Royal New Zealand Air Force

[kiwipatriot69]

In regards to the airlift replacement, seeing niether the aussies , americans use any of those other options, and only Britain,Malaysia and some european countries use A400 M, would the A400 M Be the best fit? Or does airlift not factor so much as an issue?

 

[recce.k1]

This as I have said before does not rule out the P8 it simply means that it will face stiffer competition.

If I've correctly interpreted many recent (and previous) posts and comments (on this thread and elsewhere at DT) by those with industry and inside experience, and although it is early days in the FASC scheme of things, one other but huge advantage of a Boeing solution is that all the hard work (integration, training, SOP's, support etc) has been done and the NZDF, another 5E partner, leverages off this investment which has already been made by other customers.

For Embraer and the Japanese, if NZ is their first export customer, presumably NZ will be expected to share some of these major integration type costs, even things like manual language translation costs (for aircrew and maintainers at home and presumably Kiwi personnel would be based in these countries for a time learning etc), developing SOP's (for integration with other 5E/NATO type capabilities), making certain unique "ANZUS" technologies "work" etc, which no doubt will add to project acquisition costs and timeframes. Then what about the logistics support train? Not quite the same as the mighty US system in which NZ buys as and when needed etc.

I also thought due to lessons learnt, that this Govt was less risk adverse and wouldn't want to be a lead customer?

It is very early days in the FASC project, no doubt the experts in Defence are very aware themselves of all these issues being raised here by various people, best we let them work through it and in time more will be revealed?

Granted, the main spanner in the works which you've identified, is that the GOTD could jolly well do what they think is best in terms of project funding/directives. I think the saving grace this time is the fact that the world in the 2020's will be just as more uncertain as it is now, let alone as it was in the past 10-20-30 years (when Govt's tinkered with defence project funding to suit their "benign strategic environment" worldview) and more likely to heed advice from Defence officials!

 

[Rob c]

For Embraer and the Japanese, if NZ is their first export customer, presumably NZ will be expected to share some of these major integration type costs, even things like manual language translation costs (for aircrew and maintainers at home and presumably Kiwi personnel would be based in these countries for a time learning etc), developing SOP's (for integration with other 5E/NATO type capabilities), making certain unique "ANZUS" technologies "work" etc, which no doubt will add to project acquisition costs and timeframes. Then what about the logistics support train? Not quite the same as the mighty US system in which NZ buys as and when needed etc.

From the information coming out of Japan, it appears that the Japanese see this as a real chance of breaking into the market and may discount heavily to achieve this. In regard to new systems, we recently brought the sea-ceptor before it had even finished test firings so I don't see this as as bigger issue as some commentators have as obviously getting what they want is more important.

 

[Todjaeger]

For Embraer and the Japanese, if NZ is their first export customer, presumably NZ will be expected to share some of these major integration type costs, even things like manual language translation costs (for aircrew and maintainers at home and presumably Kiwi personnel would be based in these countries for a time learning etc), developing SOP's (for integration with other 5E/NATO type capabilities), making certain unique "ANZUS" technologies "work" etc, which no doubt will add to project acquisition costs and timeframes. Then what about the logistics support train? Not quite the same as the mighty US system in which NZ buys as and when needed etc.

From the information coming out of Japan, it appears that the Japanese see this as a real chance of breaking into the market and may discount heavily to achieve this. In regard to new systems, we recently brought the sea-ceptor before it had even finished test firings so I don't see this as as bigger issue as some commentators have as obviously getting what they want is more important.

Out of curiousity, have ever worked on an integration project where different systems had to networked together to relay, share, and fuse data?

Integrating a single system (Sea Ceptor) into the existing FFH systems would not be as difficult as getting the various sensors aboard an MPA to all 'talk' to each other. Never mind then being able to relay/share said data with other assets. It can of course be done, but it can be a very difficult and expensive proposition.

Going further along with that are throughlife and support costs. With a smaller user base, the higher the likelihood of ongoing support being more costly, as well as future upgrade programmes.

NZ may very well decide on a platform other than the P-8, but such a decision would most likely be due to political reasons, rather than defence advice.

