Join the club
Recent research suggests 20% of the population is so affected. As Bob Ballard said , It is not an affliction it just involves a different way of thinking.
,personally I think it makes life far more interesting.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
Recent research suggests 20% of the population is so affected. As Bob Ballard said , It is not an affliction it just involves a different way of thinking.
,personally I think it makes life far more interesting.
Don't apologise for your dyslexia. It runs in my family. I have two brothers with it and two grandkids who have it, along with some nieces and nephews. It just means that you think differently and see the world in a different way, and that's good. You'll most likely be a very visual person and great at looking for and analysing patterns.
That would work just change the SH to MH.
Sooooo....back to reality.
RNZAF can expect 4 x P8s and 5 C130J30s in the foreseeable future. No stand off weapons ordered.
Hard orders.
Another MPA is rumoured, but not ordered yet?
And another 2 or 3 transports required but not ordered or even really looked at yet?
No movement on the NAVY front.(except for new barracks?)
And the expansion of the Army, including a 3rd Inf Bn put on hold due to covid? But electric vehicles on the cards.....
RNZAF can expect 4 x P8s and 5 C130J30s in the foreseeable future. No stand off weapons ordered.
Hard orders.
Another MPA is rumoured, but not ordered yet?
And another 2 or 3 transports required but not ordered or even really looked at yet?
No movement on the NAVY front.(except for new barracks?)
And the expansion of the Army, including a 3rd Inf Bn put on hold due to covid? But electric vehicles on the cards.....
Old mate
In short, yes.
As a comparison with Kiwi's only ally, Australia see's a near future of strategic competition and among many soft power initiatives is attempting to have real hard power maritime fighting capability. Whereas we (my NZ hat on) talk of soft power initiative only and entirely ignores hard power. The new White Paper is a 12 month delay of convenience for Wellington followed by the election hiatus.
In truth, a back of the fag-paper approach to new, immediate, RNZAF capability enabled with emergency funding (EG. Germany) is obvious. The only (!) things missing are political intelligence in both main parties and MFAT/NZDF mana to convey/carry this requirement through the system.
@Gooey
Text deleted. If you want to slag off Kiwis you can go do it elsewhere. Understand. If you do it again the reaction will be a lot stronger.
Ngatimozart.
In short, yes.
As a comparison with Kiwi's only ally, Australia see's a near future of strategic competition and among many soft power initiatives is attempting to have real hard power maritime fighting capability. Whereas we (my NZ hat on) talk of soft power initiative only and entirely ignores hard power. The new White Paper is a 12 month delay of convenience for Wellington followed by the election hiatus.
In truth, a back of the fag-paper approach to new, immediate, RNZAF capability enabled with emergency funding (EG. Germany) is obvious. The only (!) things missing are political intelligence in both main parties and MFAT/NZDF mana to convey/carry this requirement through the system.
@Gooey
Text deleted. If you want to slag off Kiwis you can go do it elsewhere. Understand. If you do it again the reaction will be a lot stronger.
Ngatimozart.
Last edited by a moderator:
The NZG hasn't ordered any stand off weapons yet and under the current govt won't. For the last 40 years the NZ Labour Party has been allergic to acquiring weapons that have a range longer than 5nm. It's actual pacifism streak started back in 1958, however during the early 1980s when the likes of Helen Clark, Phil Goff, and the other anti Vietnam war activists gained more influence in the NZLP, is when the rot really set in.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
To be slightly fair some NZ Labour Party Govt's were better than others (when it comes to stand-off weapons) and some are worse than others (like the current "do nothing" lot).
Source: RNZAF Official "NZ6254 firing a live AGM-65B Maverick missile at Waiouru, 13 April 1989".
(AGM-65B's & AIM-9L's were acquired under the 1984-1990 Labour Govt. Later AGM-65D's [see end of article] were delivered in 2001 during the 1999-2008 Labour Govt for the SH-2G(NZ) Seasprites. Will the 2020-2023 Labour Govt "do nothing" for the P-8A)?
