Royal New Zealand Air Force

[recce.k1]

New 3 Sqn Hanger progress

Squadron's new headquarters a 'first-class' base
Manawatu Standard 08 April 2010
By Jonathon Howe

THE construction of No 3 Squadron's new headquarters at Ohakea Air Force Base is nearly complete.

Work on the 8000sqm-building, valued at $26 million, began in June last year, and will be finished by early August.

The building is split into two hangar areas for 13 new helicopters, eight NH9O medium utility helicopters and five A109 light utility helicopters, which are worth about $900m.

Between the hangars are two storeys of offices, storage areas and training rooms.

Site project manager Kevin Curley said construction had gone to plan with the only setbacks being wind and the minor disruption caused by workers watching planes fly past.

"It's generally been good, just the usual ups and downs of construction work."

About 100 tradesmen, predominantly from Manawatu and Whanganui, have worked at the site, he said.

Higgins contractors are building a platform around the building, which will act as launch area for the helicopters.

Earthworks have begun the construction of a Mission Support Squadron workshop and simulator .

Defence Minister Wayne Mapp praised the headquarters during a tour of the construction site
yesterday.

"It's very impressive. "The Air Force is getting a first-class facility and that's what they've been hanging out for. It's huge when you consider what 3 Squadron is in at the moment."

Dr Mapp said it was an example of how the Defence Force needed to upgrade its infrastructure.

"Frankly, people expect to be able to operate in contemporary conditions, not the conditions their grandfathers, or their great grandfathers worked in."

When asked about the possibility of more helicopters being bought, Dr Mapp said it was an issue being investigated in the upcoming defence review.

Must go take a closer look sometime (I caught a glimpse of what would have been the hanger - a large and long concrete structure - last weekend whilst coming down from Mt Biggs into Sanson). Unlike the old WW2 RAF open hanger designs at Ohakea and Whenuapai this one is quite interesting, larger with dedicated helicopter bays and various other spaces as described in the report. Hopefully TV news will get a good look at the time of the opening to show what it's like in there etc. As the article alludes to, the next large building to be built is the Mission Support Squadron workshop. Good times for 3 Sqn.

 

[recce.k1]

Crickey the Australian invasion of NZ has started!

RAAF Hornets have been "bombing" the Army at Waiouru this week, here's the video evidence!

Exercise Willoh in Waiouru - Video - NZ Herald Videos

Aust jets used in NZ for training | News Video

Aust jets used in NZ for training

The government says we will not see the return of the Air Force's strike wing, despite the New Zealand Army making use of Australian F18 fighter jets in Waiouru this week.

The jets have given New Zealand's Afghanistan-bound soldiers the rare opportunity to practice calling in a potentially life-saving air strike.

New Zealand soldiers have not been able to do so since the Skyhawks were taken out of use in 2001.

Members of the Australian forces agree that New Zealand should not have been left to languish for so long, and that they hope to come back more often.

"The last time we came here as a squadron was back in 1998, so it's been 12 years. Hopefully, we can start getting it back in," says RAAF pilot Flight Lieutenant Matt Deveson.

New Zealand's Defence Minister Wayne Mapp says that the country's Skyhawks will not return, adding that although New Zealand forces do need to understand how it all works, even Australians are reliant on other people for close-air support overseas.

However, Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Boggs, the Commanding Officer of New Zealand's 16th Field Regiment, says that he would like to see "fast air" in New Zealand.

"It gives us flavour for what we're going to be employing in operations... you've got to train as you're going to fight," Boggs says.

A couple of points of interest. Firstly, it states the RAAF F18's haven't deployed to NZ since 1998 as a Sqn (eg bar airshow performances), so welcome back! Although F111's have been regular visitors in the early to mid 2000's for their low level mountain terrain training.

