NZDF - Now and the Future.
- Thread starter Whiskyjack
- Start date
- Status
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #142
I don't think the second option will fly the RAAF is stretched as it is with the early retirement of the F-111.Markus40 said:
As for several billion dollars, how would you see that as being funded? Would it take prority over extra lift for the army or ISTAR assets?
I have thought about UCAV introduction day around 2015. Haviny a few around that can operate in strike roles. From reading the specs of the test UCAVs thet seem to have greater range. But it would require a really good ISTAR capability to use them well.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #143
I agree, thats why I think 8 + 4 is a good option. I don't think the allocated budget will get more than 8 plus 8-12 LUHs.Markus40 said:
Yes, a couple of thoughts:Whiskyjack said:
1) The NZDF Statement of Intent for 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2009 has the NH90 in service in 2010/2011.
2) Budget 2006 has $5 Billion of unallocated spending in it. Doesn't mean it is for anything specific, but it means that money is there if the government wants to use it.
3) Government is supposed to receive a final costed proposal for the NH90 purchase some time this financial year. So an announcement could happen anytime between Monday and May next year.
4) I wouldn't expect that the NH90 will be used for any civilian tasks at all. It is probably too large for land SAR. The LUH fleet will probably be larger than the NH90 fleet.
Personally I would like to see something like 14 NH90s to be purchased, with 10 going to an operational squadron and the others being rotated through phase maintenance and conversion training. With 80% mission availability the squadron could move a company in a single lift. Realistically something in the range of 10-12 is more probable. In an ideal world I would have a couple of operational squadrons and a training squadron. Can't see that happening any time soon though.
Re: Air Combat Force.
The issue is complex but i personally believe is necessary to be able to pull our weight as far as our obligations is concerned with our partners.
I know its not a vote winner but the process would need to be done in stages over a period of time. This might be a cost effective way of rebuilding the force.
Thats why i suggested we lease the F-18 and buy the Trainer to get the ball rolling with a recruitment programme to kick start our fighter crews. Over time we would have them training alongside our Auzzie friends and rebuild the facilities at Ohakea to house the F-18s. Then the government could have the choice to either buy or choose another aircraft for our front line air combat force. Spread this out over a 2-3-4 year time frame would make this a good viable option and less costly up front.
The issue is complex but i personally believe is necessary to be able to pull our weight as far as our obligations is concerned with our partners.
I know its not a vote winner but the process would need to be done in stages over a period of time. This might be a cost effective way of rebuilding the force.
Thats why i suggested we lease the F-18 and buy the Trainer to get the ball rolling with a recruitment programme to kick start our fighter crews. Over time we would have them training alongside our Auzzie friends and rebuild the facilities at Ohakea to house the F-18s. Then the government could have the choice to either buy or choose another aircraft for our front line air combat force. Spread this out over a 2-3-4 year time frame would make this a good viable option and less costly up front.
nz enthusiast said:
nz enthusiast
New Member
Sorry man, independent reviews say it would take 10-15 years to rebuild manned combat capability to the level we had it before. By then manned piloting will be on the way out. On the long run it will be better value for money to go for UCAVs.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #147
I agree.Rocco_NZ said:
Something to consider is that the MRV is listed as carrying 4 so i am thinking that will be a factor as well. Which is a wee bit unfortunate.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #148
Its been fun guys, time to get some chores done.
Have fun
Have fun
Re: NH-90s
Its hard to say what the government is thinking, but i tend to lean towards the idea that tthe reason the government hasnt made a firm number on NH-90 assests so far is because its yet to see what the costs are for the training helicopter. Its possible that this helicopter could be the traing helicopter as well as it would make it a good lead in option for the operation squadrons. It would make good commonality.
So if needed the training squadron could be called up to operate along side the operating squadrons in their roles. Maybe leaving a small over lap for search and rescue and traing. IE 3-4 Helicopters. I think it will come down to price if this is the case.
Its hard to say what the government is thinking, but i tend to lean towards the idea that tthe reason the government hasnt made a firm number on NH-90 assests so far is because its yet to see what the costs are for the training helicopter. Its possible that this helicopter could be the traing helicopter as well as it would make it a good lead in option for the operation squadrons. It would make good commonality.
So if needed the training squadron could be called up to operate along side the operating squadrons in their roles. Maybe leaving a small over lap for search and rescue and traing. IE 3-4 Helicopters. I think it will come down to price if this is the case.
Whiskyjack said:
Re: Air Combat Force.
I dont think its realistic that NZ will own UCAVs. Both now or in the future. There will always be a need for man operated fighters and air ground systems, maybe not in the number we see today. However as said not operated by us. The cost of operating them and the force structure will be too great and too expensive. 10-15 years is still along way off and the investment of 3 billion up to that time is small fry over that period of time.
A UCAV will have limited range as well and not be able to carry large loads of ordinance for our army in the field due to the geographic nature of our location. We can acheive this with a Tanker based at Ohakea and external fuel tanks on a fighter.
I dont think its realistic that NZ will own UCAVs. Both now or in the future. There will always be a need for man operated fighters and air ground systems, maybe not in the number we see today. However as said not operated by us. The cost of operating them and the force structure will be too great and too expensive. 10-15 years is still along way off and the investment of 3 billion up to that time is small fry over that period of time.
