Royal New Zealand Air Force

[alexanderthegreat368]

There are still some blaring issues with drones as you mention, but these will be improved in time with technology such as 5G, AI and in jamming resistance. If we look at examples such as the infamous Bayraktar TB2 in Nagorno-Karabakh and Ukraine, these NZD$2M drones offered a strong asymmetric capability able to take out units many times more expensive. Especially against Russia which is known to have strong EW capabilities. In the case of NZ if they operate locally in a defensive manner, comms will be stronger (less signal attenuation) and therefore less vulnerable to electronic attack. Drones are the future and hence many countries are placing significant investment in them.

The other alternative is a manned fighter force, which is arguably far more expensive (4th gen fighters are approx. 40x the unit price of a TB2) and includes risks of losing personnel on dangerous mission profiles. It will be even more expensive for NZ as it is a capability that has been lost so the supporting infrastructure and pilot training are absent. Though the capabilities of manned fighter aircraft cannot be fully replaced by UCAVs at the moment, especially in air-to-air combat, acquiring them are not an economically or perhaps politically viable solution. A middle ground may be like FCAS, combining manned combat aircraft with multiple loyal wingman drones to carry strikes etc. But this may also be too costly.

A limited air combat capability provided by drones is better than none at all, and the NZG seems to have no intention of restoring such a force with manned aircraft. SeaGuardian seems to be a good first pick for ISR of NZ's large EEZ and for limited maritime strike.

 

[ngatimozart]

There are still some blaring issues with drones as you mention, but these will be improved in time with technology such as 5G, AI and in jamming resistance. If we look at examples such as the infamous Bayraktar TB2 in Nagorno-Karabakh and Ukraine, these NZD$2M drones offered a strong asymmetric capability able to take out units many times more expensive ...

Ok Moderator hat on first. Do you have a source for the price of the Bayraktar TB2 RPAS? The rules require a source to be posted.

First of all. What happens to a RPAS if the satellites are taken out with both the Russians and PLA having the capabilities to do that. It's like a politician; of no use to man nor beast until you can organise a replacement comms network. Next point how much is the base station(s) and support infra structure or the Bayraktar? That won't be cheap and we are probably talking $300,000 - 500,000 million minimum and that's for just one set.

Limited maritime strike is a fallacy because the enemy will have a full naval and air capability with a fully functional IADS, not a limited IADS. It will be quite capable of taking out a Seasprite well before the helo can launch its Penguin missile. Or a P-8A well before it can launch it's Harpoon if the government are stupid enough to acquire the Harpoon instead of LRASM and / or NSM. You don't want to risk a P-8A in such a situation because of it's value as a national strategic asset. That's why you have fast jet strike aircraft. A2A combat would be a secondary requirement of any future RNZAF fast jet capability because maritime strike would be its main priority above all else. If the army wants CAS then ARH can be acquired for that.

 

[Boardgamer88]

Edit: Sorry, posted in the wrong thread. My bad

 

[ngatimozart]

So I was told this was an important move for Ukraine by the US Senate so I decided to post it here

In the fight against Putin, Senate unanimously approves measure that once helped beat Hitler

The Senate revived Lend-Lease, a World War II-era measure that allowed the U.S. to quickly resupply Allies in the fight against Nazi Germany.

www.politico.com

From what I understand, Zelenskyy is getting All the weapons.

Good for Ukraine but doesn't help us.

 

[ddxx]

Wouldn’t it make most sense (like with many things) for the NZDF and ADF to work together in joint, large batch procurement of common equipment, sustainment and training?

Both parties get more bang for buck, both upfront and ongoing.

 

[Redlands18]

Wouldn’t it make most sense (like with many things) for the NZDF and ADF to work together in joint, large batch procurement of common equipment, sustainment and training?

Both parties get more bang for buck, both upfront and ongoing.

