NZDF LTDP 2006 update

[Todjaeger]

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)

Hmm... This website listed the AN/APS-116 radar replacement for the S-3B as the AN/APS-137(V)1.
http://www.vectorsite.net/avs3.html

Incidentally, page 168 Encyclopedia of Modern Aircraft also lists the radar on the S-3B as the APS-137. I'll have to see if I can find anything else out about the APS-134, though. Unfortunately don't know much about the Rigel update. Have to keep looking.

-Cheers

 

[Markus40]

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



The AN/APG-66 Radar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Todjaeger]

Discussion of Hawk 200-series vs. P-3K Orion

IMO we're getting a bit OT here.

I suggest we move discussion of Hawk 200-series vs. P-3K Orion for RNZAF to the Military Aviation section. How about this thread?
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5972

It already has some discussion of the P-3K Orion.

Let's leave this thread for discussion of the NZ LTDP.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

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

The Sea Eagle ASM is no longer in-service (IIRC), except with the Indian Navy on it's Harriers and they're looking for a replacement missile.

Markus, I don't disagree with the need for RNZAF to have some "teeth", but I cannot see how a Hawk will be politcally acceptable, when even the MB-339 isn't.

The "Hawk" that most countries use as a trainer is un-suitable for the role you envisage. Australia's Hawk Mk 127 for instance, operates a "training role" only 30mm gun pod mounted cannon, Mk 82 500lbs bombs and AIM-9 Sidewinders.

It has no FLIR sensor, no attack radar and no EW self protection capability whatsover. You'd need a Hawk 200 equivalent and again your investing in a fighter aircraft, albeit one that is rather limited in overall capability.

When you start adding those capabilities, plus a half decent weapons package you are building a fighter. You might as well advocate F-16's as at least they are a decent fighter. I think a squadron of second hand F-16C/D's would be perfect for RNZAF, but your politicians don't, from either party from what I've seen. Harpoon has been integrated onto F-16, so in a maritime attack role, it should be as capable as the F/A-18's operated by RAAF.

Again, it's not the aircraft, it's suitability or even your economy that prevents NZ from maintaining a capable air force, that is relevant to your readiness and securit, but your Government....

A plan to arm your P-3K's at least exists. I'd be advocating that in the short term. It might not provide all the capability needed, but it's better than what you've got now and may perhaps provide a stepping stone...

 

[Todjaeger]

The Sea Eagle ASM is no longer in-service (IIRC), except with the Indian Navy on it's Harriers and they're looking for a replacement missile.

When I went looking for info on the Hawk 200-series, the Sea Eagle was the only AShM listed as part of the available weapons package. If a maritime strike were to be conducted, I see that as being preferable to a Maverick AGM, since the aircraft shouldn't need to get quite so close. I figured if NZ were to get some sort of fighter, and end up having to do systems integration for newer missles, it might as well get a more capable fighter than a Hawk 200.

-Cheers

 

[Markus40]

I see your point, but i think too that in Australia the anti defence lobby grps come out and protest as well. Am i right? I am of the opinion that most New Zealand people would support a strike air combat force to some degree, but the politics of the few are trying to hold it back. What would be good once the next government gets in is a referendum and see what turns up.

Its unfortunate in this country that people cant see the wood for the trees as far as defence is concerned. But it is interesting that Labour has made exceptional purchases that no one has quivered about. So why would they with a squadron of jets?

I am a very strong advocate of bringing back a small, new air combat force thats easy to finance and doesnt cost alot of money. Although we would now need to spend more over time to train and build infrastructure.
The T54 Goshawk and the AMX Fighter, would be worthy alternatives. Even if bought second hand.

I have grave doubts over the F16. As much as i like the aircraft its not a maritime aircraft. Its a smaller and capable aircraft like the Hawk 200 that is much needed for New Zealands conditions.

The Sea Eagle ASM is no longer in-service (IIRC), except with the Indian Navy on it's Harriers and they're looking for a replacement missile.

Markus, I don't disagree with the need for RNZAF to have some "teeth", but I cannot see how a Hawk will be politcally acceptable, when even the MB-339 isn't.

The "Hawk" that most countries use as a trainer is un-suitable for the role you envisage. Australia's Hawk Mk 127 for instance, operates a "training role" only 30mm gun pod mounted cannon, Mk 82 500lbs bombs and AIM-9 Sidewinders.

