Royal New Zealand Air Force

[ngatimozart]

You do have to remember that NZ can deploy the NH-90 via sea, HMNZS Canterbury could have taken all 3 in one hit, HMNZS Will soon be able to deploy them and I am sure the when the SOPV and 2nd Enhanced Sealift vessel will all be able to.

But it is a matter of time and perspective... Did NZ also offer HMNZS Canterbury and other equipment, did the Aussies offer the C-17 to fly them over after HMNZS Canterbury was offered or before? Remember Canterbury's crew most likely on Leave etc...

I think that time in this case is of the essence and also in other HADR cases the same can be said. My own view that claim by the pollies and bureaucrats that Canterbury can deploy them in HADR is a fiction, because it takes time for Canterbury to do a crash run to sea for HADR and then sail to the scene of the HADR.

The other case is when they deployed the NH90s to the Solomons for their election and the RAAF ferried them there in a C-17 and returned them back to Ohakea. Would've it been practical to have Canterbury sail them to the Solomons and hung around for the month or whatever it was whilst they were up there?

We'll undoubtedly be going back to Bougainville now that they've had their independence referendum and it was indpendence was voted infavout of by something like 96%. The PNG govt are unhappy campers, so what happens next remains to be seen, but as sure as your a*** points to the ground we'll be back up there.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

I think that time in this case is of the essence and also in other HADR cases the same can be said. My own view that claim by the pollies and bureaucrats that Canterbury can deploy them in HADR is a fiction, because it takes time for Canterbury to do a crash run to sea for HADR and then sail to the scene of the HADR.

The other case is when they deployed the NH90s to the Solomons for their election and the RAAF ferried them there in a C-17 and returned them back to Ohakea. Would've it been practical to have Canterbury sail them to the Solomons and hung around for the month or whatever it was whilst they were up there?

We'll undoubtedly be going back to Bougainville now that they've had their independence referendum and it was indpendence was voted infavout of by something like 96%. The PNG govt are unhappy campers, so what happens next remains to be seen, but as sure as your a*** points to the ground we'll be back up there.

Just out of curiosity, how long would it take a C17 to deploy the three from Austrailia to Nz? Or for that matter on HMNZS Canterbury to Austrailia?

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

I think that time in this case is of the essence and also in other HADR cases the same can be said. My own view that claim by the pollies and bureaucrats that Canterbury can deploy them in HADR is a fiction, because it takes time for Canterbury to do a crash run to sea for HADR and then sail to the scene of the HADR.

The other case is when they deployed the NH90s to the Solomons for their election and the RAAF ferried them there in a C-17 and returned them back to Ohakea. Would've it been practical to have Canterbury sail them to the Solomons and hung around for the month or whatever it was whilst they were up there?

Don't get me wrong... I am one that has said and has always said we need to able to deploy any of our equipment, from NH-90 to the NZLAV and everything in between by air anywhere in the world where needed. With the bulk of it coming over my sea if required... whether we got the A400m, C-2, C-17 etc...

My simple point on this case if we had too we could have deployed them via HMNZS Canterbury, yes it would have been a few extra days etc...

Yes agree with you that HADR speed is of the essence...

We'll undoubtedly be going back to Bougainville now that they've had their independence referendum and it was indpendence was voted infavout of by something like 96%. The PNG govt are unhappy campers, so what happens next remains to be seen, but as sure as your a*** points to the ground we'll be back up there.

I believe that as well...

Just out of curiosity, how long would it take a C17 to deploy the three from Austrailia to Nz? Or for that matter on HMNZS Canterbury to Austrailia?

It took 3 days for the deployment... One flight a day I believe it was... but if they wanted to they probably could get all 3 there via the C-17 over 24 period...

At the time I believe Canterburys crew were on leave for xmas season so she was at minimum crew etc... it would probably taken 4 or 5 days... at least 24 hrs to recall the bulk of the crew, most will live in Auckland, but some of the younger crew members may have go home around the country... So another day to load up and sail and 3 or 4 days at speed to across the Tasman.

 

[ngatimozart]

Video on low level A-4K sortie. Commentary tells very sad story of capability lost - not the platform, but the whole capability.

 

[Jellybeen]

New Zealands and RNZAF greatest loss

 

[Ananda]

Video on low level A-4K sortie. Commentary tells very sad story of capability lost - not the platform, but the whole capability.

Found this Video on the last exercise of RNZAF A-4 participate in Singapore. Remind me when I see RNZAF A-4 in Jakarta during 1996 Air Show. They'd just participate on exercise with TNI-AU A-4.

Sorry if this Video has been put in this thread before.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Video on low level A-4K sortie. Commentary tells very sad story of capability lost - not the platform, but the whole capability.

