Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Zero Alpha]

I see Ron Mark (former soldier), current Defence spokesperson for the NZ First party, has offered up another opinion piece in the MSM. With the NZ First party poised to possibly gain an extra seat in Parliament in tomorrow's by-election (and if that happens it could make for "interesting" potential coalition/confidence and supply musical chairs scenario with the other smaller parties flexing their muscles to keep NZF out ... or potentially for NZF to reach their own C&S agreement with Govt and have some influence .... or then again not if perhaps NZF decides to remain on the Opposition cross benches etc), and Ron Mark's semi-occasional sniping against Govt defence planning, what do people make of his latest thoughts?

Ron's problem is he can't see past the small scale. He only ever relates things back to his own experience in Army, which was at troop and squadron level.

The by-election itself isn't significant in that it won't change confidence and supply arrangements. NZ First had the option of going in to coalition, and rejected it. An extra MP in there for them isn't going to change decision making. Especially since Labour/Goff appear to be supporting National. The NZ First voting block is small and isn't respected enough to be listened to by either Labour or National.

For the RNZAF in particular, he is suggesting leaving strategic lift taskings for the Navy only, via 1x Sealift vessel, HMNZS Canterbury (but no mention of acquiring a second vessel to be available when Canterbury is undergoing maintenance or on another deployment etc. Although good to see he favors a more capable future replacement for Canterbury).

He's never actually said what he considers the difference between strategic and tactical in the NZ context. The only clues as to his thinking are short field performance. Strategic lift (mass and volume) is best done by sea, but strategic lift (political influence and tactically decisive loads) in the pacific can be done by air in the Pacific. Similar for HADR ops, the 'strategic' is measured by being there, not by payload.

He (thus NZ First) are against a potential C-17 acquisition (although I notice he always talks about the money as being for a one-for-one replacement of the C-130H hence to count against such an acquisition, public perception/funding wise, when more realistically presumably the NZG are considering 2-3, possibly at a stretch 4x, C-17 (or A400) airframes backed up with a few C-27/CN-295 or maybe C-130J tactical airlifters). For NZF, even the A400 appears to be seen as a "possibility" (but that's not necessarily a given).

Instead he/NZF are in favour of more tactical C-130's (new or second hand reading between the lines) or possibly the Embraer KC-390 (an unproven design).

Fundamentally, he hasn't acknowledged that we can't change decisions of the past. Every bit of new kit is heavier than older stuff, so the relative usefulness of the Hercs has declined. KC-390 isn't a serious contender.

He talks about restoring an air combat force (but no details are given, although it is policy on their 2014 election website), however I last recall when NZF was last in Coalition Govt (2005-2008 with Labour) NZF never talked about an ACF at all, let alone do anything proactive!

Trying to appeal reactionary votes. UK experience is to maintain a QRF, you need a squadron. Having a squadron tied up to protect against a scenario that has only happened once in modern history isn't a great basis for planning. I also don't think there are many votes in it, which probably means Winston would rather get concessions in something more populist if he's in a position to horse trade.

However I do recall when NZF were last in Coalition Govt with National (1996-1998) they were primarily responsible for killing off the then 3rd-new ANZAC Frigate acquisition by not supporting the acquisition at Cabinet level. Does anyone recall what NZF thought of the then F-16 acquisition at about the same time, which was signed-off (by National - sans NZF?), before a change-of-govt killed it off?

NZ First had all but collapsed by the time the F-16 deal went through. Support was cobbled together by a collection of ex-NZ First independents who backed it ( Tau Henare being one).

But back to the current situation & NZF policy, what are people's thoughts on the RNZAF (apart from being ACF capable) not having strategic airlift in an era when NZ is pretty much fully co-operating again with its traditional strategic partners, a host of strategic SE Asian partners, even NATO and since 1999/2001 has been in sustained combat operations (since the 60's Vietnam War)? Particularly also when the Army has acquired heavier armoured & protective vehicles (presumably since his old soldiering days of the Landrover and M113 etc)?