It has no FLIR sensor, no attack radar and no EW self protection capability whatsover. You'd need a Hawk 200 equivalent and again your investing in a fighter aircraft, albeit one that is rather limited in overall capability.

When you start adding those capabilities, plus a half decent weapons package you are building a fighter. You might as well advocate F-16's as at least they are a decent fighter. I think a squadron of second hand F-16C/D's would be perfect for RNZAF, but your politicians don't, from either party from what I've seen. Harpoon has been integrated onto F-16, so in a maritime attack role, it should be as capable as the F/A-18's operated by RAAF.

Again, it's not the aircraft, it's suitability or even your economy that prevents NZ from maintaining a capable air force, that is relevant to your readiness and securit, but your Government....

A plan to arm your P-3K's at least exists. I'd be advocating that in the short term. It might not provide all the capability needed, but it's better than what you've got now and may perhaps provide a stepping stone...

 

[Aussie Digger]

I see your point, but i think too that in Australia the anti defence lobby grps come out and protest as well. Am i right? I am of the opinion that most New Zealand people would support a strike air combat force to some degree, but the politics of the few are trying to hold it back. What would be good once the next government gets in is a referendum and see what turns up.

Its unfortunate in this country that people cant see the wood for the trees as far as defence is concerned. But it is interesting that Labour has made exceptional purchases that no one has quivered about. So why would they with a squadron of jets?

I am a very strong advocate of bringing back a small, new air combat force thats easy to finance and doesnt cost alot of money. Although we would now need to spend more over time to train and build infrastructure.
The T54 Goshawk and the AMX Fighter, would be worthy alternatives. Even if bought second hand.

I have grave doubts over the F16. As much as i like the aircraft its not a maritime aircraft. Its a smaller and capable aircraft like the Hawk 200 that is much needed for New Zealands conditions.

What exactly makes the Hawk suitable for maritime ops, when the F-16 isn't? Harpoon as I said, has been integrated onto F-16, and as such the radar system no doubt has modes suitable for the employment of such a weapon.

If a "strike force" could become politically acceptable for NZ, I fail to see how a small limited jet like the Hawk could be chosen. For starters they are a subsonic aircraft, with limited range, weapons load and radar capabilities.

I mainly proposed F-16, because of the apparent suitability of the aircraft, as deemed by RNZAF and the availability of relatively cheap yet capable, 2nd hand aircraft.

Other options of course exist. Sweden for example recently retired 70 odd A/B model Gripens and France has numerous Mirage 2000 aircraft that could provide good capability.

A Gripen squadron featuring upgraded aircraft to the "international" C/D standard, would be fantastic for NZ. A relatively cheap aircraft to buy and maintain adn with a full A2A and A2G weapons capability, but capable enough to go "head to head" with the most modern aircraft in the world, under most conditions, plus a relatively large user base (over 300 aircraft strong, already) and a pre-planned upgrade path.

I doubt very much that 2nd hand Gripens would be much more expensive than new-build Hawk 200's, which you'd need as I am unaware of any retirements of aircraft in the few countries that have bought them to date...

As to NZ's population and their desire for modern combat capabilities within NZDF, well I can hardly comment on that, but I can't imagine they'd object to a modern and capable defence force, but most people don't know or care enough to understand the difference. If politicians on both sides argue against such a capability (and this has effectively happened in NZ from what I've read), I doubt whether people as a whole would be especially inclined to disagree with them.

Remember that the old saying, "no-one loves a soldier until the enemy is at your gate", holds true even today...

 

[Markus40]

Yeah and if you love a soldier that cant fire a shot? If the enemy is at the gate my dear friend and he isnt equiped to do the job, i can bet your bottom dollar the public will end up shooting him first and take up arms themselves. What do you call that? Anarchy and dumb forward planning.

I am all for an F16 strike force that can do the the job as you described, but the F16 is too expensive to purchase for this country. We can only get the c/d version. The previous offer made by the US for the 30 F16s that was supposed to have gone to Pakistan ended up on the proposal table for a lease option of $800 Million NZDs. That was a crazy price. Even the 9 NH-90s NZ has purchased now cost that. But the then government refused it. The F16 has exactly the same range as the Hawk so i dont see why we need to spend more dollars now for expensive air craft.

