Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Air Force & Aviation
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

F-35_launches_Joint_Strike_Missile.jpg

us-south-korea-drill.jpg

this-year-12700-us-troops-are-participating-alongside-many-more-south-korean-soldiers.jpg

the-us-routinely-dedicates-an-extremely-large-contingent-of-soldiers-and-marines-to-the-drills.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Royal New Zealand Air Force

This is a discussion on Royal New Zealand Air Force within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Hank Schouten in the Wellington Newspaper the Dominion Post is reporting that the NZDF are looking for $1b+ of new ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 8 votes, 4.00 average.
Old October 11th, 2007   #301
Super Moderator
Major
MrConservative's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Behind a Desk
Posts: 1,014
Threads:
And now for some (possible) good news!

Hank Schouten in the Wellington Newspaper the Dominion Post is reporting that the NZDF are looking for $1b+ of new hardware on a military wishlist. The Airbus A400M, one of the planes being considered to replace the C130s. The RNZAF wants to buy a new fleet of transport aircraft to replace its old C-130 Hercules in about 10 years time. Defence sources suggest new aircraft could cost between $500 million and $1 billion. The NZDF has unveiled a shopping list for more ships, planes, a new fleet of armoured trucks and new weapons over the next decade. It is reported that the proposals could add $1 billion to the extra $1.3 billion committed to new military hardware under the 2002-2012 long-term defence plan. Most of that has or is being spent on new ships, helicopters, aircraft upgrades and army equipment ordered or due to come into service in the next five years. A sophisticated $83 million intelligence, reconnaissance and communications system is also on the NZDF plans.

"But tentative plans for more expensive acquisitions - beyond what has already been approved - were outlined at a Defence Industry forum in Wellington. But Defence Minister Phil Goff says the Government is yet to commit to the plan."

The Navy is looking to replace its tanker, with the Endeavour and the Manawanui dive support ship by about 2016 and $434 million upgrade of the Anzacs. The Army has begun planning to replace its trucks at an estimated $500 million.These will have armoured cabs. The Army is looking into a number of other projects including the purchase of grenade machine guns to give the infantry more firepower, replace its light machine guns, upgrade its standard-issue Steyr infantry rifles, purchase combat shotguns as well as planning to equip its infantry with UAV's.

With the Macchi's prospects for a return to service improving of late things might get a whole lot better.
MrConservative is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2007   #302
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 826
Threads:
And now for some (possible) good news!

Very interesting! Here's the link to the article http://www.stuff.co.nz/4234496a19715.html. The article mentions tenative plans were outlined at a Defence Industry forum, here's the link to Def Min Goff's speech at the forum http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocum...cumentID=30928 (Goff mentions signing contract on T/LUH's within a few months but nothing on new training and short-medium range patrol aircraft etc). Might as well throw in Ron Mark's article calling for the govt to increase pay rates in the NZDF http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/stor...ectid=10469239.

Perhaps all this should be somewhere else but a quick comment on the Frigates, noticed Self Defence upgrade is being pushed back from, originally late 2000's (2002 speech by DM Burton to RSA), to around 2010 (LTDP 2006) and now 2012. Also unsure what the DomPost really means by "The proposals could add $1 billion to the extra $1.3 billion committed to new military hardware under the 2002-2012 long-term defence plan". We all know the LTDP 2002-2012 was costing more than the $3b committed by the govt so now unsure whether govt has already committed another $1.3b, but that fact has not been acknowledged anywhere esp if you check the figures in Goff's speech, thus probably more of a "paper" figure i.e. funding yet to be found etc.
recce.k1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2007   #303
Defense Professional / Analyst
Master Sergeant
barra's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 333
Threads:
Quote:
Yesterday the NZ government announced an $8.7 Billion dollar surplus (currently $34 Billion over the last 3 years). So maybe the "loss" of a $155mil contract is inconsquential to them I suppose. We didn't enter into the F-16 deal because we were told we couldnt afford them. We did get a very good National ballet, orchestra and opera company out of the money saved.
LOL I love your sarcasm, sign of a true democracy being able to take the p@ss out of your leaders without being shot. Love it.

With surpluses that size the NZ govt has the ability to do alot more for the NZDF. Just goes to show that it's not a matter of being unable to afford it but being unwilling to do so.

I noticed Helen & hubby were on hand to watch the All Blacks debacle in France, seems she is not above treating herself.

