Royal New Zealand Air Force

[harryriedl]

Of the Nimrod crowd I've met, they remind me of Boomer crews - quiet, tight lipped and very self effacing, very aw, shucks, us? Maybe they get louder after a beer or five.

Very good apparently. We should buy them shiny kit and make much use of them.

Shame MRA4 was such a cluck-up. For a maritime nation with so much salt water around, taking a "gap" in MPA is mad. Hopefully NZ will make the right decisions - we're lucky in the UK that both parties seem to have a reasonable grasp on the need for defence and that the general public have a fondness for the armed services. It's not perfect but it's a bit better than in Canada or NZ where both countries appear served by very professional people, who are held in little regard by the political process.

The more I look at Nimrod the more I think it was a general waste of money the MRA4 seems ridiculous in retrospect(Im not willd about the intial Nimrod) Hopefully a lease on P8 will only be a matter of time to plug the maritime air gap.

It is vastly stupid but I cannot blame the thinking with MRA4 being such as vast money pit with no export potential and a tiny fleet of aircraft.

 

[StobieWan]

The more I look at Nimrod the more I think it was a general waste of money the MRA4 seems ridiculous in retrospect(Im not willd about the intial Nimrod) Hopefully a lease on P8 will only be a matter of time to plug the maritime air gap.

It is vastly stupid but I cannot blame the thinking with MRA4 being such as vast money pit with no export potential and a tiny fleet of aircraft.

Other countries have managed similar upgrades without major incident. MRA4 was a very British mess.

 

[Zero Alpha]

Except for CSAR the Herc C130J has show its inadequacy already - RAF realised their deficiency when they needed to use one for maritime patrol (no more Nimrods) in a SAR opn. The internal post analysis re their capability on the job was less than flattering

Except the USCG - with one of the largest MPA fleets in the world - seem pretty happy with it.

 

[StobieWan]

Except the USCG - with one of the largest MPA fleets in the world - seem pretty happy with it.

How many torpedoes a year do they drop?

And what's the search radar like?

 

[swerve]

How many torpedoes a year do they drop?

And what's the search radar like?

The search radar is pretty good. They now have Selex Seaspray 7500E AESA radars, made in the UK, replacing AN/APS-137.

 

[Zero Alpha]

How many torpedoes a year do they drop?

And what's the search radar like?

Since facetious comments seem be the order of the day -the answer to your first question is probably as many as the RNZAF do. The USCG has sunk more submarines than the NZDF has.

I'm struggling to see the logic behind the tremendous faith people have in Boeing's ability to create an ASW platform from an airliner, with very little experience at MPA development, and at the same time dump manure on the concept of Lockheed extending the capability of a proven surveillance platform, when Lockheed has a hell of a lot more experience at MPAs than Boeing does.

 

[StobieWan]

Since facetious comments seem be the order of the day -the answer to your first question is probably as many as the RNZAF do. The USCG has sunk more submarines than the NZDF has.

I'm struggling to see the logic behind the tremendous faith people have in Boeing's ability to create an ASW platform from an airliner, with very little experience at MPA development, and at the same time dump manure on the concept of Lockheed extending the capability of a proven surveillance platform, when Lockheed has a hell of a lot more experience at MPAs than Boeing does.

Wasn't facetious - was just curious as to how a coast guard search air rescue platform mapped over to a national MPA issue?

And for the record, faith is an article of belief, P8 exists and is flying. That's fact.

 

[John Fedup]

Of the Nimrod crowd I've met, they remind me of Boomer crews - quiet, tight lipped and very self effacing, very aw, shucks, us? Maybe they get louder after a beer or five.

Very good apparently. We should buy them shiny kit and make much use of them.

Shame MRA4 was such a cluck-up. For a maritime nation with so much salt water around, taking a "gap" in MPA is mad. Hopefully NZ will make the right decisions - we're lucky in the UK that both parties seem to have a reasonable grasp on the need for defence and that the general public have a fondness for the armed services. It's not perfect but it's a bit better than in Canada or NZ where both countries appear served by very professional people, who are held in little regard by the political process.

In Canada's case I would add that the professional people are not well served by the Canadian public either.

