NZDF General discussion thread

beegee

Active Member
I'm pretty sure they don't own the land directly in front between the base and the bridge as I seem to remember plans for new army style apartment barracks in front of supply mainstore and a smaller downgraded museum option across the road from the gate guardian corner that supposedly never got off the ground so to speak because the farmer wanted an arm and a leg for the land. Think he claimed it would downsize his farm too much even though he has his own speedway smack bang in the middle of it.
Bastard. We should declare war on someone we can beat (I'm looking at you Pitcairn island), then just take the farmer's land under emergency wartime legislation. Then we can invite the Pitcairn islanders over for peace talks and fun at Ohakea's new speedway.
 
Last edited:

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
So as the outsider looking in would there be sufficient room at Ohakea presently to create a single airbase for the RNZAF?

Is there sufficient land to build new hangars and other infrastructure to support the needs of a fifty aircraft air force?

Would there not be significant savings to having all the engineering and training capabilities at the same site? With such distance to any foe there is currently no threat from an air attack. Yes there is a potential threat from a long range surface or sub surface launched cruise missle but that applies to all nations today.

A third runway and an increase in taxi way should be possible.

Realistically how can this not happen? The comments here reflect the fact that aging infrastructure built at a different time with a much larger fleet requirement are strangling the budgets.

Is there not a better place to put NZSAS as well? If WP closes being close to the aircraft at Ohakea would allow rapid access to all the resources that such a super base offers.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Yes remember the low flying complainer. There was also one who brought a house in Sanson, then immediately started to complain about the jets on approach. He still lives there and starts up again when overseas air forces comes with combat jets. talk about a Johnny come lately. I do take the View that the Air Force was their first and if you move into the area you need to take into account what was there before you arrived.
As for Wigram, it was too constrained by development around it as unlike Ohakea defence did not own the surrounding land (for those who are unaware, the land surrounding Ohakea is defence owned and leased to the occupiers).
Talking of Wigram, I remember when down there on my SNCO course in the mid to late 70's We ( the course participants ) had a run in with the base SWO. At the time the Air force was changing from the old separate winter and summer uniforms dating from WW2 to the new all seasons uniform which you just put on what was appropriate for the weather. We at Ohakea had changed over to the new, but Wigram had not and had just gone into winter uniform (battle Dress). During the course we had a hot day and had remove our jerseys until we walked passed the the base WO's office, when he flew out, threw his toys out of his cot and accused us of walking around his base half undressed. Even when we pointed out that this was perfectly legal with the new uniform and that he needed to read the new reg's he would have none of it and ordered us to put our jerseys back on even though it was plus 20 degrees. He evidently complained to Ohakea about what a scruffy lot we were and the informed him that he was wrong and we were right. We got a terse ok, we could remove our jerseys from him but that he was going to keep a close eye on us. We were hoping that he would come to the SNCO's mess while we were there, but after that we never did see him again.
I was at Wigram then and I remember said BWO who was not a GSI by trade but a firey. Great guy too, so if he was in his cot he musta been feeling somewhat off colour due to bad beer being served in the woes and snows the night before, or the the Base Adj, who definitely had no sense of humour, spotted you first and gave him the message. Ray was, and still is, good people.

Said Base Adj got overly excited one morning when he came to work and saw pink elephant foot prints painted from the AOC's* house across the road, up the wall, across the roof and down the opposite wall of the elephant trackers** house, then back across the road before disappearing into the aerial farm. Big witch hunt for a few days after that.

* Air Officer Commanding - Air Commodore equivalent to 1 star rank
** RNZAF Police - called elephant trackers because believed that they couldn't track a herd of elephants down a wet sandy beach.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
So as the outsider looking in would there be sufficient room at Ohakea presently to create a single airbase for the RNZAF?

Is there sufficient land to build new hangars and other infrastructure to support the needs of a fifty aircraft air force?

Would there not be significant savings to having all the engineering and training capabilities at the same site? With such distance to any foe there is currently no threat from an air attack. Yes there is a potential threat from a long range surface or sub surface launched cruise missle but that applies to all nations today.

A third runway and an increase in taxi way should be possible.

Realistically how can this not happen? The comments here reflect the fact that aging infrastructure built at a different time with a much larger fleet requirement are strangling the budgets.

