NZDF General discussion thread

[Todjaeger]

Guys and gals(?),

Been away from the thread for a couple of days and would like a couple of points on maritime surveillance/ISTAR capabilities.

These days a platform like the P-3 is seen as much more than simple a maritime patrol platform. The US navy has used P-3’s over Afghanistan for some time as a persistent surveillance platform. They undertake tasks such as monitoring convoys and keeping tags on “sites of interest”. The RAF has also operated Nimrods in a similar role, unfortunately losing one with all hands in the process.

I quite agree, with proper kit, can perform land-based surveillance and intel gathering missions quite well. More of my thoughts on this below...

With 6 Orion airframes NZ certainly punches above it weight Australia operate just less than one P-3 per million inhabitants and NZ operate 1.5 per million. This before you adjusted for income differences of ~30%.

Okay, this one I have to disagree with a bit in terms of NZ punching above it's weight. Yes, when going by total population NZ has a 1/3rd the number of P-3 Orions and ~1/6th the populations but... When going by total ocean area (primary patrol/surveillance mission type) the EEZ of NZ is half that of Oz. Granted, this doesn't take into account the different additional areas the two nations have MPA obligations or interests but still. If going by total available patrol/surveillance assets, then NZ would also have a fishery patrol vessel, ~7 more patrol boats, 5 smaller MPA as well as 3 more Orions...

In any case a couple of simple mods would make the P-3 a fine force multiplier as an ISTAR in local or out of area operations. The easiest way (I suspect as I am not a systems integration expert) would be to simply integrate a Litening type pod onto the kiwi P-3’s. You would gain world class surveillance and targeting capabilities, strong on board analytical capabilities plus the ability to drop LGB/GPS type PGMs from the platform as well. In environments such as Timor or high intensity operations in the Solomon’s an orbiting P-3 with ISTAR capabilities and a load of PGMs would be an invaluable resource to troops on the ground. Let alone the ability to provide a niche capability to international operations. I am fully aware that a P-3 is not survivable in contested airspace however many if not most of recent NZDF deployments e.g. Afghanistan, Timor etc have been in such environments.

The cost of this is also not huge – Litening type pods go for USD ~$1.5 million each and you only need a couple. Unsure as to the cost of integration. LGB’s/JDAM are also relatively cheap on a per unit basis and wouldn’t cost too much to build up a small stockpile. This also has value in traditional maritime tasks. Though I am fully aware not within the airspace dominated by a medium range SAM equipped warship. Add some winged ER JDAM’s and you could give something armed with ESSM type capability SAM’s a real fright though.

In terms of anti shipping missiles (Harpoon or Maverick ER) to be honest I really struggle to see a situation where the RNZAF uses a P-3 to engage with one of them. This would suggest a really hot shooting war that either NZ wouldn’t be involved in the first place (for a host of reasons) or one where we are operating with allies with much better capabilities. Would you really put a RNZAF P-3B+++ in line compared to Aussie P-3C+ or even (soonish) P-8’s or MRA-4 Nimrods? As such I would rather spend the money on the ISTAR package that has more value in the situations we find ourselves in currently. (Similar to Aussie Diggers thoughts)

Now in terms of UAV’s. In previous posts I have noted my bias towards a predator B/mariner type capability. This allows much improved fisheries surveillance (why have a crew of 11+ spend 12 hours a long way from land over water when you can achieve the same surveillance outcome with a couple of guys sitting at Ohakea) as well as providing a niche ISTAR capability for international coalition operations. Finally and again it provides a useful capability for regional deployments. Yet again the ISTAR capability is backed up with a limited strike capability.

These kinds of capability represent a great fit with NZDF goals and importantly budget. I am not advocating a Predator B capability now, more over the next 5-10 years as the Orions age and hours become limited. It will be vital when we come to replacing them entirely as there is no way we can afford a 1:1 replacement with P-8’s. Best case we get 2-3 on the back of an Aussie purchase.

BTW – it never ceases to amaze me the quality and volume of thought on the NZDF on these threads. It is a quality of discussion that surpasses any other thinking on NZ defence capabilities I see back home.

While the ISTAR could certainly be useful, I have reservations about the NZDF doing so. The only time I can use a RNZAF P-3K doing ISTAR patrols is as part of an expeditionary force with a coalition. Given the large areas that NZ could (and perhaps should) patrol around NZ, making an Orion unavailable for that duty doesn't seem a good idea to me. Not to mention the presumably long distances (and thus flight hours used on the airframe) required to cover to get wherever the Orion would be operating from, doing loiter/surveillance work.