There doesn't appear to be any real appetite for Defence cooperation on that level, the Anzacs are a great example the Kiwi Ships are now as far removed from the Aussie Anzacs as the Turkish and Portugese MEKO 200s are in fitout. With a completely different CMS, Radar and SAM system.

 

[alexanderthegreat368]

Ok Moderator hat on first. Do you have a source for the price of the Bayraktar TB2 RPAS? The rules require a source to be posted.

First of all. What happens to a RPAS if the satellites are taken out with both the Russians and PLA having the capabilities to do that. It's like a politician; of no use to man nor beast until you can organise a replacement comms network. Next point how much is the base station(s) and support infra structure or the Bayraktar? That won't be cheap and we are probably talking $300,000 - 500,000 million minimum and that's for just one set.

Limited maritime strike is a fallacy because the enemy will have a full naval and air capability with a fully functional IADS, not a limited IADS. It will be quite capable of taking out a Seasprite well before the helo can launch its Penguin missile. Or a P-8A well before it can launch it's Harpoon if the government are stupid enough to acquire the Harpoon instead of LRASM and / or NSM. You don't want to risk a P-8A in such a situation because of it's value as a national strategic asset. That's why you have fast jet strike aircraft. A2A combat would be a secondary requirement of any future RNZAF fast jet capability because maritime strike would be its main priority above all else. If the army wants CAS then ARH can be acquired for that.

The TB2 cost figure is widely known online so I didn't mention it. But it is on Wikipedia and many other news outlets. But disregarding that,You are being redirected... this article gives a direct unit cost of USD$5M or roughly NZD$7M. Still an extremely affordable platform but I have exaggerated it a bit. Ukraine got a deal of 12 TB2 and 3 ground control stations for an estimated US$69 million Ukraine signs agreement to procure Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drones. That's roughly NZD$4M per ground control station. No idea of where your figure of "500,000 million" came from.

You mention the use of ASAT weapons to take out comms. These weapons are extremely rare and expensive, which have seen no real combat usage. Sure, China will waste taking out all the satellites in geosynchronous orbit near NZ just to prevent a few drones. Even if they do, it'll hinder manned aircraft operations as well. But anyhow drones can also be controlled through radio waves from a ground control station for a couple hundred miles or follow a determined path autonomously https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/drone-crashes/how-drones-work/.

In the case of SeaGuardian, limited maritime strike would be a secondary capability like the SH-2G(I)s and obviously would not be relied on to attack an adversary's incoming fleet. More so against isolated patrol vessels or on land for CAS. Their primary role would be battlefield awareness and to provide targeting data to assist allies. The point is that the strike capability is there, and an additional weak capability is better than none at all.

 

[OldTex]

You mention the use of ASAT weapons to take out comms. These weapons are extremely rare and expensive, which have seen no real combat usage. Sure, China will waste taking out all the satellites in geosynchronous orbit near NZ just to prevent a few drones. Even if they do, it'll hinder manned aircraft operations as well. But anyhow drones can also be controlled through radio waves from a ground control station for a couple hundred miles or follow a determined path autonomously

It does not require the use of an ASAT weapon to destroy or degrade a communications payload on a satellite. A high powered emitter with a narrowbeam width within the footprint of the communications transceiver can overload the communications payload or at the very least raise the noise floor so that the intended received signal level is below the receiver threshold effectively causing the link to fail. The use of RF directly from the GCS is usually for take-off and landing operations and depending on the terrain can be limited to 50 km. Again the use of an RF jammer can render the control link unavailable hence requiring the automated Return-To-Base function.

 

[John Fedup]

I suppose the most effective satellite disruption for the desperate would be a EMP generated by a nuke in space. Certainly wouldn’t win any popularity prizes though.

