NZDF General discussion thread

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Haven't had a chance to see the latest Navy Today, but perhaps the vessels are related to the picture on page 14 of this presentation (link) from last year's NZ Defence Industry Association forum. Anyone have details on the REA boat? Presumably that's it on the left. Looks very small.

The other presentations on the site are well worth a look. Probably more suitable for discussion in the NZDF General discussion thread though.

Chis73
Chis originally posted this on the RNZN thread.http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/n...navy-discussions-updates-4854-168/#post240541

A very quick comment as haven't time at moment. I note that the images on page 28 used for the Future Air Transport Capability is the C27J and and A400M so that gives an indiction of what the services are thinking. We know that the Future Air Transport Capability study and process starts this year. I also note that the author is army so this is a triservice presentation. Pity no text with the graphics.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Chis originally posted this on the RNZN thread.http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/n...navy-discussions-updates-4854-168/#post240541

I note that the images on page 28 used for the Future Air Transport Capability is the C27J and and A400M so that gives an indiction of what the services are thinking.
On the 18th slide titled Offensive Support along the bottom, third image from the left, is a Shornet. :D

Nice of them to include that. I bet they realise deep down that the 6th slide of the presentation titled End State 2035 has another great big capability hole other than the Canterbury.
 

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
On the 18th slide titled Offensive Support along the bottom, third image from the left, is a Shornet. :D

Nice of them to include that. I bet they realise deep down that the 6th slide of the presentation titled End State 2035 has another great big capability hole other than the Canterbury.
Yes I had a chuckle when I saw the Shornet, c'os there's nothing specifically related to it in the text! Just a little joke / dig that someone's slipped into the presentation!
 

exported_kiwi

New Member
Chis originally posted this on the RNZN thread.http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/n...navy-discussions-updates-4854-168/#post240541

A very quick comment as haven't time at moment. I note that the images on page 28 used for the Future Air Transport Capability is the C27J and and A400M so that gives an indiction of what the services are thinking. We know that the Future Air Transport Capability study and process starts this year. I also note that the author is army so this is a triservice presentation. Pity no text with the graphics.
Forgive me for appearing to be so dumb but, given the posts above that refer to the NZDF replacing some RF units with TF units, to save a paltry 49million/year, why in the name of all that's holy do we need these aircraft to deploy units we no longer may have, and if we do, will no longer be as capable as they are now? Is the NZDF needing to go on suicide watch or something....sheesh!
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Forgive me for appearing to be so dumb but, given the posts above that refer to the NZDF replacing some RF units with TF units, to save a paltry 49million/year, why in the name of all that's holy do we need these aircraft to deploy units we no longer may have, and if we do, will no longer be as capable as they are now? Is the NZDF needing to go on suicide watch or something....sheesh!
The Gardiner Report is the opinions and recommendations of its authors and was mostly written over 18 months ago. It is an avenue of advice - that all. It is not policy.

However elements of it have born some influence in a number of areas already. Its findings have not been widely circulated or need to be as they have already been absorbed into defence planning. Many of the ideas around the future reserve are already being implemented. Battalion rationalisation into 3 Infantry Battalions and the sending back to Corps of other units and elements that were clustered into the old BG's. Those 3 reorganised infantry battions will be better equiped, better trained, more focused and of a higher standard than in the past.

What did end up in the media has been cooked as per usual. The concept of the higher readiness reserve has been around for 25 years in one form or another - something iirc Quigley first purported back in 1988. The NZDF planners have recognised that it is required to operate at two distinct operational levels and for a small limited resource starved force (both in capable manpower and in capable equipment) this is becoming difficult to achieve. The Gardiner report suggests that the regular forces focus on long term higher level training and operations (i.e UNSC Chp VII spectrum stuff) and an enhanced focused reserve capability can focus on stuff such as HumSupt/ DRO, SASO et al (i.e UNSC Chp VI spectrum) and still round out capacity with respect to surge continency when required to met a long term sustainable rotation. It is a far better HR solution to the experience utilised in recent years in using TF and Regulars. Its all about getting a better focused reserve that can do the job and take the strain off the thrashed Regulars.

