Royal New Zealand Air Force

[ngatimozart]

I suppose it's down to if you already have the added ability then why not use it. Better to train and not use then need and not know how and it can only add to any pilots training and experience with a flow on benefit to those on the ground. Another reason we lost the ACF was lack of operational use (or more likely govt commitment) therefore seen as 'not used, not required' when it came cost cutting time. We trained and trained but never commited to any actual ops so then what was the point. Even supporting Timor with the A4s or limited Gulf war duties could have flowed onto having kiwi F16s covering in Afghan but without actually sending them anywhere then of course an easy choice to take off the payroll. Im just glad they have finally sent a frigate back on coalition duties otherwise....

Who's to say the maintanence side won't be brought back into the military side or even a mix. Armourers would take care of weapon loads anyway. I think the T6s will do an even better job at airshows, displays etc just going off the the brilliant CT4 performances with their limited power.

42 already does yearly long range flights down NZ across and up east coast of Aus in a big loop as part of their training.

All pilots would go through T6 as they all go through PTS (equivalent) initially regardless of type they move onto both fixed wing and helo.

I think Between training and light ops the current A109s have a decent workload so to add roles would most definitely require the extra 3. Small fleets + busy workloads = shortened lifespan.

Reg you've summarized it reasonably well. I strongly believe that we are 2 NH90s short and that 12 would be better in the long term. I also strongly believe that those extra 3 AW109s are needed plus an extra 2. We just have to look at the thrashing the current 5 Seasprites have had and the ongoing problems that arose. IIRC the RNZN had to acquire extra Westland Wasps in the 1980s because of the extra flight decks acquired with Southland and Wellington frigates. Therefore over utilisation of too few airframes resulting in early munting is not a new phenomenon for NZ, one that the pollies and treasury should have learned the valuable lesson about by now. Having said that I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Cadredave]

That is the core of the matter and the core of modern military strategic thought. Data and the ability to get it to where it needs to go as quickly and as secure as possible.

Correct NG having been to Timor where everything was passed over the NET via a retrains to going to blue force tracking where all blue force elements both ground and air was at our finger tips was an eye opener to the future possibilities that the future tri service force will bring to the fight.

If your not linked into the system your not part of the team. We had plenty of ANPRC 117F borrowed from the US as they had moved onto the new 117G which were smaller but far more capable than the F model, funny I started with the ANPRC 77 and ended in the digital age.

check this out its the G model but gives a good representation of what we can do now.

AN/PRC-117G Wideband Tactical Radio | ANW2 | Harris RF Communications

and this is why exercising with the P3K2 will be far more beneficial to us on exercise than a P6C.

 

[Gibbo]

Look not trying to rain on your parade, but what are we training for exactly? if its to teach us to camouflage don't need the T6C to do that KAHU can do it a lot cheaper and take high Def linked photos to prove it.

We have spent the last decade on full Coalition Operations fully embedded into the USA & NATO force structures, a T6C is not going to bring anything to the party as it is not Data Linked into our comms system like the P3K2 is and that's the aircraft that has more to offer as an ISR platform to really teach the Army how it is going.

We will never be alone in a future Operation either the RAN will be supporting or the USN will as it did in East Timor during the early days of Interfet and NZBATT 1 off shore was an USN LHA-3 USS Belleau Wood and USS Mobile Bay plus a large amount of RAN, RN, and other nations frigates etc.

This is the reason NZDF is not to worried about AW109 being armed, SH2GI will be more than a match for anything in the Pacific as well as the NH-90 plus having an ANZAC 5 inch gun off shore will be more than over match.

If it's not data linked into the force structure it has no training value to the present and future force.

Yes good point about Kahu & even P3K2 being ideal for showing Army how well they're camouflaged, and networked capability - yes a must!

Do Army train for being on the receiving end of air-attack? I'm thinking of what the 'masses' are trained to do (eg: infantry; mounted; artillery; drivers etc) in 'high-end / worst-case' possibilities & involving everyone on the ground having a 'script' of some sort to follow in the case of air-attack. Surely it is folly to assume we'll always enjoy 100% air-superiority in a coalition operation - do Army have SOP's etc to follow in this scenario? If so, how do they train / simulate these in the field?

