NZDF General discussion thread

[RegR]

Agreed A400 will afford us tactical heavy lift we currently do not have for rapid LAV or NH90 deployment and we could have covered our own SAS Afghan deployment. Could provide an in between with Aus C17 and C130J and give more options to any joint deployment in the future. On saying that I still have a place in my heart for the trusty old Herc. Todjaeger does also bring up good points on timeframes, slots and availability. Our Hs 5 year extension gets shorter and less relevant with every delay, you can't fight age.

I thought CN235 and 295 were the same type just lengthened ala C130J and C130J-30?

The CN series would no doubt be more expensive to run but the added roles we could get out of a single type would far outweigh aqquireing 2 types of AC to cover all jobs. Also Gibbo has posted on the AF thread that PC9 is being investigated so maybe the pilot training hours will be cut down in this type and shared between the two.

Ngati understood I am not saying that the new helos are nothing but an improvement just that the added costs might cut out some small jobs we may have done in the past without batting an eyelid. The NH90s and A109s will do the job better, quicker and with less frames just the fuel bill etc will probably be watched alittle more closely and more justification required in a effort to save a buck.

 

[Todjaeger]

Agreed A400 will afford us tactical heavy lift we currently do not have for rapid LAV or NH90 deployment and we could have covered our own SAS Afghan deployment. Could provide an in between with Aus C17 and C130J and give more options to any joint deployment in the future. On saying that I still have a place in my heart for the trusty old Herc. Todjaeger does also bring up good points on timeframes, slots and availability. Our Hs 5 year extension gets shorter and less relevant with every delay, you can't fight age.

I thought CN235 and 295 were the same type just lengthened ala C130J and C130J-30?

The CN series would no doubt be more expensive to run but the added roles we could get out of a single type would far outweigh aqquireing 2 types of AC to cover all jobs. Also Gibbo has posted on the AF thread that PC9 is being investigated so maybe the pilot training hours will be cut down in this type and shared between the two.

Ngati understood I am not saying that the new helos are nothing but an improvement just that the added costs might cut out some small jobs we may have done in the past without batting an eyelid. The NH90s and A109s will do the job better, quicker and with less frames just the fuel bill etc will probably be watched alittle more closely and more justification required in a effort to save a buck.

The CN-295 was an outgrowth from the CN-235, it is a little bit longer (~3m), travels a little bit faster (~20 kts) and can carry somewhere between 1,500 to ~3,000 kg more than a CN-235. It all depends on which numbers are used.

One other thing for consideration in terms of medium/heavy cargo lift. How viable/important is it that the RNZAF be capable of airlifting the NZLAVs? Yes, the RNZAF was not/is not capable of airlifting the NZLAVs into or out from Afghanistan. My concern is that by the time the C-130H Hercs are replaced, the NZLAV is likely to be at their respective service lift midpoints. Given some of the observations and concerns regarding LAV-type vehicle combat viability and armour protection as well as rough and offroad mobility, there is the possibility that Army might see the reintroduction of a tracked APC or IFV. Given the vehicle weights of comparable tracked fighting vehicles like the CV90, FV510-series Warrior, the M2/M3 Bradley or the Puma IFV, there is the distinct possibility that the NZDF could still find itself unable to airlift some of the combat vehicles in inventory. Which could then require alternate methods of transportation.

-Cheers

 

[MrConservative]

I think that over the years the A-400M order book is probably going to have some flexibility in terms of timing. That will play to our advantage as I also think that any order we make is going to be helpfully staggered in small tranches. For example, the A-400M might see 2 arrive in 2018, then 2 more in 2020 (effectively replacing the C-130’s capability) and then a final airframe replacing the B757's when they go. I also think that we will not replace the B757 with a similar aircraft. Especially if it is indeed the A-400M front-runner. (That 5th A400M and a leased 737-700 jet) Though the C-130H will begin to be withdrawn in 2018, I think it will take a date past 2020 until all 5 are gone. They will be cannibalised as each one departs to keep the others going. Some of the countries on the A-400m order book will want to slow down their acquisition rates or at least chop airframe numbers. We just need to at least get four farmed out from the 180 order so far. Likewise the proposed CASA aircraft. Three aircraft plus a mission pallet system and a mept simulator plus support costs will eat up close to NZ200m as TodJ pointed out. A 4 aircraft first tranche will go over that 200m mark. That is the first tranche. The second tranche of another 1-2 will come later.

