NZDF LTDP 2006 update

[Markus40]

Yes, agree.

The 339s that the RNZAF has are capable of using Mavs and Sidewinders, and were the most advanced model when bought.

Would still have significant range issues though.

 

[Whiskyjack]

The Hawks Combat radius, (Hi-Lo-Hi) being at lets say 600km IS sufficient and adequate and justified to meet any situation should this arise from the Tasman or from the Pacific for New Zealands Air Defence needs.

Yes it is, but is it the most cost effective?

If the P-3 has to find the target and guide in the asset (which may have to forward deploy to get into position) is it not just best to have the P-3 take out the target? Indeed the P-3 can take out the target 2000km+.

All I am saying Markus is that just because it can do something is it the most cost effective? Can it be supplanted by something else? Why are we creating a mission for something that already has a mission, in training the NZDF to use and act against fast movers, and we already have better assets to take on the mission.

Wouldn't it be better to conduct maritime strike off a platform that can do it far more effectively?

Of course in an emergency the NZDF can use the asset for maritime strike, but IMO the NZDF would not use a Hawk or 339 as the promary asset it would use a P-3/UAV.

 

[Tasman]

Yes it is, but is it the most cost effective?

If the P-3 has to find the target and guide in the asset (which may have to forward deploy to get into position) is it not just best to have the P-3 take out the target? Indeed the P-3 can take out the target 2000km+.

All I am saying Markus is that just because it can do something is it the most cost effective? Can it be supplanted by something else? Why are we creating a mission for something that already has a mission, in training the NZDF to use and act against fast movers, and we already have better assets to take on the mission.

Wouldn't it be better to conduct maritime strike off a platform that can do it far more effectively?

Of course in an emergency the NZDF can use the asset for maritime strike, but IMO the NZDF would not use a Hawk or 339 as the promary asset it would use a P-3/UAV.

It's always good to have a back up. I agree that the P3Ks, with a suitable AShM, would be the primary asset for taking out surface targets. Emergencies could arise, however, and the Hawk would be a handy backup to vessels that get through the P3 screen, remembering that this is a small force. Should it be larger?

Incidentally, it would be good for NZ to work with Australia in moving towards a follow on to the P3s. I think a common aircraft and a common UCAV would make a lot of sense.

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

Firstly is the Hawk programme cost effective ?? My answer to that is , definitly yes.

By the time they get to load the Harpoons and have the P3 out of the hanger and into the air, the Hawks would have already been half way there. ! The other question i have to ask you is this. Does the government want to have to fire a $500 000 USD harpoon at a fishing vessel thats aimed at us? No. Right, would have to be the obvious answer. It would much rather send a pair of Hawks into the air at a moments notice to get the intel it needs immediatly. Not 2 hours later by a P3, while the MOD sits behind there chairs biting their nails back to their knuckles.

As much as a P3 would be good for survellience, in actual fact the Hawk can use its search/mission radar, almost doing the same thing as the P3.

So im sorry the cost exercise definitly will have to ride with the Hawk .

Yes it is, but is it the most cost effective?

If the P-3 has to find the target and guide in the asset (which may have to forward deploy to get into position) is it not just best to have the P-3 take out the target? Indeed the P-3 can take out the target 2000km+.

All I am saying Markus is that just because it can do something is it the most cost effective? Can it be supplanted by something else? Why are we creating a mission for something that already has a mission, in training the NZDF to use and act against fast movers, and we already have better assets to take on the mission.

Wouldn't it be better to conduct maritime strike off a platform that can do it far more effectively?

Of course in an emergency the NZDF can use the asset for maritime strike, but IMO the NZDF would not use a Hawk or 339 as the promary asset it would use a P-3/UAV.

 

[Whiskyjack]

It's always good to have a back up. I agree that the P3Ks, with a suitable AShM, would be the primary asset for taking out surface targets. Emergencies could arise, however, and the Hawk would be a handy backup to vessels that get through the P3 screen, remembering that this is a small force. Should it be larger?

I am not sure it should be larger. I would like to see a suitable UAV selected to complement it though.

