The RAAF's P-3Cs have been equipped to carry and shoot Harpoon Block I from day one, it's just the Block II and JASSM which won't be integrated with the P-3 until a decision is made as to their longer term future or replacement.
Cheers
Magoo
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
Cheers
Magoo
Thanks for the correction Magoo.
I think I knew this once - I'll have to use age as an excuse for a fading memory! It was the decision not to proceed with the JASSM integration on the Orions that I was mixed up with. Cheers
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I believe Norway will be picking up much of the development costs associated with NSM adaption for P-3 and NH-90 (maritime) given that it will be a Norweigan missle and integrated into their forces. As I recall, it is designed to be a longer ranged replacement for the Penguin, though I believe it sacrifices warhead size for range. I am less certain on development for a ship-mounted version.
As for IOC, it might be some time before that is achieved, which could make the whole discussion moot. And agree about the NZ Seasprite service life, no NH-90 maritimes might be purchased. Still, would be a potentially good/useful combo if possible.
-Cheers
I completely agree, the cost of the P-8 will mean at least NZ$800m for 3 IMO.
There is no way as I see it that there will be more than 4 (if any at all).
NZDF needs to look at Satellite capability (probably off a commercial Sat) to run UAVs off IMO.
I would have thought that the main reason for the RAN switching to the Block II is that the Block I is no longer in production in the anti shipping version (the land attack SLAM is still being produced for the USN). As the RAN is expanding its inventory to equip the Anzacs it would have had to buy the Block II.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/harpoon.htm
According to Greg Goebel's public domain vectorsite site the Harpoon's shelf life is seen as indefinite, with periodic inspection and maintenance. However I don't know how credible this site is.
http://www.vectorsite.net/twbomb_10.html
According to Encyclopedia Astronautica the Block II has not been ordered by the USN but the Block I Harpoon and SLAM will remain in service with the U.S. Navy for the foreseeable future. Unlike the land attack missiles in its inventory I guess not too many opportunities have presented themselves to expend its anti ship missiles so the USN would have a large number in its inventory. It is probably happy to see foreign countries underwriting the Block II development. It will benefit from the technology development and can always buy into the program whenever it wants in the future.
This information tends to suggest that NZ's P3Ks could be fitted with the Harpoon Block I if a source could be found for second hand missiles. This would bring them into line with the RAAF's AP3Cs. If this is possible I would still prefer to see NZ move to a weapon currently in production, even if it means the extensive rewire described by Magoo.
Cheers
BTW, is anyone able to comment on the credibility of the above sources. Both have useful info providing it is reliable.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Has there been any additional word about smaller MPA for the RNZAF? There was mention in the 2006 LTDP about possible acquisition of Bombardier Q-200 or -300 (aka Dash 8) MPA. Same type as used by Australian Coastwatch/Surveillance Australia. Unless there are significant changes to the costs for a P-8, and/or a dramatic restructing of NZ defence budgets and priorities, I can't seen NZ spending $200+ mil per aircraft. IIRC that would be in line with what was spent per Anzac frigate... On the other hand, a geosat with surveillance & UAV control abilities could make for an interesting mix. Maybe in partnership with Australia, since the RAAF & RAN will be having a similiar dilema.
-Cheers
The problem that the NZDF and the NZ Govt has is that NZ needs to patrol from the Equator in the North to the Antarctic in the South, that requires long range, persistence and an ability to operate in very rough conditions. The way I see it that leaves a naval MPA, in the class of the P3, P8, Nimrod, or possible Airbus contender.
While I recognise that none of these will be very palatable to ANY NZ govt the fact remains that they and most Govt departments recognise that the NZ national interest is to have such aircraft.
It may be that they will not have all of the military equipment and weapons (ASW springs to mind, wrongly IMO) but they will need those types of airframe if NZ is to patrol and enforce its economic and legal rights.
Keeping track on what is happening in your territory in terms of economic, criminal, defence, terrorist etc is being recognised as more and more important around the world, even by govts that have had a tradition of…shall we say.. questionable need for a defence force.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Hmmm... Perhaps a tiered approach then. A few large MPA for the long-range patrols, and several smaller, less expensive MPA for shorter duration or close-in operations. Possibly some investment in AAR would be wise as well. That could further extend the duration of patrol operations, and possibly even give something like a Q-300 the ability to conduct a patrol out to the equator in an emergency.