As for the MP-UAV/MP-UCAV, I agree, if a few guys sitting in an office somewhere can operate addition patrol assets to cover the EEZ/NZ approaches, it's a good thing. Particularly as it was mentioned about Orion availability and need for replacement coming up. As for a piggyback order of the P-8 along with Australia I think that could be a good idea. That could allow both countries to get more aircraft for their money given an increased total order size. I'm not sure that Australia could reasonably afford to do 1-for-1 replacement order.

-Cheers

 

[Tasman]

As for the MP-UAV/MP-UCAV, I agree, if a few guys sitting in an office somewhere can operate addition patrol assets to cover the EEZ/NZ approaches, it's a good thing. Particularly as it was mentioned about Orion availability and need for replacement coming up. As for a piggyback order of the P-8 along with Australia I think that could be a good idea. That could allow both countries to get more aircraft for their money given an increased total order size. I'm not sure that Australia could reasonably afford to do 1-for-1 replacement order.

-Cheers

Australia's AIR 7000 projects expenditure of up to $A4.5bn for the manned component of the Orion replacement and a number of approx 9 aircraft has been mentioned. In addition $A1.5bn has been projected for the unmanned component. So approx 9 MPAs and an unspecified number of MUAVs (whatever can be bought for $A1.5bn I guess) are projected to replace 18 AP3Cs.

Cheers

http://www.defence.gov.au/capability/AIR7000/
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2641848&C=asiapac

 

[Aussie Digger]

I quite agree, with proper kit, can perform land-based surveillance and intel gathering missions quite well. More of my thoughts on this below...



Okay, this one I have to disagree with a bit in terms of NZ punching above it's weight. Yes, when going by total population NZ has a 1/3rd the number of P-3 Orions and ~1/6th the populations but... When going by total ocean area (primary patrol/surveillance mission type) the EEZ of NZ is half that of Oz. Granted, this doesn't take into account the different additional areas the two nations have MPA obligations or interests but still. If going by total available patrol/surveillance assets, then NZ would also have a fishery patrol vessel, ~7 more patrol boats, 5 smaller MPA as well as 3 more Orions...



While the ISTAR could certainly be useful, I have reservations about the NZDF doing so. The only time I can use a RNZAF P-3K doing ISTAR patrols is as part of an expeditionary force with a coalition. Given the large areas that NZ could (and perhaps should) patrol around NZ, making an Orion unavailable for that duty doesn't seem a good idea to me. Not to mention the presumably long distances (and thus flight hours used on the airframe) required to cover to get wherever the Orion would be operating from, doing loiter/surveillance work.

As for the MP-UAV/MP-UCAV, I agree, if a few guys sitting in an office somewhere can operate addition patrol assets to cover the EEZ/NZ approaches, it's a good thing. Particularly as it was mentioned about Orion availability and need for replacement coming up. As for a piggyback order of the P-8 along with Australia I think that could be a good idea. That could allow both countries to get more aircraft for their money given an increased total order size. I'm not sure that Australia could reasonably afford to do 1-for-1 replacement order.

-Cheers

The RNZAF P-3K's are being upgraded with the turretted Wescam MX-20 EO/IR sensor pod to provide the sorts of capabilities that have been suggested, or already have...

Cheers

AD.

 

[dave_kiwi]

P3-K Sensor Upgrade

The RNZAF P-3K's are being upgraded with the turretted Wescam MX-20 EO/IR sensor pod to provide the sorts of capabilities that have been suggested, or already have...

Cheers

AD.

Three were upgraded in 2005 - believe there was additional work required to integrate the Wescam MX-20 with the current systems.

PDF about the upgrade:

http://www.airforce.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/airforce-news/webafn63.pdf

 

[Todjaeger]

The RNZAF P-3K's are being upgraded with the turretted Wescam MX-20 EO/IR sensor pod to provide the sorts of capabilities that have been suggested, or already have...

Cheers

AD.

My concern about the ISTAR-role for the P-3K Orions has more to due with taking the Orion(s) away from NZ waters. Given the IMV limited amount of patrol/surveillance assets, an NZ deployment of one away from NZ wouldn't make sense. Adding EO/IR pods would improve surveillance ops within NZ waters, much like the program to upgrade Surveillance Australia's aircraft for the Coastwatch.

-Cheers

 

[Markus40]

ISTAR is an excellent system for New Zealand survellience opportunities for the P3, BUT and there is a big BUT based on the fact that the next generation of Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, Reconnaissance (ISTAR) platforms with advanced radar systems can cost up to $100 million per unit and smaller countries like New Zealand would simply not possess procurement options in that range.

Also, from what i know there are substantial spending cuts imposed by the European Governments and manufacturers of ISTAR which are leading towards major decline in overall opportunities for the manufacturers to develop this system further.

