Royal New Zealand Air Force

[ngatimozart]

Good post. I've made that point about the Penguin before too. It seems NZs offensive weapons capabilities as outlined above (Penguin, Mk82) are so tactically limited as to be useless, which begs the question, why bother acquiring them (Penguin) or retaining them (82's). I guess with the 82 it keeps the armourers skills up. AFAIK, we have sold the Mavericks to Peru, as they no longer fit with our new Seasprites.

Replacing the Mavericks with the Penguins seemed like a simple replacing X with Y transaction. Basically because that was what the new sprites were wired for. On paper we have acquired a bigger stick with more range and bang, but not really gained any new capability, and if anything, lost a tactical CAS capability.

Wikipedia gives $22000 (?USD) for JDAM tailkits. This is probably no longer accurate, but my guess is that they are still way cheaper than any other PGM.

As an ASuW missile the Penguin is an advance on the Mavericks we had. AFAIK our Mavericks were the A or B mark and had the Optical Electro guidance which relied upon contrast to detect the target. If the visual contrast is poor then the missile has difficulty locking onto the target. We now have the Mod 2 variant of the Penguin which is IR guided so it depends upon heat contrast rather than visual contrast. It also has a longer range. The Penguin also has a 120kg warhead compared to the Mavericks 57kg. The only advantage that the Maverick has over the Penguin is that it can be used against shore based targets.

Regarding X v Y replacement generally X will always be a generation ahead of Y because it's technology is far more modern. Hence X theoretically offers greater capabilities - more bang for buck so to speak. Don't forget with the new Sprites we got a steal and since our mates across the ditch had already paid for the integration of the Penguin, well we'd be fools not to take them.

 

[ngatimozart]

Thanks for your input. You're right it does look pretty grim. RNZAF was dropping dumb iron recently (?2014) at the Kiapara Weapons Range. Locals were complaining about the noise. So unsure if they have any left.

Ngati- what was the foriegn navy crewed vessel in NZ waters?

I don't know - The RNZN didn't say in their press release. IIRC it was last year. I have my suspicions that it was PRC, Russian or possibly Indonesian. They are the only ones that readily come to mind. The Indonesians are a bit of a stretch but you just don't know.

 

[40 deg south]

Another factor to also keep in mind is just how many platforms are available for the deployment. With NZ currently only having a half-dozen P-3K2's for maritime patrolling, even with little direct threat to the aircraft, the potential risks to operating in contested spaces have to be weighed since a mechanical failure could easily cause the loss of an aircraft. Not to mention the NZDF still needs to provide for the 'ordinary' patrolling to ensure NZ's sovereignty and EEZ protection, plus other deployments as ordered by the Gov't. With four in inventory, two are likely to be down at any given moment for maintenance and repairs. That leaves just four for training and operations.

As for the costs given for a French purchase of C-130J's, I will need to look through the article, as well as what else I can find. On the surface, a price of~USD$90 mil. per aircraft, not including the ~USD$50 mil. estimated for the defensive aids, seems a little high. Just a few years ago, the cost for a C-130J was ~USD$65 mil. which means the per aircraft cost has jumped by a third in less than 5 years IIRC. The suggested per aircraft price for defensive aides also seems high, working out to ~USD$12.5 mil. per aircraft. That along is almost half the price of an Airbus CN-235.

Not sure if the prices are because of other things as yet unrevealed, the costs have actually increased spectacularly, or because it was realized that the A400M cannot conduct AAR for helicopters like the KC-130J can. Or some combination of the three.

Tod

Just as a general note, I greatly appreciate your well-considered responses, and have learned a lot from them.

Regarding your paras above, I'm pretty sure that somehere in the NZDF's latest annual report is a statement that P-3s are 'almost always' available for required taskings, but on occasions a C-130 has been used instead. Hopefully they were looking for a very large yacht missing close to shore, preferably painted bright orange! I'll have a look for the exact wording when I have the time.

The excellent Think Defence blog has just put up a post contrasting two recently reported C-130J sales. The first, to the USAF, appears to have a unit price of around $57 million. The second, to France, is closer to $162 million each. His point (obviously) is that costs of military aircraft vary a lot depending what is included in the deal, how many are bought and various other factors.

