Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Aussie Digger]

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.

Such a incident would result in a diplomatic sh*t storm in my opinion. RAAF would gain little from this deal other than a few pilots and from my understanding there is VERY little spare capacity extant in the Hawk fleet to take on additional numbers of pilots anyway.

The gain would be largely NZ's and if they withdrew their personel as a political reaction to Australian strategic policy, well the Australian Government might not be too willing to continue "allowing" RNZAF access to our (limited) capability.

NZ did not stop exercising with Australia during this time and to be perfectly honest, withdrawing personnel on exchange with a particular force who might go into harms way, contrary to foreign policy is a LOT different to withdrawing personnel on joint exchange who have NO links to the mission objected to.

It would be a big call and would probably lead to a rather cold shoulder from the Australian Government I should think.

 

[renjer]

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.

I wonder if training with Malaysia's air force under the auspices of the FPDA would be workable. The air force here is upgrading and adding on to our own fleet of MB339s.

 

[PeterH]

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)

If I understand this correct you used the weather radar for surveillance. Was it possible to discover small subjects like dinghies with this radar?

Cheers

 

[contedicavour]

Those MB339CD were quite advanced with fully digital instruments and the ability to perform serious maritime strike (we use them with Marte Mk2A range almost 30km) and slow mover interceptor (with 30mm gun and AIM9L). FAC role is also feasible but with no intelligent bombs, only rockets and dumb bombs.
If the NZ government were to decide to sell them it should act quick as the market value will soon diminuish as the new M346 enters the advanced trainer market.
If the NZ government keeps them it can use them in support of their troops on overseas deployments on CAS/COIN roles and to provide some limited air cover. When stationed back home, they could be used as interceptors of lost civilian jets or on anti-terrorist patrols (against both aircrafts and ships).

cheers

 

[Whiskyjack]

Those MB339CD were quite advanced with fully digital instruments and the ability to perform serious maritime strike (we use them with Marte Mk2A range almost 30km) and slow mover interceptor (with 30mm gun and AIM9L). FAC role is also feasible but with no intelligent bombs, only rockets and dumb bombs.
If the NZ government were to decide to sell them it should act quick as the market value will soon diminuish as the new M346 enters the advanced trainer market.
If the NZ government keeps them it can use them in support of their troops on overseas deployments on CAS/COIN roles and to provide some limited air cover. When stationed back home, they could be used as interceptors of lost civilian jets or on anti-terrorist patrols (against both aircrafts and ships).

cheers

Funny, the NZ govt HAS been trying to sell them for the better part of 6 years....nfloorl:

 

[dave_kiwi]

If I understand this correct you used the weather radar for surveillance. Was it possible to discover small subjects like dinghies with this radar?

Cheers

Hmm -- trying to recall radar performance -- smallest object would have been more like fishing boats - this is going back some 17 years.

Most if not all the patrols were concerned with fishery resource protection and as such were flown at reasonably low level ---- part of the post op servicing involved "hosing down" the a/c to remove any sea salt.

Also the F.27's were used for SAR work, remember a couple of occassions when we went looking for locator beacons that had been activated

Point am tryig to make, is that by buying a suitable aircraft, it could be used for multi role tasking. The F.27's not only performed Nav / AEOP training, but SAR / VIP transport roles as well ( TAC Rail / seating for 10 - 20 people ?). F.27's certainly complemented the P3s well.

Given the advancs in technology in the last 17 years, a far more comprehensive fit would be possible as well ...

 

[PeterH]

Hmm -- trying to recall radar performance -- smallest object would have been more like fishing boats - this is going back some 17 years.

Most if not all the patrols were concerned with fishery resource protection and as such were flown at reasonably low level ---- part of the post op servicing involved "hosing down" the a/c to remove any sea salt.

Also the F.27's were used for SAR work, remember a couple of occassions when we went looking for locator beacons that had been activated

Point am tryig to make, is that by buying a suitable aircraft, it could be used for multi role tasking. The F.27's not only performed Nav / AEOP training, but SAR / VIP transport roles as well ( TAC Rail / seating for 10 - 20 people ?). F.27's certainly complemented the P3s well.