 

[StobieWan]

The search radar is pretty good. They now have Selex Seaspray 7500E AESA radars, made in the UK, replacing AN/APS-137.

Ah - okay, SeaSpray is pretty good so that helps.

 

[Todjaeger]

Except the USCG - with one of the largest MPA fleets in the world - seem pretty happy with it.

Unfortunately you are overlooking a few very significant facts.

The first is that the uniformed services of the United States are both significantly larger (IIRC approx. the size of the entire NZ population) and better funded than that of the NZDF. The second, which is a follow-on to the first, is that the US is able to have more specialized units than other nations. The third is that the maritime patrol aircraft fleet of the USCG is not the largest such fleet the US has, being something on the order of a third (or less) the size of the USN maritime patrol aircraft fleet. Fourth, having a C-130 based MPA is really only efficient if the airlift component that NZ requires is also based on the C-130, which at this point is an open question given other potential options.

 

[OPSSG]

Except the USCG - with one of the largest MPA fleets in the world - seem pretty happy with it.

Love your attempt at trolling, again.

Wasn't facetious - was just curious as to how a coast guard search air rescue platform mapped over to a national MPA issue?

There are lots of people who are less able to process information; and there are people who do not want to process additional information, even when they are pointed to them. People who can't tell the difference between the missions of the US coast guard and the missions of the NZDF - this is not uncommon in facebook and we don't cater to that level of stupid in a defence forum. However, I believe we are seeing a person that resists information provided to him because of his prior misconception. That is a different kettle of fish.

And for the record, faith is an article of belief, P8 exists and is flying. That's fact.

And if Zero Alpha bothered to read up, when pointed in the right direction, he would come across better in his posts. Right now, Zero Alpha just sounds resentful that his misconceptions are being debunked. Thus far, the P-8A has completed its IOC and its capabilities are being developed by the US Navy in increments:-

(i) Increment 1 of the P-8A is equipped with persistent anti-warfare capabilities, an integrated sensor suite and improved situational awareness.

(ii) Increment 2, slated for 2016, will include multi-static active coherent acoustics (AEER), automated identification system, and high-altitude anti-submarine weapons.

(iii) Increment 3, slated for 2020, will include net-ready and net-enabled ASuW weapon, wide band SATCOM and an architecture upgrade.​

The Defense Media Network has a 3 part article from April 2013 by Eric Tegler, well worth reading: The P-8A Poseidon Adventure (part 1, part 2 and part 3). The quote below is taken from part 2.

"While baseline P-8s will deploy with the same capabilities as the P-3C, pipeline capability improvements slated for Increment 2 and Increment 3 have caused some confusion about the operational profile of the Poseidon. Chief among these is the High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare System (HAASW), which uses modified sonobuoy sensors that will allow the aircraft to operate at higher altitudes. This enables greater communications range with large area buoy fields and greater coverage from other onboard non-acoustic sensors. The assumption is that the P-8A won’t be “going-low” in search mode.

The P-8A’s sensor suite, radar and data link systems can not only gather more (and more precise) data, they can fuse that data into a common operational picture and push it to other platforms in a fashion the P-3C cannot. A notable omission is the magnetic anomaly detection (MAD) system and the empennage boom which gave the P-3 its characteristic stinger tail. According to Rear Adm. Buck, analysis showed that the P-8’s sensor package (including the latest Multi-Static Active Coherent sonobuoys) would be able to perform all primary mission sets without the MAD system.

The airplane will initially deploy with weapons capability similar to that of the Orion, carrying the Mk. 54 torpedo and AGM-84 Harpoon. The P-8 will not initially be equipped with mines nor will it carry AGM-84K SLAM-ER missiles. Those capabilities are expected later this decade."​

With the inaugural deployment of the P-8A Poseidon completed, Patrol Squadron 16 has returned to Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida, after a seven-month deployment to Kadena Air Base.

Further, Patrol Squadron-45 Combat Aircrew Four-4 recently completed the first P-8A Coordinated Time on Top (CTOT) AGM-84D live missile shot with a Japan Maritime Self Defense Force P-3C crew during RIMPAC 2014 and the P-8A is in Singapore taking part in CARAT 2014, in a USN training exercise with the Singapore Navy.

