NZ hypothetical: Reconstitute strike role with surplus USN S3's
- Thread starter Supe
- Start date
- Status
How about this;Lucasnz said:
6 more P3s (with the wing upgrade), have all P3s upgraded to allow for launch of Harpoon and a cruse missile, such as Storm Shadow or JASSM. A force that can patrol the South Pacific, while having a stand off precision attack capability.
One major issue will be whether the manpower to support them could be found.
Together with this I would go for 10-12 Aussie standard Hawks, the role would be to act as aggressors for the navy, CAS training for the Army, and allow for a core of pilots that have fast jet experience. Some of whom can go onto the RAAF fast jets (I am sure the RAAF will take them) providing a experiences core to rebuild air strike should a future govt wish it.
Another option may be the South Korean Golden Eagle.
chrishorne
New Member
See thats exactly the problem, as a country we don't actually need defending - the general public know this and thus there is a big thing about having armed anything. A lot of people in New Zealand are quite happy for NZ to put its head in the sand and forget about the rest of the region.Jezza said:
One of the primary roles I should think however of our miltary is to support our bigger cousin across the tasman, not just in terms of helping with regional stability thru troops/helicopter but actually providing a niche in which new zealand can do things better than the aussies could. Perfect example is the A-4Ks that were based in Australia for low level opposing force training agaist the Aussie Ships. The A-4K was ideal for this role and is just an example where because nz/oz are different countries we can help each other to provide an overall force that is stronger together or seperate.
The F-16s that got cancelled were mostly flash, they would of been wonderfull for Air Force Reruiting Posters but the F-16As had almost exactly the same avonics and able to carry the same weapons as the A-4ks, ok in larger amounts but still not a great improvment in terms of the actual roles the A-4Ks actually did.
The Hawks are just too limited, The T-50 is a better bet in its LIFT form but if we ever to consider a fast jet in that class again, the Gripen would be a far better choice. Not that I really see it happening. I hate to say it but the NZ govt really needs to sort out the air force, the army and navy are actually starting to look good but the airforce is taking a hammering, The orions are a good platform but too big, too old and too resource hungry. NZ struggles to find the manpower to operate them! The Hercules we need, the Hercules 2020 program looks good and perhaps in the coming years we could actually get some more H models cheap and upgrade them.
As for an Armed Role, I'd actually like to see maybe 4 Orions Kept and even upgraded a bit in terms of capability. And then purchase something a bit smaller and cheaper for a more general purpose MPA role. Ideally something that can be armed with SLAM-ER - ideally Embraer P-99, maybe 4 and to make the suits in the beehive happy perhaps give themselfs a couple RJ-145 bizjets to fly around in.
I did have a thought thou about the close support role, I know that Kaman had a demo Sprite derived Gunship/Utilty Helicopter in the Vietnam Era - called H2 I think. A Superseaprite Gunship/Utilty Helicopter could be quite useful I would think to nz - especially if it could fire the mavericks like its naval equiv but Rockets and carry cannons as well as Troops (8?).
I'm not so sure on the idea of downgrading the P-3s. This was an idea considered around 2000, and it was decided that for NZ's environment (Southern Ocean to the Equator) there was only the P-3.chrishorne said:
As far as NZ’s role in the world, I think the Army and Navy are in reasonable order (I would still like to see a 3rd combatant tho), as for the Air Force, a more niche ability to contribute might be in order, that will also fit into NZ’s overall needs. As suggested above another squadron of P-3s, would provide an ability to contribute to maritime surveillance operations around the world (with a precision strike capability).
Maybe 3-5 Global Hawks instead/as well. Would provide a recon capability that would more than replace any strike aircraft that NZ may have contributed. The cost is an issue as well, 5 Global Hawks NZ$1.5-2 billion. But with an ability to patrol the Southern Ocean etc to protect ‘endangered fish’, catch drug smugglers and help science solve the Ozone issue, it is a military capability that could be sold to the public and would be more than welcomed by allies.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stuart Mackey
New Member
I wouldnt go that far, remember that there are still German mines off Lyttleton harbour from WW2 days, and mines sank ships off Auckland during that war. German raiders operated in our waters in WW1.chrishorne said:
Its worrth remebering that we were protected by the most powerful navies in the world and we still had enemy ships down here.