A UCAV will have limited range as well and not be able to carry large loads of ordinance for our army in the field due to the geographic nature of our location. We can acheive this with a Tanker based at Ohakea and external fuel tanks on a fighter.
nz enthusiast said:
Re: RNZAF Fighter Squadron
The F-111 will battle on till the F-35s enter service from what i have read, and if this is the case then a 16-20 F-18 combat aircraft squadron based at Ohakea, i think is a good option.
The government could lease them for the similar price of the f-16s with the Americans at $800 million for 10 years. I know the government has $5 billion for defence as it needs it so it could come from that. There would be no cost cutting from other projects and could have funds moved around to compensate for the project.
Its very doubtful a UCAV option is a good one for NZ because of the need to still have Pilots in fighter aircraft around this time. Also the Navy and Army will want a ordinance mix for ground operations and a UCAV will be limited in its weight and extended range. UCAVS are expensive and spending 3 Billion between now and 10 years time would still make this a viable option if the process was taken slowly. IE Lease the F-18s, Buy the trainers, recruit the pilots, expand the operations at Ohakea and integrate our pilots back into the F-18s and then buy them or buy another aircraft. It comes down to whether the government decide on such matters but i do know having spoken to National party spokesman recently that the idea of Baseing F-18s at Ohakea would be the likely scenario if national came to power.
The F-111 will battle on till the F-35s enter service from what i have read, and if this is the case then a 16-20 F-18 combat aircraft squadron based at Ohakea, i think is a good option.
The government could lease them for the similar price of the f-16s with the Americans at $800 million for 10 years. I know the government has $5 billion for defence as it needs it so it could come from that. There would be no cost cutting from other projects and could have funds moved around to compensate for the project.
Its very doubtful a UCAV option is a good one for NZ because of the need to still have Pilots in fighter aircraft around this time. Also the Navy and Army will want a ordinance mix for ground operations and a UCAV will be limited in its weight and extended range. UCAVS are expensive and spending 3 Billion between now and 10 years time would still make this a viable option if the process was taken slowly. IE Lease the F-18s, Buy the trainers, recruit the pilots, expand the operations at Ohakea and integrate our pilots back into the F-18s and then buy them or buy another aircraft. It comes down to whether the government decide on such matters but i do know having spoken to National party spokesman recently that the idea of Baseing F-18s at Ohakea would be the likely scenario if national came to power.
Whiskyjack said:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Here's my 2 cents on these issue guys.
First off NZ needs SOME ability to control it's own airspace. The incident a while back with the madman who wanted to fly a light plane into the tower in Auckland demonstrated this. NZ also needs a light aircraft to conduct basic flight training for P-3K, C-130H and B-757 crews.
Perhaps something like the Embraer Super Tucano or Pilatus PC-12 could be employed? Such an aircraft would provide excellent flight training and can be armed with basic weapons packages including machine gun/light cannon pods, rocket packs and light free fall bombs. Such an aircraft would give a basic capability to conduct air intercepts of a low level nature. (they are used in South America primarily for this type of work) and the PC-12 has the same performance as a Hawk Mk 127 LIF...
In benign strategic situations, they could also be used for COIN or CAS for low level ops in support of light inf peace-keeping forces etc.
These are VERY cheap aircraft and would hardly "break the bank" yet provide a modest, but useful capability. It would also mean RNZAF could provide reasonable air defence training from it's own resources for NZDF air defence elements. Something it cannot do now.
As to the anti-ship missile question. NZ HAS a plan to acquire such a capability under it's LTDP, with funding set aside. Presumably this is primarily designed for the planned ANZAC frigate upgrade, however there is no reason WHY such a missile could not also be employed by the RNZAF P-3K fleet.
Arguing that you "don't have the equipment to support such a weapon" is a non-sequitor. Of course you don't. You don't have the weapon yet, why would you have the equipment to operate it? The acquisition of such a weapon WOULD include all necessary support, development and training items needed to effectively operate the capability.
Some information on the P-3K platform might also provide some insight on this topic too.
The P-3 Orion has a maximum take-off weight of 61,235kg's. It can carry 34,800 litres of fuel internally and has a maximum range of 3800k's. It can however manage to remain on station for a total of 3 hours (loitering capability if you like) to a range of 2500k's. Since 1976 ALL P-3's built have been capable of employing the Harpoon weapon system. RAAF AP-3C's have done so routinely since the mid-80's when Harpoon was first acquired by the ADF. The Project Rigel upgrade given to RNZAF P-3K's in the mid 80's provided them with the basics necessary to operate such weapons. Some integration would probably be required, but would hardly be difficult given the preponderance of P-3/Harpoon combo users in the world.
Although the RNZAF's further L-3 upgrade package has concentrated mainly on it's maritime surveillance capability, it's ASW and ASuW capabilities remain. They simply are not being enhanced. There seems to be no technical reason therefore WHY RNZAF P-3K's could not easily employ the Harpoon or Harpoon Block II weapon systems. All P-3 Orions are capable of carrying a maximum of 4x Harpoon ASM's on under wing and under fuselage pylons. RNZAF's are no different. Here's a photo to illustrate this.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/orion/images/orion11.jpg
Given a lack of technical reasons why such a weapon could not be employed by P-3K. We are left with strategic rationale and financial reasons for such a weapon to be procured.