Hopefully, Zero Alpha will bother to read the sources provided before replying - I do not intend to provide further replies on the P-8A, as I believe he is already resisting information being provided in this thread.

 

[Zero Alpha]

Some people will have seen the story on TVNZ the other night about disposing of a pair of IPVs in favour of obtaining an additional OPV.

I have obtained the documents supplied to TVNZ under the Official Information Act that were used to write that story.

Couple of parts relevant to this thread (air-centric).

• For budgetry purposes, the aircraft used for 757 replacement is the A400 (from 2022/2023 and 20234/2024)
• The Capital Plan indicates the C-130 replacement takes up 14% of the capital budget over the period, the P-3K2 replacement 11%, the frigate replacement 29%, real estate 11%, MPSC 3% and Frigate Systems Uprade 2%

As well as giving an idea on the costs for different areas, it also suggests there has been a major re-work in cost estimates - pervious estimates had the P-3 replacement and the frigate replacement costing about the same amount of money. If that is the case than go ahead and buy P-8s!

 

[OPSSG]

All I've done is advance the argument that the long range maritime patrol capability could be configured differently, with a different emphasis to that provide by the P-8. I've never suggested we should try to make some other airframe type do everything a P-8 does. I just happen to believe there is greater policy and military utility in investing in other areas.

I am sorry that I was wrong about you - I made the wrong assumption. Your reply demonstrates that you really don't know the difference between a coast guard and a navy. Please feel free to provide more details on the NZ's air patrol requirements. You just don't understand that NZ's MPAs not only have a 'green water' role but their ambit extends to the 'blue'. NZ's EEZs alone are huge relative to the number of air frames they will acquire, therefore time on station is important and where the P-8 shines is the speed to get on station, compared to turboprop. The P-8A cruises at 500 knots compared to the 300 knots for a turboprop. This means a larger search area covered per hour of search. And I told you to read the links before posting again. But no. You had to have a quick retort instead of reading up the links provided.

It's quite entertaining, to see such heroic efforts at misdirection when proven wrong. Of course there is some minor overlap of mission profiles between war fighting requirements and EEZ patrols and I am sure you can explain that.

Some people will have seen the story on TVNZ the other night about disposing of a pair of IPVs in favour of obtaining an additional OPV.

I have obtained the documents supplied to TVNZ under the Official Information Act that were used to write that story.

Couple of parts relevant to this thread (air-centric).

• For budgetry purposes, the aircraft used for 757 replacement is the A400 (from 2022/2023 and 20234/2024)
• The Capital Plan indicates the C-130 replacement takes up 14% of the capital budget over the period, the P-3K2 replacement 11%, the frigate replacement 29%, real estate 11%, MPSC 3% and Frigate Systems Uprade 2%

As well as giving an idea on the costs for different areas, it also suggests there has been a major re-work in cost estimates - pervious estimates had the P-3 replacement and the frigate replacement costing about the same amount of money. If that is the case than go ahead and buy P-8s!

Congrats on trying to look smart by bringing up the USCG, and I appreciate the failed effort. You've got a great sense of humour - that is why you work well with politicians - kissing babies and having their pictures taken in public.

 

[OPSSG]

But hey, you're an expert. No doubt you already knew that.

I do know that. I am mocking you by descending to your level. It is just a joke - take it in that spirit - as you will not be taken seriously - given the quality of your posts.

Edit: Welcome to the humor zone. Laugh and don't take jokes so seriously, especially since you don't know the difference between the US coast guard and the NZDF's role.

 

[OPSSG]

IMO, the attempt at humour may have been a bit flat but it is a logical recourse to the replies on a replacement MPA by Zero Alpha thus far. The clear problem is the lack of substance in his posts. The platform choice must meet the capability requirement and Zero Alpha's pet rock theory demonstrates this lack of awareness. BTW, Orions fly with a crew of eleven, but Poseidons will fly with nine, including three pilots, two NFOs, two ASW acoustic operators and two non-acoustic operators.

StevoJH, one of our regular contributors was kind enough to provide us with maps of NZ's EEZ and SRR. Just simply looking at these maps will tell you that Zero Alpha does not know what he is talking about.

You edited that post quickly. Are ad hominem attacks the normal standard from moderators, or just you?