The general public of NZ are, for the most part, ignorant of defence and geo-stategic issues.
Niche roles are fine for smaller operations, but if you have a Timor type operation, or something similar which may go bad, you need to have balanced forces that are sustainable by NZ.
IIRC Gripen was rejected in favour of the F-16 for lack of range, I may be wrong and I have lost the Jet replacement report.
They are? by what standard? Army still has the same basic issue that it had pre and post Timor excepting modern gear ands a pay rise:
Too small
Few career prospects
No real offensive capability
Lacks sustainability over a reinforced company level.
Navy: No offensive capability
No depth in ASW capability
Cannot move an army battalion
Only has two 'combat' ships, which limits deployability and sustainability.
Evidence?
In coming years we will be replacing them as they will be beyoned upgradeability due to being thrashed to an ich of falling out of the sky. They will be fit only for the Museum at Wigram.
What the Orions should have, given our anti-nuke law, is anti submarine capability and Harpoons to scare fish poachers or obsolete raiders.
Why? the seasprites are for dropping torpedos on subs and utility work. If anything gets guns or rockets it will be the NH-90 or the new training helicopters. Its worth noting that helicopter based close support was rejected when the F-16's were a going concern.
New Zealands defence forces have lost a couple of capabilities but overall all that has happned is that the decline has been stopped, nothing more. Our actual capacity to do anything warlike has not improved and in two areas, Air strike and ASW, has vanished alltogether.
Which brings us back to the stupid policy against nuclear propelled ships, expecially submarines. How can you expect to develop the ASW skills to fight quiet and fast nuclear submarines if you refuse to operate and train with them in your waters or even in other nations waters.
The only country being hurt by this stupid policy is New Zealand itself.
Its like a dog chasing its own tail.
The only country being hurt by this stupid policy is New Zealand itself.
Its like a dog chasing its own tail.
Could not agree more on this. You can't always rely on your freinds to bale you out because they could be having the same headache when something goes bad. This is especially true when consider that the number of airframes available via allies has reduced, while the operational tempo has increased.Stuart Mackey said:
Are you able to provide details of the other options considered, along with min numbers recommended?
and results in increased wear and tear on the hull and machinery, reducing the operational life of these vessels. The savings acheived by not acquiring a 3rd or 4th frigate are reduced by the need to replace these ships at year 20-25. The MRV will only be able to perform a limited number of Canterbury's roles (Training, Helicopter Qualification & Survellience) because it lacks the sensors or weapon systems. I do not think the MRV will reduce the wear and tear on the ANZAC's, given that they supporting overseas operations for 6 or so months of the year.
The Seasprites are also a very capable Anti Surface Warfare unit using the Maverick missile, which can also be used in close support to an extent. The problem is that the range of the Marverick means that they must close to within the range of systems like Seasparrow. While I would support the arming of the any new training helicopter, given the demise of the aircombat force, operations like the last Gulf war showed that helicopters are more vunerable to manpad systems and weapons fire, simply due to the fact that they operate closer to the ground.
The ASW has been reduced to the bare min - the orions still have the capability, but only in the orginal fitout, while the ANZAC's are limited to hull mounted sonar only, having had the ability to operate towed array removed. The navy's only towed array system, was in storage the last I heard.
Stuart Mackey
New Member
That act only prohibits nuclear propelled and armed vessels in New Zealand waters {excepting innocent passage} and makes no mention on who this nations armed forces may train with or where. That NZ defence forces do not train with the American defence forces is due to politcal reasons, not legislative reasons.Sea Toby said:
Stuart Mackey
New Member
Unfortunatly, no, having lost the report. You can probably get a copy via Bennets {?} book store or via the Library.Lucasnz said:
My mistake. However, when what you have is so obselecent that it makes training all but impossible, or you dont have the proper equipment, then one may as well have lost the capability.
Fortunately, another New Zealand government may decide to acquire the ASW upgrade to the Orions at a later time. Likewise, an ASW sensor upgrade for the Anzac frigates.