 

[RubiconNZ]

A-400M or C130-J
Which aircraft in my reasoning would depend on a few factors, two of which.

What is the ADF operating?
This obviously goes to tapping in to logistic pipelines, and commonality for overseas deployments.

Which medium aircraft if any was purchased?

I believe if a 4/5 CN-235 type are purchased then the Grizzly would be the way to go, this allows it to focus on the longer haul missions, reducing hours on the domestic hop missions, if no medium aircraft type is purchased we will require a larger number of airframes performing the smaller lift missions that don't more often that would not require the lift capacity of the Grizzly.

 

[STURM]

I think that over the years the A-400M order book is probably going to have some flexibility in terms of timing.

I know this the wrong place to ask this question but apart from it's longer range and larger internal volume, what key advantages does the A400M offer over the C-130J? Apart from the longer range and larger internal volume offered by the A400M I cant think of any advantages that New Zealand would gain from being an A400M operator.

As the RAAF is already a C-130J operator wouldn't logic dictate that the RNZAF also procure the C-130J in the future?

 

[Todjaeger]

One thing which comes to mind re: mid-ranged MPA. Is there a requirement (or desire) for the aircraft to capable of being armed, or not? I have not come across an indication either way. My personal preference would be for hardpoints and/or a weapon/stores deployment capability.

One never knows when there might be a need to strike a target. Or alternately, drop something like a 'Storepedo' which RAAF AP-3C Orions can deploy. Such a drop capability could prove useful in maritime SAR ops.

Incidentally, when I worked out the numbers about a year ago, I figured that NZ could likely purchase 3 examples of the HC-144A Ocean Sentry and a single MSP for ~NZ$150 mil. If the expected intial purchase figure is NZ$200 mil. then another aircraft and perhaps even MSP could be purchased. OTOH, if part of the NZ$200 mil. is to go towards initial training and support, then two HC-144A and a MSP could be purchased, with the possibility of a third HC-144A, depending on initial establishment and support costs.

-Cheers

 

[RubiconNZ]

I think that over the years the A-400M order book is probably going to have some flexibility in terms of timing. That will play to our advantage as I also think that any order we make is going to be helpfully staggered in small tranches. For example, the A-400M might see 2 arrive in 2018, then 2 more in 2020 (effectively replacing the C-130’s capability) and then a final 2 replacing the B757 when they go. . I also think that we will not replace the B757 with a similar aircraft. Especially if it is indeed the A-400M front-runner. Though the C-130H will begin to be withdrawn in 2018, I think it will take a date past 2020 until all 5 are gone. They will be cannibalised as each one departs to keep the others going. Some of the countries on the A-400m order book will want to slow down their acquisition rates or at least chop airframe numbers. We just need to at least get four farmed out from the 180 order so far. Likewise the proposed CASA aircraft. Three aircraft plus a mission pallet system and a mept simulator plus support costs will eat up close to NZ200m as TodJ pointed out. A 4 aircraft first tranche will go over that 200m mark. That is the first tranche. The second tranche of another 1-2 will come later.

It is an interesting point you make about the 757's a smaller, VIP transport which would be much better suited, like the RAAF's leased 737 BBJ. I would think leasing one would be cheaper than chartering a VIP transport, though I suppose it depends how much the PM travels.

Removing an aircraft type from the Strategic transport role would certainly reduce costs, the future military transport replacing the 757 is not something I had considered. It certainly make sense though.

 

[RegR]

I know this the wrong place to ask this question but apart from it's longer range and larger internal volume, what key advantages does the A400M offer over the C-130J? Apart from the longer range and larger internal volume offered by the A400M I cant think of any advantages that New Zealand would gain from being an A400M operator.

As the RAAF is already a C-130J operator wouldn't logic dictate that the RNZAF also procure the C-130J in the future?

Exactly that I suppose, longer range, our isolation is a blessing and a hinderance, larger internal volume, we will have small numbers of AC availble so being able to cover in a single lift a huge bonus, sending two birds not always an option.

