NZDF General discussion thread

[Markus40]

NZ will get the ASM shortly for the P3. This has been confirmed in the LTPD report put out last year. As to what type we have to wait. So the P3 WILL have the capabilities they need. In any case UAVs are simply not needed in my opinion at this stage as its obvious the systems overlap the capabilities with the P3. Again the assets we have are enough to cover the regions we have with the cover we can project. Our future capability with the OPVs and IPVs will give the coastal regions far more coverage as well.

It is highly unlikely the government will split the numbers of the P3s with Mariners for example when it is more efficient to have one type of system operating and in place. I think that if the government was to add 2-3 UAVs to the existing survellience structure then thats cool, but certainly not to 1-replace the existing structure and 2- expect them to handle the ASM if required. They simply do not do the same job as a P3. Lets put it this way, the P3s flexibility in its function would certainly outperform the UAV in many ways. The other thing is we dont need them for anything in our reion in any case. The current situation calls us to use the P3 for interoperability with our allies and use them if called upon to launch a ASM if needed. The UAV simply cannot handle these tasks and certainly wouldnt be used for interoperability with our allies.

If you are suggesting that the RNZAF has no real capability against surface targets my argument for maintaining and keeping the P3 becomes stronger especially in light of its up and coming delivery systems for the ASM. Cheers.

I disagree that they are a "white elephant" in ANY environment. For starters the higher end variants possess surveillance, persistence and loitering capabilities that dwarf ANY manned asset in this role.

A manned asset is only necessary (at present) to provide an immediate response option. I could be wrong, but I understood that the RNZAF P-3K's are NOT integrated or fitted with the AGM-65 Maverick missile and their only air to surface weapon is the Mk 46 Torpedo?

If this IS the case then RNZAF has no real capability against the majority of surface targets anyway...

I didn't suggest replacing the P-3 fleet entirely, only 2-3 of your current P-3's and replacing them with Mariner or similar. Such a move would massively increase NZ's surveillance capability...

 

[Markus40]

Im busy trying to come to terms with your argument over why we would need to deploy 6 P3s all around NZ? What is around NZ of military interest that would require a massive search for a target or missing boat? Is there something around NZ at present that you know of that the NZDFs dont?

Can i repeat to you that this region is benign. There is NOTHING significant that would require this type of survelliance and never will. What the government has put into place is way adequate for the survellience needs and urgent callouts like we do have when boats get lost or go astray. Basically the P3 is over it at a moments notice in the 200 mile exclusive zone, once the beacon goes off anyways.

Even if a Russian sub did crawl up the south coast of NZ there is no reason to send a P3 aloft to track it basically. We are no longer in the cold war. The only thing we have is illegal fishing. Having our OPVs and IPVs doing a scheduled maritime patrol of our waters around NZ is entirely adequate. There is , i repeat, there is NOTHING of significance that requires NZ to invest in UAVs like Australia does in its Northern territory with Illegal immigrants. To think other wise is fantasizing.

A question I have to ask, regarding NZ maritime surveillance needs. How many sq km or n miles are there in NZ's EEZ? How many additional sq km/n miles of ocean does NZ patrol because it is in NZ's areas of interest? With figures provided by the WAG Institute , I believe an Orion can cover about 430,000 sq km of ocean at any one time...

Looking at a rough map, it appears that there is more or less 1,200 km between Auckland and Stewart Island. Assuming the range of the P-3K search radar is 200 n miles, then 6 P-3K Orions might just, I repeat just, manage to cover the EEZ around North and South Island if all 6 were airborne at the same time. This would leave the 2 frigates, 2 OPVs and the MRV to provide patrol of the farther EEZs around Niue, Chatham Islands, Cook Islands, etc. Also, these ships would have to conduct all defence-related patrolling as well. How long could the RNZAF keep 6 Orions aloft?

At present, I don't think NZ has sufficient ISR assets to be able to patrol all of the approaches to NZ proper. Adding some maritime UAVs (or ground-based radar) could help close potential gaps in coverage.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

NZ will get the ASM shortly for the P3. This has been confirmed in the LTPD report put out last year. As to what type we have to wait. So the P3 WILL have the capabilities they need. In any case UAVs are simply not needed in my opinion at this stage as its obvious the systems overlap the capabilities with the P3. Again the assets we have are enough to cover the regions we have with the cover we can project. Our future capability with the OPVs and IPVs will give the coastal regions far more coverage as well.

It is highly unlikely the government will split the numbers of the P3s with Mariners for example when it is more efficient to have one type of system operating and in place. I think that if the government was to add 2-3 UAVs to the existing survellience structure then thats cool, but certainly not to 1-replace the existing structure and 2- expect them to handle the ASM if required. They simply do not do the same job as a P3. Lets put it this way, the P3s flexibility in its function would certainly outperform the UAV in many ways. The other thing is we dont need them for anything in our reion in any case. The current situation calls us to use the P3 for interoperability with our allies and use them if called upon to launch a ASM if needed. The UAV simply cannot handle these tasks and certainly wouldnt be used for interoperability with our allies.

If you are suggesting that the RNZAF has no real capability against surface targets my argument for maintaining and keeping the P3 becomes stronger especially in light of its up and coming delivery systems for the ASM. Cheers.

Your own LTDP states P-3K has no anti-surface capability at present, I quote:

Capability Gap

9.10 Disbanding the Air Combat Force has resulted in the loss of the maritime strike capability. The P-3s provide targeting information but do not have an anti-ship capability. The inability to take immediate action against surface threats limits the P-3s ability to provide force protection for New Zealand naval vessels, particularly the frigates and, in future, the MRV.


Page 48. NZDF Long Term Development Plan. October 2006.




No time frame seems to be given for the acquisition of this capability under LTDP. It is in the projects sections described as "Projects Necessary to Avoid the Failure of Policy". In other words: what NZDF considers necessary to avoid failure of policy.

I'm sure they considered the A-4K's fleet pretty necessary to avoid failure of policy too. You know what happened there...

I don't pretend to be an expert on NZ political matters and I don't doubt the need for NZDF to obtain an anti-ship missile capability for it's P-3K's and ANZAC frigates, but need alone doesn't mean it will happen.

