike force. Remember also that it is possible that NZ could lease or we could have a Tanker based at Ohakea from Australia for such missions if so required and the aircraft we operate be fitted with air to air refueling. With no gaps in our ability to defend ourselves and deploy properly we are functioning correctly with the other forces and allies in our area. To just front up with a P3 as a front line means of defense for our troops on the ground and Navy is an insult.
Admin: Deleted comment. That one was a bit unnecessary.
Give me some specifics and I'll debate them. I am reasonalby confident in my ideas.
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
Your answers dont answer my questions and certainly doesnt address these issues and i wish you would debate them logically. I will say it again, the P-3s must work alongside the A-4s as designed for maritime strike. Thats to say we need our strike force back. P3s and c-130s are not an Airforce. Its like a Tiger with no teeth.! The Navy and Army MUST have the Strike force working alongside them to acheive military goals both now and in the future. Australia knows this fact and so does most other 1st and 2nd rated countries throughout the world. To think that a P3 can do this work by itself is in a fantasy world somewhere, and has no handle on military doctrine.
Secondly, we need to pull our weight and protect our own assets at sea and land wherever that may be. That means being able to field weopons that will effectively protect as well as take out potential threats. Whether thats in and around NZ, the South pacific or in Asia , makes no difference. A P-3 loaded with a Harpoon fired outside the field of risk isnt going to fix our air combat issues. In fact they will become a liability if operated with our allies in areas we dont share and yet the enemy has SAMs to take out P3s and such like.
Here is my proposal. And would welcome those for your ideas. I think the P3 should be armed lightly as a secondary offensive weopon only, with a ASM. The main role of offensive duties should go to a air Strike force where they are trained to fast dog fighting action and air to ground missions if so required and can fire their weopons with BVR weopons. This would save the Orion for further survellience work and back up the strike force. Remember also that it is possible that NZ could lease or we could have a Tanker based at Ohakea from Australia for such missions if so required and the aircraft we operate be fitted with air to air refueling. With no gaps in our ability to defend ourselves and deploy properly we are functioning correctly with the other forces and allies in our area. To just front up with a P3 as a front line means of defense for our troops on the ground and Navy is an insult.
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: RNZAF P3 Orion
Admin: As stated prev - please use online edit facilities so as to make things easier for everyone when reading and responding.
The next thing is to load a P3 with Harpoons restricts its range and loitre abilitys dramatically. Its manueverability is effected and operating speed. Especially if the weopons are deployed on the aircraft externally. If the aircraft had inflight refueling then that might be fine. I would suggest that this would not be the case because of the age of the aircraft being very old.
The other major reason why its crazy to load such expensive weopons onto a P3 is that the Navy and Army will require more agile and dog fighting skills from our own to kill assets for the Army in the field and a harpoon alone doesnt cut it.
The P3 is not a multi tasking wepon system that can fire a mixture of weopons for the protection of the navy and Airforce and of course our Army. A P3 cannot protect a C-130 if called upon it to do so.
The P3 is a Survellience aircraft that can have a secondary offensive maritime role working alongside a Air combat force. The only problem is we dont have a air combat force and this alone means that the Australians will have to look after them with their F-18s.
To cap it off with this question to have 6 orions in our armery for the size and remoteness of our geo location is laughable and remember that not all 6 can be deployed at once to hit targets BVR.
The question is not whos going to threaten a P3 but rather the threat will lie within the P3s ability to carry out the operations currently without its offensive upgrades and operations with our allies.
The other thing is that its most likely as well that a Harpoon armed P3 is better kept for Intel and survellience and have a number of Air to ground aircraft operated by the RNZAF doing the mix of jobs that its capable of doing for our Army and Navy. Thats why im in favour of bringing back the Air Combat force as its fast and can get the job done faster. If our boys in the Army call for a air strike on a position then i think the commander on the ground would have to be drunk to call up 2 harpoon equiped P3s.!
Markus40 Answer: The P3 and C-130 are 2 big "birds" and both are in danger of being lost in a low level war. I disagree with this comment vehemently.
Let me know what your answers are. I look forward to your comments.
