Royal New Zealand Air Force

[htbrst]

Interesting discussion -

On a related tangent, something in the back of my mind is saying that NZ initially ordered a C-130 maritime variant to replace the Sunderland before eventually cancelling and ordering the P-3's - it no doubt helped that they were produced by the same company. Does anybody have any details on what the modifications to the C-130 were back then?

Also, the first SH-2G(I) has flown in NZ colours:

https://twitter.com/jackrs55/status/454516296932401152

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bk7EKe2IcAAXt48.jpg

 

[STURM]

Does anybody have any details on what the modifications to the C-130 were back then?

The RMAF ordered 3 MPA configured C-130Hs in the early 1980's. Amongst other things, they were fitted with a detachable 'observers station' [on other C-130s, crews with harnesses do the observing through open side doors and the rear ramp], spotlights on the wings and a Hasselblad camera which was linked to a computer to enable the photograph to be dated and timed. I suspect that if customers so desired, MPA configured C-130Hs - in the 1980s - could also have been fitted with a search radar.

Not sure how many other customers went for the MPA configured C-130H.

 

[chis73]

On a related tangent, something in the back of my mind is saying that NZ initially ordered a C-130 maritime variant to replace the Sunderland before eventually cancelling and ordering the P-3's - it no doubt helped that they were produced by the same company. Does anybody have any details on what the modifications to the C-130 were back then?

Htbrst, you are mostly correct. That story is related in the opening chapters of Paul Harrison's Kiwi Orions book. I don't believe that the maritime C-130s were actually ordered though, only preliminary enquiries were made. Once it was discovered that Lockheed in Burbank, California (who made the P-3, and had all the expertise) was a somewhat separate entity to Lockheed in Marietta, Georgia (who made the C-130) and that NZ would be fronting the majority of development costs of the maritime C-130 variant (ie. it was vapourware, pretty much like the SC-130J is currently), a hasty retreat was beaten and the P-3 was suddenly much more attractive (the USN having paid the substantial development costs to modify the Electra). Definitely the right decision.

Chis73

 

[kiwi in exile]

This brief report gives some broad context on NZs maritime domain awareness needs.
http://dta.webstream.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/Challenge-of-maritime-domain-awareness_v2.pdf

Regardless of whatever platforms we end up buying, it would be nice if we had the kind of numbers whereby we could deploy an assett (P8) far afield (mid east, south china seas) if needed to contribute to ASW, antipiracy ops, regional security etc. As our economic security relies so heavily on international shipping and global trade, we need to be able to maintain the safety of this both close to home and abroad.

Would be great to see our MP aircraft have some teeth too. Ideally a common antiship missile with our frigates. The Naval Strike Missile is intended to have both ship and air launched versions. The Seasprite/penguin combo is good, but old, and newer missiles have better standoff range.

 

[ngatimozart]

This brief report gives some broad context on NZs maritime domain awareness needs.
http://dta.webstream.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/Challenge-of-maritime-domain-awareness_v2.pdf

Nice find and published March 2013.

Regardless of whatever platforms we end up buying, it would be nice if we had the kind of numbers whereby we could deploy an assett (P8) far afield (mid east, south china seas) if needed to contribute to ASW, antipiracy ops, regional security etc. As our economic security relies so heavily on international shipping and global trade, we need to be able to maintain the safety of this both close to home and abroad.

My emphasis. A very good point that fails to take root in pollies brains - that's presupposing they have one. This site gives economic break down for 2012-13 financial year. New Zealand economic overview for investors The total exports & imports came to NZ$101.76 billion and 99.4% of which is shipped by sea.

Would be great to see our MP aircraft have some teeth too. Ideally a common antiship missile with our frigates. The Naval Strike Missile is intended to have both ship and air launched versions. The Seasprite/penguin combo is good, but old, and newer missiles have better standoff range.

In a perfect world we would have the ability to have 3 P8s, 3 tier 2 MPA 2 frigates, 2 OPVs / corvettes, 8 strike aircraft, etc., etc., fully operational at any one time. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world. The Joint Strike Missile is the upgraded better version of the NSM because it has a land attack capability. If they give the NSM that same capability and it successfully integrates with the Mk41 VLS then it would be a very good option for NZ. However, it is expensive and RNZN surface strike doctrine is different to RAN doctrine, in that the RNZN launch their ASuW missiles from the helos and the RAN ASuW missiles are shipborne. It all comes down to funding and we aren't going to get the funding that would give us the ideal capability.

