NZDF LTDP 2006 update

[Whiskyjack]

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...

I agree, the opposition seems to be moving towards the idea of restoring the 339s (if they are not sold first!).

But air strike in a meaninigful operational context is a dead duck in NZ politics and I have had this discussion with the relevent political and military players.

For myself (if it wasn't already obvious from some of these posts) if it isn't operationaly deployable in a meaningful manner with our allies, I think NZ should focus on areas were it can make a difference with its allies.

Still keep the 339s for training and emergency use, in a domestic context.

 

[KH-12]

The cost of an aircraft like the Hawk 200 series is not insignificant probably similar or more than the unit price paid for the NH90's would be a hard to justify expense, a better investment would be buying a pair of C-17 before the production line closes off, long range transport is a role the RNZAF carries out on a daily basis and is more deserving of defence dollars than trying to reinstate a "quasi" strike role. Having a dedicated strike platform is a luxury that in the face of other defence requirements we just can't justify.

 

[Whiskyjack]

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.

Agreed

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.

Apart from the the 339s I believe that these are in the pipeline, the 339s really relies on whether the Govt can sell them before the next election.

If they are then the purchase of 12 trainers could be contemplated (better if they were second hand )

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.

The next stage is really the replacement of the P3s with another MPA/UAV mix. The decision for this is really only a decade away now.

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!

Cheers

The problem I have with a small force of strike is that bought in such numbers you are paying a lot in capital infrastructure, training and spares for a force that is essentially to small to deploy in any meaningful way.

But a fully balanced force is a nice thought!

There was a rumour that the RNZN was offered a second hand ANZAC at around 1999, as the RAN was looking at a different structure. Obviously things have moved on since then.

 

[Whiskyjack]

The cost of an aircraft like the Hawk 200 series is not insignificant probably similar or more than the unit price paid for the NH90's would be a hard to justify expense, a better investment would be buying a pair of C-17 before the production line closes off, long range transport is a role the RNZAF carries out on a daily basis and is more deserving of defence dollars than trying to reinstate a "quasi" strike role. Having a dedicated strike platform is a luxury that in the face of other defence requirements we just can't justify.

Agree with this. It is nice to think of a strike commponent to the RNZAF, but the reality is that things have moved on. NZs allies no longer talk of strike, they are more concerned with NZ being able to handle the various Island states in the South Pacific, contributing to the war on terror where the SAS are more sought after than a sqaudron of modern strike aircraft.

I would like to see NZ as being more independant in areas such as Logistics and Transport.

 

[Markus40]

Im trying real hard to make sense of your P3 versus the Hawk debate. I have nothing against the P3. Its definitly needed. Ok got that?

Look, let me say this for the record. I dont have anything against the MB339 being used as a training tool for the Army, and Navy. Thats good if we can retain a pool of trained pilots. But will our trained pilots just want to sit in a MB339 when their skills, once honed will want to go higher and be used on a better aircraft.? No, of course not. So with all that training they head off over to the Tasman to the RAAF. To me it makes far better sense to buy the Hawk 200, shelve the MB339 once we get the Hawk, and train and use the Hawk for our national security needs .

Yes i did blunder on the range issue. Is that a problem to you, and does that in any way make my case any less important ?? The aircraft i was talking about should have a multi tasked ability and thats why i have chosen the Hawk. You have read all the other reasons in my thread as to why and they all are valid reasons for the purchase of the Hawk.

So as you now say (quite the opposite to what you said before) lets get them out as we still have them and use them I fully agree to that. BUT, we need another tier fast jet requirement. One that has more capability and definitly greater range than the MB339. My suggestion is once National is in then things will look a little brighter for the Airforce and its then that two things can happen. We keep the MB339s and use them as a trainer for the RNZAF and we buy the Hawk or similar, or we ditch the MB339 which i think makes much more sense and have the Hawk as the principle fast jet aircraft for NZ. That means a single operating fast jet squadron is cheaper to run than a dual operating one. It means we keep our running costs at a value for money arrangement and as well have our pilots train with the RAAF. Its a win win situation and the benefits outweigh the negatives.

If you still have questions about it i suggest you read my previous posts. Im almost getting sick of having to repeat what i have already mentioned.

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?



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.



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.

 

[KH-12]

If we had'nt opted to go the C-130 upgrade path it would have been interesting to consider a mixed C-17 / C-27J fleet to ty off the strategic and tactical transport roles, although the cost of the C-17's is high they would offer alot of utility and obviate the need for multiple en-route stops when deploying to places like Afganistan, also I'm sure you could haul a LAV or 2 a decent distance I think this type of fleet gives you more flexibility than something like the A400M.

