NZDF LTDP 2006 update

[Tasman]

If the cost of running a permanent base is uneconomical as you say for a small number of aircraft then i would have to assume that reinstating the MB339s and operating them at Ohakea, is a no brainer. Am i right.? Let us make sure we have the right information here. Ohakea does have all the support facilities in place already, and like the previous A4 skyhawk that was based there has the infrastructure that was already used and could be reinstated at a moments notice. I hardly believe for one moment that there would be a huge cost to NZ in enhancing the existing bases structure. So lets get that one out of the way. So firstly, the Hawk CAN be based here on having the structures in place already.

I agree it is possible. Again both governments would need to be convinced of the merits of the proposal. BTW, I would prefer any Hawk unit to be based alongside the MB3339s at Ohakea. I would see no problem in operating the MB339s from Ohakea. When I talk about uneconomic I am talking in comparative terms. For Australia it is cheaper to consolidate assets in one base. There are times though, when military need is more important than economy, hence the one squadron base at Tindal. I notice earlier in this thread that NZ is also moving to consolidate air force operations.

Yes, the Hawk could be based there. The concern about cost would be to Australia so that would have to be dealt with by an agreement that suited both countries.

Secondly, there is the costs associated by means of the RAAF basing their aircraft at Ohakea. As you have mentioned. I agree with you that there would be, but we have overlooked one aspect of this argument. The stationing of the Hawk cannot go ahead without both governments approval in the project. As well, the costs. If both governments was to put in a equal share of the costs of the hawk being here IE Transfer costs, repositioning costs, running costs, pilot and maintenance personell costs etc this would be kept at a minimum and i am convinced that there wouldnt be an issue here. The tarmac maintenance personell could easily be trained quickly if we dont have them already. In fact i think we have them already.

The other possibility would be to have Woodbourne used as the maintenance base for repairs, if needed for the Hawke. Its already used for maintaining the A4s and MB339s and upgrades on other aircraft. I believe Safe Air run on contract by the Airforce do this work. The structure and know how is all here Tasman, just need someone like me and others to run with it. The whole concept is definitly possible.

I agree it is possible. Again both governments would need to be convinced of the merits of the proposal. BTW, I would prefer any Hawk unit to be based alongside the MB3339s at Ohakea.

The garrison town mentality for military installations despite having the attachments they have economically maybe, and especially to the size they are in Australia, may make a small "dent" in the relocation of the hawk squadron on a 3 month cycle rotation. However, its hardly going to make a dent in a large base structure within Australia. I think any person familiar with military deployments realise the inevitable aspect of military life is that they will be deployed out of the country at any notice. So sorry, i cant believe that. If it does make a difference then an arrangement could mean in the long term plan is that NZ start to buy the Hawk, by having a pay it off method thus having the aircraft available immediatly for operations, and its here in NZ that NZ can train with the Australian Hawk and MB339. Im only talking about a small squadron of around 12 aircraft.

IMHO, there would be political consequences that would be a major concern to the Australian Government. I think it would be better to permanently base the personnel of a flight (or a squadron if it could be funded) in NZ and rotate the aircraft. However, I could be wrong. I certainly don't pretend to be an expert in this area.

The other subject of taking a squadron OUT of the exisiting force structure within the RAAF. I could be wrong here but i would suspect like many airforces around the world and in this case that not all the Hawks would be used in training as their primary function. Yes some would need maintenance and some on standby but to my knowledge of the 30-40 Hawks in service that not all are training RAAF pilots. This means that a SMALL number of these could be utilized and transfered to NZ where all the maintenance and opilot training and traing of the the Navy, Army and Airforce could be undertaken.

There are 33 Hawks in the inventory. Each of the two squadrons has a training flight and an operations flight that provides fleet and army support (one on each coast). Someone may correct me if I am wrong but I believe that the Pearce based training flight transitions pilots from the PC9 to the Hawk. The Williamtown flight transitions them to the Hornet or F111. This arrangement has implications for their basing which is why I feel additional Hawks would be needed before any could be considered for basing in NZ.

To conclude: The more i think about this option the better it gets. I think it does have validity, and benefits the Airforce structure of both NZ and Australia. Giving RAAF pilots the ability to operate with their kiwi counterparts. Also giving RAN units on exercises the ability to operate from a different region gaining experience on our geo area.

