Yes you are right the camm was originally going to be used as a air to air but that was not followed up, I believe that parts of it are to be used to update the ASRAAM in RAF use Sorry for the mix up I should check old memories before I use them
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
But if you fly at 50' you won't see a ship until you're rather close to it. How do you find targets? How do you use long range anti-ship missiles? I think you'd be well within their range before you spot any possible targets, flying that low.
So, before you can fly off at 50' to attack a ship, you need to have a good idea of where it is. That means something other than aircraft flying at 50'.
Yep a bit of a ramble. Basically I am saying that unless you have your fire control radar at altitude it is difficult to do anything about an attack under the radar horizon'
I would also point out that it is very unlikely that a helicopter with a large aew radar and internal equipment would get anywhere near 25000 ft more like 10 to 15000 would be an operating altitude.
That was the 75 sqn RNZAF form of attach and as you indicated the necessity of, they used a P3 K outside of weapons range to direct the attack I think I did mention this in a previous post.
Re low-alt Launch and targeting....
This Lockheed material gives an indication of modern anti-ship PGM capability being fielded on B-1 and F/A-18F (soon?).
www.lockheedmartin.com
“LRASM technology will reduce dependence on ISR platforms, network links, and GPS navigation in aggressive electronic warfare environments. This advanced guidance operation means the weapon can use gross target cueing data to find and destroy its pre-defined target in denied environments. Precision lethality against surface and land targets ensures ... blah,blah”
I’m not inside the green door on this, but would suspect that the above Gun-runner claims are like cooperative engagements (CEC) b/w different platforms (ie. ISR “national tech means”/UAS/P8 and the shooter).
Thus removes the shooter from having to find SAG targets ala Super Etandard/Exocet in the Falklands circa 1980s
This Lockheed material gives an indication of modern anti-ship PGM capability being fielded on B-1 and F/A-18F (soon?).
Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)
LRASM is a low-risk, multi-service, multi-platform, multi-mission Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare cruise missile.
“LRASM technology will reduce dependence on ISR platforms, network links, and GPS navigation in aggressive electronic warfare environments. This advanced guidance operation means the weapon can use gross target cueing data to find and destroy its pre-defined target in denied environments. Precision lethality against surface and land targets ensures ... blah,blah”
I’m not inside the green door on this, but would suspect that the above Gun-runner claims are like cooperative engagements (CEC) b/w different platforms (ie. ISR “national tech means”/UAS/P8 and the shooter).
Thus removes the shooter from having to find SAG targets ala Super Etandard/Exocet in the Falklands circa 1980s
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Which is why in the calculations I mentioned, I was using an AEW-type kitted helicopter at 10,000 ft, which could organically operate with/from a hostile TF.
Provided the operator aboard the helicopter know what they are about, and the resolution on the heli-bourne radar is decent enough, then the helicopter (@10,000 ft) could potentially detect inbound aircraft (flying @50 ft) approximately 131 n miles away.
NZ would still absolutely need another/more assets to detect and track the ship or TF, as well as to feed targeting data to the strike package. The strike package itself would be essentially blind to the TF until either the package was ~20 n miles out from the TF (assuming a 100 ft mast aboard ship and flying at 50 ft) or climbed to a higher elevation to expand the radar horizon.
My personal preference would be for firstly, the RNZAF P-8A Poseidon's to get armed with standoff AShM. Secondly either expand the size, or add in additional MPA which can both be armed as well as provide and relay SA, and/or integrate other sensing systems.
Right now, it seems though people having been arguing about increasing the assets for the NZDF to utilize during the Act phase of the OODA loop. I have issues with that, since that ignores the rest of the loop and what goes along with that.
75 Sqn were exceptional at low level attacks including anti shipping and once they knew the location of the target, it was all go. From memory they "sank" a USN CVN during an exercise, at the loss of all the attackers but the result was worth it. More than once they took out RAAF Hornets and other air force fast jets during exercises. They were well practiced in working with 5 Sqn Orions, and other assets in locating their targets.
Yes they were exceptional and I remember reading a RNZN news story quoting a RN commander (can't remember if it was a Frigate or Destroyer Cmdr) as saying they always got a hell of a workout from 75sqn sqawks coming at up to 4 angles of attack almost simutaneously. However it's been a long time since those tactics, could be used against vessels with any SAM capability...not without being on a suicide mission anyway.
Absolutely no disrespect intended nor implied but I'd argue by the time the ACF was disbanded that tactic for maritime strike was obsolete for anything but unescorted, lightly-armed vessels, such as patrol vessels etc (although that does still have value admittedly). Mind you this is due mainly to only having a Maverick to lob about... you'd surely only use those if vessels were close in to shore where the A4 pilot could use land contour to remain out of sight until the very last moment, pop-up (giving the vessels sensors minimum time to register & target then for missile launch and lock-in to be effected)...even then you'd have to make a quick offload & scoot. Even a Phalanx would shred an A4 if the job wasn't done properly.
