New Zealand can not fly out its citizens trapped overseas, and there are those who wish to rearm the air force. It would seem to me New Zealand needs more transport aircraft, and helicopters, more than rearming its air force.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
Interesting point about the mk 82 being used to attack subs in shallow water.
I agree that the JDAM-ER would not be effective in an surface attack role. I wasn't clear on this point but they would be strictly for land attack. JDAM-ER having a 60 NM range A P-3 could safely delivier its ordnance any where within its substantial range (Not Australia though
.Im thinking along the same lines, it would be great to have the macchies back, but I wouldnt want to upgrade them at the expence of at medium transport like the Q300 or C27.The macchies would be more than enough capability "to get the ball rolling again". We need the transport aircraft to reduce the hours on the C130s to make them last longer, the NZDF wont have the large ammount of money to replace the C130s anytime soon and more choppers of the B414 or upgraded huey for all the smaller taskings, 8 NH90s just is not enough (even the capability report had 10 airframes as a minimum).
Personally I still keen on something like the PAC 750XL as a light transport (if 4000lbs payload is light) ,they can do so much for such a small purchace price and operating costs.
An Air Force without combat capability is actually an oxymoron. So are you advocating not having an airforce but just some sort of air service?
True we could not do a simple evac task at present (Not that I believe evac was necessary in Thailand), due to the NZDF being ideologically and fiscally strangled over the last decade and a half. To me that has been absolutely unacceptable. Politicians who I never supported made these dreadful decisions. Wasn't me who sustained a sub 1% of GDP on defence for the last decade.
Yes. I am one of those who support the need to have an effective yet modest combat capability in ALL the 3 services of the NZDF as we have always traditionally been able to support for over 70 years. I am not a peacenik socialist. Just a proud conservative New Zealander, proud of my country, proud of my contribution to it. I would like it to actually remain a modern, advanced, prosperous democratic western nation with ALL the responsibilities that go along with it.
Yes we need better Transport, Helicopters, and a number of other things that will help the NZDF. But, I have not enjoyed the slide towards some PC feminist mickey mouse psuedo defence force paradise that some in this country have been forcing on us. Not asking for much just that modest capability contribution we provided for ourselves and our friends for over 60 years. It can be done. We just need to rebuild our nearly broken defence force. It has never been as unworkable and as unsustainable as it is now other than the mid 1930s.
If we started to actually spend the average defence spend of other OECD countries (around 1.5% of GDP at present), we could go along way towards recovering the lost and wasted decade we have had and get back the 'Force' in Defence Force by 2020. Hopefully by then our luck will still hold and we have not got into any harms way.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
No, our subsonic AP-3C's, which were to be armed with long range standoff weapons are dangerously vulnerable to TACAIR.Interesting point about the mk 82 being used to attack subs in shallow water.
I agree that the JDAM-ER would not be effective in an surface attack role. I wasn't clear on this point but they would be strictly for land attack. JDAM-ER having a 60 NM range A P-3 could safely delivier its ordnance any where within its substantial range (Not Australia though
The subsonic Bears and Badgers which are armed with long range standoff missiles that are "flooding into our region" have no such vulnerabilities.
Amazing how that seems to work out, isn't it?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I think there are quite a few ways in which the "force" element could be put back into NZDF without actually requiring the acquisition of a tactical fighter fleet.
Sure, I'd like to see NZ regain an "Air Combat Group" but a standoff weapon capability, plus a capable EW system for the P-3K's (for land and maritime targets) and armed helo (A-109's for instance have a WIDE variety of armament options available) and an armed UAV capability would go a LONG way towards providing relatively capable options that would be useful for the types of operations NZ is likely to be involved with.
An armed A-109LUH capability could provide a useful option. Israel, Russia and the USA amongst others are showing that the age of armed transport helicopters is FAR from over. They also have useful capability for special forces insertion operations too...
http://www.flightglobal.com/article...rael-tests-armed-black-hawk-demonstrator.html
An expanded purchase of A-109 would also increase NZ transport helicopter capability.