Source: RNZAF Official "NZ6254 firing a live AGM-65B Maverick missile at Waiouru, 13 April 1989".
(AGM-65B's & AIM-9L's were acquired under the 1984-1990 Labour Govt. Later AGM-65D's [see end of article] were delivered in 2001 during the 1999-2008 Labour Govt for the SH-2G(NZ) Seasprites. Will the 2020-2023 Labour Govt "do nothing" for the P-8A)?
Ok, but in interests of fairness. Since 1990, the other side of the political divide (National) were just as bad; they were just as allergic to spending money on defence, all because of an economic theory.To be slightly fair some NZ Labour Party Govt's were better than others (when it comes to stand-off weapons) and some are worse than others (like the current "do nothing" lot).
Source: RNZAF Official "NZ6254 firing a live AGM-65B Maverick missile at Waiouru, 13 April 1989".
(AGM-65B's & AIM-9L's were acquired under the 1984-1990 Labour Govt. Later AGM-65D's [see end of article] were delivered in 2001 during the 1999-2008 Labour Govt for the SH-2G(NZ) Seasprites. Will the 2020-2023 Labour Govt "do nothing" for the P-8A)?
Obviously, in the interests of history, if I may as a part-time Kiwi, I’m not too sure the Nats binned ACF or ASW though did they? Or courted Army back briefings or ridiculed Geriatric Generals or politicised NZDF promotions. Then there was the small matter of our expulsion from ANZUS. So to say they were just as bad is possibly debatable. Perhaps just as stingy with funding over the past 40 years.
Anyway, to settle the nerves please find a nice picture of happier times when we had navigators in NZ 'attack bombers':
You have been on here long enough to know the rules. Provide a source for the photo please.
Ngatimozart.
Anyway, to settle the nerves please find a nice picture of happier times when we had navigators in NZ 'attack bombers':
You have been on here long enough to know the rules. Provide a source for the photo please.
Ngatimozart.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pepe le pew
Member
"...binned ASW..." ? I assume you mean anti submarine warfare?
I am not sure that the Navy would agree that this capability has been "binned"
HMNZS Te Kaha - New Zealand Defence Force (nzdf.mil.nz)
Pepe le pew
Member
Duplicate
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Might be referring to some ASW upgrades that IIRC had been planned for the P-3K, but ended up getting cancelled. Again, IIRC, some ASW systems upgrades were done are part of the P-3K2 upgrade around ~2010, but that was a number of years afterwards.
As a side note, and acknowledging that this part is RNZN not RNZAF, but the primary RNZN sensor for ASW for a number of years had been the hull-mounted sonar aboard the frigates. This was better than nothing, but no where near has a towed sonar array, or even better, an integrated ASW helicopter capability with sonobuoys and dipping sonar.
In short, the NZDF was for a number of years (exceeding a decade I believe) where there was little in the way of sensors available for ASW, if something had happened.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
The last Towed Array the RNZN was on board HMNZS Tui... in the late 80's Early 90's.... and I remember how sensitive that bugger was detecting aircraft that flew over it and surface vessels ... lets just say at very large distances.... and well I can neither confirm nor deny that there were a few submarines hanging around as well ;-)
However this is an airforce thread back on topic now... before I get a moderator red warning ;-)
Pepe le pew
Member
The upgrade of the P-3k2 Underwater Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (UISR) systems was approved in 2016 and completed in March 2019. The prime contractor was Boeing Corp (USA) which then sub-contracted Airbus (NZ), Beca Technologies and Marops to complete the upgrades in New Zealand.
Defence capability projects | Ministry of Defence Website
Pepe le pew
Member
Duplicate
Last edited:
Pepe
Thanks for the P-3K2 ASW information. I trust that I am not 'slagging off kiwi's' by providing more on another sad period of RNZAF history. Also, I was previously being a bit glib with my english. Apologies.
