NZDF General discussion thread

[RegR]

I can think of quite a few reasons for the Shonan Maru to ram the Ady Gil but that is also moot. In answer to others, Reg R the 5 Sqn P3Ks & P3K2s plus the 6 Sqn Seasprites and it's replacement are able to institute a maritime strike. But I am unsure whether or not the Orions are still able to launch missiles. IIRC they were set up to in the late 1970's early 1980, but uncle Helen did a lot of capability damage. The ACF issue is very short sighted and there are alternatives available that doesn't necessarilly involve very expensive fast jets.

I would also discount the RQ-4 Block 30's because of their purchase, operational and sustainment costs. The reason the US is getting rid of them is because they have found that they can obtain higher quality imagery, far more economically by using the venerable U2 so that is what they are doing; going back to the U2 because they can mount far better quality sensors on it. In a similiar vein I would discount using armed UAVs because at present their is to much room for errors and the risk of taking down non combatants or friendlies is too high.You just have to look at the US and Israeli use of them, albeit we have a different philosophy, but the risk is still to high at the present point in time.

We do need a manned ACF and like I said it doesn't necessarilly involve very expensive fast jets.

Again Im not argueing that we need a strike capability, I'm all for it, just pointing out we are not nesscessarily getting one in UAV form as it is just not in our current govts stance(there are numerous things we need but are not getting). Whether or not it is expensive is moot either way at the end of the day it is still an added expense(on top of purely surveillance) that they would rather not pay for.

The orions currently are not Harpoon/missile launch capable however should be something at least fitted for in their replacements to compliment the helo mavericks, and this will provide our maritime strike.

As ngati has pointed out it is better to have the decisions made "on the ground" so to speak when it comes to launching missiles instead of in a room in Whenuapai as it would be a life and death decision inevitably and NZ cannot/will not afford "mistakes".

 

[recce.k1]

Mind you any modern combat aircraft, maritime patrol aircraft, helo or armed UAV for that matter will likely employ stand-off weaponry, should these assets wish to survive.

So I don't think we need to discount any potential option to arm a future UAV (better to ensure they are fitted for but not with than purchase a model that can't be armed at all, assuming there's a requirement that can be advanced etc).

And Defence needs to ensure the P-3 stand-off weapon upgrade project is signed-off (rather than have it put off time and time again), to protect the JATF from 2015. P-3's with Mk82's won't cut it.

 

[Bluey 006]

A few reasons why a high performance UAV may suit NZ

-UAV removes humans from immediate threat (vital point for NZ)

- reduced manning requirements (the Predator and Shadow each require a crew of two to be fully operational [Vs. 12 for the P-3C]- another vital point for NZ)

- does not contain, or need, a qualified pilot on board (reducing training costs & aiding recruitment).

- can stay in the air for up to 30 hours, performing a precise, repetitive raster scan of a region, day-after-day, night-after-night in complete darkness, or, in fog, under computer control ( ideal for monitoring disaster situations in the Asia- pacific region, and thus providing NZ government with constraint up to date timely information, something not readily available to the NZ government) consequently many sorties of manned aircraft may be needed to accomplish the outcome of a single UAV mission( further reducing costs).

- A niche capability to contribute to operations with coalition partners i.e. Australia

- As they would be operated by a command centre in NZ, that means the higher levels of planning and decision-making within government and military, could if necessary, have their own eyes on the situation (via data-links), and make decisions to act, rather than relying on pilots and other military personnel on board manned aircraft, in potentially high-risk and pressure situations (I acknowledge there are arguments for and against this). They also produce high quality video for prosecutions if used for monitoring of illegal activities in NZ waters, such as illegal fishing.

- There is a credible skill-base for production (of some elements) and maintenance of UAV in New Zealand.

-UAVs like the MQ-9 have approximately half the environmental footprint of large multi-engine aircraft like the P-3C Orion. They also use less fuel per kilometre flown (vital point for NZ).

-A UAVs offers capabilities to a variety of government departments (Defence, Fisheries, Customs, Conservation/ geological survey, Civil defence and emergency management, Meteorology, New Zealand Fire Service (NZFS) etc) and potentially the GSCB if it contains a SIGINT package ( hence the Block 30 suggestion). Do to the higher operational tempo and persistence they can offer they would potentially be available to the whole of government mission, more often than traditional manned surveillance aircraft.

- “plug-and-play “payloads to maximize combat capability, flexibility and efficiency

- Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) is a defined priority of the 2010 white paper.
----------------

On a completely unrelated topic –NZ bid for a seat on the UN Security Council in 2015-16, thoughts?

 

[ngatimozart]

Mind you any modern combat aircraft, maritime patrol aircraft, helo or armed UAV for that matter will likely employ stand-off weaponry, should these assets wish to survive.