Nor does even NZDF expect this to occur "soon" stating that the P-3K mission systems and sensor capabilities need to be upgraded prior to any ASM being operated.

Anyhow, this is beside the point of a UAV purchase. I am aware that the Mariner Maritime (M) UAV cannot (as yet) operate an anti-ship missile, though it seems possible to operate Hellfire and 500lbs LGB's/JDAM from it, as USAF Predators already do so...

What they can do is surveil significantly larger amounts of ocean for longer periods than a manned platform. Are you suggesting that a P-3 is a MORE capable surveillance platform than a large Maritime UAV?

RAAF certainly doesn't think so and trialled Mariner last year (and Global Hawk by Sim) in this very role.

As I suggested earlier, the use of the UAV would not be at the expense of the P-3, but rather complementary to it. The P-3 is a more flexible asset (if it had an ASM) I'd agree, however the combination would maximise the strengths of each particular platform. Your fleet of P-3's are not going to be doing much ocean surveillance work in times of confict. They are going to be shadowing your ANZAC frigates to protect them...

(A copy of DSTO's "open source" report about the utility iof UAV's for maritime surveillance duties can be found here: http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/publications/5043/DSTO-TR-1958.pdf)

Of note was a 22 hour long patrol, conducted by the Mariner on a SINGLE mission...

I doubt many P-3's could approach that length of patrol...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Im busy trying to come to terms with your argument over why we would need to deploy 6 P3s all around NZ? What is around NZ of military interest that would require a massive search for a target or missing boat? Is there something around NZ at present that you know of that the NZDFs dont?

For starters, doesn't NZ only have 5x P-3K's?

Secondly the point of maritime surveillance is so that you CAN control your maritime approaches, because you KNOW what is there. Whilst it'd be nice to think that some new technology could surveil all possible approaches from land bases in NZ itself, meaning any incursions could be detected an and asset deployed to intercept, this is simply not possible.

You need aircraft flying around and boats in the water sailing around on patrol to find out what and who are out there.

Can i repeat to you that this region is benign. There is NOTHING significant that would require this type of survelliance and never will. What the government has put into place is way adequate for the survellience needs and urgent callouts like we do have when boats get lost or go astray. Basically the P3 is over it at a moments notice in the 200 mile exclusive zone, once the beacon goes off anyways.

Even if a Russian sub did crawl up the south coast of NZ there is no reason to send a P3 aloft to track it basically. We are no longer in the cold war. The only thing we have is illegal fishing. Having our OPVs and IPVs doing a scheduled maritime patrol of our waters around NZ is entirely adequate. There is , i repeat, there is NOTHING of significance that requires NZ to invest in UAVs like Australia does in its Northern territory with Illegal immigrants. To think other wise is fantasizing.

That's your opinion. Your Government obviously sees things differently because it has launched a significant upgrade of NZ's patrol and response capabilities with Project Protector and the P-3 mission system upgrades.

On top of that a "short medium" ranged aerial patrol capability is being sought under LTDP to "support" your P-3 based surveillance capability under the "projects which have benefit but are less critical" portion of the LTDP.

If you are happy to let Russian subs do as they will in your waters, I start to wonder why you are here discussing these matters at all? Is NZ territorial integrity of no worth to you?

 

[Lucasnz]

For starters, doesn't NZ only have 5x P-3K's

?


No 6: A second hand P3 was purchased from the RAAF in the mid 1980's and upgraded to NZ standards.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Yeah the RNZAF has 6 Orions and 5 Hercules.
I remeber about 12 years ago I went to a Ohakea open day and one of the Aircraft fact boards for the Orions it was listed as carying torpedo's and Zuni rockets, fascinated as a 11yo can be with weapons I asked one of the pilots how many rocket pods can they carry, the Pilot said I have no idea its been so long they have been equipped with them. So if not ASM at least we know that they could be re-equipped with unguided rockets

 

[Markus40]

Yes there is no time frame been given for the upgrade of the P3 for the ASM right now, but i would have to argue neither are any of the other proposals that are currently on the board for acquasition, like the upgrade for the ANZACS. So you cant argue this point based on the assumption that the LTDP is vague and innacurate. The NZDFs are not going to write something down on paper indicating a strong proposal for acqusition, unless the government want to back down on the proposal and lose their credibility. Something that i doubt coming close to election time.

Heres what i have found on the NZDFs website on the P3.

P-3 Air-to-Surface Weapons

Description
This project proposes to equip the P-3 aircraft with an anti-ship missile capability.

Policy Value
Equipping the P-3 aircraft with an anti-ship missile capability would significantly enhance the value of these aircraft in fulfilling policy roles relating to the territorial sovereignty of New Zealand and Australia, playing an appropriate role in the maintenance of security in the Asia-Pacific region, and participating in the Five Power Defence Arrangements.

Capability Gap
Disbanding the Air Combat Force has resulted in the loss of the maritime strike capability. The P-3s provide targeting information but do not have an anti-ship capability. The inability to take immediate action against surface threats limits the P-3s ability to provide force protection for New Zealand naval vessels, particularly the frigates and, in future, the MRV.

Links to other Capabilities
This project has links to the following projects and capabilities:
P-3 Mission, Communications, and Navigation Systems Upgrades
Multi-Role Vessel
ANZAC Frigates

Timing
The timing of this project is dependent on the completion of the P-3 mission systems upgrade. The modification required to enable the P-3 to launch anti-ship missiles is relatively straightforward and could be done during routine maintenance. Before a missile capability is added, the mission systems upgrade would be necessary to provide sensors capable of locating and properly identifying targets.

Current Status
A study will be conducted in due course to determine the appropriate weapons for the P-3.

Costs
This project is not yet costed. The estimated life, in service through life costs, and the total cost of ownership are to be confirmed.

It would indicate to me that this project probably is just around the corner. As to the A4s avoiding the policy of failure, this draft by the government was drawn up years after the disbanding of the A4. Therefore has nothing to do with the LTDP at this stage.