Given the advancs in technology in the last 17 years, a far more comprehensive fit would be possible as well ...

Thanks for the information I knew about use of F.27 in Maritime Patrol and SAR but didn´t know that the weather could be used as a surveillance radar.

Multi tole tasking make sense for a small air force like RNZAF. It´s probably possible to get an advanced surveillance kit if civilian "standard" equipment is used.

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks for the information I knew about use of F.27 in Maritime Patrol and SAR but didn´t know that the weather could be used as a surveillance radar.

Multi tole tasking make sense for a small air force like RNZAF. It´s probably possible to get an advanced surveillance kit if civilian "standard" equipment is used.

Jane's Navy magazine July/August 2006 had a very interesting multipage article on MPA aircraft. When I get a chance this evening, I'll try and post some highlights of it. The article basically discusses the expansion of MPA aircraft by different countries. It also goes on that many of the aircraft now being used are smaller, twinprop aircraft that are fitted with surveillance kits.

-Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

Operators seek low-cost options for maritime patrol

Selected bits from Jane's Navy International July/August 2006.

Aside from top-end MPA aircraft like the British Nimrod, the US P-3 Orion, or the proposed P-8 MMA, a number of countries are offering (and using) lower cost MPA aircraft. These are largely based off of commercial or transport aircraft to meet different MPA requirements, and a range of flexible mission systems has been developed by industry to meet those requirements. Often these requirements aren't geared so much for ASW or ASuW warfighting ability. With the need to carry out EEZ patrol, counter-smuggling operations and pollution control to name a few, low-end MPA aircraft are often operating constantly.

With recent advances in radar, optics and computers, many of these smaller MPA have fairly advanced capabilities, based on OTS components.

Popular aircraft for adaption or conversion to MPA roles are the EADS-CASA CN-235 & CN-295 military cargo aircraft, the ATR 42 Surveyor & ATR 72 ASW, as well as Bombardier's Dash 8 (Q-series), all are popular.

Mission systems are available from Thales like AMASCOS (Airborne Maritime Situation and Control System) consist of a tactical command subsystem, radar, ESM, acoustic and comm systems. Other subsystems can be carried depending on need, like MAD, sonobuoy receivers and missile-warning systems and decoy dispensers. EADS-CASA has it's own mission system for small aircraft, called the Fully Integrated Tactical System (FITS) that is based on an open architecture controlled by universal reconfigurable consoles.
Frequently the systems are scalable depending on mission needs and type. Surface surveillance units frequently have two consoles, while MPA that might have an ASW role often have 4 consoles, which are connected by a commercial-type LAN.

Australian Coastwatch Q-series MPA are going to be undergoing an upgrade, with aircraft being fitted with a 360 degree ventral EO/IR turret and observation windows. As part of the upgrade, the aircraft will be standardized with the latest version of the Ratheon SeaVue radar. In addition, the aircraft are to be fitted with EMS Technologies HSD-128 highspeed Inmarsat terminal as well as external video cameras and a video terminal. This will allow realtime transmissions to Canberra from the aircraft, of images sufficient to identify individuals on small vessels. A number of other Q-series users are also in the process of adding to, or upgrading their aircraft with additional capabilities.

Currently, Boeing is seeking potential customers for the P-8 MMA, with 108 expected to replace the 250 P-3 Orions in the USN inventory. This is expected to be sufficient due to the greater speed and radius of action, as well as a reduction in the wear & tear due to more advanced simulator training options. Expected potential customers are current operators of the P-3 Orion, and Italy, Australia, Canada and India being of particular interested. Though I don't believe Italy and India currently are P-3 operators. While the aircraft isn't expected to be a low-cost item, maintenance isn't likely to be as costly as on the P-3, due to not needing a dedicated maintenance support system. Being based off of the Boeing 737, commercial contractors should be able to perform much of the needed maintenance just like on a commercial 737.