Secondly I wonder what the behind-the-scenes political thinking is on all this? As per the article the Govt via the defmin has ruled out the return of the Skyhawks (but is that the same as also ruling out the return of the Macchis for CAS training for the NZ Army, or not, I wonder)? The Skyhawks have orphan systems that are now pretty much unsupportable from what I understand, hence being realistic it's time to let that one go (almost similar to, but not quite, the RAAF in having to let the F111 go, despite the calls from some to retain them over there etc).

In the TVNZ video the defmin states that whilst the Skyhawks won't return "we don't need to do that. but we do need to understand how it actually works in practice". My reading of the phrase "In practice" means something physical, hence could that be the Macchis? Or could it mean contracting in the RAAF for CAS training etc? I guess we'll find out around Sept when the def review is released.

 

[south]

Quality "Show of Force" at the end of that video.

 

[Lucasnz]

Secondly I wonder what the behind-the-scenes political thinking is on all this? As per the article the Govt via the defmin has ruled out the return of the Skyhawks (but is that the same as also ruling out the return of the Macchis for CAS training for the NZ Army, or not, I wonder)? The Skyhawks have orphan systems that are now pretty much unsupportable from what I understand, hence being realistic it's time to let that one go (almost similar to, but not quite, the RAAF in having to let the F111 go, despite the calls from some to retain them over there etc).

In the TVNZ video the defmin states that whilst the Skyhawks won't return "we don't need to do that. but we do need to understand how it actually works in practice". My reading of the phrase "In practice" means something physical, hence could that be the Macchis? Or could it mean contracting in the RAAF for CAS training etc? I guess we'll find out around Sept when the def review is released.

It's interesting that you mention that the A4 or aircombat force won't return. No mention of the the Macchi, but they might be calling it one and the same. Anyway there was an article on the Stuff "Skyhawk Sale still happening" where the assoc Def Min talks about the Skyhawks not been around by time of the next election. The article was in the context of rumours that the sale would not be going ahead due to finance problems by the US company.

 

[recce.k1]

The Macchis were touted as being sold, along with A4's, assuming the end company came thru. Time will tell.

Anyway a sale (of that old technology) clears the way for acquiring T50's (hey dreams are free)

 

[Lucasnz]

Anyway a sale (of that old technology) clears the way for acquiring T50's (hey dreams are free)

I support you dreams, though I lean towards the JAS Gripen.

 

[swerve]

I support you dreams, though I lean towards the JAS Gripen.

Keep the price down: secondhand JAS39A/B, to be upgraded as & when.

 

[recce.k1]

Aust jets used in NZ for training, follow up

Righty-ho, back to last week's "Aust jets used in NZ for training" exercise. The following article appeared as a feature in last Sat's Manawatu Standard but has only just gone online today (which saved me having to scan it). I wish to comment on it because the reporter has made some astute obsevations IMO (and this would be the reporter's first ever experience with fast jet's/CAS as I know he wasn't a reporter when the NZ jets were disbanded etc).

Anzac attack - features - manawatu-standard | Stuff.co.nz

Some bits of interest from the article (some of which I've highlighted in bold):

The gunners there are selecting ground targets on nearby hills, and sending orders through to the F-18 pilots.

Once briefed, the jets roar in for the kill, with each successful attack creating a white puff of smoke in the distance.

Lieutenant Colonel Boggs says a small number of New Zealand soldiers are trained as Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTAC) – a training programme that allows soldiers to call in air, sea, or land strikes, on ground targets.

The lack of a combat wing in New Zealand means this exercise gives gunners an opportunity to use JTAC skills.

Arranging Exercise Willoh took about a year, but was mutually beneficial for both forces, he says.

"Something like this is a big deal. We are talking tens of thousands of dollars an hour to run these aircraft."

The geography of Waiouru provided the F-18s with a complex environment, similar to terrain in Afghanistan, he says.

The five F-18 Hornets are part of the Australian Air Force's No3 Squadron, which is based at Williamtown, near Sydney.

Patiently watching proceedings is Dr Mapp – a sturdy character who oversees defence, research, science, and technology, for the Government. A former lawyer and captain in the army territorials, he seems at ease in the company of military men, far removed from the machiavellian confines of the capital. He listens intently to briefings, occasionally interjecting with questions.

