NZDF General discussion thread

[MrConservative]

the Airforce at one stage quoted a sum of $90m to get the Macchi's back into a sustainable flying condition, What was covered by that I am not sure but it was after RR pulled the pin on that model of engine. However there are still spare engines and the engines in the fleet are not time X yet so it would still be possible to fly a limited number of macchi's (say 6 to 10 ) for a significant period of time while you got things moving.

Forget the Macchi's. It is a waste of time going over it. In fact this topic has gone around in circles on this thread for years now and has been done to death.

We need to sort out the basic bread and butter stuff in the RNZAF first, before we even start any realistic discussion about rebuilding an air combat capability. The advanced pilot training platform(s), tactical and strategic airlift, naval helicopter upgrade/replacement, the fact that we are still 2 NH-90 short of optimal tasking, short-medium coastal patrol requirements as well as an eventual BAMS capability.

Isn't it about time you headed over to the introduction thread and posted who you are, where you are, and how you are. You have had a few days now to do so and still not done so.

 

[RubiconNZ]

We need to sort out the basic bread and butter stuff in the RNZAF first, before we even start any realistic discussion about rebuilding an air combat capability. The advanced pilot training platform(s), tactical and strategic airlift, naval helicopter upgrade/replacement, the fact that we are still 2 NH-90 short of optimal tasking, short-medium coastal patrol requirements as well as an eventual BAMS capability.

While I agree the ACF is not a priority and concur with the list Mr C has just made, here is something for people to ponder.

Given the time frame involved would it not be better to actively pursue a UCAV squadron, they still have some ways to go before superseding a F-16/18 squadron, but would provide a tremendous leap in capability, I'm sure if we were to kick in some development money it would be a good sign of out intentions, if the NZDF were to acquire maritime patrol UAVs then there will be a basic training program in place.

This would result some significant savings from reestablishing a manned ACF, no lead in trainers, no Pilot pay or expense of training.

The way I see it the main three roles of a future ACF would be:

1. Maritime Interdiction/Patrol
2. Air Support for Ground forces
3. Limited domestic Air Patrol

As it stands the MQ-9 Reaper can employ the AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, GBU-12 Paveway II and GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munitions integration of the Stingers is underway or being tested. According to some sights it can employ the Sidewinder, though nothing definitive enough to truly be sure of this.
A full load out seems to be 14 Hellfires or 4 Hellfires and 2 Paveways or JDAMS.

This is with a combat range 1100 miles. According to the USAF fact file one unit = US$54 Million this includes four aircraft and sensors. We would of course have some additional set up costs, armament, initial operator training.

The Reaper would work for a ground support role for most environments the NZDF would operate in low intensity UN deployments. It would certainly with the right sensor fit out work well for Maritime patrol, and even domestic air patrol while it may not be able to chase down a stray airline it could be put for important events. World Cup, CHOGM, APEC etc.

While I don't think its suitable for NZ to meet all those requirement it highlights what we could get for a relatively low cost at the current rate of around NZ$200 Million for a dozen Reapers. Given that the Macchi refurb has been just been listed at $90 million there is potential for good value for money.

A next generation UAV or UCAV with a faster speed jet turbine engine as opposed to the turboprop and a greater stand off weapon, such as a JSOW-C or similar.

The RNZAF was widely known for having one of the best maritime strike forces in the world, perhaps we could reinstate that reputation with the worlds first Maritime Strike UCAV squadron.

I know I am simplifying things but I would be interested in all your thoughts on this. Feel free to tear down the idea.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Just to get it clear in my mind what is the purpose for Advanced Pilot Training in regards to the RNZAF? Given we have no ACF is it the multi-engine side or the navigation and systems training or a combination of both? How important is it that the RNZAF has it as a organic capacity.

 

[gf0012-aust]

perhaps we could reinstate that reputation with the worlds first Maritime Strike UCAV squadron.

I know I am simplifying things but I would be interested in all your thoughts on this. Feel free to tear down the idea.

I've seen a few reports on proposed UAV maritime strike concepts (Mariner and Global Hawk). we're really a long way away from it reaching fruition yet. there a number of issues:

doctrine development
doctrine (mainly legal issues)
doctrine (OODA)
doctrine - companion management
technology limits (flight profile issues and weapons carriage)

it is going to come, but its early days yet

 

[Todjaeger]

While I agree the ACF is not a priority and concur with the list Mr C has just made, here is something for people to ponder.

