Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Good to know, hopefully then the job is completed before we introduce our new aircraft,whatever that may be. Would the Airbus purchase of safe air hold some sway in the tender being given to A400 M?
It would only hold sway if Airbus are able to highlight aspects of their local operation which are potentially advantageous to providing the RNZAF with a better FAMC solution. Owning Safe Air itself not so so much.
Indeed. RAAF at Whidbey Island have taken that to not just beyond a service centric dome but trans-national one.
t68
Well-Known Member
Agree, NZ will make a determination on a number of factors dosn't mean we have to have the same equipment, one only has to look at the the mods to the frigate force.
Sounds a bit like the Australian decision to purchase MRH90 rather than UH-60M.
The Europeans dangled building a new assembly and maintenace facility in Brisbane, plus I seem to remember local assembly of civilian helicopters, and that persuaded politicians to buy MRH-90, whilst I think our military preferred UH-60M.
Don't think the local assembly of civilian helicopters ever turned out to anything much in the end, other than pie in the sky.
You are missing the point by concentrating on 'equipment'. Jericho is of intense interest to the NZDF with respect to the FASC and how we as a future force are to integrate into that capability dome. What ever platform falls from the FASC tree will certainly be the most seamless capability enabler flowing in mutual concert with the ADF.
yep, force planning is not a platform centric issue, it should be a capability centric issue
unfort the acquisition elements rapidly deteriorate in a lot of public forums into "which ship is best, which tank is best, this aircraft carries more weapons" etc etc.....
the coherency needed to discuss future force development can then get lost in the woods
What we also need to keep in mind, is what do the RNZAF actually want and what can they make full use of.
The FASC operational concept, reads the RFI, “will be largely a continuation of the extant P-3K2 Orion based concept, adapted to exploit any greater platform and capability systems performance of the FASC fleet and support systems.”
While mutual concert with the ADF is very desirable. The number one requirement will be to satisfy New Zealand's needs and requirements first. The business case style that is used in procurement would have to show significant benefits to us for extra funding to be granted in this area. If a capability enabler with the ADF is show to be of a similar cost benefit as a straight capability replacement, then obviously it would be chosen, If however it is not, it may not be.
Also keep in mind that the enabler investment is already heavily in play with recently the second phase SBNP contract to Rockwell Collins so as to interface Boeing WGS 9 with the OZ terminals.
Mind you they also fail to realise that TTCP protocols and 'trustworthy' systems acceptance standards have to be agreed - especially when integration with respect to spectrum sensing in the maritime ISR domain.
t68
Well-Known Member
So are you saying the Japanese kit would not meet these standards, I imagine the Japanese would be looking for the same interoperability stands if not more than Aus.
And just to point out I have no beef in whatever NZ chooses as long as it meet or exceeds NZ needs.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I do not believe that is what he means. Japanese kit will be designed to talk with what Japan needs it to. The US kit is now being designed to more or less talk to everything. If NZ opts to go with Japanese kit, then NZ would potentially need to integrate said kit so that it could participate in a US/Oz battlespace. Not saying it cannot be done, but certainly would not be free.
No. I did I make any direct reference to Japanese 'kit' or any other countries 'kit' as you put it. Again is not all about the 'kit' - the NZ Govt are seeking a capability solution, a solution that will meld into other capabilities such as WGS-9 and SBNP.
Really? Has any indication come from the Bōei-shō about this? Has NZ entered into a separate technical security agreement and not told its other 4 partners?
The confidential part of the RFI would have laid out all the required standards that need to be met by the respondents and should Japanese kit be the preferred option a technology agreement, including security arrangements would have to be reached. This would be completely separate from the 5i arrangement and would not impinge on it.
t68
Well-Known Member
The thing is from the past post we were referring to the Japanese offering which as you rightly say you have a watching brief to get the most interoperability from the ADF, which I turn leads us to the future direction of the ADF and US armed forces. It's this same interoperability needs of the ADF the Japanese have the same needs of being able to communicate with US systems, so by extension were as the ADF is trying to use the same systems as the US the Japanese are using equipment capabile of interfacing with the US. As you keep referring to the WGS part of the capabilty is that it can Interface with other Allied forces networks.
am I on another planet?
all this talk about japanese interoperability ignores the well known reality that there isn't
has no one been paying attention to RIMPAC for the last 10 years?
all this talk about japanese interoperability ignores the well known reality that there isn't
has no one been paying attention to RIMPAC for the last 10 years?
t68
Well-Known Member
I'd say that had more to do with the historical policy of self defence in their general area, but their has acknowledgement from around the 2000 of the need for a more joint approach for collective training between Japan and the US and this has really gathered pace over the last decade or so.
The U.S.-Japan Alliance
Emma Chanlett-Avery
Specialist in Asian Affairs
Ian E. Rinehart
Analyst in Asian Affairs
Via- Congressional Research Service
I'm not saying the interoperability of Japanese and Uas forces are seamless but the are making strides over the last decadeor so when investing in new equipment.
the interoperability between the japanese, US and other RIMPAC partners is minimalist - its a head ff to put it bluntly
its a golden mile away from being a foundation for anyone else to emulate or achieve
and the costs to do so are non trivial by some margin
let alone establishing procedures, training etc to achieve same. it requires extensive political will and intent let alone money and technical effort to swing around
not saying thats its not achievable, but the ruby glasses need to come off when discussing at the international task force level (as that is the mental and technical construct that needs to be addressed as current comms is a 3 way dance - not a 2 way dance)
I clearly did not say that NZ has a watching brief with Australia with respect to interoperability - my use of the phrase 'watching brief' was in the context of NZ-OZ together have a watching brief over a massive part of the earth's surface.
Interoperability between Australian and New Zealand has had deep foundations well before the advent of digital C3I and + systems. The alphabet soup community of five have traditionally used both US and UK sources equipment (as has Canada) and therefore not only technical but operational interoperability has been of the highest concern. TTCP's capability based planning model is central to this.
At this level partnership security issues still result in restrictions to full interoperability once you step outside the ASIC/CCEB/TTCP/ICCWG dome.
For example it does not take a rocket scientist to work out why RAF's Seedcorn guys only went to certain places.