Is there not a better place to put NZSAS as well? If WP closes being close to the aircraft at Ohakea would allow rapid access to all the resources that such a super base offers.
There is alot of defence land on the other side of the runway and down the 3Sqn/MSS side just not directly to its front supposedly closest to the actual base which seems strange as it looks to be the prime land albeit a large portion directly under the alternate rway flightpath. He either must own it or have an extremely long and ironclad lease.

SAS are in Auckland due to its proximity and timely access to both 40sqn and the international airport for rapid deployment, Manawatu would alter that arrangement either either.
 

Xthenaki

Active Member
Speaking of balanced forces the current force is out of lockstep with resource to maintain a concurrent expeditionary force.

Ron Marks seems to see that combat capability is out of balance, do you think he can get it over the line for extra frigates larger number/capable airlift transport & increased amphibious capability, move from a light infantry force to an all motorised/Mechanized force?
If NZ Govt were to move along the lines of Australias proposed new HADR vessel for Sth Pacific use - HMNZS Canterbury could be transferred for this role and a new better naval designed LPD purchased as the replacement
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
If NZ Govt were to move along the lines of Australias proposed new HADR vessel for Sth Pacific use - HMNZS Canterbury could be transferred for this role and a new better naval designed LPD purchased as the replacement
Agree except a LHD instead of an LPD. More flight deck space.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
If NZ Govt were to move along the lines of Australias proposed new HADR vessel for Sth Pacific use - HMNZS Canterbury could be transferred for this role and a new better naval designed LPD purchased as the replacement
My long standing opinion too but not an LPD as a replacement but as an LHD, the cost differential is not too dramatically different but the utility of improved aviation capability makes for a far better long term solution. Probably why more LHD's are being built or planned for relative to traditional LPD designs amongst mature naval institutions.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
If NZ Govt were to move along the lines of Australias proposed new HADR vessel for Sth Pacific use - HMNZS Canterbury could be transferred for this role and a new better naval designed LPD purchased as the replacement

That’s a good idea, but I’d rather see NZ keep her in the strategic sealift role similar to Choules , but she should be due for replacement about the same time as Choules so maybe there might be an opportunity for a combined effort for both RAN and RNZN
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
That’s a good idea, but I’d rather see NZ keep her in the strategic sealift role similar to Choules , but she should be due for replacement about the same time as Choules so maybe there might be an opportunity for a combined effort for both RAN and RNZN
Any future strategic sealift role would be best retained as part of new build LHD that can provide the greater flexibility that aviation support provides particularly in the SouPac were we will often be deployed without port facilities, runways and other infrastructure.
 

beegee

Active Member
My long standing opinion too but not an LPD as a replacement but as an LHD, the cost differential is not too dramatically different but the utility of improved aviation capability makes for a far better long term solution. Probably why more LHD's are being built or planned for relative to traditional LPD designs amongst mature naval institutions.
The extra expense wouldn't necessarily be in the vessel itself, but in the extra helicopters you'd need to take full advantage of the capability.

I was thinking about a way to increase our helo fleet without breaking the bank and there might be an opportunity to jump in on the back of the large French order for the H160M. We could get one squadron of armed utility helicopters for the Air Force and one squadron of the naval version for the navy. They could take up the slack on all the utility roles (SAR, SAS support, armed recon, OPV flight) and leave the NH90s and SH-2Gs for the heavier duty roles. It would also remove the requirement for the SH-2G replacement to be able to operate from the OPVs.

I like the idea of a high-low mix of aircraft. Cheaper than all high, but still retaining that high end capability.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The extra expense wouldn't necessarily be in the vessel itself, but in the extra helicopters you'd need to take full advantage of the capability.

I was thinking about a way to increase our helo fleet without breaking the bank and there might be an opportunity to jump in on the back of the large French order for the H160M. We could get one squadron of armed utility helicopters for the Air Force and one squadron of the naval version for the navy. They could take up the slack on all the utility roles (SAR, SAS support, armed recon, OPV flight) and leave the NH90s and SH-2Gs for the heavier duty roles. It would also remove the requirement for the SH-2G replacement to be able to operate from the OPVs.