 

[Markus40]

C-17s?????? Wow.! Na mate. We are dreaming here. I need to point out that the current C130s are currently undergoing a major upgrade, and by the time the A400M comes out then this would be a good time to purchase this aircraft. So we should be able to operate the C130s till the A400M come through. I think thats a sensible suggestion.

Having a dedicated strike platform such as the Hawk is extremely important, and despite our environment being benign is no excuse for not having one. Besides the Hawk is a far cheaper option NOW than buying F18s,F35s, F16s, etc. It has the basic hard points and that really is all thats needed.

The cost of an aircraft like the Hawk 200 series is not insignificant probably similar or more than the unit price paid for the NH90's would be a hard to justify expense, a better investment would be buying a pair of C-17 before the production line closes off, long range transport is a role the RNZAF carries out on a daily basis and is more deserving of defence dollars than trying to reinstate a "quasi" strike role. Having a dedicated strike platform is a luxury that in the face of other defence requirements we just can't justify.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Im trying real hard to make sense of your P3 versus the Hawk debate. I have nothing against the P3. Its definitly needed. Ok got that?

Cool.

Look, let me say this for the record. I dont have anything against the MB339 being used as a training tool for the Army, and Navy. Thats good if we can retain a pool of trained pilots. But will our trained pilots just want to sit in a MB339 when their skills, once honed will want to go higher and be used on a better aircraft.? No, of course not. So with all that training they head off over to the Tasman to the RAAF. To me it makes far better sense to buy the Hawk 200, shelve the MB339 once we get the Hawk, and train and use the Hawk for our national security needs .

You mean Hawk 127 (like the RAAF) and the Hawk 200?

The thing with the 339 that the RNZAF has in storage is that is has laser designation, radar detection, sidewinder, and Maverick capability. The speed and range are also comparable to the Hawk.

So why would the RNZAF go for the Hawk, why not the T-50 (which has even better cpability)?

But before we even look at that, what is the mission? and if you have a mission for it what priority does it take over other needs?

We have discussed about maritime strike and interception of civilian aircraft. But does this need justify the buy of additional aircraft, when we already have aircraft that can accomplish this?

If the need is to operate in conjunction with our allies, then we really need to look at the JAS-39s and F/A18s etc.. which are much more expensive.

So as you now say (quite the opposite to what you said before) lets get them out as we still have them and use them I fully agree to that

Not true I have always supported a fast trainer to act as a trainer

BUT, we need another tier fast jet requirement. One that has more capability and definitly greater range than the MB339. My suggestion is once National is in then things will look a little brighter for the Airforce and its then that two things can happen. We keep the MB339s and use them as a trainer for the RNZAF and we buy the Hawk or similar, or we ditch the MB339 which i think makes much more sense and have the Hawk as the principle fast jet aircraft for NZ. That means a single operating fast jet squadron is cheaper to run than a dual operating one. It means we keep our running costs at a value for money arrangement and as well have our pilots train with the RAAF. Its a win win situation and the benefits outweigh the negatives.

If you still have questions about it i suggest you read my previous posts. Im almost getting sick of having to repeat what i have already mentioned.

As mentioned the difference in specifications between the 339 and hawk are not that great.

I don't agree that we need another tier above the 339, but I grant you if the 339 is sold then the Hawk or basic T-50 will do for the training requirements.

If they are not sold just keep them, as NZ has already paid for the airframes and infrastructure for them.

 

[KH-12]

C-17s?????? Wow.! Na mate. We are dreaming here. I need to point out that the current C130s are currently undergoing a major upgrade, and by the time the A400M comes out then this would be a good time to purchase this aircraft. So we should be able to operate the C130s till the A400M come through. I think thats a sensible suggestion.

Having a dedicated strike platform such as the Hawk is extremely important, and despite our environment being benign is no excuse for not having one. Besides the Hawk is a far cheaper option NOW than buying F18s,F35s, F16s, etc. It has the basic hard points and that really is all thats needed.

The cost of a pair of C-17's is probably about the same as 12 Hawk 200's, which would be more useful in the current context and which would have more political support ? I'm sure that we would get a very good deal on them.

The current upgrade for the C130's won't do anything for their range or payload capacity, the ability to haul large loads like the LAV and in future the NH90 are what will restrict the C-130 going forward. The C17 covers off these issues in the strategic context.

 

[Markus40]

No you are right the current upgrade doesnt do anything for their range or payload capacity. So thats why i really dont think we need to add or strengthen the numbers that are already in place. As far as political support i believe thats going to change when National do get in. Then the purse strings will open for the Airforce. As for the C17s, its simply not going to happen, when the current C130s are already undergoing an upgrade. So politically it would be incorrect to suggest a replacement right on the tail end of that upgrade. However in 5 years time i think the A400M will need to be looked at seriously.

