Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
I think the un-availibility of the Hercs and 757s at the time of the Thailand saga was just an unfortuanate timing issue, as majority of the fleet was away due to the LEP/upgrade projects. wrong protest wrong time. Having 2 of each type in N America overlapping at different stages of completion, did not help either especially as RNZAF had no contingency plan over this period for alternate aircraft, however had last couple of Afghan rotations covered by Air NZ charters.
As Air NZ is 80% government owned anyway an has had surplus AC parked at AKL International lately maybe some form of cross training venture with RNZAF would see this avoided in the future. AC could be on short notice standby during times when 757s are offline and crewed by the surplus AF air crew giving them extra training in a new type and covering anything such as Thailand, whilst not taking up Air NZ crews.
The B200 replacements should be of a larger size(Q series type) to also take the strain of SATS off the C130/B757 and free them up for the bigger jobs. They would also be able to take up the forgotten short range maritime patrol, also freeing up P3 hours, maybe 6 AC(2 mar ops, 2 pax, 1 pax/freight combi, 1 VIP) would be ideal and would all still be able to be used for the different levels of trg reqd.
I like the idea of 3-4 Chinooks joining the fleet as well as this would be a kind of compromise between the lack of NH90 numbers and a limited andover replacement, whilst providing some valuable heavey lift, operational and SAS support. Also turn the A109s into gunships that way we will have at least some form of top cover for our ground troops and purchase 6 more of the larger cabin 109 version (unsure if mil spec yet) for trg and light utility.
The proposal of C-17s in RNZAF colours anytime soon is probably wishful thinking at best(unless we tag 1 max onto Aus support and logistics chain) as how can a country 1/5 the size of AU (with an economy in even smaller percentile) provide a C-17 fleet 1/2 the size of theirs/or Canadas/or UKs (much bigger countries is what Im getting at,with defence budgets to boot). It'll be like Fiji buying a few C130s. Don't get me wrong I would love the capabilities it would afford us however the $$$ and logistics get the better of me.
I seriously doubt we will see a return of the strike wing without a major influx of capital and infrastructure. It would be a great to see but a very good reason(could provide STOL jets for Aus LHDs in a expanded Nowra deal) or threat (someone goes on a regional domination rampage) would be needed to convince the bean counters this late in the game + there are still many other equipment issues, retention issues, pay issues etc across the NZDF that would take priority(and money).
endstate is if we seriously want any of our lost or expanded capabilities that are currently not on the inventory list, then some form of ANZAC co-op option would be required to make the bigger issues feasible, but as was pointed out to me the chances of this happening would be a challenge (though not an impossibility) due to our differing foreign policies and veiws on certain matters.
As Air NZ is 80% government owned anyway an has had surplus AC parked at AKL International lately maybe some form of cross training venture with RNZAF would see this avoided in the future. AC could be on short notice standby during times when 757s are offline and crewed by the surplus AF air crew giving them extra training in a new type and covering anything such as Thailand, whilst not taking up Air NZ crews.
The B200 replacements should be of a larger size(Q series type) to also take the strain of SATS off the C130/B757 and free them up for the bigger jobs. They would also be able to take up the forgotten short range maritime patrol, also freeing up P3 hours, maybe 6 AC(2 mar ops, 2 pax, 1 pax/freight combi, 1 VIP) would be ideal and would all still be able to be used for the different levels of trg reqd.
I like the idea of 3-4 Chinooks joining the fleet as well as this would be a kind of compromise between the lack of NH90 numbers and a limited andover replacement, whilst providing some valuable heavey lift, operational and SAS support. Also turn the A109s into gunships that way we will have at least some form of top cover for our ground troops and purchase 6 more of the larger cabin 109 version (unsure if mil spec yet) for trg and light utility.
The proposal of C-17s in RNZAF colours anytime soon is probably wishful thinking at best(unless we tag 1 max onto Aus support and logistics chain) as how can a country 1/5 the size of AU (with an economy in even smaller percentile) provide a C-17 fleet 1/2 the size of theirs/or Canadas/or UKs (much bigger countries is what Im getting at,with defence budgets to boot). It'll be like Fiji buying a few C130s. Don't get me wrong I would love the capabilities it would afford us however the $$$ and logistics get the better of me.
I seriously doubt we will see a return of the strike wing without a major influx of capital and infrastructure. It would be a great to see but a very good reason(could provide STOL jets for Aus LHDs in a expanded Nowra deal) or threat (someone goes on a regional domination rampage) would be needed to convince the bean counters this late in the game + there are still many other equipment issues, retention issues, pay issues etc across the NZDF that would take priority(and money).
endstate is if we seriously want any of our lost or expanded capabilities that are currently not on the inventory list, then some form of ANZAC co-op option would be required to make the bigger issues feasible, but as was pointed out to me the chances of this happening would be a challenge (though not an impossibility) due to our differing foreign policies and veiws on certain matters.