-Cheers
I agree with what you are saying re the need for an aircraft with very long range. Coastwatch aircraft in Australia supplement the long range assets of the RAAF. They don't replace them. NZ aircraft will often be operating a long way from home. I think a mix of LR aircraft and UAVs is the way to go (as does the RAAF IIRC) but maybe there would be areas where an aircraft of the Dash-8 type would save costs. A smaller supplementary aircraft could be operated on a civil contract basis in peacetime. Perhaps that would be more palatable to the anti military set!The problem that the NZDF and the NZ Govt has is that NZ needs to patrol from the Equator in the North to the Antarctic in the South, that requires long range, persistence and an ability to operate in very rough conditions. The way I see it that leaves a naval MPA, in the class of the P3, P8, Nimrod, or possible Airbus contender.
While I recognise that none of these will be very palatable to ANY NZ govt the fact remains that they and most Govt departments recognise that the NZ national interest is to have such aircraft.
It may be that they will not have all of the military equipment and weapons (ASW springs to mind, wrongly IMO) but they will need those types of airframe if NZ is to patrol and enforce its economic and legal rights.
Keeping track on what is happening in your territory in terms of economic, criminal, defence, terrorist etc is being recognised as more and more important around the world, even by govts that have had a tradition of…shall we say.. questionable need for a defence force.
Cheers
The NSM will be the main weapon for the Nansen FFGs and Skjold MTBs. AFAIK the air-launced version will be arriving later than the surfaced launched ones. With Australia and Norway cooperating on the JSF integration I would like to see a closer relationship on the system as a whole.
RNZAF will need a repacement replacement Advanced Pilot Training Capability aircraft when the lease of King Air ends in 2008. It is possible that this replacement will also be used for maritime patrol but only as a complement to Orion.
The future of the Orions is secured today but a few years ago (at the same time as the combat force was scrapped) it was very uncertain. Luckily the Labour goverment realised that the RNZAF can never fulfil this role with a smaller aircraft.
Cheers
Peter
From Long Term Development Plan
"This project is upgrading the mission management, communications, and
navigation systems required for the P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft to conduct surface surveillance tasks."
The focus is on surface survelliance.
"Early installation of the electro-optics system was carried out during the second half of 2005. This installation on three aircraft is providing a significant increase in visual and infrared detection capabilities as an interim benefit prior to the delivery of the full upgrade."
The increased surveillance capability can also be used over land and 5 Sqn has started to train with the army in this role.
Unfortunately nothing seems to happen with the ASW-capability.
Cheers
Peter
Yes back about 2001/02 Labour did a review of options for EEZ maritime air patrol - given that significant upgrades were required. One of the options to be considered was P3 replacement with a smller less capable MPA.
The result was the Orion was deemed to be the only available platform capable of full EEZ patrol coverage. But I bet money that the Aussie Govt had a quiet word in Labour's ear & 'politely' suggested they might want to reconsider any options for retiring the P3's! - especially so soon after the air-combat wing's demise!
Labour's leader has publicly stated that we don't need to be chasing submarines - so the decision not to include ASW upgrades in the MLU has her stamp all over it. Mind you, the new opposition party defence spokesman has also stated he didn't see a need to chase sub's in our part of the world! Yes - it's true, a lot of NZer's really do have their heads parked so far up their own...well you get the picture anyway!
So as to the future - it's far too early to get too hung up on options but my gut-feel would be that a decent MPA would still be considered a necessity when P3's finally go. I guess if I gazed into my crystal ball I could see a purchase of 3 larger and 3-4 smaller twin turbo-prop types for short-mid range... please let's not get into a drawn-out discussion of type suitability at this point!
With regard to B200 trainer replacement, no indication yet of preferred type or numbers - no RFP released yet. Some reports have suggested 4-6 Q200 but only speculative at this stage.
My guess if above do get used fro short-range maritime patrol they won't be specifcally equipped for such (eg: Aussie CoastWatch a/c) - I'd expect the main sensor to mutliple sets of the MK1 eyeball - but hey, I'd love to be proved wrong!
Possible role for RNZAF MB-339CB!?!
The 17 Aermacchi MB-339CB trainers are still flown by the RNZAF on a cyclical basis to keep them 'dust-free' for sale (about 1-2 week I'm led to believe). I also understand they're directed to keep things low key as they are (potentially!?!) very embarrasing to the Govt
Anyway, given that the opposition party's new defence spokesman has set the spark on considering the option of returning these to service to train Army & Navy in strike simulation etc etc, this got me wondering, would it be worth the cost?
Both the above training tasks could be performed by civilian contractors (on a more structured & regular basis than is currently the case) - so I was thinking about how they might add something more.
Okay - one obvious option is a light ground-attack role - but this is probably of little regional benefit!?! I'm not sure that would be worth the cost!
So what do you guys reckon about this - using them as a specialised Recon / FAC platform? (with obvious light attack capability if req'd and perhaps a couple of AIM-9's depending on sceanrio). Yes they'd need a bit of work to kit them out, but the basic platform looks up to it. Primarily get them operating in NZ; Aust; Pacific area where top cover is available - these scooters are a damned fine a/c but whether this is a capability the region really needs I don't know.