For whatever the media hysteria there are no plans to cut the NZDF regular force size further following the current attrition plan. The money "saved" does not leave vote Defence - it actually gets reallocated to buy things that frankly should have been bought years ago by the previous government.
 

chis73

Active Member
Having had a chance to digest the NZDIA presentations, some salient points:

a) Looks like the Kingair B200 will be kept on as the Multi-engine trainer once it's no longer required as the Advanced Air Trainer. Lord knows why? Surely the lease costs must substantially increase if they reduce the fleet down to 3 (from 5). I still think a better option would be to go for 2nd-hand Beechcraft 1900Ds. You could share capital costs of a simulator with Eagle Air, as well as reduce servicing costs with a bigger fleet (Eagle Air have 18, 3rd largest fleet of 1900Ds in the world). I recall Eagle Air send their pilots to Toronto for simulator training (can't be cheap). Hell, the Government could even compel them to buy into a simulator as they effectively own the company through their majority stake in Air NZ. There is even a digital cockpit upgrade now available from Rockwell Collins (and others?). There isn't much in the 1900Ds size-bracket available at present, so I suspect Eagle Air will be holding on to them for a while yet.

b) There is now a proper Canterbury remediation project (see here). Rather than alcove doors, it seems the preferred option is to move the RHIBs higher & forward (under where the LCMs are stored). Didn't know there were problems with the Canterbury's mission & medical systems as well (from the link above).

c) LAVs are getting an upgrade (are they that bashed up already?). I assume this would be similar to the US Stryker upgrades (V-shaped hull etc).

d) I wouldn't put much creedence into the pictures used (is that a Norwegian Coast Guard 6000t Svalbard ice-patrol ship on the Littoral Warfare page?)

e) No capital injections until 2020 (but even then only an "expectation"). Grrr!

f) C-130s to be retired from 2017. Unlikely after all the money they have just spent I think.

From the latest Navy Today, Resolution will pay off at the end of April. Does Manawanui take over Hydrographic duties at that point? Or, will there be nothing (apart from NIWA's Tangaroa) until the LWSV comes along?

Also noticed a mention of Seasprites being replaced in the 2011-2015 timeframe. If that's the case then I suppose it's a one-horse (MH-60R) race in the replacement stakes. Lynx Wildcat will only be entering RN service in 2015 - and will still have some development ahead of it at that point (eg. Sea Skua replacement integration).

Chis73
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Having had a chance to digest the NZDIA presentations, some salient points:

a) Looks like the Kingair B200 will be kept on as the Multi-engine trainer once it's no longer required as the Advanced Air Trainer. Lord knows why? Surely the lease costs must substantially increase if they reduce the fleet down to 3 (from 5). I still think a better option would be to go for 2nd-hand Beechcraft 1900Ds. You could share capital costs of a simulator with Eagle Air, as well as reduce servicing costs with a bigger fleet (Eagle Air have 18, 3rd largest fleet of 1900Ds in the world). I recall Eagle Air send their pilots to Toronto for simulator training (can't be cheap). Hell, the Government could even compel them to buy into a simulator as they effectively own the company through their majority stake in Air NZ. There is even a digital cockpit upgrade now available from Rockwell Collins (and others?). There isn't much in the 1900Ds size-bracket available at present, so I suspect Eagle Air will be holding on to them for a while yet.
IIRC the MEPT request for Information went out late last year and the replies will have been received, however I could be wrong. The B200 leases will have been extended only as an interim measure. It is current thinking around forums that the MPET aircraft will include an EEZ Maritime Patrol capability that the Beech King Air B350 (i) ER has. IIRC it can also undertake some basic ISR as well.

b) There is now a proper Canterbury remediation project (see here). Rather than alcove doors, it seems the preferred option is to move the RHIBs higher & forward (under where the LCMs are stored). Didn't know there were problems with the Canterbury's mission & medical systems as well (from the link above).

c) LAVs are getting an upgrade (are they that bashed up already?). I assume this would be similar to the US Stryker upgrades (V-shaped hull etc).

d) I wouldn't put much creedence into the pictures used (is that a Norwegian Coast Guard 6000t Svalbard ice-patrol ship on the Littoral Warfare page?)

e) No capital injections until 2020 (but even then only an "expectation"). Grrr!

f) C-130s to be retired from 2017. Unlikely after all the money they have just spent I think.
We know that the new airlift capability project study starts this year and will be finished say late 2013 - mid 2014 at latest in order to inform 2015 DWP. Personally I think 2017 is a bit ambitious for replacement of C130LEPs just because the amount of time it takes NZG to make a decision about capex on big ticket defence items. However, one just never knows. The money spent on the C130LEP was a Labour Govt decision and in reality a political ideological decision driven by a PM who didn't want to buy equip off US so a grossly expensive illogical program undertaken to support a PMs illogical ideological ego. The present Govt could if it is reelected to a third term in 2014 make great political capital out of that and bring forward the purchase of first aircraft to 2017.