Something bigger than the B350 is a must,as Ive said in earlier replies,as for the chinook I feel it is way to big ( and expensive ) for NZ ,if anything we need something smaller like the Bell414 (or the marine version). Early this year I spoke to a pilot returning home from E.T. and his comments about the Blackhawk being too big for alot of the clearings and so the Huey filled a good neich role hence my thoughs for the Bell.With only 8 NH90s perhapes 6 414s could work the low end stuff.
yes the chinook is a wild dream but what the hey. regarding the Huey I believe they will be kept well into when NH90 takes over anyway as even once all the new helos are on the ground there will still be a long period of 'tweaking' with the new toy and an extremely long work up time before they will be declared fully operational.
I am hoping by this time the government would have realised the need for a huey size frame and the important role it plays or at the very least purchased a few more A109s(although IMO alittle too small to be just right).
Does not have to be ultra modern, just needs to fill the gap so yes about 4-6 212/412s would be the go and would also be a easier transition from the older model huey.
I am hoping by this time the government would have realised the need for a huey size frame and the important role it plays or at the very least purchased a few more A109s(although IMO alittle too small to be just right).
Does not have to be ultra modern, just needs to fill the gap so yes about 4-6 212/412s would be the go and would also be a easier transition from the older model huey.
yes the chinook is a wild dream but what the hey. regarding the Huey I believe they will be kept well into when NH90 takes over anyway as even once all the new helos are on the ground there will still be a long period of 'tweaking' with the new toy and an extremely long work up time before they will be declared fully operational.
I am hoping by this time the government would have realised the need for a huey size frame and the important role it plays or at the very least purchased a few more A109s(although IMO alittle too small to be just right).
Does not have to be ultra modern, just needs to fill the gap so yes about 4-6 212/412s would be the go and would also be a easier transition from the older model huey.
As I have said before anything above and beyond what we already have allocated would be a big ask but going from huey to NH90 is a big step and yes leaves a small in-between area that seems just to big for A109 but also just does not require size(or cost) of NH90.
Imagine what a helo fleet that would be A109-seasprite-212-NH90...chinook(well ok maybe not chinnok)I think we'd be looking pretty good, if only.
I am hoping by this time the government would have realised the need for a huey size frame and the important role it plays or at the very least purchased a few more A109s(although IMO alittle too small to be just right).
Does not have to be ultra modern, just needs to fill the gap so yes about 4-6 212/412s would be the go and would also be a easier transition from the older model huey.
As I have said before anything above and beyond what we already have allocated would be a big ask but going from huey to NH90 is a big step and yes leaves a small in-between area that seems just to big for A109 but also just does not require size(or cost) of NH90.
Imagine what a helo fleet that would be A109-seasprite-212-NH90...chinook(well ok maybe not chinnok)I think we'd be looking pretty good, if only.
What we need to do is shave some money from the welfare benefit. if they want a benefit and are able, then they should be made to earn it. That could be anything from picking up rubbish to helping the elderly to a stint in the forces. solves two issues, frees up funds and provides recruits(albeit maybe involuntaty) but you'll be amazed how many people will go find their dream job on their own if made to work anyway and you never know some may end up enjoying the forces, just need a push.
I think one of the problems is that most people barely know we have an air force(long running joke since we axed the combat force) and see it more as a delivery service for the army but the main reason is not being able to match pay scales both in NZ and overseas.
I think one of the problems is that most people barely know we have an air force(long running joke since we axed the combat force) and see it more as a delivery service for the army but the main reason is not being able to match pay scales both in NZ and overseas.
Firstly, Merry Christmas everyone.
I agree to a point, particularly over the short term. Over the mid to long term I actually would be more inclined to disagree. What the NZDF/RNZAF needs is modern equipment and reliablity - but not done on the cheap. We have done the cheap option to death over the last 20 years and it will only lead to total failure.
New Zealand during this decade has been a laboratory for a neo-socialist feminist state. That experiment has failed miserably in all facits of our government. Thankfully that era is now over. The "pure" or real defence spend has averaged around a miserly 0.7%GDP - whilst huge amounts of tax payers dollars have been wasted due to badly managed state services. It has been the low priority of government spending in defence that has let us down. An ideological unwillingness to fund defence properly and the RNZAF have been the clear losers. (At least the RNZN got the new Protector fleet albeit hopeless as they are as naval vessels and the Army pretty much everything it wanted except fresh recruits.) All the time though the NZ economy actually performed well, particularly in primary and tertiary sectors, in spite of everything the last government could do to strangle it. In the end though it was nearly strangled.
I dont buy into the notion that NZ somehow equals poor. What it has suffered from is periods of underachievement and lousy leadership. The fundamentals for a very strong and expansive economy are present and New Zealand is still relatively well placed to come through the current international economic crisis over the medium turn in good shape. Significantly, and this will be to the fore over the next decades, its per capita resource index is second in the world behind the Saudi's and comfortably ahead of Australia and Norway which are in third place. This illustrates the sheer ecomonic potential of the Country. This resources index (The value of the consolidated natural resources within a nations EEZ divided by the population) also has a direct bearing on the future of our defence force capability as is enters into the second, third and fourth decades of this century. Norway is a case in point - similar demographics to NZ and similar resource capital baseline - and it is able to provide for a capable defence force on a limited population. Main difference is that it has sorted out its economic management and vigorously persued its energy advantage. We have not yet, but, I am certain that we will. It has sorted out its defence force - were we have squandered it in the last 15 years, but once the economic crisis passes - it will again get sorted. I have said this before - NZ will be forced to change its defence posture within the next decade. The need to change may come from either both external pressure or internal pressure. It wont happen overnight, but it will happen.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Aermacchi news?
