Royal New Zealand Air Force

StereoGeek

New Member
Hopefully your optimism about pollies making the right choice is correct. Novascotiaboy and I know this is not the case for Canada, especially applicable to our current PM, "junior".
Oh boy, I’ve had some serious conversations with the Canadian ex-pats here in Jakarta about it... You guys have it bad! From JSS to FWSAR to the Cormorant to F-35’s etc. I think your problems with military acquisitions might run much deeper and longer than any one passing government though?
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Also, above someone said that South Korea and Singapore would pissed if we didn’t go for the P8?
Inaccurate. If you read what I wrote, I said I agreed with Mr Harmon that the P-8A is a test of our commitment to regional co-operative security and added that not buying it would raise eyebrows. Nothing about South Korea and Singapore being "pissed". The optics within defence diplomacy circles in the region would be seen as downgrading our capability.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
@StereoGeek, yes it involves several governments but the Chrétien and junior governments have really raised the bar wrt screwing the armed forces here. To be fair, as I have mentioned on other threads here, the pathetic Canadian electorate enables this continuing erosion of DND. NATO allies share part of the blame as well, many of the non-performers make it easier for Canada to waffle on commitments.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Inaccurate. If you read what I wrote, I said I agreed with Mr Harmon that the P-8A is a test of our commitment to regional co-operative security and added that not buying it would raise eyebrows. Nothing about South Korea and Singapore being "pissed". The optics within defence diplomacy circles in the region would be seen as downgrading our capability.
God forbid it comes down to that, but politicly speaking what do you see as the ramifications being. With past decisions with not taking up the options on the Anzac Frigate, the downsizing of the high-end combat capability with the cancelled F16 deal and know possibly this what is the worst case scenario?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
God forbid it comes down to that, but politicly speaking what do you see as the ramifications being. With past decisions with not taking up the options on the Anzac Frigate, the downsizing of the high-end combat capability with the cancelled F16 deal and know possibly this what is the worst case scenario?
Worst case scenario? Three guys armed with a paper aeroplane, a F.R.E.D. and a rubber ducky respectively.

More realistically, I suspect that further erosion in NZDF capabilities, or even just the perception of further erosion in capabilities, will lead to a diminished Kiwi presence on the international stage, with a correspondingly diminished relevance accorded to Kiwi interests, opinions, and perspectives. In short, the views of other nations' regarding NZ could to the point where Kiwis are considered nice blokes, but otherwise irrelevant.

A hypothetical example of what I mean would be something like a natural disaster and/or civil unrest occurring in Fiji or another S. Pacific or ASEAN country that requires or leads to an international intervention. If the NZDF capabilities are viewed as too limited or too eroded compared to what is needed or desired, then NZ might find itself without a seat at the table when plans and decisions are being made, as well as without a presence on the ground, offshore, or in the air above where the intervention is occurring, and therefore unable to impact the outcome in any way that is either favourable to NZ, or at least not to NZ's detriment.
 

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
It is unfortunate that Ngati's "Sea blindness" hasn't been embraced by the political self absorbed do gooders that pervade both of our countries upper houses.

I look at what has happened to the Littoral Operations Ship and all the work that was done by the RNZN to get a design that would enable so many capabilities. I look at the P8 as being the same in the eyes of the politicians.

"Do we really need those" "Who do we need to protect ourselves from" "Oz will look after us"

These are the comments I figure are being stated as the impending $$$$$ expenditure gets ever closer to a decision or not.

As John Fedup has stated we here in Canada have seen the worst of defence $$$ juggling by numerous governments of all stripes since the late fifties.

The patrol of the EEZ doesn't need to be accomplished by a P8 or a P1 if its just sovereignty and SAR. But if you want even the minimum of deterrence then you need to have an armed capacity to send that message when and if its required as the situation changes. In this way of thinking the SOF version of the C130J with the USCG search radar plus optics would cover these low end constabulary tasks. Its been mooted that the current P3k2's can operate until 2030 and with the planned anti submarine upgrades would allow Labour the ability to kick this $1 billion dollar expenditure down the road. They take the kudos for renewing the transport fleet and keeping a quality HADR response in the eyes of the islands. With IMP here in Canada maintaining our almost 40 year old Aurora CP140's they are always an option for any needed support in the coming decade because our planes are not going anywhere until then according to Junior.

I remember someone stating that Triton is an unlikely option for NZ because of the lack of satellite coverage over the SP so that too is an out for Jacinda and Company.

I really hope I am wrong but I am a jaded man who has given up on the various governments around the world who are destroying western defence by striping our forces down to the bare bones except for the likes of Australia which seems to have across the political spectrum support.
 

