NZDF LTDP 2006 update

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
Have there been any new developments in NZ during the last few months re the MB339s? I gather that they are still unsold and it seems a terrible waste of an asset to just have them sitting there. Even if only 10 -12 were put back into service they would be invaluable in providing realistic training for the army and navy, as well as providing an emergency light strike and limited air defence capability.

I heard recently that civilian 'warbird' operators have provided support during exercises but I can't find the source. Is anyone able to confirm whether this did or did not happen? If the NZDF is going to go down this track for air support it should perhaps consider a commercial contract for a private operator to use some of the MB339s.

Cheers
Certainly no publicised developments. Certainly don't expect the current Govt to even remotely consider re-instating them - that would be a huge political embarrasment for them. The opposition now have a new leader, are slightly ahead in the polls are poised to make political capital wherever they can - there's no way the Govt could afford a u-turn on such a major political plank.

Truth is even the opposition aren't guaranteeing their return - only that they will need to perform another review which is basically political speak for committing to nothing. Experience would suggest no-one gets too excited about anything the opposition promises this far out from an election.

With regard to use of warbirds - RNZN has used them on occasion for simulating missile / aircraft strikes. I have no idea of how often this happens - but they have definitely used the Hawker Hunter, and possibly the A-37 DragonFly at Ardmore. I'd agree a properly resourced civvy operator would be a step in the right direction. There's also the Army's requirement for air-combat simulation as well (for manpads operators etc), although I doubt there's any done at present!?!

While on the topic of NZDF LTDP updates - I see the request for tender for T/LUH has been extended a month (was 15th Jan - is now 15th Febuary - depending on which MinDef webpage you look at!). The extension is probably nothing more than them finding half the staff involved in reviewing responses are still on summer leave!

http://www.defence.govt.nz/acquisitions-tenders/current-tenders-light-helicopters.html
 

Norm

Member
lnfo has been removed re links above #??Big brother watching!
As to the MB-339c's ,all are in flying condition and they still can be seen above RNZAF Ohakea Airbase being given a run.The Govt is still hell bent on selling them.The hold up is USA Dept Home land Security and similar agencies(have so many) concern's that 17 MB-339c's and the 17 Skyhawk's flown at the USA Flight School by Foreign Student's = Trojan Horse effect post 911. Word is almost through all that, so sadly they will be gone.

My pick is when it happen's the spin will be that a few of the backburner projects ie Harpoon Missiles for the Orion Fleet will be advanced to keep the voters happy and so not seriously revisiting the issue of should the capability of been lost.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
lnfo has been removed re links above #??Big brother watching!
Interesting! It was there. I remember being interested that the NZ info was on the ADF website. Perhaps Big Brother really is out and about! :D

Cheers
 

Markus40

New Member
Letter to John Key Re: NZs Defence status. Wrtten by myself.

Dear John Key,


Re: New Zealand’s Defence Role and Relationship with Australia and Asian Countries as current for 2007.

The Overview.

Recently New Zealand’s Defence posture due to years of neglect and poor upkeep is now seeing resurgence in upgrades and procurements of equipment that our Defence forces require to maintain a certain level of operational effectiveness. We have seen this in Project Protector, the Army’s new vehicles and new weapons, and the Air forces new helicopters and Hercules upgrades just to name a few.

Its quite obvious that New Zealand in the past has not kept to its obligations with its defence partners by pulling its weight when emergencies have arisen where New Zealand has been called upon to participate in even limited action like the Yugoslavian war effort where we saw our C-130 Hercules unable to take off due to mechanical failures and our APCs (now decommissioned) unable to take on the tasks as required due to not having proper anti armour to protect them. We also have seen to the embarrassment of the Military and the government the LAV 111s are showing cracks in their superstructure. I can name many more examples of failures within our Defence Forces ability to operate with the right equipment and weapons needed to carry out the roles they are supposed to be assigned too.

Due to global terrorism and the increasing unstable nature of the governments within the South Pacific, New Zealand needs to take security of our region seriously, without relying on Australia to always do the job for us. It’s also been interesting to see a shift in the Labour government’s policy towards Defence, especially in light of the terrible disbanding of the A-4s. Something I would like to cover later in this document.

The Labour governments strategy is to lay out a further 4.5 billion dollars over the next ten years on top of the Defence cap for general Defence spending to cover further upgrades and to look at options of adding to the Defence Force further infrastructure and procurement that may be necessary to keep New Zealand at the so called cutting edge of our ability to operate alongside our key partners such as Australia.





Having checked and read New Zealand’s Long Term Defence Initiatives for the next Ten years and seen what New Zealand has done to replace the existing platforms it is plain to see that the 4.5 Billion that is required for the upkeep and further upgrading will not go far enough for the benefit of our Defence Forces and adequately maintaining the current force structure the way it is. Inflation in itself will have an effect on the proposed spending required as well as pay requirements for Defence personnel, and the government will be forced into a position of buying equipment that simply is urgent rather than what is required. We have already seen how a budget blow out has occurred for the purchase of the NH-90 Helicopters for the Air Force.

Australia as it is does to some extent rely on the New Zealand forces to work alongside with them and to do so in any theatre of operation that may be called upon. It is also obvious that Australia’s Defence strategy has extended dramatically to a more global one where we will see Australia more involved with coalition partners in any theatre of war or peace keeping worldwide, and to maintain its assets in those places of risk, will require New Zealand’s Naval assets in some respects to cover their normal operational tasks throughout South East Asia and South Pacific. An area that’s now becoming more unstable as we have recently seen.