And happy New Year to everyone!
Hmm, reactivating the Aermacchi jet trainers are mentioned in the latest (NZ) Pacific Wings magazine news briefs. I suppose if a mainstream aviation mag is reporting on it then perhaps there may be some substance behind it. Fingers crossed the justifications, costs and benefits work out eventually etc.
And happy New Year to everyone!
Hmm, reactivating the Aermacchi jet trainers are mentioned in the latest (NZ) Pacific Wings magazine news briefs. I suppose if a mainstream aviation mag is reporting on it then perhaps there may be some substance behind it. Fingers crossed the justifications, costs and benefits work out eventually etc.
Incidentally ex-RNZAF members posting on the rnzaf.proboards43.com site (in various older threads) have suggested that although the Aermacchi has the ability to simulate AIM-9/AIM-65 firing, it may not be physically possible to fit the weapons due to ground clearance at take off/landing etc (subject to modifications, possibly?). However if the jet is to be used for training (including simulated air-to-air or air-to-surface firings) it wouldn't actually need to carry such weapons I suppose, so hopefully this issue, if it actually is one, won't be a major disincentive.
Whenuapei Air Base Saga Continues
All go on Whenuapai airport plans
North Shore Times | Tuesday, 06 January 2009
The Waitakere City Council is pressing on with plans to rezone Whenuapai Airbase as a commercial airport despite the idea being vetoed by the National government.
The council has set dates for verbal hearings on what is known as Plan Change 22. They are February 9 to 11 and 16 to 17.
In December it said it expected to notify all submitters before the New Year.
The hearings will be presided over by three independent commissioners.
Many submissions came from concerned North Shore residents who were overwhelmingly against a commercial airport.
The National government has taken a strong stance saying the airbase will remain solely as a military facility for the foreseeable future.
Whenuapai Airport Action Group president Russell Stewart says: "Plan Change 22 has become largely irrelevant and the council’s pursuit of the plan change demonstrates a reckless disregard for ratepayers’ money."
The council has already spent more than $200,000 of ratepayers’ money on its pursuit of Whenuapai, he says.
That would rise to around $500,000 if the matter goes to the Environment Court, he says.
"It beggars belief that the Waitakere City Council would wish to expose its constituents this way," he says.
"It is hopeful that new Local Government Minister Rodney Hide will have such actions within his sights."
WAAG, the Defence Force, Auckland International Airport Ltd, Board of Airline Representatives NZ, Auckland Regional Health Board and many other major organisations will fight the plan change as vigorously as possible, Mr Stewart says.
"The plan change can not be allowed to be enacted because it would leave a sword of Damocles hanging over Shore residents forever.
"It is not befitting a new decade that is focused on reducing harmful emissions and promoting environmental consciousness."
From my local North Shore paper this article came up. I find it unbelievable that those fools across the harbour at Waitakere Council have not got the message that Whenuapei will remain solely a military base. I understand the local Helensville MP and new PM John Key wants it that way.
Still what has not been resolved is what greater use can be made of the rather large Air Base which has in recent years been operationally scaled back. I would like to see it as a more broader Defence Force facility for the Auckland region than just an AFB. A new home for 3Batt AK/Nth TF Regt for instance.
All go on Whenuapai airport plans
North Shore Times | Tuesday, 06 January 2009
The Waitakere City Council is pressing on with plans to rezone Whenuapai Airbase as a commercial airport despite the idea being vetoed by the National government.
The council has set dates for verbal hearings on what is known as Plan Change 22. They are February 9 to 11 and 16 to 17.
In December it said it expected to notify all submitters before the New Year.
The hearings will be presided over by three independent commissioners.
Many submissions came from concerned North Shore residents who were overwhelmingly against a commercial airport.
The National government has taken a strong stance saying the airbase will remain solely as a military facility for the foreseeable future.
Whenuapai Airport Action Group president Russell Stewart says: "Plan Change 22 has become largely irrelevant and the council’s pursuit of the plan change demonstrates a reckless disregard for ratepayers’ money."
The council has already spent more than $200,000 of ratepayers’ money on its pursuit of Whenuapai, he says.
That would rise to around $500,000 if the matter goes to the Environment Court, he says.
"It beggars belief that the Waitakere City Council would wish to expose its constituents this way," he says.
"It is hopeful that new Local Government Minister Rodney Hide will have such actions within his sights."
WAAG, the Defence Force, Auckland International Airport Ltd, Board of Airline Representatives NZ, Auckland Regional Health Board and many other major organisations will fight the plan change as vigorously as possible, Mr Stewart says.
"The plan change can not be allowed to be enacted because it would leave a sword of Damocles hanging over Shore residents forever.
"It is not befitting a new decade that is focused on reducing harmful emissions and promoting environmental consciousness."