I like the idea of a high-low mix of aircraft. Cheaper than all high, but still retaining that high end capability.
We are two NH-90 shy for a start. So we could acquire those two to bring them up to minimal strength. The H160M hasn't achieved IOC yet, so is still very risky. The other thing is that we may not be able to tag on to the French order because we don't have the same relationship with them that we do with the Aussies or the poms. We could also acquire armed and marinised AW109M for somewhat less than the H160M and is already a known platform and in service elsewhere so has been derisked. The AW109 is already in NZDF service so we are not introducing a new type.
 

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
AW109 A/LUH are a cheap capability that should be acquired in two versions to expand RNZAF capabilities. As stated above a marinised version x six should be acquired for use from the OPVs, SOPV and Canterbury. Three basic AW109 should be acquired for training allowing the existing A/LUH to be optimised for army operations along three additional A/LUHs bringing the fleet to 8 A/LUH, six navalised and three basic for a total fleet of 17 airframes.

The two additional NH90 noted by Ngati would give the RNZAF a total rotary wing fleet of 35 helicopters consisting of ten NH90s, 8 Sprites and 17 AW109s. Quite respectable .
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Stored UH-60A's are currently being sold into the commercial sector as excess defense articles for around $800K for refurbishment. The Corpus Christi Army Depot in Texas is starting to remanufacture 760 UH-60 airframes into upgraded UH-60V configuration for continuing US Army service. The cost of the remanufacturing and upgrade process at CCAD is around USD$4m per airframe.

Essentially that means with supplied airframes sold as an EDA's and upgrade one is looking at just NZ$7m (MDE value) per airframe for a remanufactured UH-60 with digital cockpit. Approaching the price of a single new build NH-90 the NZDF could acquire ten military spec UH-60's. Store two as parts and attrition airframes, fly 8 enabling 6 to be available on the flight line to cover the MAOT taskings, and even HADR response domestically and into the Islands. Having a further 8 extra airframes available in the inventory would enable the roles of the current NH90 and A109 fleets to be specified into their prime and most efficient operational contexts. For example using a NH90 to drop gas bottles into back country DOC huts is a waste of resources and with only 8 it takes away from its key army support role.

The A109's are limited by payload capability to what they can offer in much of the utility roles. Remanufactured UH-60's represents better VfM and capability spectrum.

Though 4 leased A109 airframes purely for flight training and some domestic VIP work would also be another cheap enabler in addition to that.
 

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
There is alot of defence land on the other side of the runway and down the 3Sqn/MSS side just not directly to its front supposedly closest to the actual base which seems strange as it looks to be the prime land albeit a large portion directly under the alternate rway flightpath. He either must own it or have an extremely long and ironclad lease.

SAS are in Auckland due to its proximity and timely access to both 40sqn and the international airport for rapid deployment, Manawatu would alter that arrangement either either.

Well room for the Singaporean F15's at Ohakea is no longer an issue - it's officially off!
Singapore F-15 base scrapped for Ohakea

Gutting & short-sighted to say the least. As for regular deployments, it'd be great but forget it, they are wanting a permanent (long-term at least) base.. the whole point behind the plan to start with.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Well room for the Singaporean F15's at Ohakea is no longer an issue - it's officially off!
Singapore F-15 base scrapped for Ohakea

Gutting & short-sighted to say the least. As for regular deployments, it'd be great but forget it, they are wanting a permanent (long-term at least) base.. the whole point behind the plan to start with.
This is the same government that has one of its ministers, y'know the champion of the provinces, careering around the nation with his own personal pork barrel cheque book with $1B p.a to lavish on who he sees fit, and they could not manage to invest some infrastructure money into OH and the Manawatu region - the defence hub of New Zealand to host a RSAF squadron. Why am I not surprised and news dumped on the Friday before Christmas .... oh look here is a baby :rolleyes:
 

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
This is the same government that has one of its ministers, y'know the champion of the provinces, careering around the nation with his own personal pork barrel cheque book with $1B p.a to lavish on who he sees fit, and they could not manage to invest some infrastructure money into OH and the Manawatu region - the defence hub of New Zealand to host a RSAF squadron. Why am I not surprised and news dumped on the Friday before Christmas .... oh look here is a baby :rolleyes:
Yeah here's a baby... it's sitting in a 3 day old nappy & has barfed all over itself, but merry xmas anyway Manawatu!
 
Top