Royal New Zealand Air Force

Sure, if you have the assets available. There must be a reason for the decision to base this particular P-3 in Auckland. Look at the RCAF's location for basing some SAR helicopters and our eventual fleet of FWSAR for Arctic response, frigging Trenton Ontario. At least a P-3 can traverse the 4,800 km and get into action fairly quickly. The RCAF P-3s would have similar or greater distances to cover the Arctic from their bases, another reason to get higher speed P-8s, something NZ has already decided on.
 
Jon, the ability to fly to the Canadian Arctic to deal with a SAR incident is more than likely a body recovery given the extreme cold unlike the the waters of the SP.

Basing a K350 with a search radar or something similar to provide SAR and utility would help locate those in distress much faster. The aircraft should also have the ability to deploy survival kits and be multi role to support liaison and utility duties. Maybe a float equipped Viking Twin Otter 400 would have more utility over the King Air. I wonder if this could be a contracted aircraft supported by its owner and flown by RNZAF personnel on rotation.
 
I am not familiar with what is expected from the RNZAF wrt to SAR but judging from the numerous posts here, I gather, like here in Canada, there are great expectations. Like Canada, the required assets will be made available shortly after the next election only to be reset afterwards to who knows when. Bottom line, make sure your stuff is ship shape because help is a long way coming.

Don't want to OT this thread but wrt to the Arctic, Canada signed on to supporting SAR with other Arctic nations. Don't think we are close to meeting this although others are not really able to either. Russia would be #1 at the moment.
 
Last edited:
John Fedup said:
Sure, if you have the assets available. There must be a reason for the decision to base this particular P-3 in Auckland. Look at the RCAF's location for basing some SAR helicopters and our eventual fleet of FWSAR for Arctic response, frigging Trenton Ontario. At least a P-3 can traverse the 4,800 km and get into action fairly quickly. The RCAF P-3s would have similar or greater distances to cover the Arctic from their bases, another reason to get higher speed P-8s, something NZ has already decided on.
Click to expand...

As ive said before , simply not enough P8 were purchased though. False economy swapping 6 P3 for 4 P8, despite the speed, and loiter time, systems onboard etc. Throw in the fact no additional supplemental capability has been decided on and the glacial movement to do so, I think those P8 are going to be well and truly knackered before their time. And I can see areas not covered, due to the unavailability .
 
Novascotiaboy said:
A P3 has been sent north from Whenupai to search for two small open boats that have failed to return from fishing trips. Would it not make more sense to forward base assets in the region to quickly respond to events such as this instead of travelling almost 5000 km just to get to the search area?

Pacific.scoop.co.nz » NZDF joins search for two missing Kiribati vessels
Click to expand...
We had some Sunderlands based up a Lauthala Bay in Fiji until early to mid 1960s, where they undertook SAR, MEDEVAC etc., around the Pacific Islands as well as ferrying various NZ govt administrators around. Today I don't think that we'd be able to justify the expense of basing an aircraft, 2 x crews and techies up there just for SAR & HADR.
 
kiwipatriot69 said:
As ive said before , simply not enough P8 were purchased though. False economy swapping 6 P3 for 4 P8, despite the speed, and loiter time, systems onboard etc. Throw in the fact no additional supplemental capability has been decided on and the glacial movement to do so, I think those P8 are going to be well and truly knackered before their time. And I can see areas not covered, due to the unavailability .
Click to expand...

Agree
I'm sure 4 x P8 will no doubt come up short on numbers when needed.
With the P3's retired and one P8 out for maintenance or short term repairs, three aircraft may soon be very challenged to provide "government expectations".
We are not even talking about high end military stuff. One natural disaster and the requirement to have persistence at distance on one location only will be a challenge enough. High tempo operations going from days to weeks will be a stretch to say the least.
This should be a sovereign capability.
Other nations may not always be able to assist.
Surely at least another aircraft could be funded with a total of six being the preference if not more.
After all New Zealand is responsible for a significant area of land and sea.


Regards S
 
Stampede said:
Agree
I'm sure 4 x P8 will no doubt come up short on numbers when needed.

Surely at least another aircraft could be funded with a total of six being the preference if not more.

Regards S
Click to expand...

I think the political reality needs to be recognised here, and that NZ First Ministers - specifically Ron Mark - astonishingly managed to a get a $2 billion+ purchase of US-built combat aircraft through a Labour and Green Party coalition! Sure, 4 is probably the minimum necessary - but perhaps the Tactical Air Mobility decision (whenever that happens) will help to address the future SAR/HADR deficit. Not beyond the realms of possibility that RNZAF could lease a couple of dedicated K-350s to base in the Islands, especially given the context of improved defence relations with Fiji.
 