Realistically the the only countrys that this combination of P-3s and JDAM-ER would be used against is a pacific island as they possess no real AA weaponry.
Scenario "A pacific island nation has decended into bloody civil war with ex pats holding up at the New Zealand high commission.The commission has come under sporadic attack. NZSAS has inserted a patrol to defend the commission, however the patrol gets pinned down as it travels through the capital.
The patrol commander then passes the GPS coordinates of the hostiles to a waiting P-3 which has been tasked in support of the patrol from it's insertion. The P-3 is waiting off shore far out of range of HMG's the largests weapon possessed by the island nation. Within seconds the coordinates are entered into a JDAM-ER and the weapon is released. A few minutes later the weapon nutrises the hositles allowing the NZSAS patrol to continue there jorney to the high commission."
Last edited:
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
If I'm on the same wavelength (as AD?), then yes would it be true to say that Mk 82 depth-bombs may have their place in a "benign" environment (eg attacking a sub around the Cook Islands, the RNZAF P-3's seemed to find objects of interest lurking around there sometimes during the Cold War etc) or maybe where allied forces have established superiority etc? But it seems to me the Mk82's may have their limitations eg they are aimed by visual means - hence there's a high chance of missing the target, P-3 has to attack at low altitude - hope there's no surface-to-air self defence system defending the target, and as you say getting that close to a target (even tens of miles away) may be suicidal.
So is the ideal answer that a mix of weapons is needed eg long range stand off missiles for the RNZAF (and RAAF) P-3's? And keep the Mk82 depth-bombs for those subs in shallow water or is there something better available now (or more precise) - if so what should NZ be looking at, weapon wise that is realistic for NZ's expenditure etc?
Currently RNZAF P-3's use the Mk82's and torps (unsure whether they still use depth charges, have never heard them being mentioned in the last several years etc). Bearing in mind there is a NZLTDP project to acquire air-to-surface missiles (and I'm wondering whether NZDF is looking beyond Harpoon due to the amount of time this is taking and the lack of specifics eg keeping options open etc), what are NZ's options including other ordanance other than missiles etc?
In terms of The Puss's Pacific scenario above, this seems possible & reasonable to me, but other than JDAM-ER's, what would be a realistic air-to-ground type missile? Bearing in mind larger nations may also use P-3's (and similar types) for air-to-ground survellience, they can afford to call in attack aircraft to neutralise a threat, but seeing that NZ doesn't have that luxury, should they be looking arming their P-3's (or is this not feasible, ie simply have RNZAF P-3's work with larger coalition forces which then have the means to attack ground targets)?
Precisely. It is the vunerability of the P-3 in a threat laden environment that mosts concerns me. It is an interdependent asset after all, something that must always be considered.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
JDAM-ER is only necessary if there is some sort of high altitude GBAD threat. A straight JDAM would be fine for the pacific threat environment. Obviously a EO-IR targeting pot for the Orions would be necessary.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
In terms of the Aermacchi issue (and AD's suggestion to better arm the P-3's, A109's - may as well rethink the Seasprites weaponry - Mavericks aren't sea-skimming missiles etc - and armed UAV's etc), I agree with Mr.C in that the Aermacchi's shouldn't be seen as a true air combat force alternative. For example one probably wouldn't see them exercising with the RAAF as much (if much at all) unlike the A-4's nor would they be sent to FPDA exercises, as they wouldn't be up to it.
But I do think the idea is worthwhile as a training option for the Navy and Army, and as a means to retain some basic "air combat" knowledge (should there be a need to re-establish such a force in the future), and nowdays for simple homeland defence (to counter rogue civil aircraft etc). Sure there's a chance if a terrorist hijack or deliberate use of a gen av aircraft to cause mischief occurred, the Macchis may be too far away from the action to respond in time (after all it will have to work in with ground survellience systems etc) and not be up to the task. But IMO better for the Govt to be seen as being proactive (establishing a simple Aermacchi capability) then pretend or assume nothing would ever happen (eg previous govt). That way if a big disaster happened, perhaps justifying better aircraft could be result etc.