 

[kiwi in exile]

However, it is expensive and RNZN surface strike doctrine is different to RAN doctrine, in that the RNZN launch their ASuW missiles from the helos and the RAN ASuW missiles are shipborne. It all comes down to funding and we aren't going to get the funding that would give us the ideal capability.

Yeah missile systems are expensive, and possibly politically untenable for NZ public, but in terms of having a deterrent, not having them may cost more if TSHTF.
The way in see it, in this day and age, you cannot really call a frigate sized ship a combat ship without standoff range AShMs. And isn't the NZG/NZDF comitted to having a "credible combat force." Helo launched AShm's are a great option, but you are screwed if you have to react quick, or if the helo is out of action for whatever reason. And Penguins might not have the range to go after something with decent SAMs. As we move forward, decisions should be determined by what capabilities does NZDF need, what are the gaps, not what fits with our pre-exising doctrine. Doctrine needn't be fixed can can readily be re-written. It needs to be if we are to adapt to changing circumstances. I realise things are unlikely to change within the lifetime of our current frigates. I would just like to see this capability as part of the planning for their replacement. Ditto arming the Orion replacements (beyond old torpedos and iron bombs)

 

[kiwi in exile]

AFAIK, the current NZ Seasprites Mavericks are taken from the ex NZ Skyhawks. Did RNZAF retain the rocket pods that used to belong to the Skyhawks as well, and can these be fitted to the seasprites?

 

[Gracie1234]

Hi All, i am new here but have read all the NZ posts over the months i have been following. I think you guys do a great job. I notice a few people state how big the public opposition to defense spending is. I do not think it is as big as it use to be, like when we bought the 2 ANZAC frigates. When the govt spent $700 million on the NH90s, the main reaction was. So what did we get and what can it do for that amount. I think the anti-war generation do not have as much influence as they use to 20 years ago. As long as the govt can explain what the capability is for and that it has a use then the public will not be too upset. Another example is, look how the public have reacted to us getting closer to the USA and our work in Afghanistan. There is no major economic crisis or changes happening at the moment so i think the public are open to more defense decisions and spending. Plus the defense industry is getting pretty good at framing everything for disaster management ....just incase there is an earthquake like in Christchurch.

 

[40 deg south]

New Zealand

Sightl more detailed update on Seasprite progess than I have seen elsewhere.

 

[ngatimozart]

Hi All, i am new here but have read all the NZ posts over the months i have been following. I think you guys do a great job. I notice a few people state how big the public opposition to defense spending is. I do not think it is as big as it use to be, like when we bought the 2 ANZAC frigates. When the govt spent $700 million on the NH90s, the main reaction was. So what did we get and what can it do for that amount. I think the anti-war generation do not have as much influence as they use to 20 years ago. As long as the govt can explain what the capability is for and that it has a use then the public will not be too upset. Another example is, look how the public have reacted to us getting closer to the USA and our work in Afghanistan. There is no major economic crisis or changes happening at the moment so i think the public are open to more defense decisions and spending. Plus the defense industry is getting pretty good at framing everything for disaster management ....just incase there is an earthquake like in Christchurch.

Hi Gracie, welcome to the forum. There are still vocal people out there opposed to defence spending, just read some of the comments in the NZ Herald, but having said that, I would agree that it appears to be a small change in public perception. Clarke, Goff, Mallard and co were the main offenders in politicising the Leander frigate replacement and the Skyhawk replacement. It was Clarkes aim for years to get rid of the Skyhawks and photographs exist of Clarke and others protesting their arrival in Auckland back in 1970. One thing that does concern me are allegations floating around that Clarke is still micro managing the Labour party from the UN.

 

[MrConservative]

Hi Gracie, welcome to the forum. There are still vocal people out there opposed to defence spending, just read some of the comments in the NZ Herald, but having said that, I would agree that it appears to be a small change in public perception. Clarke, Goff, Mallard and co were the main offenders in politicising the Leander frigate replacement and the Skyhawk replacement. It was Clarkes aim for years to get rid of the Skyhawks and photographs exist of Clarke and others protesting their arrival in Auckland back in 1970. One thing that does concern me are allegations floating around that Clarke is still micro managing the Labour party from the UN.