In conclusion: I think the IR/EO systems that NZ have installed and upgraded in the P3 is adequate for its survellience needs for now, and who knows what we will start to see in 2018, when the P3 is due to retire. Cheers.

My concern about the ISTAR-role for the P-3K Orions has more to due with taking the Orion(s) away from NZ waters. Given the IMV limited amount of patrol/surveillance assets, an NZ deployment of one away from NZ wouldn't make sense. Adding EO/IR pods would improve surveillance ops within NZ waters, much like the program to upgrade Surveillance Australia's aircraft for the Coastwatch.

-Cheers

 

[NZLAV]

New Zealand Forces in a war zone.

If there was a large war to happen that New Zealand supported, a situation similar to Iraq, I would like to know how big of an effect New Zealand could have over there. The NZDF could deploy 2 frigates, 1 MRV, 1 Replenish, 3 Hercs, 3 orion (lets say they have harppon by then), 2000 soliders, 50 LAV Armoured fighting vehicles, 120 Pinzars, 16 Javelin MRAAW and 8 mistral + radars and any support vehicle and weapons.

 

[Aussie Digger]

If there was a large war to happen that New Zealand supported, a situation similar to Iraq, I would like to know how big of an effect New Zealand could have over there. The NZDF could deploy 2 frigates, 1 MRV, 1 Replenish, 3 Hercs, 3 orion (lets say they have harppon by then), 2000 soliders, 50 LAV Armoured fighting vehicles, 120 Pinzars, 16 Javelin MRAAW and 8 mistral + radars and any support vehicle and weapons.

They could not deploy such a force and hope to perform their duties at home simultaneously and would not have any "contingency" capacity.

At best I expect NZ could deploy a motorised battalion group, mounted in around 50x NZLAV's and supported by an artillery battery and some anti-armour and anti-air capacity. Such a force could deploy alongside of an NZSAS detachment and could operate with some assistance (logistical, ISR and fire support) in a Coalition force in a "medium level intensity" operation. This force could not be sustained for longer than about 6 months and would have little "battle casualty replacement" capability.

NZ could not deploy both frigates to a war simultaneously for any length of time. Same with the P-3K Orion claim. Such could of course deploy, but is hampererd by it's lack of modern ASW sensors and response capabilities, lack of EW self protection capabilities and no air to surface weapons.

The MRV possesses little capability to protect itself against a modern military threat and the ANZAC frigates possess little capability to protect her against threats either. Given the ANZAC's themselves would require considerable protection against a threat, the MRV is going to provide little capability, and again reduce your "contingency" operations capability at home.

I'd suggest 1x Frigate, 1x Orion, a battalion group (or smaller) and a special forces contingent would be the MAXIMUM sized force NZ could deploy at present and within the forseeable future...

Regards

AD.

 

[Tasman]

I'd suggest 1x Frigate, 1x Orion, a battalion group (or smaller) and a special forces contingent would be the MAXIMUM sized force NZ could deploy at present and within the forseeable future...

Regards

AD.

I'd agree with this with the proviso that the frigate has undergone the upgrades spelt out in the LTDP. In particular I think the replacement of the Sea Sparrow with ESSM is essential.

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

I'd agree with this with the proviso that the frigate has undergone the upgrades spelt out in the LTDP. In particular I think the replacement of the Sea Sparrow with ESSM is essential.

Cheers

I'd add a combat system upgrade PLUS at least a "second channel of fire" capability to control more than 1x ESSM in the air at a time as an absolute minimum for a reasonably high threat area, however they could still be deployed, with some limitations, even without ESSM...

 

[Waylander]

I would even rate a bn sized group as very optimistical.
With the current normal rate of 1 soldier in training for deployment, 1 soldier in theater and 1 soldier back home returning from deployment one bn would mean 3 bns which only serve for the theater.
Is NZ than able to proceed with the needed tasks at home?

 

[Tasman]

I would even rate a bn sized group as very optimistical.
With the current normal rate of 1 soldier in training for deployment, 1 soldier in theater and 1 soldier back home returning from deployment one bn would mean 3 bns which only serve for the theater.
Is NZ than able to proceed with the needed tasks at home?

IMO, NZ could deploy the force AD suggested but could probably not maintain it beyond a six month period. At most it might be able to manage one rotation. Beyond that I agree that a third battalion would have to be raised and/or a third frigate acquired. However, it is possible that NZ may be able to cover a rotation to relieve an Australian force, for example, when working as part of a coalition.

Cheers

 

[Waylander]

Ok, than we have the same idea.

I just raised the question because of my doubts of NZs ability to maintain such a bn sized forces over a longer periode.

I agree that over a smaller periode or as a replacement for Aussie (coalition forces) ADs idea is ok.

