|
Post by steve on Nov 25, 2005 23:12:13 GMT 12
Apparently the ADF is studyng options of cutting the upgraded Orion fleet to 11...how stupid is that if little NZ can maintain 6..crazy.... these aircraft can be kept as vital air platforms for years...Mind you at least they are looking for a replacement...
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Nov 26, 2005 14:52:22 GMT 12
Yeah, I heard something about that. I reckon it's all just a load of Defence Dept 'poppycock' to make sure the Commonwealth Govt keeps increasing funding for defence.
I know the 'new' AP-3C Orions are pretty capable, but I doubt whether 11 could do the job of 19: especially if they keep two on deployment to Iraq for much longer.
I read in a magazine recently that a submarine was used to pickup the crew of the yacht that supported the French terrorist attack on the Rainbow Warrior, after the crew was released from custody on Norfolk Is. Makes Helen Clark's comments about no submarines being operated near NZ seem pretty stupid! But it does make a convenient excuse for not spending more money to update the P-3K Orions. If it wasn't for good old Kiwi engi, injun, enja cunning (Billy T - R.I.P), I doubt the P-3Ks would be as competitive in the Fincastle Comp as they are. I think it'd be nice if the RNZAF crews had more modern equipment to work with so that they don't have to keep just making do with what they've got.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 26, 2005 17:07:33 GMT 12
Err, the RNZAF P3K Orions are being upgraded at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Nov 26, 2005 17:56:08 GMT 12
Yep, they certainly are; but this upgrade isn't taking the P-3Ks to a point anywhere near where they should be. They'll be fantastic for looking for lost sailors and illegal fishing boats, but not much else. The P-3K upgrade was to be much more extensive, but Auntie Helen canned that. That was where my snipe at Helen came in about not needing to look for submarines, because according to her they don't exist.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 28, 2005 21:54:51 GMT 12
Corsiair ..you are right...however as Dave states the upgrade is underway now...Air to surface missiles are still a possibility (...unlikely on pacifist grounds..)on the upgraded P3s .(350 million approx. has been bugeted for the 6 orions.)..Auntie Helen wanted to scrap the orions in the same way as our air combat arm end lease civlian twin engine for SAR...until she was told that with our vast south pacific iresponsibilities it was just not a starter...apparently our defence policy today is closly modeled on Irelands...for better or worse...I believe it should be complementary to the aussies with much closer liason...if the balloon every goes up north of Australia NZ will need to attached most of its forces under a unified command
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 29, 2005 0:25:14 GMT 12
Steve said Air to surface missiles are still a possibility (...unlikely on pacifist grounds..)
I don't see why pascifism has anything to do with it, they already carry topedoes and bombs, what's the difference?
I had not heard of Labour or Helen Clark wanting to scrap the Orions. Was this in the news?
|
|
|
Post by steve s on Nov 29, 2005 17:12:38 GMT 12
True re torpedos etc...however that is existing munitions.....an anti shipping missile would give even our P3Ks a potent force (The Australian Aviation weekly ran a editorial on how the kiwi P3s could be a credible force for a small cost with new generation cruise missiles....ie loitering beyond harms way for hours and then making a quick approach to 80 miles lauching with a quick u turn!) far beyond S&R...which would be at odds with labour party policy...after all we are the only country in the world with a Ministry of Disarmerment... The orions replacement and transfer S&R to a civilian agency was a reported widely in 1999 when Clark came to power.... in fact she paid thousands for a inter agency report looking at cheaper options...like frienships and other newer large twins...howver even for S&R their was nothing at the time as capable as the p3...She cancelled the full upgrade and it was held up for years on the basis of the antisub capability that the airforce did not want to loose..Howver i read recently i think in... MOD material that the current ?MK48 torpedos carried by the Orion will be replaced with newer types because of parts problems etc...that surprised me...
steve
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 29, 2005 18:58:17 GMT 12
I had never heard of her intention to further downgrade the RNZAF's maritime surveillance and SAR capabilities. It was bad enough when National forced the scrapping of NATTS with their budget cuts. They did a brilliant job in training and actual surveilance.
Now our AEOps and Navs are trained in Australia, so whilst they're there training they're not also over our waters working, if you see what I mean.
I was told by an insider there was serious thoughts being given to fitting the Mavericks and Sidewinders from the Strike Wing aircraft to the Orions. We still own the weapons systems apparently. I believe US Orions have carried these weapons so it makes sense. Might have to wait till after the next election?
I forgot to mention depth charges when I mentioned bombs and orpedoes.
Realistically I see their side of the argument. The Orions are hardly going to use air to surface missiles. Not on fishing ships. Not on cargo ships. Not on yachtees. I mean, in their day to day work. And even in the remotely unthinkable possibility that a fleet of warships comes seaming our way, an Orion is hardly the platform you want to launch against it. It'll be taken out before they even see such a fleet. Even if they got into range and fired, sinking one warship will only cause a ton more trouble for the RNZAF. So, in terms of dollars to hang a few techie weapons under the wings that in 99.99% of the time won't ever be used, it is indeed a waste of money. The Cold War is long over. Do we really need to spend like it's not? I'd rather spend all that money on training engineers better, and other tradesmen and aircrew.