Dr Mapp says it is always pleasing to see Australian and New Zealand forces working together.

"Really, the whole defence force needs to be able to work closely with our ANZAC partners.

"I've always said this is the kind of joint training that we need to have more of.

"There are some fundamental skill sets that defence forces have to have, and these are the sort of skills that are actually being used in Afghanistan."

But his admiration of the ANZAC efforts did not extend to creating a permanent joint force between the nations, nor did it compel him to purchase any combat jets.

"We don't need to do that, but we do need to understand how it works in practice," Dr Mapp says.

"I mean even in Afghanistan the Australians are reliant on other people for close air support and yet they have fast jets.

"Obviously, New Zealand is a much smaller nation which is always playing a particular role, but if the need arises you have to be able to understand how it all works."

Watching the F-18s has been interesting, but it does raise questions about whether we should have our own combat jets.

New Zealand's Defence Force prides itself on a high level of training, despite having relatively small numbers.

It's important to keep close relations with Australia, but a year spent getting their jets here seems a long time.

The ease of having our own combat jets to train and use could be a massive help to our soldiers, especially as they ply their trades in the world's many corridors of war.

What I found interesting is that this exercise, involving the RAAF, took a year to plan to see to fruition. And depending on RAAF/Govt priorities and well as NZDF/Govt priorities, I would not expect to see this an annual event, more like an occassional occurance. Therefore at the end of the day, the NZDF still will not get regular opportunities to practice CAS training etc.

Now it could be argued that in "peacetime", having an annual or biennial or even triennial joint RAAF/NZDF JTAC/CAS training exercise would be a good idea - that way the training exercise could throw in counter-air and land forces (with SAM's etc) and force the JTAC/field regiment to be moving to avoid being "wiped out" themselves. As opposed to this, from what it appears, benign experience.

Now if the RNZAF has it's own fast jets again, even if it were simply a handful of Macchis, as we've thrashed out here periodically, then the NZDF could regularly practice this JTAC/CAS skillset, especially before each (6 month?) deployment to Bamiyan province in Afghanistan. (And then conduct a major ADF/NZDF biennial or triennial exercise involving other force and support elements etc).

It seems the politicans have forgotten that as far as the NZDF is concerned, for them it is not "peacetime", they are on operational deployment and have been in Afghanistan since 2003 and requiring this training.

And again I say, well done this reporter for going to his first ever JTAC/FAC/CAS exercise and "getting it" - one astute reporter I say, and he couldn't have expressed it any better in his writings.

So whether they be Macchi's or whether they be something else cheap without all the bells and whistles (I'm thinking anything from second hand F16's to new T50's), it doesn't matter in so much as I'm not advocating a permanent first class air combat force for operations again (well, not at this stage, because of defence/budgetary priorities and funding issues etc), but again I'm advocating the Govt think this one through and accept the reality is, the Army (and Navy) require such "fast-jet" training for pre-deployment training, NOW! The other reality is, we can't rely on the RAAF, they have their own priorities and even if they could assist, this training would be too far and few between for meaningful NZDF training requirements.

If I were an astute Govt, I'd either remove the Macchis from the sale, or get rid of them and get something with modern datalinks and sensors, as would be found on allied fast jet operations overseas, perhaps something along the line of the T50. Now if LM are seriously thinking about training the Singaporians in NZ, it would surely be more tangible that NZ contribute to a few more (RNZAF) T50's (or F16A/B's) ourselves to make their potential investment in NZ worthwhile (ie LM could do the major support on contract, thus ensuring NZ does not need to spend tens/hundreds of millions bringing back 100's of skilled support staff etc). After all, does the Govt want them here, or not? And I don't think that a cheaper option of using the Singaporians would be viable, after all, they could be here to learn advanced flying skills, not operational skills.