From my local North Shore paper this article came up. I find it unbelievable that those fools across the harbour at Waitakere Council have not got the message that Whenuapei will remain solely a military base. I understand the local Helensville MP and new PM John Key wants it that way.
Still what has not been resolved is what greater use can be made of the rather large Air Base which has in recent years been operationally scaled back. I would like to see it as a more broader Defence Force facility for the Auckland region than just an AFB. A new home for 3Batt AK/Nth TF Regt for instance.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Be interesting to see what a future hypothetical RNZAF @ Whenuapai could look like.
If we were to have something based on the RNZAF up to the mid-1990's, then Whenuapai is short of one tactical airlift squadron (1 Sqn Andovers). So if such a sqn were to be resurrected in the future, would that be sufficient to fill up the base? In addition to the present Sqn's of course (C130's, P3's and Navy Seasprites).
Although perhaps an alternative option, if the funding were to be found somehow, is to follow the RAAF direction, which would be in our case a strategic airlift sqn consisting of the 757's plus either 4-6 A400's (or one or two C17's). Then you could have a tactical 4-5 C130 Sqn for those South Pacific type operations (rather than have Andover type replacements eg C27, CN295 or Q400 etc). Thinking about this more lately we would get more versatility from C130's rather than an Andover type (plus the benefits of 4 engines over water etc) as long as we had a larger airlifter in the next decade to move the Army etc.
Otherwise an additional sqn or detachment of 2-4 NH90's or A109's (or something in between these two types) should be based at Whenuapai regardless for counter-terrorism, SAR and regional civil defence emergency use etc.
And there's that coastal air patrol option also.
Finally, if the day ever came whereby NZ regained an Air Combat Force, perhaps a detachment of 2-4 aircraft should be based there for CAP over NZ's largest city and economic powerhouse etc (post 9/11 etc). At least the people of Auckland would get to see that their ACF is "doing something practical" ... (and queue propaganda newsreel) and is "protecting its citizens" etc.
Even if were a detachment of MB339's from Ohakea if they get reinstated (for now, until/if something better comes along etc). The MB339's machine guns would be sufficient as they will only ever encounter unarmed aircraft around these parts etc (it's unlikey a hostile fighter would ever make here of course, not unless someone nicks off with a warbird jet and somehow managed to fit a live firing gun but that's unlikely too)! Apart from a hijacked aircraft threat, the other credible threat could be a "terrorist" armed with a high-powered rifle/MG/RPG firing out of a helicopter etc. However the MB339 doesn't have air-air radar so it would have to rely on upgraded ground based primary radar if there were a need to intercept etc (for example when the ACF was disbanded back in 2001, a year or two later a joint civil/military primary radar site near Ohakea was shut down and I understand we rely mainly on secondary radar nowadays. But in a post 9/11 world I don't believe that is sensible, if indeed this is the case). If this sounds far fetched, wasn't there some recent news report about NZ police or a new armed unit being formed to be "armed air marshals" on some Air NZ flights??? [Edit: here's the media report http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10548656 ]
In terms of joint Army basing, again follow the Aussies and get a better air defence regiment/SAM system in place. They can be based there but are intended to be deployed overseas to support NZDF and coalition ops etc (not so much as airfield defence battery for Whenuapai itself etc). We need something more than a Very Low Level Air Defence system (Mistral) etc.
If we were to have something based on the RNZAF up to the mid-1990's, then Whenuapai is short of one tactical airlift squadron (1 Sqn Andovers). So if such a sqn were to be resurrected in the future, would that be sufficient to fill up the base? In addition to the present Sqn's of course (C130's, P3's and Navy Seasprites).
Although perhaps an alternative option, if the funding were to be found somehow, is to follow the RAAF direction, which would be in our case a strategic airlift sqn consisting of the 757's plus either 4-6 A400's (or one or two C17's). Then you could have a tactical 4-5 C130 Sqn for those South Pacific type operations (rather than have Andover type replacements eg C27, CN295 or Q400 etc). Thinking about this more lately we would get more versatility from C130's rather than an Andover type (plus the benefits of 4 engines over water etc) as long as we had a larger airlifter in the next decade to move the Army etc.
Otherwise an additional sqn or detachment of 2-4 NH90's or A109's (or something in between these two types) should be based at Whenuapai regardless for counter-terrorism, SAR and regional civil defence emergency use etc.
And there's that coastal air patrol option also.
Finally, if the day ever came whereby NZ regained an Air Combat Force, perhaps a detachment of 2-4 aircraft should be based there for CAP over NZ's largest city and economic powerhouse etc (post 9/11 etc). At least the people of Auckland would get to see that their ACF is "doing something practical" ... (and queue propaganda newsreel) and is "protecting its citizens" etc.