Yes as an emergency measure it is good to have a backup.

Incidentally, it would be good for NZ to work with Australia in moving towards a follow on to the P3s. I think a common aircraft and a common UCAV would make a lot of sense.

Cheers

Completely agree.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Firstly is the Hawk programme cost effective ?? My answer to that is , definitly yes.

By the time they get to load the Harpoons and have the P3 out of the hanger and into the air, the Hawks would have already been half way there. ! The other question i have to ask you is this. Does the government want to have to fire a $500 000 USD harpoon at a fishing vessel thats aimed at us? No. Right, would have to be the obvious answer. It would much rather send a pair of Hawks into the air at a moments notice to get the intel it needs immediatly. Not 2 hours later by a P3, while the MOD sits behind there chairs biting their nails back to their knuckles.

As much as a P3 would be good for survellience, in actual fact the Hawk can use its search/mission radar, almost doing the same thing as the P3.

So im sorry the cost exercise definitly will have to ride with the Hawk .

No sorry but that is an argument that just does not bear up.

1 The hawks are half way to where? Who has found this target? The P-3 is already there!!!
2 Why does it have to be Harpoon, why not Mav or PGM, etc…?
3 the P-3 carries all the electronics ID the target and can do it from further out.
4 You already are paying for the P-3….so how is it cost effective to add the Hawk in?
5 The Hawk can only go out to a maximum of 500-600km (and will probably have to be refueled somewhere depending on where it is heading) once there it cannot loiter, the P- 3 can and from much further out!

Your argument does just not stand up to professional reality, please stop trying to invent a mission for something that already has a primary mission, and as I have already said can back up in a maritime strike in exceptional circumstances.

 

[Markus40]

P3s with jet engines maybe WJ. Your argument is insane.!! How can a P3 get to its target as you suggest and the hawks find it there.! uke

I have assumed you have made a professional misunderstanding odf what i was getting at by saying that the Hawks are already to there target.
WJ maybe you are not quite up to satelite positioning technology. The Hawk is more than capable of selecting the target without the P3. Although it would be handy to have it.

The P3 s you may not know are not fitted with Mavs or PGM currently. We dont even know which option the government will use. So please dont speculate. The Hawk DOES have the capability for a Hi-lo-Hi operation at 600Kms and can operate independtly from the P3. It has its own mission computers and has satellite positioning computers on board the aircraft.

I have no doubt you do not have the military know how like you claim and your pipe dreams on UAVs and UCAVs and your mission objectives just is insane and simply crazy. I suggest you walk back into your virtual reality cubicle and take on a different subject.

No sorry but that is an argument that just does not bear up.

1 The hawks are half way to where? Who has found this target? The P-3 is already there!!!
2 Why does it have to be Harpoon, why not Mav or PGM, etc…?
3 the P-3 carries all the electronics ID the target and can do it from further out.
4 You already are paying for the P-3….so how is it cost effective to add the Hawk in?
5 The Hawk can only go out to a maximum of 500-600km (and will probably have to be refueled somewhere depending on where it is heading) once there it cannot loiter, the P- 3 can and from much further out!

Your argument does just not stand up to professional reality, please stop trying to invent a mission for something that already has a primary mission, and as I have already said can back up in a maritime strike in exceptional circumstances.

 

[Todjaeger]

Yes it is, but is it the most cost effective?

If the P-3 has to find the target and guide in the asset (which may have to forward deploy to get into position) is it not just best to have the P-3 take out the target? Indeed the P-3 can take out the target 2000km+.

All I am saying Markus is that just because it can do something is it the most cost effective? Can it be supplanted by something else? Why are we creating a mission for something that already has a mission, in training the NZDF to use and act against fast movers, and we already have better assets to take on the mission.

Wouldn't it be better to conduct maritime strike off a platform that can do it far more effectively?

Of course in an emergency the NZDF can use the asset for maritime strike, but IMO the NZDF would not use a Hawk or 339 as the promary asset it would use a P-3/UAV.

As I see it currently the MB-339 (or for that matter A-4 Skyawk) aircraft are capable of performing five missions that aren't able to be performed by anything else in the NZDF inventory.