Hope people found this worthwhile, if I could scan it in and post it (without running afoul of copyright) I would, the article I found to be quite interesting.

-Cheers

 

[allmedia]

FAC? where?

Instead of this fantasy"war in the context of war" you guys seem to have in your heads how about we talk about real life? :war in the context of peace.

You guys may have noticed the bother currently in East Timor? Can you seriously see a FAC role for the MB339 there? Something like:
'Kiwis bomb village, 24 dead, Gushmao pledges revenge'

It ain't going to happen. Not now, not ever. The stuff we get involved in in AsiaPacific is politics with guns. There is no separating leaders, fighters and civilians. They are inextricably mixed. The Americans lose all the time because they forget about politics and go straight for the guns. That way they kill everyone and piss off everyone else. Then they wonder why they never get a successful political solution. The fact is aircraft, all aircraft, always screw up. The more delicate the situation the worse they make it. Aircraft are only good for surprise strikes when the enemy conveniently bunches up in camps miles from anywhere like they did in Malaya or Afghanistan. Clever ones don't do that anymore. They assimilate with the populace.

The only thing the Aermaachis are good for is playing targets for the Mistral crews, and compared to a real strike aircraft they aren't even particularly good for that. Scrap em and have done I say. Buy three Sukhois and call it an aggressor team. That would add value to the Aussies training effort and provide real strike training for everyone else. Plus it would look better at air displays than those embarassing 757s.

 

[KH-12]

Those MB339CD were quite advanced with fully digital instruments and the ability to perform serious maritime strike (we use them with Marte Mk2A range almost 30km) and slow mover interceptor (with 30mm gun and AIM9L). FAC role is also feasible but with no intelligent bombs, only rockets and dumb bombs.
If the NZ government were to decide to sell them it should act quick as the market value will soon diminuish as the new M346 enters the advanced trainer market.
If the NZ government keeps them it can use them in support of their troops on overseas deployments on CAS/COIN roles and to provide some limited air cover. When stationed back home, they could be used as interceptors of lost civilian jets or on anti-terrorist patrols (against both aircrafts and ships).

cheers

The New Zealand aircraft are MB339CB not the all digital cockpit MB339CD and as such are not deemed as capable for an aggressor role, not sure how much serious weapons training was ever carried out with them when they were in service, I don't believe they were ever configured for any guided missile operation.

 

[KH-12]

Instead of this fantasy"war in the context of war" you guys seem to have in your heads how about we talk about real life? :war in the context of peace.

You guys may have noticed the bother currently in East Timor? Can you seriously see a FAC role for the MB339 there? Something like:
'Kiwis bomb village, 24 dead, Gushmao pledges revenge'

It ain't going to happen. Not now, not ever. The stuff we get involved in in AsiaPacific is politics with guns. There is no separating leaders, fighters and civilians. They are inextricably mixed. The Americans lose all the time because they forget about politics and go straight for the guns. That way they kill everyone and piss off everyone else. Then they wonder why they never get a successful political solution. The fact is aircraft, all aircraft, always screw up. The more delicate the situation the worse they make it. Aircraft are only good for surprise strikes when the enemy conveniently bunches up in camps miles from anywhere like they did in Malaya or Afghanistan. Clever ones don't do that anymore. They assimilate with the populace.

The only thing the Aermaachis are good for is playing targets for the Mistral crews, and compared to a real strike aircraft they aren't even particularly good for that. Scrap em and have done I say. Buy three Sukhois and call it an aggressor team. That would add value to the Aussies training effort and provide real strike training for everyone else. Plus it would look better at air displays than those embarassing 757s.

I don't see what is embarassing about the 757's they are a damn fine aircraft and do a particularly good airshow routine :nono

 

[Lucasnz]

The New Zealand aircraft are MB339CB not the all digital cockpit MB339CD and as such are not deemed as capable for an aggressor role, not sure how much serious weapons training was ever carried out with them when they were in service, I don't believe they were ever configured for any guided missile operation.