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
Worst case scenario? Three guys armed with a paper aeroplane, a F.R.E.D. and a rubber ducky respectively.

More realistically, I suspect that further erosion in NZDF capabilities, or even just the perception of further erosion in capabilities, will lead to a diminished Kiwi presence on the international stage, with a correspondingly diminished relevance accorded to Kiwi interests, opinions, and perspectives. In short, the views of other nations' regarding NZ could to the point where Kiwis are considered nice blokes, but otherwise irrelevant.

A hypothetical example of what I mean would be something like a natural disaster and/or civil unrest occurring in Fiji or another S. Pacific or ASEAN country that requires or leads to an international intervention. If the NZDF capabilities are viewed as too limited or too eroded compared to what is needed or desired, then NZ might find itself without a seat at the table when plans and decisions are being made, as well as without a presence on the ground, offshore, or in the air above where the intervention is occurring, and therefore unable to impact the outcome in any way that is either favourable to NZ, or at least not to NZ's detriment.
Yes and I'm convinced that already Australia is showing NZ is becoming of little relevance to themselves, with many of the privileges afforded to NZers on Aus in the past being watered down, and relations in general seemingly strained. There's many reasons for this but in particular I would say some of the key aspects are (1) Aus economy flat in areas leading to their pollies focusing on protecting local jobs, social spending etc (2) Aus increasing focus on Asia which makes complete economic sense & does indeed makes NZ's economy of less significance (3) defence, defence, defence! In the last 3 decades the NZDF has been effectively been dumbed down as the ADF has been expanded, bolstered & enhanced. And I think this has already seriously pissed off the Aus Govt. All NZ Govt's are guilty of this - starting with National's Ruth Richardson's mother of all budgets from which the NZ defence budget has never really recovered.

So your points about NZ being irrelevant are already in my mind occurring, especially in Aus where it counts more then anywhere of importance to NZ. The trouble is NZ Govt's will just wrap it all up in masses of sticky Govt spin & spoon feed it to a largely ignorant public audience who will pat themselves on the back as to how much they 'pull their weight' on the international stage....

If 6 x P3K2 are replaced with 4 x P8A that's not perfect but not the end of the world as the FAMC Strategic component will pick-up some of the more mundane SAR taskings (assuming the fleet size is increased) whilst the P8A will increasingly focus on the 'military' taskings whilst still giving the public perception they are doing the 'warm fuzzy' stuff. I would say the P1 is more a case of 'more of the same' whereas the P8A lifts us up into that modern sharp-end capability due to it's direct '5 eyes level' integration. I suspect what would piss our allies off is us only getting a MPA, the P8A is much more than that and if we don't get into that space we will probably tip the balance into being that 'irrelevance' that we have almost already become.
 
Last edited:

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
The patrol of the EEZ doesn't need to be accomplished by a P8 or a P1 if its just sovereignty and SAR. But if you want even the minimum of deterrence then you need to have an armed capacity to send that message when and if its required as the situation changes. In this way of thinking the SOF version of the C130J with the USCG search radar plus optics would cover these low end constabulary tasks.
Having a two tier approach in which one high end capability is able to seemlessly interop with our partners as part of a regional security umbrella is another rationale why the P-8A is necessary. Lockheeds local guy here a former RNZAF CAS has argued the very thing you state above. The P-8A plus his LM product.

Its been mooted that the current P3k2's can operate until 2030.
That would be great if they could - because the P-3K2 is a very capable platform but 5 Sqd reports that it cannot sustain and keep airborne the P-3K post 2025 - it is a support and supply problem. The Koreans are having the same issue. When the decision to upgrade was made 14 years ago long term sustainment (.i.e 20 years plus) was not a consideration taking with much depth. Remember the upgrade took years longer than envisaged.

.... allow Labour the ability to kick this $1 billion dollar expenditure down the road. They take the kudos for renewing the transport fleet and keeping a quality HADR response in the eyes of the islands.
To be honest if the P-8 order book extends with an unconfirmed Saudi order, possible Korean order and more orders that may come under the Trump administration I would rather this is kicked down the road 2 and a half years. The timing would be more convenient.