These are as follows:

• Simulated anti-shipping attack for naval air defence exercises

• Simulated ground attack for army air defence exercises

• Close Air support exercises for ground troops to exercise with

• CAP or air interception/escort

• Fast jet training for NZDF pilots

They can also be used for maritime strike as has been mentioned. The principle time I see them being used for such a role however, would be if/when an OPV or IPV locates a target and the MB-339 can strike the target before the nearest P-3K can. The second circumstance which I think less likely than the first, would be if a number of targets get detected and need to be engaged, and there are insufficient number of P-3Ks to do so. As such, I would consider maritime strike a secondary role.

The question I feel needs to be asked, and answered, is are the five reasons I listed sufficient to initiate the re-establishment of some form of fast jet unit in the RNZAF? Not to mention, are there any other primary missions I have forgotten. I wouldn't use secondary missions a justifying reason, especially if there are other, existing NZDF assets better able to perform those missions.

I vaguely remember a quoted figure of $200 million annually (in NZ dollars presumably) to maintain an air combat capability. Given the overall size of the NZDF budget where would that/could that fit in? The figure didn't include the costs to re-establish an air combat capability, just the estimated costs to keep it running once established. I would also assume that the figure estimates were for a fast jet training unit (like the MB-339s) and another unit of actual combat fast jets.

While I don't necessarily see a great need for NZ to restart an air combat unit, I'm uncomfortable with NZ essentially relying on the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow, Mk 45 5" gun and Vulcan CIWS aboard the Anzac frigates, or the Mistral SAM in the Army to control NZ airspace.

-Cheers

 

[KH-12]

Is the difference between 350kts and 500kts that material when you are searching for a surface contact ? I would have thought no, also I would suspect that the soon to be fitted P3K radar will be somewhat more capable in range than the APG-66H fitted to the Hawk 200 variant.

 

[Tasman]

As I see it currently the MB-339 (or for that matter A-4 Skyawk) aircraft are capable of performing five missions that aren't able to be performed by anything else in the NZDF inventory.

These are as follows:

• Simulated anti-shipping attack for naval air defence exercises

• Simulated ground attack for army air defence exercises

• Close Air support exercises for ground troops to exercise with

• CAP or air interception/escort

• Fast jet training for NZDF pilots

They can also be used for maritime strike as has been mentioned. The principle time I see them being used for such a role however, would be if/when an OPV or IPV locates a target and the MB-339 can strike the target before the nearest P-3K can. The second circumstance which I think less likely than the first, would be if a number of targets get detected and need to be engaged, and there are insufficient number of P-3Ks to do so. As such, I would consider maritime strike a secondary role.

The question I feel needs to be asked, and answered, is are the five reasons I listed sufficient to initiate the re-establishment of some form of fast jet unit in the RNZAF? Not to mention, are there any other primary missions I have forgotten. I wouldn't use secondary missions a justifying reason, especially if there are other, existing NZDF assets better able to perform those missions.

I vaguely remember a quoted figure of $200 million annually (in NZ dollars presumably) to maintain an air combat capability. Given the overall size of the NZDF budget where would that/could that fit in? The figure didn't include the costs to re-establish an air combat capability, just the estimated costs to keep it running once established. I would also assume that the figure estimates were for a fast jet training unit (like the MB-339s) and another unit of actual combat fast jets.

While I don't necessarily see a great need for NZ to restart an air combat unit, I'm uncomfortable with NZ essentially relying on the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow, Mk 45 5" gun and Vulcan CIWS aboard the Anzac frigates, or the Mistral SAM in the Army to control NZ airspace.

-Cheers

I think this post sums things up very well Todjaeger. The only point where I differ is that I strongly support the re-establishment of a combat air capability for reasons I have given earlier. The capabilies you list provide good reasons for this.