How Much for a C130 - Think Defence

I assume the cost to NZ would be much closer to the French price than the USAF price.Our current goverment has been very keen to include long term support contracts with purchases of new equipment, such as the new pilot training aircraft. Hard to imagine that trend won't continue.

 

[kiwi in exile]

As an ASuW missile the Penguin is an advance on the Mavericks we had. AFAIK our Mavericks were the A or B mark and had the Optical Electro guidance which relied upon contrast to detect the target. If the visual contrast is poor then the missile has difficulty locking onto the target. We now have the Mod 2 variant of the Penguin which is IR guided so it depends upon heat contrast rather than visual contrast. It also has a longer range. The Penguin also has a 120kg warhead compared to the Mavericks 57kg. The only advantage that the Maverick has over the Penguin is that it can be used against shore based targets.

Regarding X v Y replacement generally X will always be a generation ahead of Y because it's technology is far more modern. Hence X theoretically offers greater capabilities - more bang for buck so to speak. Don't forget with the new Sprites we got a steal and since our mates across the ditch had already paid for the integration of the Penguin, well we'd be fools not to take them.

All of the above is totally correct, but I still think that for tackling anything larger than an corvette, the Penguin is pretty limited/useless. basically the helo has to get within SAM range to get the shot off. Hence my comment that on paper its better, but its not really an improvement in capability.

It would be like if we still had the skyhawks and replaced them with 2nd hand F16As. We would be moving up a generation, but without considerable investment in the F16s, they would be of limited use as air combat aircraft in a WW3 type scenario today. I'm not trying to start a debate about the ACF, just trying to illustrate a point.


I wasnt aware of the foreign navy crewed fishing vessel. Thats a worry.
Cheers

 

[ADMk2]

All of the above is totally correct, but I still think that for tackling anything larger than an corvette, the Penguin is pretty limited/useless. basically the helo has to get within SAM range to get the shot off. Hence my comment that on paper its better, but its not really an improvement in capability.

It would be like if we still had the skyhawks and replaced them with 2nd hand F16As. We would be moving up a generation, but without considerable investment in the F16s, they would be of limited use as air combat aircraft in a WW3 type scenario today. I'm not trying to start a debate about the ACF, just trying to illustrate a point.


I wasnt aware of the foreign navy crewed fishing vessel. Thats a worry.
Cheers

The Penguin ASM has a standoff range in excess of 35k's so it would take a pretty fair SAM and associated targetting system to hold your SeaSprite and Penguin ASM combo at threat, given these would generally be launched from well over the horizon...

For the maritime strike role which is why they've been acquired, I thinks it's a pretty credible capability for low - medium level conflicts.

 

[Zero Alpha]

Actually the NZDF has an MSA capability at present, not an MPA capability. Between the lack of both effective self-defence suites and effective weapons, the P-3K2's are really more of a maritime surveillance asset than anything else.

Nice post.

Going back to my point, and as you've said, the P-3K2 is itself very limited currently. It's my contention that something like the P-8 would be a significant increase in capability, and it's such a gulf between where we are at now, and where the P-8 would take us, that it's not unreasonable to consider an alternative.

 

[Todjaeger]

The Penguin ASM has a standoff range in excess of 35k's so it would take a pretty fair SAM and associated targetting system to hold your SeaSprite and Penguin ASM combo at threat, given these would generally be launched from well over the horizon...

For the maritime strike role which is why they've been acquired, I thinks it's a pretty credible capability for low - medium level conflicts.

The range figures I have seen for the Penguin AShM vary between 30 to 37 km. The higher the altitude of the launching platform, the greater the range.

A max launch range of only 30 - 40 km would put the Seasprite well within range of a number of ship-mounted air defence missiles.

Aster 15 might be able to reach that far out, the Aster 30 certainly could. Various versions of the SM-2 and ESSM have that sort of reach. There are several Russian naval SAM's which the helicopter would be within range of prior to launching. Basically any warship with more and a limited air self-defence capability would likely be able to target the helicopter before the Penguns could be effectively employed.