From the latest Navy Today, Resolution will pay off at the end of April. Does Manawanui take over Hydrographic duties at that point? Or, will there be nothing (apart from NIWA's Tangaroa) until the LWSV comes along?

Also noticed a mention of Seasprites being replaced in the 2011-2015 timeframe. If that's the case then I suppose it's a one-horse (MH-60R) race in the replacement stakes. Lynx Wildcat will only be entering RN service in 2015 - and will still have some development ahead of it at that point (eg. Sea Skua replacement integration).

Chis73

Where does the NT say about the Seasprites demise? I have mine but have only had a quick flick thru. I think the logical path will be the seasprits exit stage left and purchase of MH60Rs The Wildcat has just completed it's first sea trials and IIRC is expected to go IOC with RN late 2012. Wildcat Completes Royal Navy Sea Trials | Navy & Maritime Security News at DefenceTalk So it might be a contender but I think it's price will be high in comparison to the Romeo because the Romeo is already in production and at greater numbers, so economies of scale start to figure. Secondly the Romeo is the choice of the RAN and we are moving our purchasing and equip closer to the ADF. Thirdly, with the Romeo support will be available from the US PACFLT logistics train.
 

chis73

Active Member
The B200 leases will have been extended only as an interim measure.
See Des Ashton's presentation on the NZDIA website. If there is one person who would know for sure - then I guess it would be that bloke.

Re-reading it, perhaps I have misinterpreted the statement. It doesn't actually say that the B200s themselves will continue, just that a similar contract will be let, with the winning aircraft moving into the multi-engine trainer role when the advanced trainers come online.


Where does the NT say about the Seasprites demise?
IIRC, it is in very small text in a timeline at the bottom of a page (I think maybe the one that has the story on Resolution). Could be a Freudian slip I suppose.

Chis73
 
Last edited:

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Re-reading it, perhaps I have misinterpreted the statement. It doesn't actually say that the B200s themselves will continue, just that a similar contract will be let, with the winning aircraft moving into the multi-engine trainer role when the advanced trainers come online. Chis73
As for the MPSR/MEPT capability it is post 2015 and after the APT has been selected and bedded down. Thus they are not going to be a concurrent order-acquisition process. I understand they will roll the B200’s lease over (adjusted for numbers) via GETS until the replacement comes in which is likely to be an ISR wired B350-ER. There is nothing wrong with the B200 as a MEPT and Eyeball Mk1 Coastwatcher in the interim period - it was just hopeless as an advanced trainer.
 

kingsaji

New Member
New zealand does not need fighter aircraft. It would be a waste of money. they would not have enough to deploy oversea's and they couldn't afford aircraft good enough to actually be of use.

As New zealand will never come under air attack it does not need fighter jets.

New Zealand should have excellent ocean patrolling. Global Hawk and P-3 Orions are all New Zealand would need to perform this mission.

For oversea's conflicts New Zealand should put most of its money into having a small elite army with state of the art equipment. Now that would be useful, all it needs is enough soldiers to have a continual presense oversea's. New Zealand already has a very solid foundation as its quite lean and mean already it just needs more money injected.

If the pay rate was good enough it would definitely stop them coming to Australia. By looking at the New Zealand Rugby team imagine the New Zealand special forces :D

Logistics wise C-130's are too short ranged to reach anywhere but Australia. Renting C-17's off Australia when needed will be all thats required. If New Zealand bought two C-17's and based them with the Australian C-17's that would be sensational. However New Zealand doesn't have anything worse deploying anyway :p

Global hawk would probably be the best purchase as it is cheaper to operate than the P-3 and can cover a larger area. New Zealand should aim to be able to do an East Timor like invasion, That would a good goal to set. Global hawk could even perform close air support.
i think it would be a great assumption to say a country will or cant come under air threat and that is supposedly the reason it lacks airpower
 

Zach Z.