I agree with you about the benefits you outline. The benefits for NZ would have to be weighed up against any disadvantages that would concern the RAAF. I think that more Hawks would have to be acquired (not a bad thing in my mind) and cost and political considerations would need to be addressed. The task would not be an easy one either in Australia or New Zealand.

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

Forgive me for not being able to block surround each individual paragraph and comment on it.

Anyways, im giving a framework scenario that all of the components can fit into and im glad that you being a senior member of the thread and that you would have more knowledge of the RAAFs situation in Australia, can easily identify the pros and cons. However from the information i have i would have to agree that there are more pros than cons. I do really think it makes sense. Yes there are policy issues to iron out but due to Nz and Australias close defense and economic structures , not to mention cricket competitions ! that this issue couldnt be implemented well. Can you tell me more about the political consequences in Australia about a move like this. ?

Yes the further purchase of Hawks as a co agreement could be made and there wouldnt be anything wrong with that. The reason i say this is that i think personally that the MB339 is somewhat incompatible without the support of the Hawk in the training scenario.

I agree it is possible. Again both governments would need to be convinced of the merits of the proposal. BTW, I would prefer any Hawk unit to be based alongside the MB3339s at Ohakea. I would see no problem in operating the MB339s from Ohakea. When I talk about uneconomic I am talking in comparative terms. For Australia it is cheaper to consolidate assets in one base. There are times though, when military need is more important than economy, hence the one squadron base at Tindal. I notice earlier in this thread that NZ is also moving to consolidate air force operations.

Yes, the Hawk could be based there. The concern about cost would be to Australia so that would have to be dealt with by an agreement that suited both countries.



I agree it is possible. Again both governments would need to be convinced of the merits of the proposal. BTW, I would prefer any Hawk unit to be based alongside the MB3339s at Ohakea.



IMHO, there would be political consequences that would be a major concern to the Australian Government. I think it would be better to permanently base the personnel of a flight (or a squadron if it could be funded) in NZ and rotate the aircraft. However, I could be wrong. I certainly don't pretend to be an expert in this area.


There are 33 Hawks in the inventory. Each of the two squadrons has a training flight and an operations flight that provides fleet and army support (one on each coast). Someone may correct me if I am wrong but I believe that the Pearce based training flight transitions pilots from the PC9 to the Hawk. The Williamtown flight transitions them to the Hornet or F111. This arrangement has implications for their basing which is why I feel additional Hawks would be needed before any could be considered for basing in NZ.



I agree with you about the benefits you outline. The benefits for NZ would have to be weighed up against any disadvantages that would concern the RAAF. I think that more Hawks would have to be acquired (not a bad thing in my mind) and cost and political considerations would need to be addressed. The task would not be an easy one either in Australia or New Zealand.

Cheers

 

[Tasman]

Forgive me for not being able to block surround each individual paragraph and comment on it.

Anyways, im giving a framework scenario that all of the components can fit into and im glad that you being a senior member of the thread and that you would have more knowledge of the RAAFs situation in Australia, can easily identify the pros and cons. However from the information i have i would have to agree that there are more pros than cons. I do really think it makes sense. Yes there are policy issues to iron out but due to Nz and Australias close defense and economic structures , not to mention cricket competitions ! that this issue couldnt be implemented well. Can you tell me more about the political consequences in Australia about a move like this. ?

Yes the further purchase of Hawks as a co agreement could be made and there wouldnt be anything wrong with that. The reason i say this is that i think personally that the MB339 is somewhat incompatible without the support of the Hawk in the training scenario.

Unfortunately I can't think of much that I can add to what I've said before Markus.

Politically, all I can say is that there are a lot of very nervous politicians in Australia at present as we move towards what looks like an election which either major party could win. No one will want to upset local constituents! From the RAAF's point of view I doubt it would initiate any new project before the new air combat capability (FA-18F/JSF) is in place.

My knowledge of the RAAF comes from being a compulsive reader of Aviation Magazines, going to air shows and talking with RAAF personnel whenever I get a chance. The last time I spoke with a Hawk pilot was when I sliced a golf ball off the tee on the 5th hole of the old Hobart Airport Golf Course and hit one of the two visiting Hawks parked on the tarmac. The conversation that followed was rather one sided and not the right time to ask a question!