Just because Aus operates the same as us does not always guarantee assistence, could probably borrow parts in a fix or gain technical advice however both countries still take care of their own kit with supply chains, operators, maintainers etc for example unimogs Oseas(ours theirs exactly the same) however seperate workshops, Q stores for parts and sometimes in the same place. One plus with common AC maybe a plan could be worked for bulk buys of parts at a better rate with Js as the closest(at this stage) operator of A400 would be Malaysia

Makes life easier to use each others equipment with same same however not nescessary with all things, would be advantageous however if a certain type suits our needs better then what our allies have should be taken into account but not used as gospel. I suppose with a different weight/size class we could share tasks dependant on what is optimal ie CN235, C27, C130J, A400, C17 to suit

 

[RegR]

One thing which comes to mind re: mid-ranged MPA. Is there a requirement (or desire) for the aircraft to capable of being armed, or not? I have not come across an indication either way. My personal preference would be for hardpoints and/or a weapon/stores deployment capability.

One never knows when there might be a need to strike a target. Or alternately, drop something like a 'Storepedo' which RAAF AP-3C Orions can deploy. Such a drop capability could prove useful in maritime SAR ops.

Somehow I doubt a weapons suite as I think they will be for basic short range EEZ type patrols leaving the tech stuff to the orions. Our maritime patrol AC are not routinely armed therefore even if they did discover something that required response they would have to return to base anyway, so then orion would be dispatched, cheaper to only gucci up one type as well. For 200m I guess the MPA will be back to basics, just enough to do its primary job.

 

[ngatimozart]

One thing which comes to mind re: mid-ranged MPA. Is there a requirement (or desire) for the aircraft to capable of being armed, or not? I have not come across an indication either way. My personal preference would be for hardpoints and/or a weapon/stores deployment capability.

One never knows when there might be a need to strike a target. Or alternately, drop something like a 'Storepedo' which RAAF AP-3C Orions can deploy. Such a drop capability could prove useful in maritime SAR ops.

Somehow I doubt a weapons suite as I think they will be for basic short range EEZ type patrols leaving the tech stuff to the orions. Our maritime patrol AC are not routinely armed therefore even if they did discover something that required response they would have to return to base anyway, so then orion would be dispatched, cheaper to only gucci up one type as well. For 200m I guess the MPA will be back to basics, just enough to do its primary job.

As far as I am aware our P3Ks have hardpoints and were set up to take Harpoon air to surface and Sidewinder air to air. Theoretically they should also have fittings in the internal weapons to take torpedoes and depth charges. The only time I can think of where we actually have needed to resort to force in our EEZ was back in the 1970's when a 75 Sqn A4K was scrambled from Ohakea to force a Taiwanese fishing vessel to stop. The A4K expended some 20mm rounds to enforce the order. The FV was out running a Loch class patrol boat beating it's way north out of Cook Strait. It would make sense to have some weapons capability on the future MPA, but our politicians haven't always been known for their common sense.

 

[MrConservative]

I know this the wrong place to ask this question but apart from it's longer range and larger internal volume, what key advantages does the A400M offer over the C-130J? Apart from the longer range and larger internal volume offered by the A400M I cant think of any advantages that New Zealand would gain from being an A400M operator.

As the RAAF is already a C-130J operator wouldn't logic dictate that the RNZAF also procure the C-130J in the future?

I do understand the point you are making – but what draws me to the A400M over both the C-130J versions is that it will be an aircraft that will be with us until the middle of this Century. That extra volume, speed and range will over time become more significant for us.

We suffer not only from a tyranny of distance but also a tyranny of scale that clearly effects the tasking’s and tempo’s we operate under and are likely to operate under in the years ahead. Thus we are always going to have to compromise. In my view the best compromise may well be a CASA and A-400M mix.

What other potential options that may eventuate or have been kiteflyers are going to have to be suggested or agreed to by other defence partners. A C-17 cannot be done without the ADF for example.

 

[STURM]

Thus we are always going to have to compromise. In my view the best compromise may well be a CASA and
A-400M mix.

Sorry for being a bit of out touch with current news in the NZ armed forces but has the RNZAF issued a requirement for a medium sized transport like the CN-235, C-27, etc,?

 

[MrConservative]

It is an interesting point you make about the 757's a smaller, VIP transport which would be much better suited, like the RAAF's leased 737 BBJ. I would think leasing one would be cheaper than chartering a VIP transport, though I suppose it depends how much the PM travels.