In my opinion, the addition of a standoff weapon system for P-3K is the best option for RNZAF to regain a maritime strike capability. The acquisition of a tactical fighter to conduct this and other roles, is a virtual impossibility given recent NZ Government and opposition party statements. However an ability to control the SLOC around NZ remains a fundamental responsibility if the NZDF. A competent maritime strike capability would go a long way to ensuring NZ's ability to control such an area.
The question then exists, how else could NZ acquire such a capability? 3x ways are feasible at this time. For the ANZAC class frigates to be provided with such a capability (as is already planned) and for NZ's Super Seasprites to be provided with such a capability and for NZ's only other combat capable aircraft, the P-3K to be provided with such.
For logistical commonality and budgetry purposes, equipping ANZAC and P-3K with the same weapon, would seem to be the "logical" way to go. however this may incur capability limits. P-3K's with their speed (compared to an ANZAC frigate) offer a far more responsive and flexible capability. It may take days for an ANZAC frigate to be capable of responding to a threat to NZ interests, and this is the case whether they operate 2 or 3 frigates.
Seasprites already have a limited capability with the Maverick AGM. this system however has limitations as the Seasprite requires either an ANZAC frigate or MRV to deploy aboard. It also has the significant range and speed limitations common to all helo's. The Maverick also has significant range limitations and it's warhead size and design are also factors in the ASuW role. A cheap option to provide a limited ASuW capability to the P-3K might be to integrate Maverick onto it. However range limitations will still apply as will it's suitability in the ASuW role. Land strike missions would also be possible with a Maverick armed P-3K however as you rightly point out, platform survivability then becomes an issue.
A P-3K armed with Harpoon however, could reach up to 2500k's away from NZ mainland and conduct a strike within hours. If Harpoon block II were acquired, P-3K's could conduct littoral and "limited" land strike missions ie: (coastal radar/communication/air defence sites etc). The Advanced Harpoon Weapons control system (AHWCS) needed to fully employ the Block II is relatively inexpensive and easily installed, from all reports, but offers considerable flexibility as far as targetting options go. The P-3K's existing sensor fit in any case are capable of providing the necessary targetting data for Harpoon missile shots anyway.
As for the P-3 vulnerability, USN and RAAF P-3's have operated in "overland" surveillance missions in Iraq for years. How many have been shot down? Iraq is a vastly more uncertain air environment than the South Pacific, yet the users have flet comfortable employing them in that situation. RNZAF P-3K's have deployed to the Gulf numerous times as well and been perfectly safe their as well.
As to the strategic situation in the South Pacific. No Country there (besides French New Caledonian forces) has any form of airforce whatsoever. Most don't even have any helicopters of any kind. None have any naval forces capable of operating an air defence system and none have any kind of SAM system, let alone advanced Russian or Chinese made SAM systems, capable of threatening an aircraft with 100k+ standoff weapons.
IF the situation worsened and SAM systems were introduced somewhere, do you think NZ would not respond? EWSP systems are extremely advanced at present and designed to protect aircraft from precisely the kind of threat you envisage. It doesn't make them impervious (as shown by the shooting of down of the RAF Hercules in Iraq) but it makes them very hard to kill.
Planning on your force structure and denying yourself an effective capability based on a potential as opposed to an actual threat, seems ludicrous in the extreme. Isn't the idea of military capability to eliminate potential threats, rather than kowtow to them?
Without any kind of air delivered strike weapon to counter a SAM threat, your B-757, C-130H and NH-90 fleets are going to be pretty exposed when they attempt to land light infantry/special forces elements. Relying on Australia is a dangerous proposition too. We barely (and possibly don't) have enough capability for our own needs. It is extremely unlikely that we will have sufficient capability to cover others, who refuse (despite being capable enough) to provide for their own...
First off NZ needs SOME ability to control it's own airspace. The incident a while back with the madman who wanted to fly a light plane into the tower in Auckland demonstrated this. NZ also needs a light aircraft to conduct basic flight training for P-3K, C-130H and B-757 crews.
Perhaps something like the Embraer Super Tucano or Pilatus PC-12 could be employed? Such an aircraft would provide excellent flight training and can be armed with basic weapons packages including machine gun/light cannon pods, rocket packs and light free fall bombs. Such an aircraft would give a basic capability to conduct air intercepts of a low level nature. (they are used in South America primarily for this type of work) and the PC-12 has the same performance as a Hawk Mk 127 LIF...
In benign strategic situations, they could also be used for COIN or CAS for low level ops in support of light inf peace-keeping forces etc.
These are VERY cheap aircraft and would hardly "break the bank" yet provide a modest, but useful capability. It would also mean RNZAF could provide reasonable air defence training from it's own resources for NZDF air defence elements. Something it cannot do now.
As to the anti-ship missile question. NZ HAS a plan to acquire such a capability under it's LTDP, with funding set aside. Presumably this is primarily designed for the planned ANZAC frigate upgrade, however there is no reason WHY such a missile could not also be employed by the RNZAF P-3K fleet.
Arguing that you "don't have the equipment to support such a weapon" is a non-sequitor. Of course you don't. You don't have the weapon yet, why would you have the equipment to operate it? The acquisition of such a weapon WOULD include all necessary support, development and training items needed to effectively operate the capability.
Some information on the P-3K platform might also provide some insight on this topic too.