What do you think of the possibility for drones to fill the role of the skyhawks? Would it be quicker to install, train a few squadrons of those? Something like the reaper maybe . Hasn't Austraila got a program like that in place for some years? We could maybe join up with them on such a project. I wonder what the cost would involve too.

 

[Gibbo]

What do you think of the possibility for drones to fill the role of the skyhawks? Would it be quicker to install, train a few squadrons of those? Something like the reaper maybe . Hasn't Austraila got a program like that in place for some years? We could maybe join up with them on such a project. I wonder what the cost would involve too.

I can't quote figures etc but I hear whispers they are damned expensive in their own right...well combat capable ones, that you suggest, anyway. Same whispers suggest it can take as many personnel to support & fly one of these as it does a manned fixed wing aircraft.

Then I suspect there's the other elephant in the room... a total lack of any political will, across the spectrum, in NZ for a new combat capable aerial platform. MInd you I'm just grumpy cos every-time I get reminded about the ACF being destroyed I get grumpy & deliberately avoid reading any posts on said subject.

 

[ngatimozart]

What do you think of the possibility for drones to fill the role of the skyhawks? Would it be quicker to install, train a few squadrons of those? Something like the reaper maybe . Hasn't Austraila got a program like that in place for some years? We could maybe join up with them on such a project. I wonder what the cost would involve too.

Nope, because they wouldn't be able to react quickly enough in a combat situation due to the time delay of the signal travel from the UAV -> satellite -> ground station response -> satellite -> UAV. Radio signals travel at the speed of light which is 3.0 x 10*5 km /sec (300,000 km / second), so in the intervening time an enemy would have sufficent time to shoot the UAV down. The Iranians downed a MQ-4C Triton recently and that didn't respond in time. Secondly, it would be cost prohibitive. The ground stations aren't cheap for a start.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Nope, because they wouldn't be able to react quickly enough in a combat situation due to the time delay of the signal travel from the UAV -> satellite -> ground station response -> satellite -> UAV. Radio signals travel at the speed of light which is 3.0 x 10*5 km /sec (300,000 km / second), so in the intervening time an enemy would have sufficent time to shoot the UAV down. The Iranians downed a MQ-4C Triton recently and that didn't respond in time. Secondly, it would be cost prohibitive. The ground stations aren't cheap for a start.

Thanks for that, i was just thinking about the cost of ground crews,pilots of manned fighter jets compared to drones.And yes, those Tritons are expensive. But didn't RNZAF mention drones to supplement the P8 Poseidens in the Defence whitepaper?

 

[ngatimozart]

Thanks for that, i was just thinking about the cost of ground crews,pilots of manned fighter jets compared to drones.And yes, those Tritons are expensive. But didn't RNZAF mention drones to supplement the P8 Poseidens in the Defence whitepaper?

There is talk of UAV and satellite assets in the Defence Policy Statement and DCP.

 

[Gibbo]

There is talk of UAV and satellite assets in the Defence Policy Statement and DCP.

Yep talk of an as yet unspecified UAV. Talk is cheap & hollow words until a NZ Govt signs a contract (assuming the next bunch of idiots in the beehive don't then decide to can it - think F16 etc).

WRT to crewing, costs etc. AIUI a UAV of decent size takes a ground crew of close to the same size of an equivalent sized fixed wing aircraft... after all, that is essentially what it is, although there will be some gain with lighter engine profiles I guess.
Pilots... yes only 1 to 'fly' it, but over a say 36 hour sortie you have to swap pilots in & out of the control desk at regular intervals... so potentially 4-5 pilots over that 36 hours.... the level of concentration required to fly a drone is in all likelihood far more exhausting than a P8 as the operator has to stare at screen(s) fairly constantly... can't look out & enjoy the view or go for a pee to give the eyes & brain a rest.. not without someone to handover to anyway, so I'd say a 2nd pilot is also always on the 'flight deck'.
Air warfare officers: just like a P8 the UAV can suck up lots of data, but the operator will fly it while a team of analysts etc will read the sensors & collected data etc, identify contacts etc, and operate weapon systems.

Are UAV really about $$$ cost savings or more about the flexibility they offer (particularly including extended range & sortie duration), along with the benefit of keeping crew away from harm!?!

 

[CJohn]

Yep talk of an as yet unspecified UAV. Talk is cheap & hollow words until a NZ Govt signs a contract (assuming the next bunch of idiots in the beehive don't then decide to can it - think F16 etc).