 

[ngatimozart]

For Embraer and the Japanese, if NZ is their first export customer, presumably NZ will be expected to share some of these major integration type costs, even things like manual language translation costs (for aircrew and maintainers at home and presumably Kiwi personnel would be based in these countries for a time learning etc), developing SOP's (for integration with other 5E/NATO type capabilities), making certain unique "ANZUS" technologies "work" etc, which no doubt will add to project acquisition costs and timeframes. Then what about the logistics support train? Not quite the same as the mighty US system in which NZ buys as and when needed etc.

From the information coming out of Japan, it appears that the Japanese see this as a real chance of breaking into the market and may discount heavily to achieve this. In regard to new systems, we recently brought the sea-ceptor before it had even finished test firings so I don't see this as as bigger issue as some commentators have as obviously getting what they want is more important.

Integration of Sea Ceptor is less of an issue than integration of a platform such as an aircraft. Sea Ceptor will be in service with another 5Eyes navy, to whit the RN, hence the risk to the NZG is perceived as being less. Also they may have seen that the Sea Ceptor offered greater capability sooner than the other alternative, which is the ESSM. The ESSM Block II will not be available for another 3 years which did not meet NZG requirements.

The Japanese and Brazilian offerings are far riskier than the current US P-8 because any integration issues with the P-8 have already been resolved. Integrating a non standard platform is risky operationally and financially and you know that.

It is strongly suggested that you reassess your posting behavior because Moderators have lost their patience with you and some Moderators are starting to have itchy ban hammer trigger fingers.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If I've correctly interpreted many recent (and previous) posts and comments (on this thread and elsewhere at DT) by those with industry and inside experience, and although it is early days in the FASC scheme of things, one other but huge advantage of a Boeing solution is that all the hard work (integration, training, SOP's, support etc) has been done and the NZDF, another 5E partner, leverages off this investment which has already been made by other customers.

For Embraer and the Japanese, if NZ is their first export customer, presumably NZ will be expected to share some of these major integration type costs, even things like manual language translation costs (for aircrew and maintainers at home and presumably Kiwi personnel would be based in these countries for a time learning etc), developing SOP's (for integration with other 5E/NATO type capabilities), making certain unique "ANZUS" technologies "work" etc, which no doubt will add to project acquisition costs and timeframes. Then what about the logistics support train? Not quite the same as the mighty US system in which NZ buys as and when needed etc.

getting embraer or a japanese solution automatically triggers TPT provisions, so NZ will inherit through life support and sustainment lags.

thats not a deliberate delaying mechanism, its the nature of the beast.

 

[recce.k1]

getting embraer or a japanese solution automatically triggers TPT provisions, so NZ will inherit through life support and sustainment lags.

thats not a deliberate delaying mechanism, its the nature of the beast.

TPT = Third Party Transfer? Do you mean as in with respect to say triggered by the US (in terms of use of US systems on such aircraft if bought by say NZ in this example)? Or with Japan/Brazil itself? Can you expand?

Out of interest would this be "less" of an issue with say NZ procuring transport aircraft from such nations (I'm assuming transport aircraft being less complex - electronics/systems/intergation wise etc)?

 

[gf0012-aust]

TPT = Third Party Transfer? Do you mean as in with respect to say triggered by the US (in terms of use of US systems on such aircraft if bought by say NZ)? Can you expand?

yep, and the nature of the tech that NZ uses and needs to be integrated to continue to operate with allies, like minded partners in both combat and HADR roles comes and under FMS provisions. Some come under ITARs provisions. State Dept determine whether the tech can be handled by the prime - and they can also enforce selection of a different vendor to handle the integration. The host purchasing country has no say on the final outcome. There are very good reasons as to why that is in place - and I have seen some foreign primes rejected on immediate tech handling and a 3rd party selected to act as an IP firewall. That of course will result in a bleeding of additional costs which the primes will always work out a way to recover against the customer

as an example of things I have direct involvement with - it took months to get approvals for prime staff to get cleared to deal with the TPT designated staff - its a full blown security check on individuals and if they don't meet State Dept and INT agency constraints, then the prime has to get suitably cleared staff substituted. I've personally seen a project delayed by 9 months due to staff clearance problems with the prime

general blurb
https://www.state.gov/t/pm/rsat/c14025.htm

Out of interest would this be "less" of an issue with say NZ procuring transport aircraft from such nations (I'm assuming transport aircraft being less complex, electronics/systems wise etc)?