I remember someone stating that Triton is an unlikely option for NZ because of the lack of satellite coverage over the SP so that too is an out for Jacinda and Company.
The NZG invested into WGS-9 and entry into the constellation. Sheer conjecture on their part.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
God forbid it comes down to that, but politicly speaking what do you see as the ramifications being. With past decisions with not taking up the options on the Anzac Frigate, the downsizing of the high-end combat capability with the cancelled F16 deal and know possibly this what is the worst case scenario?
Dont forget that the original high end up grade (cost $600m +) of the the P3 which included ASW and from memory air to surface missiles was canned just after strike wing was shut down and the current K2 upgrade path started in its place. With all new offensive weapon options deleted.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Found this on another site very interesting especially about in regards to a comment by RAAF and USN aircrews at the Singapore air show, I agree with the comments about numbers in respect to number of types of airframes within a small force structure and the logistics if a 2 tier approach to MPA is not selected. But with Rob C comments about the cancelled air to surface missile capability for the P3 one should also look to see any commonality between weapons systems for Sea sprite C130J(Harvest Hawk) and the P8 as well to regain lost limited strike capability
,
There is talk of entering an ‘airframe sharing’ pool with the RAAF and their P-8s, but our operational needs may not always align. In any case, RAAF and USN P-8 aircrews at the Singapore Airshow were also quick to point out that interoperability comes not via the aircraft itself, but through tactics, communications, datalinks, and combined op’s training.
Chris 3.pdf
 

StereoGeek

New Member
Found this on another site very interesting especially about in regards to a comment by RAAF and USN aircrews at the Singapore air show, I agree with the comments about numbers in respect to number of types of airframes within a small force structure and the logistics if a 2 tier approach to MPA is not selected. But with Rob C comments about the cancelled air to surface missile capability for the P3 one should also look to see any commonality between weapons systems for Sea sprite C130J(Harvest Hawk) and the P8 as well to regain lost limited strike capability
,


Chris 3.pdf
I’m afraid it was me who went to Singapore and wrote that article, but no one believes me ;)
 

t68

Well-Known Member
I’m afraid it was me who went to Singapore and wrote that article, but no one believes me ;)
Well done I thought it was very well written, can you elaborate more on the conversations in regards to the comments from RAAF/USN crews. And was the comment about airframe sharing between RAAF/RNZAF was that their own view or something more official?
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
(3) defence, defence, defence! In the last 3 decades the NZDF has been effectively been dumbed down as the ADF has been expanded, bolstered & enhanced.
This is right at the heart of the issue and it is a cognitive issue. I have watched for years press conferences between NZ and OZ politicians - mostly PM's and FM's. Take for example the Bill English with Malcolm Turnball bilateral in QTown earlier last year. Turnball was hot on the point of Security and Trade as inseparable. English could only engage mentally on Trade and only saw things on that lens. Today in the ASEAN press conference between Turnball and PM Lee of Singapore they were both straight in to the relationship of Security AND Trade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: t68

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Found this on another site very interesting especially about in regards to a comment by RAAF and USN aircrews at the Singapore air show, I agree with the comments about numbers in respect to number of types of airframes within a small force structure and the logistics if a 2 tier approach to MPA is not selected. But with Rob C comments about the cancelled air to surface missile capability for the P3 one should also look to see any commonality between weapons systems for Sea sprite C130J(Harvest Hawk) and the P8 as well to regain lost limited strike capability
In terms of usefulness or utility, the only possibly useful weapons which might be available to all three platforms would be LWT's and/or depth bombs. The Penguin AShM which is available for the SH-2G(I) Seasprite has a max range of ~37 km when fired from altitude, which is well within the range of most area air defence missiles fitted to modern warships. Due to the ISR value of something like a P-8, one would normally not want to get close to, never mind within the air defence umbrella coverage of a hostile or likely hostile vessel or task force. The current P-3K2's have a similar sort of constraint as IIRC when they were re-winged, the wiring harness in the wings either removed or not upgraded to the then current MIL-STD. This in turn means that any targeting data which would be collected by the P-3K2's could not be passed on to any of the modern PGM's in use. The P-3K2's could, at best, possibly fit and launch Block I Harpoons, with missile guidance being entirely reliant upon the Harpoon's onboard sensor and guidance system.

IMO there is still a very real possibility that future systems will be selected without offensive capabilities to "reduce cost" and again have it done in such a way so that if it is deemed necessary in the future to arm some of the systems which should have been armed or able to be armed, it becomes much more difficult, time consuming, and expensive to do so.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
IMO there is still a very real possibility that future systems will be selected without offensive capabilities to "reduce cost" and again have it done in such a way so that if it is deemed necessary in the future to arm some of the systems which should have been armed or able to be armed, it becomes much more difficult, time consuming, and expensive to do so.
I agree with you on this, The greens are very much on having surveillance but no ASW. Our finance minister does not want to spend on defence as his party has already spent it else where, Winstone is getting more erratic and has not been a great supporter of defence and RM appears to have lost some influence, not a good recipe for a good outcome. History also tells us that the significant majority of governments have multiple terms, especially if they have charismatic leaders or the economy continues to move forward.
 