Admin: As stated prev - please use online edit facilities so as to make things easier for everyone when reading and responding.
Marcus40 Answer: This question is one that leads to other aspects of the P3s operations and current abilities and the geo political nature both now and for the future in other parts of the world. Not just whats threatening it in the South Pacific if a low level war broke out there. First our government use this aircraft for patrol duties working along side Australia with its limited role as our systems are currently on this aircraft are not as up to date as the Australians. So firstly because there are no upgrades militarily we have put this aircraft at riskMy colleague has put together a scenario and some questions in this area and i want to answer them as best i can but i would welcome your input as well. Let me know what you think.
What do you see as threatening it in the South Pacific?
The next thing is to load a P3 with Harpoons restricts its range and loitre abilitys dramatically. Its manueverability is effected and operating speed. Especially if the weopons are deployed on the aircraft externally. If the aircraft had inflight refueling then that might be fine. I would suggest that this would not be the case because of the age of the aircraft being very old.
The other major reason why its crazy to load such expensive weopons onto a P3 is that the Navy and Army will require more agile and dog fighting skills from our own to kill assets for the Army in the field and a harpoon alone doesnt cut it.
The P3 is not a multi tasking wepon system that can fire a mixture of weopons for the protection of the navy and Airforce and of course our Army. A P3 cannot protect a C-130 if called upon it to do so.
The P3 is a Survellience aircraft that can have a secondary offensive maritime role working alongside a Air combat force. The only problem is we dont have a air combat force and this alone means that the Australians will have to look after them with their F-18s.
To cap it off with this question to have 6 orions in our armery for the size and remoteness of our geo location is laughable and remember that not all 6 can be deployed at once to hit targets BVR.
Markus40 Answer: In future years its likely that NZ will have a greater role in this region and working alongside its allies and the enemy will get smarter and have better weopons. They will be able to afford them too.What do you see the NZDF doing in the South Pacific? Who is going to threaten a P3 etc?
The question is not whos going to threaten a P3 but rather the threat will lie within the P3s ability to carry out the operations currently without its offensive upgrades and operations with our allies.
The other thing is that its most likely as well that a Harpoon armed P3 is better kept for Intel and survellience and have a number of Air to ground aircraft operated by the RNZAF doing the mix of jobs that its capable of doing for our Army and Navy. Thats why im in favour of bringing back the Air Combat force as its fast and can get the job done faster. If our boys in the Army call for a air strike on a position then i think the commander on the ground would have to be drunk to call up 2 harpoon equiped P3s.!
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.
Markus40 Answer: The P3 and C-130 are 2 big "birds" and both are in danger of being lost in a low level war. I disagree with this comment vehemently.
Markus40 Answer: Sounds like the author of this comment has come full cirle on himself and suggested a precision strike into a island state. Thats why my argument for a Air Combat force with the ability of its mix of weponary to do this job for our boys who need it on the ground and on the sea, quickly, fast and accuratley.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.
Let me know what your answers are. I look forward to your comments.
Whiskyjack said:I will definitely like to get some other opinions from members, but this is where I am coming from.[/SIZE]
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). [/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
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.[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
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)[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
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.[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
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).[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
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.[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
So bearing in mind that this is the force structure I envision I will answer your points.[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
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.
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.
I have answered that above.
I disagree and can find many examples of where P3s are used in similar environments, they fly above the threat envelope
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.
Like any sortie it depends on the mission profile, can't see the logic you are using here?
Nor would any strike fighters in NZ service, the only difference is that the P3 can reach MUCH further, hence it suits the environment.
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?
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
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
nz enthusiast
New Member
This is an arguement presented by a former soldier. I like his arguement and agree with him on most things. Yes its long but it is very true and well written.
http://afwweb.orcon.net.nz/defence.html
http://afwweb.orcon.net.nz/defence2.html
http://afwweb.orcon.net.nz/defencesolutions.html
http://afwweb.orcon.net.nz/defence.html
http://afwweb.orcon.net.nz/defence2.html
http://afwweb.orcon.net.nz/defencesolutions.html
Re: RNZAF P3
Something else i should have mentioned is this. The most likely scenario is that if we have a Air combat force in the air with air to ground weopons the forward positions officer marking the target with a laser can keep the pilot up to date with situation of the target like a tank or truck etc. The pilot will be able to lock onto co ordinates as the time goes by to take out the target.