With regard to the AW109 being armed, my thinking behind this is filling the gap between a 'taxi' with a MAG58 & the high-end Tiger that the Aussies might well deploy. I think the gap does exist, as the MAG58 on it's own in a chopper offers relatively limited accuracy at range whilst the Tiger is probably overkill for our expected JATF op's.

The AW109 option as I see it would allow us to provide a little more 'bang' & definitely more accuracy for guys on the ground in low level engagements that escalate a degree or two. This should give us more capability to handle the low-level stuff on our own rather than assuming we'll call the Aussies everytime it gets a little messy.

The trouble with relying on the RNZN SH2G's is there will be only 1-2 ever in theatre & Navy will be keeping them busy so they won't be available on tap to assist Army patrols - esecially at short notice. Plus then 'I' models will have the Penguin which is an anti-ship missile. Naval support from the 5" is useful, but an AW109 overhead can be a hell of a lot more effective for smaller jobs if it can be overhead quickly - imagine an East Timor type scenario with 'blokes' with semi-autos running amok near a village & you don't want to risk the ANZAC pounding the neighbourhood.

So anyway, yes - no armed T6C!

 

[Gibbo]

I suppose it's down to if you already have the added ability then why not use it. Better to train and not use then need and not know how and it can only add to any pilots training and experience with a flow on benefit to those on the ground. Another reason we lost the ACF was lack of operational use (or more likely govt commitment) therefore seen as 'not used, not required' when it came cost cutting time. We trained and trained but never commited to any actual ops so then what was the point. Even supporting Timor with the A4s or limited Gulf war duties could have flowed onto having kiwi F16s covering in Afghan but without actually sending them anywhere then of course an easy choice to take off the payroll. Im just glad they have finally sent a frigate back on coalition duties otherwise....

Who's to say the maintanence side won't be brought back into the military side or even a mix. Armourers would take care of weapon loads anyway. I think the T6s will do an even better job at airshows, displays etc just going off the the brilliant CT4 performances with their limited power.

42 already does yearly long range flights down NZ across and up east coast of Aus in a big loop as part of their training.

All pilots would go through T6 as they all go through PTS (equivalent) initially regardless of type they move onto both fixed wing and helo.

I think Between training and light ops the current A109s have a decent workload so to add roles would most definitely require the extra 3. Small fleets + busy workloads = shortened lifespan.

Yes I was curious if 42sqn did the Aussie; Chathams, Pacific jaunts etc as part of the advanced syllabus or the MEPT syllabus as obviously the T6C will soon take over the advanced component. Wonder who will get to do these in future - 14 or 42 !?!

Re: AW109 extra roles - yes would require extra airframes (I'd argue current roles require extra 3 as 'promised'). How about add 4 more to cover extra roles & spin all 9 off into a new squadron!?! It could then perform much as 42sqn does by taking newly qualified pilots & managing the rotary streaming whilst also providing operational capability (and taxi rides!).

 

[Cadredave]

Yes good point about Kahu & even P3K2 being ideal for showing Army how well they're camouflaged, and networked capability - yes a must!

Do Army train for being on the receiving end of air-attack? I'm thinking of what the 'masses' are trained to do (eg: infantry; mounted; artillery; drivers etc) in 'high-end / worst-case' possibilities & involving everyone on the ground having a 'script' of some sort to follow in the case of air-attack. Surely it is folly to assume we'll always enjoy 100% air-superiority in a coalition operation - do Army have SOP's etc to follow in this scenario? If so, how do they train / simulate these in the field?

No we don't our exercises don't just concentrate on conventional ops anymore they are multi faceted ie 3 block war, our primary focus is the Amphibious JTF, to be honest if we are practicing air attacks we are either heading to Korea or Kiev and if we are we will be part of another massive USA lead Coalition. The other reason with todays tech with UAV it is impossible to hide in dug in defensive positions it only leads to your force be taken out, Army has SOP they are the same as for Artillery or Air attack its called dispersion.

With regard to the AW109 being armed, my thinking behind this is filling the gap between a 'taxi' with a MAG58 & the high-end Tiger that the Aussies might well deploy. I think the gap does exist, as the MAG58 on it's own in a chopper offers relatively limited accuracy at range whilst the Tiger is probably overkill for our expected JATF op's.