Dont worry to much about the comments to the NZ Herald NG. It is well known that Labour party activists are encouraged to spout forth online as it is one of the few avenue available to them. Many off the usual suspects are seeminly on duty day in day out. Talkback is off limits as generally as they get the shortshift from people like Hoskins, Leighton, and Larry Williams on ZB Network and the centre right completely dominate the politics blogs which are having a massive impact on political discourse.

I agree with Gracie that Defence is held in higher esteem and generally supported in the eyes of the NZ general public than 20 years ago and that though some aging hard left journalists still exist their factual analsyis is shallow and frequent shot too pieces.

 

[Gracie1234]

Defence white paper and lift requirements

I was looking on the net and could not find anything that states when the next defense white paper process will start. Will they be asking the public again for opinions or will it be all internal and key stakeholders?
I would also be interested in what people believe our air-lift requirements are? It seems to be that we will require overall more lift as the equipment is heavy now than it use to be. The LAV is twice the wait of the M113. What is a reasonable expectation?
I would guess we will get a mixture of A400M and C295. I do not see another option that has the lift capacity we need at the heavy end. With the C295 doing lift and maritime patrol. The maritime patrol versions will be able to be task to lift duties in an emergency. That would give us good flexibility, range and speed and support since they will be bought from the same company.
I do not see us replacing the jet strategic lift, maybe a commercial agreement for x hours per year for taking the politicians on trade trips etc.

 

[ngatimozart]

I was looking on the net and could not find anything that states when the next defense white paper process will start. Will they be asking the public again for opinions or will it be all internal and key stakeholders?
I would also be interested in what people believe our air-lift requirements are? It seems to be that we will require overall more lift as the equipment is heavy now than it use to be. The LAV is twice the wait of the M113. What is a reasonable expectation?
I would guess we will get a mixture of A400M and C295. I do not see another option that has the lift capacity we need at the heavy end. With the C295 doing lift and maritime patrol. The maritime patrol versions will be able to be task to lift duties in an emergency. That would give us good flexibility, range and speed and support since they will be bought from the same company.
I do not see us replacing the jet strategic lift, maybe a commercial agreement for x hours per year for taking the politicians on trade trips etc.

The process has already started. Last year the NZDF Air Transport Study was started with completion this year. It is to inform the 2015 DWP. Whilst I have previously suggested the C295MPA for EEZ patrol and supplement to the P3K2 and P8s upon some guidance from my peers and reflection, I now am of the view that anything like the C295MPA would be to much capability for the requirement of EEZ and not most definitely not enough capability for the P3K2 replacement. Having said that, then I would return to my preference for the C27J vis a vis the C295 because of the greater capability and efficiencies of the C27J when compared to that of the C295. The C295 may be cheaper to acquire, but in the long term kg for kg the C27J would be far more cost efficient and capable. Totally agree on the A400 and disagree with regard to the jet airlift capability. In that area I am looking in a far broader context and the ability to offer a force multiplier to the RAAF in particular and other partners in general.

Whilst the procurement cost of 3 KC30MRTTs would be expensive, again in the long term they would bring a wider benefit to NZDF and I argue their airlift and refuelling capability will mitigate towards the absence of a RNZAF ACF, with regard to the ADF in particular and other partners in general. The KC30 can lift the same cargo weight (38 tonnes) as the A400 so there are definitely advantages to running say a 4 -5 x A400 and 3 x KC30 fleet. It would help solve the RAAFs shortage of AAR capability as defined by Volkodav.

 

[MrConservative]

NZ has economies of scale issues when it comes to jet strategic transport. The comparitively small NZDF size and budget, as well as ad-hoc nature of tasking in the strategic airlift role, troop transport and VIP role means that it is an inefficent use of resources. The strategic lift role (allegedly) going to an aircraft that can do both Stratlift and Taclift. This leaves only a few hundred hours per annum for TT and VIP. An amount not sustainable for even 1 aircraft. I should note that the A400M can conduct a A2AR via hose and drouge secondary role if operational support is required. This eliminates any requirement of a MRTT in the RNZAF fleet. A single dry lease B737-800 airframe in a standard 2 class commercial configuration that can soak up the TT/VIP taskings with supporting MAOT role and flight conversion role for 5Sqd pilots is probably the solution as it can be maintained alongside the envisaged P-8 fleet.