 

[Lucasnz]

If there was a large war to happen that New Zealand supported, a situation similar to Iraq, I would like to know how big of an effect New Zealand could have over there. The NZDF could deploy 2 frigates, 1 MRV, 1 Replenish, 3 Hercs, 3 orion (lets say they have harppon by then), 2000 soliders, 50 LAV Armoured fighting vehicles, 120 Pinzars, 16 Javelin MRAAW and 8 mistral + radars and any support vehicle and weapons.

I think the outfit of Javelin and Mistral are a bit optmistic given the overall numbers and training requirements of not just a second battalion, but new recuirts also.

I'd tend to agree with the general analysis overall and subsequent comments. Though if East Timor #1 is an indication of the future, then NZ might contribute more in the early stages, of more readily deployable assets

 

[Mr Brown]

How would NZ even be able to provide logistic support to our forces if they are deployed to fight? We would have to rely heavly on coalition partners to provide not only long term supplies, especially of ammo, Javilen and Mistral reloads etc, but also for transporting it. I hope the situation involved US then at least we could access to transport assets. Though if we simply rotated units in to relieve Aussie units they would likely be willing to provide C-17s to help us out.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I would even rate a bn sized group as very optimistical.
With the current normal rate of 1 soldier in training for deployment, 1 soldier in theater and 1 soldier back home returning from deployment one bn would mean 3 bns which only serve for the theater.
Is NZ than able to proceed with the needed tasks at home?

They deployed a Battalion sized group to East Timor in 1999...

NZ operate 4x battalions I understand, on paper at least...

All the deployments I outlined above should have a caveat based on them: That NZ doesn't currently have the ability to sustain such a deployment indefinitely...

 

[Waylander]

I think we are on the same road.

I have no problem with NZs ability to deploy a max. bn sized force but as you said not for a long time.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

They could if they brought all 4 bn's up to scratch, and desided to spend the money hireing the airlift to supply them. It could take some spending but as part of a coalition i could see it happening. 6 month rotations of 1bn out of 4.

 

[Lucasnz]

They deployed a Battalion sized group to East Timor in 1999...

NZ operate 4x battalions I understand, on paper at least...

Current Regular Force Infantry / Calvary Battalions are

1 RNZIR (Linton)
2/1 RNZIR (Burnham)
QAMR (Burnham) - Was a Sqn but was to be upgraded to a calvary regiment, according to a memo I read a couple of years ago. Operates the LAV in the South Island. I'm not sure what it strength is at present, but I suspect its no where near battalion strength.

In addition...

3/1 RNZIR (Inactive - Formed from TF force units)

 

[recce.k1]

I would even rate a bn sized group as very optimistical.
With the current normal rate of 1 soldier in training for deployment, 1 soldier in theater and 1 soldier back home returning from deployment one bn would mean 3 bns which only serve for the theater.
Is NZ than able to proceed with the needed tasks at home?

I agree, 1 battalion deployed, 1 in training to go with 1 returned/resting etc. NZ had battalions in E.Timor from 1999 to the very end of 2001, and later had to reply on the territorials (reservists) and redeploying soldiers for a second tour to maintain the numbers (deployment was for 1 year from memory) as well as work in with some other smaller units from other nations, I think. So it was do-able, and they performed well including earning the praise of then Aussie CDF Gen Cosgrove, However at home, I recall the army couldn't conduct its normal training programmes because of the lacks of available soldiers and equipment etc. Realistically NZ needs at least one new third full-strenght battalion (a fourth would be ideal, also to maintain local training etc, but I can't see that happenning), especially in light of the increase in operational tempos that have been seen since 1999 (along with the aussies too), including the WoT, and which won't be reducing in the foreseable future. The NZ Govt which took power in 1999 recognised the importance of the Army, following on from the Defence Beyond 2000 review of 1997/98, it has been their policy to upgrade the army and its equipment (and ensure the Navy and Air Force can support Army deployments), although at the expensive of the Navy (formal cancellation of the 3rd ANZAC Frigate and Air Force (disestablishement of the 3 fighter/training squadrons). Putting these two last things aside for the moment, one could say that yes the Govt is seriously looking at maintaining a credible Army fighting and peace-keeping force, able to sustain operational deployments etc, however one could also cynically say that if they were truely serious, they would be looking at increasing the overall strength by another battalion, judging by the needs of recent operations etc. Of course this would incur a large cost (personal, equipment, probably hundred's of million of dollars) hence it's not on the radar screen in the current LTDP. However at least then, the Govt should be increasing the priority of the request for a high readiness company, which is languishing in the current LTDP (maybe even a couple of companies to deal with a concurrent type Timor/Solomons etc type situations) or even double the size of the special forces. These would be cheaper solutions and be of good value for any coalition or ANZ joint operation.