Given the time frame involved would it not be better to actively pursue a UCAV squadron, they still have some ways to go before superseding a F-16/18 squadron, but would provide a tremendous leap in capability, I'm sure if we were to kick in some development money it would be a good sign of out intentions, if the NZDF were to acquire maritime patrol UAVs then there will be a basic training program in place.

This would result some significant savings from reestablishing a manned ACF, no lead in trainers, no Pilot pay or expense of training.

The way I see it the main three roles of a future ACF would be:

1. Maritime Interdiction/Patrol
2. Air Support for Ground forces
3. Limited domestic Air Patrol

As it stands the MQ-9 Reaper can employ the AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, GBU-12 Paveway II and GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munitions integration of the Stingers is underway or being tested. According to some sights it can employ the Sidewinder, though nothing definitive enough to truly be sure of this.
A full load out seems to be 14 Hellfires or 4 Hellfires and 2 Paveways or JDAMS.


This is with a combat range 1100 miles. According to the USAF fact file one unit = US$54 Million this includes four aircraft and sensors. We would of course have some additional set up costs, armament, initial operator training.

The Reaper would work for a ground support role for most environments the NZDF would operate in low intensity UN deployments. It would certainly with the right sensor fit out work well for Maritime patrol, and even domestic air patrol while it may not be able to chase down a stray airline it could be put for important events. World Cup, CHOGM, APEC etc.

While I don't think its suitable for NZ to meet all those requirement it highlights what we could get for a relatively low cost at the current rate of around NZ$200 Million for a dozen Reapers. Given that the Macchi refurb has been just been listed at $90 million there is potential for good value for money.

A next generation UAV or UCAV with a faster speed jet turbine engine as opposed to the turboprop and a greater stand off weapon, such as a JSOW-C or similar.

The RNZAF was widely known for having one of the best maritime strike forces in the world, perhaps we could reinstate that reputation with the worlds first Maritime Strike UCAV squadron.

I know I am simplifying things but I would be interested in all your thoughts on this. Feel free to tear down the idea.

I will need to sit down and go over the idea a bit. Some initial concerns I would have though are with regards to overall sensor awareness, comms, and loiter time.

One area which I am uncertain that the NZDF would be 'up to' the task of operating maritime strike UCAVs, is whether or not the comms and datalink systems, as well as the requisite amount of bandwidth, is available to the NZDF. IIRC that was one of a number of areas where the NZDF was looking at expanding the capability over the long term. AFAIK though, instead of a joint Gov't-MilSat purchase, NZ purchased some capacity from a civilian Sat.

On a related note, while the MQ-9 Reaper is a CAS/ISR asset, my impression of the sensor systems is that they are not a 'wide area' set, like would be found aboard an MPA. This could lead to employment issues, since one problem area NZ can have is an incomplete picture of the environs in and around NZ.

Lastly, while a combat range of 1,000 n miles is good, IMO a loiter time would be more useful for maritime ops, unless NZ were to acquire some OTHR system which could be used to que MPA or UCAVs. Otherwise the 'targets' would either be detected by MPA (in which case why does the MPA not just shoot at them itself?) or the 'target' would be detected by nav radars on the approaches to a Kiwi port. By which time, it is really too late.

Further down the line, once some of the logistical, support and command and control issues are (at least more) sorted, then such a capability could be more viable. Some form of high loiter time maritime patrol UAV is likely under consideration for NZ, as it is for the US and Oz, but IMO that would require a larger, higher flying UAV with greater endurance and sensor 'payload'.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

NZG could lease them - its an emerging trend. and for the next 15+/- years there would be some training, logistics and "other" synergies




If we're trying to lower mutual raise, train (some), and sustain costs, then going Gripen would be anathema to the concept.

still, Gripen would provide some DACT options.....

That it would. I've been told on the Internet afterall that the Gripen is apparently a long ranged (greater than F-35), high altitude capable, supercruising platform with extreme agility, so we definitely need that sort of training, given how "outclassed" we are within our region...