The P-3 Orion has a maximum take-off weight of 61,235kg's. It can carry 34,800 litres of fuel internally and has a maximum range of 3800k's. It can however manage to remain on station for a total of 3 hours (loitering capability if you like) to a range of 2500k's. Since 1976 ALL P-3's built have been capable of employing the Harpoon weapon system. RAAF AP-3C's have done so routinely since the mid-80's when Harpoon was first acquired by the ADF. The Project Rigel upgrade given to RNZAF P-3K's in the mid 80's provided them with the basics necessary to operate such weapons. Some integration would probably be required, but would hardly be difficult given the preponderance of P-3/Harpoon combo users in the world.
Although the RNZAF's further L-3 upgrade package has concentrated mainly on it's maritime surveillance capability, it's ASW and ASuW capabilities remain. They simply are not being enhanced. There seems to be no technical reason therefore WHY RNZAF P-3K's could not easily employ the Harpoon or Harpoon Block II weapon systems. All P-3 Orions are capable of carrying a maximum of 4x Harpoon ASM's on under wing and under fuselage pylons. RNZAF's are no different. Here's a photo to illustrate this.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/orion/images/orion11.jpg
Given a lack of technical reasons why such a weapon could not be employed by P-3K. We are left with strategic rationale and financial reasons for such a weapon to be procured.
In my opinion, the addition of a standoff weapon system for P-3K is the best option for RNZAF to regain a maritime strike capability. The acquisition of a tactical fighter to conduct this and other roles, is a virtual impossibility given recent NZ Government and opposition party statements. However an ability to control the SLOC around NZ remains a fundamental responsibility if the NZDF. A competent maritime strike capability would go a long way to ensuring NZ's ability to control such an area.
The question then exists, how else could NZ acquire such a capability? 3x ways are feasible at this time. For the ANZAC class frigates to be provided with such a capability (as is already planned) and for NZ's Super Seasprites to be provided with such a capability and for NZ's only other combat capable aircraft, the P-3K to be provided with such.
For logistical commonality and budgetry purposes, equipping ANZAC and P-3K with the same weapon, would seem to be the "logical" way to go. however this may incur capability limits. P-3K's with their speed (compared to an ANZAC frigate) offer a far more responsive and flexible capability. It may take days for an ANZAC frigate to be capable of responding to a threat to NZ interests, and this is the case whether they operate 2 or 3 frigates.
Seasprites already have a limited capability with the Maverick AGM. this system however has limitations as the Seasprite requires either an ANZAC frigate or MRV to deploy aboard. It also has the significant range and speed limitations common to all helo's. The Maverick also has significant range limitations and it's warhead size and design are also factors in the ASuW role. A cheap option to provide a limited ASuW capability to the P-3K might be to integrate Maverick onto it. However range limitations will still apply as will it's suitability in the ASuW role. Land strike missions would also be possible with a Maverick armed P-3K however as you rightly point out, platform survivability then becomes an issue.
A P-3K armed with Harpoon however, could reach up to 2500k's away from NZ mainland and conduct a strike within hours. If Harpoon block II were acquired, P-3K's could conduct littoral and "limited" land strike missions ie: (coastal radar/communication/air defence sites etc). The Advanced Harpoon Weapons control system (AHWCS) needed to fully employ the Block II is relatively inexpensive and easily installed, from all reports, but offers considerable flexibility as far as targetting options go. The P-3K's existing sensor fit in any case are capable of providing the necessary targetting data for Harpoon missile shots anyway.
As for the P-3 vulnerability, USN and RAAF P-3's have operated in "overland" surveillance missions in Iraq for years. How many have been shot down? Iraq is a vastly more uncertain air environment than the South Pacific, yet the users have flet comfortable employing them in that situation. RNZAF P-3K's have deployed to the Gulf numerous times as well and been perfectly safe their as well.
As to the strategic situation in the South Pacific. No Country there (besides French New Caledonian forces) has any form of airforce whatsoever. Most don't even have any helicopters of any kind. None have any naval forces capable of operating an air defence system and none have any kind of SAM system, let alone advanced Russian or Chinese made SAM systems, capable of threatening an aircraft with 100k+ standoff weapons.
IF the situation worsened and SAM systems were introduced somewhere, do you think NZ would not respond? EWSP systems are extremely advanced at present and designed to protect aircraft from precisely the kind of threat you envisage. It doesn't make them impervious (as shown by the shooting of down of the RAF Hercules in Iraq) but it makes them very hard to kill.
Planning on your force structure and denying yourself an effective capability based on a potential as opposed to an actual threat, seems ludicrous in the extreme. Isn't the idea of military capability to eliminate potential threats, rather than kowtow to them?
Without any kind of air delivered strike weapon to counter a SAM threat, your B-757, C-130H and NH-90 fleets are going to be pretty exposed when they attempt to land light infantry/special forces elements. Relying on Australia is a dangerous proposition too. We barely (and possibly don't) have enough capability for our own needs. It is extremely unlikely that we will have sufficient capability to cover others, who refuse (despite being capable enough) to provide for their own...
