Royal New Zealand Air Force

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I'm not a fan of moving the navy to Marsden Point. I think there are to many limitations, especially when considered in conjunction with talk around the Port of Auckland. I would be more supportive of the retention of Devonport for Core Maritime Training, MCM / Hydrographic, Inshore Patrol, Tanker and maybe Canterbury.

The increasing size of ships does mean we need a new naval base, but Timaru would be a non-starter from my point of view due to large tidal range in that port. It would also mean shutting down commercial side of the business in order to provide sufficient berths for Frigates and OPV's. Realistically NZ is pretty limited as to where a new navy base could be located given the best spots are already in use.
I have personal experience of the surge in Timaru when I was tied up alongside there on Kiwi many times. Definitely couldn't use the current port facilities, but there is room to the south of the port for expansion. Would involve the building of another breakwater with armour rock, along with a second mole. If that second mole was extended further out than the current one it could with proper engineering slow down or even halt the aggradation of Caroline Bay and prevent sediment deposition within the current shipping channel. If the naval facility was moved further south, say about level with the South Timaru cemetery, and the breakwater and mole built there, then a second sandy beach, a la Caroline Bay would be formed between the naval facility and the current port. The problem would be taking the mole far enough seaward and engineering it and the seafloor around it to ensure that the change in sediment flow didn't cause sediment deposition in the current shipping channel. There's a large gravel sediment stream that flows north from the Waitaki and other rivers towards Banks Peninsula that's just offshore of Timaru. Naval accommodation could be at the mooted air base.

I seriously considered Lyttelton but reached the conclusion that there is no room there for expansion for a naval base. All of the inner harbour is taken up now, mostly by the Port Company; they only other deep water is either along by the coal export terminal and it's mostly sheer cliff; or across at Diamond Harbour and again no flat land for development. The reason why Timaru was my choice apart from that, was it's proximity to army facilities and as such any amphib vessels / logistics vessels are reasonably close to army facilities. That's why I ruled out Dunedin.
As an alternative the navy could continue to use Devonport but have forward operating bases say in Christchurch or Dunedin (existing naval units and Industrial base for repairs not involving a drydock) and the South Pacific. This would see ships permanently based in the SI and return to DNB for refit / docking etc. and at least one on permanent rotation in the South Pacific.

I do think 14 Sqn should move to Woodbourne, and I can't dispute the logic behind Timaru as a future Airbase.
I do consider a necessity that we have at least one ship permanently assigned to a South Pacific location. The recent IPV deployments to Fiji were a success and I think that they should be built on. That's where I believe something like the VARD 7-100-OPV, VARD 7-110-OPV or VARD 7-125-OPV would be ideal and in reality it would have to be more than one ship. An aircraft would need to be permanently based as well and not necessarily a P-8A but a long range aircraft with maritime ISR capability. The crews could be swapped out, leaving the platforms there.

We do have to face the fact that DNB will at some stage be forced out of Auckland because the land it occupies is just to valuable and all those Devonport luvvies and Northshore yuppies will be wanting to get their hands on the land for the views etc. Unbeknownst to them Ngati Whatua have first right of refusal on the land. :D The west coast of both islands is out because of the prevailing westerly winds and seas along with prevalence of bars into west coast rivers, inlets and ports, apart from the fiords in the south.

The Marlborough Sounds and in particular the head of Queen Charlotte Sound around Picton was next considered. Where would such an establishment be built? Most, if not all, of the suitable land is already taken for residential or other use. Same down Grove Arm. As much as the the area is very scenic with good fishing, diving, and other recreational activities, there is not a lot for families and partners with their own careers outside of NZDF. They could work in Wellington, but the bit of water between makes the daily commute something of a problem. There's no bridge.

Napier and Tauranga were also considered but again it was the career problems. Finally that left Wellington and Marsden Point. Wellington was considered to much of a risk of the fleet being severely damaged / sunk / stranded in the harbour due to a major earthquake being generated off the Wairarapa Fault. The last one generated an 8.2 shake with 6m of vertical uplift and 14m of strike slip. The tsunami was a good sized one as well. There are also, from memory, about another four or five active faults running through Wellington itself.

Marsden Point presents fewer natural hazards apart from storms, tsunami and some earthquakes. Unlike Auckland there are no volcanic hazards and there is plenty of available land for the base and an airfield. The water depth is agreeable and for those who have careers outside of NZDF, Auckland is within commutable distance. Well the getting to Albany will be relatively quick. Getting from Albany to the city will probably take longer than Whangarei to Albany.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
I can see why I'm wrong about creating a new base further north, thank you for the explanation Ngati and RegR. I guess late night thinking doesn't promote good thinking!
It's not that you're wrong, we all are until it actually happens and we are all guessing, some just more educated guesses than others. All depends on how much they want/need an airbase in Auckland TBH as to whether or not it stays but when 5 Sqn finally moves out I would say its future will definitely come up again for serious debate by all interested parties for and against.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
It's not that you're wrong, we all are until it actually happens and we are all guessing, some just more educated guesses than others. All depends on how much they want/need an airbase in Auckland TBH as to whether or not it stays but when 5 Sqn finally moves out I would say its future will definitely come up again for serious debate by all interested parties for and against.
Reg maybe we should go an whack in a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal for it :p
 