BTW, the golf course was closed shortly after that!

I would love to see a much higher level of co-operation and interaction between the two air forces including training, where I think savings could be made and the possible formation of a joint squadron with at least a flight based in NZ.

The issue of cost benefit is something that is beyond my expertise and would have to be worked out between the two governments and the two air forces. I think it would be very worthwhile for the defence relationship between the two countries.


Cheers

 

[Markus40]

Yes, well we do have an election coming up in 2008, a wee way a way yet, and its doubtful that anything new will come about over defence at this point in time. Well, other than the cracks appearing in the LAV111s and with talk of the Canterbury being sent to Malaysia for repairs to the off loading door due to a mishap. Not to mention delays in the OPVs for whatever reason. The media here does give the defence forces the rap if something wrong does happen and costs a considerable amount of money to off lay those repairs.

BTW which political party do you think will win?

Unfortunately I can't think of much that I can add to what I've said before Markus.

Politically, all I can say is that there are a lot of very nervous politicians in Australia at present as we move towards what looks like an election which either major party could win. No one will want to upset local constituents! From the RAAF's point of view I doubt it would initiate any new project before the new air combat capability (FA-18F/JSF) is in place.

My knowledge of the RAAF comes from being a compulsive reader of Aviation Magazines, going to air shows and talking with RAAF personnel whenever I get a chance. The last time I spoke with a Hawk pilot was when I sliced a golf ball off the tee on the 5th hole of the old Hobart Airport Golf Course and hit one of the two visiting Hawks parked on the tarmac. The conversation that followed was rather one sided and not the right time to ask a question!

BTW, the golf course was closed shortly after that!

I would love to see a much higher level of co-operation and interaction between the two air forces including training, where I think savings could be made and the possible formation of a joint squadron with at least a flight based in NZ.

The issue of cost benefit is something that is beyond my expertise and would have to be worked out between the two governments and the two air forces. I think it would be very worthwhile for the defence relationship between the two countries.


Cheers

 

[Markus40]

Disagree. If you read my post closely you would have seen that by a rotational deployment if you can call it that, on a 3 month cycle, that for the 2 Hawk bases , one on the east coast the other on the west coast, that this wouldnt impact the communities around the bases at all.

I think the real issue is one of logistical sustainability within New Zealand and a slight side ways move to the current RAAF in its training operations within Australia. It has also been mentioned before in the threads that a joint co op arrangement by making a further purchase of the Hawk to meet the rotational requirement within NZ could definitly be a good option politically and militarily. NZ could do a 50/50 arrangement in the policy, by securing funds for the transfer or NZ actually taking on a "pay it off" method of repayments to secure a 12 Hawk squadron in NZ.

If you go back and read all of the options available in the threads to having the Hawk squadron based here and with the services that would be available to them in NZ its pretty clear that from a NZ point of view that this could be sustainable and logical at least in theory. I do think the issues may be more complicated in Auzz but none the less would be feasible, as their force structure is stronger and larger. I do agree with Tasman that this issue would more or less be a political one and wouldnt be implemented straightaway. Not until there is a clearer picture of whos in government on both sides of the debate, and the long term structure on the Defence forces.

I could be way off track here (but i dont think im to far wrong), but every state likes to have garrison towns. In Darwin,Palmerston has really grown and employment soared when 1 BDE relocated from Sydney. Singleton would really miss the Army as would Wagga miss both the Army and RAAF. Australia is littered with communities that would really miss the services that are there. To take a sqn of aircraft and their support sqns would upset the economys of some town, and maybe lose an election for some one. i dont see Aust baseing air assets permanently in NZ, however, regular exercises would be an option.

 

[Tasman]

BTW which political party do you think will win?

I'll send you a PM re this.

Cheers

 

[dave_kiwi]

Hercules Self Protection System - Upgrade

Latest implementation of LTDP

The Beehive announced today that they had approved the upgrade of the "Self Protection Systems" fitted to the C-130H's

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=29158

No word of what the current system is, or whats actually being upgraded though

 

[Tasman]

Latest implementation of LTDP

The Beehive announced today that they had approved the upgrade of the "Self Protection Systems" fitted to the C-130H's

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=29158

No word of what the current system is, or whats actually being upgraded though

This is good news. It is also pleasing to read, in the report, the reference to self protection systems being fitted to the new NH-90 helos.