The only thing it is generally stopping it from being a Genuine 5th Gen, is the lack of LO capability, though according to some it's small size and use of some composites more than makes up for this...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Some form of high loiter time maritime patrol UAV is likely under consideration for NZ, as it is for the US and Oz, but IMO that would require a larger, higher flying UAV with greater endurance and sensor 'payload'.

at the moment, with the current crop of UAV's its either loiter and range, or weapons

the performance and flight profiles for those platforms with good sensor fit out, and endurance does not match those of a need to carry weapons.

at a maritime surveillance level, a lot of time is spent changing altitudes within the track - you can't always zero down with the onboard sensors - all those flight changes impacts upon absolute endurance.

this is recollection though and was based on a conversation I had with someone who had done surveillance evaluations of Mariner, GHawk, Heron and PredatorB

 

[Todjaeger]

at a maritime surveillance level, a lot of time is spent changing altitudes within the track - you can't always zero down with the onboard sensors - all those flight changes impacts upon absolute endurance.

That has been something which has caused me to wonder about the P-8A Poseidon. While a B737-800 w/-900 wings is an efficient jet at the proper altitudes, if the MPA keeps needing to ascend and descend from cruising altitude, just how efficiently can it loiter?

Or is there the possibility that aircraft like the Poseidon might start to deploy and control dismounts, which could then be sent to 'take a look' if something seemed out of place?

-Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

That has been something which has caused me to wonder about the P-8A Poseidon. While a B737-800 w/-900 wings is an efficient jet at the proper altitudes, if the MPA keeps needing to ascend and descend from cruising altitude, just how efficiently can it loiter?

Or is there the possibility that aircraft like the Poseidon might start to deploy and control dismounts, which could then be sent to 'take a look' if something seemed out of place?

-Cheers

the big blue bits get around the problem and is the future vision for some.

I attended a UAV conf in the UK 3 years ago and the big discussion was dismounts working at lower altitudes with the manned assets and ground controllers dealing with the actual combat picture.

I would add, that one of the models included GH upstairs and Mariner or Heron doing the gun bunny job.

IMO, an armed GH never ever made sense as its strength was upstairs contributing to the picture. Always play to an assets strengths - don't make it an all singing all dancing bear when its not its forte

 

[RubiconNZ]

I've seen a few reports on proposed UAV maritime strike concepts (Mariner and Global Hawk). we're really a long way away from it reaching fruition yet. there a number of issues:

doctrine development
doctrine (mainly legal issues)
doctrine (OODA)
doctrine - companion management
technology limits (flight profile issues and weapons carriage)

it is going to come, but its early days yet

I get the impression doctrine is important .
I'm glad for that information as I (public) have seen little progression in the Maritime side of UAV operations, the deferment of Australian BAMS participation the USN project delays etc, while I am sure their are a variety of reasons for the delays my perception is there has not been the same linear progression of development as has been seen with Land focused UAV, I suppose 10 years of land war will focus priorities. The increasing attention on Piracy may see a readjustment on some of these spending priorities I would assume.

Given that this development track is sometime off, and the nature of the Maritime capability and its importance to New Zealand, I can only hope that the NZDF would see the importance of such capabilities and invest the development side, devote some Kiwi ingenuity to something with no greater implications than to NZ.

The development of legal doctrine regarding the use of UAV's of any sort, let alone armed version I think will be fascinating to follow.

 

[RubiconNZ]

I will need to sit down and go over the idea a bit. Some initial concerns I would have though are with regards to overall sensor awareness, comms, and loiter time.

One area which I am uncertain that the NZDF would be 'up to' the task of operating maritime strike UCAVs, is whether or not the comms and datalink systems, as well as the requisite amount of bandwidth, is available to the NZDF. IIRC that was one of a number of areas where the NZDF was looking at expanding the capability over the long term. AFAIK though, instead of a joint Gov't-MilSat purchase, NZ purchased some capacity from a civilian Sat.

On a related note, while the MQ-9 Reaper is a CAS/ISR asset, my impression of the sensor systems is that they are not a 'wide area' set, like would be found aboard an MPA. This could lead to employment issues, since one problem area NZ can have is an incomplete picture of the environs in and around NZ.