Yes the F16 is faster, and yes it can carry more payload, but NZs air defence requirements are not needed at fast speeds and more payload. For a maritime operation which the most liely option is the use of the Hawk. The reason being its far cheaper, has the same range as an F16, and can carry a .50 callibre gun and rocket pods to take care of the "threat", is "politically" more acceptable to the kiwis psyche, and the government cant argue to its ability for being in the same league as the US, and can train with the Australian Airforce. There are other good reasons too.

I just dont think its required for this part of the world to have a Mach 2 aircraft. When most likely scenario is going to be maritime. The other thing is the pilots training for this aircraft can train in the very aircraft they use for a fast jet squadron. So the integration is far better, and less costly.

What exactly makes the Hawk suitable for maritime ops, when the F-16 isn't? Harpoon as I said, has been integrated onto F-16, and as such the radar system no doubt has modes suitable for the employment of such a weapon.

If a "strike force" could become politically acceptable for NZ, I fail to see how a small limited jet like the Hawk could be chosen. For starters they are a subsonic aircraft, with limited range, weapons load and radar capabilities.

I mainly proposed F-16, because of the apparent suitability of the aircraft, as deemed by RNZAF and the availability of relatively cheap yet capable, 2nd hand aircraft.

Other options of course exist. Sweden for example recently retired 70 odd A/B model Gripens and France has numerous Mirage 2000 aircraft that could provide good capability.

A Gripen squadron featuring upgraded aircraft to the "international" C/D standard, would be fantastic for NZ. A relatively cheap aircraft to buy and maintain adn with a full A2A and A2G weapons capability, but capable enough to go "head to head" with the most modern aircraft in the world, under most conditions, plus a relatively large user base (over 300 aircraft strong, already) and a pre-planned upgrade path.

I doubt very much that 2nd hand Gripens would be much more expensive than new-build Hawk 200's, which you'd need as I am unaware of any retirements of aircraft in the few countries that have bought them to date...

As to NZ's population and their desire for modern combat capabilities within NZDF, well I can hardly comment on that, but I can't imagine they'd object to a modern and capable defence force, but most people don't know or care enough to understand the difference. If politicians on both sides argue against such a capability (and this has effectively happened in NZ from what I've read), I doubt whether people as a whole would be especially inclined to disagree with them.

Remember that the old saying, "no-one loves a soldier until the enemy is at your gate", holds true even today...

 

[Tasman]

What exactly makes the Hawk suitable for maritime ops, when the F-16 isn't? Harpoon as I said, has been integrated onto F-16, and as such the radar system no doubt has modes suitable for the employment of such a weapon.

If a "strike force" could become politically acceptable for NZ, I fail to see how a small limited jet like the Hawk could be chosen. For starters they are a subsonic aircraft, with limited range, weapons load and radar capabilities.

I mainly proposed F-16, because of the apparent suitability of the aircraft, as deemed by RNZAF and the availability of relatively cheap yet capable, 2nd hand aircraft.

Other options of course exist. Sweden for example recently retired 70 odd A/B model Gripens and France has numerous Mirage 2000 aircraft that could provide good capability.

A Gripen squadron featuring upgraded aircraft to the "international" C/D standard, would be fantastic for NZ. A relatively cheap aircraft to buy and maintain adn with a full A2A and A2G weapons capability, but capable enough to go "head to head" with the most modern aircraft in the world, under most conditions, plus a relatively large user base (over 300 aircraft strong, already) and a pre-planned upgrade path.

I doubt very much that 2nd hand Gripens would be much more expensive than new-build Hawk 200's, which you'd need as I am unaware of any retirements of aircraft in the few countries that have bought them to date...

As to NZ's population and their desire for modern combat capabilities within NZDF, well I can hardly comment on that, but I can't imagine they'd object to a modern and capable defence force, but most people don't know or care enough to understand the difference. If politicians on both sides argue against such a capability (and this has effectively happened in NZ from what I've read), I doubt whether people as a whole would be especially inclined to disagree with them.

Remember that the old saying, "no-one loves a soldier until the enemy is at your gate", holds true even today...

I don't think anyone could argue against the fact that the F16 or Gripen are far superior to the Hawk in a maritime strike role (also overland stike and air defence if it comes to that). The trouble is that to operate a squadron of F16/Gripens the RNZAF would have to operate an advanced trainer like the MB339 as well. This would then push up costs and would probably kill off any attempt to resurect an air combat force.