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

Yes, its great to see the self protection systems being added onto the C130s and NH90s. I think its going to be a watch and wait game from now on to see what the government decide on further enhancements to our forces along with the planned LTDP projects coming up.

 

[recce.k1]

Also just wondering whether self protection systems are commonplace on jet transports eg RNZAF 757's, RAAF C17's etc, as these aircraft can operate in high threat areas like Afghanistan? If so, there has been no mention of fitting self protection systems to the 757's in the LTDP.

 

[Todjaeger]

Also just wondering whether self protection systems are commonplace on jet transports eg RNZAF 757's, RAAF C17's etc, as these aircraft can operate in high threat areas like Afghanistan? If so, there has been no mention of fitting self protection systems to the 757's in the LTDP.

I believe the RAAF C-17As are fitted out the same as USAF C-17s (apart from things like altimeter perhaps). AFAIK, USAF C-17s are fitted with some self-protection systems like flares, etc. As for the RNZAF Boeing 757 needing self-protection systems, are they needed? I don't know if NZ sends it's 757 into high threat areas, can anyone confirm?

-Cheers

 

[Tasman]

As for the RNZAF Boeing 757 needing self-protection systems, are they needed? I don't know if NZ sends it's 757 into high threat areas, can anyone confirm?

-Cheers

I can't confirm it but I would be very surprised if it did. Like the C-130, C-17 is able to to fly into short, unpaved, unimproved runways, with steep descent and ascent to help avoid enemy ground fire. The Boeing 757 would, AFAIK, be unable to do this and would be very vulnerable.

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

That is a really good question. I havent seen or heard that the 757s are up for self protection. And its not stated in the LTDP. Im not even sure where our troops go when they head to Afganistan either. Would i be correct in saying that a RNZAF or RAAF C130 would pick our boys up at say bahrain or an air base in Saudi Arabia and then taken to Bagran Air Base?

I can't confirm it but I would be vey surprised if it did. Like the C-130, C-17 is able to to fly into short, unpaved, unimproved runways, with steep descent and ascent to help avoid enemy ground fire. The Boeing 757 would, AFAIK, be unable to do this and would be very vulnerable.

Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

That is a really good question. I havent seen or heard that the 757s are up for self protection. And its not stated in the LTDP. Im not even sure where our troops go when they head to Afganistan either. Would i be correct in saying that a RNZAF or RAAF C130 would pick our boys up at say bahrain or an air base in Saudi Arabia and then taken to Bagran Air Base?

Hi Markus40, yes food for thought indeed, although the troops leave here in the 757, I'm not too clear myself how they get to the final destination. I assume they transfer onto other tactical aircraft as the 757 is considered strategic and is required to turn around fast etc (as Todjaeger and Tasman point out), however I guess where I'm coming from is, although we wouldn't expect a 757 to operate from air bases's close to the action, with today's shoulder lauched missiles, surely the aircraft are under potential threat if operating anywhere A'stan? Ditto for any other coalition transport. Anyway not trying to turn this into a biggee, initially was just wondering what was commonplace in terms of self-defence systems (thanks for the replies) and I guess the Govt doesn't see this as being a major issue seeing that no provision has been allowed for in the LTDP (and not trying to criticise the Govt, it may very well be the reality the a/c don't get anywhere the hotspots)!

 

[Todjaeger]

Hi Markus40, yes food for thought indeed, although the troops leave here in the 757, I'm not too clear myself how they get to the final destination. I assume they transfer onto other tactical aircraft as the 757 is considered strategic and is required to turn around fast etc (as Todjaeger and Tasman point out), however I guess where I'm coming from is, although we wouldn't expect a 757 to operate from air bases's close to the action, with today's shoulder lauched missiles, surely the aircraft are under potential threat if operating anywhere A'stan? Ditto for any other coalition transport. Anyway not trying to turn this into a biggee, initially was just wondering what was commonplace in terms of self-defence systems (thanks for the replies) and I guess the Govt doesn't see this as being a major issue seeing that no provision has been allowed for in the LTDP (and not trying to criticise the Govt, it may very well be the reality the a/c don't get anywhere the hotspots)!