The cost of a pair of C-17's is probably about the same as 12 Hawk 200's, which would be more useful in the current context and which would have more political support ? I'm sure that we would get a very good deal on them.

The current upgrade for the C130's won't do anything for their range or payload capacity, the ability to haul large loads like the LAV and in future the NH90 are what will restrict the C-130 going forward. The C17 covers off these issues in the strategic context.

 

[Whiskyjack]

No you are right the current upgrade doesnt do anything for their range or payload capacity. So thats why i really dont think we need to add or strengthen the numbers that are already in place. As far as political support i believe thats going to change when National do get in. Then the purse strings will open for the Airforce. As for the C17s, its simply not going to happen, when the current C130s are already undergoing an upgrade. So politically it would be incorrect to suggest a replacement right on the tail end of that upgrade. However in 5 years time i think the A400M will need to be looked at seriously.

I agree, while two C-17s would be great (and at least one political party has brought up the idea of buying them), two just don't give the flexibility that is needed.

I would like to think that 5-6 A400Ms in 7-9 years.

If the RNZAF were to get a short range C-27J, then it could also be used for inshore MPA.

Well we live and hope!

 

[Markus40]

What i was referring to is the Hawk 200. However, what i really dont think is necessary is the need to buy fast Mach 2 aircraft. I do agree that this is a waste of money for this region.

What i am for is a fast jet capability that can take the role of the Hawk 200for New Zealands needs. I am not even suggesting the hawk maybe the T50, or T45 Goshawk or similar. I am using the Hawk 200 as an example. The other thing is this. I really dont think that its even necessary for NZ to have to interoperability with Australia as such or with other countries so long as it meets a reasonable requirement such as a descent range, training and delivery systems on board. If this can be acheived then you have a strong supporter. As you know.

Cool.



You mean Hawk 127 (like the RAAF) and the Hawk 200?

The thing with the 339 that the RNZAF has in storage is that is has laser designation, radar detection, sidewinder, and Maverick capability. The speed and range are also comparable to the Hawk.

So why would the RNZAF go for the Hawk, why not the T-50 (which has even better cpability)?

But before we even look at that, what is the mission? and if you have a mission for it what priority does it take over other needs?

We have discussed about maritime strike and interception of civilian aircraft. But does this need justify the buy of additional aircraft, when we already have aircraft that can accomplish this?

If the need is to operate in conjunction with our allies, then we really need to look at the JAS-39s and F/A18s etc.. which are much more expensive.





Not true I have always supported a fast trainer to act as a trainer



As mentioned the difference in specifications between the 339 and hawk are not that great.

I don't agree that we need another tier above the 339, but I grant you if the 339 is sold then the Hawk or basic T-50 will do for the training requirements.

If they are not sold just keep them, as NZ has already paid for the airframes and infrastructure for them.

 

[KH-12]

I think 2 is all we could afford (just) hopefully there would be some synergies with the Australian fleet, I just don't believe that the A400M is a significant increase in capability over the C130 / J series, our geographic isolation means we need range and payload.

Hopefully the C27J would be able to cover off tasks in the local / Pacific context while the C17 is reserved for the longer tasks, the added ability to supplement as a MPA would also be welcome.

Helen would'nt have to bludge a ride on the USAF down to Antartica then

 

[Markus40]

Yeah, 2 C17s as a replacement smacks of a further down sizing of the Airforce. Maybe Helen Clark was impressed after her ride in one down to the ice. Who knows. Yep, i am a strong supporter of the A400M. We will strongly need them.

I agree, while two C-17s would be great (and at least one political party has brought up the idea of buying them), two just don't give the flexibility that is needed.

I would like to think that 5-6 A400Ms in 7-9 years.

If the RNZAF were to get a short range C-27J, then it could also be used for inshore MPA.

Well we live and hope!

 

[Whiskyjack]

I think 2 is all we could afford (just) hopefully there would be some synergies with the Australian fleet, I just don't believe that the A400M is a significant increase in capability over the C130 / J series, our geographic isolation means we need range and payload.

Hopefully the C27J would be able to cover off tasks in the local / Pacific context while the C17 is reserved for the longer tasks, the added ability to supplement as a MPA would also be welcome.

Helen would'nt have to bludge a ride on the USAF down to Antartica then

The RAAF believe that the C-17 is worth 6 C-130s based on load, range and speed.

Looking at the specs for the C-130, C-17 and A400, I would say the A400 is worth 2.5 C-130s.

While I realise this is all on paper the A400 can deliver a combat loaded LAV direct from Auckland to Darwin. It can deliver a combat loaded LAV and two LOVs to Fiji and have enough fuel to return. As I say thats according to the paper.