AW109 primary purpose is training with some very limited Operational roles ie support to NZSAS black role, the Primary Helos for the JATF are the NH90 & SH2G(I), you need to read this to understand where we are going ref joint fire support:
http://www.defence.gov.au/adfwc/Documents/DoctrineLibrary/ADDP/ADDP_3_1_Joint_Fire_Support.pdf

To be honest Army has more that enough fire support to land anywhere in the Pacific and to pay for the arming of the AW109 will come out of the current budget which means something else will get deferred or cancelled. Remember your not only bringing in a adhoc system but trying to introduce a whole new capability? it would be better to purchase AH1W from USMC stocks.

The AW109 option as I see it would allow us to provide a little more 'bang' & definitely more accuracy for guys on the ground in low level engagements that escalate a degree or two. This should give us more capability to handle the low-level stuff on our own rather than assuming we'll call the Aussies everytime it gets a little messy.

We will never be alone that's the point about Coalition Ops, If NZ is conducting SASO operations which are as low as you can get then we already have enough combat power to mitigate any known contingencies in the Pacific.

The trouble with relying on the RNZN SH2G's is there will be only 1-2 ever in theatre & Navy will be keeping them busy so they won't be available on tap to assist Army patrols - esecially at short notice. Plus then 'I' models will have the Penguin which is an anti-ship missile. Naval support from the 5" is useful, but an AW109 overhead can be a hell of a lot more effective for smaller jobs if it can be overhead quickly - imagine an East Timor type scenario with 'blokes' with semi-autos running amok near a village & you don't want to risk the ANZAC pounding the neighbourhood.

Army wont be deploying without the Navy that's the whole rational of JATF three services one force, JATF 2015 is step one Force 2035 is next. Don't have to imagine blokes with semi auto's running amok in East Timor been there, its not as simple as you make it out to be ROE restricted us back then and will do the same in the future regardless if your got a ANZAC or a rocket/MG armed AW109 you still have to apply ROE's to the situation.

 

[Gibbo]

No we don't our exercises don't just concentrate on conventional ops anymore they are multi faceted ie 3 block war, our primary focus is the Amphibious JTF, to be honest if we are practicing air attacks we are either heading to Korea or Kiev and if we are we will be part of another massive USA lead Coalition. The other reason with todays tech with UAV it is impossible to hide in dug in defensive positions it only leads to your force be taken out, Army has SOP they are the same as for Artillery or Air attack its called dispersion.



AW109 primary purpose is training with some very limited Operational roles ie support to NZSAS black role, the Primary Helos for the JATF are the NH90 & SH2G(I), you need to read this to understand where we are going ref joint fire support:
http://www.defence.gov.au/adfwc/Documents/DoctrineLibrary/ADDP/ADDP_3_1_Joint_Fire_Support.pdf

To be honest Army has more that enough fire support to land anywhere in the Pacific and to pay for the arming of the AW109 will come out of the current budget which means something else will get deferred or cancelled. Remember your not only bringing in a adhoc system but trying to introduce a whole new capability? it would be better to purchase AH1W from USMC stocks.



We will never be alone that's the point about Coalition Ops, If NZ is conducting SASO operations which are as low as you can get then we already have enough combat power to mitigate any known contingencies in the Pacific.



Army wont be deploying without the Navy that's the whole rational of JATF three services one force, JATF 2015 is step one Force 2035 is next. Don't have to imagine blokes with semi auto's running amok in East Timor been there, its not as simple as you make it out to be ROE restricted us back then and will do the same in the future regardless if your got a ANZAC or a rocket/MG armed AW109 you still have to apply ROE's to the situation.

Thanks for that link CD, it’s been an interesting read this evening! An interesting point was what is effectively an acknowledgement by the Aussies that even they are likely to be small fish in a big coalition pond – depending obviously on the nature of the deployment.

The same paragraph then goes on to state “…Consequently, many of the assets of the three sub-systems may belong to other nations or forces. Effective use of these platforms, weapons and capabilities may require considerable planning and coordination for joint fire support planners”.

So yes I guess it’s an acknowledgement that in many cases a small atypical capability such as a relatively lightly armed AW109 might be more of a headache than an asset. I guess for large complex operations that probably holds true, and for smaller less risky operations maybe such an asset just isn’t needed. If the AW109 can’t step up to quickly counter a significant escalation in tempo then it becomes a liability to the coalition.