If you don't like the forum, leave. No one is sorry to see you go. If you can take the joke, then stay. Either way, it's ok with me.

I added the additional line in kindness but you don't seem to see it in that light. Either way, you have used up your good will by your pattern of behaviour. And I have intervened in this thread at the request of others, who are fed-up with the lack of logic shown.

 

[Volkodav]

All I feel I can add to the current topic is history has shown over and over again that skimping on capability to reduce upfront or short term costs usually results in far greater costs in the future when the selected capability falls short and needs to be replaced or supplemented before time and out of cycle. This in turn leads to undesired consequences as other required capabilities are compromised to free up cash to fix the previous mistake.

 

[Zero Alpha]

All I feel I can add to the current topic is history has shown over and over again that skimping on capability to reduce upfront or short term costs usually results in far greater costs in the future when the selected capability falls short and needs to be replaced or supplemented before time and out of cycle. This in turn leads to undesired consequences as other required capabilities are compromised to free up cash to fix the previous mistake.

And there's certainly no shortage of examples of that in NZ.

Fortunately the most recent capital estimate has revised down the cost of some major capabilities, meaning that the likelihood of capability tradeoffs is reduced. Reducing the MPA cost estimates by over a billion dollars is a major change in my view. It shifts the argument from 'What do we do to afford any level of capability' to 'How to be supplement the primary MPA to meet the less demanding tasks?'

A consistent theme from the current government has been to select the higher end options put to it. No doubt that won't satisfy plenty of people here, but it is a positive development and long may it continue.

 

[Todjaeger]

The principal misconception actually seems to be what NZ uses its defence forces for.

The mission of the NZDF is:

"To secure New Zealand against external threat, to protect our sovereign interests, including the Exclusive Economic Zone, and to take action to meet likely contingencies in New Zealand’s area of strategic interest.”

What successive generations of political leaders have accepted is that the 'external threat' is low to very low, the sovereign interests require capability only at the lower end of the scale, and the likely contingencies in New Zealand's area of interest are both expeditionary in nature and highly discretionary. There's a very useful section in a document published by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet that should be food for thought:

Maritime surveillance and response capabilities are also highly expensive, and
therefore need to be selected on the basis of their most probable use. Covering the
top end risks, or developing capacities to deal with rare or extraordinary
circumstances, can add enormously to the costs. It is easy for unthinking ‘worstcase’
scenarios to distort assessments of this type and bias the results in favour of
equipment-heavy outcomes.

In reality, most of the risks we face in New Zealand fall into the low-mid part of the
risk spectrum:

Going back to the start of this sub-thread, the question was asked about what capabilities NZ should have going forward. All I've done is advance the argument that the long range maritime patrol capability could be configured differently, with a different emphasis to that provide by the P-8. I've never suggested we should try to make some other airframe type do everything a P-8 does. I just happen to believe there is greater policy and military utility in investing in other areas.

Amongst the more active and experienced posters in the various NZ threads, there is very little misconception about what the NZDF is for. The misconception or perhaps disagreement is really more about the actual area of NZ interests, the potential threats to same, the potential impact of threats to same, and the ability of the NZDF to respond or mitigate those threats. The misconception appears largely held by those that have subscribed to the notion put out by various (specific) NZ Gov't that NZ is in a benign security environment without threats to NZ or NZ interests, and the disagreements are with the same.

A case in point, within the past few years (i.e. less than a decade) the piracy risk to vessels transitting the Malacca Straits and other nearby waterways was sufficiently high for the international maritime insurance groups rated the area as a warzone, and priced the insurance for vessels and cargo making the transit accordling. The had the effect of increasing the costs to make the transit, which resulted in an increase in cost for items imported to NZ. At the same time, the cost of items NZ was exporting also increased because of the increased shipping costs, and as a result there would be less demand for NZ exports due to their increased costs. A similar situation has been occuring off the east coast of Africa as a result of the chaos in Somalia and all the resulting piracy.