NZ MB339 were equipped for AIM-9L and Maverick operation. Whether they actually ever carried them is another matter - can anyone help.

 

[dave_kiwi]

When I was still in the RNZAF, or just after I left, I am pretty sure that I saw at least one picture of a Macchi firing a Maverick at Waioru .. circa 1991 / 1992

 

[Tasman]

Instead of this fantasy"war in the context of war" you guys seem to have in your heads how about we talk about real life? :war in the context of peace.

You guys may have noticed the bother currently in East Timor? Can you seriously see a FAC role for the MB339 there? Something like:
'Kiwis bomb village, 24 dead, Gushmao pledges revenge'

It ain't going to happen. Not now, not ever. The stuff we get involved in in AsiaPacific is politics with guns. There is no separating leaders, fighters and civilians. They are inextricably mixed. The Americans lose all the time because they forget about politics and go straight for the guns. That way they kill everyone and piss off everyone else. Then they wonder why they never get a successful political solution. The fact is aircraft, all aircraft, always screw up. The more delicate the situation the worse they make it. Aircraft are only good for surprise strikes when the enemy conveniently bunches up in camps miles from anywhere like they did in Malaya or Afghanistan. Clever ones don't do that anymore. They assimilate with the populace.

The only thing the Aermaachis are good for is playing targets for the Mistral crews, and compared to a real strike aircraft they aren't even particularly good for that. Scrap em and have done I say. Buy three Sukhois and call it an aggressor team. That would add value to the Aussies training effort and provide real strike training for everyone else. Plus it would look better at air displays than those embarassing 757s.

Some of us have been around for long enough to know that saying something like ‘Not now, not ever’ is the sort of comment that can cause embarrassment down the track. I hope you’re right but I’m not as confident as you that our forces (and I guess I’m talking about Australian but it could well fit the Kiwi situation as well) will never need close air support or have a need for air strike operations. At present you are probably correct so far as Timor Leste is concerned but what about Afghanistan? I thought most of the comments re the MB339s have suggested their use to provide training for the army in the use of close air support, and it was also suggested that they could play a useful role in fleet support by simulating missile attacks, etc. Providing a core of pilots with FAC training was another suggestion. I certainly wouldn’t see a front line role for the Macchis except in an extreme emergency involving an unlikely attack on New Zealand. Without quite saying that that will never happen I think we can at least say it is extremely unlikely that it will happen in the foreseeable future. I would envisage any NZ pilots deployed operationally would probably be flying on exchange with RAAF units.

You appeared to be advocating the scrapping of offensive airpower altogether but then you talked about buying Sukhois to provide ‘real’ strike training. I couldn’t work out if you were serious or not about that. The cost of supporting a flight of just 3 aircraft of this kind would be totally uneconomic IMHO.

Cheers

 

[KH-12]

NZ MB339 were equipped for AIM-9L and Maverick operation. Whether they actually ever carried them is another matter - can anyone help.

Here is a good article on the Macchi in service with the RNZAF with a comment towards the end re: weapons deployment.

http://www.nzwings.co.nz/pdfs/Lead-in Jets are Lead Out.pdf

My understanding was that AIM-9 and Mavericks were only strapped onto the Hardpoints for display and were never integrated for firing purposes.

 

[Todjaeger]

Hawk 200-series vs. P-3K Orion for maritime strike

I have gleaned some info into the APG 66 radar system that gives the Hawk 200 a major advantage by actually being able to lock onto the target at 150 km. Thought this might be of interest.



The AN/APG-66 Radar

The AN/APG-66 is a pulse-doppler radar designed specifically for the F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter aircraft. It was developed from Westinghouse's WX-200 radar and is designed for operation with the Sparrow and AMRAAM medium-range and the Sidewinder short- range missiles. APG-66 uses a slotted planar-array antenna located in the aircraft's nose and has four operating frequencies within the I/J band. The modular system is configured to six Line-Replaceable Units (LRUs), each with its own power supply. The LRUs consist of the antenna, transmitter, low-power Radio Frequency (RF) unit, digital signal processor, computer, and control panel.