 

[Markus40]

Ummm, i think you will find the A400M has a significant advantage in regards to range and capacity if you look at the specs. against the C130J or C130. Something the RNZAF seriously needs.

I think 2 is all we could afford (just) hopefully there would be some synergies with the Australian fleet, I just don't believe that the A400M is a significant increase in capability over the C130 / J series, our geographic isolation means we need range and payload.

Hopefully the C27J would be able to cover off tasks in the local / Pacific context while the C17 is reserved for the longer tasks, the added ability to supplement as a MPA would also be welcome.

Helen would'nt have to bludge a ride on the USAF down to Antartica then

 

[Todjaeger]

Going in a different direction: Radar network.

Given the area NZ has to patrol, and the amount of money spent to patrol it, would some sort of integrated radar network make sense for NZ. As it stands now, NZ has some limited harbour radar in certain ports, and of course ATC radar AFAIK.

Creation of a radar network, particularly if the RNZN vessels and RNZAF are connected to it, would allow better potential patrolling, since less time should be needed to locate a vessel or aircraft. Assuming a total of 8 units (4ea for North & South Island), would that assist in meeting NZ's surveillance/patrol needs? Also, would there be any recommendations on what sort of radar to use on such large areas?

Given that the NZDF has some manning issues, how effectively would ground-based surveillance radars be in augmenting maritime air & surface assets? I would assume that such an arrangement would expand the coverage of NZ territories & EEZ, and might reduce operational expenses on the P-3Ks. Also, the assets should be available 24/7 and once in place, would most likely not have as much maintenance costs associated with it.

-Cheers

 

[KH-12]

The RAAF believe that the C-17 is worth 6 C-130s based on load, range and speed.

Looking at the specs for the C-130, C-17 and A400, I would say the A400 is worth 2.5 C-130s.

While I realise this is all on paper the A400 can deliver a combat loaded LAV direct from Auckland to Darwin. It can deliver a combat loaded LAV and two LOVs to Fiji and have enough fuel to return. As I say thats according to the paper.

That is a pretty impressive force multiplier for the C17 So a A400 is worth less than 1/2 a C17 , will be interesting to see what sort of price the A400 goes for, the C27J can haul about 1/2 the payload the same distance as the C130, so its range is pretty good for the SP area, the problem arises with the likes of the LAV.

 

[Gibbo]

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.

Yep - Labour has philosophical issues with using fast jets for anything - in fact I'm surprised they haven't jumped on Wayne Mapp's (opposition defence spokesman) suggestion of using the MD-339's for training!

National on the other hand don't yet know what they want to do for defence. They say they want to spend more - but at the same time are determined to cut govt spending - and it was THEM that slashed the defence budget in 1990 that ultimately caused the NZDF to start imploding.

National have mentioned looking at use of the MB-339 fleet for Army & Navy training - excellent idea given the shelf-life left on them & the likely low utilisation rate. But they have clearly shut-out an air-combat fleet - so it's the MB-339 or nothing. Yes they could provide some 'domestic defence' but the likelihood of this is low I'd suspect.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Given the area NZ has to patrol, and the amount of money spent to patrol it, would some sort of integrated radar network make sense for NZ. As it stands now, NZ has some limited harbour radar in certain ports, and of course ATC radar AFAIK.

Creation of a radar network, particularly if the RNZN vessels and RNZAF are connected to it, would allow better potential patrolling, since less time should be needed to locate a vessel or aircraft. Assuming a total of 8 units (4ea for North & South Island), would that assist in meeting NZ's surveillance/patrol needs? Also, would there be any recommendations on what sort of radar to use on such large areas?

Given that the NZDF has some manning issues, how effectively would ground-based surveillance radars be in augmenting maritime air & surface assets? I would assume that such an arrangement would expand the coverage of NZ territories & EEZ, and might reduce operational expenses on the P-3Ks. Also, the assets should be available 24/7 and once in place, would most likely not have as much maintenance costs associated with it.

-Cheers

Well a good idea in theory, the practicality of an integrated Radar Network is questionable.

In terms of control of the air, I believe that NZ is already in charge of ATC from the Equator South, which is a huge area and I am sure that the appropriate resources are being committed to it from a purely commercial/civil stand point. Although I must admit I have no real knowledge in this area.

In terms of surface surveillance I think NZ has the 3rd/4th (?) largest EEC in area in the world that extends on all directions.

Now to have an integrated radar surveillance network that could cover even a small amount of this area would be relatively expensive and would INO take money away from the physical assets that would do the most good, i.e. OPV, IPVs, MPAs, UAVs etc..

That does not mean that specific areas can’t/shouldn’t be targeted, if the resource are available.

My thoughts anyway