I think the best approach to restore some air combat capability is to at least develop a core of skilled pilots along with other objectives which I've mentioned earlier. This could be done by using the existing MB339s. Using the aircraft in a combat role would be an option in an emergency situation, but at least the capability would be there, even if it is somewhat limited.

Stepping up to the Hawk would provide an aircraft with a significant increase in performance and one that would enable interaction, including pilot exchange, with the RAAF. The Hawk can't match an F16 or Gripen but it would be able to combine fast jet and LIF training, fleet support and army support with an emergency air defence, light strike and maritime strike role much better, IMO, than the MB339, and certainly better than the current NZ situation.

A Hawk force would then allow NZ to transition to a more advanced aircraft at a later date if circumstances change in the future.

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

Yes, prescisly my point. I have however serious doubts over the MB339 as a all rounder to all NZ requirements. Especially in the Maritime roles. The MB339 has serious range limitations and this would be a huge handicap to upgrade to anything newer or more capable. Thats why my argument for it to be used as a advanced light trainer IS the only solution to be honest. If not then we need to find a buyer. Thats probably why they havent been bought so far, even though they are fairly new.

Grippens or F16s, F18s, F35s, are simply out of the NZ league for purchase for many reasons. However a smaller fast jet aircraft isnt out of our league and would be the reason to plug the gap in our fast jet operations with a reasonable capability, yet smaller and cost effective. The whole concept CAN work. It just needs the WILL and forsite for Defence planners to see that all three armed services cannot operate without proper and adequate support from each other and having all three working with its components in place. I think thats the best way of putting it.

I don't think anyone could argue against the fact that the F16 or Gripen are far superior to the Hawk in a maritime strike role (also overland stike and air defence if it comes to that). The trouble is that to operate a squadron of F16/Gripens the RNZAF would have to operate an advanced trainer like the MB339 as well. This would then push up costs and would probably kill off any attempt to resurect an air combat force.

I think the best approach to restore some air combat capability is to at least develop a core of skilled pilots along with other objectives which I've mentioned earlier. This could be done by using the existing MB339s. Using the aircraft in a combat role would be an option in an emergency situation, but at least the capability would be there, even if it is somewhat limited.

Stepping up to the Hawk would provide an aircraft with a significant increase in performance and one that would enable interaction, including pilot exchange, with the RAAF. The Hawk can't match an F16 or Gripen but it would be able to combine fast jet and LIF training, fleet support and army support with an emergency air defence, light strike and maritime strike role much better, IMO, than the MB339, and certainly better than the current NZ situation.

A Hawk force would then allow NZ to transition to a more advanced aircraft at a later date if circumstances change in the future.

Cheers

 

[Whiskyjack]

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.

Except perhaps people that know what they are talking about when they discuss Defence perhaps Markus?

 

[Whiskyjack]

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

Yes that is quite correct Tod.

What also needs to be considered when a fast jet profile is being looked at is where they are based. If you look at a map you will see that the primary threat axis foir NZ is the North, but when looking in economic terms you are talking 360 degrees.

So lets assume that there is a ship coming in from the North, from where the Skyhawks were based to the top of the North Island is approximately 1000km!

The next major Base they could sortie from is Auckland, which is 430 km from the top, which means that the strike jets (Hawk or similar)can go 200km north.

A P-3 can go 2000km north from Auckland! Cruising at 300Knts+

So why would you use a fast jet that is better off training pilots, Army (on how to call in CAS and air defence) and the Navy?

I would rather but an extra 2 P-3s and equip them then spend money on fast jest for maritime strike!

 

[Whiskyjack]

As it is there seems to be no mainstream political support for bringing back Fast Strike in NZ. There does seem to be some support for maintaining the 339s for training purposes.

Creating a mission without understanding the true operational context is just trouble.

 

[Markus40]

So why would you use a fast jet that is better off training pilots, Army (on how to call in CAS and air defence) and the Navy?

The ANSWER: Simple really, and it seems that the information hasnt sunk in. Firstly the Hawk can get to the target first, and provide reconn. info and "deal" with the target if need be straightaway. Something i believe is invaluable and if there was a civilian aircraft coming our way known to have WMD on board such as a BIO or chemical aspect on board then the Hawk would come in very handy indeed and be able to force the plane down. This too has been discussed in a previous thread. The P3 in it self couldnt keep up and certainly firing Harpoons or Mavs or PGNs at it, is a folly.