 

[stryker NZ]

fatal helicopter crash north of Wellington

A very sad start to ANZAC day there are reports coming in that an Iroquois helicopter has been in a fatal crash north of wellington this morning resulting in 3 casualties with the remaining crew member in a critical condition. Our thoughts go out to the families

Military helicopter crashes north of Wellington - Yahoo!Xtra News

 

[LancasterBomber]

A very sad start to ANZAC day there are reports coming in that an Iroquois helicopter has been in a fatal crash north of wellington this morning resulting in 3 casualties with the remaining crew member in a critical condition. Our thoughts go out to the families

Very sad indeed. From across the pond our thoughts are with the families involved and all of NZAF. I am sure as a group they are all doing it tough.

 

[OPSSG]

BTW, you've spelled 'Singaporeans' wrongly...

If I were an astute Govt, I'd either remove the Macchis from the sale, or get rid of them and get something with modern datalinks and sensors, as would be found on allied fast jet operations overseas, perhaps something along the line of the T50. Now if LM are seriously thinking about training the Singaporians (wrong spelling) in NZ, it would surely be more tangible that NZ contribute to a few more (RNZAF) T50's (or F16A/B's) ourselves to make their potential investment in NZ worthwhile (ie LM could do the major support on contract, thus ensuring NZ does not need to spend tens/hundreds of millions bringing back 100's of skilled support staff etc). After all, does the Govt want them here, or not? And I don't think that a cheaper option of using the Singaporeans (correct spelling) would be viable, after all, they could be here to learn advanced flying skills, not operational skills.

Sorry, I'm not sure about the point you are making for the text in blue. Please explain.

If LM wins the training contract (which I believe is in essence a PPP contract), LM will maintain the T-50 and the RSAF will supply the instructor pilots. This means that there will be LM maintenance personnel in NZ supporting the T-50. I would agree with you that there is nothing preventing the RNZAF from buying T-50s and signing another contact with LM to maintain said NZ owned jets. From the maintenance and operational cost perspective, this possible arrangement must be cheaper because of economies of scale and the setting up of common physical infrastructure and tooling to support the training squadron. Who LM hires to maintain the aircraft would be LM's choice and I would expect some/many jobs for locals.

Fyi, the RSAF instructors are all US trained F-16 pilots, who are qualified to deliver air to ground ordinance. Further, given that the T-50 is for advanced jet training (AJT), all the trainees would have earned their basic wings and be sent to NZ as commissioned officers. Upon completion of AJT, these RSAF 'trainees' would go on to type conversion on F-5Ss, F-16C/Ds or F-15SGs next.

From a logistics perspective, there would be nothing preventing joint training by the RSAF instructors based in NZ and the NZ JTACs. This has the added benefit of keeping the RSAF instructors current on CAS in a coalition environment and accustomed to working with your blokes - it's the accent that both sides have to get used to. NZ JTACs will have to learn Singlish for coalition training with our guys.

 

[dave_kiwi]

Ok cannot resist this:

it's the accent that both sides have to get used to. NZ JTACs will have to learn Singlish for coalition training with our guys.

Somewhere in NZ:

Lesson 1: - everything ends with "Lah" lah

Nearly 8 years in Singapore lah, and ya hear it every where lah.

 

[recce.k1]

BTW, you've spelled 'Singaporeans' wrongly...

Sorry, I'm not sure about the point you are making for the text in blue. Please explain.

Thanks for the spelling correction there OPSSG, my apologies!

Thanks also for your informative post, your insights into the how the Singaporeans might train here clears up some things for us.

My point (which was unclear) was suggesting that the RSAF AJT pilots would be (may be) here to learn how to fly fast jets and probably not then also undertake training or wargames with NZ CAS personnel, for this is another skillset which I assume is something that is learned when the AJT pilots then as you say undertake type conversion on the other operational aircraft types etc (however please feel free to correct my assumption if you think or know that T50 AJT pilots will also practice CAS - eg do the AJT pilots using the A4 in France do this etc)?