Real reason to have jet fighters
:joker
Look folks this may be the Speights talking but in the end let's face it the main reason for RNZAF to have jet fighters is because they are cool! To hell with cost and strategic thinking a squadron of Hornets, or Typhoons or whatever is because they look great at airshows. I mean at Wanaka the coolest thing was that Aussie F-111, was kind of dissapointing (and embarrasing)that the coolest thing NZ could put up was a Hunter from a private collection, especially listening to the Brit and American tourists comments. Having an F-18, or F-16, or even a Gripen with a Kiwi on it would have been great. Any way thats my (or the Speights) two cents!
:joker
Look folks this may be the Speights talking but in the end let's face it the main reason for RNZAF to have jet fighters is because they are cool! To hell with cost and strategic thinking a squadron of Hornets, or Typhoons or whatever is because they look great at airshows. I mean at Wanaka the coolest thing was that Aussie F-111, was kind of dissapointing (and embarrasing)that the coolest thing NZ could put up was a Hunter from a private collection, especially listening to the Brit and American tourists comments. Having an F-18, or F-16, or even a Gripen with a Kiwi on it would have been great. Any way thats my (or the Speights) two cents!Re: Response to Air Combat Force for the RNZAF.
Thank you on your comments. You are right about there being no reason why the P3k cant operate with the Harpoon, in a maritime environment and its availability to take out shipping outside the field of risk. But its crazy to call on this aircraft with a Harpoon as this aircraft is not suitable to be used for our troops on land. A forward positioning officer wants to call in an air strike with aircraft that have a mix of munitions that can deal with a multiple level of targets and deal with them at one time fast and accuratley. A one shot from a Harpoon is an expensive option if we need to hit multiple targets on land like a tank and convoy of enemy vehicles for example, and yet we use this aircraft as our first line of defense. Im sure you have to agree on that. Thats why i am an advocate of getting back our squadron that has a Maritime and land attack capability like the A4. 6 P3s isnt going to help our Army who are nailed down and require air power to advance forward from their positions.
I agree that we dont need to have the latest aircraft but we need something effective like the AV-8A/B as a VTOL because of its versatility. We saw this in the Falklands war. We could even use this aircraft off an Australian aircraft carrier similar to a Wasp design alongside the F-35s. Im a strong advocate of Australia having one. The good aspect of the AV-8B is that it has a Maritime and Air defense and Air to Ground option for all the services requirements.
The other concern is the problem the P3s have been experiencing alongside the C-130s. They are very old and despite the upgrades they do continue to break down at critical deployment times. Engine breakdowns i mean. I really think its time to replace these aircraft for new ones as they are way past their use by dates. The J version of the Herc would be a good option. And maybe a 737 version for our P3 as a suitable replacement
Thank you on your comments. You are right about there being no reason why the P3k cant operate with the Harpoon, in a maritime environment and its availability to take out shipping outside the field of risk. But its crazy to call on this aircraft with a Harpoon as this aircraft is not suitable to be used for our troops on land. A forward positioning officer wants to call in an air strike with aircraft that have a mix of munitions that can deal with a multiple level of targets and deal with them at one time fast and accuratley. A one shot from a Harpoon is an expensive option if we need to hit multiple targets on land like a tank and convoy of enemy vehicles for example, and yet we use this aircraft as our first line of defense. Im sure you have to agree on that. Thats why i am an advocate of getting back our squadron that has a Maritime and land attack capability like the A4. 6 P3s isnt going to help our Army who are nailed down and require air power to advance forward from their positions.
I agree that we dont need to have the latest aircraft but we need something effective like the AV-8A/B as a VTOL because of its versatility. We saw this in the Falklands war. We could even use this aircraft off an Australian aircraft carrier similar to a Wasp design alongside the F-35s. Im a strong advocate of Australia having one. The good aspect of the AV-8B is that it has a Maritime and Air defense and Air to Ground option for all the services requirements.
The other concern is the problem the P3s have been experiencing alongside the C-130s. They are very old and despite the upgrades they do continue to break down at critical deployment times. Engine breakdowns i mean. I really think its time to replace these aircraft for new ones as they are way past their use by dates. The J version of the Herc would be a good option. And maybe a 737 version for our P3 as a suitable replacement
Aussie Digger said:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I agree, I basically argued that a maritime strike capability could be acquired relatively easily and integrated onto your P-3K's easily. For a multi-million dollar warship an $700K ASM is an economical way of attacking it. For a jungle bunker of armoured vehicle, it's a different story even IF Harpoon could hit it, which is unlikely even for the Block II variant.
My rationale was that RNZAF currently lacks any significant ability to respond with force to an identified threat in it's own territorial waters. The integration of Harpoon onto an existing asset would be the easiest and quickest way of gaining such a capability, particularly given the likelyhood of this weapon being acquired for the ANZAC upgrade anyway. Whilst providing little or no capability to support deployed land forces on operations, it provides a partial solution to one particular capability gap and realistically is far more likely than the purchase of new tactical fighter aircraft to perform these roles.
I do however agree with the need for a tactical fighter to provide air defence and strike/CAS missions in support of NZDF forces. I'm not sure that AV-8B Harrier is the way to go, as they are almost as old as NZ's P-3K's, very complex and quite expensive to operate and are intended to be replaced in the next 5-10 years by virtually every operator. It would take roughly that long to build up a fast jet capability within the RNZAF again.
If the political will WERE there (and I can't really ever see it again) to acquire a tactical fighter capability, a new training aircraft and lead in fighter would be the first steps necessary to re-constitute the force.
