Not long distance tasks, The Atr72Mpa has a limited range - all up I think it is 750 nm so Ok for deployment around our coast and monitoring the approaches to our main ports even based out of Fiji. So taking those tasks and others mentioned above away from the P8s could allow more time for their military ops
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
With a lot of respect, discussing ATR72 and for example 757 replacements and even to a degree the army, is minutia. They are auxiliary capabilities however important. The core force structure problem is a balanced NZDF that has to operate in a maritime environment against PLAN, though a fighting navy and air force.
I hope that GOTD has enough hard power advisors and experience left in MoD and NZDF who can shape the DCP. Because, the tactical answer to a balanced operational force is frigates and fast jets. Assets that have withered on the vine over the past 40 years.
Such as the Cold War, funding requires higher contributions from the nations treasures. I note that the average 2% GDP figure is an advised NATO standard for peacetime; which is what we should have been funding over the past decades; we are not in peace time anymore.
The nation will accept this if it is supported by a united, cross bench, plan.
I hope that GOTD has enough hard power advisors and experience left in MoD and NZDF who can shape the DCP. Because, the tactical answer to a balanced operational force is frigates and fast jets. Assets that have withered on the vine over the past 40 years.
Such as the Cold War, funding requires higher contributions from the nations treasures. I note that the average 2% GDP figure is an advised NATO standard for peacetime; which is what we should have been funding over the past decades; we are not in peace time anymore.
The nation will accept this if it is supported by a united, cross bench, plan.
It does not really impact on any of your other arguments, but I really think much discussion on NZ and Australian threads overstates the military significance of the recent PLAN task force. It was, in my view, a geopolitical gesture made in peacetime not a preparation for wartime activities (hopefully neither the RAN nor RNZN plan to sail surface ships through the South China Sea in the middle of world war 3 but they conduct freedom of navigation exercises in peacetime In China’s ”front yard” Aotearoa completes Indo-Pacific mission the PLAN illustrated it can do the same thing).
More credible military threats from China to the realm of New Zealand ( i.e. leaving aside dangers to NZ expeditionary forces) arise from submarines and security agreements / possible basing in the South Pacific.
CJohn
Active Member
Retired New Zealand Army Lieutenant Colonel Josh Wineera considers the long security partnership between Wellington and Ottawa, Is it enough and can it be expanded moving into very uncertain times ahead.
defsec.net.nz
Canadian technology helps New Zealand Navy track Chinese warships
Now is a good time to consider building on our defence relationship with Canada, writes retired NZ Army Lieutenant ColonelJosh Wineera.
defsec.net.nz
You could look at the C295 as that too has a MPA function, as well as other uses in various forms.
The C295 is reported to have a much longer range. Available as an unarmed surveillance aircraft or armed MPA.
The French operate some Falcon 50 MPAs, & are replacing them by Falcon 2000XLS. Not armed AFAIK: surveillance & rescue only. Good range, though.
SAAB seems to have dropped the Swordfish MPA. That was bigger (Bombardier Global 6000), long range, & able to be quite heavily armed.
The French operate some Falcon 50 MPAs, & are replacing them by Falcon 2000XLS. Not armed AFAIK: surveillance & rescue only. Good range, though.
SAAB seems to have dropped the Swordfish MPA. That was bigger (Bombardier Global 6000), long range, & able to be quite heavily armed.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Really, I had not heard that, but then again I have not been paying significant attention to Saab offerings. I do recall that Swordfish as offered as both a specific version on a modified Global 6000, but was also offered as a type of MPA system architecture which could be installed on a variety multi-engine jet or prop platforms.
IIRC the Swordfish MPA based on the Global 6000 was to have four external hardpoints for ordnance which from my perspective does not leave significant ordnance during a mission, basically a pair of AShM and LWT's, or just LWT's or AShM depending on mission configuration. When compared with other MPA types like the P-8 Poseidon, or the P-1, between external hardpoints and bomb bay weapons stations they all have over 10 and the venerable P-3 Orion could manage 10 external and eight internally.