 

[Todjaeger]

Nice post.

Going back to my point, and as you've said, the P-3K2 is itself very limited currently. It's my contention that something like the P-8 would be a significant increase in capability, and it's such a gulf between where we are at now, and where the P-8 would take us, that it's not unreasonable to consider an alternative.

What you might be overlooking, is that there really is not much available for a number of key capabilities, between what the P-3K2 provides now and what the P-8 can provide in the future.

NZ needs something with both range and endurance. A number of available platforms can provide endurance, but not necessarily over the needed range.

The ground/sea search sensors should be at least as capable as what the P-3K2 has now. A number of the offerings are comparable, but not so certain about improvement.

The ASW aspect, most offering should be better than what the P-3K2 has now, largely because of upgrades which have not been done, i.e. it is not that the offers are so good, but the P-3K2 so bad now...

For the MPA portion (vs. MSA) it all depends on whether or not the Gov't decides to purchase munitions and have the aircrews trained. Even a P-8A Poseidon is still effective an MSA if it us essentially unarmed.

Other airframes could be developed or modified to provide the sort of range/endurance which NZ (and many other nations using maritime patrol aircraft) needs, but I do not feel that NZ realistically could afford to fund the development of a replacement for the P-3K2, nor keep the P-3K2 in service for the length of time such development would likely need. Not if a maritime aircraft with the sorts of capabilities NZ needs was being developed.

Such development is resource intensive, at least relative to the ROI. This I suspect is why Airbus killed off the A319MPA, which would have been a competitor to the Boeing P-8A Poseidon.

 

[ngatimozart]

Nice post.

Going back to my point, and as you've said, the P-3K2 is itself very limited currently. It's my contention that something like the P-8 would be a significant increase in capability, and it's such a gulf between where we are at now, and where the P-8 would take us, that it's not unreasonable to consider an alternative.

In the 1960s we went from the WW2 era Shorts Sunderland flying boat to the Lockheed P3B Orion which was a huge leap in capability. We were also the first export customer for the Orion. So we have done it before and we havto remember that whatever replaces the Orion has to be in NZ service for at least 40 years and has to meet whatever requirements are determined by the NZG to meet NZ CONOPS. That is the criteria in the long run. When the business case is put to Cabinet it is for them to decide. Some will agree with the eventual acquisition some won't. However what is important is that whatever the acquisition will be, it must be better than what it replaces and has the ability to be economically and efficiently upgraded through it's service life.

The NZG along with other governments now have expectation of expensive defence assets to be capable of multi roles or swing roles. That is why in the case of the Orions, ISR capabilities were added and will be a requirement on their successor. The days of single capability platforms are diminishing.

 

[ADMk2]

The range figures I have seen for the Penguin AShM vary between 30 to 37 km. The higher the altitude of the launching platform, the greater the range.

A max launch range of only 30 - 40 km would put the Seasprite well within range of a number of ship-mounted air defence missiles.

Aster 15 might be able to reach that far out, the Aster 30 certainly could. Various versions of the SM-2 and ESSM have that sort of reach. There are several Russian naval SAM's which the helicopter would be within range of prior to launching. Basically any warship with more and a limited air self-defence capability would likely be able to target the helicopter before the Penguns could be effectively employed.

Yep, the higher end missiles definitely will, hence the comment about the spectrum of warfare that such a capability can address. My point was simply that in its primary role, the Penguin ASM is a considerable improvement over the Maverick missile capability and any likely foe would be forces to consider it in planning a response.

Is it as capable as any other ASM solution? No. But it is still an improvement for the RNZAF over what they had.

 

[40 deg south]

Janes has caught up with the news that Boeing will do the sensor upgrade for NZ's Orions. I'm curious what, if anything, the 400 words not available in the free version reveal.