I still reckon the AW109 armed in the config I mentioned would simply be doing what the NH-90 & Huey before it did with a door-gun, but with just a little more punch – however I agree with you that with budgetary constraints & limited airframe availability, an armed AW109 (beyond the MAG58) is, for now at least, not a priority for JATF capability development.

Another interesting point is the paragraph about “Emergency close air support requests…times when a specialist (FAC(A)/JTAC) is unavailable to provide control of CAS. In this instance any member of any unit in contact with the enemy and requiring CAS may request support”. What is the NZ Army strategy for dealing with this sort of situation CD?

I know the NZDF gained huge well-deserved kudos out of the East Timor deployment for the excellent work you guys did, and I guess if we look at the phenomenal amount of change in NZDF equipment since , it really is clear that we would in fact comfortably more than hold our own in a similar operation again – even more so than then. Imagine East Timor again with NZLAV; Javelin; NH-90; Kahu UAV; P3K2 overland capability; Canterbury’s landing capability; data sharing… and that’s just a selection.

I think this JATF concept is a fantastic concept, not just because it will increase our own effectiveness, but also because finally a clear niche role has been identified for the NZDF - one that is not only attainable, but also one that has a real relevance to our corner of the world.

It’s a lot easier to get the public onside when there’s a clearly identifiable & relevant role to be played. It's now just a case of ensuring the pollies put their money where their mouths are - but looks like the JATF concept has been a damned good sales pitch by the NZDF.

 

[Cadredave]

Another interesting point is the paragraph about “Emergency close air support requests…times when a specialist (FAC(A)/JTAC) is unavailable to provide control of CAS. In this instance any member of any unit in contact with the enemy and requiring CAS may request support”. What is the NZ Army strategy for dealing with this sort of situation CD?

This is NATO/US TTP, if there is no JTAC then the ground commander informs the pilot that they are not qualified from that point on the pilot will resume responsibility for identifying the target and releasing his ordnance any grey areas in which he cant positively ID the target in relation to blue forces then he/she will refuse to release.

I know the NZDF gained huge well-deserved kudos out of the East Timor deployment for the excellent work you guys did, and I guess if we look at the phenomenal amount of change in NZDF equipment since , it really is clear that we would in fact comfortably more than hold our own in a similar operation again – even more so than then. Imagine East Timor again with NZLAV; Javelin; NH-90; Kahu UAV; P3K2 overland capability; Canterbury’s landing capability; data sharing… and that’s just a selection.

Don't write off the ability to deliver soft power as well for most of our time in Timor we were restricted in the use of what firepower we could bring to bear on the bad guys by our ROE, so we had to use those skills in which we excel at, the ability to talk to other cultures. Our mortars were locked away in ISO containers due to the UN rules on HE indirect weapons.

I think this JATF concept is a fantastic concept, not just because it will increase our own effectiveness, but also because finally a clear niche role has been identified for the NZDF - one that is not only attainable, but also one that has a real relevance to our corner of the world.

Not only that we have had some very solid discussions with our cousins across the Tasman as well as those in Hawaii Timor didn't break the ice but Afghanistan sure did. Todays soldiers, airmen and sailors are going to become a lot more use to working with each other as NZDF has finally realised what each force can give to each other and just how much power you have when all three speak the same language.

It’s a lot easier to get the public onside when there’s a clearly identifiable & relevant role to be played. It's now just a case of ensuring the pollies put their money where their mouths are - but looks like the JATF concept has been a damned good sales pitch by the NZDF.

Absolutely this is another good reason why Army/Navy will support RNZAF P3 replacement as it will provide a steep step up in capability to all three services, just imagine all our capabilities being networked and all seeing the over all tactical picture and sharing that information. Ive seen it myself in which a P3K was using its ISR capability to send us real time info of our target which was at least 300-400 km away from Linton even before we left the Camp gates now that is real power something the T6C will never be able to replicate in any form hence my comment before "if your not networked then you provide nothing of use both in training and ops.