I like the new Project Protector fleet. I would also like to add another two frigates, of a new and more modern design, preferrably to enter the fleet when the Anzacs reach their mid-life point.
I read recently one of the National ministers criticized the MPV as being unable to discharge troops and equipment with its boats in anything larger than Sea State Zero. Wrong! The MPV is designed to discharge troops and equipment with its boats for Sea State 3. The new Australian LHD, which will have a well dock, can only do marginally better, its designed to discharge troops and equipment with its boats for Sea State 4.
However, they are a bit undergunned for my taste.
It won't be long before the US Navy has only nuclear powered aircraft carriers. Already, the only submarines in America's fleet are nuclear powered. Obviously, New Zealand does not wish to be saved by any presumed invasion by the American navy. Nor does New Zealand wish to train with the American Navy either, whether in its own waters or in American waters.
Stupid! I can't think of another word for this wacko policy.
Yet, in its hospitals, nuclear wastes are being generated. I wonder where New Zealand is burying this low level radiation waste?
I like the new Project Protector fleet. I would also like to add another two frigates, of a new and more modern design, preferrably to enter the fleet when the Anzacs reach their mid-life point.
I read recently one of the National ministers criticized the MPV as being unable to discharge troops and equipment with its boats in anything larger than Sea State Zero. Wrong! The MPV is designed to discharge troops and equipment with its boats for Sea State 3. The new Australian LHD, which will have a well dock, can only do marginally better, its designed to discharge troops and equipment with its boats for Sea State 4.
However, they are a bit undergunned for my taste.
It won't be long before the US Navy has only nuclear powered aircraft carriers. Already, the only submarines in America's fleet are nuclear powered. Obviously, New Zealand does not wish to be saved by any presumed invasion by the American navy. Nor does New Zealand wish to train with the American Navy either, whether in its own waters or in American waters.
Stupid! I can't think of another word for this wacko policy.
Yet, in its hospitals, nuclear wastes are being generated. I wonder where New Zealand is burying this low level radiation waste?
Last edited:
abramsteve
New Member
Trying not to sound like an arrogant Aussie (wich I am!! 
) but New Zealand should forget about any type of strike capability and not worry about air defence and instead focus on Maratime Survailence and Airlift.
People talk about a 'Timor' style operation, but the fact is New Zealand is not going to go something like that on its own. Maybe, and dont hate me for this, they should make their airforce more usefull to the RAAF that way it would be better suited to contributing to the security of the region, and thats gotta be helpfull New Zealand in the long run.
Lets face it, nobody finds the current condition of the New Zealand defence forces funny, not even me. Not knowing much about New Zealand politics would someone tell me if there is a possibility of them aquiring some Global Hawks (as some else has mentioned)? What about a few more Hurcs?
My main point is that because of the problems they have getting anything for their forces, why not concentrate on equiptment that would be usefull, not just nice to have/should haves.
) but New Zealand should forget about any type of strike capability and not worry about air defence and instead focus on Maratime Survailence and Airlift.People talk about a 'Timor' style operation, but the fact is New Zealand is not going to go something like that on its own. Maybe, and dont hate me for this, they should make their airforce more usefull to the RAAF that way it would be better suited to contributing to the security of the region, and thats gotta be helpfull New Zealand in the long run.
Lets face it, nobody finds the current condition of the New Zealand defence forces funny, not even me. Not knowing much about New Zealand politics would someone tell me if there is a possibility of them aquiring some Global Hawks (as some else has mentioned)? What about a few more Hurcs?
My main point is that because of the problems they have getting anything for their forces, why not concentrate on equiptment that would be usefull, not just nice to have/should haves.
As a Kiwi, I can't disagree to much. Extra airlift and surveillance, is in the national interest. And a stand off strike capability can be added to P3s, perfectly adequate in the South Pacific environment, where there are no fighters. As far as Global Hawk goes, I suggested it above, but it is not likely to happen in the short term. It might happen post 2010, and that would be tying in with the ADF and it would have to be sold as in a non threatening sort of way so political gain could be made from it.abramsteve said:Trying not to sound like an arrogant Aussie (wich I am!!