New Member
NZ's Political Will

If New Zealand is to become a major regional power on a larger and more prominent scale then it will have to have the political will and guts of one. A good example of taking that first step is to close off its territorial waters to the Japanese Whaling/Research Fleet. If they can prove that they can do that effectivly and (this is key) not give into pressure from the Japanese government which will come. Historically they haven't been able to do that. Another example being a few years ago when the Sea Shepherd vessel Ady Gil (A New Zealand flagged ship) was rammed by the Shonan Maru #2 and NZ did nothing to investigate the collision amongst stern protests from its population, then they "washed their hands" of the captain's fate when he attempted a letigitimate citizen's arrest for the attempted murder and destruction of his vessel. This was the perfect opportunity for NZ to make a statement on an International scale and they basically blew it.
Militarily, the framework for expansion is there, but it all comes down to whether or not they can use whatever they gain in the proper way to become a more prominent regional power.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
If New Zealand is to become a major regional power on a larger and more prominent scale then it will have to have the political will and guts of one. A good example of taking that first step is to close off its territorial waters to the Japanese Whaling/Research Fleet. If they can prove that they can do that effectivly and (this is key) not give into pressure from the Japanese government which will come. Historically they haven't been able to do that. Another example being a few years ago when the Sea Shepherd vessel Ady Gil (A New Zealand flagged ship) was rammed by the Shonan Maru #2 and NZ did nothing to investigate the collision amongst stern protests from its population, then they "washed their hands" of the captain's fate when he attempted a letigitimate citizen's arrest for the attempted murder and destruction of his vessel. This was the perfect opportunity for NZ to make a statement on an International scale and they basically blew it.
Militarily, the framework for expansion is there, but it all comes down to whether or not they can use whatever they gain in the proper way to become a more prominent regional power.
While I will attempt to keep this as politics free as possible, there are a few things to seriously keep in mind.

Within NZ's region, NZ already is a 'regional power'. The only other countries which can realitically operate in the South Pacific regularly with as much or more power than NZ is Australia and the US. As most defence-minded people do agree, NZ can (and likely should) do more given the gaps or potential gaps in NZDF capabilities, but in terms of increasing NZ's (South Pacific) regional prominence... NZ is already on top.

The next three parts strongly involve UNCLOS.

As to NZ 'closing off' its territorial waters to the Japanese fleet, those territorial waters consist of the 12 n miles surrounding NZ land masses as recognized under UNCLOS, Part II Sec. 2. In effect, denying the Japanese vessels the ability to dock in an NZ port. While the Japanese vessels might be operating in whale sanctuaries as declared by NZ and/or Oz, unless those sanctuaries are recognized as such under international law or by treaty (like UNCLOS), or the ocean area is internationally recognized as belonging to either of those countries, then the Japanese vessels are operating within international waters and outside of a nation's EEZ. Given that several countries have laid claims to Antarctic territory but at present all such claims are not recognized by international treaty, neither NZ or Australia have legal authority to enforce any restrictions on areas they might claim.

Now, for the claim that the Shonan Maru 2 rammed the Ady Gil the official conclusion of the investigation of the incident was "inconclusive"... Having said that, some basic boating knowledge as well as looking at a couple of different videos of the incident, from different angles, then the incident begins to look much more like it was staged/caused by the crew of the Ady Gil.

While I do not know what the various 'rules of the road' for boating are for all nations, the basic rule in the US is that powered vessels give way to unpowered vessels, and that small vessels give way to large vessels. If one thinks about that, it makes sense that a 24 m, 13 ton vessel with a top speed of ~32 kts could stop, start and turn faster than a larger vessel since the larger vessel would have more inertia to overcome. That strongly suggests that in a collision involving two differently sized vessels under way, the smaller vessel is generally at fault. Highlighting that further, when watching [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NuWr_ODXnc"]Ady Gil Collision (view from Shonan Maru #2) - YouTube[/nomedia] of the incident shot from the Shonan Maru 2, a small wake behind the Ady Gil can clearly be seen as the Shonan Maru 2 starts to pass alongside it. That wake is an indicator that the Ady Gil was in fact underway. Watching the video a little further along, the wake behind the Ady Gil is clearly increasing in size which is an indicator that the engine throttle has been opened up to accelerate the Ady Gil and given the position of the Ady Gil relative to the Shonan Maru 2, the Sea Shepherd was on a heading to collide with the Japanese vessel when the Ady Gil increased power and did not turn away to starboard.

Now for the last bit about the captain of the Ady Gil, Pete Bethune boarding a Japanese vessel to make a "citizen's arrest"... I freely admit I am not a scholar of NZ law, so it may well be possible and legal under NZ law to make a "citizen's arrest". However, unless the attempt was made while within the 12 n mile territorial water limit around NZ, or aboard a NZ-flagged vessel in international waters, then it does not matter whether NZ law has a provision for making a "citizen's arrest". In this case, Pete Bethune boarded a Japanese-flagged vessel in international waters without permission which means that Japanese and/or international law is applicable, not NZ law. If things get uglier between groups like Sea Shepherd and the ICR, future boarding attempts might well find themselves confronted by armed security teams like those now serving on merchant shipping in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean.