depends on the onboard systems - as NZ is a 5I's partner and as they have common combat system and common comms systems already in use, then you can guarantee TPT being triggered on those capabilities as they are all FMS linked.

eg TPT would kick in immediately trying to integrate kiwi missile and ASW weaps on both the japanese (despite being an ally) and brazil (where there would also be concerns about exposing US IP to the prime)

its not an issue about causing grief to NZ, its about the US needing to protect their IP on those sub systems - and its the kind of information that any non US country would sell their left nut to get

 

[gf0012-aust]

if retransfer was (a big if) possible then both Japan and Brazil aren't signatories

https://www.state.gov/t/pm/rsat/c14032.htm

so you can see why TPT and associated caveats (with non US entities) and triggers are a least preferred model when you have other choices

 

[recce.k1]

yep, and the nature of the tech that NZ uses and needs to be integrated to continue to operate with allies, like minded partners in both combat and HADR roles comes and under FMS provisions. Some come under ITARs provisions. State Dept determine whether the tech can be handled by the prime - and they can also enforce selection of a different vendor to handle the integration. The host purchasing country has no say on the final outcome. There are very good reasons as to why that is in place - and I have seen some foreign primes rejected on immediate tech handling and a 3rd party selected to act as an IP firewall. That of course will result in a bleeding of additional costs which the primes will always work out a way to recover against the customer

....

its not an issue about causing grief to NZ, its about the US needing to protect their IP on those sub systems - and its the kind of information that any non US country would sell their left nut to get

Thanks GF, it's good to learn about these things from the experts.

And of course for us non-technical posters here myself included, let's let Defence project staff work their way though these sorts of issues, which no doubt are far more complex and nuanced (then we can debate the merits of their decisions as more information is released, for at the moment one can only speculate, which is going around in circles)!

 

[gf0012-aust]

NZ may very well decide on a platform other than the P-8, but such a decision would most likely be due to political reasons, rather than defence advice.

and we have a winner.....

 

[t68]

NZ may very well decide on a platform other than the P-8, but such a decision would most likely be due to political reasons, rather than defence advice.

and we have a winner.....

I think that has been the whole premises of others aurgument's about selection, how many times have we seen what appears to be by defence a preferred equipment selection then only to be overruled by the goverment of the day. NZ most likely doesn't see it much but the ADF has been burnt on many occasions.

Like most politicians the see short term gain to the bottom line not the long term pain.

 

[Rob c]

Integration of Sea Ceptor is less of an issue than integration of a platform such as an aircraft. Sea Ceptor will be in service with another 5Eyes navy, to whit the RN, hence the risk to the NZG is perceived as being less. Also they may have seen that the Sea Ceptor offered greater capability sooner than the other alternative, which is the ESSM. The ESSM Block II will not be available for another 3 years which did not meet NZG requirements.

The Japanese and Brazilian offerings are far riskier than the current US P-8 because any integration issues with the P-8 have already been resolved. Integrating a non standard platform is risky operationally and financially and you know that.

It is strongly suggested that you reassess your posting behavior because Moderators have lost their patience with you and some Moderators are starting to have itchy ban hammer trigger fingers.

Agree with the above in regard to integration of new platforms and this as you indicate would be part of the selection process, I was indicating that NZD was not scared of going for less than well established equipment when they saw the benefit of this and agree that the the sea-ceptor with it's RF frequency active radar certainly has significant advantages over the the ESSM including over the radar horizon intercepts and possibly some anti stealth ability.

 

[alexsa]

Alexsa

Purchases made 30 years ago are not relevant.