However what you then say about the RSAF instructors , having also being qualified F16 pilots, makes more practical sense if they were to also spend some time training with NZ CAS personnel - this would seem to be a good thing as you say to keep the RSAF instructors and NZ JTAC personnel current. (I had assumed LM would supply the instructors as part of the PPP agreement, not the RSAF, so thanks for clearing that up)!

[As for the NZ Govt and potential defence whitepaper options on fast jet training, this must be (or was) making for some interesting debates behind the scenes with the powers that be. On the one hand, the NZ Govt has ruled out restoring a proper functional air combat force. They have also alluded to the A4's not returning if their sale falls through. But on the other hand they have not ruled out (but nor ruled in) the Macchi's returning (presumably if their sale also falls through).

What good the Macchi would be without pilots being able to progress/undertake conversion to an air combat squadron, then suggests that perhaps the Macchi's could be used for, eg, training the NZDF for deployment into real operational "theatres" eg the NZ Army for JTAC/CAS roles in Afghanistan where since the 2003 NZDF personnel have relied on coalition air assets for CAS etc, and perhaps the RNZN for naval combat force deployments into SE Asia and the Gulf etc, where there is a potential real risk from the air if sabre-rattling events turned nasty. The previous NZ Govt previously (circa 2006/07 from memory) considerd re-introducing the Macchi, as no doubt the practical examples mentioned above became a real cause for concern for defence planners etc (I would speculate that one reason this didn't happen was because by that stage the then NZ Govt realised its overall spending had escalated to such unsustainable levels - this is common knowledge now, not hearsay - that projects such as this with associated extra costs to bring back in skilled personnel and basic infrastructure, let alone other defence projects that were at the about to be funded stage eg advanced pilot training, short-medium range maritime patrol, the costly ANZAC Frigate self-defence upgrade, torpedo replacement etc, just had to be postponed for the timebeing).

The change of Govt in 2008 appears to be (or were) keeping this Macchi option open again, no doubt as I said because of the reality that NZDF were deployed into areas where eg CAS is critical to the safety of the deployed troops (after all it can be the "death" of politicians when deployed troops die unneccessarily and questions are then asked loudy by the media/public why they don't have the appropriate kit or training etc. Also whilst the Govt doesn't have to listen to the Manawatu Standard reporter I quoted a page back, to repeat myself I find it exteremely interesting that this reporter "got it" why NZ needs fast-jet training after spending his first occassion at such a training event. If this one reporter "got it", if I were a NZ politician of any persuasion/party, current and recent and especially those that played their hand in the ACF demise or supported it, I would be worried about the media unleasing a firestorm of criticism at them the day NZDF personnel are killed on deployment when they were let down by lack of practical CAS training or actual support etc)].

However back to your post, I do agree with your writings if the Singaporean/LM project eventuated, the cost/benefits of NZ joining into the programme (and ditching the outdated Macchis) would be, to quote the failed NZ F16 acquistion, another "bargain of the century" opportunity. Being a PPP arrangement, NZ would not need to redevelop extensive infrastructure nor re-employ a great mass of support & operational personnel. Using your example, although the scuttle-butt around here is that LM would bring in their own support personnel, there would be some but probably limited opportunties for some local NZ tradespeople to be contracted in, and as for the RNZAF minimal investment needed for some of its own personnel eg additonal instructors and trades etc. I would assume the senior RNZAF instructors who end up at the Central Flying School flying the CT4 airtrainer would welcome career development, progression and retention, to move onto the T50 etc (and it would make for some interesting flying displays/skillsets for the Red Checkers)!

Interesting also is the recent news that the Govt wishes to "buy up" (whatever that actually means) parts of Safe Air ie retain the civilan trades contractors being made redundant because of the staled RNZAF C130 LEP .... could there be some strategic thinking on a potential tie up between having skilled trades workers and the possible LM development at Ohakea in the future .....?