In terms of other options to acquire a better type of aircraft and have a "real" ACF, unless NZ raises its defence expenditure back up to around 2% of GDP or more (and there's probably no perceived need at present) I don't think puchasing brand new F35's or Super Hornets would ever be viable. But that's fine, NZ doesn't need to send fighters to enforce no fly zones with the US or NATO etc, however perhaps something a generation behind may suffice to defend NZ's shoreline and assist Australia with any defence against its nearer neighbours etc.
Mr C: good thoughts there to think about upgrading the Aermacchis avionics etc. Should NZ be looking at avionics that may be compatible with the RAAF Hawks as lead in to the RAAF (Classic?) Hornets? As I've said in the past I wonder whether we need to tie in better with the RAAF if one day an ACF was re-established here!
But I do think the idea is worthwhile as a training option for the Navy and Army, and as a means to retain some basic "air combat" knowledge (should there be a need to re-establish such a force in the future), and nowdays for simple homeland defence (to counter rogue civil aircraft etc). Sure there's a chance if a terrorist hijack or deliberate use of a gen av aircraft to cause mischief occurred, the Macchis may be too far away from the action to respond in time (after all it will have to work in with ground survellience systems etc) and not be up to the task. But IMO better for the Govt to be seen as being proactive (establishing a simple Aermacchi capability) then pretend or assume nothing would ever happen (eg previous govt). That way if a big disaster happened, perhaps justifying better aircraft could be result etc.
In terms of other options to acquire a better type of aircraft and have a "real" ACF, unless NZ raises its defence expenditure back up to around 2% of GDP or more (and there's probably no perceived need at present) I don't think puchasing brand new F35's or Super Hornets would ever be viable. But that's fine, NZ doesn't need to send fighters to enforce no fly zones with the US or NATO etc, however perhaps something a generation behind may suffice to defend NZ's shoreline and assist Australia with any defence against its nearer neighbours etc.
Mr C: good thoughts there to think about upgrading the Aermacchis avionics etc. Should NZ be looking at avionics that may be compatible with the RAAF Hawks as lead in to the RAAF (Classic?) Hornets? As I've said in the past I wonder whether we need to tie in better with the RAAF if one day an ACF was re-established here!
What I cannot understand about the whole topic of NZDF / RNZAF is this irrational adversion to NZ maintaining a small first class air combat capability. As an example the 14-16 F-16 MLU's that were reccommended to cabinet by the 2000 Quigley Report. People treat the whole issue like it is some of taboo with the same malfeasant sensibilities of cross-dressing. If fact in PC post Helen Clark New Zealand cross dressing is probably A.OK! Thats how bad it is to advocate for an aircraft specification that possess a wide range of combat capabilities that we actually require and all contained within the one platform. The same illogic extends to the mentioning of the word frigate. It seems like saying a swearword in front of your mother.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I know. I was addressing others with my previous post. I think a P-3 with a standoff weapon, whether you opt for JDAM/JDAM-ER, JSOW, Harpoon Block II or any of a number of air to surface missiles, makes a very useful addition to military capability in a number of areas.
My personal preference in NZ's case, would be a dual purpose anti-ship/land attack weapon (Exocet MM-40, Harpoon Block II, SLAM-ER, JSOW/JSOW-ER, RBS-15 Mk 3, Joint Strike Missile etc).
The reasoning being that P-3K's firing such a weapon could contribute meaningfully to Coalition operations. P-3K's in a regional Coalition are going to spend a significant amount of time searching for ships. An ability to engage them with a credible weapon system is going to have a strategic effect. Similarly with the overland surveillance missions P-3's are being increasingly called upon to perform. Excellent at surveillance they may be, but an ability to engage a target immediately instead of handing it off ALL the time, would significantly "value add" to the platform's presence in a theatre.