Any proposal to re-establish an air combat capability (even equipped with advanced trainers like the Hawk or MB339) would require an increase in the NZ Defence budget. I suspect, though, that most people interested in NZ's defence would probably think that that would be justified. I would personally like to see NZ raise the percentage of GDP spent on defence to a similar level to Australia's (which, BTW, I think is too low). According to the CIA Fact Book NZ currently spends less than half of the GDP spent by Australia on Defence.

Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

P3s with jet engines maybe WJ. Your argument is insane.!! How can a P3 get to its target as you suggest and the hawks find it there.! uke

I have assumed you have made a professional misunderstanding odf what i was getting at by saying that the Hawks are already to there target.
WJ maybe you are not quite up to satelite positioning technology. The Hawk is more than capable of selecting the target without the P3. Although it would be handy to have it.

The P3 s you may not know are not fitted with Mavs or PGM currently. We dont even know which option the government will use. So please dont speculate. The Hawk DOES have the capability for a Hi-lo-Hi operation at 600Kms and can operate independtly from the P3. It has its own mission computers and has satellite positioning computers on board the aircraft.

I have no doubt you do not have the military know how like you claim and your pipe dreams on UAVs and UCAVs and your mission objectives just is insane and simply crazy. I suggest you walk back into your virtual reality cubicle and take on a different subject.

I could be mistaken, but I think you've misunderstood the point Whiskyjack is making. (If I'm wrong by all means set me straight) The P-3K, with maritime surveillance radar, is able to scan large areas of ocean. I could be mistaken, but I believe the figure is something like 240km - 320km radius. This radar, coupled with the long loiter time of the P-3 give it a far better chance of detecting a maritime target. In most circumstances, I would expect once a P-3K detects the target, it would reach strike distance before a MB-339 or Hawk-series would. Now, if the position of the strike target were already known, without needing detection by a maritime surveillance asset, and the MB-339 or Hawk-series could reach it first, then it makes sense.

From discussions on other threads regard NZ defence capabilities, the P-3K is the primary method of detecting vessels approaching NZ. So most likely a target that would come up for engagement by Hawks is already been/being tracked by a P-3K. In that case, it makes more sense for the P-3K to engage it with an AShM than to send out a Hawk with an AShM to carry out the strike.

-Cheers

 

[Markus40]

Good point KH. The Hawk 200 has or can be fitted with APG 66 which has a look down survellience range of 50km. And a similar look up range of around 60km. The look-down mode uses a medium-prf Doppler waveform and signal processing that provide target detection in the presence of heavy clutter.

I am unsure to be exact that the P3K will have a military version of a radar that will be able to operate in this mode. However as i have been "debating" its clear to me that the Hawk will have a faster and more capable mission computer to complete the mission than the P3, based on its ability of independability and the non reliability of other platforms. A P3 is a good survellience platform and could be used for the duration aspect of a mission after the Hawks have done their job.

Is the difference between 350kts and 500kts that material when you are searching for a surface contact ? I would have thought no, also I would suspect that the soon to be fitted P3K radar will be somewhat more capable in range than the APG-66H fitted to the Hawk 200 variant.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I could be mistaken, but I think you've misunderstood the point Whiskyjack is making. (If I'm wrong by all means set me straight) The P-3K, with maritime surveillance radar, is able to scan large areas of ocean. I could be mistaken, but I believe the figure is something like 240k - 320k radius. This radar, coupled with the long loiter time of the P-3 give it a far better chance of detecting a maritime target. In most circumstances, I would expect once a P-3K detects the target, it would reach strike distance before a MB-339 or Hawk-series would. Now, if the position of the strike target were already known, without needing detection by a maritime surveillance asset, and the MB-339 or Hawk-series could reach it first, then it makes sense.

From discussions on other threads regard NZ defence capabilities, the P-3K is the primary method of detecting vessels approaching NZ. So most likely a target that would come up for engagement by Hawks is already been/being tracked by a P-3K. In that case, it makes more sense for the P-3K to engage it with an AShM than to send out a Hawk with an AShM to carry out the strike.

-Cheers

Very true. I'd rather see a P-3K operating with the advanced sensor/data-link capability and a "high level" missile capability such as SLAM-ER to maximise the strike range and flexibility of the platform than whatever small purchase of Hawks that could be made.