Lastly, while a combat range of 1,000 n miles is good, IMO a loiter time would be more useful for maritime ops, unless NZ were to acquire some OTHR system which could be used to que MPA or UCAVs. Otherwise the 'targets' would either be detected by MPA (in which case why does the MPA not just shoot at them itself?) or the 'target' would be detected by nav radars on the approaches to a Kiwi port. By which time, it is really too late.

Further down the line, once some of the logistical, support and command and control issues are (at least more) sorted, then such a capability could be more viable. Some form of high loiter time maritime patrol UAV is likely under consideration for NZ, as it is for the US and Oz, but IMO that would require a larger, higher flying UAV with greater endurance and sensor 'payload'.

-Cheers

Yeah I was worried about posting my UCAV suggestion without doing some solid research about it, I had just been reading up on the Reaper when the Macchi upgrade post was made.

Some work was done on the Predator for Maritime Surveillance with the Mariner version though I am having difficulty finding more information on it.

Just to clarify the UCAV's would to fill the ACF role rather than the MPA role, in the same way the Skyhawks did Maritime patrol in conjunction with the Orions.
So in the 20's UCAV's with P-8's and or Ocean Sentry's etc.

Bandwidth is something I foolishly failed to consider, when we are talking satellite space we rapidly start escalating initial costs, this would also explain why the Germans were offered 5 Reapers and 4 ground stations with material and training support for 205 million, I imagine the US establishment costs would be much lower due to the preexisting US facilities and equipment.

 

[Rob c]

Sorry about the intro I am still find my way arround.
However on the subject of the re- intro of an air combat ability it should be note that I earlier note that without such an ability we are basically defenceles and sooner or later some may take advantage of that. As was noted today that it takes up to 15 years to establish a viable strike ability. the reason this is important is that we ar not going to get 15 years warnig of a changing situation. Keep in mind we live in a world of increasing poulation and reducing resorces plus global worming is expected to render signifcant areas of productive land into desert. the London University department of strategic studies expects that it will not be long before wars will be started of the simple resorses of,water food and productive land, We have a suplus of all three and may in the future find that we become a strategic target. With all the best will in the world a couple of NH90'S or arcaft to chase fishing boats is not going to help us when the C--p hits the fan. No one knows when this will happen, it may be 5 years or 50 years or 150 years, but by not doing anything we are gambling with our childrens and granchildrens futures. We may win the gamble or we may lose, but should we be gambling at all ?

 

[Rob c]

I forgot ot link my reply. However I agree with priorities and mine would be
1. Defend NZ
2. Area Defence
3.Rescue
4 Control of our economic zone
5 Peace keeping
6 anything else
And equipment priorities should reflect this
As our budget is never going to cover everthing we must mget No 1 right first then move to no2 and so on.

 

[ngatimozart]

Sorry about the intro I am still find my way arround.
However on the subject of the re- intro of an air combat ability it should be note that I earlier note that without such an ability we are basically defenceles and sooner or later some may take advantage of that. As was noted today that it takes up to 15 years to establish a viable strike ability. the reason this is important is that we ar not going to get 15 years warnig of a changing situation. Keep in mind we live in a world of increasing poulation and reducing resorces plus global worming is expected to render signifcant areas of productive land into desert. the London University department of strategic studies expects that it will not be long before wars will be started of the simple resorses of,water food and productive land, We have a suplus of all three and may in the future find that we become a strategic target. With all the best will in the world a couple of NH90'S or arcaft to chase fishing boats is not going to help us when the C--p hits the fan. No one knows when this will happen, it may be 5 years or 50 years or 150 years, but by not doing anything we are gambling with our childrens and granchildrens futures. We may win the gamble or we may lose, but should we be gambling at all ?

Do not make claims about expectations of what global warming will or will not do. You need to have a very good understanding of the science involved and that science is multi disciplinary. The IPCC is highly politicised and what reports they release, for example the 2007 IPCC Report, are based upon a scientific review by experts of the published literature. Then it is distilled into a report which is then sent to governments for their input. The final released report is a watered down version which has been altered because various governments have wanted different things taken out. I am a geographer and my background is coastal science and climatology. There is a considerable amount of debate within scientific community regarding actual values of climate change, that is the amount of mean sea level rise or increase to mean air temperature and mean soil temperature and so on.

