Royal New Zealand Air Force

RegR

Well-Known Member
I wonder if we had of taken up the F16s way back when and had them operational now would they have been able to be our contribution to the coalition against ISIS instead of troops on the ground? Not as vulnerable in this scenario but equally effective.

We could have combined with the RAAF and either taken part in bombing en targets or if that was seen by govt as controversial then at least fly escort duties (if we did venture into Syria that is).

If only, what if, could have been.......ah well, dreams are safer.
 

regstrup

Member
I wonder if we had of taken up the F16s way back when and had them operational now would they have been able to be our contribution to the coalition against ISIS instead of troops on the ground? Not as vulnerable in this scenario but equally effective.
If New Zealand had kept them upgraded, they could have been part of the bombing operation against ISIS in Iraq.

Denmark is going to deploy the F-16 as part of the coalition and our planes are older than the ones, New Zealand were offered by the USA. They have since been upgraded several times and have been deployed for operations in Afghanistan and Libya.

So the so short answer to your question must be Yes ;)
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
Would we really want to get involved in this? I don't see it as a popular choice for any NZ govt, politics would come into play.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
Agreed Regstrup, that's why I brought it up as I knew others had/were going to deploy theirs and for the type of mission (airstrikes), opposing forces (virtually nil air) and overall contribution (say 4 F-16 + spt personnel) should have been achievable/acceptable in the wider scheme of things, of course all dependant on current status although I would have liked to think govt would have kept them at least at a min to med baseline state of capability/upgrade state.

I suggest this Rob because surely would have been a preferential option had we had it and a some what 'safer' one over actually having our SAS on the ground and in the thick of it. Would still have it's own set of risks but what combat doesn't? Govts often don't make popular choices but you cannot please everyone both locally and internationally without sometimes making a few hard decisions.

If we assisted the Afghan govt/people in a time of need I see no reason why we can't help the Iraqi govt/people secure their borders as well (not actually do it for them however). Would have been interesting and an actual realtime justification of something we had and did not use, ironically a major factor of it's demise in the end.
 

King Wally

Active Member
I personally feel us Australian's have had good flexibility from our Hornets both Classic and Super over the last decade or so. We were able to contribute to Iraq03 by deploying the Classic Hornets and now in Iraq 14 we're doing the same with the Super Hornets. As you say it's more palatable then boots on the ground for a government/population so having the ability to use the Fast jets definitely give's you a new range of coalition support options you wouldn't of had otherwise.

Not saying it's right or wrong for my Kiwi mates, just pointing out my thoughts from this side of the ditch.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I personally feel us Australian's have had good flexibility from our Hornets both Classic and Super over the last decade or so. We were able to contribute to Iraq03 by deploying the Classic Hornets and now in Iraq 14 we're doing the same with the Super Hornets. As you say it's more palatable then boots on the ground for a government/population so having the ability to use the Fast jets definitely give's you a new range of coalition support options you wouldn't of had otherwise.

Not saying it's right or wrong for my Kiwi mates, just pointing out my thoughts from this side of the ditch.
That said and all unfortunately despite what the pollies claim, it will eventually require boots on the ground to kill this particular nasty infestation. As great as air power can be it cannot physically hold ground.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
That said and all unfortunately despite what the pollies claim, it will eventually require boots on the ground to kill this particular nasty infestation. As great as air power can be it cannot physically hold ground.
I concour airpower alone will not surfice, If boots are going on the ground from my point of veiw it's not a job soley for the SF but a combined task force, numbers will count in this one. Maybe a joint task group similar to 1 ATF with its own TAOR. Would the Kiwi stay on the fence?
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I concour airpower alone will not surfice, If boots are going on the ground from my point of veiw it's not a job soley for the SF but a combined task force, numbers will count in this one. Maybe a joint task group similar to 1 ATF with its own TAOR. Would the Kiwi stay on the fence?
I don't think so. People over here are pretty disgusted by what ISIS are doing and the request for help originates from the Iraqi Government. Some will drip and whinge about any action by NZ will make Kiwis targets but to late for that now. Them mongrels see all westerners as targets. It's time to draw a line in the sand.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
I concour airpower alone will not surfice, If boots are going on the ground from my point of veiw it's not a job soley for the SF but a combined task force, numbers will count in this one. Maybe a joint task group similar to 1 ATF with its own TAOR. Would the Kiwi stay on the fence?
I think the air/drone/missile strikes should be to assist (seemingly from afar) indigenous forces stem the ISIS flow IOT regain ground and more importantly boost local confidence both military and civilian. The national forces should take care of their own country, albeit it with some specialist assistance, with their own resources and manpower otherwise we will keep going around in circles as I hate to say it but too much western influence, involvement and control only serves to breed resentment and inadvertently boost the ISIS ranks and 'cause'.