NZ doesn't require a large warstock inventory IMHO. What it needs is the capability to employ a weapon from the P-3K's, a limited warstock (perhaps as small as 15 - 20 actual weapons) for contingencies and agreements with the supplying Country to "rush" a supply of weapons if and when needed (as the US has done for Israel on any number of occasions). Thus I think this capability could be achieved relatively cheaply.
To fulfill these criteria, I think a future version of the JSOW (with maritime attack modes) could be the weapon of choice. The AIM-154C version to be specific. It currently offers a standoff range of 130k's. It has a penetrating warhead, another useful capability NZDF doesn't currently maintain, is very likely to be available for export to NZ considering the Countries that have acquired the weapon to date (Australia and Finland among others) and best of all is relatively cheap, by SO weapons standards.
It has an assured upgrade path, with maritime attack and "mobile targetting" capabilities, plus JSOW-ER variants with a 500k range are under development...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I'm not adverse to the idea at all. NZ had lined up an unbelievable bargain IMHO with the F-16 deal.
However the political reality at present is there will be no fixed wing fast jet combat capability in the RNZAF.
Other options are more realistic in the short term IMHO. NZ AND Australia for that matter, could use an armed recon helicopter performing overwatch and fire support missions, on operations right now. (Both Countries are in fact relying upon others to provide this type of capability, the presence of which enables NZ and Australia to even operate in the theatre).
Similarly with the UAV idea. NZ needs a permanent UAV surveillance capability for land forces. They have it in Afghanistan, which is the most "serious" deployment NZ (AND Australia) has had for decades. An armed UAV would be even better.
There are weapons that can be fitted to smaller UAV's (Viper Strike etc). Alternatively a weapons fit could be tailored to match that fitted to the armed recon helicopter idea. Hellfire can be just as easily employed from a UAV as it can a helicopter...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
IIRC the RNZAF P-3K Orions are not able to use weapons like the Harpoon Block II... When the P-3K Orions were last upgraded, they were re-winged, but at the time this was done, the databus within the wings was not upgraded to the version required by the Harpoon Block II. Unfortunately I do not recall which databus, whether it is MIL-STD 1553 or 1760. I would therefore assume that similarly modern and capable missiles like the SLAM-ER and RBS-15, etc would not be available for use either. Or at least, not without a significant upgrade programme...
-Cheers
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Yep, and no doubt the combat system doesn't have the necessary software loads either, nor is the Harpoon weapons control system installed either, I strongly suspect.
It seems as if it will take a bit of work to get a modern standoff weapon integrated onto a RNZAF P-3K Orion, but the project exists in the LTDP, so I expect the RNZAF are aware of the necessary issues...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
My understanding of the standoff capability mentioned in the LTDP was to enable the P-3K to fire the Maverick AGM like the Seasprite can (or did that not end up happening either?)
I also wonder just how much of the original mission systems are in the P-3K vs. COTS systems. From what I remember, NZ did due a system upgrade, but utilized a number of COTS systems which were modified. Not sure how well they could be adapted to enable use of weaponry.
-Cheers
think this should answer your question:
http://www.airforce.mil.nz/operations/airforce-news/97/test-fire-missile.htm
Not completely 'armless is our Seasprite
Actually if you do a "google search" believe there is a photo of the qualifying Maverick shot in the US.
So - NZ do have some "basic low level intimidation" capability
.'Park" the Canterbury, complete with two Maverick toting Seasprites, a company of the NZ Army complete with LAVII's, off the coast, and a detachment of SAS say on a Frigate -- I think that should be good enough for any "rowdy" South Pacific neighbors.
As an aside could the P3-K2s use the "laser guided" (designation provided by SAS ???) MK 82s that the A4-Ks were using ?
Don't think there would need to any modification of wiring etc ...