A billion dollar spend up on three KC30's is not going to happen NG. Our Friendlies and the NZGovt want us contributing in ISR & SpecFor at the teir 1 level. KC's would kill off budget wise a couple of P-8's or A400M's or mean that the Navy would be down to a single Frigate replacement and no chance of a capable CY replacement which will really underpin F2035. Not to mention if Triton was/is on the cards. If a supplementary billion dollars were luckily found it would go elsewhere and enhance what we are either already doing, planning or require as fundamental outputs. There are better force multipliers for our regional mates and other than the MRTT. Question: If you have a choice of 3 Tritons + Sat to plug into BAMS alongside our 4 P-8's or 3 KC-30 MRTT's if that lucky billion came our way - what would you go for?

An argument could be made for just a single MRTT instead of a dry leased 737-800. However the concept is still decimated on cost / capability as a dry leased B73 is a fraction of a KC-30, the leased B73 can still do the 400 odd hours of annual flying hours TT/VIP. A role that is not worth spending the addition quarter billion plus when we even know that if the RAAF were really at a pinch A2A wise a couple of A400M could provide a temporary cover role.

 

[John Newman]

NZ has economies of scale issues when it comes to jet strategic transport. The comparitively small NZDF size and budget, as well as ad-hoc nature of tasking in the strategic airlift role, troop transport and VIP role means that it is an inefficent use of resources. The strategic lift role (allegedly) going to an aircraft that can do both Stratlift and Taclift. This leaves only a few hundred hours per annum for TT and VIP. An amount not sustainable for even 1 aircraft. I should note that the A400M can conduct a A2AR via hose and drouge secondary role if operational support is required. This eliminates any requirement of a MRTT in the RNZAF fleet. A single dry lease B737-800 airframe in a standard 2 class commercial configuration that can soak up the TT/VIP taskings with supporting MAOT role and flight conversion role for 5Sqd pilots is probably the solution as it can be maintained alongside the envisaged P-8 fleet.

A billion dollar spend up on three KC30's is not going to happen NG. Our Friendlies and the NZGovt want us contributing in ISR & SpecFor at the teir 1 level. KC's would kill off budget wise a couple of P-8's or A400M's or mean that the Navy would be down to a single Frigate replacement and no chance of a capable CY replacement which will really underpin F2035. Not to mention if Triton was/is on the cards. If a supplementary billion dollars were luckily found it would go elsewhere and enhance what we are either already doing, planning or require as fundamental outputs. There are better force multipliers for our regional mates and other than the MRTT. Question: If you have a choice of 3 Tritons + Sat to plug into BAMS alongside our 4 P-8's or 3 KC-30 MRTT's if that lucky billion came our way - what would you go for?

An argument could be made for just a single MRTT instead of a dry leased 737-800. However the concept is still decimated on cost / capability as a dry leased B73 is a fraction of a KC-30, the leased B73 can still do the 400 odd hours of annual flying hours TT/VIP. A role that is not worth spending the addition quarter billion plus when we even know that if the RAAF were really at a pinch A2A wise a couple of A400M could provide a temporary cover role.

Mr C (and NG),

In the spirit of ANZAC I hope you both don't mind me putting my 2 cents worth into the NZ Air Force debate.

With both our countries in the process of preparing new DWP's, maybe it's time that both our respective countries sat down and made a strong (and serious) effort to see where we could have common ground (and I think there is a lot), and how we could end up with capabilities that satisfied both our individual needs but also the shared needs and for our shared areas of interest (and concern).

The type of capabilities and systems that the RAAF is going to operate over the next 20-30 years seems to have been pretty well sorted and selected, so maybe NZ's decisions could complement and enhance those decisions.

With the RAAF planning to operate 8-12 P-8A's, an order or around 5-6 P-8A's by NZ would not only compliment but enhance both our capabilities in our respective areas of responsibility and surely there would be significant benefits, in regard to support and sustainment, for our respective nations.

The RAAF also appears to be on the path to operating 6-7 Tritons, on the other hand for NZ, Triton is probably a 'nice to have', but the issue of being able to afford and not affect the loss of another capability is a significant issue.