 

[ngatimozart]

The TB2 cost figure is widely known online so I didn't mention it. But it is on Wikipedia and many other news outlets. But disregarding that,You are being redirected... this article gives a direct unit cost of USD$5M or roughly NZD$7M. Still an extremely affordable platform but I have exaggerated it a bit. Ukraine got a deal of 12 TB2 and 3 ground control stations for an estimated US$69 million Ukraine signs agreement to procure Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drones. That's roughly NZD$4M per ground control station. No idea of where your figure of "500,000 million" came from.

I used the figure that I have for the SeaGuardian actually. It's in the DSCA notification that I linked to and I extrapolated for the number of stations required.

You mention the use of ASAT weapons to take out comms. These weapons are extremely rare and expensive, which have seen no real combat usage. Sure, China will waste taking out all the satellites in geosynchronous orbit near NZ just to prevent a few drones. Even if they do, it'll hinder manned aircraft operations as well. But anyhow drones can also be controlled through radio waves from a ground control station for a couple hundred miles or follow a determined path autonomously https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/drone-crashes/how-drones-work/.

The PLA don't give a toss if they knock out other satellite capabilities. With manned combat aircraft it doesn't overly matter if satellites are lost because they can still fly and still complete missions. They just use different systems, like the human pilot to fly and fight the aircraft, and INS (Inertial Navigation System) to find their way around, and if that fails a compass and a Mk 1 eyeball, HF radio etc.

In the case of SeaGuardian, limited maritime strike would be a secondary capability like the SH-2G(I)s and obviously would not be relied on to attack an adversary's incoming fleet. More so against isolated patrol vessels or on land for CAS. Their primary role would be battlefield awareness and to provide targeting data to assist allies. The point is that the strike capability is there, and an additional weak capability is better than none at all.

The SeaGuardian isn't capable of maritime strike. It can't carry the Likes or LRASM or NSM because its not designed for that. We are talking about maritime surveillance and that's it. It's not the Reaper and the Reaper or it's like would not survive on the modern battlefield. Why are the Bayraktars surviving against the Russians at the moment? Because the Russian forces haven't got their crap together and haven't got good ground based air defence systems in place. The Russians have formidable ground based gun and missile air defences, both static and mobile, but they're useless if they aren't being used properly. Yes they are shooting down Ukrainian aircraft, but nowhere as many as they should be. Where were the air defence systems when the Bayraktars were having a good time? Where were the Russian EW (Electronic Warfare) troops? What about the VVS (Russian Air Force)?

Like I said if the Army wants CAS then they can request an ARH capability. Our biggest strategic capability problem at the moment is lack of maritime surveillance and combat capability and such combat capability has to be something that is not risky, is proven and currently in service with our FVEY partners.

 

[RegR]

I still see a place in NZ for sea guardian based on maritime patrol alone (and ultimately freeing up precious P8 hours), anything else, including strike, is just a bonus. The fact Australia has dumped the program is unfortunate as it would have definately improved our chances of project involvement but they ultimately have bigger priorities, which we are not following anyway.

Still a more cost effective option than even another single P8 in terms of coverage, operation and through life costs which is exactly what this (and any) current govt will no doubt focus on.

MQ-9B SeaGuardian

GA-ASI has developed a variant of the Predator B Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) series that meets NATO standards (STANAG-4671), and in cooperation with the FAA, will subsequently meet airworthiness certification standards domestically and around the world.

www.ga-asi.com

 

[Rock the kasbah]

I still see a place in NZ for sea guardian based on maritime patrol alone (and ultimately freeing up precious P8 hours), anything else, including strike, is just a bonus. The fact Australia has dumped the program is unfortunate as it would have definately improved our chances of project involvement but they ultimately have bigger priorities, which we are not following anyway.

Still a more cost effective option than even another single P8 in terms of coverage, operation and through life costs which is exactly what this (and any) current govt will no doubt focus on.