Besides the weopons used to do this job would be far cheaper than Harpoon armed P3. Im not belittling a Harpoon and they are extremely useful in certain circumstances but not a fire and forget weopon with a one shoot and one hit option when a pilot with multiple weopons can make several passes with low cost weopons and take out more targets than the harpoons one target at a price of around $700,000 each (i think). Its just stupid to think that the latter could be an option.
QUOTE=Markus40]My colleague has put together a scenario and some questions in this area and i want to answer them as best i can but i would welcome your input as well. Let me know what you think.
What do you see as threatening it in the South Pacific?
Marcus40 Answer: This question is one that leads to other aspects of the P3s operations and current abilities and the geo political nature both now and for the future in other parts of the world. Not just whats threatening it in the South Pacific if a low level war broke out there. First our government use this aircraft for patrol duties working along side Australia with its limited role as our systems are currently on this aircraft are not as up to date as the Australians. So firstly because there are no upgrades militarily we have put this aircraft at risk
The next thing is to load a P3 with Harpoons restricts its range and loitre abilitys dramatically. Its manueverability is effected and operating speed. Especially if the weopons are deployed on the aircraft externally. If the aircraft had inflight refueling then that might be fine. I would suggest that this would not be the case because of the age of the aircraft being very old.
The other major reason why its crazy to load such expensive weopons onto a P3 is that the Navy and Army will require more agile and dog fighting skills from our own to kill assets for the Army in the field and a harpoon alone doesnt cut it.
The P3 is not a multi tasking wepon system that can fire a mixture of weopons for the protection of the navy and Airforce and of course our Army. A P3 cannot protect a C-130 if called upon it to do so.
The P3 is a Survellience aircraft that can have a secondary offensive maritime role working alongside a Air combat force. The only problem is we dont have a air combat force and this alone means that the Australians will have to look after them with their F-18s.
To cap it off with this question to have 6 orions in our armery for the size and remoteness of our geo location is laughable and remember that not all 6 can be deployed at once to hit targets BVR.
What do you see the NZDF doing in the South Pacific? Who is going to threaten a P3 etc?
Markus40 Answer: In future years its likely that NZ will have a greater role in this region and working alongside its allies and the enemy will get smarter and have better weopons. They will be able to afford them too.
The question is not whos going to threaten a P3 but rather the threat will lie within the P3s ability to carry out the operations currently without its offensive upgrades and operations with our allies.
The other thing is that its most likely as well that a Harpoon armed P3 is better kept for Intel and survellience and have a number of Air to ground aircraft operated by the RNZAF doing the mix of jobs that its capable of doing for our Army and Navy. Thats why im in favour of bringing back the Air Combat force as its fast and can get the job done faster. If our boys in the Army call for a air strike on a position then i think the commander on the ground would have to be drunk to call up 2 harpoon equiped P3s.!
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.
Markus40 Answer: The P3 and C-130 are 2 big "birds" and both are in danger of being lost in a low level war. I disagree with this comment vehemently.
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 Answer: Sounds like the author of this comment has come full cirle on himself and suggested a precision strike into a island state. Thats why my argument for a Air Combat force with the ability of its mix of weponary to do this job for our boys who need it on the ground and on the sea, quickly, fast and accuratley.
Let me know what your answers are. I look forward to your comments.[/QUOTE]
Something else i should have mentioned is this. The most likely scenario is that if we have a Air combat force in the air with air to ground weopons the forward positions officer marking the target with a laser can keep the pilot up to date with situation of the target like a tank or truck etc. The pilot will be able to lock onto co ordinates as the time goes by to take out the target.
Besides the weopons used to do this job would be far cheaper than Harpoon armed P3. Im not belittling a Harpoon and they are extremely useful in certain circumstances but not a fire and forget weopon with a one shoot and one hit option when a pilot with multiple weopons can make several passes with low cost weopons and take out more targets than the harpoons one target at a price of around $700,000 each (i think). Its just stupid to think that the latter could be an option.