Many New Zealand people are unaware that Defence arrangements made with countries in our region is vital for our own level of security, despite the benign level of an immediate threat to New Zealand throughout the South Pacific. Its also important for the general public to be aware that our trade routes through Asia remain open and threat free at all times as well as being able to train our personnel to a high level, equal to the technology of other armed forces, and also integrate our forces with others, where ever that may be.

Keeping a small yet effective Defence Force like New Zealand’s requires a lot of investment. However when needed its invaluable. Lastly, in any field of operation each section of the armed services can’t operate effectively without the other. If it continues to do so under fire then there can only be one result. Heavy casualties. The Navy needs the Airforce for Air cover, the Army needs both the Navy and Airforce for an Air strike and the Airforce needs the Army and Navy for communications and for self protection in a war zone.

Security is and should always be the first priority of any country regardless of how benign that may be; to being fully exposed to an aggressor and to be able to respond at a moments notice to any contingencies should they arise is vital.

As a National supporter I thought it prudent to contact you and see what Nationals policy is towards Defence now that the Cold War is over and the years of neglect that occurred under previous National lead governments are and what the National Governments policy will be when they come into government.


I would also like to briefly comment on some of the current short falls that seem to have not been addressed across our three armed services. These are what I would call major fundamental operational issues that need urgent attention and I hope that National will address these in the coming years in government.


Royal New Zealand Navy.

The Labour government’s policy on the Navy’s strategy is good. But we have a fundamental weakness by not having a third ANZAC frigate or similar that is able to operate at the same level with the same equipment as the current ANZAC frigates. Why I mention this is for two reasons:

1-If we have one ANZAC frigate in dry dock for refitting and maintenance we have only one for deployment if an emergency arose. Another ANZAC would give the RNZN more options and put the “teeth back into the tiger”

2-Currently our ANZACS are overworked. That means the ANZACS will need more maintenance work. Currently there is a stress on meeting our Exercise arrangements to keep the Navies systems at operational readiness, and Personnel working at levels required at war level, and Persian Gulf obligations with our partners, as well as putting stress on our personnel shore leave.

The OPVs will provide a limited option for operational use, but not at the capacity if required suddenly to replace the wide sea keeping ability such as the ANZAC. Unless of course the OPVs were equipped with self protection weapons such as a CIWS or a bigger gun. It’s worthy to note that the OPV is used for Patrol/Navy work and for the Fisheries protection currently.

3-The new MRV (HMNZS Canterbury) being the capital ship for the RNZN, does not have enough self defensive weapon systems to protect itself in a war zone if called upon. There should be at least one CIWS if attacked by missiles or aircraft. If the current NZ government is serious about its mission and what it transports then it would make sense to install a VLS carrying the Sea sparrow or a short range anti Aircraft Missile system like the Mistral.

4-It would appear that as a result of the purchase of the OPVs that an additional number of SH-4Gs would need to be supplied to augment the number already in operation and have the OPVs operating with their full mission ratios.


Royal New Zealand Air Force.

The Labour Governments policy on the Airforce is extremely poor. It’s a big bird with its wings clipped and caged for that matter. Our own Airforce can do better. The RNZAF has in the past been a proud flag bearer of our countries abilities to get Defence jobs done yet our Labour governments choices, by disbanding our small, yet effective fast jet fleet, was a nail in the coffin for specialised pilots and Defence force personnel that as a result went over seas. It’s sad to see today that we still have these old yet still capable aircraft still sitting in our hanger at Woodbourne.

However some improvements have been made through the purchase of the 757 and the replacement of the Iroquois helicopter. Just to name a couple of upgrades. Within our Air Force lies a deep, yet untapped ability that this country needs to be able to perform to the task it needs so it’s able to pull its weight fully with our partners. Let me list these issues.

1-New Zealand needs to look at a full replacement of our ageing C-130 Hercules Squadron with a longer reach Aircraft such as the very new Airbus A400M which has a maximum load range of 1700 nm (something New Zealand needs to reach places such as Fiji or Cairns or Darwin direct from Auckland without refuelling). The Aircraft is able to handle 2 x LAV 111s, or 116 fully equipped troops or 9 pallets of supplies.

This is mentioned in response that New Zealand requires a Military Transporter that is able to handle and carry heavier and vital equipment to an area of operation quickly rather than relying on HMNZS Canterbury to spend days on delivering the equipment and which the insurgency/skirmish would be over and done with. Thus costing the New Zealand government in having it sent in the first place. It’s interesting to note that the A400M can be refuelled from the air and Australia’s help with tanker support, could be invaluable.

2- There is a huge hole in our ability to be able to respond to a terror threat at sea and be able to neutralise it. As mentioned before, due to New Zealand’s location we don’t have an immediate threat coming from anywhere immediately. However, as New Zealand is being seen as a player against the war on terror, it can only be logical to suggest that New Zealand would be a country of target, like Australia, by would be terrorists using maritime routes to gain access into our country. Thus we need a rapid response air wing that is also able to interoperate with our Australian counterpart. This would mean a squadron of BAE Hawks or similar so as to maintain a ready reaction, fast attack wing and maritime surveillance platform, with a weapon that is able to neutralise this threat.

The BAE Hawke is an aircraft that is used as a trainer for the RAAF and our own pilots would have invaluable experience being able to train their skills with theirs on the same type of aircraft.