The biggest problem for the NZ defence force to assimilate any new equipment in numbers greater than they currently have is a lack of experienced personal. This the government should be fixing now, but have made no attempt to fix the situation.
If we had the personal and the situation was desperate, we still have 5 P3's sitting at Woodbourne
If we had the personal and the situation was desperate, we still have 5 P3's sitting at Woodbourne
I agree with you that the Govt has not fixed the lack of experienced personal for its defence force. Because of the extent of this problem and its flow through, it has to be addressed before billions of dollars are invested in capital assets. HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD? We have talked about better pay, benefits and allowances. Do we look at overseas recruitment for some areas (UK). Set up a Defence Polytec in Auckland (Small size to start with but able to expand if successful) offering certified courses with ongoing jobs. Continuing to improve infrastructure for both training and operational use and rebuilding or purchasing accomodation near certain bases. I am also sure that a lot of other issues need to be addressed as well. Once skilled defence force members are increased we can start looking at what is needed for their use.(Defence review paper and budget due by mid May).The biggest problem for the NZ defence force to assimilate any new equipment in numbers greater than they currently have is a lack of experienced personal. This the government should be fixing now, but have made no attempt to fix the situation.
If we had the personal and the situation was desperate, we still have 5 P3's sitting at Woodbourne
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
All that you suggest is necessary but new kit in the pipeline gives potential recruits hope that their future career choice will be correct.
While this could help a little, I think the problem is far worse than new equipment would significantly help. As an example the RNZAF has had to hire civilian licenced maintenance engineers to oversee maintenance work on their new P8's as they have no experienced personal to do the job. Most of the RNZAF's aircraft are new or reasonably young, though few in number.
As I have said before the reduction of the terms and conditions of military personal in 2012 by the Key government, even though the 2011 white paper said that there was a problem starting to emerge in retaining experienced personal was not of the highest intellectual thinking (dumb). Pure bean counter thinking without regard for the outcome.
The navy cannot man all its ships, the army units are understrength, and the air force cannot service it's aircraft because they all lack the supervisors and lower/middle management in the 6 to 16 year experience group.
This has been a problem for more than a decade and should have been sorted long ago, but up until the government started to understand that the world had turned nasty they saw that not having the right people saved money.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Yes, I understand the the skill decay issue, perhaps Canada's situation isn't as bad but not far off. My point is joining any organization that has 30 year old stuff (or no stuff at all) and no apparent capital investment on the horizon is a vey difficult sell for the recruiter and a red flag for the potential recruit.
Fully agree with this but purchases need to be continued with balance to what we are able to operate; This covers all renewals but shows caution where new kit will be eventually be purchased but would be overkill at the moment and that needs to be budgeted for but deferred until the defence force can cope. Future expansion has to come and hopefully sooner than later
While the RAN would certainly like to assist the RNZN, and indeed does so whenever possible, NZ needs to realise it has its own problems, particularly in personnel; so it would be unrealistic to look for significant help in that area. Provision of resources for work ups, places on training courses etc are within the realms of possibility - wholesale manpower* provision is not.
* use of one gender implies the other.
* use of one gender implies the other.
Understood and agree.
Interesting point. Could a couple of them be returned to service for 2nd line patrol/surveillance duties, cannibalising the rest of them as necessary to keep them going? Or are the airframes time expired?.....
If we had the personal and the situation was desperate, we still have 5 P3's sitting at Woodbourne
Having the P-3's return to flying condition would be waste of funding as the airframes are old and most likely out of hours also I remember reading somewhere spare parts where becoming an issue.
NZ would be better off buying 4 more P-8s and arming with anti ship missiles and crewing those! and actually have a descent sized SQN and be able to task aircraft to several different missions at the same time!! as these new aircraft age the availibilty will drop due to usual "lack of numbers!!" due to maintance etc.
The same goes for the C-130Js 5 is not enough RNZAF needs at least 3 more as above!!
I think you missed the point, it was said that if the situation was desperate, this could happen, or if the situation was urgent, Buying new, the equipment is years away and if you need it now re-activation is always an option.