The system has ten operating modes, which are divided into air-to-air, air-to-surface display, and sub-modes. The air-to- air modes are search and engagement. There are six air-to-surface display modes (real beam ground map, expanded real beam ground map, doppler beam- sharpening, beacon, and sea). APG-66 also has two sub-modes, which are engagement and freeze.

In the search mode APG-66 performs uplook and downlook scanning. The uplook mode uses a low Pulse Repetition Frequency (PRF) for medium- and high-altitude target detection in low clutter. Downlook uses medium PRF for target detection in heavy clutter environments. The search mode also performs search altitude display, which displays the relative altitude of targets specified by the pilot.

Once a target is located via the search mode, the engagement sub-mode can be used. Engagement allows the system to use the AMRAAM , Sidewinder , and Sparrow missiles. When engaging the Sidewinder , APG-66 sends slaving commands that slaves the missile's seeker head to the radar's line-of-sight for increased accuracy and missile lock-on speed. An Operational Capability Upgrade (OCU) was developed to modify the APG-66 to use the AMRAAM missile. The OCU is designed to provide the radar with the necessary data link to perform mid-course updates of the missile. The Sparrow 's semi-active homing seeker is facilitated in the engagement mode by a Continuous Wave Illuminator (CWI). The CWI also permits APG-66 to be compatible with Skyflash and other missiles with similar semi-active homing seekers.

Target acquisition can be manual or automatic in the track mode. There are two main manual acquisition modes, single-target track and situation awareness. The situation awareness mode performs Track-While-Scan (TWS), allowing the pilot to continue observing search targets while tracking a specific target. While in this mode, the search area does not need to include the tracked target's sector.

Four Air Combat Maneuvering (ACM) modes are available for automatic target acquisition and tracking. In the first ACM mode, a 20 x 20-deg Field Of View (FOV) is scanned. This FOV is equal to that of the Head Up Display (HUD). Once a target is detected, the radar performs automatic lock-on. The second ACM mode's FOV is 10- x 40-deg, offering a tall window that is perpendicular to the aircraft's longitudinal axis; this proves especially useful in high-G maneuvering situations. A boresight ACM mode is used for multiple aircraft engagement situations. The boresight uses a pencil beam positioned at 0-deg azimuth and minus 3-deg elevation to "spotlight" a target for acquisition. This is especially useful in preventing engagement of friendly aircraft. A slewable ACM mode allows the pilot to rotate the 60- x 20-deg FOV. The automatic scan pattern gives the pilot up to 4 sec of time. This mode is designed for use when the aircraft is operating in the vertical plane or during stern direction conversion.

The slant range measurement to a designated surface location is generated by the Air-to-Ground Ranging (AGR) mode. This real-time mode acts with the fire-control system to guide missiles in air-to-ground combat. AGR is automatically selected when the pilot selects the appropriate weapons deployment mode.

Terrain in the aircraft's heading is displayed via the real beam ground map mode. The radar provides the stabilized image mainly as a navigational aid in ground target detection and location. An extension of this mode is the expanded real beam ground map. The expanded real beam ground map provides a 4:1 map expansion of the range around a point designated by the pilot via the display screen's cursor.

Doppler Beam Sharpening (DBS) is available to further enhance the higher resolution of the expanded real beam ground map. This mode, which enhances the range and azimuth resolution by 8:1, is only available from the expanded real beam ground map mode.

In the Beacon mode the system performs navigational fixing. It also delivers weapons relative to ground beacons and can be used to locate friendly aircraft that are using air-to-air beacons.

The high-clutter environment of the ocean surface is countered in the sea mode. There are two sub modes in the sea mode. The first sub-mode, Sea-1 is frequency-agile and non- coherent to locate small targets in low sea states. The second sub-mode, Sea-2, is fully coherent, with doppler discrimination for the detection of moving surface crafts in high sea states.