Need alone doesnt qualify the acquisition and thats right however as i have already stated this government has been pretty serious outside of the A4 debacle of getting things done with our other defence forces including as well as the RNZAF with big acquisitions as has been promised. So i wouldnt have any doubt about what proposals are about to be implemented.

If you read the NZDF LTDP you will find that the most likely time for the acquisition of the ASM will be when the P3 will undergo its implementation of its mission computers and Nav. systems. I believe this is around the corner.

Hellfire missiles launched at 30 000 ft are going to useless on a trawler and to my knowledge i havent heard this system being used in the maritime role. So forget that. As to the JDAM, well possibly, but i would argue that the same weapon could be used on board the P3.

As to your comment about whether i am suggesting the "P-3 is a MORE capable surveillance platform than a large Maritime UAV?" I think you need to read back through my notes and get my text in context. Im going to say it again to you and its this NZ has NO requirement for a maritime UAV as our resources within the RNZAF and RNZN cover the immediate and forseeable requirements of our survellience needs for the moment. If we start getting illegal immigrants and a prolonged and stepped up campaign from trawlers taking our orange roughy, and an incessant group of drug runners, then 1-2 UAVs would be useful. I have never deniged that. But as i have said before our current fleet of assets will for the immediate future at least cover our coastal and sea requirements.

I have never said the P3 are used for these measures in the Northern territory. The UAVs are, and incidently customs and immigration do operate a patrolling fleet of aircraft in the northern sector.

To conclude you are argueing my point on the wrong side of the issue. I dont give a shit about UAVs and what they can do and their performance opportunities. NZDFs are simply not in need of them because they are white elephants to the existing elements within our defence forces that are able to deal with the coastal and patrol issues from now and into the immediate future.

Your own LTDP states P-3K has no anti-surface capability at present, I quote:

Capability Gap

9.10 Disbanding the Air Combat Force has resulted in the loss of the maritime strike capability. The P-3s provide targeting information but do not have an anti-ship capability. The inability to take immediate action against surface threats limits the P-3s ability to provide force protection for New Zealand naval vessels, particularly the frigates and, in future, the MRV.


Page 48. NZDF Long Term Development Plan. October 2006.




No time frame seems to be given for the acquisition of this capability under LTDP. It is in the projects sections described as "Projects Necessary to Avoid the Failure of Policy". In other words: what NZDF considers necessary to avoid failure of policy.

I'm sure they considered the A-4K's fleet pretty necessary to avoid failure of policy too. You know what happened there...

I don't pretend to be an expert on NZ political matters and I don't doubt the need for NZDF to obtain an anti-ship missile capability for it's P-3K's and ANZAC frigates, but need alone doesn't mean it will happen.

Nor does even NZDF expect this to occur "soon" stating that the P-3K mission systems and sensor capabilities need to be upgraded prior to any ASM being operated.

Anyhow, this is beside the point of a UAV purchase. I am aware that the Mariner Maritime (M) UAV cannot (as yet) operate an anti-ship missile, though it seems possible to operate Hellfire and 500lbs LGB's/JDAM from it, as USAF Predators already do so...

What they can do is surveil significantly larger amounts of ocean for longer periods than a manned platform. Are you suggesting that a P-3 is a MORE capable surveillance platform than a large Maritime UAV?

RAAF certainly doesn't think so and trialled Mariner last year (and Global Hawk by Sim) in this very role.

As I suggested earlier, the use of the UAV would not be at the expense of the P-3, but rather complementary to it. The P-3 is a more flexible asset (if it had an ASM) I'd agree, however the combination would maximise the strengths of each particular platform. Your fleet of P-3's are not going to be doing much ocean surveillance work in times of confict. They are going to be shadowing your ANZAC frigates to protect them...

(A copy of DSTO's "open source" report about the utility iof UAV's for maritime surveillance duties can be found here: http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/publications/5043/DSTO-TR-1958.pdf)

Of note was a 22 hour long patrol, conducted by the Mariner on a SINGLE mission...

I doubt many P-3's could approach that length of patrol...

 

[Markus40]

You would have to be extremely nieve to think that Russian Subs or American Subs for that matter have gone through Australian waters detected. We used to have MAD capabilities on the P3s, a cold war capability that very rarely got used, but now we dont have it so having a P3 put into the air is a waste of money and time. Thats if we were lucky to know one was there.

Im of the opinion that NZ only has the capability to secure sealanes for our trade, and this really is all we need. Thats why the government has upgraded our ANZACs (Godbless them) to be able to kill pirates at night if we have too.

Once we have our Naval presence with OPVs and IPVs we are self sufficient in our part of the world to make sure trawlers are in the right place, and ummmmm well arrrrr what else is there???? Im scratching my head to find something else. Oh yes Terrorists.! Hmmmmm the bastarts !!!! But hmmmm how many have swam here across the Tasman? or arrrrrrr got here by boat hell bent on putting a nuke or serious explosives under the ANZ building in Auckland?

We are already getting what we need to secure our approaches to NZ.
No mate, your argument is off beam and irrational. Cheers.

For starters, doesn't NZ only have 5x P-3K's?

Secondly the point of maritime surveillance is so that you CAN control your maritime approaches, because you KNOW what is there. Whilst it'd be nice to think that some new technology could surveil all possible approaches from land bases in NZ itself, meaning any incursions could be detected an and asset deployed to intercept, this is simply not possible.

You need aircraft flying around and boats in the water sailing around on patrol to find out what and who are out there.



That's your opinion. Your Government obviously sees things differently because it has launched a significant upgrade of NZ's patrol and response capabilities with Project Protector and the P-3 mission system upgrades.

On top of that a "short medium" ranged aerial patrol capability is being sought under LTDP to "support" your P-3 based surveillance capability under the "projects which have benefit but are less critical" portion of the LTDP.

If you are happy to let Russian subs do as they will in your waters, I start to wonder why you are here discussing these matters at all? Is NZ territorial integrity of no worth to you?

 

[Markus40]

Yes the old Zuni being a Vietnam era rocket saw its use in Vietnam. They were used alot from the A4 as well. Really old now and i have never seen any pictures of our P3s carrying the pod. I have with the A4 though. So not to sure there. They even were used for anti submarine warfare, which is interesting. Its hard to imagine the P3 making a dive run at a Sub or surface vessel and fire a Zuni.