Removing an aircraft type from the Strategic transport role would certainly reduce costs, the future military transport replacing the 757 is not something I had considered. It certainly make sense though.

The VIP role for the PM is actually a rather small component. I am also of the view that a leased 737 would be a better option but with the priviso that its cost does not come out of Vote NZDF but in fact from the Govt's general operating appropriations. Of course crewed by the RNZAF - but completely separated other than that. The Vet runs up to Casino and Nth Africa another ocassional role could also be handled this way. The strategic role covered by the A400M - though the comfy chair advantage of a B757 v an A400M unfortunately will be missing.

That said your Grandad did manage runs from Changi to Whenuapei in the old days in a Hastings. They were tough in them days...

 

[Lucasnz]

75 Sqn A4K was scrambled from Ohakea to force a Taiwanese fishing vessel to stop. The A4K expended some 20mm rounds to enforce the order. The FV was out running a Loch class patrol boat beating it's way north out of Cook Strait. It would make sense to have some weapons capability on the future MPA, but our politicians haven't always been known for their common sense.

From what I heard about the incident it wasn't so much the Trawler outrunning the Patrol Craft, but that the Patrol Craft's armament was ineffective in deterring or forcing the trawler to stop. That was the scuttlebutt I heard, so it maybe wrong.

Somehow I doubt a weapons suite as I think they will be for basic short range EEZ type patrols leaving the tech stuff to the orions. Our maritime patrol AC are not routinely armed therefore even if they did discover something that required response they would have to return to base anyway, so then orion would be dispatched, cheaper to only gucci up one type as well. For 200m I guess the MPA will be back to basics, just enough to do its primary job.

While the MPA's may not be armed on a regular basis NZ needs needs to maximize the capability in every aircraft we have. The cheap option will appeal to the government, but flexibility is the key to any effective defence force. The ability to fit hard points is a must. Adding the capability at production will also be cheaper than having to retrofit it. This of course ignores the fact that NZ would have to acquire the weapons for the hard points.

 

[recce.k1]

Sorry for being a bit of out touch with current news in the NZ armed forces but has the RNZAF issued a requirement for a medium sized transport like the CN-235, C-27, etc,?

Gov is looking for short ranged MPA's and publically suggested last year they are interested in Q300's (cheap option, as Gov could buy/lease existing a/c operated by Air NZ subsideries) or CN-235. From WhitePaper/supprt docs, it appears the budget is $200M (currently US$154M) and that the timeline for this is 2011 onwards.

I'm not certain that Gov has actually asked for transport taskings specifically (they've not released their requirements yet) but people here are pointing out that aircraft like the CN-235/295 will also allow pax/cargo transport taskings (Q300 pax only) giving flexibility, especially if the modular fit-out approach is taken.

Personally I like the modular CN-235/295 approach mentioned by many of the commentators here so far, it just makes the most sense for the NZDF's needs. Hopefully the larger CN-295 gets the nod, has the modular system pallet (MSP) (that Todjaeger went to alot of trouble of researching for us via his link and seems completely do-able for the NZGov) and hard points are fitted for and not with (I have the impression Govt doesn't need to see them armed for NZ and South Pacific EEZ duties .... but history has shown they would be useful for NZ/SP if the climate were to change ... or if they are tasked to operated out of Aus Northern Territory or SE Asia which could be possible).

As for C-130J's v A-400M's and your earlier question .... actually that is a good question worth thinking about.

I do agree that NZDF needs something larger like A-400M or better, to move its heavier equipment (and more items) more efficiently across long distances, that's Australia (to their staging areas) and/or beyond into SE Asia. Not sure how much they would be used to the SP though (in terms of being fully laden). Antarctica, they would be useful for the summer operations there fully laden but that would probably be no more than a few flights per year. I also agree that such an aircraft will operate for a very long time so NZ Gov should get it right. I'm for greater airlift.

But personally, there could be other options out there, and until the Gov clarifies its thinking viz-a-vie working much closer with Australia (this Joint-ANZAC Force suggestion etc), I'm keeping an open mind.

For example, I would think it would be prudent that NZG and AusG look to see whether they can work closer and realise synergies in areas such as heavy lift (it appears they are from the odd bit of info etc).