Covert and distance assistance yes however not sold on another mass intervention in situ, been there done that, new tac required. If anything we should not have let them gain traction and begun the strikes earlier in the conflict and maybe the Iraqi defence force may not have self imploded so quickly under a comparatively smaller influence. Not sure on the Syrian situation as while linked is still somewhat different in nature and abit of ground zero.

Continue with international strikes and SF/spec mentorship, guidance and surgical action and restrict ISIS movement, supply, communication, manpower and ultimately influence until co-ordinated local forces can regain the upper hand. It won't be easy but I think most if not all countries will be alittle wary of re-commiting fully to yet another regional conflict especially so soon after handover.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
It should be pointed out the Iraqi Government have categorically rejected the deployment of any troops which are not Iraqi inside Iraq.

If they didn't request foreign assistance in that aspect when they were falling back on all fronts with ISIS on their heels, now they've got international air support and more trainers is that any more likely?
 

Reaver

New Member
Our PM is thinking of offering a C130 in an airlift capability for the anti ISIS operations in Iraq. Key mulls air support in IS fight | Stuff.co.nz. I thought a P3K2s ISR capability might be of good use as well. All six are now back with the RNZAF with the last one (NZ4202) returned to the RNZAF in August 2014 P3 Systems Upgrade [Ministry of Defence NZ].
There is already a P-3K2 deployed on OP TIKI so the mission support infrastructure/personnel (Comms support, ISR support, mission data capture/analysis etc) is already in high use. It is not usually the number of airframes that determins if a deployment is feasable but all the associated ancillary requirements (230 SQN, 209 SQN, DETA etc).

Depending on the mission risk profile the lack of a P-3K2 SPS could be an issue and they could decide to abandon TIKI but overall I would think that depolyment of P-3K2 would be even lower on the Govt's list than the SAS.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
There is already a P-3K2 deployed on OP TIKI so the mission support infrastructure/personnel (Comms support, ISR support, mission data capture/analysis etc) is already in high use. It is not usually the number of airframes that determins if a deployment is feasable but all the associated ancillary requirements (230 SQN, 209 SQN, DETA etc).

Depending on the mission risk profile the lack of a P-3K2 SPS could be an issue and they could decide to abandon TIKI but overall I would think that depolyment of P-3K2 would be even lower on the Govt's list than the SAS.
I am aware of what would be required to support such an operation. However it is feasible and doable from an RNZAF standpoint. This is something that the Orion upgrade was designed for so if such support is requested, and that is the operative word, then the RNZAF will deploy as it is ordered to by the NZG. After all asset deployment for this operation is a NZG decision. Like me you don't know what will be requested and what the intel the NZG has so don't try to predetermine a NZG decision.
 