In any case under the governments planned LTDP programme for the armed forces the P3 will undergo a programme to upgrade the offensive systems of the P3 with a ASM.

Yeah the RNZAF has 6 Orions and 5 Hercules.
I remeber about 12 years ago I went to a Ohakea open day and one of the Aircraft fact boards for the Orions it was listed as carying torpedo's and Zuni rockets, fascinated as a 11yo can be with weapons I asked one of the pilots how many rocket pods can they carry, the Pilot said I have no idea its been so long they have been equipped with them. So if not ASM at least we know that they could be re-equipped with unguided rockets

 

[Markus40]

Actually im wondering what "NZ Standards" really means. Does that mean the offensive and capability of this P3 was stripped to accommodate the very bare minimum operational requirements.? Any comments on that?

?


No 6: A second hand P3 was purchased from the RAAF in the mid 1980's and upgraded to NZ standards.

 

[rossfrb_1]

Yes the old Zuni being a Vietnam era rocket saw its use in Vietnam. They were used alot from the A4 as well. Really old now and i have never seen any pictures of our P3s carrying the pod. I have with the A4 though. So not to sure there. They even were used for anti submarine warfare, which is interesting. Its hard to imagine the P3 making a dive run at a Sub or surface vessel and fire a Zuni.
snip

Heck, NZ has got A2A strike capability then too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-4_Skyhawk
"..On 1 May 1967, an A-4C Skyhawk, piloted by LCDR Theodore R. Swartz from VA-76, shot down a Soviet-built Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-17 with an unguided Zuni rocket..."

rb

 

[Todjaeger]

Im busy trying to come to terms with your argument over why we would need to deploy 6 P3s all around NZ? What is around NZ of military interest that would require a massive search for a target or missing boat? Is there something around NZ at present that you know of that the NZDFs dont?

Can i repeat to you that this region is benign. There is NOTHING significant that would require this type of survelliance and never will. What the government has put into place is way adequate for the survellience needs and urgent callouts like we do have when boats get lost or go astray. Basically the P3 is over it at a moments notice in the 200 mile exclusive zone, once the beacon goes off anyways.

Even if a Russian sub did crawl up the south coast of NZ there is no reason to send a P3 aloft to track it basically. We are no longer in the cold war. The only thing we have is illegal fishing. Having our OPVs and IPVs doing a scheduled maritime patrol of our waters around NZ is entirely adequate. There is , i repeat, there is NOTHING of significance that requires NZ to invest in UAVs like Australia does in its Northern territory with Illegal immigrants. To think other wise is fantasizing.

I agree, the situation in and around NZ is currently benign, and likely to remain fairly stable for some time. The point I tried and failed to get across is the NZDF's current limitations in patrolling the NZ EEZ and other areas of interest. Having done a bit of checking, NZ apparently has the 7th largest EEZ in the world, some 4 mil+ sq km (the source is Wiki, but likely accurate in this case). Assuming my guestimates on the P-3K sea search radar having a max range of 370km are correct, that allows an Orion to search ~430k km of ocean at any one time. In order to provide simultaneous coverage of just the EEZ, NZ would need to be able to keep ~10 P-3 Orions aloft. If there are gaps in coverage, illegal fishing, dumping, smuggling, etc could be done and NZ could very well be unaware.

I know the situation is somewhat different for Australia, because there are other nations close enough to Australia to allow easier infringement on the EEZ. From checking Wiki again, it appears that Australia's EEZ is roughly twice the size of NZ's. Take a look at the surveillance and patrol assets Australia has available to conduct customs/EEZ coverage as either a primary or secondary role.

SECAR (land-based RF EEZ surveillance radar covering much of northern Oz)
~18 AP-3C Orions
~ 6 Bombardier Q-200 MPA (in process of adding/upgrading for Coastwatch)
~ 4 Bombardier Q-300 MPA (in process of adding/upgrading for Coastwatch)
~14 RAN Armidale ACPB
8 Bay-class ACV for Customs
2 civilian chartered Fishery patrol boats
various Customs helicopters...

In addition there are other ADF assets that could be drawn upon if needed.

At present, I don't seen NZ as having a comparable capacity to be aware of vessels within the EEZ, or to be able to respond to vessels if it does become aware of them. Having additional MPA or MP UAVs could allow more and earlier detection of vessels in the EEZ, and depending on fitout, assist in determining if spotted vessels are potential threats, engaged in illegal activity, etc. Hope this makes the point I've been trying to make more clear.

As to your comment about whether i am suggesting the "P-3 is a MORE capable surveillance platform than a large Maritime UAV?" I think you need to read back through my notes and get my text in context. Im going to say it again to you and its this NZ has NO requirement for a maritime UAV as our resources within the RNZAF and RNZN cover the immediate and forseeable requirements of our survellience needs for the moment. If we start getting illegal immigrants and a prolonged and stepped up campaign from trawlers taking our orange roughy, and an incessant group of drug runners, then 1-2 UAVs would be useful. I have never deniged that. But as i have said before our current fleet of assets will for the immediate future at least cover our coastal and sea requirements.

I have never said the P3 are used for these measures in the Northern territory. The UAVs are, and incidently customs and immigration do operate a patrolling fleet of aircraft in the northern sector.

To conclude you are argueing my point on the wrong side of the issue. I dont give a shit about UAVs and what they can do and their performance opportunities. NZDFs are simply not in need of them because they are white elephants to the existing elements within our defence forces that are able to deal with the coastal and patrol issues from now and into the immediate future.

On this point I have to disagree. With the Project Protector MRV and OPVs being launched, it will improve NZDF ability to patrol the EEZ and maritime approaches to a degree better than it currently can, but not as well as it could, and perhaps should.

Actually im wondering what "NZ Standards" really means. Does that mean the offensive and capability of this P3 was stripped to accommodate the very bare minimum operational requirements.? Any comments on that?

The NZ standards comment I believe refers to upgrading an ex-RAAF P-3B Orion to the NZ P-3K Orion. For more info & discussion of the RNZAF P-3K Orions, see this thread http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5972
A P-3K Orion was similar to the US P-3C Update II Orion, but there were further upgrades using COTS computers/hardware that improved capabilities in the 1990's.