QUOTE=Markus40]My colleague has put together a scenario and some questions in this area and i want to answer them as best i can but i would welcome your input as well. Let me know what you think.
What do you see as threatening it in the South Pacific?
Marcus40 Answer: This question is one that leads to other aspects of the P3s operations and current abilities and the geo political nature both now and for the future in other parts of the world. Not just whats threatening it in the South Pacific if a low level war broke out there. First our government use this aircraft for patrol duties working along side Australia with its limited role as our systems are currently on this aircraft are not as up to date as the Australians. So firstly because there are no upgrades militarily we have put this aircraft at risk
The next thing is to load a P3 with Harpoons restricts its range and loitre abilitys dramatically. Its manueverability is effected and operating speed. Especially if the weopons are deployed on the aircraft externally. If the aircraft had inflight refueling then that might be fine. I would suggest that this would not be the case because of the age of the aircraft being very old.
The other major reason why its crazy to load such expensive weopons onto a P3 is that the Navy and Army will require more agile and dog fighting skills from our own to kill assets for the Army in the field and a harpoon alone doesnt cut it.
The P3 is not a multi tasking wepon system that can fire a mixture of weopons for the protection of the navy and Airforce and of course our Army. A P3 cannot protect a C-130 if called upon it to do so.
The P3 is a Survellience aircraft that can have a secondary offensive maritime role working alongside a Air combat force. The only problem is we dont have a air combat force and this alone means that the Australians will have to look after them with their F-18s.
To cap it off with this question to have 6 orions in our armery for the size and remoteness of our geo location is laughable and remember that not all 6 can be deployed at once to hit targets BVR.
What do you see the NZDF doing in the South Pacific? Who is going to threaten a P3 etc?
Markus40 Answer: In future years its likely that NZ will have a greater role in this region and working alongside its allies and the enemy will get smarter and have better weopons. They will be able to afford them too.
The question is not whos going to threaten a P3 but rather the threat will lie within the P3s ability to carry out the operations currently without its offensive upgrades and operations with our allies.
The other thing is that its most likely as well that a Harpoon armed P3 is better kept for Intel and survellience and have a number of Air to ground aircraft operated by the RNZAF doing the mix of jobs that its capable of doing for our Army and Navy. Thats why im in favour of bringing back the Air Combat force as its fast and can get the job done faster. If our boys in the Army call for a air strike on a position then i think the commander on the ground would have to be drunk to call up 2 harpoon equiped P3s.!
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.
Markus40 Answer: The P3 and C-130 are 2 big "birds" and both are in danger of being lost in a low level war. I disagree with this comment vehemently.
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 Answer: Sounds like the author of this comment has come full cirle on himself and suggested a precision strike into a island state. Thats why my argument for a Air Combat force with the ability of its mix of weponary to do this job for our boys who need it on the ground and on the sea, quickly, fast and accuratley.
Let me know what your answers are. I look forward to your comments.[/QUOTE]
nz enthusiast
New Member
I would not even bother wasteing so much money on the tired old P-3K Orion airframes. The things are falling apart as is. Stick some more weight on the air frame and it will probably fall to bits mid flight. We need to stop wasteing petty money on upgrade schemes and buy some completely new airframes. Even the base kit on a new P-3C or Nimrod would be just as good as what we would get from upgrading the P-3K anyway.
The P-3K airframe has frequent problems. I can't remember which one it was, C-130H or P-3K, which in a flight last week had smoke coming out of its control panel. It is considered normal now for a C-130H or P-3K to have flights delayed while ground crews fix yet another problem. The new airframe reconsturction occuring on the C-130Hs and P-3Ks won't do much becuase it is only replacing a part of the airframe. Basically every part on that air craft has essentially been replaced, you now have a glued together spare parts bin. I believe its time for a clean start with new planes.