Even if were a detachment of MB339's from Ohakea if they get reinstated (for now, until/if something better comes along etc). The MB339's machine guns would be sufficient as they will only ever encounter unarmed aircraft around these parts etc (it's unlikey a hostile fighter would ever make here of course, not unless someone nicks off with a warbird jet and somehow managed to fit a live firing gun but that's unlikely too)! Apart from a hijacked aircraft threat, the other credible threat could be a "terrorist" armed with a high-powered rifle/MG/RPG firing out of a helicopter etc. However the MB339 doesn't have air-air radar so it would have to rely on upgraded ground based primary radar if there were a need to intercept etc (for example when the ACF was disbanded back in 2001, a year or two later a joint civil/military primary radar site near Ohakea was shut down and I understand we rely mainly on secondary radar nowadays. But in a post 9/11 world I don't believe that is sensible, if indeed this is the case). If this sounds far fetched, wasn't there some recent news report about NZ police or a new armed unit being formed to be "armed air marshals" on some Air NZ flights??? [Edit: here's the media report http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10548656 ]
In terms of joint Army basing, again follow the Aussies and get a better air defence regiment/SAM system in place. They can be based there but are intended to be deployed overseas to support NZDF and coalition ops etc (not so much as airfield defence battery for Whenuapai itself etc). We need something more than a Very Low Level Air Defence system (Mistral) etc.
Last edited:
Recce regarding your thoughts on Whenuapei.
What could also work is a flight of 4 Machi's being forward deployed at Whenuapei under a resurrected TAF and rotated back to Ohakea to join the others. What with ex RNZAF pilots and ex 14th Sqd support crew lurking about the City who might be willing to do their bit for Queen and Country there is probably a pool of available old hands. (All RNZAF pilots from 92-99 trained on the Machi and would love to get their hands on one after trundling around on 737's). The CAF recently raised bolstering the TAF as a future objective.
Our idle Macchi's need a few items to sort them out for a role beyond their previous advanced training role, namely IFF / laser range finder / radar upgrade / recon pods / weapon simulation pods, but alot of that stuff is available off the shelf from the manufacturers. We essentially bought them in a "not fitted with" state. Its the cost of the upgrade to make them useful enough to have a definative tasking which is the main sticking point whether the Macchi's return.
From what I understand the Machi could use the 12.7mm and the CRV-7 rockets and the BDU-48's for operational training in ground attack, but were never cleared for other weapons. Not a platform for the Mav's for instance. Two AIM-9's were technically possible but again not cleared and not an option when the pair of 250kg drop tanks were afixed.
However, those drop tanks gave the Macchi a pretty good range and they could happily cruise around at 300 kts for quite awhile. With a recon pod and decent radar and at 300kts and at about $3000 an hour to operate they can make for a useful support asset in terms of inner EZZ patrol and would cover a sizable area in a sortie. A hell of a lot cheaper than using a P3K which is around 10 times that for spotting illegal fishing when the P3K's could be tasked long range for top end stuff. As we all know since the Andovers went west the coastal / 2nd tier work in terms of maritime patrol has been virtually nonexistent.
What could also work is a flight of 4 Machi's being forward deployed at Whenuapei under a resurrected TAF and rotated back to Ohakea to join the others. What with ex RNZAF pilots and ex 14th Sqd support crew lurking about the City who might be willing to do their bit for Queen and Country there is probably a pool of available old hands. (All RNZAF pilots from 92-99 trained on the Machi and would love to get their hands on one after trundling around on 737's). The CAF recently raised bolstering the TAF as a future objective.
Our idle Macchi's need a few items to sort them out for a role beyond their previous advanced training role, namely IFF / laser range finder / radar upgrade / recon pods / weapon simulation pods, but alot of that stuff is available off the shelf from the manufacturers. We essentially bought them in a "not fitted with" state. Its the cost of the upgrade to make them useful enough to have a definative tasking which is the main sticking point whether the Macchi's return.
From what I understand the Machi could use the 12.7mm and the CRV-7 rockets and the BDU-48's for operational training in ground attack, but were never cleared for other weapons. Not a platform for the Mav's for instance. Two AIM-9's were technically possible but again not cleared and not an option when the pair of 250kg drop tanks were afixed.
However, those drop tanks gave the Macchi a pretty good range and they could happily cruise around at 300 kts for quite awhile. With a recon pod and decent radar and at 300kts and at about $3000 an hour to operate they can make for a useful support asset in terms of inner EZZ patrol and would cover a sizable area in a sortie. A hell of a lot cheaper than using a P3K which is around 10 times that for spotting illegal fishing when the P3K's could be tasked long range for top end stuff. As we all know since the Andovers went west the coastal / 2nd tier work in terms of maritime patrol has been virtually nonexistent.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I was thinking too that the recently announced expanded TAF (or Active Reserve as they seem to be known as now) could fulfill a useful contribution by helping the Regular RNZAF by flying and supporting a re-activated Macchi training fleet. Similar perhaps in concept to the US ANG, whereby they are a visible element patrolling (& training) domestically etc. With experienced TAF pilots and support crew on tap, it could be the most cost effective and easiest means to get some qualified personnel back to train with the regular junior ranks etc. And as the role is purely training (with the Army & Navy in NZ) and air patrol/maybe short range EEZ patrol, it's not like they will be deployed in their Macchis overseas or anything etc i.e. should be good for those TAF personnel that have settled down raising families, perhaps?
Incidentally the last qualified A4 pilots (after the ACF was axed) tasked with keeping a demo A4 flying was a Reservist (and some were Instructors I believe).