Yes I agree that with a logarithmic increase in population and a decrease in resources because of increased demand there will be wars fought over resources and two very basic resources: water and arable land. That will not only occur between nations but also between populations within nations as the human population increases and the water and arable land decreases.

One further item. Your web browser should have spell check on it. It is a good technique to use it because it saves other people having to edit your material to make it more readable. Secondly someone reading somebody elses material which has a lot of basic spelling errors in will also start to wonder what else is wrong with that material. I am not saying this as a put down but as a critique and hopefully as a help. Don't get me wrong, I make heaps of mistakes and more than once have had to re edit posts I have made. You make some good points and you are an asset to the forum but please just check your posts for spelling and grammatical errors. Many thanks.

 

[Rob c]

Do not make claims about expectations of what global warming will or will not do. You need to have a very good understanding of the science involved and that science is multi disciplinary. The IPCC is highly politicised and what reports they release, for example the 2007 IPCC Report, are based upon a scientific review by experts of the published literature. Then it is distilled into a report which is then sent to governments for their input. The final released report is a watered down version which has been altered because various governments have wanted different things taken out. I am a geographer and my background is coastal science and climatology. There is a considerable amount of debate within scientific community regarding actual values of climate change, that is the amount of mean sea level rise or increase to mean air temperature and mean soil temperature and so on.

Yes I agree that with a logarithmic increase in population and a decrease in resources because of increased demand there will be wars fought over resources and two very basic resources: water and arable land. That will not only occur between nations but also between populations within nations as the human population increases and the water and arable land decreases.

One further item. Your web browser should have spell check on it. It is a good technique to use it because it saves other people having to edit your material to make it more readable. Secondly someone reading somebody elses material which has a lot of basic spelling errors in will also start to wonder what else is wrong with that material. I am not saying this as a put down but as a critique and hopefully as a help. Don't get me wrong, I make heaps of mistakes and more than once have had to re edit posts I have made. You make some good points and you are an asset to the forum but please just check your posts for spelling and grammatical errors. Many thanks.

Sorry about the spelling I have not found the spell check and my spelling has always been lousy I was always better at maths physics etc.The global warming data I was using was that which was quoted in the London Univesity Stategic Study of 2010, so it is up to date. On the question of Helicopters, why not rebuild some of the UH1h's to Uh1t standard. you would have a mixed fleet which NZ forces dislike, but there are plenty of forces world wide which live with this sucessfully and we would get 3 or 4 choppers for the price of ! NH90.
A final comment I am in the retirement age group so what others find easy on a computor takes me a little longer

 

[MrConservative]

I forgot ot link my reply. However I agree with priorities and mine would be
1. Defend NZ
2. Area Defence
3.Rescue
4 Control of our economic zone
5 Peace keeping
6 anything else
And equipment priorities should reflect this
As our budget is never going to cover everthing we must mget No 1 right first then move to no2 and so on.

You are just repeating a mantra that you have posted on a number of times over the last few days regarding the ACF and Defence. It is a broken record. Enough. No more!

Also a bit more relevance and analysis than a list is required here.

Also in the future please sort out your spelling, grammar and punctuation because frankly it seriously detracts from your credibility. The odd mistake here and there is OK, but a number of your posts are such a literal and visual distraction, I have had to spend time re-editing them out of sheer kindness towards other posters/readers. A couple of complaints have come through. Age is no excuse whether one is 16 or 66.

Lastly go to the intro thread for new members and write up your background.

 

[ngatimozart]

Sorry about the spelling I have not found the spell check and my spelling has always been lousy I was always better at maths physics etc.The global warming data I was using was that which was quoted in the London Univesity Stategic Study of 2010, so it is up to date. On the question of Helicopters, why not rebuild some of the UH1h's to Uh1t standard. you would have a mixed fleet which NZ forces dislike, but there are plenty of forces world wide which live with this sucessfully and we would get 3 or 4 choppers for the price of ! NH90.
A final comment I am in the retirement age group so what others find easy on a computor takes me a little longer

Thats cool. They would have quoted the 2007 stuff because that's the latest report. One due out this year. The Irowockka is past it's time in the NZDF. As much as I like it, it no longer meets the mission specs. Also very hard to make a quiet approach in one of those. NH90 is new technology and is having teething problems, so whilst I like it's projected capabilities I hope it lives up to expectations. I think we should have 10 operational plus 1 for spares. Also I think it wouldn't be silly grabbing the RAN Kaman fleet. Might get them at a reasonable price. This and possible uses has been suggested elsewhere in this thread.