Hooroo
barra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2007   #304
Banned Member
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 763
Threads:
Smile claim

IMO it won't be long before NZ stakes out a claim to her continental shelf. It's an area several times larger than North & South islands combined, and therefore, to defend it they'll need more than P-3c & ships.
Quote:
New Zealand's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
In 1978 the United Nations Conference on the Law Of the Sea (UNCLOS) extended New Zealand's territorial waters extensively (but NZ didn't ratify it until 1996). Because our outlying islands are located at favourable positions, the 200 nautical mile (370 km) circles drawn around them and the mainland's coast, neatly joined up, creating a contiguous sea area of 4.83 million square km, 15 times larger than the land. With a stroke of the pen, NZ became the fourth largest maritime country in the world. Only, France & French Polynesia, USA and Indonesia have larger EEZs.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/special.htm

Last edited by Firehorse; October 11th, 2007 at 06:34 PM.
Firehorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2007   #305
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 826
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by barra View Post
I noticed Helen & hubby were on hand to watch the All Blacks debacle in France, seems she is not above treating herself.
And we lost the match. She went to Valencia for the America's Cup finals ... and we lost the series... At least the RNZAF 757 clocked up a few more hours flying time and crew gained some more experience operating in unfamiliar airspace
recce.k1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2007   #306
Super Moderator
Major
MrConservative's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Behind a Desk
Posts: 1,014
Threads:
"LOL I love your sarcasm, sign of a true democracy being able to take the p@ss out of your leaders without being shot. Love it."

Thanks Bara. If your interested in our true democracy maybe you could also have a look at the Governments intentions for the proposed Electoral Reform Act. You will see that I'm getting in my sarcasm now as of January 1st 2008 it would be somewhat harder to lobby for increased defence spending.

Recce. I didn't know that the PM took Broomstick One all the way to Europe. Pretty impressive carbon footprint for a couple of Photo Op's there I'd say. No doubt Australia will be pleased if the PM pays a visit to the League Test tonight.

The RNZAF with four to six A400's would be pretty useful. The T/LUH timeframe is interesting as is the rumour that I think Stuart heard about per the retaining six Huey's even after the NH-90 comes in.
MrConservative is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2007   #307
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 76
Threads:
RE the T/LUH -
I've heard rumblings that all training on the NH-90 could be outsourced and conducted in Germany long-term (i.e. not just for initial/conversion training). Keeping this in mind, this could reduce the numbers of T/LUH which are required by the RNZAF. The number crunching and behind-the-scenes discussion regarding this may be a reason its taking so long to announce a winner.

There is even a possibility a RNZAF airframe may stay put in Germany to assist this training.

Has there been any discussion on any joint training scheme with Australia, or are the avionics just too different ?
htbrst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2007   #308
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 826
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by htbrst View Post
RE the T/LUH -
I've heard rumblings that all training on the NH-90 could be outsourced and conducted in Germany long-term (i.e. not just for initial/conversion training). Keeping this in mind, this could reduce the numbers of T/LUH which are required by the RNZAF. The number crunching and behind-the-scenes discussion regarding this may be a reason its taking so long to announce a winner.

There is even a possibility a RNZAF airframe may stay put in Germany to assist this training.

Has there been any discussion on any joint training scheme with Australia, or are the avionics just too different ?
Hmm, I think we need to think about the implications of this a little bit more both for and against etc (with absolutely no disrespect intended towards our professional and allied German military professionals etc).

Firstly what would be the cost to train on the other side of the world (versus training with our Australian neighbours? It's quicker and easier to fly personnel back and forth or should anyone need to be replaced in a hurry etc).

No doubt NZ Govt will take the cheapest approach, could that mean less than optimal time spent on training? Training on basics and proficiency but not advanced skillsets etc?

Secondly, it would seem more sense with me to train more with the Australians in terms of interoperability and building upon joint operational skillsets etc.

Frankly I'd like to know more about the politics of why NZ didn't sign up to the Australian MRH90 order (but that's probably another topic altogether).

It all seems to me to be a harkback to the early days of training overseas (eg WW2 in Canada etc) on the one hand, but on another hand it seems perhaps this is the face of the modern global world we live in now, "corporatised" training systems etc. If so will Germany be the hub for all European NH90 training? If so will Australia sign up too (and thus this is why this is under consideration for NZ)?

With so few airframes having one permanently overseas is questionable. Why do we need to provide our own training airframe anyway? Doing it on the cheap perhaps? NZ having unique (ANZUS compatible) avionics? Or are we getting European avionics?