Lets be realistic about the support to the islands. They are 4000 plus km from NZ. If two aircraft could be leased for utility purposes and paid for from foreign affairs budgets its win win for everyone. Nice deployment for RNZAF staff and family on a rotational basis. No need to stay with Beechcraft 350 as maybe a more utility type would be better such as a Viking Twin Otter 400 or a PZL Sky Truck?

Looking at the recent Australian lease of Falcon business jets the initial delivery of the first aircraft was within a week. Maybe overall leasing has its benefits for NZ as there is no capital outlay. This could possibly be a better solution for the rotary training allowing a lease of five aircraft for a five year period thus freeing the A/LUHs up for purely military support.
 
Novascotiaboy said:
Lets be realistic about the support to the islands. They are 4000 plus km from NZ. If two aircraft could be leased for utility purposes and paid for from foreign affairs budgets its win win for everyone. Nice deployment for RNZAF staff and family on a rotational basis. No need to stay with Beechcraft 350 as maybe a more utility type would be better such as a Viking Twin Otter 400 or a PZL Sky Truck?
Click to expand...
The Twin Otter makes a lot of sense. Fiji Link the Govt own domestic carrier subsidiary of Fiji Airways fly Twin Otter 400's and local facilities are able to do A and B checks. That would reduce the in-country maintenance and personnel footprint of the RNZAF. The Guardian 400 maritime patrol variant has been marketed for less than CND$7m.

Novascotiaboy said:
Looking at the recent Australian lease of Falcon business jets the initial delivery of the first aircraft was within a week. Maybe overall leasing has its benefits for NZ as there is no capital outlay. This could possibly be a better solution for the rotary training allowing a lease of five aircraft for a five year period thus freeing the A/LUHs up for purely military support.
Click to expand...
They did reject the lease option 15 years ago but circumstances have changed somewhat.

Here is what they had in mind at the time:

Indicative Costs for 8 Year Lease and Support of Four Eurocopter EC-120B Colibri Helicopters (NZ$24 million). The Colibri was deemed suitable for Pilot training but not Crewman training. They would have had an output of 1800 hours per annum.

Anecdotally I have been told that an AW109 lease of four new airframes would have been closer to $40m over 8 years and because that was the preferred option they went for all up acquisition. However there are ten year old AW109E Powers out there on the 2nd hand market which are also an option for lease or sale. Frankly just a few more KA350's and AW109E's are lowing hanging fruit in terms of building capacity thresholds of the RNZAF.
 
Apparently NZ and Singapore now have an enhanced partnership agreement, including on Defence (see the MFAT website).

"Defence cooperation
New Zealand and Singapore’s defence agencies have established an annual Defence Ministers meeting and regular dialogues between our services. They will also explore opportunities for further skills development and reciprocal secondments through the following agreements:
  • Technical aspects of safety and security - Agreement between New Zealand’s Institute for Environmental, Science and Research Limited and Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs.
  • Cooperation in Homeland Security Technology - Agreement between the Defence Technology Agency and Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs"

Wonder if this will positively affect the proposal to base a squadron of RSAF F-16s at Ohakea?
 
Kiwigov said:
Apparently NZ and Singapore now have an enhanced partnership agreement, including on Defence (see the MFAT website).

"Defence cooperation
New Zealand and Singapore’s defence agencies have established an annual Defence Ministers meeting and regular dialogues between our services. They will also explore opportunities for further skills development and reciprocal secondments through the following agreements:
  • Technical aspects of safety and security - Agreement between New Zealand’s Institute for Environmental, Science and Research Limited and Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs.
  • Cooperation in Homeland Security Technology - Agreement between the Defence Technology Agency and Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs"

Wonder if this will positively affect the proposal to base a squadron of RSAF F-16s at Ohakea?
Click to expand...

AIUI that proposal was shot down for good around Xmas time. I suspect the only hope would be under a new Govt but if the stated reasons regarding cost etc at the time are factual then any such arguments are still likely to be applicable in future. That proposal was actually for F15, I guess if they decided they needed same for C130 or such like then it'd happen a lot quicker - not that I'm suggesting any other proposal is being considered any more.
 
Of course the DCP will only raise what capabilities that they are prepared to fund under the restraints of what is available. It will not raise any capabilities beyond that even if prudence and logic strategically demand it. In other words an unspoken deceit.

My only expectation from this current government was that they secured the P-8. They have done that and basically nothing else. All capabilities and monies post FY 2016 through to FY 2020 (the 4 year forward funded budget appropriation) planned under the previous Government are being followed through but nothing new. Even then the P-8 was a Key-English Government initiative.

I really don't know why people are expecting something from the DCP. I think people will be both underwhelmed and disappointed. When the file copy goes to the National Library it should be filed in the Fiction section.
 
ngatimozart said:
Cabinet documents on the proposal to base Singaporean F-15s at Ohakea have been released. Haven't read them yet.