We have to live in a realistic world. I think you need to reread the DWP especially the part that lists the NZG Defence priorities . Look at No 1 and then No 2. Follow that by the rest of the priorities. Like it or not that is NZG policy for the next 25 years or until it is changed. The No 2 priority is very important. Basically it states that any attack on Australia is an attack on NZ and NZ will go to Australia's aid & defence. And that my friend is where I am starting to think our greatest challenge lies. I am starting to think that in our discussions we need to look at potential threats to Australia. Having determined what they may be, then we can look at possible force structures that will be best suited to aid Australia and also meet the other priorities, objectives and commitments identified in the DWP plus commitments we have now.

 

[Rob c]

Thats cool. They would have quoted the 2007 stuff because that's the latest report. One due out this year. The Irowockka is past it's time in the NZDF. As much as I like it, it no longer meets the mission specs. Also very hard to make a quiet approach in one of those. NH90 is new technology and is having teething problems, so whilst I like it's projected capabilities I hope it lives up to expectations. I think we should have 10 operational plus 1 for spares. Also I think it wouldn't be silly grabbing the RAN Kaman fleet. Might get them at a reasonable price. This and possible uses has been suggested elsewhere in this thread.

We have to live in a realistic world. I think you need to reread the DWP especially the part that lists the NZG Defence priorities . Look at No 1 and then No 2. Follow that by the rest of the priorities. Like it or not that is NZG policy for the next 25 years or until it is changed. The No 2 priority is very important. Basically it states that any attack on Australia is an attack on NZ and NZ will go to Australia's aid & defence. And that my friend is where I am starting to think our greatest challenge lies. I am starting to think that in our discussions we need to look at potential threats to Australia. Having determined what they may be, then we can look at possible force structures that will be best suited to aid Australia and also meet the other priorities, objectives and commitments identified in the DWP plus commitments we have now.

I am not sugesting that UH1T's would be front line but rather to back up the NH90"s I agree that an attack on Australia is more likely than a direct atack on NZ but we must not believe that we for some reason have a special immunity to attack as history teaches us it is the weak that are attacked first . A successful attack on Australia would be devistating to the NZ economy and would lead to masive unemployment, significantly reduced imcome for the government and a vastly increased requirement for defence expenditure, the level of which most people would not understand. For example in the second world war NZ spent one million pounds per day on defence this may not sound much now but the whole NZ budget for 1938 was $87m, so you can see that it required over 4 times the peace time budget to fight a war. This would leave nothing for anything but the basics, any benifits would be history. The armed forces would have to be expanded rappibly, but unfortunately most could not be considered to be any better than armed civilians and if commited high casualties would result.
It is interesting to note that what enabled Hitler to expand the German armed forces rapidly was a policy started in 1925 which every German private was trained as a SNCO and given some experience in the role and every SNCO was trained as an officer and rotated through experience sessions, so that when Hitler came to power the basis for rapid expansion was already in place so the privates became NCO's and the NCO's became Officers and new privates were recruted. Perhaps there is a lesson there

 

[Rob c]

You are just repeating a mantra that you have posted on a number of times over the last few days regarding the ACF and Defence. It is a broken record. Enough. No more!

Also a bit more relevance and analysis than a list is required here.

Also in the future please sort out your spelling, grammar and punctuation because frankly it seriously detracts from your credibility. The odd mistake here and there is OK, but a number of your posts are such a literal and visual distraction, I have had to spend time re-editing them out of sheer kindness towards other posters/readers. A couple of complaints have come through. Age is no excuse whether one is 16 or 66.

Lastly go to the intro thread for new members and write up your background.

I am sorry to keep this shot but a little help were to find things would help and as to the DWP my point is that they got it wrong and where to busy looking at the detail and no one looked at the big picture

 

[gf0012-aust]

a little help were to find things would help

Intros & Off Topic - Defense Technology & Military Forum