Creating missions for the Hawk in the environment we live in isnt wrong. In fact it would be fool hardy not too. If we can talk about the P3 in the same way and create the missions we have been talking about then i would assume there is no reason to not do so with the Hawk.

Quite simply the MB339 is outdated and useless in our environment. You have already stated in a previous thread yourself that it is seriously limited. And it is. You were quite right. So why are you changing your tune?? Are you a greenie with nothing else to do, but bang your head against a brick wall. If its whisky, then please sober up.!!

Yes that is quite correct Tod.

What also needs to be considered when a fast jet profile is being looked at is where they are based. If you look at a map you will see that the primary threat axis foir NZ is the North, but when looking in economic terms you are talking 360 degrees.

So lets assume that there is a ship coming in from the North, from where the Skyhawks were based to the top of the North Island is approximately 1000km!

The next major Base they could sortie from is Auckland, which is 430 km from the top, which means that the strike jets (Hawk or similar)can go 200km north.

A P-3 can go 2000km north from Auckland! Cruising at 300Knts+

So why would you use a fast jet that is better off training pilots, Army (on how to call in CAS and air defence) and the Navy?

I would rather but an extra 2 P-3s and equip them then spend money on fast jest for maritime strike!

 

[Markus40]

The only person giving the MB339s the support is you WJ. As mentioned before please sober up.!

As it is there seems to be no mainstream political support for bringing back Fast Strike in NZ. There does seem to be some support for maintaining the 339s for training purposes.

Creating a mission without understanding the true operational context is just trouble.

 

[Markus40]

I realise your sincerety and genuine ability in being able to table an argument that is of utmost importance and im glad that it has been that important that you have been able to join in. As to your ability and strength of argument i would have to say they are full of holes like swiss cheese. :tomato

Except perhaps people that know what they are talking about when they discuss Defence perhaps Markus?

 

[Aussie Digger]

I don't think anyone could argue against the fact that the F16 or Gripen are far superior to the Hawk in a maritime strike role (also overland stike and air defence if it comes to that). The trouble is that to operate a squadron of F16/Gripens the RNZAF would have to operate an advanced trainer like the MB339 as well. This would then push up costs and would probably kill off any attempt to resurect an air combat force.

I think the best approach to restore some air combat capability is to at least develop a core of skilled pilots along with other objectives which I've mentioned earlier. This could be done by using the existing MB339s. Using the aircraft in a combat role would be an option in an emergency situation, but at least the capability would be there, even if it is somewhat limited.

Stepping up to the Hawk would provide an aircraft with a significant increase in performance and one that would enable interaction, including pilot exchange, with the RAAF. The Hawk can't match an F16 or Gripen but it would be able to combine fast jet and LIF training, fleet support and army support with an emergency air defence, light strike and maritime strike role much better, IMO, than the MB339, and certainly better than the current NZ situation.

A Hawk force would then allow NZ to transition to a more advanced aircraft at a later date if circumstances change in the future.

Cheers

I agree with all that, but as I mentioned in another thread about Defmin Brendant Nelson, the people who hold the purse strings are not experts and from my experience aren't even particularly interested amateurs.

For a political party comprised of politicians who as one of their main ideologies, focus on disarmament, I cannot imagine there is any difference between a Hawk LIF, a Macchi - 339C or an F-16.

Here is a political party which is in power and has won multiple elections, has a fleet of already paid for, low cost MB-339C's, with trained pilots and support mechanisms in place, HAS to keep them operational to try and get someone to buy them and has done so for 5 years, but is refusing on idealogical grounds to let the RNZAF use them even in a training role!

A training role which, is so widely acknowledged as being necessary that the NZ Army is chartering civilian A-37's to conduct the role!!! If I didn't know better I'd argue that they are completely irrational.

Don't want to ruin the airframe hours on the fleet? Use 1 or 2 jets at most to training your AD gunners and leave the rest. 1 or 2 MB-339C training jets is not going to "break the bank" nor "threaten" anyone, but they won't even do that, despite the inability to date of finding a buyer for the things.

Hence my original point, of wishful thinking about a Hawk purchase. The difference between a Hawk and an F-16 are huge, but they are not going to mean anything to a politican one of whose main priorities is to deny airforce the capability, to it's own detriment. If you're going to argue for a capability you're not going to get anyway, might as well make it an operationally useful one...