NZ would need a Hawk 200 or equivalent because it will need a multi-mode radar to perform the targetting for said missile. Unless you wish to equip it with advanced data-links and use targetting data from the P-3K, which in my view suggests strongly that if the missile has to be controlled by the P-3K anyway...

At: http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hawk/

the info suggests that even the Hawk 200 is restricted to carrying 1000lbs class weapons. Harpoon is not integrated onto it, nor is any other kind of ASM.

Frankly I can't see that it would be much cheaper than a second hand F-16 or Gripen for that matter, nor would it be much more palatable, politically in NZ. It has most of the attribuites of a fighter, from a political POV, but few of the attributes of a genuine fighter, from an operational perspective...

The MB-339C once again does not include a multi-mode radar, so even though Marte ASM's have been integrated, once again off-board targetting data would be needed...

The cost of acquiring SLAM-ER and integrating it onto the P-3K, with the resultant capability gains would seem to outweight the cost of acquiring an ASM and integrating it onto the MB-339, even if same were allowed "back" into RNZAF service, which would require a considerable political change of mood...

 

[Markus40]

Im sorry if the previous thread was slightly elongated. And you probably can forgive me for misunderstanding WJ previous thread, as i think no one can understand what he is trying to get at.

Let me try and put what i believe is the right scenerio to this situation.
To be honest im not a strong advocate of the P3 Orion for the reason that this government hasnt kept the military survellience computers upgraded, and took out the MAD anti submarine mission to our P3s. Its running on the very basics of operational ability. Thats why we end up using them for search and rescue and in the place in Persian Gulf to track ships and to take part in Exercises like the one in Singapore last year where unfortunatly it wasnt able to keep up with the coalition detail. Sorry to say.

If we had them running like the Australian counterparts then i would have more confidence in their ability. The Labour government has ignored the real required and needed mission computer upgrades like they should have got.
The current upgrade only gave them flight deck upgrades and some mission computer overhaul, but that was about it.

The second thing about the P3 if they are all sitting at their base at Whenuepai and a call came through to intercept a fishing ship fast approaching NZ, and through intel it had been intercepted by our OPV but wouldnt stop. I can gaurentee you a pair of Hawks is going to make it stop with a salvo of rockets fired across its bow. Now thats something a P3 loaded with a Harpoon or similar isnt going to able to do.

Besides there is this one fundamental issue that plagues my mind. And i believe it is valid. A fast jet like the Hawk is going to be able to "deal" with the situation at sea far quicker than the P3. If you loadup and have a jet ready it going to reach the target far quicker than a P3 following in its footsteps. Its a folly to think that a P3 will be in the air 24/7 and is able to divert to the area that quick. Im sure you can see that. The Hawk will make it there alot faster. I do realise that the Hawk 200 will have a combat radius of 600km but its certainly enough to keep our security at a level that is acceptable.

I could be mistaken, but I think you've misunderstood the point Whiskyjack is making. (If I'm wrong by all means set me straight) The P-3K, with maritime surveillance radar, is able to scan large areas of ocean. I could be mistaken, but I believe the figure is something like 240k - 320k radius. This radar, coupled with the long loiter time of the P-3 give it a far better chance of detecting a maritime target. In most circumstances, I would expect once a P-3K detects the target, it would reach strike distance before a MB-339 or Hawk-series would. Now, if the position of the strike target were already known, without needing detection by a maritime surveillance asset, and the MB-339 or Hawk-series could reach it first, then it makes sense.

From discussions on other threads regard NZ defence capabilities, the P-3K is the primary method of detecting vessels approaching NZ. So most likely a target that would come up for engagement by Hawks is already been/being tracked by a P-3K. In that case, it makes more sense for the P-3K to engage it with an AShM than to send out a Hawk with an AShM to carry out the strike.

-Cheers

 

[Markus40]

AD nice to see you. Perhaps you are forgetting that a dual rocket pod can be added for maritime ops. if needed. This would still give the Hawk 200 adequate combat radius of 600km to do the job.