Nighthawk.NZ

Well-Known Member
Lucusnz said:
The increasing size of ships does mean we need a new naval base, but Timaru would be a non-starter from my point of view due to large tidal range in that port.
I have personal experience of the surge in Timaru when I was tied up alongside there on Kiwi many times. Definitely couldn't use the current port facilities, but there is room to the south of the port for expansion.
Timaru harbour is also a very exposed harbour and would need more than just a new break water.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Timaru harbour is also a very exposed harbour and would need more than just a new break water.
Yep that's why I talked about the mole as well. However the current harbour is still reasonably protected apart from the surge through it which is interesting in smaller ships. Adds to the swaying swagger of Jolly Jack when he's ashore.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Video from Hawkins Construction (late May) showing 5 Squadron's new Hanger 1 roof (500+ tons) being lifted into place at RNZAF Ohakea. Apparently Hanger 2's roof will be lifted next week on 20 July.

Source: LinkedIn

Rendition of the completed hangers (perhaps one of the better detailed online)?

Note: 3 Squadron's NH90 hanger is shown top/left, IIRC it was reported at the time of its construction that allowance was made to extend the hanger (presumably towards 5 Sqn's hanger) should additional future helicopters be acquired (looks like space has been reserved still). Assuming this is correct and still the case then such costs (and disruptions) would need to be factored into any hypothetical future acquisitions.




For comparison, RAF Lossiemouth's new Poseidon hangers.
 
Last edited:

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
The first P-8A Poseidon is nearing completion... though still a fair bit away to go yet... I believe due to be delivered in December this year?
Yes you are correct. :)
12092 (2022). Dr James McDowall to the Minister of Defence (19 Apr 2022): What aircraft, if any, is the Minister considering purchasing before December 2023?

Hon Peeni Henare (Minister of Defence) replied: Not this point. The first P-8A Poseidon aircraft is expected to arrive in New Zealand in December 2022, with further aircraft expected in the first and second quarters of 2023. The C-130J Hercules aircraft is expected to be delivered in 2024. Other aircraft projects such as the Maritime Helicopter Replacement Project and the Future Air Mobility Capability Project for strategic airlift are in project definition phase.

This NBR article from two days ago also mentions all current orders are due to be completed in 2025.

Boeing confirmed it would deliver its P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft to three new customers over the next three years. The RNZAF will receive the first of four by the end of this year, with the remainder delivered in 2023. This ties in with New Zealand Defence Force statements that the first will arrive here in December.

The Republic of Korea Air Force is scheduled to receive the first of its six P-8s in 2023, with the German Luftwaffe expected to receive its first of five P-8s a year later. These will replace the venerable and long-serving Lockheed P-3 Orion, of which the RNZAF received its first in 1966.

Boeing has a backlog of 183 P-8 orders due to be completed in 2025, according to P-8 programme senior manager Perry Yaw.

Suggestion: If Opposition parties are suggesting an increase of defence spending to 2% GDP one possible talking point could be perhaps additional P-8 Poseidons particularly as time is running out for new orders to Boeing (hmmmm ... if our beloved PM and her Govt would love to soak up more international acclaim and praise they could also be considering and hinting at the same when media question them on their plans for the Defence Policy Review outcomes). ;)

After all it's a "no brainer" - if six P-3 Orions were considered the minimum number required as NZ's contribution to counter the Soviet submarine threat in the Pacific, then the question needs to be asked, are four P-8 Poseidons sufficient (as NZ's contribution) to counter now both the Russian and (the ever expanding) CCP submarine and surface vessel threat in the Pacific?

Seems we are not alone in posing these types of questions:

 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Yes you are correct. :)


This NBR article from two days ago also mentions all current orders are due to be completed in 2025.



Suggestion: If Opposition parties are suggesting an increase of defence spending to 2% GDP one possible talking point could be perhaps additional P-8 Poseidons particularly as time is running out for new orders to Boeing (hmmmm ... if our beloved PM and her Govt would love to soak up more international acclaim and praise they could also be considering and hinting at the same when media question them on their plans for the Defence Policy Review outcomes). ;)

After all it's a "no brainer" - if six P-3 Orions were considered the minimum number required as NZ's contribution to counter the Soviet submarine threat in the Pacific, then the question needs to be asked, are four P-8 Poseidons sufficient (as NZ's contribution) to counter now both the Russian and (the ever expanding) CCP submarine and surface vessel threat in the Pacific?