Whilst I'd love to see RNZAF with Super Hornets, or Grippens etc, IMO the first steps would be to start of with something simpler, cost-effective & in some PPP arrangement with the likes of LM (etc) and the Singaporeans. Money is rather tight in NZ at the moment, but initiatives like this with some real practical and somewhat long term utility could be done. As others have said NZ's debt ratio is alot lower than other western countries and where there is a will there is a way!

OPSSG: we'd welcome your comments here in the RNZAF thread over time, if you can elaborate more on Singapore's current and future AJT training initiatives to better understand the background

 

[OPSSG]

My point (which was unclear) was suggesting that the RSAF AJT pilots would be (may be) here to learn how to fly fast jets and probably not then also undertake training or wargames with NZ CAS personnel, for this is another skillset which I assume is something that is learned when the AJT pilots then as you say undertake type conversion on the other operational aircraft types etc (however please feel free to correct my assumption if you think or know that T50 AJT pilots will also practice CAS - eg do the AJT pilots using the A4 in France do this etc)?

AJT, which the RSAF calls the Advanced Flying Phase is likely to include training on the basic skills sets required for a strike role (low level ingress flying, air navigation and so on). However, the trainers purchased (be it the T-50 or other aircraft selected) will not have some advanced tools used in a strike role (which is a little more than CAS) by operational RSAF pilots, eg. Sniper Pod, EW suite and so on. Operational RSAF pilots are required to perform a number of roles that would include CAP, CAS, BAI, maritime strike, SEAD and so on. And in CAS, airspace de-confliction is an issue, given that our guys on the ground (STORM team, slightly different from a US understanding of the role of a JTAC) would be using UAVs for ISR, Vipers, Eagles, Apaches and artillery support within the same 3D space and that the aircraft may be stacked in formation waiting for their respective time on target for ordinance release. IMO, having the RSAF in NZ is beneficial for our annual Exercise Thunder Warrior artillery exercise in NZ - it's not uncommon for a pilot to join the orders groups for an army exercise (they come in to the orders group to educate the grunts on ordinance available, weapons effects, time on target, other restrictions to their support and so on). The RSAF just spent US$40m to acquire some Laser JDAMs, giving SAF a new capability to strike at moving targets.

Of interest to you is whether, the trainees will do 'live' bomb release (which is really a highlight of exercise, which starts from the planning process). For that I don't know. It will depend on whether NZ will maintain an instrumented 'air range' in the future (I can't imagine that NZ does so now), which will tell the instructors whether the bombs released by the trainees are on target. BTW, there is an instrumented range in France that the RSAF has access to currently and the Super Skyhawks perform a strike role. Therefore I'm guessing that they do train for a CAS role there.

Given our safety conscious culture, it is unlikely that RSAF will ever allow trainees to release live bombs anywhere near actual troops and certainly not want to endanger NZ troops unnecessarily. Plus, we don't want to waste other people's time with fobbing off our trainees to you guys (it's our mindset, we want training to be value added and operationally driven).:lol2

Fyi, AJT, at 11 months is longer than the Basic Wings Course (BWC) and it is important to the RSAF that the BWC is similar in scope to the USAF Undergraduate Pilot Training program - see link to RSAF's current pilot training program. This is because the RSAF wants to ensure that the various component units are interoperable and can play a similar role as that of the USAF (Vipers & Eagles), US Army Aviation (Chinooks/Apaches) and even USN naval air (Seahawks).

However what you then say about the RSAF instructors , having also being qualified F16 pilots, makes more practical sense if they were to also spend some time training with NZ CAS personnel - this would seem to be a good thing as you say to keep the RSAF instructors and NZ JTAC personnel current. (I had assumed LM would supply the instructors as part of the PPP agreement, not the RSAF, so thanks for clearing that up)!

I've provided links to LM's brochure on the BWC and a Mindef write up on the PC-21 and the BWC, if you are interested in more info.

 

[recce.k1]

Thanks, OPSSG, very interesting and informative - I'm mulling this over (and hopefully too the other regular posters here etc).

I've realised I still didn't properly clarify what I meant earlier, the bit you didn't initially understand (in blue etc). Although your informative response seems to mostly clear up what I was originally saying.