3-The P-3K Orion. Despite major overhauls of the fuselage and systems, the aircraft itself, despite being capable for maritime search and rescue, requires more advanced mission computers for surface warfare and weapons delivery packages. There is currently ECM packages on the existing mission computers and improved cockpit navigation upgrades, but no equivalent like the Australians have. This has a limiting factor on our personnel and Defence, which should be able to train and maintain systems for maritime warfare alongside our partners.

Let’s make no mistake the P-3 is the only surveillance platform that is able to take this role and it’s vital to maintain it. Its also important now to recognise that there is the possibility that Chinese submarines may be on the prowl through our waters undetected, not to mention the latest news that the Indonesian Navy has also now got a submarine capability that will give the war planners in Canberra a few late nights.

The Labour governments Long Term Defence Initiative requires the P-3s to be armed with an anti-ship missile, although from what I understand they haven’t at this point selected the type. This does of course go some way into giving our Defence Forces the ability for a maritime strike, but it doesn’t address the overall needs within our Air Force for rapid improved Air Strike capability like we used to have, and now desperatly need.


4-Another suggestion is that instead of the New Zealand Armed Forces funding its own combat wing that we base a squadron of Australian F-18 Hornets or F-35s in New Zealand as part of a closer Defence arrangement. This would mean keeping Whenuapai or expand another base such as Woodbourne as a home base. The Defence Department could work around such a commitment and having this closer Defence relationship would further enhance our Defence relationship.


Royal New Zealand Army


The Current Labour government’s policy towards the Army of late has been very good. The government has seen the Army as being pivotal to being on the front line of warfighting and peace keeping. This has been reflected in the government opening its purse strings to almost the whole inventory in the New Zealand Army. This included of course the replacement of the APCs with the LAV 111, and the importing of the transport vehicles from Austria, as well as new purchases such as the Mistral Surface to Air Missile, Anti-Tank Javelin Missile, and Communications Systems. These to name a few.

However, the current Labour government’s policy of tilting the Army into one of “peacekeeping” is a disincentive for those who joined the Army, who all they want, is to protect, serve and put the skill they have learnt with other countries into good use.


To conclude, New Zealand will never field the same qualitive numbers of military hardware like Australia, such as the proposed 2 x LHDs assault carriers, and the 3 x Air warfare destroyers to be built by Tennix. We don’t have budgets of larger western countries by putting ourselves in a position of competing with them. Its amazing to see that New Zealand has been able to contribute in the way it has to overseas commitments such as Bosnia, Afghanistan, Sinai, Solomon’s, East Timor, Persian Gulf, and others. For such a small country we do give a lot of our forces and put them into peacekeeping roles that helps free up other Armed Forces to do other work in other countries.


In the future New Zealand will need to step up its Defence spending and Defence commitments as well and most significantly of all, integrate more fully with Australians Policy of Defence. This requires New Zealand to forward our forces to exercise alongside Australia and Asian countries and just as importantly be able to deploy more effectively by using the New Zealand Armed Forces resources and platforms ourselves more independently. This will require more investment and focus by our government to turn round the years of neglect and bludging so we are making effective contributions in mostly all areas of Defence.

I will have to be honest and say it was a very hot and humid day in Sydney in 1986 at the Bi Centennial Airshow at Richmond Air Base to see the over pass of Number Two Squadron, which made all the New Zealanders, including myself, who were present, very proud to be kiwi and have our very own jet squadron flying for our country.

I do hope National will think about these traditions once again, in keeping with the RNZAF future in mind, and can also lead our Armed Forces into a place of pride and confidence to be able to utilise and use our systems effectively and with the proper training and implement them responsibly without a repeat of the decadent years of neglect that has only taken away New Zealand’s ability to work efficiently with its partners.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Excellent letter Markus! :)

I think it would be good to see other Kiwi members drawing on information in your letter along with comments made elsewhere in this thread to help them compose their own letters to the minister. It would be interesting to be able to share such letters so that suggestions can be made for further responses. It would also be great, IMO, to share any answers received from the minister.

Cheers
 

Markus40

New Member
Cheers for that.



Excellent letter Markus! :)

I think it would be good to see other Kiwi members drawing on information in your letter along with comments made elsewhere in this thread to help them compose their own letters to the minister. It would be interesting to be able to share such letters so that suggestions can be made for further responses. It would also be great, IMO, to share any answers received from the minister.

Cheers
 

ren0312

Member
Dear John Key,


Re: New Zealand’s Defence Role and Relationship with Australia and Asian Countries as current for 2007.

The Overview.

Recently New Zealand’s Defence posture due to years of neglect and poor upkeep is now seeing resurgence in upgrades and procurements of equipment that our Defence forces require to maintain a certain level of operational effectiveness. We have seen this in Project Protector, the Army’s new vehicles and new weapons, and the Air forces new helicopters and Hercules upgrades just to name a few.

Its quite obvious that New Zealand in the past has not kept to its obligations with its defence partners by pulling its weight when emergencies have arisen where New Zealand has been called upon to participate in even limited action like the Yugoslavian war effort where we saw our C-130 Hercules unable to take off due to mechanical failures and our APCs (now decommissioned) unable to take on the tasks as required due to not having proper anti armour to protect them. We also have seen to the embarrassment of the Military and the government the LAV 111s are showing cracks in their superstructure. I can name many more examples of failures within our Defence Forces ability to operate with the right equipment and weapons needed to carry out the roles they are supposed to be assigned too.