Yeah, presumably a detachment or flight with HQ back with the rest of the Macchi fleet at Ohakea would eliminate costs of duplication of efforts eg administration and logistics wise etc?
Another thing, every year the trainee pilots undertaking their wings training have the "Wise Owl" training exercises where they set up camp in some town somewhere and learn to operate from a "foreign" environment and be self sufficient etc. Perhaps then, a reactivated Macchi fleet could "fly the flag" to the general populance and do something similar eg conduct a 3-4 day exercise from say Christchurch one year, doing CAP training (amongst other training with the Army and Navy inshore patrol boats), thus again showing the community in a practical manner that the RNZAF "can" defend their skies and seas from possible terrorist intrusions etc.
As for the costs to upgrade technology, surely that's many times cheaper than having the "real thing" (real fighters etc), what maybe tens of millions? Not alot overall but perhaps in this economic climate, liable to be criticised by the Greens etc. But so what - they Govt should just do a "Labour" and "stuff the critics" (in fact how could new Labour Leader Phil Goff seriously criticise this when he tried to reactivate the Macchis after he became the previous def min)?
Y'know, some of the A4's could be reactivated too if we wanted an aircraft already kitted out with radar and weapons but perhaps that's another story best left alone for now!
Incidentally the last qualified A4 pilots (after the ACF was axed) tasked with keeping a demo A4 flying was a Reservist (and some were Instructors I believe).
Yeah, presumably a detachment or flight with HQ back with the rest of the Macchi fleet at Ohakea would eliminate costs of duplication of efforts eg administration and logistics wise etc?
Another thing, every year the trainee pilots undertaking their wings training have the "Wise Owl" training exercises where they set up camp in some town somewhere and learn to operate from a "foreign" environment and be self sufficient etc. Perhaps then, a reactivated Macchi fleet could "fly the flag" to the general populance and do something similar eg conduct a 3-4 day exercise from say Christchurch one year, doing CAP training (amongst other training with the Army and Navy inshore patrol boats), thus again showing the community in a practical manner that the RNZAF "can" defend their skies and seas from possible terrorist intrusions etc.
As for the costs to upgrade technology, surely that's many times cheaper than having the "real thing" (real fighters etc), what maybe tens of millions? Not alot overall but perhaps in this economic climate, liable to be criticised by the Greens etc. But so what - they Govt should just do a "Labour" and "stuff the critics" (in fact how could new Labour Leader Phil Goff seriously criticise this when he tried to reactivate the Macchis after he became the previous def min)?
Y'know, some of the A4's could be reactivated too if we wanted an aircraft already kitted out with radar and weapons but perhaps that's another story best left alone for now!
Recce. I've been thinking further regarding your posts over the last few days and have come up with a potential solution.
An idea that could be developed a little further regarding the Macchi's future, is to upgrade them to the latest "Full Digital" 339-CD Batch 2 standard. Alenia / Finemeccanica is currently upgrading 14 aircraft for the Italian Air Force under contract for 41.2 million Euros. This roughly works out to be NZ$6.0-6.5 million average per aircraft on recent FX/R ranges. Some examples are already in service.
The upgraded aircraft that were originally delivered in 1995 are being equipped with a state-of-the-art avionics suite incorporating a human-machine interface that includes a HUD, and three Multi Functional Displays in both the front and rear cockpits, as well as software to simulate complex operational scenarios.
According to Alenia, the “Batch 2” aircraft will add further training and operational capabilities, integrating new functions in its avionics system. These are to include embedded simulation programmes, digital maps, compatibility with night vision goggles, new radio and IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) systems, a new integrated Autonomous Air Combat Manoeuvring Instrumentation pod as well as modern safety equipment such as the Crash Data Recorder and ELT. The aircraft will also feature an air-refuelling probe, which makes it even more representative of most modern fighters, and enhanced training and tactical capabilities.
Labour had allocated $75 million (Roughly enough for just two Q300MM's) for the RNZAF Advanced Training Programme under the LTDP. Primary requirements were that the future aircraft type had a digital cockpit and were multi-engine. Obviously a "Batch 2" Macchi is not multi-engine, but has a digital cockpit and would also provide training on jet aircraft suitable for our current 757's (and possible future C17/P8 procurement). The Batch 2 Macchi however offers us quite abit more. It would be able to adequately recover the lost wider NZDF training role the ACF provided.
At this point it is important to note that under the Maritime Patrol Review 2001 their was a significant capability gap in terms of EZZ coast watch capability. This has been ignored in the terms of reference regarding the B200 replacement (Though VIP wasn't as Helen trusted that the doors would not fall off a RNZAF plane). Also the Light Transport capability vanished with the Andovers.
What I am suggesting is that the funding could be lifted and the scope widened so as to incorporate a mixture of both a Multi-Engine aircraft and putting a limited number of Macchi's through a Batch 2 upgrade aswell. NZ$75 million has already been budgeted another $75m would absolutely transform this procurement programme not to mention the RNZAF/NZDF. A rough estimate here but a further $75m would provide for 3 new Q300 Multi-Mission Aircraft, a ground simulator and around 6 "Batch 2" upgraded Macchi's. Thats nine extra aircraft and a number of issues solved.