The P-3K airframe has frequent problems. I can't remember which one it was, C-130H or P-3K, which in a flight last week had smoke coming out of its control panel. It is considered normal now for a C-130H or P-3K to have flights delayed while ground crews fix yet another problem. The new airframe reconsturction occuring on the C-130Hs and P-3Ks won't do much becuase it is only replacing a part of the airframe. Basically every part on that air craft has essentially been replaced, you now have a glued together spare parts bin. I believe its time for a clean start with new planes.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #108
Markus40 said:Your answers dont answer my questions and certainly doesnt address these issues and i wish you would debate them logically. I will say it again, the P-3s must work alongside the A-4s as designed for maritime strike.
Which questions have I not addressed? Please let me know and I will do so.
Why must the P3 work alongside the A4? The only time there would be need to use a strike force is in a contested airspace with either SAMs (long range ones at that) or opposition fighters. So show me those conditions in the South Pacific in the next 10-20 years, who will have them name countries please and systems used. Once again the P3 would be used for precision strike not CAS!
Markus40 said:Thats to say we need our strike force back. P3s and c-130s are not an Airforce. Its like a Tiger with no teeth.! The Navy and Army MUST have the Strike force working alongside them to acheive military goals both now and in the future. Australia knows this fact and so does most other 1st and 2nd rated countries throughout the world. To think that a P3 can do this work by itself is in a fantasy world somewhere, and has no handle on military doctrine.
Military doctrine is unique to each individual states strategic position and thinking. If NZ is deploying outside of the South Pacific without coalition support it will need the support of a strike force. However please tell me how the RNZAF could mount a 4 aircraft strike outside of 800 kms from NZ?
How many aircraft do you envision NZ needing?
Any support aircraft?
Markus40 said:Secondly, we need to pull our weight and protect our own assets at sea and land wherever that may be. That means being able to field weopons that will effectively protect as well as take out potential threats. Whether thats in and around NZ, the South pacific or in Asia , makes no difference. A P-3 loaded with a Harpoon fired outside the field of risk isnt going to fix our air combat issues. In fact they will become a liability if operated with our allies in areas we dont share and yet the enemy has SAMs to take out P3s and such like..
Can I ask if you feel that NZ is pulling its weight in the South Pacific now? Fundamentally I agree with you, but in the region NZ is in air strike comes behind a well equipped army, a navy and air force capable of deploying NZ forces into the Pacific and ISTAR capabilities to keep an eye on the region. A US Pacific Fleet Commander has gone on record as saying that he would welcome NZ investment in ISTAR capabilities. Most coalition operations are not hampered by lack of strike aircraft but the ability to find targets for them.
Markus40 said:Here is my proposal. And would welcome those for your ideas. I think the P3 should be armed lightly as a secondary offensive weopon only, with a ASM. The main role of offensive duties should go to a air Strike force where they are trained to fast dog fighting action and air to ground missions if so required and can fire their weopons with BVR weopons. This would save the Orion for further survellience work and back up the strike force. Remember also that it is possible that NZ could lease or we could have a Tanker based at Ohakea from Australia for such missions if so required and the aircraft we operate be fitted with air to air refueling. With no gaps in our ability to defend ourselves and deploy properly we are functioning correctly with the other forces and allies in our area. To just front up with a P3 as a front line means of defense for our troops on the ground and Navy is an insult.
I have considered your ideas, the constant I keep coming up with is this; to buy a squadron of aircraft that is capable of operating in a highly contested environment will cost NZ around US$300m for second hand upgraded aircraft to US$1.2b for brand new (20-24 aircraft). That does not include a stock pile of weapons. To deploy a 4 sortie strike to Fiji will require at least one tanker, but for 12—20 sorties you are looking at around 3 tanker at around US$200m each. Now this is strike missions, CAS and suddenly you need your aircraft to loiter and that requires more tankers. Plus you still need ISTAR capability to find and designate your targets. Now with the ground based systems mentioned above 120mm mortar, 155mm or NLOS-LS plus NGS I do not think that CAS is needed given the equipment in the South Pacific.
If ordered today it will be at least 5 years before such a force is operational, by that stage our main allies will be moving to the JSF, so unless we are willing to buy 20 for US$2b we have no commonality. I do not think that Australia has the stretch in its forces to deploy assets in NZ where they are facing away from the main threats to Australia and are simply not needed in this Region.