Very true. I'd rather see a P-3K operating with the advanced sensor/data-link capability and a "high level" missile capability such as SLAM-ER to maximise the strike range and flexibility of the platform than whatever small purchase of Hawks that could be made.

NZ would need a Hawk 200 or equivalent because it will need a multi-mode radar to perform the targetting for said missile. Unless you wish to equip it with advanced data-links and use targetting data from the P-3K, which in my view suggests strongly that if the missile has to be controlled by the P-3K anyway...

At: http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hawk/

the info suggests that even the Hawk 200 is restricted to carrying 1000lbs class weapons. Harpoon is not integrated onto it, nor is any other kind of ASM.

Frankly I can't see that it would be much cheaper than a second hand F-16 or Gripen for that matter, nor would it be much more palatable, politically in NZ. It has most of the attribuites of a fighter, from a political POV, but few of the attributes of a genuine fighter, from an operational perspective...

The MB-339C once again does not include a multi-mode radar, so even though Marte ASM's have been integrated, once again off-board targetting data would be needed...

The cost of acquiring SLAM-ER and integrating it onto the P-3K, with the resultant capability gains would seem to outweight the cost of acquiring an ASM and integrating it onto the MB-339, even if same were allowed "back" into RNZAF service, which would require a considerable political change of mood...

 

[Aussie Digger]

AD nice to see you. Perhaps you are forgetting that a dual rocket pod can be added for maritime ops. if needed. This would still give the Hawk 200 adequate combat radius of 600km to do the job.

G'day Markus, I often lurk in these threads as I'm almost as interested in the NZ defence debate as I am in Australia's...

Anyhoo, onto the topic, I'm sure with NZ covers it's approaches with maritime radar systems, does it not? Surely if this is the case, there will be few times when hi-speed vessels elude detection? Where would a small hi-speed craft possibly come from, externally?

I get your point about a Hawk or MB-339's ability to react to a threat quickly (compared to a P-3) but I fail to see a scenario where this would be needed. Has NZ EVER fired upon a foreign vessel in it's own waters, let alone with 2.75inch FFAR's?

I think personally, a helicopter based capability, such as that employed by the US Coast Guard with GPMG and "sniper" capability would be much more cost efficient and politcally acceptable in NZ's circumstances. Operating such from OPV's will give more than a 600k range.

Between patrols of P-3K's, OPV's, ANZAC's, IPV's and the maritime sensors I don't doubt NZ operates, any "significant threat" should be picked up early. A UAV based surveillance system would probably be of more use, rather than response based capability.

A Seasprite or NH-90 with GPMG's should be more than enough for such a threat. Any larger vessels aren't going to come faster than an OPV or ANZAC frigate could get to them anyway. 25mm or 127mm would then be more than sufficient to stop the threat...

 

[Lucasnz]

I get your point about a Hawk or MB-339's ability to react to a threat quickly (compared to a P-3) but I fail to see a scenario where this would be needed. Has NZ EVER fired upon a foreign vessel in it's own waters, let alone with 2.75inch FFAR's?

I think personally, a helicopter based capability, such as that employed by the US Coast Guard with GPMG and "sniper" capability would be much more cost efficient and politcally acceptable in NZ's circumstances. Operating such from OPV's will give more than a 600k range.

Between patrols of P-3K's, OPV's, ANZAC's, IPV's and the maritime sensors I don't doubt NZ operates, any "significant threat" should be picked up early. A UAV based surveillance system would probably be of more use, rather than response based capability.

A Seasprite or NH-90 with GPMG's should be more than enough for such a threat. Any larger vessels aren't going to come faster than an OPV or ANZAC frigate could get to them anyway. 25mm or 127mm would then be more than sufficient to stop the threat...

Yes New Zealand launched A4's after a Korean Fishing vessels refused to stop for an old Lake Class Patrol Craft. I think it was in the late 1970's. (I'm going from memory here) the A4's fired warning rockets / rounds over the bow - the FFV got the point. I think if anything this highlights the fact that the .50cal is insufficent for effective EEZ patrol against large vessels.

