And now this from Nicky Hager who hates all things right wing and US:
Maybe I shall have two tots of squirt.
The Beechcraft B350ER do not have to be the goldplated MSA/ISR versions and in such numbers. They will be primarily be for MEPT + Sim so any supplementary patrol/sar capability would only need to be modest. I would say 6 airframes would be enough as Short Range MSR would be best done buy a UAS that hooks into the main BAMS control station network. Only 3 further Beechcraft T6-C would be needed to cover the increase in pilot training. Thus money could be saved right there.Bugger. I shall have to rethink it then.Tot time.
A new hanger would have to be found for the T-tailed A400M's if also selected.
The current 4 B200s are leased until 2018, hence new aircraft will have to acquired for MEPT and light communications taskings. By my reckoning five should cover all that and that includes sims. The MSA / ISR variants are for the EEZ work plus ISR takings where a P8 is not practicable, available or the situation is to risky for such an expensive asset. I see them as an increase in capability and flexibility. They are basically an unarmed aircraft and would be of similar cost to a MSR UAV. The Texan numbers, yes probably.
This is not a F16V acquisition. This is a far cheaper option at about 1/3 the cost. These are 24 regenerated and updated block 25 C/Ds. Yes, if Winston is king maker that may be an option.
The suggested OPVs are more OCVs with sensors and weapon sets similar to the Navantia BAMS. One would be a sub-variant built to Ice Class 1A specifications. Modular weapons and missions systems would be utilised where possible.
Hmm, say 9 Romeos and 3 Sierras then. The reason for the 2 extra marinised NH90 for navy is for use on the MSC and Canterbury / LHD. Also 2 extra to boost 3 Sqn numbers.
The LUHs could be armed up, but the AH1 Vipers give the army a dedicated ARH that is marinised and used by the USMC. Something like that is best flown and used by people who are and think army; the same way that the Sprites are flown and used by those who are and think navy. Another point with the AH1 is that it is available for situations / taskings where fast air is either impracticable or unavailable. It can be flown off an LHD / LPD, F16s can't. It also provides eyes and claws for the ground commander that he / she has control over and it is able to escort troop carrying helos medevacs etc.
I agree, but I have to go with what I have got and I am aware that each acquisition has its own foibles and eccentricities. However I think the 100% rule in something as large as this does even out a bit because the support costs do vary so much in each individual acquisition. Part of this is not only keeping current capability, but enhancing it and adding badly needed capability to NZDF.
As much as I'd like the NZDF to have a fleet of AH1 Vipers in its inventory, I somehow doubt the NZ Army would deem them a priority when they have other areas that need strengthening.
I find it interesting that replacement is now in the consideration mix (rather than simply upgraded as per previous announcements).
Fair enough, good point.
Yes there are some UAVs out there that soldiers can use at platoon or even squad level.
That's why Included the 8x8 wheeled 105mm SPG. Vehicles such as the Italian Centauro B1 or the Japanese MCV are examples. Also the SPAAG I was looking at uses the Rheinmetall 35mm Revolver Cannon, a.k.a., Millennium Gun and it has secondary ground role using Frangible Amour Piercing Discarding Sabot (FAPDS) rounds against ground targets, so it would deal to most targets. One of the reasons that I suggest this gun is that it could also be fitted to the frigates as secondary armament and for CIWS, plus fitted to the OPVs, LHD, LWSC & MSC.
My own view is something either as good as or better than the NZLAV and it has to be 8x8 wheeled because less cost, maintenance, is faster and quieter than tracked vehicles. We don't have tanks so we don't need the tracked IFVs to accompany them. IMHO it should have a 30mm gun and better protection than the NZLAV.
Re: B350 one factor in determining fleet size is that RNZAF have stated they plan to bring AWO Training back from Aussie in the next 2-3 years (currently done on RAAF B350) - 42 Sqn is an obvious pick for that role but it's hardly likely to make much difference to the number of a/c required.
The Ayson article touches on the Antarctica rationale. The lack of current capability on our side of the partnership to support our dimension of the US-NZ Antarctic relationship and that the new Endeavour replacement vessel and airlift capability will have to address that.
That's good
. You'll need the money to account for the Defence Estate recapitalisation costs, which I don't see on your list. Remember that the infrastructure has also been run down to generate the NZDF's savings (see the DMRR cabinet papers on the MOD site). Then there is the small matter of all the new infrastructure required to house all of your new kit!
I had forgotten the infrastructure but yes they would have to open a new air base maybe near Burnham Military Camp in CanterburyThat's good
In the long term I do so a lot of pressure being put on the RNZAF to move out of Whenuapai because of the substantial urban encroachment and the subsequent NIMBY syndrome. The practicalities of basing hypothetical C17s, KC40s and KC130Js at Whenuapai no longer really exists when the main army contingents are at Linton and Burnham. I also think at some stage the RNZN will eventually move from Devonport as well. At present Auckland land prices the sale of Whenuapai and the surrounding defence estate would probably just about fully finance a replacement air base near Burnham
It's not a wish list as such and note that I used the words theoretical and hypothetical to describe it. Also there is no need to make uncalled for disparaging remarks, so please keep it seemly.The only way that kind of wish list would ever see the light of day is if the Chinese sand dredgers turn up off the coast of New Zealand.
Still some more fat to trim - and I am channeling Bill English.That's good
Personally I would look at re-purposing WB to looking after the 14 Sqd, 42 Sqd and the CFS training elements. I would have WP for 6 Sqd, 5 Sqd - P8 and UAV's - the maritime elements. The rest essentially air mobility would be at the OH Superbase.I had forgotten the infrastructure but yes they would have to open a new air base maybe near Burnham Military Camp in Canterbury
I hope the ice strengthening on the MSC isn't just some rush of blood to the head by someone scratching around for a way to make it look to the US like we're investing in our Antarctic commitments.