The freeze sub-mode can only be accessed through the air- to-ground display modes. It pauses the display and halts all radar emissions as soon as the freeze command is received via the controls. The aircraft's current position continues to be shown on the frozen display. This mode is useful during penetration operations against stationary surface targets when the aircraft needs to prevent detection of its signals, yet continue to close in on the target.

The system's displays include the control panel, HUD, radar display, with all combat-critical controls integrated into the throttle grip and side stick controller.

The modularity of the LRUs allow for shortened Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) since they can simply be replaced, involving no special tools or equipment. The MTTR has been demonstrated to be 5 minutes, with 30 minutes for replacement of the antenna unit. APG-66 has also demonstrated a Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) of 97 hours in service, but the manufacturers contend that it has achieved 115 hours. A cockpit continuous self-test system monitors for malfunctions. The manufacturers claim that the system's Built-In-Test (BIT) routine can isolate up to 98% of the faults to a particular LRU in the event of a malfunction.

A new version of the AN/APG-66, designated the AN/APG-66(V)2 is being installed in F-16A/B aircraft as they are modernized in the Midlife Update program. The equipment is lighter and provides greater detection range and reliability for the modernized F-16s.

No dispute on the APG-66 radar. The key is that the Hawk 200-series uses a variant of the APG-66, the APG-66H, which is listed as having a smaller antennae than most APG-66, therefore less capable. Incidentally, the APG-66(V)2 upgrade of the base radar increased range to 83km in cluttered/jammed environments. Trying to locate a vessel against possible returns from ocean swells I think would be considered a "cluttered" environment. With the max detection range of an APG-66 listed as 150km, I would assume it was one of the larger, later variants. Also, I'm not sure that the APG-66 is able to get a "lock" at that range, I think it's only detection range. And a 150km detection range doesn't match up well against a possible 300+ km detection range across a wider heading, from a radar specifically designed to find vessels and objects in the water. The other thing to keep in mind, the APG-66 versions found in the F-16 are different from that of the Hawk (or the Skyhawk APG-66s for that matter)

-Cheers

 

[dave_kiwi]

Following from the discussion re radar on P3-K

From Wikipedia (I know - groan)

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._5_Squadron_RNZAF

The fleet was upgraded in the mid 1980s (Project Rigel) with a more modern radar (APS-134), a FLIR, a digital computing bus and electronic displays/information management system. They were subsequently redesignated P3K

Actualy the first 5 (no 6th P3 at the time) were all finished by 1984 - my first posting after junior trade course was to 5 SQN - Rigel fit was still being bedded in

As for hawks ec vs P3 - P3 not completely harmless --- they use to fire Zunis from them. This used to be a regular feature of P3 life - firing Zunis on the range .. thoug I belive the "Knuckle Heads" (75 SQN / A4s) got a tad jealous and "accquired" all the Zuni stock ;-) (Plus there was an issue with "target fixation" .....)

Also, the search light that used to be (still is ???) fitted was very effective -- used a carbon rod in a similar fashion to an arc welder. Apparently, so the story goes, at least on "Korean" fishing boat thought the world had come to an end when "lit" up by the search light one night --- the crew jumped over board.

 

[PeterH]

Just a teoretical question:
If the MB-339 could get target datas from another source (P-3 or Frigate) would it be possible to use them as a weapons carrier and launch an anti-shipping missile (Harpoon). Besides the need for some data-link to get the target data to the missile is it possible regarding weight of the missile and ground-clearance of the aircraft?

 

[PeterH]

As for hawks ec vs P3 - P3 not completely harmless --- they use to fire Zunis from them. This used to be a regular feature of P3 life - firing Zunis on the range .. thoug I belive the "Knuckle Heads" (75 SQN / A4s) got a tad jealous and "accquired" all the Zuni stock ;-) (Plus there was an issue with "target fixation" .....)

Sounds like a dangerous option for the P-3. What kind of targets were these Zuni-rockets intended to be used against: patrol-boats?

5 Sqn continue to train with 500 lb "depth-bombs". As I understand it their supposed to be used against sub-marines in shallow water.

Cheers