StereoGeek

New Member
I agree with you on this, The greens are very much on having surveillance but no ASW. Our finance minister does not want to spend on defence as his party has already spent it else where, Winstone is getting more erratic and has not been a great supporter of defence and RM appears to have lost some influence, not a good recipe for a good outcome. History also tells us that the significant majority of governments have multiple terms, especially if they have charismatic leaders or the economy continues to move forward.
The Greens fundamentally fail to understand that ASW capability is essential to ensure our capacity to deliver HADR and security in the maritime domain. I have spoken to many of them about this. No long term thought on how we would apply their doctrine if they got into power. Humanitarian crisis are not only caused by natural disasters, but just as often by people with machine guns denying access to particular groups of people. More often than not there is superpower and corporate proxy interest in the conflict, and there are 150 submarines operating in the Asia Pacific Region, many of which are operated by governments that can be externally lobbied by industry interests, including the use of their military. (We have all seen the explosion of mercenary and PMC use in every recent conflict in the world right? It’s not about the threat to us from other states, it’s the threats from the corporate interests our policy coukd threaten.) Submarines are the ultimate ‘plausible deniability’ weapon. If and when we enact the huge swathes of strictly resource managed zones across the pacific that the Greens ultimately want, (which drives up the price of those resources and therefore makes corporate mercenary action more cost-effective), we would entirely lack the ability to either police those zones or deliver HADR, if even one submarine threatened. Not to mention to cost to insurance in shipping, and our economy relies purely on those lanes being open for business without risk. ASW is not all about killing enemy vessels, it’s about denying them the ability to manoeuvre and engage undetected. Kind of like ‘covering fire’... force them to keep their heads down as you drop sonobouys along the paths of your surface fleet... By the time you get to any kind of detail their eyes have glazed over...
 

StereoGeek

New Member
Well done I thought it was very well written, can you elaborate more on the conversations in regards to the comments from RAAF/USN crews. And was the comment about airframe sharing between RAAF/RNZAF was that their own view or something more official?
The airframe sharing idea has been around for a while now, but yes they were expecting if we went that way it would become problematic since the USN and RAAF P8’s fulfil a niche role and application in their larger force structure, as opposed to the more ‘all of government’ and flexible way we would be required to operate our sole MPA/ASW/ISR platform. In a way, you have to be careful what you take from young aircrew talking in front of their airplanes. I made it very clear I was a journalist when speaking to them. The most enlightening conversation came from the plethora of current and ex MPA crews from all over the world who were working in the stands of the expo, who were guarded talking about the particular product they were there to sell, ie: a radar system, or rescue pod, or EO turret or whatever, but were more than willing to wax lyrical concerning general trends and doctrines in the maritime patrol business. All of them had very good things to say about the P1 and Swordfish (or their own system if they worked for an OEM), but there were not many P8 fans on the floor of the expo... In two cases, even the P8 crews themselves talked down the platform. I really tried to talk to Boeing, but they were not very forth coming. Have you guys ever been to one of these massive weapons expo’s? I thoroughly recommend it as a great way to get exposure to the businesses in the business of war. Fascinating!
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The airframe sharing idea has been around for a while now, but yes they were expecting if we went that way it would become problematic since the USN and RAAF P8’s fulfil a niche role and application in their larger force structure, as opposed to the more ‘all of government’ and flexible way we would be required to operate our sole MPA/ASW/ISR platform. In a way, you have to be careful what you take from young aircrew talking in front of their airplanes. I made it very clear I was a journalist when speaking to them. The most enlightening conversation came from the plethora of current and ex MPA crews from all over the world who were working in the stands of the expo, who were guarded talking about the particular product they were there to sell, ie: a radar system, or rescue pod, or EO turret or whatever, but were more than willing to wax lyrical concerning general trends and doctrines in the maritime patrol business. All of them had very good things to say about the P1 and Swordfish (or their own system if they worked for an OEM), but there were not many P8 fans on the floor of the expo... In two cases, even the P8 crews themselves talked down the platform. I really tried to talk to Boeing, but they were not very forth coming. Have you guys ever been to one of these massive weapons expo’s? I thoroughly recommend it as a great way to get exposure to the businesses in the business of war. Fascinating!
Crews talked down their own platforms?

Okay...
 

StereoGeek

New Member
Crews talked down their own platforms?

Okay...
Yes, in that their platform was inescapably a 737, and the limitations that inherently imposed. To put it in context I caught them just after their tour of the Bombardier G6000, where they had just been run through the Pro-Line Fusion avionics and Synthetic Visions systems, and given the presentation on its wing design and the speed/altitude envelope it offered. They were really taken with it.
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
If NZ is not planning to arm their next MPA, there really isn't any need to spend so much on the P8.
Probably better off with a much cheaper aircraft or get something like an AWAC/MPA hybrid and some UAV,s.
 
Top