Because one issue I can see is that if NZ directly replaced its C-130H's with A-400M's (or better), because of purchasing and operating costs we're only looking at perhaps a 2-3 aircraft (4 max would be a stretch). That only leaves 1 possibly 2 available for a deployment, which can be risky in terms of unavailability. It could be do-able, but at the same time NZDF and its counterparts overseas would want some certainty NZ would actually "turn-up" to an event (even with 5 Hercs NZ sometimes doesn't "turn up" or has to call upon the RAAF to come in and help). The other problem is alot of the time during normal day-to-day support taskings these A-400M's (or better) would not fly fully laden and the bean counters would be noting the inefficiencies and costs (that's why they have targeted the 757's for the same reasons, alas).

An option worth exploring IMO, is to indeed replace the C-130H's with C-130J's. The positives here are the (assumed) lower operating costs (bean counters have already noted the J is cheaper to operate the H model, let alone a new class of aircraft eg A-400M), plus the commonality factor with ADF, USAF etc, in terms of spares, maintenance in theatre, training and std logistics and operating procedures etc (i.e. NZ could easily support an ADF operation in theatre and vice-versa if an incident rendered the support groundcrew inoperative eg motar attack or whatever etc). The J would be NZ's preferred a/c to support activities in the Pacific (eg aid/civil defence, re-supplying Solomon ops), maybe Antarctica at times, exercises within NZ with the other services and paratroop training and so on etc.

NZ's then buy's into the ADF heavy lift programme eg purchase outright a C17 or two (can't really be an A-400M alas, unless we partnered up with eg Malaysia, but that's not where the NZGov-AusGov level focus is at). The NZ C-17 would spend alot of time in Aus for maint, training and supporting ADF, but that's also to cut costs of not needing to duplicate special maint facilities in NZ (they would probably be mainly based in OZ anyway, as they have the infrastruture there already in place. And why would that matter when country's even NZ in the past, base their a/c overseas). This then gets the NZDF heavier hardware (eg LAV etc) to theatre when a situation develops, supports Antarctic ops, shifting tons of cargo to Timor or to 5PDA exercises or joint ADF-NZDF exercises in OZ - as one can see they are critical for these purposes but wouldn't be used all the time (and that's when the C-130J comes in to take over routine tasks). This could then see the 757's sold (and VIP replaced by 737's, or smaller exec jets ,and again there are synergies in operating 737's in terms of eventual P-8 purchase and the ADF 737/P-8's etc).

(The other important aspect to note, is that under CDR, Closer Defence Relations, with Australia, any NZ contributions such as described above are more likely to be afforded higher Govt funding priorities, and are more likely to be ring-fenced from bean counter interference. The Timing is Everything doc spelt this out to a degree in the chapter examining NZ's failed purchase/lease of HMAS Tobruk in the early/mid - 90's).

The same could apply with rotary heavy lift eg Chooks. To me the Chook is what the C-130H was to the NZDF when they were bought, opened up a new world of possibilities and efficiencies. So say 3 NZ Chooks could be bought, again mostly based in Oz for the same training/support reasons. They could be airlifted to NZ in C17's when events/taskings require them or for exercises (as for 99% of NZ internal SAR/CT roles, the NH90's and A109's will cover these - not Chooks). Chooks wouldn't spend their entire lives in Oz, they would be deployed to support NZDF/ADF Army ops overseas such as SAS and to move NZ Army heavy equipment quickly into theatre or an emergency deployment such as a future Timor or Solomons to establish a high-impact/high-threat presence. When the initial heavy lift is done, unless required eg SF, the Chooks leave and the MUH/LUH (NH90/A109) takes their place for day-to-day support. I know this is all just "in an ideal world" sort of thinking, but if NZ can work closer with Oz these ideas can be realised. The benefit to Aus includes additional availability and backup, or releases some ADF Army Chooks for other concurrent tasks etc.

 

[RegR]

From what I heard about the incident it wasn't so much the Trawler outrunning the Patrol Craft, but that the Patrol Craft's armament was ineffective in deterring or forcing the trawler to stop. That was the scuttlebutt I heard, so it maybe wrong.



While the MPA's may not be armed on a regular basis NZ needs needs to maximize the capability in every aircraft we have. The cheap option will appeal to the government, but flexibility is the key to any effective defence force. The ability to fit hard points is a must. Adding the capability at production will also be cheaper than having to retrofit it. This of course ignores the fact that NZ would have to acquire the weapons for the hard points.