I do think any aircraft coming into Afghanistan might be subject to groundfire and/or manpads. With that said, I don't think it likely that the RNZAF would actually fly the 757 into Afghanistan. More likely it would fly to a staging point for troops & supplies being sent in or out. I believe at one point, Diego Garcia was being used as a staging point. I think that was where NZ-SAS operating in Afghanistan were based or deployed out of. Not sure if it has changed, though I think it's still seeing some use since I believe it's still a British possession and has a USN/USMC base on it.

Hope this helps.

-Cheers

 

[Gibbo]

I do think any aircraft coming into Afghanistan might be subject to groundfire and/or manpads. With that said, I don't think it likely that the RNZAF would actually fly the 757 into Afghanistan. More likely it would fly to a staging point for troops & supplies being sent in or out. I believe at one point, Diego Garcia was being used as a staging point. I think that was where NZ-SAS operating in Afghanistan were based or deployed out of. Not sure if it has changed, though I think it's still seeing some use since I believe it's still a British possession and has a USN/USMC base on it.

Hope this helps.

-Cheers

Yes I believe the B757 stages to 'somewhere' then they transfer to a C-130 for the run into A'Stan - but have no detail where that might be.

I'm also curious as to whether the B757 are able to take a 'self-defence' suite - remember this...

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1039411,00.html

If the airspace was considered 'safe' enough for a civvy freighter - I'm sure the RNZAF would have thought it safe enough for their B757. Outside chance that the B757 would ever need it - but I wouldn't like to be onboard if that chance was taken!

 

[Markus40]

I tend to agree. Im wondering if the RNZAF releases information about its flight path to this region? Obviously not.

I do think any aircraft coming into Afghanistan might be subject to groundfire and/or manpads. With that said, I don't think it likely that the RNZAF would actually fly the 757 into Afghanistan. More likely it would fly to a staging point for troops & supplies being sent in or out. I believe at one point, Diego Garcia was being used as a staging point. I think that was where NZ-SAS operating in Afghanistan were based or deployed out of. Not sure if it has changed, though I think it's still seeing some use since I believe it's still a British possession and has a USN/USMC base on it.

Hope this helps.

-Cheers

 

[Markus40]

Hi Tasman its marcus, do you have any knowledge as to where RAAF aircraft go for their troop deployments to Afganistan? Is it in Afganistan or outside.?

I can't confirm it but I would be very surprised if it did. Like the C-130, C-17 is able to to fly into short, unpaved, unimproved runways, with steep descent and ascent to help avoid enemy ground fire. The Boeing 757 would, AFAIK, be unable to do this and would be very vulnerable.

Cheers

 

[Tasman]

Hi Tasman its marcus, do you have any knowledge as to where RAAF aircraft go for their troop deployments to Afganistan? Is it in Afganistan or outside.?

My understanding is that Australian operations in Afghanistan are supported by RAAF C130s and USAF C17s which fly into Afghanistan. The CH47D Chinooks that Australia operated in Afghanistan were flown in and out in the USAF C17s. In future I would expect that RAAF C17s will take over that role.

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yes I believe the B757 stages to 'somewhere' then they transfer to a C-130 for the run into A'Stan - but have no detail where that might be.

I'm also curious as to whether the B757 are able to take a 'self-defence' suite - remember this...

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1039411,00.html

If the airspace was considered 'safe' enough for a civvy freighter - I'm sure the RNZAF would have thought it safe enough for their B757. Outside chance that the B757 would ever need it - but I wouldn't like to be onboard if that chance was taken!

A "certain Middle Eastern Country" is all RAAF states about this issue, due to sensitivities from the host Country...

I'd be fairly certain it'd be similar for the RNZAF...

Mod edit: Ladies and Gents, due to the plethora of NZ related threads open at present some older ones are going to be closed in order to focus debates on fewer threads. The individual NZ Service (Army, Navy Air Force ones will be available for related news stories and the "NZ regional power thread" left open for "related" topics. Please continue any relevant discussions there.

Regards

AD.