Maybe the solution, if considered desirable, is for NZ to 'contribute' to the cost and maintenance of, say, an additional 2 airframes to be based and maintained in Australia for shared use.

My thinking on Triton is sort of like what Australia has done with the US in regard to the WGS Satellites, we have paid for the full cost of the 6th satellite but in return we have access to the full network, so why not an 'ANZAC' force of Tritons?

In regard to air lift, the selection of say 4-6 A400M's (with A2AR capability) would not only be a significant boost to NZ but would also provide a valuable capability that sits between the RAAF's C-17's and C-130's, plus the ability to refuel the Super Hornet and Growler's of the RAAF in a future joint operation, and maybe down the track when the RAAF C-130J's come up for replacement the A400M's could also be considered as their appropriate replacement too.

(When it comes to A2AR by the KC-30A's I believe the RAAF is still 3 or 4 airframes short, which is an argument all on it's own too!)

Also on airlift, an appropriate number of NZ C-27J's would also be of great value and benefit to both our nations, same aircraft as the RAAF, more benefits for support and sustainment.

In regard to VIP needs, if all of the above happened, maybe the RAAF could also accommodate NZ's VIP needs or I'm sure Air NZ would be more than happy to provide aircraft for when VIP airlift was required.

Is there a way that both our nations can have our cake and eat it too? Maybe there is!

Food for thought? (no pun intended!)

Cheers,

 

[MrConservative]

Mr C (and NG),

In the spirit of ANZAC I hope you both don't mind me putting my 2 cents worth into the NZ Air Force debate.

With both our countries in the process of preparing new DWP's, maybe it's time that both our respective countries sat down and made a strong (and serious) effort to see where we could have common ground (and I think there is a lot), and how we could end up with capabilities that satisfied both our individual needs but also the shared needs and for our shared areas of interest (and concern).

The type of capabilities and systems that the RAAF is going to operate over the next 20-30 years seems to have been pretty well sorted and selected, so maybe NZ's decisions could complement and enhance those decisions.

With the RAAF planning to operate 8-12 P-8A's, an order or around 5-6 P-8A's by NZ would not only compliment but enhance both our capabilities in our respective areas of responsibility and surely there would be significant benefits, in regard to support and sustainment, for our respective nations.

The RAAF also appears to be on the path to operating 6-7 Tritons, on the other hand for NZ, Triton is probably a 'nice to have', but the issue of being able to afford and not affect the loss of another capability is a significant issue.

Maybe the solution, if considered desirable, is for NZ to 'contribute' to the cost and maintenance of, say, an additional 2 airframes to be based and maintained in Australia for shared use.

My thinking on Triton is sort of like what Australia has done with the US in regard to the WGS Satellites, we have paid for the full cost of the 6th satellite but in return we have access to the full network, so why not an 'ANZAC' force of Tritons?

In regard to air lift, the selection of say 4-6 A400M's (with A2AR capability) would not only be a significant boost to NZ but would also provide a valuable capability that sits between the RAAF's C-17's and C-130's, plus the ability to refuel the Super Hornet and Growler's of the RAAF in a future joint operation, and maybe down the track when the RAAF C-130J's come up for replacement the A400M's could also be considered as their appropriate replacement too.

(When it comes to A2AR by the KC-30A's I believe the RAAF is still 3 or 4 airframes short, which is an argument all on it's own too!)

Also on airlift, an appropriate number of NZ C-27J's would also be of great value and benefit to both our nations, same aircraft as the RAAF, more benefits for support and sustainment.

In regard to VIP needs, if all of the above happened, maybe the RAAF could also accommodate NZ's VIP needs or I'm sure Air NZ would be more than happy to provide aircraft for when VIP airlift was required.

Is there a way that both our nations can have our cake and eat it too? Maybe there is!

Food for thought? (no pun intended!)

Cheers,

I always appreciate your 2 cents worth John because I get a great return on your investment.

There are CDR discussions over this already at Min2MIn & CDF2CDF level, though you are right it could be so much better, so much complementary. It makes total sense in respect to the huge area of the planet that 2 countries oversee - both liberal democratic in nature, as well as being endowed in natural resources. However, Wayne Mapps kite flying over a possible NZDF contribution to an OZ based C-17, in which we could share when required got panned by his own party behind closed doors. There are a number of political considerations which I wont go into suffice to say that the historical - current partisanship within Defence in NZ at the political level could make it untenable and a view that what the taxpayer buys must been seen to have NZ control over it. That what makes what your suggesting a tad difficult. .