-Cheers

 

[Gibbo]

You would have to be extremely nieve to think that Russian Subs or American Subs for that matter have gone through Australian waters detected. We used to have MAD capabilities on the P3s, a cold war capability that very rarely got used, but now we dont have it so having a P3 put into the air is a waste of money and time. Thats if we were lucky to know one was there.

Im of the opinion that NZ only has the capability to secure sealanes for our trade, and this really is all we need. Thats why the government has upgraded our ANZACs (Godbless them) to be able to kill pirates at night if we have too.

Once we have our Naval presence with OPVs and IPVs we are self sufficient in our part of the world to make sure trawlers are in the right place, and ummmmm well arrrrr what else is there???? Im scratching my head to find something else. Oh yes Terrorists.! Hmmmmm the bastarts !!!! But hmmmm how many have swam here across the Tasman? or arrrrrrr got here by boat hell bent on putting a nuke or serious explosives under the ANZ building in Auckland?

We are already getting what we need to secure our approaches to NZ.
No mate, your argument is off beam and irrational. Cheers.

'All we really need' should look at the wider picture. The significant growth in the number of subs in the Asia-Pacific area is reason enough for other nations in this region to ensure ASW capability is maintained. For example NZ's FPDA partners will accordingly be 'very keen' to ensure this capability is maintained. While this doesn't oblige us it does mean any withdrawal from what they consider 'highly desirable' capabilities will be just another nail in our coffin of 'strategic relevance'.

Having reduced the NZDF's combat capability to a very small level we shouldn't now renege on the ASW capability (even if we have already done it by default!) so hopefully a new govt will reverse the decision to not include ASW in the P-3K upgrade.

Our P-3K's are an important part of our FPDA contribution - which requires us to be able to participate in security initiatives well beyond our obviously benign (for now!) area of the world. What I'm saying is we have obligations well beyond our EEZ and I don't believe we should give up on ASW capability (be it UAV, MPA, naval platforms etc).

I wouldnt make light of the potential terrorist threat down here either - not as likely in NZ territorial waters but if our trade routes are threatened by piracy, terrorists etc say in the Malacca Straits - then we could be asked to assist by FPDA. Pirates, terrorists will only ever become more sophisticated & elusive. Even with OPV, IPV etc we're far from having the capability to completely police our EEZ (or those of Pacific Island states for which we also have responsibility) but that goes for the ADF & many other states - and is almost impossible for our population size.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yes there is no time frame been given for the upgrade of the P3 for the ASM right now, but i would have to argue neither are any of the other proposals that are currently on the board for acquasition, like the upgrade for the ANZACS. So you cant argue this point based on the assumption that the LTDP is vague and innacurate. The NZDFs are not going to write something down on paper indicating a strong proposal for acqusition, unless the government want to back down on the proposal and lose their credibility. Something that i doubt coming close to election time.

Heres what i have found on the NZDFs website on the P3.

P-3 Air-to-Surface Weapons

Description
This project proposes to equip the P-3 aircraft with an anti-ship missile capability.

Policy Value
Equipping the P-3 aircraft with an anti-ship missile capability would significantly enhance the value of these aircraft in fulfilling policy roles relating to the territorial sovereignty of New Zealand and Australia, playing an appropriate role in the maintenance of security in the Asia-Pacific region, and participating in the Five Power Defence Arrangements.

Capability Gap
Disbanding the Air Combat Force has resulted in the loss of the maritime strike capability. The P-3s provide targeting information but do not have an anti-ship capability. The inability to take immediate action against surface threats limits the P-3s ability to provide force protection for New Zealand naval vessels, particularly the frigates and, in future, the MRV.

Links to other Capabilities
This project has links to the following projects and capabilities:
P-3 Mission, Communications, and Navigation Systems Upgrades
Multi-Role Vessel
ANZAC Frigates

Timing
The timing of this project is dependent on the completion of the P-3 mission systems upgrade. The modification required to enable the P-3 to launch anti-ship missiles is relatively straightforward and could be done during routine maintenance. Before a missile capability is added, the mission systems upgrade would be necessary to provide sensors capable of locating and properly identifying targets.

Current Status
A study will be conducted in due course to determine the appropriate weapons for the P-3.

Costs
This project is not yet costed. The estimated life, in service through life costs, and the total cost of ownership are to be confirmed.

It would indicate to me that this project probably is just around the corner. As to the A4s avoiding the policy of failure, this draft by the government was drawn up years after the disbanding of the A4. Therefore has nothing to do with the LTDP at this stage.

Need alone doesnt qualify the acquisition and thats right however as i have already stated this government has been pretty serious outside of the A4 debacle of getting things done with our other defence forces including as well as the RNZAF with big acquisitions as has been promised. So i wouldnt have any doubt about what proposals are about to be implemented.

If you read the NZDF LTDP you will find that the most likely time for the acquisition of the ASM will be when the P3 will undergo its implementation of its mission computers and Nav. systems. I believe this is around the corner.

Hellfire missiles launched at 30 000 ft are going to useless on a trawler and to my knowledge i havent heard this system being used in the maritime role. So forget that. As to the JDAM, well possibly, but i would argue that the same weapon could be used on board the P3.

As to your comment about whether i am suggesting the "P-3 is a MORE capable surveillance platform than a large Maritime UAV?" I think you need to read back through my notes and get my text in context. Im going to say it again to you and its this NZ has NO requirement for a maritime UAV as our resources within the RNZAF and RNZN cover the immediate and forseeable requirements of our survellience needs for the moment. If we start getting illegal immigrants and a prolonged and stepped up campaign from trawlers taking our orange roughy, and an incessant group of drug runners, then 1-2 UAVs would be useful. I have never deniged that. But as i have said before our current fleet of assets will for the immediate future at least cover our coastal and sea requirements.

I have never said the P3 are used for these measures in the Northern territory. The UAVs are, and incidently customs and immigration do operate a patrolling fleet of aircraft in the northern sector.