Due to global terrorism and the increasing unstable nature of the governments within the South Pacific, New Zealand needs to take security of our region seriously, without relying on Australia to always do the job for us. It’s also been interesting to see a shift in the Labour government’s policy towards Defence, especially in light of the terrible disbanding of the A-4s. Something I would like to cover later in this document.

The Labour governments strategy is to lay out a further 4.5 billion dollars over the next ten years on top of the Defence cap for general Defence spending to cover further upgrades and to look at options of adding to the Defence Force further infrastructure and procurement that may be necessary to keep New Zealand at the so called cutting edge of our ability to operate alongside our key partners such as Australia.





Having checked and read New Zealand’s Long Term Defence Initiatives for the next Ten years and seen what New Zealand has done to replace the existing platforms it is plain to see that the 4.5 Billion that is required for the upkeep and further upgrading will not go far enough for the benefit of our Defence Forces and adequately maintaining the current force structure the way it is. Inflation in itself will have an effect on the proposed spending required as well as pay requirements for Defence personnel, and the government will be forced into a position of buying equipment that simply is urgent rather than what is required. We have already seen how a budget blow out has occurred for the purchase of the NH-90 Helicopters for the Air Force.

Australia as it is does to some extent rely on the New Zealand forces to work alongside with them and to do so in any theatre of operation that may be called upon. It is also obvious that Australia’s Defence strategy has extended dramatically to a more global one where we will see Australia more involved with coalition partners in any theatre of war or peace keeping worldwide, and to maintain its assets in those places of risk, will require New Zealand’s Naval assets in some respects to cover their normal operational tasks throughout South East Asia and South Pacific. An area that’s now becoming more unstable as we have recently seen.

Many New Zealand people are unaware that Defence arrangements made with countries in our region is vital for our own level of security, despite the benign level of an immediate threat to New Zealand throughout the South Pacific. Its also important for the general public to be aware that our trade routes through Asia remain open and threat free at all times as well as being able to train our personnel to a high level, equal to the technology of other armed forces, and also integrate our forces with others, where ever that may be.

Keeping a small yet effective Defence Force like New Zealand’s requires a lot of investment. However when needed its invaluable. Lastly, in any field of operation each section of the armed services can’t operate effectively without the other. If it continues to do so under fire then there can only be one result. Heavy casualties. The Navy needs the Airforce for Air cover, the Army needs both the Navy and Airforce for an Air strike and the Airforce needs the Army and Navy for communications and for self protection in a war zone.

Security is and should always be the first priority of any country regardless of how benign that may be; to being fully exposed to an aggressor and to be able to respond at a moments notice to any contingencies should they arise is vital.

As a National supporter I thought it prudent to contact you and see what Nationals policy is towards Defence now that the Cold War is over and the years of neglect that occurred under previous National lead governments are and what the National Governments policy will be when they come into government.


I would also like to briefly comment on some of the current short falls that seem to have not been addressed across our three armed services. These are what I would call major fundamental operational issues that need urgent attention and I hope that National will address these in the coming years in government.


Royal New Zealand Navy.

The Labour government’s policy on the Navy’s strategy is good. But we have a fundamental weakness by not having a third ANZAC frigate or similar that is able to operate at the same level with the same equipment as the current ANZAC frigates. Why I mention this is for two reasons:

1-If we have one ANZAC frigate in dry dock for refitting and maintenance we have only one for deployment if an emergency arose. Another ANZAC would give the RNZN more options and put the “teeth back into the tiger”

2-Currently our ANZACS are overworked. That means the ANZACS will need more maintenance work. Currently there is a stress on meeting our Exercise arrangements to keep the Navies systems at operational readiness, and Personnel working at levels required at war level, and Persian Gulf obligations with our partners, as well as putting stress on our personnel shore leave.

The OPVs will provide a limited option for operational use, but not at the capacity if required suddenly to replace the wide sea keeping ability such as the ANZAC. Unless of course the OPVs were equipped with self protection weapons such as a CIWS or a bigger gun. It’s worthy to note that the OPV is used for Patrol/Navy work and for the Fisheries protection currently.

3-The new MRV (HMNZS Canterbury) being the capital ship for the RNZN, does not have enough self defensive weapon systems to protect itself in a war zone if called upon. There should be at least one CIWS if attacked by missiles or aircraft. If the current NZ government is serious about its mission and what it transports then it would make sense to install a VLS carrying the Sea sparrow or a short range anti Aircraft Missile system like the Mistral.

4-It would appear that as a result of the purchase of the OPVs that an additional number of SH-4Gs would need to be supplied to augment the number already in operation and have the OPVs operating with their full mission ratios.


Royal New Zealand Air Force.

The Labour Governments policy on the Airforce is extremely poor. It’s a big bird with its wings clipped and caged for that matter. Our own Airforce can do better. The RNZAF has in the past been a proud flag bearer of our countries abilities to get Defence jobs done yet our Labour governments choices, by disbanding our small, yet effective fast jet fleet, was a nail in the coffin for specialised pilots and Defence force personnel that as a result went over seas. It’s sad to see today that we still have these old yet still capable aircraft still sitting in our hanger at Woodbourne.

However some improvements have been made through the purchase of the 757 and the replacement of the Iroquois helicopter. Just to name a couple of upgrades. Within our Air Force lies a deep, yet untapped ability that this country needs to be able to perform to the task it needs so it’s able to pull its weight fully with our partners. Let me list these issues.