I assume by maritime sensors you mean radar coverage. If thats the case you're talking about the approaches to key ports only as NZ has no intergated coastal radar system, except within a couple areas.

The SH-2G operating in USCG mode would be ideal, except we don't have enough to operate off the ANZAC's, MRV and OPV's if you allow for down time for depot level maint. With the NH-90 cost blow out I don't think were going to get enough LUH to do the job. The MB-339 could provide a contingency capability, should it ever be needed, given the situation.

Personally I see the MB-339 only as a stepping stone to a more capable aircraft in the Future (eg: JAS 39), with Fast Jet training being done in Australia / Canada.

 

[Markus40]

No you are right, NZ is in a very benign security region. So then why do we need to arm the P3? Why do we need to upgrade the weapons on our frigates? Why do we need to add the OPVs to our fleet?

The answer is simple really. Readiness and security. Interoperability with our neighbour Australia. To train our forces personell to the level where they can operate and use the same equipment thats at the cutting edge of Technology.

The Hawks are a non expensive way of replacing the A4 and integrating a strike squadron that can be called upon at a moments notice. The Hawk is an "investment" in our security in NZ. Not just a means to "show off". They would be a highly flexible tool in the RNZAF and give the Airforce some "teeth" and individuality in being able to provide instant intel and "deal" with any security or fishery issue at sea. The Hawk comes no where close in replacing the P3s ability, it just helps to augment the tasks the P3 is designed to do.

The MB339 has limitations especially in range, and is slower. Thats the reason they either need to be used as a trainer or be simply sold. The Hawk is used by the RAAF and this makes it extremely easy for our own pilots to work and operate with the RAAF.

G'day Markus, I often lurk in these threads as I'm almost as interested in the NZ defence debate as I am in Australia's...

Anyhoo, onto the topic, I'm sure with NZ covers it's approaches with maritime radar systems, does it not? Surely if this is the case, there will be few times when hi-speed vessels elude detection? Where would a small hi-speed craft possibly come from, externally?

I get your point about a Hawk or MB-339's ability to react to a threat quickly (compared to a P-3) but I fail to see a scenario where this would be needed. Has NZ EVER fired upon a foreign vessel in it's own waters, let alone with 2.75inch FFAR's?

I think personally, a helicopter based capability, such as that employed by the US Coast Guard with GPMG and "sniper" capability would be much more cost efficient and politcally acceptable in NZ's circumstances. Operating such from OPV's will give more than a 600k range.

Between patrols of P-3K's, OPV's, ANZAC's, IPV's and the maritime sensors I don't doubt NZ operates, any "significant threat" should be picked up early. A UAV based surveillance system would probably be of more use, rather than response based capability.

A Seasprite or NH-90 with GPMG's should be more than enough for such a threat. Any larger vessels aren't going to come faster than an OPV or ANZAC frigate could get to them anyway. 25mm or 127mm would then be more than sufficient to stop the threat...

 

[Todjaeger]

Im sorry if the previous thread was slightly elongated. And you probably can forgive me for misunderstanding WJ previous thread, as i think no one can understand what he is trying to get at.

Let me try and put what i believe is the right scenerio to this situation.
To be honest im not a strong advocate of the P3 Orion for the reason that this government hasnt kept the military survellience computers upgraded, and took out the MAD anti submarine mission to our P3s. Its running on the very basics of operational ability. Thats why we end up using them for search and rescue and in the place in Persian Gulf to track ships and to take part in Exercises like the one in Singapore last year where unfortunatly it wasnt able to keep up with the coalition detail. Sorry to say.

If we had them running like the Australian counterparts then i would have more confidence in their ability. The Labour government has ignored the real required and needed mission computer upgrades like they should have got.
The current upgrade only gave them flight deck upgrades and some mission computer overhaul, but that was about it.

The second thing about the P3 if they are all sitting at their base at Whenuepai and a call came through to intercept a fishing ship fast approaching NZ, and through intel it had been intercepted by our OPV but wouldnt stop. I can gaurentee you a pair of Hawks is going to make it stop with a salvo of rockets fired across its bow. Now thats something a P3 loaded with a Harpoon or similar isnt going to able to do.