Which is, in addition to what I wrote earlier today, that IMO it doesn't appear that the NZ Govt could simply contract the RSAF AJT trainee pilots to undergo either live or simulated bomb strikes for JTAC training etc. Of course my pitch when originally saying this a week or so back was to "pooh-pooh" any possible Govt moves not to re-establish a Macchi or other training function. So this is what I was meaning originally.

However on the other hand (as I didn't realise originally) if experienced RSAF instructors were to perform this role instead of trainees, then maybe the NZ Govt could simply contract the RSAF (rather than re-establish the Macchis or other) to undertake annual or occassional CAS or maritime strike training with NZDF. Perhaps the assumption being the RSAF instructors also need maintain these types of skillsets alongside other experienced air forces (and their own operational forces) to learn any new techniques (i.e. how could the inexperienced NZDF provide that)?

Of course this is all speculation on my behalf as it relies on certain things coming into fruition which may or may not (eg who wins the Singaporean contract etc).

But if it went this Singaporean LM/T-50/NZ way, then as I said originally surely for LM to also wish to invest in NZ, then NZ (Govt) surely needs to invest something back to make it worth LM's while (eg several NZ T-50's or second hand LM F16's). Time will tell I suppose depending on what plays out, outside of NZ and its control.

 

[OPSSG]

Perhaps the assumption being the RSAF instructors also need maintain these types of skillsets alongside other experienced air forces (and their own operational forces) to learn any new techniques (i.e. how could the inexperienced NZDF provide that)?

NZ and Singapore being both small countries have much in common beyond UN peacekeeping missions - the SAF will want to seek opportunities to further increase our ability to inter-operate with NZDF (like with our PRTs are doing in Afghanistan and our past deployment in East Timor). There is already an ongoing process to develop an improved combined capability and develop common process and procedures (or SOPs) in a 'coalition' environment. The scale and scope of Thunder Warrior is actually fairly complex (for more details see this old 2008 NZDF link and pixs for a NZ perspective on developing common SOPs). At some point including an air element to Thunder Warrior, would make sense. The key is seeking increased opportunities for the SAF to complement ADF's and NZDF's current working relationship (rather than attempt to supplant it). When we are training together, it becomes a case of mutual benefit - rather than 'contracting' with the RSAF to do something for the NZDF. The issue is working to align interests to ensure mutual benefit.

There is already a great working relationship, which is a solid foundation to build on. NZDF taught/introduced us to war gaming in 1976... so I think we continue to learn from you guys. There is a reservoir of good will and mutual respect that can be tapped. NZ just has to want to do so and include us in your plans. The fact that NZ is being considered in LM's bid is part of the RSAF trying to include NZDF in our plans - though there are some factors beyond the RSAF's control in the way LM puts together the T-50 bid.

 

[recce.k1]

Yes, enhancing Exercise Thunder Warrior with added air threat scenarios would surely make for some added realism and see how they cope with more "stress" so to speak

Exercise Thunder Warrior usually draws interest from the NZ media, especially when they see the tracked howitzers, not a common site around here otherwise!

Pity the NZDF website doesn't update their articles and images every year but if you are interested here are some related articles about the exercise and Singapore:

Michael Richardson: Crouching tiger hides its claws overseas - World - NZ Herald News
Defence Visits 3: Waiouru Military Camp, 3-4 Feb 09 | Heather Roy MP
Waiouru Visit | ACT New Zealand
Beehive - Ministerial visit builds stronger defence ties

 

[Gibbo]

Snippet from defence review

Short-range aircraft on Government shopping list - National - NZ Herald News

Well yes I agree RNZAF do need something in between B200 & the C-130 / P-3, but I argue they still need a B200 (B350 please!) type for more mundane advanced training tasks (ie: circuits etc)

Of course as the article states - the gap has been identified, but filling it is another matter - and the Govt ain't going to let the money flow freely! I can't see many new aircraft being bought.