 

[RegR]

Reg you've summarized it reasonably well. I strongly believe that we are 2 NH90s short and that 12 would be better in the long term. I also strongly believe that those extra 3 AW109s are needed plus an extra 2. We just have to look at the thrashing the current 5 Seasprites have had and the ongoing problems that arose. IIRC the RNZN had to acquire extra Westland Wasps in the 1980s because of the extra flight decks acquired with Southland and Wellington frigates. Therefore over utilisation of too few airframes resulting in early munting is not a new phenomenon for NZ, one that the pollies and treasury should have learned the valuable lesson about by now. Having said that I'm not holding my breath.

Agreed on numbers ngati and sadly I feel it is going to be the way of the future (if not already) for many of our upcoming replacements and bare minimums will be sold with lines such as 'multi-purpose', 'more capable' and 'future direction'.

Quality is dependable and quantity is safe however combined together they are also expensive meaning we may only get one or the other or both but at different points on the scale. In a perfect world we would have the high ends of both but these days this is all but impossible, an ugly consequence of cost cutting.

 

[RegR]

Yes I was curious if 42sqn did the Aussie; Chathams, Pacific jaunts etc as part of the advanced syllabus or the MEPT syllabus as obviously the T6C will soon take over the advanced component. Wonder who will get to do these in future - 14 or 42 !?!

Re: AW109 extra roles - yes would require extra airframes (I'd argue current roles require extra 3 as 'promised'). How about add 4 more to cover extra roles & spin all 9 off into a new squadron!?! It could then perform much as 42sqn does by taking newly qualified pilots & managing the rotary streaming whilst also providing operational capability (and taxi rides!).

Yes this was with the old 42 but I assume the long range training benefits would still be useful in the curriculum (although they are also 1 AC down now), maybe alternate between the squadrons or shorten the trips?

I do also think the extra 3 109s would be required regardless especially if NH90 proves to be too expensive for day to day tasks and having 3 'civi' models to take over training would free up the operational frames for operational tasks. I guess a new squadron would add to costs with duplicate support staff such as headquarters, admin, logistics, facilities etc so keeping the similar roles under one banner also serves as a cost cutting exercise (one head to feed and tail to wag instead of two).

 

[kiwipatriot]

Look not trying to rain on your parade, but what are we training for exactly? if its to teach us to camouflage don't need the T6C to do that KAHU can do it a lot cheaper and take high Def linked photos to prove it.

We have spent the last decade on full Coalition Operations fully embedded into the USA & NATO force structures, a T6C is not going to bring anything to the party as it is not Data Linked into our comms system like the P3K2 is and that's the aircraft that has more to offer as an ISR platform to really teach the Army how it is going.

We will never be alone in a future Operation either the RAN will be supporting or the USN will as it did in East Timor during the early days of Interfet and NZBATT 1 off shore was an USN LHA-3 USS Belleau Wood and USS Mobile Bay plus a large amount of RAN, RN, and other nations frigates etc.

This is the reason NZDF is not to worried about AW109 being armed, SH2GI will be more than a match for anything in the Pacific as well as the NH-90 plus having an ANZAC 5 inch gun off shore will be more than over match.

If it's not data linked into the force structure it has no training value to the present and future force.

Fair enough. In your opinion then, the way our armed forces are structured now would Nz defence be training for just assisting other countries as part of a coalition then, as we have no jets or armed heli to protect our airspace, even from a 911 terrorist hijacking of a plane, and what with our 2 frigates absent from our shores fighting piracy in the gulf of aden, our vast shipping, fishing lanes are wide open. Ok, p3 orions are great for surveillance, great, what happens if a hijacking occurs mid air? they aren't capable of intercepting them.In these days terrorism a very real possibility, our sas can only deal with it on the ground.

 

[40 deg south]

RNZAF - Air Force News PDFs

Marsh issue of Air Force News has more info on Texan II introduction

- CT4 contract to end in March 2015
- Pilot Training Squadron disbanded, and 14 Sqn re-established for initial flight training
- Central Flying School to do instructor training
- No 42 Sqn to give up advanced pilot training and go back to MEPT and light transport duties.
- No 1 hanger in for another upgrade

 

[ngatimozart]

Fair enough. In your opinion then, the way our armed forces are structured now would Nz defence be training for just assisting other countries as part of a coalition then, as we have no jets or armed heli to protect our airspace, even from a 911 terrorist hijacking of a plane, and what with our 2 frigates absent from our shores fighting piracy in the gulf of aden, our vast shipping, fishing lanes are wide open. Ok, p3 orions are great for surveillance, great, what happens if a hijacking occurs mid air? they aren't capable of intercepting them.In these days terrorism a very real possibility, our sas can only deal with it on the ground.