Last edited:
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Was re-reading the book "Kiwi Orions" by Paul Harrison recently, he touches on how the Mk82 depth bomb came about. On page 125:
In relation to the Mk44 torpedo, this article (and others I've read) states that the Mk46 torpedo replaced the Mk44 (incidentally the RNZAF P-3K's still carry the Mk46, as well as the RNZN SH-2G's and the RNZN ANZAC Frigates).
But this wiki article on the Mk44 states "The Royal Australian Navy, however, continued to use it alongside its successor for a number of years, because the Mark 44 was thought to have superior performance in certain shallow-water conditions". Also it states "The torpedo is, however, coming to the end of its usable life as the batteries have expired in many of the torpedoes. The New Zealand navy retired its Mark 44s in 1993 because it decided against renewing the batteries".
Incidentally I can find reference to the Mk44 on the RAN website so am assuming they are still in service with the RAN, but there is no mention of them on the RAAF (AP-3C) website so it appears that the AP-3C's carry now the Mk46 & AGM-84 Harpoon, and on the US Navy (P-3C) website it states the weapons used are the AGM-84 Harpoon, AGM-84E SLAM, AGM-84H/K and AGM-65F Maverick missiles, Mk46/50/54 torps.
So I am wondering whether the RNZAF P-3K's are unique in carrying these Mk82 depth bombs, as "replacements" for the Mk44?
Fortunately there is a NZ LTDP project to replace the Mk46's so it will be interesting to see, whenever it eventuates, what the replacement will be, and whether it will be a single type or a couple of types to deal with different threat scenarios (and will that be the end of the Mk82 depth bomb)?
Now did I read last year the ADF's replacement MU90 torp has had issues with integration with the AP-3C but worked out fine with trials on RAN warships? (Sorry too lazy too dig back to confirm the facts as whether I've got that the right way round as it's now after midnight)! If so, presumably that will have bearings on the NZ LTDP Mk46 torp replacement project dragging out (although one would suppose sticking with what the USN P-3C's use would seem logical as the RNZAF P-3K is obviously US made with mainly if not exclusively US systems etc).
In summary the mission systems were upgraded 1981-1984 in Project Rigel 1 (but not so much the ASW, EW, stand off weapons, acoustics systems etc - that was to happen later in the 1980's as Project Rigel 2 which later was downgraded to replacing the acoustic detection and ESM systems, but then was ultimately canned due to Labour Govt defence reprioritisations and changing technology etc). Some COTS systems were fitted later in the interim, and after Project Kestral was instigated to replace the wings deal to corrosion etc, the Project Sirius was to be the next step to finally upgrade the obsolete ASW/mission systems, which again was canned by the next incoming Labour Govt in 1999. Although to their credit, that Labour Govt after some reviews (including the possibility of ditching the P-3's, something that only they would ever consider as an option, sheesh) did decide to upgrade the above surface detection/mission/radar systems, which is where we are at now at this point in time, supposedly the first upgraded aircraft is to return from L-3 in the US later this year (although the project is behind schedule). I haven't seen any public info detailing exactly what systems will be fitted apart from the general outline on the MoD's LTDP website and the RNZAF website, but again alas the ASW systems have not been upgraded. Let's hope the new Govt sees fit to complete the LTDP torp replacement project, the LTDP stand off weapon project and instigates a long overdue new ASW systems upgrade. Like in Australia, in the last few years, there has been occasional reports on NZ radio and in the newspapers on the growing submarine numbers in the Asia-Pacific region.
Defence analyst Jim Rolfe comments on the current P-3K upgrade (the good and the bad)! Page 20/21:
Please excuse the following amateur analysis (hopefully some defence professionals or those in the know can shed more light on the topic etc).
In relation to the Mk44 torpedo, this article (and others I've read) states that the Mk46 torpedo replaced the Mk44 (incidentally the RNZAF P-3K's still carry the Mk46, as well as the RNZN SH-2G's and the RNZN ANZAC Frigates).