To conclude you are argueing my point on the wrong side of the issue. I dont give a shit about UAVs and what they can do and their performance opportunities. NZDFs are simply not in need of them because they are white elephants to the existing elements within our defence forces that are able to deal with the coastal and patrol issues from now and into the immediate future.

What a specific time frame you've announced, "just around the corner". Given the specifics you've so far brought to the discussion, can you state when the critical "mission systems upgrade would be necessary to provide sensors capable of locating and properly identifying targets" upgrade that NZDF identifies as being essential will be completed?

Because reading the website you linked to and the LTDP it seems to me that NZDF won't even be LOOKING at an ASM until that upgrade is completed. Then you have to acquire the weapon, integrate it and practise with it.

I can easily see that it will be no less and probably MORE than 5 years before NZ gets an ASM, however from your assessment of NZ's operational environment I am really starting to wonder why it's even necessary? Afterall do fishing trawlers require a $1m dollar Harpoon equivalent missile? Now as a force protection measure on operational deployments, there's a bit more of an argument there, but does NZ really require such? When have they shown a desire to deploy force elements outside of a Coalition where such elements will be in abundance ANYWAY?

Afterall apparently your P-3K's never descend below 30,000f feet whilst patrolling anyway (apparently close ranged contact identification is not a priority for RNZAF?) Hence your argument about the Hellfire being of no use...

FYI, the USN uses Hellfire in the maritime strike role from their Seahawks in the same manner RNZAF employ AGM-65 Maverick from your Seasprites, which you have argued SHOULD be employed from the P-3K's. Talk about contradicting yourself...

As to Australian P-3's, they are most certainly used to patrol the North West Shelf area AND Southern Ocean, but only because we currently lack anything BETTER to do it with. AIR-7000 however will acquire a UAV platform that is significantly more capable in the surveillance role, due to it's persistence and endurance (not hampered by how long a crew can operate for in the aircraft).

The Australian Customs Service leases a manned aircraft capability as it's EXTANT capability. Check out what it's acquiring for it's FUTURE capability, before you try and justify your opinion with it. You'll find out a bit more about Mariner that way...

The LTDP is a development plan for GREATER capability. Mariner provides greater surveillance capability than any MMA in exchange for a (currently) less flexible response capability.

I'd suggest you learn a bit about such capabilities before pronouncing them useless.

Can RNZAF meet ALL it's required surveillance capability at present? If so, why the need to improve the P-3's, acquire a "short to medium ranged patrol aircraft and look at a UAV for Army's ISR capability?

 

[Markus40]

Yeah saw that. Incredibly outdated it would seem.

Heck, NZ has got A2A strike capability then too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-4_Skyhawk
"..On 1 May 1967, an A-4C Skyhawk, piloted by LCDR Theodore R. Swartz from VA-76, shot down a Soviet-built Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-17 with an unguided Zuni rocket..."

rb

 

[Markus40]

I was being slightly cynical by stating the P3 s limited operational status is limited due to the lack of MAD. I do think that if the government was to upgrade this capability then this too would be a good thing. But its not in the LTDP so its just a fantasy right now. It would make our overall awareness and interoperability much more capable and this too would give us a greater ability to even deploy or be able to patrol our sealanes more effectively. Cheers.

'All we really need' should look at the wider picture. The significant growth in the number of subs in the Asia-Pacific area is reason enough for other nations in this region to ensure ASW capability is maintained. For example NZ's FPDA partners will accordingly be 'very keen' to ensure this capability is maintained. While this doesn't oblige us it does mean any withdrawal from what they consider 'highly desirable' capabilities will be just another nail in our coffin of 'strategic relevance'.

Having reduced the NZDF's combat capability to a very small level we shouldn't now renege on the ASW capability (even if we have already done it by default!) so hopefully a new govt will reverse the decision to not include ASW in the P-3K upgrade.

Our P-3K's are an important part of our FPDA contribution - which requires us to be able to participate in security initiatives well beyond our obviously benign (for now!) area of the world. What I'm saying is we have obligations well beyond our EEZ and I don't believe we should give up on ASW capability (be it UAV, MPA, naval platforms etc).

I wouldnt make light of the potential terrorist threat down here either - not as likely in NZ territorial waters but if our trade routes are threatened by piracy, terrorists etc say in the Malacca Straits - then we could be asked to assist by FPDA. Pirates, terrorists will only ever become more sophisticated & elusive. Even with OPV, IPV etc we're far from having the capability to completely police our EEZ (or those of Pacific Island states for which we also have responsibility) but that goes for the ADF & many other states - and is almost impossible for our population size.

 

[Markus40]

Before i go further, can i put a couple of things straight that i think you have got YOUR facts off beam. You mentioned "AGM-65 Maverick from your Seasprites, which you have argued SHOULD be employed from the P-3K's. Talk about contradicting yourself... " Please be advised that in this discussion never did i once talk about the the AGM-65 be the weapon of choice for the P3. I said "ASM" i didnt specifically title a Missile.

Next you suggested i said " I'd suggest you learn a bit about such capabilities before pronouncing them useless." COMEON ! What do you think i have been talking about. I said that NZ doesnt need them. I never said once they were useless.

The next thing in the LTDP and if you read it properly you would have seen that the short to medium range patrol aircraft that was stated is right at the bottom of the priority list of aquisition requirements that "could" supplement the RNZAF P3s. Now it doesnt say anything about any UAVs does it. And for good reason.

And finally to the Australian customs patrol aircraft. This website should blow your "lease" comments away on the numbers of patrol aircraft.

http://www.customs.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=4303

The other thing is this. You state why our P3s should be armed with the Harpoon. Where on Gods earth did you come up with the Harpoon? The Harpoon is only one consideration at the moment for the ASM. Do you know what a ASM is? Why not the Penguin? You are making alot of assumptions in relation to the LTDP that make no sense whatsoever to the overall topic of which ASM will go with the P3. So lets not go there okay? Lets get our facts right not presupisitions.

Anything that comes close to a UAV would be a smaller option that would be useful for the NZ Army for its survellience of the battlefields or field of operations. Now we are talking sense and this would be extremely useful.