 

[Whiskyjack]

So why would you use a fast jet that is better off training pilots, Army (on how to call in CAS and air defence) and the Navy?

The ANSWER: Simple really, and it seems that the information hasnt sunk in. Firstly the Hawk can get to the target first, and provide reconn. info and "deal" with the target if need be straightaway. Something i believe is invaluable and if there was a civilian aircraft coming our way known to have WMD on board such as a BIO or chemical aspect on board then the Hawk would come in very handy indeed and be able to force the plane down. This too has been discussed in a previous thread. The P3 in it self couldnt keep up and certainly firing Harpoons or Mavs or PGNs at it, is a folly.

A fast jet, i.e. the existing 339, is ideal for training the army, especially the SAS in how to call in CAS, because it allows for the army to simulate realistic environment. The same applies for the SAMs the army operates.

The Navy is in very much the same boat.

Markus,

The aircraft best suited for recon, due to the systems it can carry are MPAs or UAVs.

But to use your above example on an aircraft coming NZs way, why would the NZDF not use the 339?, it can carry gun pods and sidewinders...and I believe that I said as much in posts above.

But wern't we discussing maritime strike?

Creating missions for the Hawk in the environment we live in isnt wrong. In fact it would be fool hardy not too. If we can talk about the P3 in the same way and create the missions we have been talking about then i would assume there is no reason to not do so with the Hawk.

Yes I am using the P-3 because the RNZAF already have it. But any MPA will do. The fact being that the NZDF already has a defined role for the P3 and is already looking at AShMs for them Mean while you are being platform specific on Hawks, at the beginning of the discussion you were convinced the Hawk had much greater specifications then it actually does (i.e. range), now that we all know the mistake you still persist with it.

The fact is that is that with the 339s and P-3s NZ has the platforms all ready available to meet the needs discussed without having to go with the expense of a new platform to fit a non essential mission created for it.

Quite simply the MB339 is outdated and useless in our environment. You have already stated in a previous thread yourself that it is seriously limited. And it is. You were quite right. So why are you changing your tune?? Are you a greenie with nothing else to do, but bang your head against a brick wall. If its whisky, then please sober up.!!

Given what I believe it needs to do it is not out dated, it can do the training job the NZDF needs, it is still a relatively modern aircraft. It can be used as a back up for protection of events etc.

Markus, seeing you have gone there, for the record I am not a greenie, I just know what I am talking about when it comes to planning defence needs. Insult me as much as you like it does not make your obviously dismal knowledge of matters defence any more relevant.

 

[Whiskyjack]

The only person giving the MB339s the support is you WJ. As mentioned before please sober up.!

Plus the Navy, plus the Air Force, Plus the Army, Plus the National Party, all of who I talk to.

 

[Tasman]

As it is there seems to be no mainstream political support for bringing back Fast Strike in NZ. There does seem to be some support for maintaining the 339s for training purposes.

Creating a mission without understanding the true operational context is just trouble.

If there is support for bringing back the MB339s, but none for a fast strike force, I'd go with that. Whilst not ideal at least the top priorities will be met, i.e. maintaining a pool of skilled fast jet pilots, fleet and army support and an emergency air defence/light strike role.

Along with arming the P2Ks with AShMs, upgrading the Anzacs and ensuring that the army is adequately equipped for its roles, restoring the MB339s would provide a good stepping stone to re-establishing NZ's defence capability.

After that I would be looking to replace the MB339s with a more capable trainer/fighter like the Hawk, add a couple more P3Ks and/or introduce a UAV capability. The navy and army could also be enhanced with additional helicopters and other equipment.

As a third stage NZ would then be well placed to consider a small force (8 -12) of aircraft along the lines of the Super Hornet and a third frigate. This might seem like a pipe dream in the present political climate but it could be done over time if the defence budget is steadily increased each year until the percentage of GDP is lifted nearer to at least where Australia's is now. This would be a long term plan (maybe ten to fifteen years from now) but a good start would be to save the MB339s if that is the best that can be realistically achieved at present. Maybe Australia will be looking to unload its FA18Fs and one or two of its Anzacs at that time!

If this all seems naive, remember that it would only be restoring the NZDF to levels it enjoyed less than a decade ago! However, even if NZ never goes beyond the first stage or second stage it will still be an improvement.

Cheers