Realistically the A4 & Maverick combo was primarily a ground-attack capability... albeit a mighty fine one! As you say Ngati they were indeed also very good at hugging the ground then popping up to knock out far more 'capable' fast jets... damn it, I need a beer to cry into now!
@Gibbo just imagine what they could've done with F-16s and more advanced weaponry. I would've loved to have seen a 16 screaming in at 50ft before popping up to lob one off. So you'd better get yourself 3 x 750 ml bottles of Speights to cry into.
WE'VE THRASHED THIS TO DEATH SO TIME TO GIVE THE ACF TOPIC A REST FOR TO SOME MONTHS TO A YEAR.
WE'VE THRASHED THIS TO DEATH SO TIME TO GIVE THE ACF TOPIC A REST FOR TO SOME MONTHS TO A YEAR.
Ngati I remember hearing about this in the 1990's , do you know how many aircraft were involved from 75 in this incident. In my time with the sqn we took 8 aircraft to major exercises and 6 to others and did at times field the total number in simulated attacks on occasion, but but more often the number would be 4.
No I don't, I wasn't on the exercise, but sure someone would know. However, like the time the RNZN sunk a CVN with a Leander class frigate, the yanks cheated by retrospectively changing the rules so that they won. Think they also did the same to a RAN sub as well.
I HAVE MADE A MISTAKE IN SHUTTING DOWN THE DISCUSSION ON THE RNZAF ACF. SO IT'S OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AGAIN BUT NOT A THREE RING CIRCUS LIKE IT TURNED INTO. READ THROUGH WHAT HAS BEEN SAID AND DON'T BELABOUR POINTS OR ARGUMENTS THAT ARE NOT GOING TO FLY, PUN INTENDED. WE ARE WORKING ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT THERE WILL BE A MAJOR CONFLICT WITHIN THE REGION WITHIN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, AND THAT IT'S CLOSER THAN SOME SUSPECT.
Hell yeah Ngati, I'd give my left arm to see F16's with kiwi roundels doing the job... those guys were the best! Left arm only mate, can't give up my drinking arm!
However with the budget thus week my focus is not on an ACF, but hoping like hell that the C13OJ order doesn't get kicked down the road!
t68
Well-Known Member
What reading material points to this principle that a conflict will take place, are you expecting a major superpower standoff or middle power?
While I think it’s prudent to prepare for the worst and hope for the best but if history is any guide a stouch between the majors are just that, whilst tensions ebb and flow. I don’t really think this is the place for the discussion but would be interesting to see the material that leads you to this conclusion that something will happen sooner rather than later, if that’s the case NZ may already have missed the boats for expansion
There have been some assumptions that NZ would acquire the CAMM(A) if it was available because we already have Sea Ceptor. However when NZ stands up the ACF Mk 2, it will be with US aircraft simply because of ease of support and logistics, and that it gives compatibility with our ally and coalition partners. That being the case, US weapons will be chosen because they're already integrated onto the aircraft, and like the aircraft for logistics reasons. So you can kiss any Euro-weapons goodbye.
Because of the changing circumstances in the world because of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent economic depression, as well as the deterioration of relations between China and western nations, especially around the cause of the global pandemic and China's suppression of information about the pandemic, we don't have the luxury of acquiring used aircraft rebuilding and upgrading them. The time simply isn't available, so we have to buy new build aircraft.
Now if I was Minister of Defence and Finance, I would acquire the F15EX simply because of the range and weapons load out of the aircraft. I'd probably have to put the taxes up to pay for it, but I am sure that @MrConservative wouldn't mind paying extra tax - waits for the explosionHowever I am not either Minister so MrCs taxes are safe from me raising them.
What we need to remember is what we are going to use the ACF for and it's always been in my view maritime strike as its main role. This is something that it doesn't do on its own, but as part of a system - the mailed first. It's eyes, ears and brains could be hundreds of miles away, providing the targeting data. Maybe a P-8A is providing the targeting data or acting as strike controller. That's the whole point, the ACF are the mailed first at the end of a very long muscular arm. They're just not tooling around above the oggy looking for something to hit using their Mk 1 eyeball.
So my platform of choice would be the latest F-18F with conformal fuel tanks, IRST, everything including Link 16 / 22. Jeez CEC if it'd work on them and the P-8A. The USN, USMC & RAAF are operating the F-18E/F, so we'd be in good company.
For the LIFT I would go with the T-7A because it has capabilities that would be of more benefit to us than what other LIFT on the market can offer and would be a better long term investment.