To conclude: Once again i have nothing against UAVs and i want to make that clear especially if supplemented with the RNZAF assets, but it is simply a pipe dream to think that they can do all the survellience work by themselves. The question that why bother arming the P3 with a ASM is really a straight forward question when we think outside the box. We know they are required for our sealanes, for interoperability with Australia, and for the once in a while need to entice a trawler back into international waters.

To see for yourself the details in relation to the P3 missile upgrade you can go to:

http://www.defence.govt.nz/reports-publications/ltdp-2006/prj-necessary.html

What a specific time frame you've announced, "just around the corner". Given the specifics you've so far brought to the discussion, can you state when the critical "mission systems upgrade would be necessary to provide sensors capable of locating and properly identifying targets" upgrade that NZDF identifies as being essential will be completed?

Because reading the website you linked to and the LTDP it seems to me that NZDF won't even be LOOKING at an ASM until that upgrade is completed. Then you have to acquire the weapon, integrate it and practise with it.

I can easily see that it will be no less and probably MORE than 5 years before NZ gets an ASM, however from your assessment of NZ's operational environment I am really starting to wonder why it's even necessary? Afterall do fishing trawlers require a $1m dollar Harpoon equivalent missile? Now as a force protection measure on operational deployments, there's a bit more of an argument there, but does NZ really require such? When have they shown a desire to deploy force elements outside of a Coalition where such elements will be in abundance ANYWAY?

Afterall apparently your P-3K's never descend below 30,000f feet whilst patrolling anyway (apparently close ranged contact identification is not a priority for RNZAF?) Hence your argument about the Hellfire being of no use...

FYI, the USN uses Hellfire in the maritime strike role from their Seahawks in the same manner RNZAF employ AGM-65 Maverick from your Seasprites, which you have argued SHOULD be employed from the P-3K's. Talk about contradicting yourself...

As to Australian P-3's, they are most certainly used to patrol the North West Shelf area AND Southern Ocean, but only because we currently lack anything BETTER to do it with. AIR-7000 however will acquire a UAV platform that is significantly more capable in the surveillance role, due to it's persistence and endurance (not hampered by how long a crew can operate for in the aircraft).

The Australian Customs Service leases a manned aircraft capability as it's EXTANT capability. Check out what it's acquiring for it's FUTURE capability, before you try and justify your opinion with it. You'll find out a bit more about Mariner that way...

The LTDP is a development plan for GREATER capability. Mariner provides greater surveillance capability than any MMA in exchange for a (currently) less flexible response capability.

I'd suggest you learn a bit about such capabilities before pronouncing them useless.

Can RNZAF meet ALL it's required surveillance capability at present? If so, why the need to improve the P-3's, acquire a "short to medium ranged patrol aircraft and look at a UAV for Army's ISR capability?

 

[Markus40]

Choice on that. To be frankly honest and i am going to make this point straight up without any misgivings is that NZDFs could do with 2-3 UAVs. I have no doubt and they would be a HUGE asset to our region. If we have them well and good. But they cant be a replacement for the P3. And the other point is there is nothing to look at except for a few Japanese whaling boats , korean trawlers and yaghts going astray. Maybe a sub or two as well, BUT NZs coastline is under no threat and neither is our 200 mile exclusion zone. For now. So for that reason i am strongly of the opinion that instead of the Government putting money into this that we should look at a Military communications satelite for the NZDFs or putting the money into acquiring a third Frigate.

I agree, the situation in and around NZ is currently benign, and likely to remain fairly stable for some time. The point I tried and failed to get across is the NZDF's current limitations in patrolling the NZ EEZ and other areas of interest. Having done a bit of checking, NZ apparently has the 7th largest EEZ in the world, some 4 mil+ sq km (the source is Wiki, but likely accurate in this case). Assuming my guestimates on the P-3K sea search radar having a max range of 370km are correct, that allows an Orion to search ~430k km of ocean at any one time. In order to provide simultaneous coverage of just the EEZ, NZ would need to be able to keep ~10 P-3 Orions aloft. If there are gaps in coverage, illegal fishing, dumping, smuggling, etc could be done and NZ could very well be unaware.

I know the situation is somewhat different for Australia, because there are other nations close enough to Australia to allow easier infringement on the EEZ. From checking Wiki again, it appears that Australia's EEZ is roughly twice the size of NZ's. Take a look at the surveillance and patrol assets Australia has available to conduct customs/EEZ coverage as either a primary or secondary role.

SECAR (land-based RF EEZ surveillance radar covering much of northern Oz)
~18 AP-3C Orions
~ 6 Bombardier Q-200 MPA (in process of adding/upgrading for Coastwatch)
~ 4 Bombardier Q-300 MPA (in process of adding/upgrading for Coastwatch)
~14 RAN Armidale ACPB
8 Bay-class ACV for Customs
2 civilian chartered Fishery patrol boats
various Customs helicopters...

In addition there are other ADF assets that could be drawn upon if needed.

At present, I don't seen NZ as having a comparable capacity to be aware of vessels within the EEZ, or to be able to respond to vessels if it does become aware of them. Having additional MPA or MP UAVs could allow more and earlier detection of vessels in the EEZ, and depending on fitout, assist in determining if spotted vessels are potential threats, engaged in illegal activity, etc. Hope this makes the point I've been trying to make more clear.



On this point I have to disagree. With the Project Protector MRV and OPVs being launched, it will improve NZDF ability to patrol the EEZ and maritime approaches to a degree better than it currently can, but not as well as it could, and perhaps should.



The NZ standards comment I believe refers to upgrading an ex-RAAF P-3B Orion to the NZ P-3K Orion. For more info & discussion of the RNZAF P-3K Orions, see this thread http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5972
A P-3K Orion was similar to the US P-3C Update II Orion, but there were further upgrades using COTS computers/hardware that improved capabilities in the 1990's.

-Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

The next thing in the LTDP and if you read it properly you would have seen that the short to medium range patrol aircraft that was stated is right at the bottom of the priority list of aquisition requirements that "could" supplement the RNZAF P3s. Now it doesnt say anything about any UAVs does it. And for good reason.