I figure they' be suitable platforms (although not ideal, but I'm arguing for retention of these a/c, not purchase of other types) tasked with FAC and Recon is situations where there is some heat. RAAF RF-111 are likely to be gone in a few more years and P3's are obviously not suitable down low!
They can be deployed at ferry range to Aussie; Sth Pacific etc & as they'd only deploy 2-3 at a time this could allow the RNZAF once again provide at least some useful regional airborne capability.
What do you guys reckon...?
The 17 Aermacchi MB-339CB trainers are still flown by the RNZAF on a cyclical basis to keep them 'dust-free' for sale (about 1-2 week I'm led to believe). I also understand they're directed to keep things low key as they are (potentially!?!) very embarrasing to the Govt
Anyway, given that the opposition party's new defence spokesman has set the spark on considering the option of returning these to service to train Army & Navy in strike simulation etc etc, this got me wondering, would it be worth the cost?
Both the above training tasks could be performed by civilian contractors (on a more structured & regular basis than is currently the case) - so I was thinking about how they might add something more.
Okay - one obvious option is a light ground-attack role - but this is probably of little regional benefit!?! I'm not sure that would be worth the cost!
So what do you guys reckon about this - using them as a specialised Recon / FAC platform? (with obvious light attack capability if req'd and perhaps a couple of AIM-9's depending on sceanrio). Yes they'd need a bit of work to kit them out, but the basic platform looks up to it. Primarily get them operating in NZ; Aust; Pacific area where top cover is available - these scooters are a damned fine a/c but whether this is a capability the region really needs I don't know.
I figure they' be suitable platforms (although not ideal, but I'm arguing for retention of these a/c, not purchase of other types) tasked with FAC and Recon is situations where there is some heat. RAAF RF-111 are likely to be gone in a few more years and P3's are obviously not suitable down low!
They can be deployed at ferry range to Aussie; Sth Pacific etc & as they'd only deploy 2-3 at a time this could allow the RNZAF once again provide at least some useful regional airborne capability.
What do you guys reckon...?
Interesting post.The 17 Aermacchi MB-339CB trainers are still flown by the RNZAF on a cyclical basis to keep them 'dust-free' for sale (about 1-2 week I'm led to believe). I also understand they're directed to keep things low key as they are (potentially!?!) very embarrasing to the Govt
Anyway, given that the opposition party's new defence spokesman has set the spark on considering the option of returning these to service to train Army & Navy in strike simulation etc etc, this got me wondering, would it be worth the cost?
Both the above training tasks could be performed by civilian contractors (on a more structured & regular basis than is currently the case) - so I was thinking about how they might add something more.
Okay - one obvious option is a light ground-attack role - but this is probably of little regional benefit!?! I'm not sure that would be worth the cost!
So what do you guys reckon about this - using them as a specialised Recon / FAC platform? (with obvious light attack capability if req'd and perhaps a couple of AIM-9's depending on sceanrio). Yes they'd need a bit of work to kit them out, but the basic platform looks up to it. Primarily get them operating in NZ; Aust; Pacific area where top cover is available - these scooters are a damned fine a/c but whether this is a capability the region really needs I don't know.
I figure they' be suitable platforms (although not ideal, but I'm arguing for retention of these a/c, not purchase of other types) tasked with FAC and Recon is situations where there is some heat. RAAF RF-111 are likely to be gone in a few more years and P3's are obviously not suitable down low!
They can be deployed at ferry range to Aussie; Sth Pacific etc & as they'd only deploy 2-3 at a time this could allow the RNZAF once again provide at least some useful regional airborne capability.
What do you guys reckon...?
I see the 339s as training the army/navy with fast jets which is a must for them to keep up with operational standards, especially when you look at the role of troops calling in CAS in A-stan etc..
Another possible role maybe a flight based in Australia to take up where the Skyhawks left off.
Realistically I can't see them used in an active recce role, it would be expensive to equip them with modern recce tech, and really when you look at the proliferation of UAVs why used a manned asset that is going to be much more expensive to operate!
As far as FAC, they really don't offer a lot IMO, when you look at the numbers needed for sustainment the specifications of the 339, e.g. range, weapons, etc it just isn't practical.
One thing I will add, the RNZAF used to cycle ALL pilots through the jet trainers during there training, if this was bought back it would allow the RNZAF to keep its pilots at least partially up to speed and allow for an easier reformation of a strike wing, should the strategic situation dictate it.
Of course what is a little sad is that at one stage - we had 3 x F.27 Nav /AEOP trainers based in Wigram that used to do MAROPs as well.