Only when sufficient corporate knowledge had been re-gained would a new jet be introduced. It would be a slow relatively tedious process.
My pick for a new fighter for RNZAF would be for Gripen fighters. Relatively capable, yet cheap by modern aircraft standards and (relatively) simple to operate and maintain. There's also likely to be a significant quantity of almost new, but still "second-hand" airframes available soon due to Swedish force reductions. These would be very cheap even when upgraded to the latest C/D export models and compare very favourably to F-16 and F-18 fighters...
My rationale was that RNZAF currently lacks any significant ability to respond with force to an identified threat in it's own territorial waters. The integration of Harpoon onto an existing asset would be the easiest and quickest way of gaining such a capability, particularly given the likelyhood of this weapon being acquired for the ANZAC upgrade anyway. Whilst providing little or no capability to support deployed land forces on operations, it provides a partial solution to one particular capability gap and realistically is far more likely than the purchase of new tactical fighter aircraft to perform these roles.
I do however agree with the need for a tactical fighter to provide air defence and strike/CAS missions in support of NZDF forces. I'm not sure that AV-8B Harrier is the way to go, as they are almost as old as NZ's P-3K's, very complex and quite expensive to operate and are intended to be replaced in the next 5-10 years by virtually every operator. It would take roughly that long to build up a fast jet capability within the RNZAF again.
If the political will WERE there (and I can't really ever see it again) to acquire a tactical fighter capability, a new training aircraft and lead in fighter would be the first steps necessary to re-constitute the force.
Only when sufficient corporate knowledge had been re-gained would a new jet be introduced. It would be a slow relatively tedious process.
My pick for a new fighter for RNZAF would be for Gripen fighters. Relatively capable, yet cheap by modern aircraft standards and (relatively) simple to operate and maintain. There's also likely to be a significant quantity of almost new, but still "second-hand" airframes available soon due to Swedish force reductions. These would be very cheap even when upgraded to the latest C/D export models and compare very favourably to F-16 and F-18 fighters...
Stats
Thought I would drop some stats in to the argument so people can get an idea about costs and distances.
The MRV costs US$100M. That is roughly the same price as a new 767-200ER @ US$118M. A 767-300 Freighter is $US143M
The RNZAF will spend NZ$70M runnning two B757s during the 06/07 financial year. That's twice the cost of operating HMNZS Endeavour for the same time period. The Hercules fleet costs NZ$94M to run.
NZ spends NZ$5M a year on a terminal movements capability (cargo handling,etc), This provides cargo handling teams in Akl, Wgtn and Chch and a modest deployable team.
NZ$84M is spent on Army Engineers per annum. This is roughly one-third of the cost of providing the two battalions and a recon squadron (NZ$275M). Artillery costs NZ$56M per year.
A one-way flight from Christchurch to Darwin is 5,259km (3,268 miles).
Auckland to to Suva is 2,118km (1,316 miles). Auckland to Honiara is 3,399km (2,112 miles). Auckland to Honilulu is 7,057km (4,385 miles).
Thought I would drop some stats in to the argument so people can get an idea about costs and distances.
The MRV costs US$100M. That is roughly the same price as a new 767-200ER @ US$118M. A 767-300 Freighter is $US143M
The RNZAF will spend NZ$70M runnning two B757s during the 06/07 financial year. That's twice the cost of operating HMNZS Endeavour for the same time period. The Hercules fleet costs NZ$94M to run.
NZ spends NZ$5M a year on a terminal movements capability (cargo handling,etc), This provides cargo handling teams in Akl, Wgtn and Chch and a modest deployable team.
NZ$84M is spent on Army Engineers per annum. This is roughly one-third of the cost of providing the two battalions and a recon squadron (NZ$275M). Artillery costs NZ$56M per year.
A one-way flight from Christchurch to Darwin is 5,259km (3,268 miles).
Auckland to to Suva is 2,118km (1,316 miles). Auckland to Honiara is 3,399km (2,112 miles). Auckland to Honilulu is 7,057km (4,385 miles).
Re: Equiping a Air Force for the RNZAF.
A secondary role for the P3k in its current capability is probably the best we are going to get out of it for the forseeable future. If the government did chose to arm it with a harpoon then the aircraft will be difficult to include in any exercise with the Australian Navy or Airforce due to them having a more capable system that can do the job better i feel. I do think that the P3 at the RNZAF is so outdated that with the current updates we still havent been able to level with capabilities with the Australian Airforce. I am really embarrassed although having not taken it personally to see that this capability in our own Air Force has been left lying dormant over many years despite the cries of our service men to have them upgraded. Then to see the current government take out the Air Combat force in itself was an act of trying to put a knife into its own stomach. The Labour party was always a non military option for government for NZ and had no agenda to pursue a proper working armed services, and didnt have a strategy in place for working alongside allies. Then NZ voted the Labour government but many Nzers didnt think about Defense seriously. That in itself is dangerous and even today there seems to be this NZ mental block that defense is a waste of time and money and is just as obhorent as nuclear powered warships. Now we are down on this peace keeping path with the UN and we still cant keep this balance between peacekeeping and militarily being ready for a low level war or being capable to work along side our allies without sponging off them as has been the case in the past.
However it may seem that things are about to change. Slowly i might add and it probably has come about through the discussions with the US recently for a free trade agreement.