Using the Q300 is in my view a positive in that Air NZ flies it. Loads of their pilots know it well and with the experience of 1990's era RNZAF pilots and ground staff on the Macchi there is the scope for Air Force Reserve involvement. Obviously since this seems to make such perfect sense that no politician would see the logic unfortunately.
An idea that could be developed a little further regarding the Macchi's future, is to upgrade them to the latest "Full Digital" 339-CD Batch 2 standard. Alenia / Finemeccanica is currently upgrading 14 aircraft for the Italian Air Force under contract for 41.2 million Euros. This roughly works out to be NZ$6.0-6.5 million average per aircraft on recent FX/R ranges. Some examples are already in service.
The upgraded aircraft that were originally delivered in 1995 are being equipped with a state-of-the-art avionics suite incorporating a human-machine interface that includes a HUD, and three Multi Functional Displays in both the front and rear cockpits, as well as software to simulate complex operational scenarios.
According to Alenia, the “Batch 2” aircraft will add further training and operational capabilities, integrating new functions in its avionics system. These are to include embedded simulation programmes, digital maps, compatibility with night vision goggles, new radio and IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) systems, a new integrated Autonomous Air Combat Manoeuvring Instrumentation pod as well as modern safety equipment such as the Crash Data Recorder and ELT. The aircraft will also feature an air-refuelling probe, which makes it even more representative of most modern fighters, and enhanced training and tactical capabilities.
Labour had allocated $75 million (Roughly enough for just two Q300MM's) for the RNZAF Advanced Training Programme under the LTDP. Primary requirements were that the future aircraft type had a digital cockpit and were multi-engine. Obviously a "Batch 2" Macchi is not multi-engine, but has a digital cockpit and would also provide training on jet aircraft suitable for our current 757's (and possible future C17/P8 procurement). The Batch 2 Macchi however offers us quite abit more. It would be able to adequately recover the lost wider NZDF training role the ACF provided.
At this point it is important to note that under the Maritime Patrol Review 2001 their was a significant capability gap in terms of EZZ coast watch capability. This has been ignored in the terms of reference regarding the B200 replacement (Though VIP wasn't as Helen trusted that the doors would not fall off a RNZAF plane). Also the Light Transport capability vanished with the Andovers.
What I am suggesting is that the funding could be lifted and the scope widened so as to incorporate a mixture of both a Multi-Engine aircraft and putting a limited number of Macchi's through a Batch 2 upgrade aswell. NZ$75 million has already been budgeted another $75m would absolutely transform this procurement programme not to mention the RNZAF/NZDF. A rough estimate here but a further $75m would provide for 3 new Q300 Multi-Mission Aircraft, a ground simulator and around 6 "Batch 2" upgraded Macchi's. Thats nine extra aircraft and a number of issues solved.
Using the Q300 is in my view a positive in that Air NZ flies it. Loads of their pilots know it well and with the experience of 1990's era RNZAF pilots and ground staff on the Macchi there is the scope for Air Force Reserve involvement. Obviously since this seems to make such perfect sense that no politician would see the logic unfortunately.
A while ago I was reading the RNZAF magazine and there was an article which had a picture showing a RNZAF P-3 droping MK 82 bombs on a range. After I had picked myself of the ground laughing and swiftly making fun of a Kiwi CPO we have at my work about what HIS airforce was reduced to I actually read the article. The whole idea was to keep the armament fitters compedent handling ordance.
As you know there has been scuttlebutt about the Machi's returning to service, myself I can't see this happeng and beleive it would be of little value.
However what about combining the P-3's you have with JDAM-ER. Obvisously the P-3 is capable of droping the bomb that JDAM-ER is based apon and the RNZAF has maintained it's war stock of MK 82s.
The P-3's would need some modification but it wouldn't be much and the JDAM-ER kits are meant to be comparitly cheep compared to other weapons (missiles) that match its 60nm range.
This combination would very effective in a long distance low intencity conflict that New Zealand may find it's self in the Pacific. It would be a good deterrent too.
As you know there has been scuttlebutt about the Machi's returning to service, myself I can't see this happeng and beleive it would be of little value.
However what about combining the P-3's you have with JDAM-ER. Obvisously the P-3 is capable of droping the bomb that JDAM-ER is based apon and the RNZAF has maintained it's war stock of MK 82s.
The P-3's would need some modification but it wouldn't be much and the JDAM-ER kits are meant to be comparitly cheep compared to other weapons (missiles) that match its 60nm range.
This combination would very effective in a long distance low intencity conflict that New Zealand may find it's self in the Pacific. It would be a good deterrent too.
Last edited:
P3-k Oribomber
A4-K - two drop tanks, 4 x Mk 82 bombs
P3-K2 --> 4 x Mk 82 bombs in internal bomb bay
Target - a nameless city in the South Pacific somewhere
(ok A4 wouldn't have the legs BUT lets us imagine some friendly refueling <sic>)
i would suspect the "across target speed" of A4 vs P3-K wouldn't be all that different .. (two large drop tanks would have to be quite draggy) and if bombing from a high altitude would think the results would be around the same.
