Oh boy, I’ve had some serious conversations with the Canadian ex-pats here in Jakarta about it... You guys have it bad! From JSS to FWSAR to the Cormorant to F-35’s etc. I think your problems with military acquisitions might run much deeper and longer than any one passing government though?
Inaccurate. If you read what I wrote, I said I agreed with Mr Harmon that the P-8A is a test of our commitment to regional co-operative security and added that not buying it would raise eyebrows. Nothing about South Korea and Singapore being "pissed". The optics within defence diplomacy circles in the region would be seen as downgrading our capability.
God forbid it comes down to that, but politicly speaking what do you see as the ramifications being. With past decisions with not taking up the options on the Anzac Frigate, the downsizing of the high-end combat capability with the cancelled F16 deal and know possibly this what is the worst case scenario?
Worst case scenario? Three guys armed with a paper aeroplane, a F.R.E.D. and a rubber ducky respectively.
Yes and I'm convinced that already Australia is showing NZ is becoming of little relevance to themselves, with many of the privileges afforded to NZers on Aus in the past being watered down, and relations in general seemingly strained. There's many reasons for this but in particular I would say some of the key aspects are (1) Aus economy flat in areas leading to their pollies focusing on protecting local jobs, social spending etc (2) Aus increasing focus on Asia which makes complete economic sense & does indeed makes NZ's economy of less significance (3) defence, defence, defence! In the last 3 decades the NZDF has been effectively been dumbed down as the ADF has been expanded, bolstered & enhanced. And I think this has already seriously pissed off the Aus Govt. All NZ Govt's are guilty of this - starting with National's Ruth Richardson's mother of all budgets from which the NZ defence budget has never really recovered.
Having a two tier approach in which one high end capability is able to seemlessly interop with our partners as part of a regional security umbrella is another rationale why the P-8A is necessary. Lockheeds local guy here a former RNZAF CAS has argued the very thing you state above. The P-8A plus his LM product.
That would be great if they could - because the P-3K2 is a very capable platform but 5 Sqd reports that it cannot sustain and keep airborne the P-3K post 2025 - it is a support and supply problem. The Koreans are having the same issue. When the decision to upgrade was made 14 years ago long term sustainment (.i.e 20 years plus) was not a consideration taking with much depth. Remember the upgrade took years longer than envisaged.
To be honest if the P-8 order book extends with an unconfirmed Saudi order, possible Korean order and more orders that may come under the Trump administration I would rather this is kicked down the road 2 and a half years. The timing would be more convenient.
The NZG invested into WGS-9 and entry into the constellation. Sheer conjecture on their part.
Dont forget that the original high end up grade (cost $600m +) of the the P3 which included ASW and from memory air to surface missiles was canned just after strike wing was shut down and the current K2 upgrade path started in its place. With all new offensive weapon options deleted.
Chris 3.pdf
Well done I thought it was very well written, can you elaborate more on the conversations in regards to the comments from RAAF/USN crews. And was the comment about airframe sharing between RAAF/RNZAF was that their own view or something more official?I’m afraid it was me who went to Singapore and wrote that article, but no one believes me
This is right at the heart of the issue and it is a cognitive issue. I have watched for years press conferences between NZ and OZ politicians - mostly PM's and FM's. Take for example the Bill English with Malcolm Turnball bilateral in QTown earlier last year. Turnball was hot on the point of Security and Trade as inseparable. English could only engage mentally on Trade and only saw things on that lens. Today in the ASEAN press conference between Turnball and PM Lee of Singapore they were both straight in to the relationship of Security AND Trade.
In terms of usefulness or utility, the only possibly useful weapons which might be available to all three platforms would be LWT's and/or depth bombs. The Penguin AShM which is available for the SH-2G(I) Seasprite has a max range of ~37 km when fired from altitude, which is well within the range of most area air defence missiles fitted to modern warships. Due to the ISR value of something like a P-8, one would normally not want to get close to, never mind within the air defence umbrella coverage of a hostile or likely hostile vessel or task force. The current P-3K2's have a similar sort of constraint as IIRC when they were re-winged, the wiring harness in the wings either removed or not upgraded to the then current MIL-STD. This in turn means that any targeting data which would be collected by the P-3K2's could not be passed on to any of the modern PGM's in use. The P-3K2's could, at best, possibly fit and launch Block I Harpoons, with missile guidance being entirely reliant upon the Harpoon's onboard sensor and guidance system.
I agree with you on this, The greens are very much on having surveillance but no ASW. Our finance minister does not want to spend on defence as his party has already spent it else where, Winstone is getting more erratic and has not been a great supporter of defence and RM appears to have lost some influence, not a good recipe for a good outcome. History also tells us that the significant majority of governments have multiple terms, especially if they have charismatic leaders or the economy continues to move forward.
The Greens fundamentally fail to understand that ASW capability is essential to ensure our capacity to deliver HADR and security in the maritime domain. I have spoken to many of them about this. No long term thought on how we would apply their doctrine if they got into power. Humanitarian crisis are not only caused by natural disasters, but just as often by people with machine guns denying access to particular groups of people. More often than not there is superpower and corporate proxy interest in the conflict, and there are 150 submarines operating in the Asia Pacific Region, many of which are operated by governments that can be externally lobbied by industry interests, including the use of their military. (We have all seen the explosion of mercenary and PMC use in every recent conflict in the world right? It’s not about the threat to us from other states, it’s the threats from the corporate interests our policy coukd threaten.) Submarines are the ultimate ‘plausible deniability’ weapon. If and when we enact the huge swathes of strictly resource managed zones across the pacific that the Greens ultimately want, (which drives up the price of those resources and therefore makes corporate mercenary action more cost-effective), we would entirely lack the ability to either police those zones or deliver HADR, if even one submarine threatened. Not to mention to cost to insurance in shipping, and our economy relies purely on those lanes being open for business without risk. ASW is not all about killing enemy vessels, it’s about denying them the ability to manoeuvre and engage undetected. Kind of like ‘covering fire’... force them to keep their heads down as you drop sonobouys along the paths of your surface fleet... By the time you get to any kind of detail their eyes have glazed over...
The airframe sharing idea has been around for a while now, but yes they were expecting if we went that way it would become problematic since the USN and RAAF P8’s fulfil a niche role and application in their larger force structure, as opposed to the more ‘all of government’ and flexible way we would be required to operate our sole MPA/ASW/ISR platform. In a way, you have to be careful what you take from young aircrew talking in front of their airplanes. I made it very clear I was a journalist when speaking to them. The most enlightening conversation came from the plethora of current and ex MPA crews from all over the world who were working in the stands of the expo, who were guarded talking about the particular product they were there to sell, ie: a radar system, or rescue pod, or EO turret or whatever, but were more than willing to wax lyrical concerning general trends and doctrines in the maritime patrol business. All of them had very good things to say about the P1 and Swordfish (or their own system if they worked for an OEM), but there were not many P8 fans on the floor of the expo... In two cases, even the P8 crews themselves talked down the platform. I really tried to talk to Boeing, but they were not very forth coming. Have you guys ever been to one of these massive weapons expo’s? I thoroughly recommend it as a great way to get exposure to the businesses in the business of war. Fascinating!
Yes, in that their platform was inescapably a 737, and the limitations that inherently imposed. To put it in context I caught them just after their tour of the Bombardier G6000, where they had just been run through the Pro-Line Fusion avionics and Synthetic Visions systems, and given the presentation on its wing design and the speed/altitude envelope it offered. They were really taken with it.