People talk about a 'Timor' style operation, but the fact is New Zealand is not going to go something like that on its own. Maybe, and dont hate me for this, they should make their airforce more usefull to the RAAF that way it would be better suited to contributing to the security of the region, and thats gotta be helpfull New Zealand in the long run.
Lets face it, nobody finds the current condition of the New Zealand defence forces funny, not even me. Not knowing much about New Zealand politics would someone tell me if there is a possibility of them aquiring some Global Hawks (as some else has mentioned)? What about a few more Hurcs?
My main point is that because of the problems they have getting anything for their forces, why not concentrate on equiptment that would be usefull, not just nice to have/should haves.
New Zealand is a maritime nation, the bulk of its trade is by sea. One enemy submarine operating in New Zealand waters could bring the nation down to its knees, there is no need to invade. That's why I am worried about New Zealand losing its anti-submarine capabilities, the ASW Sirius upgrade for the Orions was cancelled by this Labour government. While the Orions are getting new sensors and missile decoys, they aren't getting any ASW upgrade whatsoever. And so far the Anzac frigates have not received a towed anti-submarine array, not to mention that the SeaSprite helicopters are geared for surface strike too. Of course, another government should revisit their ASW capabilites in a new white paper.
I wouldn,t hold your breath waiting for any real offensive capability to be given to our military,if you look at the last 16 years our infantry battalions were deployed to East Timor but they didn,t take part in desert Storm in 1991 or Afganistan or Iraq in 2003.
Our infantry battalions will only be deployed in peace keeping operations because it is easy to sell it to the public and the Navy will be used for fisheries patrol, rescues and disaster relief it is obvious the government is not buying the ships it is buying for offensive action.
The air force will also be used for fisheries patrol and assisting in rescues and providing disaster relief in the pacific.
This is what it is going to be for the near future and you also have to take into account the mood of the New Zealand public,a lot of people in New Zealand look over the horizen and don,t see a threat to the country so it does get difficult for the government to justify spending the big bucks on offensive capability,a comman comment that was used for getting rid of the strike wing was we have never used it so don,t need it.
Our infantry battalions will only be deployed in peace keeping operations because it is easy to sell it to the public and the Navy will be used for fisheries patrol, rescues and disaster relief it is obvious the government is not buying the ships it is buying for offensive action.
The air force will also be used for fisheries patrol and assisting in rescues and providing disaster relief in the pacific.
This is what it is going to be for the near future and you also have to take into account the mood of the New Zealand public,a lot of people in New Zealand look over the horizen and don,t see a threat to the country so it does get difficult for the government to justify spending the big bucks on offensive capability,a comman comment that was used for getting rid of the strike wing was we have never used it so don,t need it.
abramsteve
New Member
From what Ive read it seems that NZDF only gets whats politicaly fashonable, therefore they are unlikely to get anything thats neccesary but deadly (such as more effective ASW capability). The thing which allows them to get away with this is the fact that they are unlikely to make an enemy, and if they did, someone who is sinking ships in the region is not gonna be any friend of Australia.
I think it would be safe to say, and dont take this too literally, that you dont mess with New Zealand and not mess with Australia, or at least thats how its going to end up.
New Zealand would be better suited to being equipted to act as the regions 'deputy sheriff' (sorry to use an over used saying) This would be easier to sell, and better for the nations interests in the long run.
I think it would be safe to say, and dont take this too literally, that you dont mess with New Zealand and not mess with Australia, or at least thats how its going to end up.
New Zealand would be better suited to being equipted to act as the regions 'deputy sheriff' (sorry to use an over used saying) This would be easier to sell, and better for the nations interests in the long run.
There are things that the kiwis do a whole lot better than Oz, and its unfortunate that they're not in a position to maximise the capabilities - esp within the context of being able to provide meaningful assets in micronesia.
Damn shame about the scooters, they were the only jet that could realistically emulate a cruise missile - plus the fact that the RNZAF had aggressive and extremely competent pilots.
Once you lose the capability its so much more difficult, if not impossible within a reasonable peacetime framework to recover it.