So I don't think we need to discount any potential option to arm a future UAV (better to ensure they are fitted for but not with than purchase a model that can't be armed at all, assuming there's a requirement that can be advanced etc).

And Defence needs to ensure the P-3 stand-off weapon upgrade project is signed-off (rather than have it put off time and time again), to protect the JATF from 2015. P-3's with Mk82's won't cut it.

They might try the Mk 82 and mount some .50 cal point foward to turn the P3 into an attack aircraft. The bean counters & polies would love that because they wouldn't have to cough up for another platform. Mongrels.

 

[chis73]

2011 Major Projects report out

The 2011 Majors Projects Report was publicly released on Thursday, in 2 parts (here & here).

Not much has changed since the 2010 report (6 of the 8 projects are suspiciously the same). What is noticeable is what's missing - no mention of Seasprite, Resolution & Endeavour replacements, no Frigate weapons upgrade, no Unimog fleet replacement (infact very little of anything Army at all).

Surely, the CIWS upgrade can't really be considered a major project in that company?

The Project Protector remediation is the only new project. It's worse than first thought. Canterbury seems to be an unmitigated disaster. Even the 25mm mountings on the MRV & OPVs may have to be replaced as they're obsolete already.

Lots of other stuff worthy of discussion, but that will do from me for now.

Chis73

 

[MrConservative]

The 2011 Majors Projects Report was publicly released on Thursday, in 2 parts (here & here).

Not much has changed since the 2010 report (6 of the 8 projects are suspiciously the same). What is noticeable is what's missing - no mention of Seasprite, Resolution & Endeavour replacements, no Frigate weapons upgrade, no Unimog fleet replacement (infact very little of anything Army at all).

Surely, the CIWS upgrade can't really be considered a major project in that company?

The Project Protector remediation is the only new project. It's worse than first thought. Canterbury seems to be an unmitigated disaster. Even the 25mm mountings on the MRV & OPVs may have to be replaced as they're obsolete already.

Lots of other stuff worthy of discussion, but that will do from me for now.

Chis73

The MPR is essentially a review of the current not future acquisitions thus no mention of planned / future projects. They are still scoping the LWSV and the Endeavour replacement so it will be some time before that is announced. As for the Sprite replacement I am putting my money on a job lot of even more Sprites at firesale prices that will last us through until its about time to replace the Anzacs.

 

[recce.k1]

NH-90 progress & NHI Industry's response

The Auditor General appears to have taken a positive view of the review overall:

My staff independently reviewed the project data sheets included in this 2011 Major Projects Report. The data sheets present detailed information about how each of the projects met cost, schedule and capability needs. The results of this review are reported on pages 17-18

My staff reviewed Part 1 of the 2011 Major Projects Report, which provides Defence’s summary assessment of its own performance in managing and delivering the eight major capability projects. Overall, I consider that Defence has presented a realistic assessment of its performance in managing the projects.

There's some gems in the report, take the NH-90 introduction into service. The AG report highlights the following issues though, which are being worked through with NHI:

It will take at least two years longer than expected for Defence to achieve all of the contracted capabilities for the NH90 helicopter fleet. The NH90 is an advanced helicopter, fitted with complex technology. There has been high demand for this helicopter, which air forces abroad first bought in late 2006. To date, 16 countries have placed orders for more than 500 NH90s.

Defence ordered the NH90 in July 2006, when no air force was using the helicopter. Since then, some air forces have experienced problems in bringing the NH90 into service. Defence anticipates similar problems ensuring that the NH90s will do all that they have been bought for. The NH90 was to be capable of being quickly deployed in a C130 Hercules aircraft. Defence plans to delay the certification of this capability. Meanwhile, Defence is looking at other transport options (see page 104).

I note that Defence has identified further problems with the NH90. These are included in the data sheets as risks. Defence is taking steps to treat these risks (see pages 105-106). One issue that has been identified is that the NH90 is prone to damage from debris drawn into the engines. To mitigate this risk, NHIndustries is to supply screens that can be fitted to the engines. But once the screen is fitted, the helicopter will not be able to operate in snowy conditions. Defence is working with NHIndustries to ensure that the helicopter will be able to operate in various climatic conditions as intended.

Defence expects that, until the final configuration of the NH90 is achieved, availability will be reduced as the helicopters are taken out of use and updated to the latest standard. This will affect aircrew training. The contractor is liable for meeting the costs incurred, but the adjustments that need to be made to the helicopters will add complexities and overheads to New Zealand Defence Force operations.

Further on the risks, 3 of which are "Almost Certain" to cause delays:

Risk 1: "Delivery of Spares and Support Equipment:
There may be insufficient spares to support the fleet’s planned operational test and evaluation and initial operations.