Reaver

New Member
I am aware of what would be required to support such an operation. However it is feasible and doable from an RNZAF standpoint. This is something that the Orion upgrade was designed for so if such support is requested, and that is the operative word, then the RNZAF will deploy as it is ordered to by the NZG. After all asset deployment for this operation is a NZG decision. Like me you don't know what will be requested and what the intel the NZG has so don't try to predetermine a NZG decision.
OK I will not "try and predetermine a NZG decision". I was just saying that for a couple of reasons stated the P-3K2 option might not be rating that highly in the advise given to Government by the NZDF/MoD

And based on your comment about airframes I might just have to disagree with your comment that you are aware of what would be required to support an operation but as we are all aware everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether they can back it up with a coherent argument or not
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
The Land ISR role is essentially a new capability set. As a unit 5 Sqd will be settling into a period of training scenarios to achieve mastery of this capability and along with the other new upgraded systems. Support units are a factor in this also. There is a bit more to do to get to OLOC and they need to build the unit efficency back up to full fleet tasking rates.

As for sending a NZ contingent to ISIS I would covertly send a newly formed 1 NZ Special Peace Service - Green Team Six. Made up of Keith Locke, Russel Norman, Laila Harre. Lucy Lawless, Nikky Hagar and imbedded journalist David Fisher from the NZ Herald. Teir 1 expertise in remote intelligence and counter logic. We would all win by just sending them.

Cheers MrC :D
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
as for sending a nz contingent to isis i would covertly send a newly formed 1 nz special peace service - green team six. Made up of keith locke, russel norman, laila harre. Lucy lawless, nikky hagar and imbedded journalist david fisher from the nz herald. Teir 1 expertise in remote intelligence and counter logic. We would all win by just sending them.

Cheers mrc :d
Like :D

Late Addition: Apparently Keith Locke wrote in the Auntie Herald that we should be having meetings with ISIS to reach common ground rather tan bombing and shooting them. Maybe we could encourage the 1st NZ Special Peace Service - Green Team Six to be promptly deployed to attain such a worthwhile goal. A HALO insertion from a RNZAF Herc could be arranged. Any training requirements could be done on the job.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The NZMoD have issued an ROI for the Underwater Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance capability in the P3K2.
Invitation to Register interest to become a tenderer for the supply and support of the Underwater Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (UWISR) capability project for the P-3K2 Orion aircraft.

The New Zealand Ministry of Defence (the MoD) released a Request for Information in February 2013 to inform its Business case to Government to restore the UWISR capabilities of its fleet of six P-3K2 Orion aircraft. The New Zealand Government has approved the calling of Requests for Tender for that capability.

The MoD seeks responses only from those companies that can demonstrate that they have the requisite skills, knowledge, resources, experience and security clearances to provide a complete airborne UWISR capability solution.

Submission of Registrations of Interest by 12.00 p.m. midday (NZDT), Friday, 21 November 2014

Each ROI must be marked "Registration of Interest for UWISR Project" and be addressed and delivered to:

Rachel McKnight
Senior Project Support Officer (Acquisition)
Ministry of Defence
4th floor Freyberg House
2 - 12 Aitken Street
Thorndon
Wellington

Any enquiries must be receive by 12 pm (New Zealand local time) on Wednesday 12 November 2014 to the Point of Contact.
In other news this a quote from DCAF in the October issue of Air Force News.
In the capability arena, we've seen significant milestones from the arrival of the first T-6C Texan II trainers to the opening of the Air Movements Terminal at Ohakea. The Future Air Mobility Capability (think ‘C130 replacement’) and
Future Air Surveillance Capability (think ‘P3 replacement’) projects are about to kick off, and we've received approval to proceed with the Underwater Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (UWISR) project.
That's interesting about both the C130 and P3 replacement projects. Is the C130 replacement project - the Future Air Mobility Capability Project a reincarnation of the RNZAF Air Transport Project that is supposed to inform the 2015 DWP? or is the next step forward? The P3 replacement project - the Future Air Surveillance Capability Project is interesting. I think a lot of us thought that because the Orions were not slated for replacement until around the mid 20s that this project wouldn't be looked at for some time. It is good that the NZG is looking at Air Surveillance holistically rather than as a patchwork. So EEZ patrol, ISR and maritime patrol surveillance and fixed wing ASuW / ASW are being looked at as an integrated whole. Mr C likes his B350s, maybe something like B350s such as the MC12 Liberty or the RAF variant Shadow R1 (B200) or the RAMIS which is based on the King Air being sold by Boeing.
The latest newsworthy King Air is the Boeing RAMIS, a modular multi role system. In an interview for a trade magazine Mike Ferguson from Boeing said; "There are five things you have to think about when building an ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] aircraft.