Sorry Mr C but I must. Other than the steel of the hull the ANZACS are or will be different in anti air weapons and combat systems, helicopter and lack of harpoon SSM. Enough said.

The NH90's in NZ are not the same model. Different specs.
Javelin is an almost western standard
The ASLAV and the NZLAV are a generation apart though still of the same lineage.
Yes the SF Vehicles are the same, all 13 of them once they arrive
The rifles fire the same caliber, 5.56 mm. LM AR style vs F88
There is only one western HMG available.
The Australian Army regular artillery units field 155mm M777

NZ had the chance to acquire C130J when Australia did but chose to decline.
NZ chose the T6 just as Australia decided upon the PC21
NZ chose AW109 just as Australia chose EC 135
NZ chose to pass up C17
NZ chose HK AGL while Australia has chosen the Mk 47 American AGL

NZ chose SH2Gi while Australia acquired Romeos
NZ chose Project Protector vessels instead of Armindal at the least
NZ chose Mistral while Australia had RBS 70
NZ chose HHI for its tanker while Australia chose Cantanabria AOR
NZ chose Pinzgauer while Australia chose G wagon
NZ chose Bennelli shotgun while Australia had Remington 870

I think the reality is that there is little commonality.

Sorry ...... what an unmitigated load of bollocks. There is significant integration between Australia and NZ but our needs are different. Hell even within the ADF needs are different so there are different models of the same platform or vehicle.

There is a lot of kit that is used that is the same or similar (noting in your intial post your suggested that there was nothing the "same or similar" except the MAN trucks) and the NZ supply chain includes quite a bit of Australian support noting there is also quite a bit of shared kit (I do love the way you discount the FFH based on recent upgrades but ignore all the other shared systems ....... you know the immaterial bits of kit such as the 5" guns, mini typhoon etc etc etc). There is also a lot to operational integration between the service. As an example (as you obviously do bugger all research) there are Australian service personnal serving on RNZN vessels and they have for some time.

You can cherry pick all you like but it does not change the fact your initial comments are utter nonsense but as you are relying on them to support your argument I suspect you will continue on this path ........ however, as you are adding bugger all to the value of this discussion I will refrain from any further discourse with you so the thread does not get further derailed.

 

[Rob c]

Out of curiousity, have ever worked on an integration project where different systems had to networked together to relay, share, and fuse data?

Integrating a single system (Sea Ceptor) into the existing FFH systems would not be as difficult as getting the various sensors aboard an MPA to all 'talk' to each other. Never mind then being able to relay/share said data with other assets. It can of course be done, but it can be a very difficult and expensive proposition.

Going further along with that are throughlife and support costs. With a smaller user base, the higher the likelihood of ongoing support being more costly, as well as future upgrade programmes.

NZ may very well decide on a platform other than the P-8, but such a decision would most likely be due to political reasons, rather than defence advice.

No I have not been part of an electronic integration process and the Brazilians would have to jump this hurdle. The P1 would have already crossed this barrier and it is reported that the P1 is equipped with a Toshiba HYQ-3 on board combat information processor with AI for planning best threat response using combined information from all the planes sensors and sensors from other friendly platforms. It is also equipped with link 16 and the is some talk of them also including link 11/22 so they can data talk to similar equipped aircraft. The P3K2 was a one off system design that has proved to be successful. With far more advanced computers and programs there appears to be less problems in the integration of systems and there is a proliferation of systems coming on to the market to upgrade older air frames (P3 and Atlantic)or turn existing air frames into MPA's

 

[Rob c]

Two of the fast jet visitors just left Ohakea climbed out to fast to identify.
The news item on TV1 on the weekend confirmed discussions in regard to possible SAF F15 basing could have an interesting outcome. It may be a long term way of reintroducing an ACF, though I would not hold my breath but can only hope.

 

[ngatimozart]

Two of the fast jet visitors just left Ohakea climbed out to fast to identify.
The news item on TV1 on the weekend confirmed discussions in regard to possible SAF F15 basing could have an interesting outcome. It may be a long term way of reintroducing an ACF, though I would not hold my breath but can only hope.