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Nov 29, 2005 19:23:40 GMT 12
If the RNZAF starts charging for its SAR service they could pay for the upgrade of the Orion fleet in no time! Helen's into user-pays, isn't she?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 30, 2005 9:40:40 GMT 12
A nvery recent case of two idiots lost on their yacht cost the taxpayers overs $1million, mainly spent on the Orion ops looking for it, and the media suggested perhaps users should start to pay but it was poo-pooed pretty smartly. Anyway, NZ has signed an international treaty to provide SAR from public funds which is provided free to the user.
So, no, user pays is not an option thank goodness
Labour is nowhere near as into user pays as National was under Shipley and Bolger. Their reigns of terror are where the rot set in with the military by the way, it's not all Labour's fault.
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Nov 30, 2005 9:51:52 GMT 12
Yes, who could ever forget Ruth Richardson! And closing Wigram was another of National's 'seemed-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time' stuff ups.
I think a lot of these yachties should have to purchase some sort of insurance to cover their rescue costs.
I forgot that Helen is only into applying user pays for people who have money, and not couples who were allegedly recieving WINZ payments before they decided to sail their yacht out into the Tasman!
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Nov 30, 2005 10:51:29 GMT 12
slightly off topic, but while talking user pays SAR, why is it that if an aircraft goes missing and the search is difficult due to unclear intentions or faulty ELT beacon, how come the Govt gets on its high horse about making flight plans mandatory, more expensive High tech beacons (which still fail) etc which all adds to the cost of flying and spoils the freedom to just go flying for fun, when it doesnt do likewise for boaties and trampers. More money is spent searching for them every year than aircraft, and yet Dad and the kids to launch thier little runabout anywhere in adverse conditions, tell no-one where they intend to go and without any safety equipment or beacons etc, and no-one seems to mind having an Orion spend a couple of days trying to find them. end of whinge....
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Nov 30, 2005 14:19:59 GMT 12
Very good point, Bruce. There seems to be a huge double standard here.
Oh, the days spent watching RNZAF Iroquois fly back and forth between Christchurch and the Southern Alps to pick up some lost/injured skier/tramper/mountain climber!
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 30, 2005 17:44:26 GMT 12
Well, climberrs and many trampers in certain ares have to register a plan too, so people know if they're overdue.
It is a very good point Bruce makes, but personally I do feel flight plans should be mandatory if you're flying from one airport to another (even private strips). It's just plain common sense to tell someone where you're going and when you expect to get there, because if you don't turn up you're covering your own back, no-one elses. It's a safety thing, something many people in aviation forget.
The recent death of two men in the Fletcher up north was baffling however. When they text saying they're 15 minutes away from the airport, then never turn up, why the hell didn't the airport set up a search? It took them 12 hours to report them missing. That's awful.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 30, 2005 23:37:01 GMT 12
The Ausssies politcal scene is more stable on defence matters than here. Both the major parties in Aus don't have huge differences apart from the last election when Kim Beezley wanted to establish a US type coast guard separate from the navy. The national party here was crap in regards to defence until their last year in office with the F!6 lease...and labour has destroyed nearly all air combat capability howver has at least made some advances with the army and to a degree the RNZ navy...
|
|
|
Post by steve on Dec 1, 2005 0:50:19 GMT 12
SAR is excellent training for military purposes ...i suppose...talking about our p3s does anyone remember when PM Rob Muldoon ordered them into the sky to search for an UFO....fair dink.. Front page of most NZ papers 1978? from memory...Kaikoura UFO encounter with aussie channel 9 crew involved?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 1, 2005 10:18:13 GMT 12
The way I remmebr that incident from what I've read and seen oin documentary, it was a TVNZ crew onboard a SAFE Air Argosy returning from making a news item, or perhaps documentary item, on the Chatham Islands. They encountered the lights and reported it, and a couple of Skyhawks were scrambled to intercept. Is that the same incident you're talking about? Winston Peters called for an enquiry into the lights at some stage (as he does with everything...)
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Dec 1, 2005 10:28:06 GMT 12
Yes, Winnie was probably concerned that the lights may be used by Fay Richwhite as a tax minimisation scam tied up with some Lithuanian gun runners!
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Dec 11, 2005 10:06:38 GMT 12
Yep, they certainly are; but this upgrade isn't taking the P-3Ks to a point anywhere near where they should be. They'll be fantastic for looking for lost sailors and illegal fishing boats, but not much else. The P-3K upgrade was to be much more extensive, but Auntie Helen canned that. That was where my snipe at Helen came in about not needing to look for submarines, because according to her they don't exist. Agreed their ASW capability is pretty poor and IIRC based on a RNZAF developed system (based on a PC)
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Dec 11, 2005 16:24:11 GMT 12
I read in a recent edition of AERO magazine that a couple of the AP-3C Orions are actually modified to a different standard as EP-3C aircraft for electronic surveillance, but apparently the ADF don't officially acknowledge their existence in RAAF service!
|
|