Worth remember that when the Hercs were acquired they were for 'strategic airlift.'

Personally I think there is a place for some form of RNZAF strategic (heavy) airlift for the environment we are in (I don't agree with NZF's view of none at all), but seeing NZF are/will be shaping the MSM/public viewpoints, perhaps it's best that we articulate the pros and cons because the MSM will lap up "controversial views" from the likes of NZF to beat against the Govt etc.

Sadly in NZ the data needed for an informed public debate isn't in the public domain. There isn't a RAND crunching data and releasing documents to the public to understand issues.

Also some of Ron Mark's views seem to be off, he criticises the NH90's for not being corrosion proof enough but as far as I can recall, when Labour ordered them they were intended to be transported via sealift to their intended destination (and flown off to support the Army on land), not operated off HMNZS Canterbury per se in a maritime environment. So are his "corrosion" claims a real or imagined issue?

I honestly think he doesn't have a clue. I spoke to him once and he couldn't get passed the idea that Iroquois were the last word in choppers. Most of his comments are about folding rotor blades. He's cottoned on to something else now so we'll hear more about corrosion from him than rotor blades for the next wee while.

Finally his claims of the Army yelling "bullets, bullets" etc, I thought that was somewhat historic (eg some 20-30 years ago when budgets were cut etc) and not reflective of the contemporary environment?

Certainly from what I hear there is plenty of live ammunition available for anyone working up for an operational deployment.

 

[recce.k1]

Thanks ZA and NM (and good comments there on KB, NM, just saw it now), I thought it was just me pulling my remaining hair out when reading his MSM "opinion pieces". At least I suppose he isn't calling for the retention of the Iroquois (nor the M113) I suppose! However as NM says, bit concerned about the damage he is doing in the MSM. Thankfully at least Labour is openly supportive of a C-17/A400 purchase.

 

[Todjaeger]

With regard to the Hercules refurbishment, the decision was a choice between refurbishment or new J models. At the time the J was far from mature and was suffering from serious software problems, and hadn't been certified in the tactical role. The upgrade was supposed to address some of the reliability and operating limits, at a low level of technical risk. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and with the business risks around the refurbishment coming to fruition it's fairly clear that delaying any work and purchasing the J when mature would have been the better choice, but I'm not sure anyone knew that at the time. A further complication would have been the impact on capital that the Protector programme was having - effectively 500M of unscheduled spending hitting the forecast that wasn't available for airlift.

The $250M on the Boeings is more of a mystery!

Copied this from the RNZN thread, since it more involved aviation and did not want to take the naval thread OT.

Are you sure about the -J models having serious problems at decision time? The -J model had been in service for 6.5 years at the time the decision was actually made. I have been reading through some of the DOD IG, OSD, DOT&E and Dept. AF reports from early to mid-2004. From what I have come across, the various C-130J variants were/had been reaching IOC with the various US services in 2003 and 2004, with more capabilities scheduled for the summer 2004 (NVG and single ship low level) and the heavy and personnel airdrop added after the Block 5.4 upgrade testing had been completed. At the time (April 29th, 2004) the Air Force was planning on the C-130J being ready for combat deployments no later than the end of 2004, which would have been right about the time the C-130H LEP decision was made.

Now, if while the LEP decision was being analyzed and then made, concurrent studies were being done for a long-term replacement I would have had less issue with the LEP since it would have then been clear that the LEP was a temporary or stopgap measure. Unfortunately it was about seven years after the LEP decision was made (and also well after it was clear that the programme was behind schedule) that the review of the airlift was announced, with a due date of 2015. Which is the same year that the LEP Hercules were supposed to be withdrawn from service (incidentally the RNZAF site with the C-130H Hercules info still shows that they are to be withdrawn this year...)

Also given a number of the crises in the wider region, and that a number of times the RNZAF had to abort missions because of either lack of outright lack of aircraft, or aircraft had failures when being deployed, it would seem to me that a longer-term solution, above and beyond getting the life-extension aircraft back, would have been a priority.