Okay I think we are getting hung up on the P3 here, fundamentally I am talking about providing an ability to carry out precision strike in the region that will be able to small scale strikes against high value targets. I think in the context of the NZ budget that the P3 can carry out that role. I do not advocate sending the P3 into a highly contested environment such as North Asia or the Mid East unless it is protected by coalition forces.
Now I have asked this before and touched upon it in my reply but can you please do two things that lets me know where you are coming from (I suspect we are closer in our thinking than you may suspect)
1. Can you give me a basic NZDF force structure that you would like to see by 2016?
2. Can you explain what you think the main threats to NZs interests are likely to be as you see them?
Also can you please work out how to use the quote function properly as it is hard to reply.
Cheers
New P3s
I was thinking of that, and i am aware that the K version is very old and has a limited frame life. How about a military version of a 737 with sensors for survellience. ? Not a wedgetail but similar for maritime operations.
I was thinking of that, and i am aware that the K version is very old and has a limited frame life. How about a military version of a 737 with sensors for survellience. ? Not a wedgetail but similar for maritime operations.
nz enthusiast said:I would not even bother wasteing so much money on the tired old P-3K Orion airframes. The things are falling apart as is. Stick some more weight on the air frame and it will probably fall to bits mid flight. We need to stop wasteing petty money on upgrade schemes and buy some completely new airframes. Even the base kit on a new P-3C or Nimrod would be just as good as what we would get from upgrading the P-3K anyway.
The P-3K airframe has frequent problems. I can't remember which one it was, C-130H or P-3K, which in a flight last week had smoke coming out of its control panel. It is considered normal now for a C-130H or P-3K to have flights delayed while ground crews fix yet another problem. The new airframe reconsturction occuring on the C-130Hs and P-3Ks won't do much becuase it is only replacing a part of the airframe. Basically every part on that air craft has essentially been replaced, you now have a glued together spare parts bin. I believe its time for a clean start with new planes.
Markus40 try as I might I can't follow your reasoning.
You keep talking about 'the enemy.' Just who do you think the enemy is?
I note you said you had a degree in political science and were thus aware of the geopolitical situation in the Pacific. No offence intended but there isn't a degree course in the country that comes anywhere near the level that is required to grasp some of the challenges in the region. A degree in politics isn't going to equip anyone with the skills necessary to give an instant analysis. I know - I have one too. Paper qualifications aside, what was your role in the RNZN?
You keep talking about 'the enemy.' Just who do you think the enemy is?
I note you said you had a degree in political science and were thus aware of the geopolitical situation in the Pacific. No offence intended but there isn't a degree course in the country that comes anywhere near the level that is required to grasp some of the challenges in the region. A degree in politics isn't going to equip anyone with the skills necessary to give an instant analysis. I know - I have one too. Paper qualifications aside, what was your role in the RNZN?
nz enthusiast
New Member
The USN and Boeing are currently working on the P-8 as their replacement for the P-3 Orion. We could go for that. Problem is getting the money out of the Minister of Finance. Whether it be Cullen or Keys, it will be difficult to convince them to give you the $1.5 billion it may take to get a half a dozen P-8s into service.
nz enthusiast
New Member
Waikato University offers a degree in Defence Studies and International relations. He may have that.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #113
Guys lets not get hung up on the P3 here. We can agree to disagree.
The issue I am having is that in the South Pacific there is no threat of fighteres or long range sam systems being deployed by any of the Island nations that can threaten an aircraft at range. The problems NZ faces is deploying troops to a potentially hostile environment, such as ET and the Solomons. More lift, better logistics and more troops to carry out the role. Together with an ISTAR ability to keep an eye on things.
The issue I am having is that in the South Pacific there is no threat of fighteres or long range sam systems being deployed by any of the Island nations that can threaten an aircraft at range. The problems NZ faces is deploying troops to a potentially hostile environment, such as ET and the Solomons. More lift, better logistics and more troops to carry out the role. Together with an ISTAR ability to keep an eye on things.