If the govt can so easily axe the ACF for 'never being used' Im pretty sure arming the gap fillers for the orions wouldnt be high on their list of options especially when the example of actual use is 35 years old from the axed ACF using a weapon system you cannot even fit to a MPA.

I agree it would be a benefit to have all MPA fitted for/with however just going off our great leaders track record does not give me much hope. The only way I see them getting it is if it is already a stock feature on purchase, if it costs extra it will be cut. These will be like the OPV is to the ANZACs, CN235s do the minor EEZ, SAR, fisheries type stuff and the Orions will be the heavy hitters(and we hav'nt even got them fully sorted yet).

 

[ngatimozart]

From what I heard about the incident it wasn't so much the Trawler outrunning the Patrol Craft, but that the Patrol Craft's armament was ineffective in deterring or forcing the trawler to stop. That was the scuttlebutt I heard, so it maybe wrong.

The Loch class Patrol boast had twin .50 cal mounts forward of the bridge, so they more than match for FV. Also they had SLR (L1A1) rifles on board. Big problem with Loch class was they had the speed but in lively seas they were bad sea boats. They bounced around to much and broken too many bones, so RNZN put a sea state related speed cap on them. Cook Strait is the 2nd or third roughest piece of water in the world. can't remember the order between it and Foveaux strait which is between the South island and Stewart Island which is the 3rd roughest piece of water in the world. Straits of Magellan & Tierra del Feugo are the roughest piece of water in the worls.

 

[Lucasnz]

The Loch class Patrol boast had twin .50 cal mounts forward of the bridge, so they more than match for FV. Also they had SLR (L1A1) rifles on board. Big problem with Loch class was they had the speed but in lively seas they were bad sea boats. They bounced around to much and broken too many bones, so RNZN put a sea state related speed cap on them. Cook Strait is the 2nd or third roughest piece of water in the world. can't remember the order between it and Foveaux strait which is between the South island and Stewart Island which is the 3rd roughest piece of water in the world. Straits of Magellan & Tierra del Feugo are the roughest piece of water in the worls.

There's a summary here about the event. Anyway my observations of the 50 cal at sea aren't that great. We did close range target practice, with a couple of other frigates, on an old Aussie patrol craft in 1988. Do you think we could sink the thing - Nope. .50 cal ball / tracer ammo is pretty much ineffective against trawlers, especially the Russian ones, even has disabling fire. Harriers form the RN finished off the PC.

 

[ngatimozart]

There's a summary here about the event. Anyway my observations of the 50 cal at sea aren't that great. We did close range target practice, with a couple of other frigates, on an old Aussie patrol craft in 1988. Do you think we could sink the thing - Nope. .50 cal ball / tracer ammo is pretty much ineffective against trawlers, especially the Russian ones, even has disabling fire. Harriers form the RN finished off the PC.

Yeah we were doing target practice at sea on IPC with a .50 cal against a 44 gal oil drum half full of petrol not the easiest of things to hit. But point is most FV s hull 1/4 in plate steel so at close range .50 cal ball gonna go straight through & damage some fragile stuff on way through. Operating procedure was short burst across bow. If didn't FV stop then burst into bridge, followed by "hot" boarding. Before could do burst across bow permission had to come from high up, very high up.

 

[gf0012-aust]

There's a summary here about the event. Anyway my observations of the 50 cal at sea aren't that great. We did close range target practice, with a couple of other frigates, on an old Aussie patrol craft in 1988. Do you think we could sink the thing - Nope. .50 cal ball / tracer ammo is pretty much ineffective against trawlers, especially the Russian ones, even has disabling fire. Harriers form the RN finished off the PC.

there are some very tricky new AP rounds avail in .50 cal. the swiss even trialled sabots for them (pretty damn small, but hey, they were showing whats possible).

a .50 cal will go through a hull, but you need to get it right and hope that its got enough energy to reach the drive train and disrupt things.

I was involved in some kinetic tests using .50 cals about 6 years ago and they could cause some serious damage. the idea of warning shots and escalating those shots with an increase in calibre is designed to show resolve and intent in an orderly fashion.

the problem is when they call your bluff and don't stop