These are:
What is it that I am trying to collect data on (is it a truck, person, ship, or command post);

What does this target do that differentiates itself from the background and allows me to find it, and what data am I trying to collect on that target;

What is the terrain – mountainous (a radar won’t work, so you need a sensor that looks directly down) or flat lowlands (where radar or wide-area surveillance [WAS] detection systems do work);

What is the vegetation – is the target in the open or under a triple jungle canopy (which requires [LIght Detection And Ranging] LIDAR or foliage-penetration radar);

and how big is the search area – is it a city or the Pacific Ocean?

Modularity and reconfigurability of systems and sensors is a key feature of RAMIS. You can fly a different sortie against a different target in the morning and evening, and change the aircraft’s configuration to match that.

In order to fulfil this multi-INT mission set, RAMIS employs a suite of communications intelligence (COMINT), electronic intelligence (ELINT), imagery intelligence (IMINT), and signals intelligence (SIGINT) sensors fitted in an extended nose section and an underbelly ‘canoe’ fairing divided into four under-fuselage payload bays.

In the extended nose section, the modular mission equipment comprises the option of an L-3 Wescam MX-15Di and -15HDi retractable electro-optic/infrared (EO/IR) sensor turret, a Thales UK Ku-band I-Master Wide Area Airborne Surveillance (WAAS) turret, and a ground moving target indicator/synthetic aperture radar (GMTI/SAR).

The underbelly ‘canoe’ fairing can house a gimballed EO/IR turret, WAAS equipment, Wide Area Motion Imaging (WAMI), LIDAR systems; FOLiage PENetrating (FOPEN) radar, GMTI/SAR, hyper-spectral sensors, ELINT/SIGINT systems, communications systems, and datalinks.

A dorsal satellite communications (SATCOM) radome is also fitted to the upper body of the aircraft.

Boeing have positioned RAMIS between their Scan Eagle range and the Challenger 650 Maritime Surveillance Aircraft

Many readers will have heard of the Gorgon Stare Wide Area Persistent Surveillance system, RAMIS have been tested bit a similar system from CRI called Lodestar.
LodestarVideo
Although Lodestar might be very smart it cannot challenge the Vehicle And Dismount Exploitation Radar (VADER) for having a cool name! VADER has been carried by Islanders, Predators and Twin Otters in addition to King Airs.Think of it as JSTARS for people.

Source: Think Defence Low Cost Manned ISTAR - Think Defence
Quite a lot of interesting stuff there just on the King Air ISR variants. The whole Think Defence article is worth spending the time reading

Interesting point I took from the RAMIS was that it can do littoral stuff. This could be a suggested niche capability fit with the ADF and the US PACCOM if the NZG went down this track. A suggestion that is all. I know dollars. :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kiwi in exile

Active Member
Thanks for the great links Ngati. Interesting stuff.
Makes sense that NZDF are looking at ISR, maritime and EEZ patrol and ASW/ASuW as an integrated whole given that an ideal platform (ideally our P3's/P3 replacements) should be able to conduct all of these roles. I'm also in favour of a lower tier EEZ type platform like the B350 or something similar. An advantage of something like this is that it could be deployed in support of peacekeeping/lower intensity ops as has been done in the mid east by the US and UK. Dependening on the platform and it's capabilities could also serve as light transport/medevac as well. Cheaper and easier to deploy than a big bird P3 type.

Goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that intergrated planning of our over land/sea surveillance also has to encompass satellite and shared intelligence capabilities, hi/low platform mix, potentially hi/lo UAV mix and OPV capabilities so it really is an NZDF wide conversation.

I remember reading about foliage penetrating radar being tested on the A160 Hummingbird UAV, and thinking at the time it would be a great podded capability of the NZDF for SE Asia/Pacific.
 
Top