Thirdly, cynically, is this simply the PM currying favours with her European politcal friends to - gain favourable back hand deals for any UN type leadership push? - or payback for greater EU presence in the Pacific (although I do welcome that!)? - or due to NZ signing on to being a Nato affiliate etc?

Perhaps it's because the Govt can see some logic in joining in with NATO lead peace missions and NH90's would make a good contribution (and thus learn Nato operating procedures)? Sounds good in theory but the Govt better realise it will need to invest in alot more than simply helos, it will possibly need alot more support and logistics, continually updating avionics, adding more firepower to ensure the NH90's could provide backup for others on missions, greater HQ staffing presence in EU, maybe contributions on airfeild defensive systems, recon helos to accompany NH90 missions etc (don't get me wrong I'm all for better Nato interoperability, it's just that all NZ Govts haven't always provided the NZDF with what is really required to ensure we "punch above our weight" to do the job properly in terms of support and logistics etc).

Just wondering what this is all really about? Hopefully we won't get the Australian Govt offside with us due to a shift in strategic focus back to Europe (and away from Aust and further away from the US). Ironically for a PM so intent on cutting ties with the mother country and being "independant", we're seemingly heading back in that direction (although eastwards onto the continent)!

Last edited by recce.k1; October 12th, 2007 at 04:32 AM. Reason: Typos (eg ironically, not iconically)
recce.k1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2007   #309
Defense Professional / Analyst
Master Sergeant
barra's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 333
Threads:
All Australian MRH-90 pilot training will be conducted at Oakey in Queensland, for Army and Navy. It does seem strange that NZ has decided to train her aircrew in Germany, I am not sure if the cockpit layout of an MRH-90 is all that different to what NZ has ordered. Anyway if I had the choice between 6 months in Oakey or 6 months in Germany I know which one I would pick. I bet none of the kiwi aircrew are complaining.

Seriously though, 9 airframes on order with one for spares and maybe one left in Germany, deploy a couple (say 4) OS and there will be 3 left for training / supporting Army in NZ. Murphys law says not all of them will be available all the time so things are looking slim.

I hope Helen does go to the league test tonight and put the kiss of death on the kiwi league boys. At least the Aussie cricketers have given us something to smile about.

Hooroo
barra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13th, 2007   #310
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 15
Threads:
I recently read that the government may allow the air force to reintroduce the MB339s once the King Airs lease had expired(NZ Hearld).
How can jet trainers be considered a replacement for a light multi engine trainer / comms aircraft and weren't the air force looking at a larger multi engined aircraft which could be used for additional roles?
Has the Bell 47 replacement been chosen yet?

Highwayman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13th, 2007   #311
Super Moderator
Major
MrConservative's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Behind a Desk
Posts: 1,014
Threads:
[QUOTE=Highwayman;118550]I recently read that the government may allow the air force to reintroduce the MB339s once the King Airs lease had expired(NZ Hearld).
How can jet trainers be considered a replacement for a light multi engine trainer / comms aircraft and weren't the air force looking at a larger multi engined aircraft which could be used for additional roles?
Has the Bell 47 replacement been chosen yet?

Most of these questions have been covered in detail. But a quick recap. The LUH contract is still some months away. The A-109 is a purported front-runner. Nothing official about the return to service of the Macchi's. They are a political headache for the Govt. Malaysia was interested then turned down the offer and bought new versions. Other operators if they were interested and they seem not to be are either in the wont buy used camp (UAE) or in the unlikely to get end user approval camp (Nigeria, Ghana, Eritrea). The 2005 Peterson deal looks dead. The RNZAF have been looking for an improved light multi-engine-multi role option. The Q300 has been mooted. Macchi's wont be able to fully cover those requirements. Nonetheless there are some other training and operational related gaps in the NZDF that the Macchi could be useful. If bought back dont except all 17 back in the air. Quite a few will be used for parts. Prior to 1998 all RNZAF pilots went from the CT4's on to the Blunty's or Macchi's then were posted to Squadrons. It was a system that produced some outstanding pilots and was only changed to save money.
MrConservative is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13th, 2007   #312
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
KH-12's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 295
Threads:
I wonder what the delay is in the T/LUH selection process, the exchange rate is good and the selection process can't be that hard when the tender was written for the A109, can only assume that it is in regard to number of airframes and possibly which model of A109. The larger cabin of the A109Grand would be useful in a special forces support role/SAR, maybe some serious concideration about using them on a more permanent basis on the OPV's as the operating costs of the SeaSprites are pretty high and the number of airframes is light.