Singapore Proposal to Base F-15 Fighter Jets at Ohakea Base – 2018 Cabinet Documents
Click to expand...

Heavy use section 6 and blow and behold Dr Graham Scott's Sapere Group is its author. The go to guys to kill policy which the Government does not agree with or write reports to cold water anything positive. Another NZ Defence document that should be filed under Fiction at the National Library
 
ngatimozart said:
Cabinet documents on the proposal to base Singaporean F-15s at Ohakea have been released. Haven't read them yet.

Singapore Proposal to Base F-15 Fighter Jets at Ohakea Base – 2018 Cabinet Documents
Click to expand...

I had a read and it seems like their decision was reasonable.

To summarise:

They concluded it would be a big plus on strategic/foreign policy grounds, and would have limited economic and tactical benefits (more opportunities for the army/navy to train with fast jets).

It would have required a runway extension, the purchase of several properties due to unreasonable noise levels, significant investment in noise insulation on base and in the surrounding town, and increased pollution from noise, fuel burn, munitions and countermeasures. There were also reservations in the NZDF regarding the challenges of operating fast jets and slower training/rotary wing aircraft from the same base, and concerns that the limited development real estate at NZ's major airbase would be taken up.

It sounds like short terms visits from Singaporean F-16's at least will continue, and options for development of a more permanent base for them elsewhere (i.e. Waiouru) considered. I wouldn't hold my breath on that front though.
 
milliGal said:
I had a read and it seems like their decision was reasonable.

To summarise:

They concluded it would be a big plus on strategic/foreign policy grounds, and would have limited economic and tactical benefits (more opportunities for the army/navy to train with fast jets).
Click to expand...
If you don’t mind, let me share a frank perspective.

There are tactical benefits for the navy, as F-15SG is configured for maritime strike to compliment the search area of a MPA. To fly low level and to pop-up for strike (which will compliment NZDF’s P-8s). This is deliberately omitted in the papers. When they talk about foreign certification, it’s for SAS certification but they omit the benefit of training for joint fires by normal FOs, which is being done for our army. It’s what is omitted that we can spot easily.

It’s written to sell a point of view.
It would have required a runway extension, the purchase of several properties due to unreasonable noise levels, significant investment in noise insulation on base and in the surrounding town, and increased pollution from noise, fuel burn, munitions and countermeasures. There were also reservations in the NZDF regarding the challenges of operating fast jets and slower training/rotary wing aircraft from the same base, and concerns that the limited development real estate at NZ's major airbase would be taken up.
Click to expand...
It’s an airport - more flights means more CO2 (the foot print of Changi and our skies are more crowded), which can be mitigated by purchase of local green credits. We can restrict use of flares if that is a concern (it’s just a little less realism in training). Do you drive? If you do, you have a carbon foot print.

But I recognise that there will be INCREASED costs for NZDF but the people in these forces will be closer. And if shooting starts in a mission, these peace time training relationships will be tested - we currently train in NZ with your guys before we deploy to Iraq and in the papers (just well hidden in a one liner, to ensure it’s not easily spotted by a layperson like me). Likewise for 6 years in Afghanistan and millions SAF spent supporting projects and missions there, along side NZDF.
It sounds like short terms visits from Singaporean F-16's at least will continue, and options for development of a more permanent base for them elsewhere (i.e. Waiouru) considered. I wouldn't hold my breath on that front though.
Click to expand...
Why? We want to train with NZDF and increased realism via close air support is good training value. NZDF defended us, when we as a country was much less capable of defending ourselves. We just want to give back and the local Mayors want this.
 
OPSSG said:
Why? We want to train with NZDF and increased realism via close air support is good training value. NZDF defended us, when we as a country was much less capable of defending ourselves. We just want to give back and the local Mayors want this.
Click to expand...

I don't think this decision should be interpreted in that light. The document specifically mentions that the decision will not negatively impact on our two countries "strong bilateral relationship" so I think it the decision was made in close consultation with Singaporean officials, and our relationship remains strong.

I personally would have loved to see fast jet's return to NZ skies, and I hope that alternative arrangements can be made. After reading the document I can understand why they made the decision they did though.
 
Last edited:
milliGal said:
I don't think this decision should be interpreted in that light. The document specifically mentions that the decision will not negatively impact on our two countries "strong bilateral relationship" so I think it the decision was made in close consultation with Singaporean officials, and our relationship remains strong.

I personally would have loved to see fast jet's return to NZ skies, and hope that alternative arrangements can be made. After reading the document I can understand why they made the decision they did though.
Click to expand...
Just to make sure we are on the same wave length, I am speaking from a Singaporean perspective.

And of course, Singapore will respect and support your country’s decision - I think what we will see is ad hoc short term deployments of fast jets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top