That said the NZDF buy in to WGS in my view is well worth the estimated $400m outlay. The acquisition of Triton as part of this ( 3 airframes based out of WP/OH??) is also top requirement to complement 4 P-8's. Triton + WGS is a billion dollar spend up (investment) on top of the possible P-8 buy - but its NatSec/Defence footprint is incalculable.

I don't need any further convincing that an A400M / C-27J mix for the RNZAF makes synergetic sense with the C-27J, C-130J, C-17 airlift mix of the RAAF and with the A400M potentially replacing the Herc in RAAF service it is really a no brainer with respect to that acquisition pathway.

 

[John Newman]

I always appreciate your 2 cents worth John because I get a great return on your investment.

There are CDR discussions over this already at Min2MIn & CDF2CDF level, though you are right it could be so much better, so much complementary. It makes total sense in respect to the huge area of the planet that 2 countries oversee - both liberal democratic in nature, as well as being endowed in natural resources. However, Wayne Mapps kite flying over a possible NZDF contribution to an OZ based C-17, in which we could share when required got panned by his own party behind closed doors. There are a number of political considerations which I wont go into suffice to say that the historical - current partisanship within Defence in NZ at the political level could make it untenable and a view that what the taxpayer buys must been seen to have NZ control over it. That what makes what your suggesting a tad difficult. .

That said the NZDF buy in to WGS in my view is well worth the estimated $400m outlay. The acquisition of Triton as part of this ( 3 airframes based out of WP/OH??) is also top requirement to complement 4 P-8's. Triton + WGS is a billion dollar spend up (investment) on top of the possible P-8 buy - but its NatSec/Defence footprint is incalculable.

I don't need any further convincing that an A400M / C-27J mix for the RNZAF makes synergetic sense with the C-27J, C-130-30J, C-17 airlift mix of the RAAF and with the A400M potentially replacing the Herc in RAAF service it is really a no brainer with respect to that acquisition pathway.

Mr C,

Yes I knew it would be 'difficult', for the obvious reasons of the 'politics' of all this, and yes it is the very big elephant in the room, unfortunately!

Everything we have both said makes sense, common sense, but as we both know the problem with common sense is that it's not common enough.

To my way of thinking there are probably no other independent nations in such close geographical proximity in the world (on top of our shared history) who could actually produce a bipartisan and beneficial defence arrangement than our two nations, but then of course nationalism and politics gets in the road.

If somewhere in the years ahead Australia faces a major threat to it's security I think that the threat would also be significant to NZ, or visa versa, I could be wrong, but I think that both our future security is very much intertwined.

Hopefully both our upcoming DWP's can take our joint defence and security interests into consideration and can also seriously look at ways that we can both contribute, and benefit from too!

Cheers,

 

[kiwi in exile]

After years of being under-equiped, under investments and making do, the possibility of having Tritons, P8's and access to satelite imagery almost feels like overkill, especially when most of what you hear about the Orions is poachers, yachts in trouble etc. To me, this kind of mix suggests NZ performing more of a regional strategic role, more towards SE asia than the relatively "benign" South Pacific.

 

[hauritz]

After years of being under-equiped, under investments and making do, the possibility of having Tritons, P8's and access to satelite imagery almost feels like overkill, especially when most of what you hear about the Orions is poachers, yachts in trouble etc. To me, this kind of mix suggests NZ performing more of a regional strategic role, more towards SE asia than the relatively "benign" South Pacific.

I agree the P-8 might be overkill ... particularly if the budget is tight. The C-295 MPA might be a better option. Buy the transport version as well.

 

[MrConservative]

After years of being under-equiped, under investments and making do, the possibility of having Tritons, P8's and access to satelite imagery almost feels like overkill, especially when most of what you hear about the Orions is poachers, yachts in trouble etc. To me, this kind of mix suggests NZ performing more of a regional strategic role, more towards SE asia than the relatively "benign" South Pacific.

There is a lot more to it than poachers coming from the ISR perspective. Yes it is a regional strategic perspective that is driven by not just by a direct defence perspective. Teir 1 ISR assets exist for more than pure "defence" is one way of understanding it.