-Cheers
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Just to add to what Todj has correctly stated - the scope of citizen’s arrest under ss35-36 of the Crimes Act in NZ is very narrow and only applies to serious crimes such as murder, rape, robbery, and home invasion. Even then there are thresholds which relate directly to s66 of the Sentencing Act in terms of proportionality and whether the criminal acts happened during daylight or night. One who makes a citizen’s arrest can be liable under civil claim if it all goes wrong. Pete Bethune got it wrong as even making a citizen’s arrest for ‘trespass’ by Japanese whalers on Pete’s very own property is not considered within the orbit of the citizen’s arrest threshold – let alone Pete himself in international waters trespassing onto any vessel and attempting to do the same.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I would agree with most of Todjaegers points. Pete Bethune had no rights or legal authority to make a 'citizens' arrest upon the high seas. Technically speaking the fact he boarded another vessel without permission, an invitation nor legal to do so could in itself be construed as an act of piracy, even though he made no attempt to forcibly take control of the ship. As Todj points out law at sea is covered by the UNCLOS but it also has been traditionally covered by Admiralty law.

NZ along with Australia does in fact take a strong anti-whaling stance and it is done internationally at the UN, through the International Whaling Commission and in talks with its Antarctic Treaty partners. As far as I am aware whaling ships are not allowed in NZ territorial waters and within its EEZ.
 

Bluey 006

Active Member
NZ needs to monitor its maritime approaches,protect its SLOC, make a reasonable contribution to regional deployments with Australia and offer niche capabilities to international security missions. Potentially all at the same time. Obviously in order to achieve this capability significant enhancements need to be made, that will require the commitment of the current and future NZ Governments.

A logical first step may be a Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) capable UAV platform such as the MQ-4C or MQ-9. Not only will this partially achieve some of the key tasks required of the NZDF, depending on the configuration it could also a) give the RNZAF some teeth (strike power) b) contribute to the whole of government intelligence mission (SIGINT/ IMINT).

The USAF and Northrop Grumman may have some spare RQ-4 Block 30's going cheap at the moment. ;)
 

Zach Z.

New Member
Right of Way for vessels

I have to agree with you guys after reading up on the subject of citizen's arrest premises and that Pete Bethune was in the wrong more than the right. But watch the Animal Planet TV series Whale Wars to find out what the situation was before the ramming, the Ady Gil had run out of gas and was waiting for the Steve Irwin another Sea Shepherd ship to refuel it. On the question of right of way in International Waters it's the slower vessel that has right of way and in that situation the overtaking vessel was the Shonan Maru. And to talk about a potential staging by the Sea Shepherds it is very unlikely that they would have done that on purpose, it was their only vessel capable of outrunning the harpoon vessels. Also that Whale Sanctuary is recognised by Aussies and NZ. But still, NZ should have made a more thorough attempt at investigating the incident. But enough with politics that isn't the point of the thread. On NZ military capability I believe they are a regional power, just not a seriously powerful one. Their navy needs to upgrade its vessels' numbers to become a real force projector and establish a more potent SAM shield for its Airspace. But the framework for expansion is there and all they need to do is build up.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
NZ needs to monitor its maritime approaches,protect its SLOC, make a reasonable contribution to regional deployments with Australia and offer niche capabilities to international security missions. Potentially all at the same time. Obviously in order to achieve this capability significant enhancements need to be made, that will require the commitment of the current and future NZ Governments.

A logical first step may be a Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) capable UAV platform such as the MQ-4C or MQ-9. Not only will this partially achieve some of the key tasks required of the NZDF, depending on the configuration it could also a) give the RNZAF some teeth (strike power) b) contribute to the whole of government intelligence mission (SIGINT/ IMINT).

The USAF and Northrop Grumman may have some spare RQ-4 Block 30's going cheap at the moment. ;)
I agree we will see a move towards UAV but I think more in a surveillance role not a offensive one. Our govt decided our ACF was redundant due to not being used for its intended role therefore why would they consider a strike capable UAV. A UAV with hardpoints and missile launch options will inevitably cost more then a purely overland/maritime watch version, so take a guess which way our financially focussed leaders will go.