At present we have no viable airborne threat to our national security. We have had one hijacking case and hijackings are far better dealt to on the ground than in the air. No Kiwi pollie would authorise the shoot down of a plane full of civilians. We secure our SLOC by working in partnership with others and the Gulf of Aden is part of our SLOC. Te Mana should have finished her MEO deployment and be returning to DNB. Te Kaha is under refit at the moment and has been for a while so no way it was in the MEO or elsewhere. The P3K2s are armed and can deal to a rogue vessel in our shipping lanes if need be. You need to read this: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/air-power-101-new-members-12457/ If you wish to discuss NZDF things in general go to: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/geo-strategic-issues/nzdf-general-discussion-thread-6137-188/ We try to keep threads to their topics instead of drifting off. You also should read the 2010 Defence White Paper: Defence Review - Defence White Paper [Ministry of Defence NZ]

 

[Bonza]

I echo Ngati's sentiments and also recommend a read through the Air Power 101 thread. As I said previously you can't simply arm a squadron of Texans and expect them to confer an air combat capability. They might be a good start in terms of training pilots, but they're not going to be affording you any serious form of capability on their own.

 

[Todjaeger]

With respect to JTAC training, what sorts of training needs to be conducted to maintain the skillset of a JTAC? Is this something best done overseas, or can RNZAF assets provide the needed support for a JTAC to keep their skills?

Also regarding the NH-90 selection decision, IMO the jury is still out on whether that was a good one or not. While the Blackhawk family has been in service for a generation in one version or another, they still are very much in use by the US and likely to remain so for some time. With that known service experience the throughlife costs and support or operational issues are fairly well-known. While the NH-90 is supposed have a lower throughlife cost, that still remains to be seen. Of significant concern from my perspective is what the potential is for airframe fatigue and cracking, given the composite construction. That might not be an immediate concern (unless there were manufacturing defects) but could become a signficant issue later on during the helicopter's service life.

One of the other issues with going with a larger aircraft which can potentially carry more troops and/or kit is that you concentrate your assets across a smaller number of helicopters. The loss of a single NH-90 as a result of enemy activity, accident, maintenance, or just plain deployed elsewhere, is the loss of an eighth of RNZAF rotary winged lift. While the NZDF is operating with limited means and cannot have everything, there are times when quantity is very important.

-Cheers

 

[ngatimozart]

With respect to JTAC training, what sorts of training needs to be conducted to maintain the skillset of a JTAC? Is this something best done overseas, or can RNZAF assets provide the needed support for a JTAC to keep their skills?

Also regarding the NH-90 selection decision, IMO the jury is still out on whether that was a good one or not. While the Blackhawk family has been in service for a generation in one version or another, they still are very much in use by the US and likely to remain so for some time. With that known service experience the throughlife costs and support or operational issues are fairly well-known. While the NH-90 is supposed have a lower throughlife cost, that still remains to be seen. Of significant concern from my perspective is what the potential is for airframe fatigue and cracking, given the composite construction. That might not be an immediate concern (unless there were manufacturing defects) but could become a signficant issue later on during the helicopter's service life.

One of the other issues with going with a larger aircraft which can potentially carry more troops and/or kit is that you concentrate your assets across a smaller number of helicopters. The loss of a single NH-90 as a result of enemy activity, accident, maintenance, or just plain deployed elsewhere, is the loss of an eighth of RNZAF rotary winged lift. While the NZDF is operating with limited means and cannot have everything, there are times when quantity is very important.

-Cheers

I don't believe that the T6C can give the full gamut of capabilities required for JTAC, so NZ is far better staying with the status quo.

I agree with you comments where quantity becomes a quality of its own and in NZs case, as you have noted, quantity can quickly become a major issue. I strongly believe that 10 flyable aircraft should've been acquired and 12 preferable. 8 is very bare minimum.