It would be nice to see something like the C27J purchased when the KingAirs retire, a simulator could be purchased alongside to reduce the flying hours for training purposes(combined with the return of the 339's), with a stretched version now on the drawing boards this could be a very useful aircraft for the RNZAF in terms of tactical transport and coastal patrol.
KH-12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13th, 2007   #313
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 826
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KH-12 View Post
It would be nice to see something like the C27J purchased when the KingAirs retire, a simulator could be purchased alongside to reduce the flying hours for training purposes(combined with the return of the 339's), with a stretched version now on the drawing boards this could be a very useful aircraft for the RNZAF in terms of tactical transport and coastal patrol.
I don't think anything official has been stated but somehow the word was the Q300 would make a good King Air trainer replacement and VIP transport (and possibly for coastal patrol).

C27J or C-295 would make a great medium range troop and LOV transporter - unsure whether they would be suitable for multi-engine training and VIP though - but they have the range and perhaps with the rear ramp might be handy also in a coast watch capacity eg drop out a rescue dingy if necessary. However unsure whether the NZDF/MOD would be interested in such an aircraft until they decide upon the C130 replacement but IMO I'm suprised they aren't re-prioritising such aircraft types in light of the increased NZDF deployments into the Pacific and reduced C130 availability due to their upgrading (and the Andover fleet withdrawl). Such an aircraft would give the NZ Govt another option to contribute to UN assistance missions etc. Would be interesting to see how the ADF Caribou replacement pans out, perhaps NZ is watching this quiety on the side before deciding etc.

Back to this UH-1 retention possibility for SAR raised last week. Whilst I would agree that Safe Air has the expertise and skills to maintain such helos and that something like additional utility helos with the UH-1 capabilities should be welcomed (eg proven track record, cheap to operate, reasonable carrying capacity etc), I'm still slightly concerned about the age of the UH-1 (40 years +) and the fact that surely they would need a major overhaul etc (possibly in Safe Air's proposals anyway). I wonder whether if there is a case to retain UH-1's because of engineering and air crew familiarisation with them, whether NZ should be looking to pick up some second hand/younger twin engine UH-1N's etc from ex-US Military stocks? Or much better still, as the ADF will presumably start replacing their UH-60's soon-ish (within 2-3 years?) as their NH-90/MRH-90's are about to enter service very soon, it would make more sense to try an acquire several of these types as they are some 20+ years younger than our UH-1H's and are much better helos all round. I wouldn't have normally said this prior seeing that the NH-90 was supposed to replace UH-1H's in NZDF/ADF service (and UH-60s in ADF service) but if the possibility is that NZ may wish to retain some UH-1's then why not look at the UH-60 option too? For Safe Air it could mean increased opportunities to support SE Asian UH-60's and the RAN's S-70's etc. Just my 2cents for the day!

Last edited by recce.k1; October 13th, 2007 at 09:51 PM. Reason: Added Safe Air UH-1 support url
recce.k1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13th, 2007   #314
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
KH-12's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 295
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by recce.k1 View Post
I don't think anything official has been stated but somehow the word was the Q300 would make a good King Air trainer replacement and VIP transport (and possibly for coastal patrol).

C27J or C-295 would make a great medium range troop and LOV transporter - unsure whether they would be suitable for multi-engine training and VIP though - but they have the range and perhaps with the rear ramp might be handy also in a coast watch capacity eg drop out a rescue dingy if necessary. However unsure whether the NZDF/MOD would be interested in such an aircraft until they decide upon the C130 replacement but IMO I'm suprised they aren't re-prioritising such aircraft types in light of the increased NZDF deployments into the Pacific and reduced C130 availability due to their upgrading (and the Andover fleet withdrawl). Such an aircraft would give the NZ Govt another option to contribute to UN assistance missions etc. Would be interesting to see how the ADF Caribou replacement pans out, perhaps NZ is watching this quiety on the side before deciding etc.