Consequence: Operational Outputs.
The RNZAF may have to reduce the planned number of initial flying hours with consequent impacts on introduction into service progress.

Treatment:
Ongoing analysis of what spares will be delivered and when. The planned flying rate for initial operations has been planned at a conservative level. NHIndustries will be providing an increased level of support for the initial NZ flying operations.

Risk 3: Readiness of role equipment:
There is a chance that some role equipment including External and Internal Auxiliary Fuel Tanks, Chaff and Flare Dispenser, Cargo rolling Device, Ballistic Protection, Bottom Life Raft, Fast Roping and Rappelling Device, Pintle Machine –Gun Mount will not be ready prior to acceptance.

Consequences:
The delay in the provision of this role equipment will prolong the time taken for the NH90 to reach its directed level of capability.

Treatment:
The Project Team is working alongside NHIndustries to ensure the role equipment is ready as soon as possible. In some case alternate sources of supply are being considered.

Risk 4: Publications and data:
The publications and data initially provided with the NH90 may be insufficient to maintain the airworthiness of the fleet and conduct safe, effective and efficient operations.

Consequences:
Initial flying cannot be conducted and introduction into service milestones are not achieved.

Treatment:
The Project Team and the RNZAF are continually analysing and monitoring data and then working through this with NHIndustries to resolve issues.

That's the situation clarified then (although for the period mid-2010 to mid-2011) so on-going progress will be keenly watched to reach the in-service target in two years...

 

[recce.k1]

Rimpac

Air Force News 135 advises a P-3 Orion will join the NZDF contingent to RIMPAC this year (first time in over 25 years). Also attending - Frigate Te Kaha, Endeavour, Diving & MCM teams, 1 RNZIR rifle platoon, Tactical Air Control teams & supporting staff for the HQ.

Great news for the tri-services, also at a time where an excercise is just about to start in NZ with some US (& UK) combat elements present & on the back of the recent tactical air transport exercises involving USMC, USAF, RAAF & French forces (and some NZ Army/USMC training etc).

Things must be getting busy for you CD?

 

[Cadredave]

Air Force News 135 advises a P-3 Orion will join the NZDF contingent to RIMPAC this year (first time in over 25 years). Also attending - Frigate Te Kaha, Endeavour, Diving & MCM teams, 1 RNZIR rifle platoon, Tactical Air Control teams & supporting staff for the HQ.

Great news for the tri-services, also at a time where an excercise is just about to start in NZ with some US (& UK) combat elements present & on the back of the recent tactical air transport exercises (and land force training) involving USMC & USAF etc.

Things must be getting busy for you CD?

Too busy signs are looking good but still early days yet.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Just to Make it "Official"

This is exciting to see it in lights.

RIMPAC Order of Battle

This should be a great exercise can't wait to see the result.

 

[Vanguard]

This is exciting to see it in lights.

RIMPAC Order of Battle

This should be a great exercise can't wait to see the result.

Looks good, nice to see the Endeavour and Te Kaha getting a good work out yet again hopefully it will be a beneficial and safe (noting the unfortunate ending of the Norwegian exercises) event for all involved.

 

[t68]

Off topic,
Looking on that list for Australia, it list an E7A which I don’t know what that is, first hit was a building in Macquarie University, 2nd hit was a satellite over Europe and Africa, satellites obviously move wonder if this what E7A refers to only other defence sat is the Optus C1 but by the looks of it Jabiru 2 will take its place. Any other Ideas what E7A refers to?

SatBeams - Satellite Details - Eutelsat 7A (E7A, W3A, Eutelsat W3A)
SatBeams - Satellite Details - Intelsat 22 (IS-22)
SatBeams - Satellite Details - Optus C1 (Defence C1)

 

[Raven22]

Wedgetail AEW&C

 

[ngatimozart]

Off topic,
Looking on that list for Australia, it list an E7A which I don’t know what that is, first hit was a building in Macquarie University, 2nd hit was a satellite over Europe and Africa, satellites obviously move wonder if this what E7A refers to only other defence sat is the Optus C1 but by the looks of it Jabiru 2 will take its place. Any other Ideas what E7A refers to?
.satbeams.com/satellites?norad=28187]SatBeams - Satellite Details - Eutelsat 7A (E7A, W3A, Eutelsat W3A)[/url]
SatBeams - Satellite Details - Intelsat 22 (IS-22)
SatBeams - Satellite Details - Optus C1 (Defence C1)

Boeing E7A AEW & C aircaft based upon Boeing BBJ which itself is Boeing 737 based, IIRC a 737-700. In RAAF it is known as Wedgtail, Peace Eagle in Turkey and Peace Eye in South Korea.

