Is Triton able to launch missiles? I thought I read somewhere that the triton family, unlike predator type, did not have wing pylons and therefore unable to launch weapons. Unsure if this is even a consideration for RNZAF UAV requirement however could end up being like the P3 problem in that not future proofing could prove costly down the track if/when the goal posts move.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
No its not Reg. It is a pure ISR asset. The Triton is the finder and the P-8 the keeper.
By the way the idea to rewire the P-3 to MIL STD 1760 originated around 1999 before Labour took office. An issue with the F-16 capability conducting anti-ship might have had something to do with it. Todj - you might know of that. Was the ghosting issue with the Harpoon or was it just not possible and the F-16s with Mavs were probably weaker in that area than the A-4Ks they were to replace?
Last edited:
Reg as far I am aware the Triton is a surveillance platform only. However at some stage in the future this might change or a another platform performing both roles becomes available. I think in NZs case cost, pollies lack of foresight, inability to appreciate the long term outlook and their temporal (time) limitation to electoral cycles, probably will inhibit gaining such a valuable and worthwhile capability.
Reckon there is atypo there mate, sounds like a quote for 160 missiles, not 16.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Possible but not likely. Based off prior Boeing Harpoon contracts 160 missiles without any support package, training, etc would be more in the USD$256 mil. price range.
Re: F-16 w/AShM I will need to check and see what I can find out.
-Cheers
Zero Alpha
New Member
As well as the wiring, it's the protocol the interface uses, and that means software changes, I/O device changes, etc.. I don't disagree with you that it would have been sensible, but it's something I'd be prepared to put on the back-burner in return for an easy route through cabinet approval.
I doubt the wings would need to come off. It's more like a phase maintenance job.
I'd like to see the drag calculations a pair of Harpoons would add. The range penalty wouldn't be pretty.
Surley those figures quoted are not right. $169 Mil for 16 missiles and support? I doubt it very much.
That is what happened. A upgrade formulated before Labour took office was put on the back burner. Possibly a little nervousness about getting any upgrade at all and knowing that Sirius was cancelled and they the RNZAF were not the flavour of the month on the 9th floor for quite a while. The Government were well aware of the intended Sirius capabilities that they themselves cancelled and were loathe to entertain any belated backdoor route to even future proof the aircraft in an armed role.
The Defence Policy Framework of 2000 was an ideological document, a political vision statement on how the government sought to reframe the New Zealand military in their world view. Everything for at least the next 5 years was evaluated and filtered through that document, especially during the Burton era. They were very successful at doing this whether or not you agreed with it.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
To make use of the updated interface, perhaps but if the do not get used, then the software, I/O, etc are not a priority. The issue though is that by not changing the interfaces to what are now the current standards, then hardware needs to be changed as well as software if an Orion were to need something like an AShM or other external stores or pods.
The impression I had formed based off conversations with Magoo and a few others was that work on the wiring loom inside the wings and portions of the airframe would be required to upgrade to the MIL-STD-1760. The sort of work which would require opening up the wings themselves, and would therefore have been best to do while re-winging the Orion. It might be possible to change the interfaces without removing the wings, but it would certainly be a more difficult and expensive task than any sort of normal maintenance.
I read elsewhere last year about using Bluetooth to communicate with weapons / pylons from the onboard systems negating the expense of wing wiring etc. I just can't find the link at the moment. Anyway, if we take that a step further what about a low power wi fi system between the the onboard systems and weapons / pylons? The technology is available.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
As someone that works in the IT field, and deals with RF spectrum as an AUXCOMM, the notion of relying on something like that disturbs me.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
IIRC the RNZAF P-3's were re-winged with newly manufactured P-3C wings in the late 90's. Presumably that means they have (as at the time) relatively contemporary wiring and data-buses either installed or have provision for, in other words not too dissimilar to many other P-3C operators.
As Tod notes that would be at least the MIL-STD-1553 databus which would allow basic Harpoon use.
Presumably then the manufacturer LM would have an upgrade path to the MIL-STD-1760 standard, and seeing the P-3K2 has a contemporary wing design surely there must be provision in the design to allow for such ease of upgrades? If so that might explain why RNZAF don't seem to be raising any concerns with the ease of a future upgrade etc.
Fair enough. Thanks Tod, I threw it up to see what the response would be. Your answer speaks volumes.
Found it in the online version of wikiscramble. The Block 15 OCU could not take the AGM-84. Could take / load the AGM-119, (which obviously was not desirable to the RNZAF) and the AGM-65 of course, which would be in the RNZAF view not as good in the role as the A-4K Kahu. Evidently Block 20 could take the AGM-84 and if the article is correct it wasnt until the Block 50/52 that the AGM-84 was fully intergrated.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
AFAIK starting in the late 90's some sort of adapter kit was developed or available which could be fitted onto or integrated with an AGM-84 Harpoon to enable it to be launched from Block 20 Falcons. IIRC there was an order from Taiwan for a number of them which was approved by the US DoD.
With respect to some of the earlier discussion about the P3 wiring and interfaces, the wiring itself, MIL-STD-1553 has been the standard since the 70's. The only part of that which has really changed recently is that there is now a fiber version of the standard.
Now it might take some digging, but the impression I have gotten from the material available so far is that while there is the wiring within the wing, to change the interfaces to MIL-STD-1760 the wings would need to be taken off again and opened up. Keep in mind that prior to MIL-STD-1760, different weapons had their own individual, unique interfaces.