Damn shame about the scooters, they were the only jet that could realistically emulate a cruise missile - plus the fact that the RNZAF had aggressive and extremely competent pilots.
Once you lose the capability its so much more difficult, if not impossible within a reasonable peacetime framework to recover it.
I have to agree with Sea Toby on the need for ASW, just to meet a basic threat like a single submarine and its impact on New Zealand. If NZ can't even defend themselves against this sort of threat, in the littorial, then we might as well be part of Australia - because they'll be ones we ask for help first.
I think the whole defence debate that has occurred in New Zealand since the ANZAC frigate program started has ignored one fact: The Armed Forces are for the defence of NZ first and then for other politically expedient operations. Structuring the NZDF for peace keeping or niche operations, as the current short sighted defence policy does, ignores a key constitutional responsbility. For that reason I am increasingly leaning towards having the min size and general capability's of the NZDF entrenched in the Constitution Act 1986.
The current defence policy is so short sighted, that it highlights the ignorance of not just the National politicians on defence issues, as Stuart has highlighted, but also Labour.
I think the whole defence debate that has occurred in New Zealand since the ANZAC frigate program started has ignored one fact: The Armed Forces are for the defence of NZ first and then for other politically expedient operations. Structuring the NZDF for peace keeping or niche operations, as the current short sighted defence policy does, ignores a key constitutional responsbility. For that reason I am increasingly leaning towards having the min size and general capability's of the NZDF entrenched in the Constitution Act 1986.
The current defence policy is so short sighted, that it highlights the ignorance of not just the National politicians on defence issues, as Stuart has highlighted, but also Labour.
well, its is enshrined in both of our countries constitutions that we allow each other to merge into the others Federation as a discrete state if carried by a referendum.Lucasnz said:
Can't see it happening though.
abramsteve
New Member
Im a big beleiver in the joint security and mutal support shared by Australia and New Zealand. It seems only natural to me that Australia would help New Zealand if she were threatend by hostile submarines. But I agree with what you say, it seems stupid that New Zealand couldnt affectivley help Australia to help them.Lucasnz said:
Whilst I think that Australia would ask the US for assistance if we were stuck in a prolonged war, I have every confidence that we could at least defend ourselves to start with.
Partially I agree with you that structuring the armed forces towards peace keeping and humanitarian roles as being short sighted, but at least its usefull. If the governments current stance on Defence is a reflection of the publics mood, then maybe its the public who need a wake up call?
Damm shame about the state thing though, clearly a merger would be in NZs best interest, but then who would we have to payout? Only Victorians?
Ahhh politicians and defence. I remember a story told to me by a lecturer when I was at University that highlights the problem.
It was Kirk’s Govt in ’72 that bought the Skyhawks. Now the A4 had been selected and the RNZAF had put together a position paper that talked about, how many A4s would be needed to maintain an effective deployable strike capability, e.g. training, spares etc…
Now this came to the Cabinet meeting and every one was given a copy of this large document. Norman Kirk looked at the title page, looked up to the Minister of Defence and asked, “How many do they want?”
The MoD said “24”
Kirk looked thoughtful and said “Lets give them 14, everyone agree?”
Everyone did and that’s how the RNZAF got 14 A4s.
5 Mins do decide that. Of course we ended up ex RAN A4s that finally gave the RNZAF a deployable Squadron around ’85-’86.
Lesson, Defence has nothing to do with Votes, therefore Politicians don’t care.
It was Kirk’s Govt in ’72 that bought the Skyhawks. Now the A4 had been selected and the RNZAF had put together a position paper that talked about, how many A4s would be needed to maintain an effective deployable strike capability, e.g. training, spares etc…
Now this came to the Cabinet meeting and every one was given a copy of this large document. Norman Kirk looked at the title page, looked up to the Minister of Defence and asked, “How many do they want?”
The MoD said “24”
Kirk looked thoughtful and said “Lets give them 14, everyone agree?”
Everyone did and that’s how the RNZAF got 14 A4s.
5 Mins do decide that. Of course we ended up ex RAN A4s that finally gave the RNZAF a deployable Squadron around ’85-’86.
Lesson, Defence has nothing to do with Votes, therefore Politicians don’t care.
- Status