 

[t68]

Thanks guys, didn’t think of that but makes sense now. If they mentioned Wegdetail or AEW&C would have clicked straight away.

 

[ngatimozart]

This is a really good article that doesn't seem to have made it into the mainstream media. The author is known somewhere else I lurk. On the NH90 helicopter debacle | Scoop News

 

[Swaggie]

This is a really good article that doesn't seem to have made it into the mainstream media. The author is known somewhere else I lurk.

I'm as depressed as anybody else by the continual neutering of the NZDF. But that article comes across as being very close to veiled hysteria. I understand that a lot of the pollies are not fond of the military, and no doubt that is a prime motivator for why the NZDF keeps getting shortchanged. But claiming that there was a calculated conspiracy to cripple the military by intentionally wasting its budget on useless hardware is quite frankly ridiculous. Quite aside from the fact that it would be patently insane (even by politician standards) to throw away the money without receiving something useful in return, I really doubt the decisions on what equipment to buy were personally made by Helen Clark. The author's impression seems to convey a vision of Helen Clark looming over the purchase orders, rubbing her hands together and cackling evilly while the defence chiefs are held at bay by her political cronies wielding sharp sticks.

The article's conclusion is also suspect. The author appears to believe it is reasonable to sacrifice the essential logistical utility of helicopters in favour of a far less useful strike fighter squadron. Any reasonable commentator should agree that while strike fighters are nice, helicopters are a far more valuable asset to overall military capability.

He may be knowledgeable about military aviation or defence in general, but he doesn't strike me as a particularly reliable narrator on this particular subject.

 

[ngatimozart]

I'm as depressed as anybody else by the continual neutering of the NZDF. But that article comes across as being very close to veiled hysteria. I understand that a lot of the pollies are not fond of the military, and no doubt that is a prime motivator for why the NZDF keeps getting shortchanged. But claiming that there was a calculated conspiracy to cripple the military by intentionally wasting its budget on useless hardware is quite frankly ridiculous. Quite aside from the fact that it would be patently insane (even by politician standards) to throw away the money without receiving something useful in return, I really doubt the decisions on what equipment to buy were personally made by Helen Clark. The author's impression seems to convey a vision of Helen Clark looming over the purchase orders, rubbing her hands together and cackling evilly while the defence chiefs are held at bay by her political cronies wielding sharp sticks.

The article's conclusion is also suspect. The author appears to believe it is reasonable to sacrifice the essential logistical utility of helicopters in favour of a far less useful strike fighter squadron. Any reasonable commentator should agree that while strike fighters are nice, helicopters are a far more valuable asset to overall military capability.

He may be knowledgeable about military aviation or defence in general, but he doesn't strike me as a particularly reliable narrator on this particular subject.

Without getting into the politics, Uncle Helen was / is a control freak and the decision to disband the ACF etc., was made on her watch. The argument about the economics was pure sophistry. The two personnel that leapfrogged the existing command structure were both helo pilots. Whilst helos are an asset to military capability strike aircraft are an essential necessity when one is forming an amphibious force that is expected to operate unilaterally as well as jointly with allies. In NZ major military equipment decisions are made by the Prime Minister, Treasury, with Ministry of defence and NZDF further down the list. Military equipment purchasing in NZ is very much a poltical exercise. Webb got it pretty right.

 

[ADMk2]

This is a really good article that doesn't seem to have made it into the mainstream media. The author is known somewhere else I lurk. On the NH90 helicopter debacle | Scoop News

Doesn't seem like a particularly great article to me. More of the same in fact of the type where a particular person has a subjective bias for one capability over another and throws away all aspects of rationality in the hope he can convince others to do the same...

Whilst I'd love to see a RNZAF Air Combat Force return some day, arguing it should come at the expense of a tactical transport helicopter capability for land and maritime operations, is nonsensical IMHO.

Let's forget the fact for a moment that the entire budget for the NH-90 wouldn't be sufficient for a new ACF fleet anyway, is anyone really going to argue that the other priority and capability gaps within NZDF should be forfeited as well, to allow the return of a moderate ACF (which iN reality is what the A4K fleet capability was, no offence intended)?

Maybe NZ could forgoe her Army? That way she could probably afford an ACF! Would that keep this guy happy? You could take Paul Dibb's "air sea gap" strategy to it's ultimate conclusion!

Of course deploying an F-16 force to Timor might have raised a few eyebrows, but I'm sure it would have been "appreciated"...

 

[KiwiRob]

Whilst helos are an asset to military capability strike aircraft are an essential necessity when one is forming an amphibious force that is expected to operate unilaterally as well as jointly with allies.

But our air combat force was land based and would have absolutely no use when forming an amphibious force. Unless I missed it we never had an aircraft carrier tied up in Devonport.