I agree fully that we cant identify whats around our waters but if we left our P3s to survellience work and secondary harpoon roles and we had a Harrier force despite their age, would work better so as to protect the P3s and Navy and Army on land. I realise their age but hey, the RNZAF kept the A4 running way longer than its intended retirement dates. Actually there are many countries doing this including Brazil with the recent purchase of the Saudi F-5 and the Singapore AF with the A4 and the Israeli Airforce with the A4, India with the Harrier, these just to name a few. I think NZ can purchase these aircraft at good rates along with spares and a package that would make it attractive to kick start our own airforce.
Sure Grippens are a good choice as they are very fast and agile. However how good are they for maritime operations at sea? The Harrier would be better because we could deploy them on land and any where as a forward operating base for operations. A Grippen will need a runway at all times.
Yes it will be hard for any government to reinstate a combat force again but if we are to plug this huge gap in our military capability and have effective and serious working relationships with our allies then it will be neccessary to do so. The only other alternative is to base F-18s at Ohakea as an alternative so we are under the umbrella of the Australian Airforce.
A secondary role for the P3k in its current capability is probably the best we are going to get out of it for the forseeable future. If the government did chose to arm it with a harpoon then the aircraft will be difficult to include in any exercise with the Australian Navy or Airforce due to them having a more capable system that can do the job better i feel. I do think that the P3 at the RNZAF is so outdated that with the current updates we still havent been able to level with capabilities with the Australian Airforce. I am really embarrassed although having not taken it personally to see that this capability in our own Air Force has been left lying dormant over many years despite the cries of our service men to have them upgraded. Then to see the current government take out the Air Combat force in itself was an act of trying to put a knife into its own stomach. The Labour party was always a non military option for government for NZ and had no agenda to pursue a proper working armed services, and didnt have a strategy in place for working alongside allies. Then NZ voted the Labour government but many Nzers didnt think about Defense seriously. That in itself is dangerous and even today there seems to be this NZ mental block that defense is a waste of time and money and is just as obhorent as nuclear powered warships. Now we are down on this peace keeping path with the UN and we still cant keep this balance between peacekeeping and militarily being ready for a low level war or being capable to work along side our allies without sponging off them as has been the case in the past.
However it may seem that things are about to change. Slowly i might add and it probably has come about through the discussions with the US recently for a free trade agreement.
I agree fully that we cant identify whats around our waters but if we left our P3s to survellience work and secondary harpoon roles and we had a Harrier force despite their age, would work better so as to protect the P3s and Navy and Army on land. I realise their age but hey, the RNZAF kept the A4 running way longer than its intended retirement dates. Actually there are many countries doing this including Brazil with the recent purchase of the Saudi F-5 and the Singapore AF with the A4 and the Israeli Airforce with the A4, India with the Harrier, these just to name a few. I think NZ can purchase these aircraft at good rates along with spares and a package that would make it attractive to kick start our own airforce.
Sure Grippens are a good choice as they are very fast and agile. However how good are they for maritime operations at sea? The Harrier would be better because we could deploy them on land and any where as a forward operating base for operations. A Grippen will need a runway at all times.
Yes it will be hard for any government to reinstate a combat force again but if we are to plug this huge gap in our military capability and have effective and serious working relationships with our allies then it will be neccessary to do so. The only other alternative is to base F-18s at Ohakea as an alternative so we are under the umbrella of the Australian Airforce.
Aussie Digger said:
I think the NZDF is good for our needs BUT they could do a lot better. Armed orions would significantly enhance NZDF's capability because they will then have the abililty to perform air strikes.
I think the ideal structure would be:
Army:
105 NZLAVs (as done)
321 LOVS (as done)
24 MRAAW's (as done)
24 155mm artillary
50 120mm mortars
15 medium range air defence systems
Navy:
3 Frigates
2-3 MRV's
2 OPV's
4 IPVS
1 Replenish ship
1 mine/dive support
Airforce
8 Hercs
15 EMB-314 SUPER TUCANO light attack aircraft
6 new harpoon armed orions
12 NH90 helis
8 Tiger AAH's
Not having the 757's would provide the money to buy 2 new MRV's at $100mil each and 15 EMB-314 SUPER TUCANO attack aircraft.
I think the ideal structure would be:
Army:
105 NZLAVs (as done)
321 LOVS (as done)
24 MRAAW's (as done)
24 155mm artillary
50 120mm mortars
15 medium range air defence systems
Navy:
3 Frigates
2-3 MRV's
2 OPV's
4 IPVS
1 Replenish ship
1 mine/dive support
Airforce
8 Hercs
15 EMB-314 SUPER TUCANO light attack aircraft
6 new harpoon armed orions
12 NH90 helis
8 Tiger AAH's
Not having the 757's would provide the money to buy 2 new MRV's at $100mil each and 15 EMB-314 SUPER TUCANO attack aircraft.
Re: Defense Force Structure
Thank you for your input. I agree that we are starting on the right track but their are still major gaps to be filled. What i dont agree with is using p3s as a first strike aspect as it has no multi task first strike option. Something the Armed forces are desperatly lacking. P3s cant help the Army with a Harpoon when our forward operations officer is screaming for a second strike on multiple targets as the NZ Army is pinned down under fire.