Seems we are not alone in posing these types of questions:

The decision to acquire four goes back to the days of the John Key National govt and it was and is all driven by cost and nothing else. Treasury and the pollies see the increase in capability compared to the Orions, but they don't get that the extra capability in each aircraft doesn't allow for a reduction in platform quantity when you have a small fleet such as ours. Even the Aussies have figured that out. We actually require six P-8A plus the lower tier airborne maritime surveillance capability that they have been planning for EEZ patrol.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
The decision to acquire four goes back to the days of the John Key National govt and it was and is all driven by cost and nothing else. Treasury and the pollies see the increase in capability compared to the Orions, but they don't get that the extra capability in each aircraft doesn't allow for a reduction in platform quantity when you have a small fleet such as ours. Even the Aussies have figured that out. We actually require six P-8A plus the lower tier airborne maritime surveillance capability that they have been planning for EEZ patrol.
Lets not forget also that while the RAAF is only getting 14 P-8As to replace 19(Originally 20) P-3C, they are also getting 6-7 MQ-4 and about 4 EC-55 to replace those P-3C.
 
I fear we will repeat the C17 experience and take so long to make a decision it will instead be made for us.
The P8 production line is closing is due to close in 2025 (please correct me if I'm wrong), I do think we will repeat the C17 experience as well which isn't exactly good...
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The P8 production line is closing is due to close in 2025 (please correct me if I'm wrong), I do think we will repeat the C17 experience as well which isn't exactly good...
An additional order from India or a new one from Canada would extend the production run past 2025. The chances for a Canadian order were ramped up….thanks for the incentive Vlad!
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
The decision to acquire four goes back to the days of the John Key National govt and it was and is all driven by cost and nothing else. Treasury and the pollies see the increase in capability compared to the Orions, but they don't get that the extra capability in each aircraft doesn't allow for a reduction in platform quantity when you have a small fleet such as ours. Even the Aussies have figured that out. We actually require six P-8A plus the lower tier airborne maritime surveillance capability that they have been planning for EEZ patrol.
Yeah agree. But I think we can look at the earlier decision making on two levels, on the one level cost/Treasury/pollies stifles the NZDF and strategic realities again, but on the other hand getting the Poseidon capabilities is a massively positive outcome compared to earlier higher end capability decisions (eg cuts to naval combat fleet and outright scrapping of the ACF etc).

I can understand (which is not the same as agreeing with) the then National Govt in the mid-2010's budgeting for four aircraft (as the strategic environment was perceived as less threatening at the time), with the Labour/NZF coalition in 2018 rolling over that same plan and acquiring them.

But that was then and this is now with threats to the international rules based order and increasing challenges to our own region, so either this term and/or the next term (2023) the govt needs to address whether four aircraft is still the correct number. Particularly as Pacific security is now under more scrutiny. Doing nothing would be risky, if not short-sighted and foolish. Even the Aust. Govt ordered an additional two aircraft in 2020.

Redlands brings up the helpful fact that other capabilities can complement the Poseidons, which is correct except for some reason the NZG doesn't see a MQ-4 (or similar) capability being a priority until 2030 (funding wise). They will also be a new capability meaning time and effort to stand up operations (which btw I agree with having, just pointing out more project "risks").

But importantly as we (NZ) are already investing in the P-8 (as in aircraft, support, training, infrastructure, simulators, conops etc), it makes more sense to "build upon" that same platform, numbers wise, particularly for a small/niche defence force and from an economic perspective.

After all personnel will already be familiar with the platform so increasing numbers has little risks (similar to how the transition from C-130H to C-130J is being portrayed by Defence - smooth)!

I believe there is still time to assess this at govt level as part of the announced defence reviews and before the P-8 production line closes (but noting that window of opportunity is narrowing , even if other nations may place orders, due to lead times etc).
 
An additional order from India or a new one from Canada would extend the production run past 2025. The chances for a Canadian order were ramped up….thanks for the incentive Vlad!
If Canada and India do order the P8 which is probable it'd push it into 2028, possibly 2029. Germany also has plans for another 7, more likely 2029 then. They're producing 1.5 aircraft per month orders from Canda, India and Germany would be a combined 27 (14, 6 and 7 respectively) would take 40.5 months to produce so the production line will likely be open till 2029. lots more time in that case for us to make a decision, I forgot about those 3 wanting more P8s for a second my bad.
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
Are the E7s capable of MPA? that's interesting, didn't know that. Saw one at Whenuapai the other day, the MESA on the back is huge it's wicked to see.
Ahh that explains what took off the other day, I was on the wrong side of Catalina Bay to see it. Didn’t have the characteristic whine of the 757 at all. Thought it might have been a RAAF P8 or even a fast mover with the roar it made on take off. (Thought the latter highly unlikely of course.)
 
Last edited:
Ahh that explains what took off the other day, I was on the wrong side of Catalina Bay to see it. Didn’t have the characteristic whine of the 757 Cindy Express at all. Thought it might have been a RAAF P8 or even a fast mover with the roar it made on take off. (Thought the latter highly unlikely of course.)
I went up and took some photos, missed the landing and takeoff sadly but it was still awesome to see. It's nice to see the RAAF returning to Whenuapai more frequently after covid, getting back into that interoperability between the RAAF and RNZAF is good to see.

1657975965200.png1657976018185.png
 
Top