As I said at the start, the world has become a more dangerous place in the last 3 months, not just because of the COVID-19 pandemic health implications, but because of the actions of the PRC in suppressing the information on the outbreak until it was to late, then minimizing the effects of it so it's citizens could still travel, as well as buying up massive amounts of PPE worldwide, creating a shortage and then lying to the world about the virus. These actions have exacerbated the already tense relationship between the PRC and the US, as well as creating tensions between the PRC and nations (incl. NZ) who have called for an independent investigation into the cause of the pandemic. The PRC have gone quite septic about this and are threatening retaliation.
The US has upset some of its allies and friends over its actions in recent times, and Germany is not happy at all with it. The US also has lost its moral leadership role in the world because of its apparent lack of domestic leadership during the current crisis, and nature abhors a vacuum. Countries in the last 2 months have been more nationalistic as they deal with the crisis; if you look at the EU it wasn't an EU response at all, but individual national responses with closed borders. Economies worldwide are taking a massive hit, some more than others and this will lead to even more unrest and international tensions and turmoil.
It's my belief that because of the reasons I have suggested the NZG will stand up the ACF Mk 2 sooner rather than later and that pollies are coming around to the idea. There will always be holdouts, but I think that the number is reducing as the older left wing Clark holdouts and both left and right wing neoliberalist diehards leave parliament.
That's my take on it.
Because of the changing circumstances in the world because of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent economic depression, as well as the deterioration of relations between China and western nations, especially around the cause of the global pandemic and China's suppression of information about the pandemic, we don't have the luxury of acquiring used aircraft rebuilding and upgrading them. The time simply isn't available, so we have to buy new build aircraft.
Now if I was Minister of Defence and Finance, I would acquire the F15EX simply because of the range and weapons load out of the aircraft. I'd probably have to put the taxes up to pay for it, but I am sure that @MrConservative wouldn't mind paying extra tax - waits for the explosion
However I am not either Minister so MrCs taxes are safe from me raising them.What we need to remember is what we are going to use the ACF for and it's always been in my view maritime strike as its main role. This is something that it doesn't do on its own, but as part of a system - the mailed first. It's eyes, ears and brains could be hundreds of miles away, providing the targeting data. Maybe a P-8A is providing the targeting data or acting as strike controller. That's the whole point, the ACF are the mailed first at the end of a very long muscular arm. They're just not tooling around above the oggy looking for something to hit using their Mk 1 eyeball.
So my platform of choice would be the latest F-18F with conformal fuel tanks, IRST, everything including Link 16 / 22. Jeez CEC if it'd work on them and the P-8A. The USN, USMC & RAAF are operating the F-18E/F, so we'd be in good company.
For the LIFT I would go with the T-7A because it has capabilities that would be of more benefit to us than what other LIFT on the market can offer and would be a better long term investment.
As I said at the start, the world has become a more dangerous place in the last 3 months, not just because of the COVID-19 pandemic health implications, but because of the actions of the PRC in suppressing the information on the outbreak until it was to late, then minimizing the effects of it so it's citizens could still travel, as well as buying up massive amounts of PPE worldwide, creating a shortage and then lying to the world about the virus. These actions have exacerbated the already tense relationship between the PRC and the US, as well as creating tensions between the PRC and nations (incl. NZ) who have called for an independent investigation into the cause of the pandemic. The PRC have gone quite septic about this and are threatening retaliation.
The US has upset some of its allies and friends over its actions in recent times, and Germany is not happy at all with it. The US also has lost its moral leadership role in the world because of its apparent lack of domestic leadership during the current crisis, and nature abhors a vacuum. Countries in the last 2 months have been more nationalistic as they deal with the crisis; if you look at the EU it wasn't an EU response at all, but individual national responses with closed borders. Economies worldwide are taking a massive hit, some more than others and this will lead to even more unrest and international tensions and turmoil.
It's my belief that because of the reasons I have suggested the NZG will stand up the ACF Mk 2 sooner rather than later and that pollies are coming around to the idea. There will always be holdouts, but I think that the number is reducing as the older left wing Clark holdouts and both left and right wing neoliberalist diehards leave parliament.
That's my take on it.
By sooner I would think around 10 years maximum. Later would be the 20 - 25 year mark. It would involve the PRC as one combatant and I would suggest as the aggressor. The allied forces would be the US (if it still exists) Australia, NZ, South Korea, Japan, and probably India and Indonesia.
I'll leave it at that for this thread. This can always be raised in another thread or as a topic in its own right in another section.
Yep I know. Haven't you heard of strawsHell yeah Ngati, I'd give my left arm to see F16's with kiwi roundels doing the job... those guys were the best! Left arm only mate, can't give up my drinking arm!
However with the budget thus week my focus is not on an ACF, but hoping like hell that the C13OJ order doesn't get kicked down the road!