This was early 2001 and thus, for context, the same period as the ACF disbanding and Timor & Twin Towers attack under PM Clark. There are a number of other google hits, but for reference after the initial war of words between NZDF and the PM (which while great fun, as a government service is only ever going to end in tears) this Beehive press release has a multitude of interesting points from that time; my bold highlights; Misleading information on submarines':
"Officials reviewing our maritime patrol needs concluded that New Zealand does not need to maintain arrangements that include an anti-submarine capability at this time. By maintaining an Orion fleet, however, we retain the ability to invest in such a capability in future if we need it.
"This government will invest in capabilities which are a priority and not in those which are not," Helen Clark said.
Now I am the first to admit that ASW is complicated and that I know about as much as what I have read from Tom Clancy and being bored by a multitude of very capable and passionate light blue and dark blue fish-heads; however, the following strikes me as being pertinent in a discussion on current NZ maritime capability:
1. The then PM seems to have spent an awful lot of time looking at defence capabilities in this period, which is the opposite of today where by it is ignored; note, with her character and background, this was not necessarily a good thing
2. For a maritime nation, even during this self declared period of being in a 'benign strategic environment' NZ seemed to be wreaking whatever limited air-sea operational capability that it had and prioritising other areas of defence (lets go and buy little tanks (IE. LAVIII) instead)
3. Just because today we have near end of life ASW torpedoes, Mk 82's, 1 or 2 ASW capable acft/helo's , and 1 or 2 ASW capable frigates, does not make a modern operational capability that will meaningfully contribute to our Allies
4. Like any complex system of systems, ASW involves a lot of very hard training and corporate knowledge as well as hardware; it's very nice that 5 Sqn is getting P-8A's for a whole host of reasons (including the survival of NZ in FVEY and the existence of the RNZAF) but their numbers are very few and weapons are fewer; on the good side, modern IT (including simulation and virtual networked events) will help 'simplify' the task, but the fact remains that ASW is a perishable skill that requires mucho effort and funding and cannot just be turned off and then on again, when needed
5. IMHO a way to address this 'capability holiday' (sorry, I'm using another nations terminology here for not bothering with operationally balanced maritime defence forces and instead relying on other nations to undertake our responsibilities instead EG. bludger) in NZ ASW is to accelerate the programs that are already/presumably in train within DCP et al:
a. Mk 54
b. Replacement 6 Sqn wokka-wokkas with a modern ASW capability (apparently the European plastic 90 type helo is el pants)
c. new and more ASW frigates
d. more P-8As
Noting my previous comments about NZ recently placing any defence decisions on hold for the next 18 months, despite the current strategic situation and the woeful state of NZDF/RNZAF hard power capability, and I am weeping in my weetabix/weet-bix daily.
Related is this article '... enables the Raytheon MK 54 torpedo carried aboard the Navy Boeing P-8A Poseidon jet to glide through the air from as high as 30,000 feet.' which implies that this capability is still being developed State side.
We can hope that this weapon will be procured by NZ as it becomes available.
www.militaryaerospace.com
Thanks for the P-3K2 ASW information. I trust that I am not 'slagging off kiwi's' by providing more on another sad period of RNZAF history. Also, I was previously being a bit glib with my english. Apologies.
This was early 2001 and thus, for context, the same period as the ACF disbanding and Timor & Twin Towers attack under PM Clark. There are a number of other google hits, but for reference after the initial war of words between NZDF and the PM (which while great fun, as a government service is only ever going to end in tears) this Beehive press release has a multitude of interesting points from that time; my bold highlights; Misleading information on submarines':
"Officials reviewing our maritime patrol needs concluded that New Zealand does not need to maintain arrangements that include an anti-submarine capability at this time. By maintaining an Orion fleet, however, we retain the ability to invest in such a capability in future if we need it.
"This government will invest in capabilities which are a priority and not in those which are not," Helen Clark said.