Besides there is this one fundamental issue that plagues my mind. And i believe it is valid. A fast jet like the Hawk is going to be able to "deal" with the situation at sea far quicker than the P3. If you loadup and have a jet ready it going to reach the target far quicker than a P3 following in its footsteps. Its a folly to think that a P3 will be in the air 24/7 and is able to divert to the area that quick. Im sure you can see that. The Hawk will make it there alot faster. I do realise that the Hawk 200 will have a combat radius of 600km but its certainly enough to keep our security at a level that is acceptable.

I went ahead and did a bit of research to check on a few things. From what I've gathered, NZ doesn't seem to have an integrated network of land-based maritime radar arrays like Australia does (SECAR, JORN). If NZ does, it's keeping awfully quiet about them.

With regards to P-3 operations, they are designed to operate for long periods of time on patrol, with a total of up to 15 hours if two engines are shut down to conserve fuel. As such, they aren't left in a hangar or on a runway while other assets detect vessels approaching NZ. That is the primary task of the P-3. One might not always be nearby, but it is likely that one will be aloft.

On to capabilities. The Hawk 200-series is equipped with the APG-66H radar, a version of the APG-66 with a max (published) range of 150km. The -H version, having a smaller antennae is stated to have reduced capabilities. Also, the radar is nose cone mounted meaning that unless the nose/radar cone is pointed in the direction of the target, it won't be detected by the Hawk. As for armament, the Hawk is apparently fitted to carry Sea Eagle AShM with a published range of 110km, so that at least is an option.

With the NZ P-3K Orion, the aircraft were upgraded from P-3B standard to the -K standard, which was largely a P-3C Update II standard, with some local innovations. As such, I can't confirm (can anyone else?) but I believe that the P-3K uses a version of the Raytheon APS-137, as do the P-3C Orions. Standard as part of the P-3C Update II is IR detection and provision for carrying the Harpoon AShM.

I went searching for range info on the APS-137 and wasn't able to locate any. What I did find was range info for the APS-116 sea-search radar. This radar equipped the S-3A Viking, and was replaced in the S-3B Viking starting in 1987 with the more capable APS-137(V)1, variants of which are also used in the P-3C Orion. Mode three of the APS-116, long-range search, had a published range of 278km. Presumably, the range of the APS-137 would be equal to, if not greater than that of the earlier APS-116. I also believe believe the radar configuration found on the P-3K doesn't restrict the radar to a narrow cone as on the Hawk, giving the Orion not only a longer reach, but covering a wider area as well.

As stated earlier, depending on what asset detects the target, and where it gets detected relative to Hawk or Orion aircraft, that I think would determine which aircraft gets tasked with the strike mission. I don't see either aircraft getting dispatched to fire warning shots on vessels though. If a given vessel doesn't halt after warning shots from a 0.50 cal. or 25mm on an IPV or OPV, then I imagine there would be a boarding attempt, backed up by the same weapon(s). If the boarding was repelled, or became too dangerous for the boarding party, then I imagine the strike would be called in.

Keep in mind also, that the OPVs at least will have the ability to operate helicopters, and some of them may well be at least as well equipped to carry out maritime strikes (with Maverick AGM for instance) as a Hawk.

-Cheers

 

[dave_kiwi]

The "Rigel" Updated radar fitted ala early '80s was - from memory - the APS-134, which at the time could detect quote:" a beer can on the surface".

from the following web site:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982rpi..conf...36S

...the AN/APS-134(V) Radar System is the international successor to the U.S. Navy's AN/APS-116 Periscope Detecting Radar. The AN/APS-116 was originally designed to provide the S-3A Viking aircraft with periscope detecting capability in high sea states. The AN/APS-134 incorporates all of the features of the AN/APS-116 while improving performance and adding new capabilities, including a unique maritime surveillance mode. Attention is given to design considerations, a system description, operational characteristics, aspects of signal processing, performance, and radar imaging growth.

The APS-134 replaced the APS-80 (which actually had 360 degree coverage)