Thats the reason why a AV-8B or Harrier would do the job better than a Super Tucano as Tucanos need runways. Its also not a Maritime attack option. The Harrier is a multi task option. Both Air to Air, Air to Ground and Maritime strike. It doesnt need runways and can be forward deployed. Also a ASM on a Tucano lacks range and speed. Something important in the modern art of warfare.
Here is my proposal as set out:
Army:
105 NZLAVs (as done)
321 LOVS (as done)
24 MRAAW's (as done)
24 155mm artillary
50 120mm mortars
15 medium range air defence systems( IE Rapier)
15-20 Anti Armour. (As done)
Navy:
3 Frigates
2 MRV's(self armed with CIWS)
2 OPV's(Self armed with CIWS)
4 IPVS
2 Replenish ship (Need 2 for extra naval assets)
1 mine/dive support
Airforce
8 Hercs (J Versions)
15-20 AV-8Bs VTOL or similar with parts)
6 New Harpoon armed orions
12 NH90 helis. ( Can be armed to fire the Maverick and external weopons)
8 NH90s for training squadron. (Lead in Helo for General Squadron duties.)
2 757s (for rapid deployment of troops.IE ET)
Thank you for your input. I agree that we are starting on the right track but their are still major gaps to be filled. What i dont agree with is using p3s as a first strike aspect as it has no multi task first strike option. Something the Armed forces are desperatly lacking. P3s cant help the Army with a Harpoon when our forward operations officer is screaming for a second strike on multiple targets as the NZ Army is pinned down under fire.
Thats the reason why a AV-8B or Harrier would do the job better than a Super Tucano as Tucanos need runways. Its also not a Maritime attack option. The Harrier is a multi task option. Both Air to Air, Air to Ground and Maritime strike. It doesnt need runways and can be forward deployed. Also a ASM on a Tucano lacks range and speed. Something important in the modern art of warfare.
Here is my proposal as set out:
Army:
105 NZLAVs (as done)
321 LOVS (as done)
24 MRAAW's (as done)
24 155mm artillary
50 120mm mortars
15 medium range air defence systems( IE Rapier)
15-20 Anti Armour. (As done)
Navy:
3 Frigates
2 MRV's(self armed with CIWS)
2 OPV's(Self armed with CIWS)
4 IPVS
2 Replenish ship (Need 2 for extra naval assets)
1 mine/dive support
Airforce
8 Hercs (J Versions)
15-20 AV-8Bs VTOL or similar with parts)
6 New Harpoon armed orions
12 NH90 helis. ( Can be armed to fire the Maverick and external weopons)
8 NH90s for training squadron. (Lead in Helo for General Squadron duties.)
2 757s (for rapid deployment of troops.IE ET)
NZLAV said:
Congratulations on your first post.NZLAV said:
All sounds pretty sensible to me. Unfortunately money that has been spent can't be retrieved.
The is no question that transporting things by sea is much cheaper. If time wasn't often a factor you could almost get away without having an airlift capacity. Unfortunately time is often the most crucial factor. It is also the prime reason we have 757s - Hercules take too long to cover significant distance.
My immediate priority would be to improve airlift. It is the only area that hasn't been subject to a review buy this government. It is probably no coincidence that it is also the most expensive! I would be looking to acquire another pair of 757s or 767s to beef up the longer range transport capability. I would also place an order for 8 A400s for delivery sometime between 2010 and 2014. Around the 2012 to 2016 timeframe I would start retiring the hercs and replacing them with a more modest capacity to support domestic operations. Something like a C-27 or C-295.
The main gap in the army is indirect fire support. Understandably it hasn't been a priority, but it is now due for an overhaul. The best solution probably to acquire some additional LAVs with a 120mm mortar turret to equip QA squadron and 1 RNZIR. 161 and 163 Btys should be bought up to strength to 6 guns for each batter. Something like G5 would be fine. I would also look to raise 162 Bty for direct support to 2/1 RNZIR and keep this is a light battery -105 howitzers and 120mm mortars operating with an arms room type arrangement where the system employed can be the commander's choice according to METT-T.
On that subject, I presume your suggestion of 50 120mm mortars is fairly arbitrary?
I wouldn’t’ go near the Tiger either. Australia is having significant problems with it and I’m not sure the $800M is justified. That sort of money buys a lost of other equipment that would be used far more frequently. Forget about a fixed wing strike capability as well. There isn’t anything on the horizon that an Orion can’t handle.
Another priority should be what the LTDP calls a ‘high readiness infantry company.’ Personally I would like to see this based in either Darwin or Townsville, preferably with a terminal operations team, signals element and a light battery. For a modest sum of money a couple of companies worth of support vehicles could also be based their for operational sue and exercise equipment for NZ-based forces. If funds allow a company set of LAVs would round it out quiet nicely.
Something that many haven’t picked up on is that the purchase of the MRV will allow exercises overseas much more easily than we can do now. Don’t be surprised if we see a lot more exercises like Predators Gallop. The MRV needs time at sea and hauling company sized groups of troops for exercise can be achieved at the same time. Again, for the sake of operational expediency a set of LOVs and Unimogs should be kept aboard ship. The organic Army movements detachment can maintain them. It’s a lot easier to fly troops to an airport to meet up with ship than it is to send the ship back to port, load it up and sail it off again.
- Status