 

[Gibbo]

RNZAF - Air Force News PDFs

Marsh issue of Air Force News has more info on Texan II introduction

- CT4 contract to end in March 2015
- Pilot Training Squadron disbanded, and 14 Sqn re-established for initial flight training
- Central Flying School to do instructor training
- No 42 Sqn to give up advanced pilot training and go back to MEPT and light transport duties.
- No 1 hanger in for another upgrade

Call me old-fashioned but to me the concept of a squadron number has a better 'ring' to it rather than a name (ie: 14 vs PTS). Glad to see 14 reactivating, even if it won't quite be the 14 of old.

The article refers to ab-initio training - I thought that was a term to cover the early stages of the basic course where the trainees are green as grass - is this not the case? We all know the T6C will be doing the lot - basic & advanced courses, so was surprised by the wording of the article.

 

[Gibbo]

Yes this was with the old 42 but I assume the long range training benefits would still be useful in the curriculum (although they are also 1 AC down now), maybe alternate between the squadrons or shorten the trips?

I do also think the extra 3 109s would be required regardless especially if NH90 proves to be too expensive for day to day tasks and having 3 'civi' models to take over training would free up the operational frames for operational tasks. I guess a new squadron would add to costs with duplicate support staff such as headquarters, admin, logistics, facilities etc so keeping the similar roles under one banner also serves as a cost cutting exercise (one head to feed and tail to wag instead of two).

The T6C has a max ferry range of 2559km with 2 underwing tanks. I guess that ferry range means 1 pilot & no frills, range for long-range training flights is a little under this perhaps? If they get some external tanks they could do these flights on 14sqn. Has anyone heard if we're getting underwing tanks?

Yes 3 extra 'civvy' AW109's for training -totally agree. Yeah probably right - cheaper to keep both AW109 & NH90 under one command & support structure to keep 'back-end' costs in check.

 

[Gibbo]

I don't believe that the T6C can give the full gamut of capabilities required for JTAC, so NZ is far better staying with the status quo.

I agree with you comments where quantity becomes a quality of its own and in NZs case, as you have noted, quantity can quickly become a major issue. I strongly believe that 10 flyable aircraft should've been acquired and 12 preferable. 8 is very bare minimum.

Wonder if NZDF could convince Govt to shell-out the cash to get the 9th NH-90 airframe operational. Obviously this means purchasing another source of spares & replacing what has been pinched off '09' already.

 

[kiwipatriot]

Thanks, good to know our P3K2 are armed, ditto for frigate in Devonport, I wasn't aware. And at least through your other conversations with others here we agree on one thing, not enough airframes for the task, wear will be an issue. But really, there are other scenarios I was thinking of such as targeting of our oil refinerys or offshore oil rigs via hijack of a plane or otherwise, and the resulting economic, environmental disaster, a civilian airline plane doesn't have to be the one hijacked,removing any issue about shooting one down,in any case 911 showed they were targeting financial institutions as well as military or political ones, and a jihadist cant be negotiated with, there's enough evidence to prove this. And there are plenty of young, easily influenced right wing groups out there in nz. Just a matter of time.

 

[Gibbo]

Thanks, good to know our P3K2 are armed, ditto for frigate in Devonport, I wasn't aware. And at least through your other conversations with others here we agree on one thing, not enough airframes for the task, wear will be an issue. But really, there are other scenarios I was thinking of such as targeting of our oil refinerys or offshore oil rigs via hijack of a plane or otherwise, and the resulting economic, environmental disaster, a civilian airline plane doesn't have to be the one hijacked,removing any issue about shooting one down,in any case 911 showed they were targeting financial institutions as well as military or political ones, and a jihadist cant be negotiated with, there's enough evidence to prove this. And there are plenty of young, easily influenced right wing groups out there in nz. Just a matter of time.

The P3K2 are armed specifically for anti-sub work - torpedoes; depth charges / depth bombs (Mk82?). AFAIK they aren't capable of stopping surface vessels other than using the above which isn't what you'd normally attempt. Not sure the P3 can even stop a fishing vessel if it decides to boot it, but there's diplomatic channels that can usually be brought to bear in that case.

Oil refinery & rigs would I'd think be a job for the NZSAS with some Naval / AirForce logistical support.