1-New Zealand needs to look at a full replacement of our ageing C-130 Hercules Squadron with a longer reach Aircraft such as the very new Airbus A400M which has a maximum load range of 1700 nm (something New Zealand needs to reach places such as Fiji or Cairns or Darwin direct from Auckland without refuelling). The Aircraft is able to handle 2 x LAV 111s, or 116 fully equipped troops or 9 pallets of supplies.

This is mentioned in response that New Zealand requires a Military Transporter that is able to handle and carry heavier and vital equipment to an area of operation quickly rather than relying on HMNZS Canterbury to spend days on delivering the equipment and which the insurgency/skirmish would be over and done with. Thus costing the New Zealand government in having it sent in the first place. It’s interesting to note that the A400M can be refuelled from the air and Australia’s help with tanker support, could be invaluable.

2- There is a huge hole in our ability to be able to respond to a terror threat at sea and be able to neutralise it. As mentioned before, due to New Zealand’s location we don’t have an immediate threat coming from anywhere immediately. However, as New Zealand is being seen as a player against the war on terror, it can only be logical to suggest that New Zealand would be a country of target, like Australia, by would be terrorists using maritime routes to gain access into our country. Thus we need a rapid response air wing that is also able to interoperate with our Australian counterpart. This would mean a squadron of BAE Hawks or similar so as to maintain a ready reaction, fast attack wing and maritime surveillance platform, with a weapon that is able to neutralise this threat.

The BAE Hawke is an aircraft that is used as a trainer for the RAAF and our own pilots would have invaluable experience being able to train their skills with theirs on the same type of aircraft.

3-The P-3K Orion. Despite major overhauls of the fuselage and systems, the aircraft itself, despite being capable for maritime search and rescue, requires more advanced mission computers for surface warfare and weapons delivery packages. There is currently ECM packages on the existing mission computers and improved cockpit navigation upgrades, but no equivalent like the Australians have. This has a limiting factor on our personnel and Defence, which should be able to train and maintain systems for maritime warfare alongside our partners.

Let’s make no mistake the P-3 is the only surveillance platform that is able to take this role and it’s vital to maintain it. Its also important now to recognise that there is the possibility that Chinese submarines may be on the prowl through our waters undetected, not to mention the latest news that the Indonesian Navy has also now got a submarine capability that will give the war planners in Canberra a few late nights.

The Labour governments Long Term Defence Initiative requires the P-3s to be armed with an anti-ship missile, although from what I understand they haven’t at this point selected the type. This does of course go some way into giving our Defence Forces the ability for a maritime strike, but it doesn’t address the overall needs within our Air Force for rapid improved Air Strike capability like we used to have, and now desperatly need.


4-Another suggestion is that instead of the New Zealand Armed Forces funding its own combat wing that we base a squadron of Australian F-18 Hornets or F-35s in New Zealand as part of a closer Defence arrangement. This would mean keeping Whenuapai or expand another base such as Woodbourne as a home base. The Defence Department could work around such a commitment and having this closer Defence relationship would further enhance our Defence relationship.


Royal New Zealand Army


The Current Labour government’s policy towards the Army of late has been very good. The government has seen the Army as being pivotal to being on the front line of warfighting and peace keeping. This has been reflected in the government opening its purse strings to almost the whole inventory in the New Zealand Army. This included of course the replacement of the APCs with the LAV 111, and the importing of the transport vehicles from Austria, as well as new purchases such as the Mistral Surface to Air Missile, Anti-Tank Javelin Missile, and Communications Systems. These to name a few.

However, the current Labour government’s policy of tilting the Army into one of “peacekeeping” is a disincentive for those who joined the Army, who all they want, is to protect, serve and put the skill they have learnt with other countries into good use.


To conclude, New Zealand will never field the same qualitive numbers of military hardware like Australia, such as the proposed 2 x LHDs assault carriers, and the 3 x Air warfare destroyers to be built by Tennix. We don’t have budgets of larger western countries by putting ourselves in a position of competing with them. Its amazing to see that New Zealand has been able to contribute in the way it has to overseas commitments such as Bosnia, Afghanistan, Sinai, Solomon’s, East Timor, Persian Gulf, and others. For such a small country we do give a lot of our forces and put them into peacekeeping roles that helps free up other Armed Forces to do other work in other countries.


In the future New Zealand will need to step up its Defence spending and Defence commitments as well and most significantly of all, integrate more fully with Australians Policy of Defence. This requires New Zealand to forward our forces to exercise alongside Australia and Asian countries and just as importantly be able to deploy more effectively by using the New Zealand Armed Forces resources and platforms ourselves more independently. This will require more investment and focus by our government to turn round the years of neglect and bludging so we are making effective contributions in mostly all areas of Defence.

I will have to be honest and say it was a very hot and humid day in Sydney in 1986 at the Bi Centennial Airshow at Richmond Air Base to see the over pass of Number Two Squadron, which made all the New Zealanders, including myself, who were present, very proud to be kiwi and have our very own jet squadron flying for our country.