Unfortunately that does not seem to have been the case, and now it seems like the RNZAF is in the awkward position of needing to make some decisions very soon, which could result in getting some aircraft (the C-17) which are too expensive and/or have capabilities which the RNZAF does not need or would even use, or missing out on the aircraft (C-17 again) and potentially ending up with airlifters which are too large and expensive for just tactical airlift (A400M), or aircraft which are too small for needed strategic airlift (C-295/C-27J).

 

[Zero Alpha]

Are you sure about the -J models having serious problems at decision time? The -J model had been in service for 6.5 years at the time the decision was actually made. I have been reading through som

The upgrade was announced in 2002. The press release says the upgrade study commenced in October 2001, so I would assume Cabinet took the early decisions in May-June 2001.

Unfortunately, we don't know what the availability figures have been for the C-130 fleet. Lack of informed debate is often moaned about, but the information people need to debate from an informed position often isn't readily accessible. Interested commentators in NZ could find out more about availability of the USAF transport fleet than they could about NZ.

 

[Todjaeger]

The upgrade was announced in 2002. The press release says the upgrade study commenced in October 2001, so I would assume Cabinet took the early decisions in May-June 2001.

Unfortunately, we don't know what the availability figures have been for the C-130 fleet. Lack of informed debate is often moaned about, but the information people need to debate from an informed position often isn't readily accessible. Interested commentators in NZ could find out more about availability of the USAF transport fleet than they could about NZ.

The decision, or at least the budget of NZD$226 mil. was approved in Dec. 2004, per this NZ MoD page.

While I agree, that knowledge of actual aircraft availability would be good, I do recall there being a number of major, unexpected events where airlift or evacuation missions were assigned, but then scrubbed because the available C-130 became unserviceable either on the flight line or shortly after takeoff. The Thai coup in 2006 comes to mind and the unrest that following in 2008 and 2010, at one point with there being only RNZAF airlifter available, a C-130H, which had an equipment malfunction when it attempted to depart for Thailand to evacuate Kiwis.

 

[Zero Alpha]

The decision, or at least the budget of NZD$226 mil. was approved in Dec. 2004, per this NZ MoD page.

While I agree, that knowledge of actual aircraft availability would be good, I do recall there being a number of major, unexpected events where airlift or evacuation missions were assigned, but then scrubbed because the available C-130 became unserviceable either on the flight line or shortly after takeoff. The Thai coup in 2006 comes to mind and the unrest that following in 2008 and 2010, at one point with there being only RNZAF airlifter available, a C-130H, which had an equipment malfunction when it attempted to depart for Thailand to evacuate Kiwis.

When did L3 run in to problems? Seems like an unusual large delay there between the media release and the funds being available.

I remember the Thai coup. Not sure it was a genuine issue. I was in Thailand a week or so after a subsequent set of riots and some ex-pats were telling me it was confined to areas where the media would report them!

 

[ngatimozart]

When did L3 run in to problems? Seems like an unusual large delay there between the media release and the funds being available.

I remember the Thai coup. Not sure it was a genuine issue. I was in Thailand a week or so after a subsequent set of riots and some ex-pats were telling me it waas confined to areas where the media would report them!

There were contracter problems with the LEP and the Ministry eventually took over the project management with Safe Air doing all the work at Blenheim. I can't remember the issues and what happened.

 

[Todjaeger]

When did L3 run in to problems? Seems like an unusual large delay there between the media release and the funds being available.

I remember the Thai coup. Not sure it was a genuine issue. I was in Thailand a week or so after a subsequent set of riots and some ex-pats were telling me it was confined to areas where the media would report them!

The contract with L-3 was signed in Dec. 2004, and the L-3/SPAR facility which had been doing the LEP work closed in the summer (northern hemisphere so June, July, August, Sept.) of 2009. Unfort when I check both L-3 and SPAR's current sites, there is basically no reference to what was going on between 2004 and 2009, at a guess though I would hazard that L-3 started running into issues in 2006 or 2007, with some attempt at retrenchment in 2008, before ultimately closing the Edmonton, Ontario CA facility in the middle of 2009.