Last edited:
Re: The Enemy.
Maybe you have missed my point. The "enemy" as i was making and in context with the statement in which i was making referred to a hypothetical situation for an outcome that could become real and most likely in this part of the world.
In the Navy i was Ordinary Leading Seaman.
About your papers thats cool. Im not in a arm restle with what quals you have and dont have but rather i prefer to reason with Logic on matters that are of concern regarding the neglected and run down state of our armed forces.
Maybe you have missed my point. The "enemy" as i was making and in context with the statement in which i was making referred to a hypothetical situation for an outcome that could become real and most likely in this part of the world.
In the Navy i was Ordinary Leading Seaman.
About your papers thats cool. Im not in a arm restle with what quals you have and dont have but rather i prefer to reason with Logic on matters that are of concern regarding the neglected and run down state of our armed forces.
Rocco_NZ said:Markus40 try as I might I can't follow your reasoning.
You keep talking about 'the enemy.' Just who do you think the enemy is?
I note you said you had a degree in political science and were thus aware of the geopolitical situation in the Pacific. No offence intended but there isn't a degree course in the country that comes anywhere near the level that is required to grasp some of the challenges in the region. A degree in politics isn't going to equip anyone with the skills necessary to give an instant analysis. I know - I have one too. Paper qualifications aside, what was your role in the RNZN?
nz enthusiast
New Member
The problems with everything you guys will come up with is money and personal numbers. New Zealand currently has personal shortages in many areas Example many LAVs remain unused and the Navy needs greater personal in order to use the soon to arrive Project Protector vessels. To operate a new frigate your looking at an extra 300 personal minimum. To operate another MRV your looking at extra 80 personal minimum.
Re: Quals
Thank you, thats correct.
Thank you, thats correct.
nz enthusiast said:Waikato University offers a degree in Defence Studies and International relations. He may have that.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #117
So what 'enemy' do you see operating in the South Pacific?Markus40 said:Maybe you have missed my point. The "enemy" as i was making and in context with the statement in which i was making referred to a hypothetical situation for an outcome that could become real and most likely in this part of the world.
In the Navy i was Ordinary Leading Seaman.
About your papers thats cool. Im not in a arm restle with what quals you have and dont have but rather i prefer to reason with Logic on matters that are of concern regarding the neglected and run down state of our armed forces.
I see ethnic and political unrest being the main threats in the south pacific, as we are seeing noe. The most dangerous situation I can see is in Fiji, which has the most capablr army in the South Pacific out side of Australia, france and NZ.
None of the threat scenarios have any modern guided weapons being used against NZ forces.
Re: Crewing for the MRV
The government is looking for an extra 15% increase in defense personal to cover the crewing of the MRV and OPVSs.
It requires a crew of 160 to man a ANZAC and i dont think this would be a problem for the recruitment agencies to come up with this number. Can i say the Navy is in desperate need for a third frigate, so as to follow through our obligations with Australia and abroad. Not to mention while one ANZAC is under going refurbishment.
The government is looking for an extra 15% increase in defense personal to cover the crewing of the MRV and OPVSs.
It requires a crew of 160 to man a ANZAC and i dont think this would be a problem for the recruitment agencies to come up with this number. Can i say the Navy is in desperate need for a third frigate, so as to follow through our obligations with Australia and abroad. Not to mention while one ANZAC is under going refurbishment.
nz enthusiast said:The problems with everything you guys will come up with is money and personal numbers. New Zealand currently has personal shortages in many areas Example any LAVs remain unused and the Navy needs greater personal in order to use the soon to arrive Project Protector vessels. To operate a new frigate your looking at an extra 300 personal minimum. To operate another MRV your looking at extra 80 personal minimum.
nz enthusiast
New Member
I see Indonesia. The worlds largest Muslim country. Which seems to be aquiring Su-27s and is apparently quite interested in the PAK-FA program. IS capable of calling up an army of one million soldiers.
nz enthusiast
New Member
Yeah it requires a crew of 160 but what about crew to switch with and shore personal and extra admin staff etc etc etc.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.