Now I am the first to admit that ASW is complicated and that I know about as much as what I have read from Tom Clancy and being bored by a multitude of very capable and passionate light blue and dark blue fish-heads; however, the following strikes me as being pertinent in a discussion on current NZ maritime capability:
1. The then PM seems to have spent an awful lot of time looking at defence capabilities in this period, which is the opposite of today where by it is ignored; note, with her character and background, this was not necessarily a good thing
2. For a maritime nation, even during this self declared period of being in a 'benign strategic environment' NZ seemed to be wreaking whatever limited air-sea operational capability that it had and prioritising other areas of defence (lets go and buy little tanks (IE. LAVIII) instead)
3. Just because today we have near end of life ASW torpedoes, Mk 82's, 1 or 2 ASW capable acft/helo's , and 1 or 2 ASW capable frigates, does not make a modern operational capability that will meaningfully contribute to our Allies
4. Like any complex system of systems, ASW involves a lot of very hard training and corporate knowledge as well as hardware; it's very nice that 5 Sqn is getting P-8A's for a whole host of reasons (including the survival of NZ in FVEY and the existence of the RNZAF) but their numbers are very few and weapons are fewer; on the good side, modern IT (including simulation and virtual networked events) will help 'simplify' the task, but the fact remains that ASW is a perishable skill that requires mucho effort and funding and cannot just be turned off and then on again, when needed
5. IMHO a way to address this 'capability holiday' (sorry, I'm using another nations terminology here for not bothering with operationally balanced maritime defence forces and instead relying on other nations to undertake our responsibilities instead EG. bludger) in NZ ASW is to accelerate the programs that are already/presumably in train within DCP et al:
a. Mk 54
b. Replacement 6 Sqn wokka-wokkas with a modern ASW capability (apparently the European plastic 90 type helo is el pants)
c. new and more ASW frigates
d. more P-8As
Noting my previous comments about NZ recently placing any defence decisions on hold for the next 18 months, despite the current strategic situation and the woeful state of NZDF/RNZAF hard power capability, and I am weeping in my weetabix/weet-bix daily.
Related is this article '... enables the Raytheon MK 54 torpedo carried aboard the Navy Boeing P-8A Poseidon jet to glide through the air from as high as 30,000 feet.' which implies that this capability is still being developed State side.
We can hope that this weapon will be procured by NZ as it becomes available.
Navy asks Boeing to build flying torpedo for airborne anti-submarine warfare (ASW) operations from aircraft
HAAWC enables the Raytheon MK 54 torpedo carried aboard the Navy Boeing P-8A Poseidon jet to glide through the air from as high as 30,000 feet.
www.militaryaerospace.com
As I stated earlier the Mk-54 LWT is being acquired and will replace both the RNZAF & RNZN Mk-46 LWT stocks which are approaching their use-by dates. Whether or not we acquire the glide kit is unknown but the P-8As are locked into the USN upgrade system so I would presume so. I totally agree on numbers and If I had my way we'd get another two preferably three. But I am not Minister of Defence and Minister of Finance.Pepe
Thanks for the P-3K2 ASW information. I trust that I am not 'slagging off kiwi's' by providing more on another sad period of RNZAF history. Also, I was previously being a bit glib with my english. Apologies.
This was early 2001 and thus, for context, the same period as the ACF disbanding and Timor & Twin Towers attack under PM Clark. There are a number of other google hits, but for reference after the initial war of words between NZDF and the PM (which while great fun, as a government service is only ever going to end in tears) this Beehive press release has a multitude of interesting points from that time; my bold highlights; Misleading information on submarines':
"Officials reviewing our maritime patrol needs concluded that New Zealand does not need to maintain arrangements that include an anti-submarine capability at this time. By maintaining an Orion fleet, however, we retain the ability to invest in such a capability in future if we need it.
"This government will invest in capabilities which are a priority and not in those which are not," Helen Clark said.