I do hope National will think about these traditions once again, in keeping with the RNZAF future in mind, and can also lead our Armed Forces into a place of pride and confidence to be able to utilise and use our systems effectively and with the proper training and implement them responsibly without a repeat of the decadent years of neglect that has only taken away New Zealand’s ability to work efficiently with its partners.
I only have one question regarding this letter, as I see it, based on the size of New Zealand's economy, it actually can support a budget of 2.2 billion for defense, which would amount to about 2 per cent of its GDP for 2005, based on this figure, it can actually afford to purchase Harpoons, and a squadron of F-16s with MLU upgrade, or maybe ex-USN F/A-18s that have been zero timed, which I think are more capable platforms than the Hawks that you have proposed, and do you think there is a need for New Zealand to purchase SSMs and ESSMs for its ANZACS, or just ESSMs without the Harpoons, and on the subject of replacing the C-130s, what do you believe are the advantages of picking the A400M over the C-130J as replacement for the C-130s, since the C-130J has the advantage of being already in production, as well as increased familiarity with the flight crews who are already currently flying C-130s.
 

Markus40

New Member
Thank you for taking the time and responding to my letter to John Key. Im glad to see that you are an advocate for having a combat wing within our Airforce. I have spent considerable time speaking to Airforce staff as well as taking the time to investigate the right Aircraft for the RNZAF. To start off with the F16 isnt built or designed for maritime operations. NZ is surrounded by ocean, and we need an aircraft that has the ability to deliver weapons in our area of the Pacific. Yes, the F18 might be another option but would be too expensive for the RNZAF to operate due to its twin engine design and if they are coming from Australia will need further extensive maintenance in the future. Thats too expensive for the 2 per cent of GDP.

Thats why i have chosen the Hawk or even the single engine Goshawk with the USN as a good replacement. NZ doesnt need Mach 2 fighter aircraft in this part of the world. A simple and yet effective option would be the one chosen.

The ANZACs certainly need a anti ship missile option. This also needs to be addressed as well. However the P3s will be armed with a ASM coming up in the long term defence planning. I understand also that the ANZACs will also be getting the ESSMs along with Australia as part of the upgrade.

The A400m is a really good aircraft for NZ. It has the long reach range that we need to operate in and out of far reaching destinations, carrying heavy payloads. I am unsure about the C130J if it has the same range and payload space as the A400M. In fact having just read the performance details of the A400M, this particular aircraft is just slightly ahead of its rival C130J at all levels of handling performance. Not by much, but enough for the NZ government to hopefully select it as holding a bit more payload, especially.



I only have one question regarding this letter, as I see it, based on the size of New Zealand's economy, it actually can support a budget of 2.2 billion for defense, which would amount to about 2 per cent of its GDP for 2005, based on this figure, it can actually afford to purchase Harpoons, and a squadron of F-16s with MLU upgrade, or maybe ex-USN F/A-18s that have been zero timed, which I think are more capable platforms than the Hawks that you have proposed, and do you think there is a need for New Zealand to purchase SSMs and ESSMs for its ANZACS, or just ESSMs without the Harpoons, and on the subject of replacing the C-130s, what do you believe are the advantages of picking the A400M over the C-130J as replacement for the C-130s, since the C-130J has the advantage of being already in production, as well as increased familiarity with the flight crews who are already currently flying C-130s.
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #51
The A400m is a really good aircraft for NZ. It has the long reach range that we need to operate in and out of far reaching destinations, carrying heavy payloads. I am unsure about the C130J if it has the same range and payload space as the A400M. In fact having just read the performance details of the A400M, this particular aircraft is just slightly ahead of its rival C130J at all levels of handling performance. Not by much, but enough for the NZ government to hopefully select it as holding a bit more payload, especially.
Agree the A400M is a superior aircraft on paper (hopefully in real life as well, once it is flying), it should allow for twice the payload as the C-130J.

A very good example is the LAV, a combat equipped LAV weighs in at approx 20 tons, for this example lets assume that the NZDF is taking up 5 LAVs to Darwin for deployment to East Timor due to 'increased tensions'.

The maximum normal payload of a J is 15.4 tons out to a range of 1800 nm, so it would have to stop in Brisbane. It could also only take an 'empty' LAV without add on armour and ammunition etc..., so it would take 7 Js to transport 5 combat equipped LAVs and all flights would have to stop over.

As defined on their website an A400 could carry a combat equipped LAV directly to Darwin, requiring no stops and only 5 sorties. So it would be much faster.

Of course this does not include support equipment etc.. and a bit assumption is that the A400 will actually fly on time and meet specifications!
 

Markus40

New Member
Another point i forgot to mention is this. The A400M from what i have read is having some production delays. Seems to be an ongoing issue with either Eads or Airbus. Not sure which, but in any case the current fleet that has just going through its upgrade prgramme could be ready for replacement at the time the A400M is either launched or has been launched to its customers and we tag on the same number at the end of the production line. Maybe cheaper too, along with a technology upgrade by the time the A400M reaches the end of its production line. So we end up with a more modern and cheaper option than the original production aircraft.



Agree the A400M is a superior aircraft on paper (hopefully in real life as well, once it is flying), it should allow for twice the payload as the C-130J.

A very good example is the LAV, a combat equipped LAV weighs in at approx 20 tons, for this example lets assume that the NZDF is taking up 5 LAVs to Darwin for deployment to East Timor due to 'increased tensions'.

The maximum normal payload of a J is 15.4 tons out to a range of 1800 nm, so it would have to stop in Brisbane. It could also only take an 'empty' LAV without add on armour and ammunition etc..., so it would take 7 Js to transport 5 combat equipped LAVs and all flights would have to stop over.