MQ-9B SeaGuardian

GA-ASI has developed a variant of the Predator B Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) series that meets NATO standards (STANAG-4671), and in cooperation with the FAA, will subsequently meet airworthiness certification standards domestically and around the world.

www.ga-asi.com

You could always work out how to build this stuff at home
Might help in the long run
You know could be a war coming

 

[RegR]

You could always work out how to build this stuff at home
Might help in the long run
You know could be a war coming

Nah, for something this important, tested, proven and off the shelf is the "safe" option. Even our govt is finally understanding this concept, expensive lesson otherwise.

Could be, should be, maybe, possibly. If anything the war in Ukraine has lessened any chance of Russian aggression in our part of the world, let's just say they've got their hands full at the moment on their front doorstep no doubt...

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

Bit of an update to the sensors the C-130j-30's are getting (I don't have access to the full article)

NZ C-130Js to get specialist equipment, advanced sensors

 

[JohnJT]

Bit of an update to the sensors the C-130j-30's are getting (I don't have access to the full article)

NZ C-130Js to get specialist equipment, advanced sensors

The MX-20HD is the same EO/IR as fitted to the P-8, so there is definitely a training/maintenance benefit there. NZ are getting lots of optional extras on their C-130J-30s. They're going to be very capable and flexible platforms.

 

[ngatimozart]

The MX-20HD is the same EO/IR as fitted to the P-8, so there is definitely a training/maintenance benefit there. NZ are getting lots of optional extras on their C-130J-30s. They're going to be very capable and flexible platforms.

The RNZAF C-130J-30s are the exact same fit out as current USAF new buys. The only difference are the national markings, rego numbers and shade of grey. Ron Mark (previous DEFMIN) said that when he made the announcement.

 

[Pusser01]

The RNZAF C-130J-30s are the exact same fit out as current USAF new buys. The only difference are the national markings, rego numbers and shade of grey. Ron Mark (previous DEFMIN) said that when he made the announcement.

Out of interest, has there been any indication if the Kiwi models will be fitted with underwing tanks?

 

[JohnJT]

The RNZAF C-130J-30s are the exact same fit out as current USAF new buys. The only difference are the national markings, rego numbers and shade of grey. Ron Mark (previous DEFMIN) said that when he made the announcement.

Interesting. I've never seen a usaf C-130j-30 fitted with an MX-20. Specialty C-130s and C-130Js, but never usaf C-130J-30s. If anyone has a picture I'd love to see it!

 

[Volkodav]

A very cheeky suggestion here.

The RNZAF doesn't do air combat anymore, but they do, do surveillance, reconnaissance, ESM, etc. The RAAF is classifying their F/A-18G Growlers as ISR platforms, would they be a suitable ISR platform for the RNZAF?

 

[recce.k1]

A very cheeky suggestion here.

The RNZAF doesn't do air combat anymore, but they do, do surveillance, reconnaissance, ESM, etc. The RAAF is classifying their F/A-18G Growlers as ISR platforms, would they be a suitable ISR platform for the RNZAF?

No not cheeky at all!
If we (or more like the pollies) instead of looking at a platform (as in particular aircraft) and then instead of getting tied up in knots over how much "combat" use they would get to justify their costs, perhaps instead looked at things from a "cooperative engagement perspective" that is networkable with linked sensors and data systems etc, so linking in to the P-8A's, ANZAC Frigates, NEA Army and the proposed post 2030 long-range maritime surveillance UAV's then perhaps the Growler could be a natural fit (and a good opening to bigger and better capabilities like Super Hornets and/or E-7's etc)?

Particularly as the NZDF (and ADF) will now have to contend with CCP intel-gathering & EW assets operating within the South Pacific and close to our EEZ's.

(There have been murmurs that the former A-4K's were also being used to sneak about conducting recce tasks ... although no-one publically discusses this. But imagine if they had modern aircraft with modern capabilities)!

Noticed the USN are retiring early a number of their Growlers according to a recent Drive/WarZone article. Perhaps a chance for NZ to pick some up and work in with the RAAF to build up this capability via training in Oz?