The strike portion of any NZ aerial maritime defence will more then likely be provided by 5 Sqn helos and 6 Sqn orions/replacements.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I have to agree with you guys after reading up on the subject of citizen's arrest premises and that Pete Bethune was in the wrong more than the right. But watch the Animal Planet TV series Whale Wars to find out what the situation was before the ramming, the Ady Gil had run out of gas and was waiting for the Steve Irwin another Sea Shepherd ship to refuel it. On the question of right of way in International Waters it's the slower vessel that has right of way and in that situation the overtaking vessel was the Shonan Maru. And to talk about a potential staging by the Sea Shepherds it is very unlikely that they would have done that on purpose, it was their only vessel capable of outrunning the harpoon vessels. Also that Whale Sanctuary is recognised by Aussies and NZ. But still, NZ should have made a more thorough attempt at investigating the incident. But enough with politics that isn't the point of the thread. On NZ military capability I believe they are a regional power, just not a seriously powerful one. Their navy needs to upgrade its vessels' numbers to become a real force projector and establish a more potent SAM shield for its Airspace. But the framework for expansion is there and all they need to do is build up.
It is not just which vessel is slower, but also which one is larger in determining right of way. In this case, the Ady Gil had nearly 3x the speed of the Shonan Maru 2. As for the Ady Gil being out of fuel and 'dead in the water' that has been stated and claimed repeatedly. However, as I mentioned previously in video of the incident shot from the Shonan Maru 2, a small wake can clear be seen from the Ady Gil indicating that the engine was idling and that wake increase in size and effect indicating that the Ady Gil's engine was putting out more power. In other words, the Ady Gil was neither out of fuel or dead in the water at the time of the incident.

Ultimately though the entire situation is moot, at least as far as the RNZN/NZDF is concerned. Until something illegal is being done in NZ waters, or against NZ-flagged vessels in international waters, the NZDF does not have a role to play.

-Cheers
 

Sea Toby

New Member
It is not just which vessel is slower, but also which one is larger in determining right of way. In this case, the Ady Gil had nearly 3x the speed of the Shonan Maru 2. As for the Ady Gil being out of fuel and 'dead in the water' that has been stated and claimed repeatedly. However, as I mentioned previously in video of the incident shot from the Shonan Maru 2, a small wake can clear be seen from the Ady Gil indicating that the engine was idling and that wake increase in size and effect indicating that the Ady Gil's engine was putting out more power. In other words, the Ady Gil was neither out of fuel or dead in the water at the time of the incident.

Ultimately though the entire situation is moot, at least as far as the RNZN/NZDF is concerned. Until something illegal is being done in NZ waters, or against NZ-flagged vessels in international waters, the NZDF does not have a role to play.

-Cheers
Furthermore, I can't think of any reason, or should I say motive, for the Shaonan Maru wishing to collide with any other vessel purposely. From the video it is very apparant the Ady Gil could have changed course to avoid the incident easily. Instead the Ady Gil sped up to collide with the Shaonan Maru. Dead in the water? The video shows otherwise.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Furthermore, I can't think of any reason, or should I say motive, for the Shaonan Maru wishing to collide with any other vessel purposely. From the video it is very apparant the Ady Gil could have changed course to avoid the incident easily. Instead the Ady Gil sped up to collide with the Shaonan Maru. Dead in the water? The video shows otherwise.
I can think of quite a few reasons for the Shonan Maru to ram the Ady Gil but that is also moot. In answer to others, Reg R the 5 Sqn P3Ks & P3K2s plus the 6 Sqn Seasprites and it's replacement are able to institute a maritime strike. But I am unsure whether or not the Orions are still able to launch missiles. IIRC they were set up to in the late 1970's early 1980, but uncle Helen did a lot of capability damage. The ACF issue is very short sighted and there are alternatives available that doesn't necessarilly involve very expensive fast jets.

I would also discount the RQ-4 Block 30's because of their purchase, operational and sustainment costs. The reason the US is getting rid of them is because they have found that they can obtain higher quality imagery, far more economically by using the venerable U2 so that is what they are doing; going back to the U2 because they can mount far better quality sensors on it. In a similiar vein I would discount using armed UAVs because at present their is to much room for errors and the risk of taking down non combatants or friendlies is too high.You just have to look at the US and Israeli use of them, albeit we have a different philosophy, but the risk is still to high at the present point in time.

We do need a manned ACF and like I said it doesn't necessarilly involve very expensive fast jets.
 
Last edited:
Top