Think the P3-K as a "Oribomber" would do quite well if one needed to intimidate some of our more bellicose South Pacific neighbors ... hypothetical speaking of course. :nutkick
PS -- just image the P3-K as a 'Zunibomber' -- don't laugh, up until late '70s / early '80s (well before 1983 when i joined) I believe the P3-Ks used to have a lot of fun with Zunis out at the Kaipara range --- to the point where pulling excessive "g's" became a concern, plus the A4 pilots started getting jealous
Actually, in a strictly hypothetical scenario - which would actually be "faster / better" ?
A4-K - two drop tanks, 4 x Mk 82 bombs
P3-K2 --> 4 x Mk 82 bombs in internal bomb bay
Target - a nameless city in the South Pacific somewhere
(ok A4 wouldn't have the legs BUT lets us imagine some friendly refueling <sic>)
i would suspect the "across target speed" of A4 vs P3-K wouldn't be all that different .. (two large drop tanks would have to be quite draggy) and if bombing from a high altitude would think the results would be around the same.
Think the P3-K as a "Oribomber" would do quite well if one needed to intimidate some of our more bellicose South Pacific neighbors ... hypothetical speaking of course. :nutkick
PS -- just image the P3-K as a 'Zunibomber' -- don't laugh, up until late '70s / early '80s (well before 1983 when i joined) I believe the P3-Ks used to have a lot of fun with Zunis out at the Kaipara range --- to the point where pulling excessive "g's" became a concern, plus the A4 pilots started getting jealous
Last edited:
I think the 35 mile range of the JDAM-ER is based on aircraft such as F-18E operating around its service ceiling. The winged ER works on the principle of 1 mile range per 1000ft alt. Thus a P-3K carrying external JDAM-ER would not fly clean and therefore not achieve anything like 60K range due to drag.
Introducing a new weapons package is more than just fitting underwing rails to a P3 and buying a few JDAM-ERS. We would be the only ones heading down that route. Would it be sensible air power doctrine to use the explosive force of a 500kg JDAM's in Low Intensity Conflicts i.e lower to mid level UNSC Chp6?
If the said LIC has intensified to such a nature that the use of tactical air strike response in the nature of JDAMS-ER, then is it prudent to use such a rare and valuable maritime patrol asset as a P-3K in such a way in a risk management sense? The principle is to use the right tool for the task.
The infrequent practice at Kaipara Head with the Mk82's is as the article said - to maintain RNZAF competence in handling ordinance. Though it is a fun days work for 5Sqd when it happens.
Ah - the early 80's when times were fun. When a certain ex Navy and now Taupo resident who shall remain nameless, when serving on the one of the Patrol Boats of the era "paraglided" behind the thing using a parachute he pinched from Hobbie after a footie match. Was known to take his waterski's with him on patrol until he got caught and got dobbed in to ComAuck by the fisheries boys who bore a grudge. His Navy service soon over.
Introducing a new weapons package is more than just fitting underwing rails to a P3 and buying a few JDAM-ERS. We would be the only ones heading down that route. Would it be sensible air power doctrine to use the explosive force of a 500kg JDAM's in Low Intensity Conflicts i.e lower to mid level UNSC Chp6?
If the said LIC has intensified to such a nature that the use of tactical air strike response in the nature of JDAMS-ER, then is it prudent to use such a rare and valuable maritime patrol asset as a P-3K in such a way in a risk management sense? The principle is to use the right tool for the task.
The infrequent practice at Kaipara Head with the Mk82's is as the article said - to maintain RNZAF competence in handling ordinance. Though it is a fun days work for 5Sqd when it happens.
Ah - the early 80's when times were fun. When a certain ex Navy and now Taupo resident who shall remain nameless, when serving on the one of the Patrol Boats of the era "paraglided" behind the thing using a parachute he pinched from Hobbie after a footie match. Was known to take his waterski's with him on patrol until he got caught and got dobbed in to ComAuck by the fisheries boys who bore a grudge. His Navy service soon over.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Actually the RNZAF P-3's drop live Mk82 "high drag bombs", to practice taking out subs in shallow water etc. They use the bombing ranges on land for these M82 drag bomb drops (it seems to be an annual affair), however not sure of the real reason, assume that it's because it's easier to measure accuracy on land (and probably easier to get the top brass and cameras to the viewing platform) plus I'm not sure whether RNZAF/RNZN has a fixed object at sea to attack nowadays since Volkners Rock in the Bay of Plenty became a conservation zone a decade or so ago.
Apparently a RNZAF P-3 will undergo live torpedo firing in one of the Australian exercise areas this year.
I've never heard of the RNZAF P-3 being tasked to attack land targets, using bombs, thankfully.
Not sure whether modifications to the P-3's to allow JDAM-ER use would be warranted, as I assume JDAM isn't designed for use at sea against moving objects, let alone subsurface objects, not unless the P-3 carried its own onboard targeting system (for surface threats)?
Better IMO to look at stand off torpedo technology for underwater threats (and a suitable stand off missile for surface threats), but what then for subs lurking in the shallows? Bombs and depth charges? Seems like the P-3 still needs to get nice and up close!