And finally to the Australian customs patrol aircraft. This website should blow your "lease" comments away on the numbers of patrol aircraft.

http://www.customs.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=4303

Take a look at this link.
http://www.nationalairsupport.com.au/default2.asp
It's showing a news article about a subsidiary company Surveillance Australia that won (again) the contract to provide MPA aircraft operations for the Australian Coastwatch. As part of the contract, the currrent 15 aircraft fleet will be rationalized to 10 aircraft, 6 Q-200 series and 4 Q-300, with all aircraft receiving ESM, comm and radar upgrades. While the total number will be less, they will be better than the current Q-200s in service, never mind the smaller aircraft like the BN-Islanders or Aero Commander, etc.

Choice on that. To be frankly honest and i am going to make this point straight up without any misgivings is that NZDFs could do with 2-3 UAVs. I have no doubt and they would be a HUGE asset to our region. If we have them well and good. But they cant be a replacement for the P3. And the other point is there is nothing to look at except for a few Japanese whaling boats , korean trawlers and yaghts going astray. Maybe a sub or two as well, BUT NZs coastline is under no threat and neither is our 200 mile exclusion zone. For now. So for that reason i am strongly of the opinion that instead of the Government putting money into this that we should look at a Military communications satelite for the NZDFs or putting the money into acquiring a third Frigate.

I haven't been suggesting the UAVs should replace the P-3Ks, instead they should be used to augment them. Although, some thought might be given to reducing the flight time used on the P-3Ks given the age of the aircraft, until the P-8 MMA or whatever is selected as a replacement starts entering service.

As for the threat to the EEZ... Does anyone have any idea how many vessels engage in illegal fishing in NZ waters? In know in Australia, the number is considerable, and not just in northern waters. See the link.
http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/FS_Enforcement_Operations_in_the_SO1.pdf
I don't know if NZ is in a similar situation, or if at present NZ really knows what the situation is. Given the addition of the OPVs under Project Protector, I suspect this is a concern for the RNZN. Since the OPVs will likely have a role similar to the Australian vessel Oceanic Viking which frequently does patrols in the Southern Ocean.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Before i go further, can i put a couple of things straight that i think you have got YOUR facts off beam. You mentioned "AGM-65 Maverick from your Seasprites, which you have argued SHOULD be employed from the P-3K's. Talk about contradicting yourself... " Please be advised that in this discussion never did i once talk about the the AGM-65 be the weapon of choice for the P3. I said "ASM" i didnt specifically title a Missile.

Next you suggested i said " I'd suggest you learn a bit about such capabilities before pronouncing them useless." COMEON ! What do you think i have been talking about. I said that NZ doesnt need them. I never said once they were useless.

The next thing in the LTDP and if you read it properly you would have seen that the short to medium range patrol aircraft that was stated is right at the bottom of the priority list of aquisition requirements that "could" supplement the RNZAF P3s. Now it doesnt say anything about any UAVs does it. And for good reason.

Fair enough must have been others that mentioned the AGM-65 Maverick from P-3.

As to the "short ranged patrol aircraft" project of NZ. It doesn't mention ANYTHING about a manned aircraft capability either does it?

"The Maritime Patrol Review identified a need for a short-medium range air patrol capability to complement the long range P-3. Options include provision of patrol services by a commercial contractor or by the Air Force. These options are currently under consideration by the Government."

Now perhaps more info on this project exists elsewhere, but given I advocate "supplementing" the P-3's with UAV's for surveillance ONLY, I did not envisage them taking on the response capability, this seems a perfect avenue to achieve an increase in overall capability.

And finally to the Australian customs patrol aircraft. This website should blow your "lease" comments away on the numbers of patrol aircraft.

http://www.customs.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=4303

READ MY POST AGAIN.

I acknowledged the Australian Customs service fixed wing component. That is what EXTANT means, ie: what they have now.

What they WANT however is Mariner for future Maritime Patrol capability, which is what I said.

The other thing is this. You state why our P3s should be armed with the Harpoon. Where on Gods earth did you come up with the Harpoon? The Harpoon is only one consideration at the moment for the ASM. Do you know what a ASM is? Why not the Penguin? You are making alot of assumptions in relation to the LTDP that make no sense whatsoever to the overall topic of which ASM will go with the P3. So lets not go there okay? Lets get our facts right not presupisitions.

The P-3 ASM will be the same as the ANZAC ship ASM of this I am certain. The LTDP mentions this in it's "links" section in the P-3 Surface Weapon section and the Anzac self-defence upgrade section.

Obviously there is ANY number of missile systems available for NZ to acquire, however name an anti-ships missile that has been integrated onto P-3's AND ANZAC class vessels?

On top of this, Penguin, Marte Mk 2, Hellfire or any other similar weapon, will offer little overall capability enhancement over the Mavericks you already have in-service.

I really doubt anything LESS capable than Harpoon will be looked at for the P-3 (and definitely for the ANZAC's) and any other weapon (except perhaps SLAM-ER and I doubt such a weapon would be politically acceptable) is going to come with a high integration cost, along with the cost of the weapon, support, training etc.

A presupposition it certainly was, however a fairly accurate one I think.

Anything that comes close to a UAV would be a smaller option that would be useful for the NZ Army for its survellience of the battlefields or field of operations. Now we are talking sense and this would be extremely useful.

To conclude: Once again i have nothing against UAVs and i want to make that clear especially if supplemented with the RNZAF assets, but it is simply a pipe dream to think that they can do all the survellience work by themselves. The question that why bother arming the P3 with a ASM is really a straight forward question when we think outside the box. We know they are required for our sealanes, for interoperability with Australia, and for the once in a while need to entice a trawler back into international waters.

To see for yourself the details in relation to the P3 missile upgrade you can go to:

http://www.defence.govt.nz/reports-publications/ltdp-2006/prj-necessary.html

I have seen it. I don't doubt an overall need, but you seemed to with your talk of "all surveillance requirements are currently met" rubbish you were going on about earlier.

Once more and for the last time, I DID NOT SUGGEST replacing the P-3 capability with a MUAV. I suggested COMPLEMENTING it.

If you don't think it's a good idea, well fair enough. Hopefully for your operational capability in years to come, your Government thinks otherwise.