I too will be watching it closely if I can. However it's first day of Level 2 and she who must be obeyed's hatching day so I 'm expected to take her out for coffee, wine, meal etc. I've been given my instructions. Because she's classed as vulnerable due to her health, she's been cooped up at home and is stir crazy, chafing to get out. She couldn't even go to the supermarket or mall and that's really got up her nose.
Honestly I don't know what to expect. We're in unknown territory with this. So we'll just have to wait and see. I'm not overly optimistic.
There is a whole range of material that has been published on the increasing risk of conflict over the last 15 years and not just in English. For example there is an increasing concern and repositioning of its military outlook and capability in Japan and South Korea. From journalism, to think tank pieces, to research thesis, google can be your friend. Here we are obviously concerned enough proffer and share opinions, that we have been debating such things during this time.
Gibbo with all due respect the debate on air combat capability needs to be a bit more than a walk down nostalgia lane. The APDC wrote 12 months ago (and have over the last couple of years have made a number references to the gaping whole in NZDF capability):Hell yeah Ngati, I'd give my left arm to see F16's with kiwi roundels doing the job... those guys were the best! Left arm only mate, can't give up my drinking arm!
However with the budget thus week my focus is not on an ACF, but hoping like hell that the C13OJ order doesn't get kicked down the road!
The question for the RNZAF is, are we configured and prepared for ‘all eventualities’? For instance, should the international climate continue to deteriorate, should we consider obtaining an air combat capability? To even stand up a basic level of capability in this role would probably take around six years, and you can add another ten years to build up an experienced cadre of combat pilots. The dilemma for democratic leaders is perhaps facing the choice between defending their nations, and preserving their wealth and way of life. International norms are changing as we move from a unipolar to a bipolar world, and strategic relationships quickly evolve into a straight choice between the poles. The world’s political centre of gravity is shifting. So, are we in the midst of a warning time? Well, given that conflict has been central throughout history, and that is unlikely to change, the answer is, probably. And how much time do we have to prepare…only time will tell. The Warning Time - RNZAF Air Power Development Centre Bulletin - Issue 32, May 2019
With regards to conceptual NZ combat air activity,
the NZ answer to incursions into their SLOC or territorial waters will be by P3/P8, or perhaps an attempt by RNZN surface assets. No one genuinely thinks an attack on NZ is probable, and even if it was it would be faster and cheaper to stand up and disseminate a GBAD system.
the employment of any evolved ACF will be expeditionary.
it will be expeditionary in direct support of tactical ground elements, historically just as NZ have done with Artillery.
There is a risk of thinking ‘if it ain’t horses, it ain’t cavalry’.
In the economic and structural status quo, fixed wing offers nothing to Navy.
It offers a fly past and orbit from an airfield to Army, IF someone can spare the effort to deliver the fixed wing aircraft in the first place?
Why, what would possibly motivate Army to ask for or even just advocate for a fixed wing solution, if this question gets raised?
Excepting literally marching troops on/off a C130, the first asset actually in-country would probably be a RNZAF self-deployed AH-1Z.
A 1Z can forward deploy WITH Army in the paddock, with the NH90 airlift flight, in the same briefing tent as every other asset in FOB.
A 1Z offers the commander a mimic tactical flight profile of his airlift troop, and more sustained presence than an orbiting fixed wing ever could.
Other than pretty flightlines of interest only to AF, remind me again why any other DF partner would advocate precious money and resources for a fixed wing over an AH?
the NZ answer to incursions into their SLOC or territorial waters will be by P3/P8, or perhaps an attempt by RNZN surface assets. No one genuinely thinks an attack on NZ is probable, and even if it was it would be faster and cheaper to stand up and disseminate a GBAD system.
the employment of any evolved ACF will be expeditionary.
it will be expeditionary in direct support of tactical ground elements, historically just as NZ have done with Artillery.
There is a risk of thinking ‘if it ain’t horses, it ain’t cavalry’.
In the economic and structural status quo, fixed wing offers nothing to Navy.
It offers a fly past and orbit from an airfield to Army, IF someone can spare the effort to deliver the fixed wing aircraft in the first place?
Why, what would possibly motivate Army to ask for or even just advocate for a fixed wing solution, if this question gets raised?
Excepting literally marching troops on/off a C130, the first asset actually in-country would probably be a RNZAF self-deployed AH-1Z.
A 1Z can forward deploy WITH Army in the paddock, with the NH90 airlift flight, in the same briefing tent as every other asset in FOB.
A 1Z offers the commander a mimic tactical flight profile of his airlift troop, and more sustained presence than an orbiting fixed wing ever could.
Other than pretty flightlines of interest only to AF, remind me again why any other DF partner would advocate precious money and resources for a fixed wing over an AH?