-Cheers
2014 Budget
I've been looking at the budget announced today. There has been a restructuring of the outputs so its not necessarily a straight comparison with last years.
New Output M22 (Air Force Capabilities Prepared for Joint Operations and Other Tasks) - Key Points I found interesting:
New Output M22 (Army Capabilities for Joint Operations and Other Tasks)
New Output (Navy Capabilities Prepared for Joint operations and Other Tasks) - Limited to the generation of Navy capabilities that achieve the levels of readiness for military operations and other tasks as directed by the Government.
The output changes are substantial but overall I think they provide a clearer picture of the policy outcomes the government is seeking. They also indicate I think the future direction of force development. These appear to include arming the P3 with a standoff capability for one given the reference to interdiction. I also think it has implications of the capabilities expected of the ANZAC replacements, possibility at a Patrol Frigate Level, rather than T26. For the navy the Naval Patrol Force is not included in the above output but I'm still going though the budget so we'll see how we go.
I've been looking at the budget announced today. There has been a restructuring of the outputs so its not necessarily a straight comparison with last years.
New Output M22 (Air Force Capabilities Prepared for Joint Operations and Other Tasks) - Key Points I found interesting:
- Surveillance Capability prepared for employment on surveillance and response tasks for maritime interdiction operations.
- A Naval Air Combat Capability for embarkation on surface ships (Sea Sprites)
- Performance New Measure - Provide air surveillance and response capabilities for sea control and surveillance operations
New Output M22 (Army Capabilities for Joint Operations and Other Tasks)
- SOF prepared for theatre level special operations to prevent terrorism and asymmetric threats reaching NZ and territories for which NZ has a strategic interest
- Designated high-readiness land combat capability prepared to respond to regional crises.
- Combined arms land combat capability prepared to conduct stabilisation operations and support a host nation....
- Combined arms land combat capability prepared for global employment in complex war fighting in urban and open terrain either independently or within a coalition to conduct counter-insurgency operations and deter an aggressor from engaging in hostile activities against another state.
New Output (Navy Capabilities Prepared for Joint operations and Other Tasks) - Limited to the generation of Navy capabilities that achieve the levels of readiness for military operations and other tasks as directed by the Government.
- A Naval combat capability with ships and organic aircraft prepared to conduct sea-control operations within a coalition naval task group, protect military and commercial shipping and related operations to enforce international law and prohibit the movement of specified items, people or vessels.
- Deployable maritime capability prepared to conduct operations that safeguards access to and the use of harbours, inshore waters and littoral zones in NZ and wherever NZDF forces are required to operate.
- Naval Shipping Control Capability
The output changes are substantial but overall I think they provide a clearer picture of the policy outcomes the government is seeking. They also indicate I think the future direction of force development. These appear to include arming the P3 with a standoff capability for one given the reference to interdiction. I also think it has implications of the capabilities expected of the ANZAC replacements, possibility at a Patrol Frigate Level, rather than T26. For the navy the Naval Patrol Force is not included in the above output but I'm still going though the budget so we'll see how we go.
Zero Alpha
New Member
Various reviews have indicated changes to the output classes were overdue. I'd expect the new arrangement make the administrative side of the house easier. It's also clearer how much is spent on multi-agency support operations that aren't related to the pointy end of the stick.
I think it would be to much of a leap to read much about future capability plans into the budget (although some will have noticed that a year or two back 'maritime air patrol' was renamed airborne surveillance and response).
I think it would be to much of a leap to read much about future capability plans into the budget (although some will have noticed that a year or two back 'maritime air patrol' was renamed airborne surveillance and response).
The Naval Patrol Force has been:
I, like Zero Alpha, feel that it might be a reach to far to imply anything about the ANZAC replacements from this budget documents. At the present point in time it would be probably around 2022 at the very earliest that such an undertaking would be seriously looked at. Before then there is the 2015 DWP (Sept election withstanding) which may indicate how the frigate force would be seen. I do think that the arming of the P3K2s will be a major project because from what I understand, from what has been posted here, it will require removal of the wings and rewiring with looms of wire to the current MIL-STD. Maybe that is something that could be done by Safe Air at Woodbourne.
2.1 - Departmental Output Expenses
Air Force Capabilities Prepared for Joint Operations and Other Tasks (M22) details the appropriations for 2014/15 with a total appropriation of $743,948,000.
- a surveillance and response capability prepared to be employed on sea control operations
- a surveillance capability prepared for employment on surveillance and response tasks for maritime interdiction operations
- a naval air combat capability for embarkation in surface ships
- a strategic airlift capability prepared to deploy, sustain and recover deployed forces
- a tactical airlift capability prepared for personnel movement and cargo operations within a designated area of operations, and
- a tactical air mobility capability prepared to support land operations, special operations forces, aeromedical evacuation and combat search and recovery operations (p62).
Tend to agree with this analysis, the budget is largely just that. DWP 2015 will be the real litmus test.
One section quoted intrigues me...
"Combined arms land combat capability prepared for global employment in complex war fighting in urban and open terrain either independently or within a coalition to conduct counter-insurgency operations and deter an aggressor from engaging in hostile activities against another state "
Am I just mis-interpreting it - I mean there's very real limitations on what the NZDF can do truly independently if deployed overseas in a complex war fighting environment. We'll always be part of a coalition in serious scraps! Mind you I guess it is a budget document rather than a specific defence policy document. Perhaps just political mumbo-jumbo words!?!