Boeing selected for New Zealand's P-3K2 Orion UWISR upgrade | IHS Jane's 360

Key Points

Boeing had been selected as the preferred tenderer for the UWISR capability project for New Zealand's P-3K2 Orion fleet
The Ministry of Defence will undertake due diligence and negotiation of a UWISR contract package prior to seeking final government approval

New Zealand has moved a step closer to reinstating an anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capability on its P-3K2 Orion maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) fleet after downselecting Boeing as preferred tenderer for the supply and support of an Underwater Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (UWISR) fit for its six-strong P-3K2 fleet

To summarise some of the debate above, this means NZ should at least be able to locate submarines. However, it won't be able to do much about them.

New Zealand to spend $332m on upgrade of P-3K Orion aircraft - Airforce Technology

While googling around, I came across this earlier piece about the general Orion upgrade. Interestingly, they give a retirement date of 2015, whch is more definite than anything I have seen elsewhere, Most probably it is journalistic licence.

 

[40 deg south]

German Fine Spells More A400M Trouble for Airbus

I also came across this piece on the A400M. It appears the patience over delayed aircraft is wearing thin, at least in Germany.

QUOTE] The German government’s decision to fine Airbus for late delivery of the A400M airlifter opens a new, more confrontational era as partner nations appear no longer willing to accommodate the company’s failure to deliver on this troubled program. It may well lead to further, and larger, financial penalties which could further upset the program’s finances and discourage new customers until fully-capable aircraft become available in 2018....[/QUOTE]

 

[ngatimozart]

German Fine Spells More A400M Trouble for Airbus

I also came across this piece on the A400M. It appears the patience over delayed aircraft is wearing thin, at least in Germany.

QUOTE: The German government’s decision to fine Airbus for late delivery of the A400M airlifter opens a new, more confrontational era as partner nations appear no longer willing to accommodate the company’s failure to deliver on this troubled program. It may well lead to further, and larger, financial penalties which could further upset the program’s finances and discourage new customers until fully-capable aircraft become available in 2018....END QUOTE

That doesn't surprise me and would, IMHO, give impetus to Airbus to get their act together. In NZs case that may be a bit close but if we were to order prior and stipulate with significant penalty clauses then it could work for us. We were caught out with the NH90 delays, however this time around, if the NZG decide to go with the A400, then they should be prepared to have in place, within the contracts, significant penalty clauses if Airbus delay agreed delivery or deliver inferior product.

 

[ngatimozart]

A link to the Foxtrot Alpha article about the AAS radar that is being added to USN P8As. It is AESA and offers significant capabilities. Well worth the read. If this capability was in RNZAF hands it could add significant strike capability to NZDF as long as the appropriate weapons were acquired.

 

[t68]

A link to the Foxtrot Alpha article about the AAS radar that is being added to USN P8As. It is AESA and offers significant capabilities. Well worth the read. If this capability was in RNZAF hands it could add significant strike capability to NZDF as long as the appropriate weapons were acquired.

It does give a major enhancement in capabilty over existing aircraft and does give a creadable capabilty for targets of opportunity engagement, but you will not risk a ISR/ASW couple of hundred million dollar aircraft in the strike role, it just won't happen too risky for an important asset. If you want to regain your martime interdiction capabilty you need to look at other cheaper assets to compliment the P8

 

[kiwi in exile]

It does give a major enhancement in capabilty over existing aircraft and does give a creadable capabilty for targets of opportunity engagement, but you will not risk a ISR/ASW couple of hundred million dollar aircraft in the strike role, it just won't happen too risky for an important asset. If you want to regain your martime interdiction capabilty you need to look at other cheaper assets to compliment the P8

Contemporary Western antiship missiles/land target (latest gen Harpoon, JSM/NSM, future LRASM, JASSM, JSOW-ER, storm shadow) have stand off ranges of hundreds of KMs. Ditto Russian/Chinese systems. Depending on the scenario, we may not have to put the aircraft in too much danger. Targeting data can be generated by 3rd parties (satelites). If we want a credible maritime deterrent, this is what we need to be thinking of. Although the AAS would be great, our P3 replacements, whatever form they take, should be able to generate meaningul targetting data without it.

Where I see the AAS being most useful for us would be if we had to police a crowded shipping lane in any kind of crisis, rather that a wide open ocean situation.