As defined on their website an A400 could carry a combat equipped LAV directly to Darwin, requiring no stops and only 5 sorties. So it would be much faster.

Of course this does not include support equipment etc.. and a bit assumption is that the A400 will actually fly on time and meet specifications!
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Thats why i have chosen the Hawk or even the single engine Goshawk with the USN as a good replacement. NZ doesnt need Mach 2 fighter aircraft in this part of the world. A simple and yet effective option would be the one chosen.

The ANZACs certainly need a anti ship missile option. This also needs to be addressed as well. However the P3s will be armed with a ASM coming up in the long term defence planning. I understand also that the ANZACs will also be getting the ESSMs along with Australia as part of the upgrade.
I agree with your selection of the Hawk as it would be an ideal aircraft to re-establish a skilled core of fast jet pilots. The RAAF Hawk Mk 127's, serving in the LIF role are able to carry Mk 82 bombs, 30mm cannon and Sidewinder AAM's. This aircraft would provide commonality with the RAAF and enable the two forces to share some training. As with the RAAF LIF squadrons the Hawks would be able to provide army and fleet support and also be able to act in the air defence or light strike role in an emergency. Even if this just involves an ability to be able to intercept a highjacked aircraft or a bomb laden Cessna in the hands of a terrorist it is a capability worth having. I think every country should be able to control its airspace and at present I don't see that NZ has this capability. The ability to back up the Orions by being able to intercept illegal fishing vessels, etc, would be another capability that may be useful. There may also be situations where a NZ operation in the Pacific would benefit from its own close air support which the Hawks could provide. As I mentioned earlier, some Kiwi pilots could be seconded to the RAAF to develop more advanced skills flying aircraft like the FA-18F and F-35, thus keeping open the option of re-establishing a first class air combat force in the future.

The fitting of Harpoon II to the Anzacs together with a suitable AShM for the Orions would also greatly enhance New Zealand's ability to maintain control of its sea approaches. It would also add significantly to its ability to contribute to coalition operations alongside allies like Australia

Cheers
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Another point i forgot to mention is this. The A400M from what i have read is having some production delays. Seems to be an ongoing issue with either Eads or Airbus. Not sure which, but in any case the current fleet that has just going through its upgrade prgramme could be ready for replacement at the time the A400M is either launched or has been launched to its customers and we tag on the same number at the end of the production line. Maybe cheaper too, along with a technology upgrade by the time the A400M reaches the end of its production line. So we end up with a more modern and cheaper option than the original production aircraft.
From what I remember, the issue is on Airbus. Problems in the A380 program led to reallocation of engineering staff from the A400M to A380 to assist in solving design problems IIRC. It seems to have worked, but there are still delays in the A380, which seems to currently have a higher priority than the
A400M.

What state are the RNZAF Hercs in? I suppose the answer to this question is what will determine their replacement. If they can be SLEP/Up (assuming no, err... slip-ups:D ) to last until the expected availability of the A400M, then a "wait and see" approach could work. OTH if the condition of the C-130Hs are such that is isn't practical to SLEP, then perhaps a replacement aircraft needs to be ordered now. For the time being, I would hold of on placing an
A400M order, until there is at least a completed aircraft. While I don't expect it to happen, there remains the possibility that the A400M could be cancelled. Once there are aircraft in production, then it should be much safer from cancellation. Not to mention a better idea of when IOC could be reached.

-Cheers
 

Markus40

New Member
I have included an article that backs the fact that the Hawk is capable of Maritime operations.

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRH9703/FR9703g.htm

Its not a bad article.

You are right about escorting duties should a suspected Aircraft with bombs or weapons or WMD does come our way.


I agree with your selection of the Hawk as it would be an ideal aircraft to re-establish a skilled core of fast jet pilots. The RAAF Hawk Mk 127's, serving in the LIF role are able to carry Mk 82 bombs, 30mm cannon and Sidewinder AAM's. This aircraft would provide commonality with the RAAF and enable the two forces to share some training. As with the RAAF LIF squadrons the Hawks would be able to provide army and fleet support and also be able to act in the air defence or light strike role in an emergency. Even if this just involves an ability to be able to intercept a highjacked aircraft or a bomb laden Cessna in the hands of a terrorist it is a capability worth having. I think every country should be able to control its airspace and at present I don't see that NZ has this capability. The ability to back up the Orions by being able to intercept illegal fishing vessels, etc, would be another capability that may be useful. There may also be situations where a NZ operation in the Pacific would benefit from its own close air support which the Hawks could provide. As I mentioned earlier, some Kiwi pilots could be seconded to the RAAF to develop more advanced skills flying aircraft like the FA-18F and F-35, thus keeping open the option of re-establishing a first class air combat force in the future.

The fitting of Harpoon II to the Anzacs together with a suitable AShM for the Orions would also greatly enhance New Zealand's ability to maintain control of its sea approaches. It would also add significantly to its ability to contribute to coalition operations alongside allies like Australia

Cheers
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #56
I agree with your selection of the Hawk as it would be an ideal aircraft to re-establish a skilled core of fast jet pilots. The RAAF Hawk Mk 127's, serving in the LIF role are able to carry Mk 82 bombs, 30mm cannon and Sidewinder AAM's. This aircraft would provide commonality with the RAAF and enable the two forces to share some training. As with the RAAF LIF squadrons the Hawks would be able to provide army and fleet support and also be able to act in the air defence or light strike role in an emergency. Even if this just involves an ability to be able to intercept a highjacked aircraft or a bomb laden Cessna in the hands of a terrorist it is a capability worth having. I think every country should be able to control its airspace and at present I don't see that NZ has this capability. The ability to back up the Orions by being able to intercept illegal fishing vessels, etc, would be another capability that may be useful. There may also be situations where a NZ operation in the Pacific would benefit from its own close air support which the Hawks could provide. As I mentioned earlier, some Kiwi pilots could be seconded to the RAAF to develop more advanced skills flying aircraft like the FA-18F and F-35, thus keeping open the option of re-establishing a first class air combat force in the future.