If they do get such a fleet I guess they'd start doing more than 15 hours a year VIP work - but also hopefully they'd be used for the more mundane internal (& short-hop Pacific) flights for light transport / SATS (personnel transfer) flights etc - freeing up both C-130 / B757 & P-3 for military tasks. Cheaper to run as well!

Let's hope though it's not a wedge to reduce the P3 fleet! :eek

I guess both SAR & light transport can be relatively benign roles which would be good advanced training for pilots anyway (under supervision) - but I suspect we'd just see the same old 'loading too many tasks on too small a fleet' - perpetuating RNZAF's availability problems.

 

[Gibbo]

Short-range aircraft on Government shopping list - National - NZ Herald News

Well yes I agree RNZAF do need something in between B200 & the C-130 / P-3, but I argue they still need a B200 (B350 please!) type for more mundane advanced training tasks (ie: circuits etc)

Of course as the article states - the gap has been identified, but filling it is another matter - and the Govt ain't going to let the money flow freely! I can't see many new aircraft being bought.

If they do get such a fleet I guess they'd start doing more than 15 hours a year VIP work - but also hopefully they'd be used for the more mundane internal (& short-hop Pacific) flights for light transport / SATS (personnel transfer) flights etc - freeing up both C-130 / B757 & P-3 for military tasks. Cheaper to run as well!

Let's hope though it's not a wedge to reduce the P3 fleet! :eek

I guess both SAR & light transport can be relatively benign roles which would be good advanced training for pilots anyway (under supervision) - but I suspect we'd just see the same old 'loading too many tasks on too small a fleet' - perpetuating RNZAF's availability problems.

And another thought - whilst the idea of a cheaper type for SAR etc is sensible - I wonder if they've thought of just how suitable an off-the-shelf twin-prop would be without having a few key items such as search radar & FLIR? - and therefore ther cost implications of purchasing a suitable type!

Hopefully the review hasn't just focused on the 'cost to run per hour' basis but looked how what the type needs to be 'fit for purpose'! The MK1 eyeball alone won't cut the mustard on long endurance SAR.

 

[recce.k1]

And another thought - whilst the idea of a cheaper type for SAR etc is sensible - I wonder if they've thought of just how suitable an off-the-shelf twin-prop would be without having a few key items such as search radar & FLIR? - and therefore ther cost implications of purchasing a suitable type!

Hopefully the review hasn't just focused on the 'cost to run per hour' basis but looked how what the type needs to be 'fit for purpose'! The MK1 eyeball alone won't cut the mustard on long endurance SAR.

Gawd knows why these things have to take so long to sort out .....

But perhaps I suppose the immediate problem is thus - advanced pilot training (B200) and VIP duties (B200 & 757). The B200 needs replacing much sooner i.e. "now" seeing the lease is being rolled over past its use by date (whereas both for short/medium range transport and MPA options, this is for the "future" and the Govt can take longer to work through the various options etc).

In terms of VIP work then, on the one hand we have the tiny B200's and on the other large 757's and nothing in-between. The Govt needs something in-between.

Possible solution 1: some Q300's "now" for APT and VIP (and there's plently available second hand within NZ as the regional airlines upgrade, and exisiting support structures in place albiet commercial, which probably isn't an issue, in fact probably an advantage). Bonus = added light transport and SATS type capabilities etc.

Possible solution 2: some CN-235's or similar specialised types "later" fitted for both tactical transport a la pacific and modular MPA functions, as raised by Todjaeger a couple of months ago.

Do ya think this is probably what Defence would like to do (once the bean counters explore every nook and crany in terms of purchase, training and thru life support costs - which is probably why it is taking so long - especially due to previous cost blowouts in defence acquistion planning eg NH90's and not realising the full support costs etc)?

Hopefully this new era of plainfully slow due dilegence is the reason and why we ought to not see further screw-ups (pity the poor planners as their a$$3$ are on the line)!

As per ususal what the Govt allows to procede is another matter!