While we may be more willing to risk "cheaper assets" (and their Crew?) they may not have the legs or the stamina to get the job done. And they will have to be fully wired for combat ops. Which would mean acquiring/operating two fleets of armed upper tier MPAs (MSA, ASuW aircraft... whatever the correct nomenclature). Maybe not the most economic or senisble solution.

 

[ngatimozart]

Contemporary Western antiship missiles/land target (latest gen Harpoon, JSM/NSM, future LRASM, JASSM, JSOW-ER, storm shadow) have stand off ranges of hundreds of KMs. Ditto Russian/Chinese systems. Depending on the scenario, we may not have to put the aircraft in too much danger. Targeting data can be generated by 3rd parties (satelites). If we want a credible maritime deterrent, this is what we need to be thinking of. Although the AAS would be great, our P3 replacements, whatever form they take, should be able to generate meaningul targetting data without it.

Where I see the AAS being most useful for us would be if we had to police a crowded shipping lane in any kind of crisis, rather that a wide open ocean situation.

While we may be more willing to risk "cheaper assets" (and their Crew?) they may not have the legs or the stamina to get the job done. And they will have to be fully wired for combat ops. Which would mean acquiring/operating two fleets of armed upper tier MPAs (MSA, ASuW aircraft... whatever the correct nomenclature). Maybe not the most economic or senisble solution.

No don't think he means another MPA, but a proper strike aircraft such as a F16 or Super Hornet etc. Or this: rebuilt Kfirs with AESA and other mod cons, IF the NZG thought about standing up an ACF again. US$500 million for 18 aircraft is not a deal to be laughed at. The only real issue I would have is the engines and their operating and sustainment costs.

 

[kiwi in exile]

No don't think he means another MPA, but a proper strike aircraft such as a F16 or Super Hornet etc. Or this: rebuilt Kfirs with AESA and other mod cons, IF the NZG thought about standing up an ACF again. US$500 million for 18 aircraft is not a deal to be laughed at. The only real issue I would have is the engines and their operating and sustainment costs.

You're right, that does look like a good deal. But there would be huge costs on top of that (infrastructure, personell, trianing etc).
Any ACF aircraft is there to deploy standoff weapons. My view is skip buying the aircraft and fit the weapons systems to existing/planned platforms (P3 replacements). Much cheaper and politically easier. Yes fighters have advantages over P8s or whatever, but P8s etc have advantages over fighters. I just feel that an ACF is unneccessary to meet our needs.

 

[t68]

Realistically how man P8 would be purchased, 4? I don't see NZG purshasing additional ASM without having the capabilty to piggy back another platform, if ADF go down the JSM track could that even be inter grated on to the Sprogs?

 

[ngatimozart]

Realistically how man P8 would be purchased, 4? I don't see NZG purshasing additional ASM without having the capabilty to piggy back another platform, if ADF go down the JSM track could that even be inter grated on to the Sprogs?

Probability four, max six if they went one for one replacement, which IMHO, is what needs to happen because with four airframes (even with six) quantity has a quality of its own and at this level quantity is highly important and can be deleterious to a capability if there is insufficient quantity. For example, the SH2G(NZ) Seasprite saga.

You're right, that does look like a good deal. But there would be huge costs on top of that (infrastructure, personell, trianing etc).
Any ACF aircraft is there to deploy standoff weapons. My view is skip buying the aircraft and fit the weapons systems to existing/planned platforms (P3 replacements). Much cheaper and politically easier. Yes fighters have advantages over P8s or whatever, but P8s etc have advantages over fighters. I just feel that an ACF is unneccessary to meet our needs.

I don't think that there would be any major political problems now with obtaining, say these aircraft for an ACF. Most of the ones who were in politics and were anti the F16 deal have now left Parliament and the usual suspects will still get their collective underwear in a twist. I disagree with your assertion that the P8 has advantages over fighters in a strike role. They have different missions and whilst the P8 and its ilk can do things that fighter / attack aircraft can't per se, they can't operate in contested airspace, whereas your F/A aircraft can. Together however they can be a formidable combination and IF the fairy godtreasurer was to buy us some rebuilt F21 Kfirs then you could have our much coveted CAS :lol2