The bit about the trouble in Thailand, is that I do not remember exactly which period of unrest was when the NZG attempted to evacuate Kiwis trapped in Thailand. For some reason, I keep thinking that it was in 2010 when there were the protests/clashes with the 'red-shirts' but I could have the timeframe wrong, and it might have been the 'yellow-shirt' protests of 2008, or during the actual coup in 2006.

Also, I had thought that one of the HADR flights planned for Vanuatu after Pam had to be scrubbed because of an issue aboard one of the C-130's which had completed the LEP.

 

[Cadredave]

The contract with L-3 was signed in Dec. 2004, and the L-3/SPAR facility which had been doing the LEP work closed in the summer (northern hemisphere so June, July, August, Sept.) of 2009. Unfort when I check both L-3 and SPAR's current sites, there is basically no reference to what was going on between 2004 and 2009, at a guess though I would hazard that L-3 started running into issues in 2006 or 2007, with some attempt at retrenchment in 2008, before ultimately closing the Edmonton, Ontario CA facility in the middle of 2009.

The bit about the trouble in Thailand, is that I do not remember exactly which period of unrest was when the NZG attempted to evacuate Kiwis trapped in Thailand. For some reason, I keep thinking that it was in 2010 when there were the protests/clashes with the 'red-shirts' but I could have the timeframe wrong, and it might have been the 'yellow-shirt' protests of 2008, or during the actual coup in 2006.

Also, I had thought that one of the HADR flights planned for Vanuatu after Pam had to be scrubbed because of an issue aboard one of the C-130's which had completed the LEP.

I was under the impression that it was all three periods of unrest with the 2010 troubles being an utter SNAFU with our C-130 fleet, not 100% clear as to which period it was as well, as for Pam there was an issue or technical problems experienced which forced the first flight to RTU RNZAF Whenuapai not long after take off.

CD

 

[Todjaeger]

I was under the impression that it was all three periods of unrest with the 2010 troubles being an utter SNAFU with our C-130 fleet, not 100% clear as to which period it was as well, as for Pam there was an issue or technical problems experienced which forced the first flight to RTU RNZAF Whenuapai not long after take off.

CD

Okay, at least I am not the only one who keeps thinking 2010 was the year. For some reason, I think that the available C-130H (which would not have undergone the LEP yet) had also taken off, but returned to base after experiencing a fault of some sort.

 

[Todjaeger]

When doing some research about the RNZAF C-130H Hercules, I came across this USAF Air University Review article from 29 years ago.

It is interesting to see what has changed, and what has stayed the same.

 

[KiwiAEOP]

I think the important thing to note with politics is that you can say what ever you like or make wild claims whilst in opposition as it immediately throws doubt at the Government in power, very rarely do you have to back it up or live up to your promises once you are in power.

Ron's problem is he can't see past the small scale. He only ever relates things back to his own experience in Army, which was at troop and squadron level.

The by-election itself isn't significant in that it won't change confidence and supply arrangements. NZ First had the option of going in to coalition, and rejected it. An extra MP in there for them isn't going to change decision making. Especially since Labour/Goff appear to be supporting National. The NZ First voting block is small and isn't respected enough to be listened to by either Labour or National.



He's never actually said what he considers the difference between strategic and tactical in the NZ context. The only clues as to his thinking are short field performance. Strategic lift (mass and volume) is best done by sea, but strategic lift (political influence and tactically decisive loads) in the pacific can be done by air in the Pacific. Similar for HADR ops, the 'strategic' is measured by being there, not by payload.






Fundamentally, he hasn't acknowledged that we can't change decisions of the past. Every bit of new kit is heavier than older stuff, so the relative usefulness of the Hercs has declined. KC-390 isn't a serious contender.




Trying to appeal reactionary votes. UK experience is to maintain a QRF, you need a squadron. Having a squadron tied up to protect against a scenario that has only happened once in modern history isn't a great basis for planning. I also don't think there are many votes in it, which probably means Winston would rather get concessions in something more populist if he's in a position to horse trade.