I somehow doubt that a number of the members of Gov't and various political parties have really thought about or realized the impact events elsewhere has on NZ. For a more extreme example of what I mean, in one of the elections within the last few years, the Greens had as a major part of 'their' defence plank a policy of passive non-cooperation with an occupying force. Amongst the issues with such a policy focus is that it is focusing on one of the least likely security threats NZ faces, it ignores the events which would cause another nation to take such a step, it assumed that an occupying force would not engage in population containment, control, or elimination, and it also completely ignored potential and real, existing security threats which were impacting NZ.

I have posted to you before;

If you speak with cabinent ministers, there is something I would like you to do, and then record the reaction or response from the minister(s).

Show the minister(s) a world map, with NZ clearly marked in a noticable colour. Have the waters making up NZ's EEZ, the EEZ's of nations NZ has patrol responsibility for, as well as NZ's SAR region all clearly marked in another very noticable colour. Next have the map marked showing the specific shipping routes that the top ten exports from and imports to NZ take, with each specific route being marked clearly and seperately. Include a key for the map explaining what each individual colour indicates, as well as the numbers/percentages for the trade activities.

I often have the sense that NZ pollies really have no idea how much impact problems in an area like the Malacca Straits would have upon NZ.

I suggest you get a world map, and mark out what I mentioned above, the way I posted it. That should provide you with a better understanding of the potential scope for NZ interests, along with an idea of where problems can occur which can have serious repercussions for NZ.

At the low end of the spectrum, there certainly could be SAR obligations for vessels or aircraft that are missing, damaged or otherwise in distress. There are also constabulary obligations for EEZ (NZ and other S. Pacific nations') patrolling for illegal exploitation and pollution control. Then there are the even higer level potential issues of piracy, terrorism, or actual hostilities which impact NZ shipping, or shipping transporting goods head towards or from NZ.

Lastly, for those who for some reason really have an attitude that a defence force should be thought of like a business, it really needs to be looked at more like an insurance policy, with a real, detailed, honest and accurate look at potential risks, with an honest assessment of the likelihood of various events occuring, the impact of the various events, and the cost to have a defence force capable of preventing or mitigating those same events.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Except the USCG - with one of the largest MPA fleets in the world - seem pretty happy with it.

their air is green water

you're on short finals - I suggest that you make more of an effort to understand and learn from some of the people in here who's input so far is based on fact and experience.

btw, NZ and UK have something in common - they're island nations with large oceanic territorial areas of jurisdiction and responsibility

The USCG has the luxury of being able to get access to the broad common operating picture available via the USN, USAF, USMC, HS, and a variety of other alphabet agencies - NZ does not - her SA is very much service based - esp as she does not have long range land based sensor systems to support her air - and they (USCG) also get feeds from border protection agencies as well as having access to other agency/service AWACs capability - they (USCG) also have the advantage of maximising feeds from other land based sensor systems (and aerostats) into their common operating picture. NZ has none of that situational awareness and appreciation to leverage off

so when you come out with one liners such as at the re-quote start of this response - well you can appreciate (or start to appreciate) why listening and learning is more useful in here than posturing

If you don't like the fact that people with experience have tolerated you to date by offering fact over fiction, then I suggest that you find another forum

People in here have a short toleration fuse for people who post nonsense and then are resistant to factual debate just to support their pet rock theories. If they are offering advice then its couched in terms of actual knowledge and experience. For someone who infers they are travel in lofty circles and offer advice, you are not demonstrating that its supported by your input and behaviour to date

No response needed to this as the proof will be in your subsequent behaviour. If you have an issue then PM a Mod or Web, if you're not prepared to change your approach (and people are willing to offer input because they're generous of spirit and not self promoters) then there will be progress

your choice. OT will be deleted by any Mod at their discretion

 

[RegR]

We dabbled in the idea of maritime C130 when we purchased our original hercs and instead went with the fit for purpose P3 after some thought, research, beers etc. It didn't work way back then and has anything really changed now to warrant a change in that perception? Sometimes the benefits of a common platform covering multiple roles are just too far outweighed by their unsuitability to a particular task. Creating deficiencies out of perceived savings.

The USCG has the back up/fall back/cover of a number of other agencies whose bread and butter is maritime (or SAR, overland, ISR etc for that fact), we sadly do not have that luxury on tap therefore need to put our best foot forward from the get go and cover all bases as best we can. Better overkill in some instances then under-performing in most.