Like you I would like to see a return of the ACF. I think this is the third time that there have been discussions between Singapore and NZ regarding this and both times they have gone belly up.

I do not know how the leftist peaceniks in Auckland would take to the idea. I suppose gnashing of teeth, tearing of hair and rendering of cloth leaps to mind because they (F-15s) aren't US forces. It would be entertaining though, because if they protest against the Singaporeans I suppose that they could be accused by their leftist brethren of being racist, hence their conundrum. :rotfl

If it happens and at present that's a big if, fast jets operating permanently in NZ skies may help the cause for a Kiwi ACF doing a Lazarus, however I would not hold my breath.

 

[ngatimozart]

Alexsa

Appears you have your knickers tied alittle too tight. This is a discussion on aircraft that could possibly serve with a nations Air Force that neither you, I or anyone on this forum will have any impact as to the final decision. It's about as impactful as a discussion on who makes the best rum or beer. It doesn't matter because it's personal opinion.
No need to get all excited Alexsa.

This is uncalled for. You either withdraw the remarks and apologise, or face the combined wrath of the Moderators. Alexsa actually pointed out the fallacies of your argument.

The Moderators have grown somewhat tired of your repeatedly belabouring the same tired old arguments without adding anything new to the conversation. You are testing our patience enormously and some Moderators are starting to have itchy ban hammer trigger fingers.

 

[Rob c]

Like you I would like to see a return of the ACF. I think this is the third time that there have been discussions between Singapore and NZ regarding this and both times they have gone belly up.

I do not know how the leftist peaceniks in Auckland would take to the idea. I suppose gnashing of teeth, tearing of hair and rendering of cloth leaps to mind because they (F-15s) aren't US forces. It would be entertaining though, because if they protest against the Singaporeans I suppose that they could be accused by their leftist brethren of being racist, hence their conundrum. :rotfl

If it happens and at present that's a big if, fast jets operating permanently in NZ skies may help the cause for a Kiwi ACF doing a Lazarus, however I would not hold my breath.

Yea, what a conundrum for the peaceniks they may be force behind closed doors to do their tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth. Got a use for pulled out hair? But I do hope (possibly vainly) for third time lucky.
I have noted that Ron Marks has said that his party would re-introduce a ACF and raise defence spending to 2% GDP but how much worth you could place on anything under Winston is questionable. Sorry if this is a bit to political.

 

[MrConservative]

The news item on TV1 on the weekend confirmed discussions in regard to possible SAF F15 basing could have an interesting outcome. It may be a long term way of reintroducing an ACF, though I would not hold my breath but can only hope.

Both Defence Forces will benefit from this and so will the Manawatu region. The fact that they have gone public on it this past weekend on the RNZAF's 80th with the SG's there suggests that both sides are fairly confident this will play out.

Chances are it possibly is this squadron formed a few months back in Singapore that is looking for a home:

RSAF forms second local F-15SG squadron | IHS Jane's 360

Through the FASC they are examining for a potential return of an air combat capability though not specifically on a fast jet platform viz it's the capability that important and not the platform. The Response Capability section of the RFI included interest in the following:

 Anti Surface Warfare (ASuW): Operations that are conducted to mitigate against the threat of enemy surface forces within the maritime environment and disrupting the enemy's sea lines of communication by destroying or neutralising their surface forces and merchant ships;

 Air Interdiction (AI): Action to destroy, disrupt, divert or delay the enemy’s surface potential before it can be used effectively against friendly forces, or otherwise achieve its objectives. It is carried out at such distance from friendly forces that detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of friendly forces is not required;

 Electronic Warfare (EW): Seeks control of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum, both to enable friendly-force operations, and to deny an enemy the same degree of freedom. It includes defending electronic emitters and receivers from attack via the electromagnetic spectrum (Electronic Protection or EP), and attacking or exploiting enemy electronic emitters and receivers (Electronic Attack or EA).

When Wayne and Jonno were DefMins they were always questioned about the return of the ACC by members of the public their consistent and somewhat guarded reply was that the capability may return but not in a fast jet form.