The fitting of Harpoon II to the Anzacs together with a suitable AShM for the Orions would also greatly enhance New Zealand's ability to maintain control of its sea approaches. It would also add significantly to its ability to contribute to coalition operations alongside allies like Australia

Cheers
While I don't disagree, why not just use the MB-339s? They have yet to be sold, still have airframe hours and have modern avionics (which I am sure can be upgraded). However if they are sold then I would support the procurement of Hawks.

As for interception and CAS, the ability to generate CAS out into the Pacific is extraordinarily difficult, even the RAAF with 70 F-18s and the 24 SHs would find it difficult to support and maintain the sortie rate required to maintain a meaningful CAS presence out into the Pacific. The AAR aircraft would be the first problem, then there are the airframes needed to maintain this as well, not to mention the crews!

When you consider the Pacific environment with the distance and lack of threat I think something like the AC-130 might be more appropriate (just as expensive, if not more so), or precision guided munitions off an MPA or UAV that has the range and persistence.

Interception of a Cessna, would require any aircraft to be pre-positioned to intercept and the recognition of the threat. Although I agree that such aircraft would operate well where there was an event on (APEC, Rugby World Cup) and the airspace was closed and monitored. But even the Rugby World Cup, there would be games in 5 cities across the country!!
 

Markus40

New Member
Mostly yes. The A380 problems go a little deeper than the relocation of specialist engineering staff onto the A380. It was also a product issue relating to wiring, and weight issues that couldnt be solved immediatly. Then there was the higher management problems that saw the resignation of key figures to the A380 issue. Sad demise.

The RNZAF hercs are still flyable and i agree with that, but they are old and the parts are getting harder to get to keep them flying. Not to mention they are obsolete in todays rapid reinforcement over long distances. Especially in heavy load options that the government could use in being able to shift heavy equipment over longer distances, especially for the Army that would need the equipment straight away. This has been seen in the E Timor operation and such like. The A400M will have a more fuel economy aspect to its operating costs. The A400M, as has been suggested has twice the capacity for loads than the C130J. Something also to take into acccount.

I think for the long term the government should order the replacements now ready for delivery once the production aircraft are under way, but that isnt going to be the case under just a 4.5 Billion increase in defense option this government has allocated for the next 10 years. It will require a bigger investment.


From what I remember, the issue is on Airbus. Problems in the A380 program led to reallocation of engineering staff from the A400M to A380 to assist in solving design problems IIRC. It seems to have worked, but there are still delays in the A380, which seems to currently have a higher priority than the
A400M.

What state are the RNZAF Hercs in? I suppose the answer to this question is what will determine their replacement. If they can be SLEP/Up (assuming no, err... slip-ups:D ) to last until the expected availability of the A400M, then a "wait and see" approach could work. OTH if the condition of the C-130Hs are such that is isn't practical to SLEP, then perhaps a replacement aircraft needs to be ordered now. For the time being, I would hold of on placing an
A400M order, until there is at least a completed aircraft. While I don't expect it to happen, there remains the possibility that the A400M could be cancelled. Once there are aircraft in production, then it should be much safer from cancellation. Not to mention a better idea of when IOC could be reached.

-Cheers
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #58
I think for the long term the government should order the replacements now ready for delivery once the production aircraft are under way, but that isnt going to be the case under just a 4.5 Billion increase in defense option this government has allocated for the next 10 years. It will require a bigger investment.
Hey Markus, I was under the impression that the additional $4.6b was $4.4b for personel recruitment and retention, e.g. pay, housing, training etc with about $200m for some additional capital, ammunition etc. No major Capital items are covered by the $4.4b.
 

Markus40

New Member
Re: MB339s

The MB 339s in my opinion have limitations doing the Maritime role much like the A4s. The MB339s were built as a trainer, but i believe that they have limited range and speed and weapon load such as the hawke.

However the MB 339 could still come out as a trainer to the Hawke. Possibly. As i have mentioned in other posts the transition time and investment in this would take time and recruitment, but it still could be done. Its certainly going to be cheaper than operating larger jets, which we dont need. If not the BAE Hawk. Im assumming this on the basis that the MB339s has been sold.

As to the CAS into the pacific if this was so difficult then why did NZ buy the A4 in the first place.? The Hawk has an operating range of 550km and i would assume the A4 would have been the same, and this would be more than adequate to police and take responsibility in hand for any eventualities. The same for the Tasman Sea ops. The other thing is that our crew can also get the training with our auzzie brothers with the same type. I believe that this would speed up the processes of establishing our front line air combat wing.
 

Markus40

New Member
Makes my point more valid.

Cheers.




Hey Markus, I was under the impression that the additional $4.4b was for personel recruitment and retention, e.g. pay, housing, training etc with about $100m for some additional capital, ammunition etc. No major Capital items are covered by the $4.4b.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top