I spent some time at NATTS (F.27 Unit) (am ex RNZAF avoinics tech) - and MAROPs were a regular feature -- don't under estimate the MK 1 eye ball / camera. ;-)
While the radar was nothing fancy (colour weather radar) it worked ok, plus the 'TAC RAIL" wasn't that bad. (Omega / INS (?) etc)
Pity that the F.27's reached the end of their cycle life -- I believe they were the first ones that Air New Zealand (NAC) obtained. With the drop tanks they had a reasonable endurance ... remember taking one nice "tickie" tour up through the South Pacific on one.
I spent some time at NATTS (F.27 Unit) (am ex RNZAF avoinics tech) - and MAROPs were a regular feature -- don't under estimate the MK 1 eye ball / camera. ;-)
While the radar was nothing fancy (colour weather radar) it worked ok, plus the 'TAC RAIL" wasn't that bad. (Omega / INS (?) etc)
Pity that the F.27's reached the end of their cycle life -- I believe they were the first ones that Air New Zealand (NAC) obtained. With the drop tanks they had a reasonable endurance ... remember taking one nice "tickie" tour up through the South Pacific on one.
I also thought Gibbo's post was an interesting one and I think it would be well worth the RNZAF pushing the government hard to retain the MB339s.
I agree with your comments re a training role for the fleet and army and I also think it would be valuable to keep a core of NZ pilots current on fast jets. In an emergency the training role would provide the pilot skills to be able to carry out limited CAS, light attack and even air defence missions. So far as FAC is concerned they could at least provide training in this area (like the RAAF PC9s) and would be better than nothing in an emergency. There may be some roles where civilian contractors might supplement these aircraft but I think the advantages of maintaining the force outweigh any economies that might be gained from an all civilian operation.
To keep NZ's future options open it may also be possible to arrange exchanges with the RAAF Hawk LIF squadrons so that pilot skills could be further honed, with some perhaps going on to front line RAAF fighter squadrons. Australia, in return, could send detachments of fast jets to NZ for exercises that would further enhance training for the army and the RNZN. Perhaps the NZ government might worry about keeping the door slightly ajar for the rebirth of an air combat force but, IMHO, 'never' is a word that no government should use.
I don't think sending a detachment to Australia along the lines of the Skyhawk deployment, would offer it any real benefits as the Hawks and civilian aircraft seem to fill this role well AFAIK. However, I strongly believe that a number of Kiwi pilots (even a small number) attached to the Oz squadrons would provide a valuable contribution to the defence of Australasia as a whole.
Cheers
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Another plus for the JSM (International NSM version) is that it like the Harpoon Block II, can be used in land attack roles, plus has a roughly 180k range, putting it definitely into the "standoff weapon" class of missile, necessary to protect an aircraft like a P-3 should it wish to participate in combat missions in any sort of reasonable threat environment.
It could also be fitted to RNZN's ANZAC frigates, providing a reasonable anti-ship capability for the vessels, with the caveat though that the 130kg warhead (same size as Penguin) is optimised towards engaging smaller vessels than the 250kg warhead fitted to Harpoon class missiles.
For NZ's purposes however, which may include engaging smaller vessels than large naval vessels, the weapon may be "just right".
Certainly even a large Cruiser would be "hurting" if hit with a JSM class missile, so it wouldn't be too bad. The commonality benefits across a range of assets would also be a big plus for NZ, though the integration costs might preclude this. Integration onto primary assets (Seasprite/ANZAC and P-3K) might have to do...
It could also be fitted to RNZN's ANZAC frigates, providing a reasonable anti-ship capability for the vessels, with the caveat though that the 130kg warhead (same size as Penguin) is optimised towards engaging smaller vessels than the 250kg warhead fitted to Harpoon class missiles.
For NZ's purposes however, which may include engaging smaller vessels than large naval vessels, the weapon may be "just right".
Certainly even a large Cruiser would be "hurting" if hit with a JSM class missile, so it wouldn't be too bad. The commonality benefits across a range of assets would also be a big plus for NZ, though the integration costs might preclude this. Integration onto primary assets (Seasprite/ANZAC and P-3K) might have to do...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #160
I think the MB 339 could be effective as FAC aircraft, with limited Air Defence, CAS / Maritime Strike. New Zealand would not regain the interdication role, but the P3 could do this using stand off weapons maybe.
The Hawks offer a far superior training capability over the MB 339 so I can't see NZ ever taking the A4 role over again unless it develops an air combat force of front line capability. Still never hurts to play with the big boys.
Attaching NZ pilots to the RAAF has definite advantages all round, and I like the idea, but could operationally prove difficult given the different thinking on areas like Iraq. Were difference to arise NZ might withdraw the pilots, similar to what they did to a Navy Officer on attachment to the RN when GW II started. Net result is the RAAF could be left short.