But this wiki article on the Mk44 states "The Royal Australian Navy, however, continued to use it alongside its successor for a number of years, because the Mark 44 was thought to have superior performance in certain shallow-water conditions". Also it states "The torpedo is, however, coming to the end of its usable life as the batteries have expired in many of the torpedoes. The New Zealand navy retired its Mark 44s in 1993 because it decided against renewing the batteries".
Incidentally I can find reference to the Mk44 on the RAN website so am assuming they are still in service with the RAN, but there is no mention of them on the RAAF (AP-3C) website so it appears that the AP-3C's carry now the Mk46 & AGM-84 Harpoon, and on the US Navy (P-3C) website it states the weapons used are the AGM-84 Harpoon, AGM-84E SLAM, AGM-84H/K and AGM-65F Maverick missiles, Mk46/50/54 torps.
So I am wondering whether the RNZAF P-3K's are unique in carrying these Mk82 depth bombs, as "replacements" for the Mk44?
Fortunately there is a NZ LTDP project to replace the Mk46's so it will be interesting to see, whenever it eventuates, what the replacement will be, and whether it will be a single type or a couple of types to deal with different threat scenarios (and will that be the end of the Mk82 depth bomb)?
Now did I read last year the ADF's replacement MU90 torp has had issues with integration with the AP-3C but worked out fine with trials on RAN warships? (Sorry too lazy too dig back to confirm the facts as whether I've got that the right way round as it's now after midnight)! If so, presumably that will have bearings on the NZ LTDP Mk46 torp replacement project dragging out (although one would suppose sticking with what the USN P-3C's use would seem logical as the RNZAF P-3K is obviously US made with mainly if not exclusively US systems etc).
A brief Janes (non-subscriber) article here outlines the P-3K's upgrades over the years (and the book "Kiwi Orions" outlines the various upgrades over the years in more detail.
In summary the mission systems were upgraded 1981-1984 in Project Rigel 1 (but not so much the ASW, EW, stand off weapons, acoustics systems etc - that was to happen later in the 1980's as Project Rigel 2 which later was downgraded to replacing the acoustic detection and ESM systems, but then was ultimately canned due to Labour Govt defence reprioritisations and changing technology etc). Some COTS systems were fitted later in the interim, and after Project Kestral was instigated to replace the wings deal to corrosion etc, the Project Sirius was to be the next step to finally upgrade the obsolete ASW/mission systems, which again was canned by the next incoming Labour Govt in 1999. Although to their credit, that Labour Govt after some reviews (including the possibility of ditching the P-3's, something that only they would ever consider as an option, sheesh) did decide to upgrade the above surface detection/mission/radar systems, which is where we are at now at this point in time, supposedly the first upgraded aircraft is to return from L-3 in the US later this year (although the project is behind schedule). I haven't seen any public info detailing exactly what systems will be fitted apart from the general outline on the MoD's LTDP website and the RNZAF website, but again alas the ASW systems have not been upgraded. Let's hope the new Govt sees fit to complete the LTDP torp replacement project, the LTDP stand off weapon project and instigates a long overdue new ASW systems upgrade. Like in Australia, in the last few years, there has been occasional reports on NZ radio and in the newspapers on the growing submarine numbers in the Asia-Pacific region.
Defence analyst Jim Rolfe comments on the current P-3K upgrade (the good and the bad)! Page 20/21:
I have to say that Im a little worried about the reducing level of ASW in the NZDF , wasnt that long ago we had 4 asw frigates , 6 asw aircraft all not that far behind in the techno stakes but now we are down to just two frigates with sonars that could barely hear a diver banging at 50mtrs and aircraft that havent been updated in decades (ASW) , I feel that subs are the single biggest threat to NZ and now we are almost blind Every substantional (no pun intended) nation around us either have subs or are upskilling for them .
Every substantional (no pun intended) nation around us either have subs or are upskilling for them .