Now I am the first to admit that ASW is complicated and that I know about as much as what I have read from Tom Clancy and being bored by a multitude of very capable and passionate light blue and dark blue fish-heads; however, the following strikes me as being pertinent in a discussion on current NZ maritime capability:
1. The then PM seems to have spent an awful lot of time looking at defence capabilities in this period, which is the opposite of today where by it is ignored; note, with her character and background, this was not necessarily a good thing
2. For a maritime nation, even during this self declared period of being in a 'benign strategic environment' NZ seemed to be wreaking whatever limited air-sea operational capability that it had and prioritising other areas of defence (lets go and buy little tanks (IE. LAVIII) instead)
3. Just because today we have near end of life ASW torpedoes, Mk 82's, 1 or 2 ASW capable acft/helo's , and 1 or 2 ASW capable frigates, does not make a modern operational capability that will meaningfully contribute to our Allies
4. Like any complex system of systems, ASW involves a lot of very hard training and corporate knowledge as well as hardware; it's very nice that 5 Sqn is getting P-8A's for a whole host of reasons (including the survival of NZ in FVEY and the existence of the RNZAF) but their numbers are very few and weapons are fewer; on the good side, modern IT (including simulation and virtual networked events) will help 'simplify' the task, but the fact remains that ASW is a perishable skill that requires mucho effort and funding and cannot just be turned off and then on again, when needed
5. IMHO a way to address this 'capability holiday' (sorry, I'm using another nations terminology here for not bothering with operationally balanced maritime defence forces and instead relying on other nations to undertake our responsibilities instead EG. bludger) in NZ ASW is to accelerate the programs that are already/presumably in train within DCP et al:
a. Mk 54
b. Replacement 6 Sqn wokka-wokkas with a modern ASW capability (apparently the European plastic 90 type helo is el pants)
c. new and more ASW frigates
d. more P-8As
Noting my previous comments about NZ recently placing any defence decisions on hold for the next 18 months, despite the current strategic situation and the woeful state of NZDF/RNZAF hard power capability, and I am weeping in my weetabix/weet-bix daily.
Related is this article '... enables the Raytheon MK 54 torpedo carried aboard the Navy Boeing P-8A Poseidon jet to glide through the air from as high as 30,000 feet.' which implies that this capability is still being developed State side.
We can hope that this weapon will be procured by NZ as it becomes available.
Navy asks Boeing to build flying torpedo for airborne anti-submarine warfare (ASW) operations from aircraft
HAAWC enables the Raytheon MK 54 torpedo carried aboard the Navy Boeing P-8A Poseidon jet to glide through the air from as high as 30,000 feet.
WRT the Sprite replacement we have three options:
- MH-60R
- AW159 Wildcat
- NH90 NFH
The AW159 Wildcat is smaller than the Romeo but is operated by the only one of our FVEY partners, UK and one other NATO partner in the region, South Korea. We would have to pay to have the Mk-54 LWT and Penguin integrated, plus any other missile we might acquire for helicopter use. The only advantage of the Wildcat is if we were to acquire the Army version and used it as an armed attack variant for the Army. It would be marinised and can mount various missiles, rockets, and guns. Then there's the problems of support and logistics.
The NH90 NFH wouldn't be the ideal ASW / ASuW helicopter for us because of a variety of reasons. It's expensive to operate; problems with support and logistics, they won't fit in the current frigate hangars and definitely not on the OPV, here are still significant teething and delivery problems with them.
My own preference is for the Romeo (MH-60R) for the reasons explained.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
India are also integrating the NSM on the MH-60R, could be an option to replace the Penguin. Can't see the Penguin mounted on a Helicopter being able to take on a modern warship, it would be firing within the range of most SAMs now.
The only logical choice is the MH-60R. I think the AW159 Wildcat would count itself out as Leonardo have said short of no further orders I believe the production of the aircraft would cease, and if the British MOD picked the AW149M to replace a number of helicopters currently in service. I read somewhere that the AW149M would be built in the UK at Yeovilton where the current AW159 Wildcat is constructed. Korea initially selected the Wildcat for phase 2 of there Multi role Maritime Helicopter. Under phase one of the tender the Wildcat was selected in 2019 with 8 delivered. But after a restart in the process of the tender the MH60R has been selected.