NZ First had all but collapsed by the time the F-16 deal went through. Support was cobbled together by a collection of ex-NZ First independents who backed it ( Tau Henare being one).



Worth remember that when the Hercs were acquired they were for 'strategic airlift.'



Sadly in NZ the data needed for an informed public debate isn't in the public domain. There isn't a RAND crunching data and releasing documents to the public to understand issues.



I honestly think he doesn't have a clue. I spoke to him once and he couldn't get passed the idea that Iroquois were the last word in choppers. Most of his comments are about folding rotor blades. He's cottoned on to something else now so we'll hear more about corrosion from him than rotor blades for the next wee while.



Certainly from what I hear there is plenty of live ammunition available for anyone working up for an operational deployment.

 

[Zero Alpha]

When doing some research about the RNZAF C-130H Hercules, I came across this USAF Air University Review article from 29 years ago.

It is interesting to see what has changed, and what has stayed the same.

Good find.

Did the Cessna 421s have an operational role, or were they strictly training?

 

[ngatimozart]

Good find.

Did the Cessna 421s have an operational role, or were they strictly training?

They replaced the De Havilland Devons on 42 Sqn and were used in a communications role acting as transport and VIP aircraft. At that time the F27 Friendships were used in the training role out of Wigram. 42 Sqn was based at Ohakea which then was a strictly operational base. The only training done there was fighter initial training done by 14 Sqn on the Strikemasters and later Aermacchis.

 

[Zero Alpha]

They replaced the De Havilland Devons on 42 Sqn and were used in a communications role acting as transport and VIP aircraft. At that time the F27 Friendships were used in the training role out of Wigram. 42 Sqn was based at Ohakea which then was a strictly operational base. The only training done there was fighter initial training done by 14 Sqn on the Strikemasters and later Aermacchis.

Cheers


I thought the Devons were just for Nav training?

 

[ngatimozart]

Cheers


I thought the Devons were just for Nav training?

No probs. They were at Wigram but on other bases used as the base hack as well. There was one at Woodbourne when I was there in the mid 1970s. Had flight in it from Wgtn back to Woodbourne June 75 during a southerly buster.

 

[ngatimozart]

The last two Beech Texan IIs are on their delivery flight to Ohakea. MRC Aviation: Last Texan deliver gets underway

 

[40 deg south]

NZ choppers skip Vanuatu aid mission - National - NZ Herald News

From today's Herald.

Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee says the difficulties in using the Royal New Zealand Air Force's helicopters in cyclone-hit Vanuatu shows the Government needs to be very careful in making its next military purchases.

He said the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) was unable to take any of its eight NH90 helicopters to the Pacific Islands after Cyclone Pam because they were considered too difficult to transport and were not yet cleared for "island-hopping".

Also provides indication of timing of fixed-wing replacements.

The Government is planning to replace the air force's Hercules and Boeing 757s in the next five years, and Mr Brownlee said the NH90 experience showed the importance of careful procurement.

Worth reading the whole thing

 

[40 deg south]

A few good shots of a Seasprite in action with under-slung load on the NZDF facebook page.

It looks as if the Unimogs were sent to Vanuatua - any one know if any of the new MANs were also deployed?

 

[kiwi in exile]

NZ choppers skip Vanuatu aid mission - National - NZ Herald News
Worth reading the whole thing

Yes worth reading. I wonder, is it that the NH90s are really difficult to transport, or is it just that we haven't reached/practiced that level of capability yet- IE simply a matter of being 'not yet cleared'. I agree that we should have perhaps got some more navalised versions (landing gear, etc). Its easy to turn something perfectly reasonable into a cheap dig at the oposition/prev gov'ts foolishness/largesse.

Interesting to see that, at this stage, the JATF isn't working as advertised. What are the timeframes for fully operational status aboard the Canterbury. I know NZ 90s have practiced on the Cant in calm waters and Aussie 90's have also practiced operating from the canterbury. And that NZ 90s have been cleared for some of their land based capabilities.