Back to this UH-1 retention possibility for SAR raised last week. Whilst I would agree that Safe Air has the expertise and skills to maintain such helos and that something like additional utility helos with the UH-1 capabilities should be welcomed (eg proven track record, cheap to operate, reasonable carrying capacity etc), I'm still slightly concerned about the age of the UH-1 (40 years +) and the fact that surely they would need a major overhaul etc (possibly in Safe Air's proposals anyway). I wonder whether if there is a case to retain UH-1's because of engineering and air crew familiarisation with them, whether NZ should be looking to pick up some second hand/younger twin engine UH-1N's etc from ex-US Military stocks? Or much better still, as the ADF will presumably start replacing their UH-60's soon-ish (within 2-3 years?) as their NH-90/MRH-90's are about to enter service very soon, it would make more sense to try an acquire several of these types as they are some 20+ years younger than our UH-1H's and are much better helos all round. I wouldn't have normally said this prior seeing that the NH-90 was supposed to replace UH-1H's in NZDF/ADF service (and UH-60s in ADF service) but if the possibility is that NZ may wish to retain some UH-1's then why not look at the UH-60 option too? For Safe Air it could mean increased opportunities to support SE Asian UH-60's and the RAN's S-70's etc. Just my 2cents for the day!

You could use modules to reconfigure the C-27J, maybe one for VIP use with nice comfy seats etc. Would fit nicely into the Andover type role the range/payload is also not so bad and would achieve commonality with US and Australian forces (am pretty sure this will be the Caribou replacement eventually).

I don't see any reason why the A109 can't be used in the SAR role it certainly has good Hot/High performance and it will be a brand new aircraft (could always equip with skis for alpine operations), don't see the point in keeping the UH-1H and the maintainence issues of looking after 3 types, the A109 Grand cabin size should be more than adequate for the majority of SAR operations, best to retire the UH-1H gracefully and move-on. The Govt will need to get real and order a reasonable number of A109 as it will need to fulfill many of the roles currently carried out by the UH-1H, as the NH90 will be short on the ground and way to expensive to operate for many tasks(where its capacity is overkill). The A109 can also be used for VIP tasks in NZ as it is pretty quick and obviously more flexible than a fixed wing type.
KH-12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13th, 2007   #315
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by recce.k1 View Post
I don't think anything official has been stated but somehow the word was the Q300 would make a good King Air trainer replacement and VIP transport (and possibly for coastal patrol).

C27J or C-295 would make a great medium range troop and LOV transporter - unsure whether they would be suitable for multi-engine training and VIP though - but they have the range and perhaps with the rear ramp might be handy also in a coast watch capacity eg drop out a rescue dingy if necessary. However unsure whether the NZDF/MOD would be interested in such an aircraft until they decide upon the C130 replacement but IMO I'm suprised they aren't re-prioritising such aircraft types in light of the increased NZDF deployments into the Pacific and reduced C130 availability due to their upgrading (and the Andover fleet withdrawl). Such an aircraft would give the NZ Govt another option to contribute to UN assistance missions etc. Would be interesting to see how the ADF Caribou replacement pans out, perhaps NZ is watching this quiety on the side before deciding etc.

Back to this UH-1 retention possibility for SAR raised last week. Whilst I would agree that Safe Air has the expertise and skills to maintain such helos and that something like additional utility helos with the UH-1 capabilities should be welcomed (eg proven track record, cheap to operate, reasonable carrying capacity etc), I'm still slightly concerned about the age of the UH-1 (40 years +) and the fact that surely they would need a major overhaul etc (possibly in Safe Air's proposals anyway). I wonder whether if there is a case to retain UH-1's because of engineering and air crew familiarisation with them, whether NZ should be looking to pick up some second hand/younger twin engine UH-1N's etc from ex-US Military stocks? Or much better still, as the ADF will presumably start replacing their UH-60's soon-ish (within 2-3 years?) as their NH-90/MRH-90's are about to enter service very soon, it would make more sense to try an acquire several of these types as they are some 20+ years younger than our UH-1H's and are much better helos all round. I wouldn't have normally said this prior seeing that the NH-90 was supposed to replace UH-1H's in NZDF/ADF service (and UH-60s in ADF service) but if the possibility is that NZ may wish to retain some UH-1's then why not look at the UH-60 option too? For Safe Air it could mean increased opportunities to support SE Asian UH-60's and the RAN's S-70's etc. Just my 2cents for the day!
At the very least, NZ would have to upgrade her Huey's to the Huey II standard or similar to retain them in-service. The USA is ending ALL "Huey" support including parts manufacturing, which is the main reason most Huey operators are going to have to replace or upgrade their existing UH-1H model Huey's.

Cannabalised parts may enable your fleets to fly for a while, but sooner rather than later they will suffer a complete lack of parts and you'll have an entire capability grounded...
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:08 AM.