The NFH90 is too big for a Navy with smaller vessels and too expensive to run, I think end of story.
So in reality there is only one choice.
edit, that is a wee bit confusing what i have written re Korea. Phase one of the multi maritime helicopter they ordered and got 8 in 2019 under phase two they wanted 12 more but after a restart on the tender process they got 12 MH70R.
Last edited:
Hello Nga, may I ask if you have a source for NZ Mk54 procurement?
Spiral development of the P-8A through following the USN/RAAF cycle is by far the best model for improvements, especially software patches. I read somewhere recently that this is understood by NZ MoD and is probably being pushed as the preferred update path (ie. small incremental steps rather than 15-20 year big-bang mid life efforts). Let us hope so as it will ensure operational relevance, integration with Allies, and significantly increase training benefits with 92 WG, RAAF/lower our training & logistics costs compared to if we had chosen to go-alone (EG. Kiwi's decide to contribute to the Australian LRASM buy and use RAAF war stocks rather than building our own 'system' at RNZAF Ohakea).
For what it’s worth, I’d agree that MH-60R is the only FVEY compatible, war fighting option. Think similarly networked capabilities on the P-8A, but under a disk, which if you go for another wokka will work, sort of (like the proposed C-130J or Saab Swordfish MPAs), but will not be truly integrated or provide the above operational/training/logistics benefits.
The Penguins fit with the Romeo from memory has already been done by USN earlier in its service. According to this, India has them too Learn about the "penguin" missile India bought from the US. - Defence View
I believe that RAN does not, just Hellfire, but you’d be forgiven if you thought they had their sights on something like NSM too.
As an aside, having P8/LRASM or Romeo/NSM does not mean that you could take on PLAN Carriers or Type 55 solo (that's a violently dynamic and kinetic game for ACF / B-21 types will lots of non-kinetic support) but it is much better than a 5’ gun and Sea Sprite/Penguin combo.
Spiral development of the P-8A through following the USN/RAAF cycle is by far the best model for improvements, especially software patches. I read somewhere recently that this is understood by NZ MoD and is probably being pushed as the preferred update path (ie. small incremental steps rather than 15-20 year big-bang mid life efforts). Let us hope so as it will ensure operational relevance, integration with Allies, and significantly increase training benefits with 92 WG, RAAF/lower our training & logistics costs compared to if we had chosen to go-alone (EG. Kiwi's decide to contribute to the Australian LRASM buy and use RAAF war stocks rather than building our own 'system' at RNZAF Ohakea).
For what it’s worth, I’d agree that MH-60R is the only FVEY compatible, war fighting option. Think similarly networked capabilities on the P-8A, but under a disk, which if you go for another wokka will work, sort of (like the proposed C-130J or Saab Swordfish MPAs), but will not be truly integrated or provide the above operational/training/logistics benefits.
The Penguins fit with the Romeo from memory has already been done by USN earlier in its service. According to this, India has them too Learn about the "penguin" missile India bought from the US. - Defence View
I believe that RAN does not, just Hellfire, but you’d be forgiven if you thought they had their sights on something like NSM too.
As an aside, having P8/LRASM or Romeo/NSM does not mean that you could take on PLAN Carriers or Type 55 solo (that's a violently dynamic and kinetic game for ACF / B-21 types will lots of non-kinetic support) but it is much better than a 5’ gun and Sea Sprite/Penguin combo.
I suspect the Airbus H-160 naval variant on order by France would also be be in the frame as it features the bare minimum ( EO, winch, radar, torpedo's, small ASuW missiles etc) but is smaller (and thus cheaper?) than these options. It might not be as fully speced for ASW missions, but could very much be a 'just enough' option that politicians like to choose.
HIL H160M Missions