WRT to crewing, costs etc. AIUI a UAV of decent size takes a ground crew of close to the same size of an equivalent sized fixed wing aircraft... after all, that is essentially what it is, although there will be some gain with lighter engine profiles I guess.
Pilots... yes only 1 to 'fly' it, but over a say 36 hour sortie you have to swap pilots in & out of the control desk at regular intervals... so potentially 4-5 pilots over that 36 hours.... the level of concentration required to fly a drone is in all likelihood far more exhausting than a P8 as the operator has to stare at screen(s) fairly constantly... can't look out & enjoy the view or go for a pee to give the eyes & brain a rest.. not without someone to handover to anyway, so I'd say a 2nd pilot is also always on the 'flight deck'.
Air warfare officers: just like a P8 the UAV can suck up lots of data, but the operator will fly it while a team of analysts etc will read the sensors & collected data etc, identify contacts etc, and operate weapon systems.

Are UAV really about $$$ cost savings or more about the flexibility they offer (particularly including extended range & sortie duration), along with the benefit of keeping crew away from harm!?!

With the sheer size of the NZ EEZ the pedigree of the MQ-9B SeaGardian would have to be factor for consideration, with a range of 5000+ nm and endurance topping 40 hours here this has been featured in a NZ context here

 

[kiwipatriot69]

With the sheer size of the NZ EEZ the pedigree of the MQ-9B SeaGardian would have to be factor for consideration, with a range of 5000+ nm and endurance topping 40 hours here this has been featured in a NZ context here

I'm thinking on exactly the same lines. If marketed as a MPA support role for our eez with the secondary offensive role downplayed. I'd like to see at least three to suppliment the 4 P8 .

 

[ngatimozart]

With the sheer size of the NZ EEZ the pedigree of the MQ-9B SeaGardian would have to be factor for consideration, with a range of 5000+ nm and endurance topping 40 hours here this has been featured in a NZ context here

I'm thinking on exactly the same lines. If marketed as a MPA support role for our eez with the secondary offensive role downplayed. I'd like to see at least three to suppliment the 4 P8 .

Agree on both counts and I would think that it would be on the short list, especially that the both the RAAF & RAF are acquiring the MQ-9B SkyGuardian.

 

[swerve]

...
Pilots... yes only 1 to 'fly' it, but over a say 36 hour sortie you have to swap pilots in & out of the control desk at regular intervals... so potentially 4-5 pilots over that 36 hours.... the level of concentration required to fly a drone is in all likelihood far more exhausting than a P8 as the operator has to stare at screen(s) fairly constantly... can't look out & enjoy the view or go for a pee to give the eyes & brain a rest.. not without someone to handover to anyway, so I'd say a 2nd pilot is also always on the 'flight deck'.
...

I recall the RAF saying that their operators don't fly the drone most of the time, but supervise it while it flies itself.

From what I've heard, you need a second operator on call nearby (& could be on call for more than one UAV at a time), but not a co-pilot sitting next to the operator.

 

[Gibbo]

I recall the RAF saying that their operators don't fly the drone most of the time, but supervise it while it flies itself.

From what I've heard, you need a second operator on call nearby (& could be on call for more than one UAV at a time), but not a co-pilot sitting next to the operator.

Ah interesting... so cost savings could be a definite factor, although I still think their superior endurance is more a factor than anything else. Certainly looking forward to the Govt making an eventual firm commitment to a long range UAV. Also interested to see if the 'complimentary maritime capability' or whatever it's called this week is still going to deliver anything tangible... at the end of the day I think we're all agreed that 4 x P8 doesn't cut the mustard!

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Agree on both counts and I would think that it would be on the short list, especially that the both the RAAF & RAF are acquiring the MQ-9B SkyGuardian.

Maybe if approved this could even be small steps to reestablishing a strike capability of sorts and increase the numbers.

 

[Todjaeger]

Maybe if approved this could even be small steps to reestablishing a strike capability of sorts and increase the numbers.

I honestly doubt it. If/once the RNZAF starts getting standoff munitions for the P-8A Poseidons, and/or the RNZN combatants are kitted out with AShM, then perhaps.

Realistically one of the big advantages in having UAS is to get 'eyes in the sky' able to provide a greater SA. MALE and HALE systems can, provided appropriate comms and staff exists, give an enduring presence that even manned aircraft cannot currently match without requiring multiple aircraft and crews.

IMO the value of being able to maintain an airborne, loitering E/O and sea search radar sensing platform over portions of NZ's home waters and EEZ would justify adding such a capability. Trying to add weapons to such a platform I think would be a step too far, since even a number of the currently crewed platforms are either under or essentially unarmed. Given that a number of legal issues with arming UAS exist...

 

[ngatimozart]

Maybe if approved this could even be small steps to reestablishing a strike capability of sorts and increase the numbers.

Not using UAVs as a strike capability. As Todjaeger says to many legal issues. Also there would be significant political issues in a NZ context, because more than a few Kiwis are not comfortable with remote strikes on targets from UAVs. The US use of them in Afghanistan, Middle East and Africa for what some may consider extra judicial strikes on some targets, has queered the pitch a tad here in that area. Hence our pollies would be very cautious about using UAVs in that context.