|
Post by frankly on Mar 14, 2019 18:24:57 GMT 12
I was wondering, before the F-16A/B was selected to replace the A-4's... did RNZAF considered the Hawk 200 as a serious candidate? I frequently read that the Hawk 200 was seen as a likely asset... although I have doubt if they could take the task the A-4 did 🙄 KiwiRico From memory the Hawk was looked at as part of the Whineray Review (along with alternates, like rotary platforms). Basically it failed the policy benefit test because it lacked utility in two of the three primary roles (being maritime strike, interdiction and CAS).
|
|
|
Post by kiwirico on Mar 14, 2019 23:32:02 GMT 12
I was wondering, before the F-16A/B was selected to replace the A-4's... did RNZAF considered the Hawk 200 as a serious candidate? I frequently read that the Hawk 200 was seen as a likely asset... although I have doubt if they could take the task the A-4 did 🙄 KiwiRico From memory the Hawk was looked at as part of the Whineray Review (along with alternates, like rotary platforms).  Basically it failed the policy benefit test because it lacked utility in two of the three primary roles (being maritime strike, interdiction and CAS). Could you tell what rotary platforms were looked at?
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Mar 15, 2019 7:03:22 GMT 12
I think they used the Cobra as a proxy for a generic capability. But it was a policy review not a 'type' study.
|
|
|
Post by beegeetee on Nov 13, 2019 13:01:16 GMT 12
The road back to a manned air combat capability is a long, painfull and expensive one. I wonder if there may be alternatives that might be more palatable to the government and public. I've been reading about the Boeing Australia Loyal Wingman program and it strikes me as a well conceived, far sighted and potentially game changing technology. I also noted that the P-8 was one of the aircraft types listed as a control platform. So a P-8 fitted with the Boeing Airpower Teaming System could fly with a swarm of up to six LW drones. The drones can be equipped with ISR or electronic warfare equipment and, eventually, weapons. They would support and protect the control aircraft, going into hostile areas, finding targets, jamming electronics and generally confusing the enemy. The stealth drones are 38ft long and have a range of 2000 miles. Kristin Robertson, vice president and general manager of Boeing Autonomous Systems, said: 'It is operationally very flexible, modular, multi-mission. It has a very disruptive price point. Fighter-like capability at a fraction of the cost.' Given Australia's commitment to this program and their desire for export orders, there is definitely an opportunity for NZ to acquire the aircraft (after Australia has done all the development, integration, worked out the bugs and proven the operational value of the system ). If we only started with a small number of aircraft, I'm sure we could collaborate with Aus to use their training, maintenance, etc. It could be a faster, cheaper way of dipping our toes back into the waters of an offensive air capability.
|
|
|
Post by senob on Nov 13, 2019 21:40:57 GMT 12
It's quite an interesting proposition, but I can see our politicians having ethical & political problems with it. They probably will have more problems with armed UAVs than with manned fast jets in combat roles because of the perceived and possible public backlash against armed UAVs. Certainly some members of the community would be very vocal in their opposition against such an acquisition; the same & similar ones who don't like Skyhawks, F-16s and US warships. Having said that, once our Aussie brethren do sort all the bugs etc., and have it integrated with the P-8, it definitely would have potential for possible RNZAF service.
|
|
|
Post by beegeetee on Nov 14, 2019 4:44:43 GMT 12
It's quite an interesting proposition, but I can see our politicians having ethical & political problems with it. They probably will have more problems with armed UAVs than with manned fast jets in combat roles because of the perceived and possible public backlash against armed UAVs. Certainly some members of the community would be very vocal in their opposition against such an acquisition; the same & similar ones who don't like Skyhawks, F-16s and US warships. Having said that, once our Aussie brethren do sort all the bugs etc., and have it integrated with the P-8, it definitely would have potential for possible RNZAF service. Yeah, there's always going to be a vocal minority who push back against all things combative, but they're idiots, so screw them. They can be first against the wall when China invades. The reason this would be an easier sell than manned combat jets is the flexible, multi-role nature of the platform. You could emphasize it's capability as an ISR platform. For example, a P-8 on maritime patrol or conducting SAR could search a much larger area with LW drones than it could alone. In a SAR scenario a P-8 sent to investigate multiple EPIRB signals wouldn't have to decide which one to check first, just send a drone to each allowing fast assessment of false signals or which vessels are in the most trouble. Even in a HADR situation they could be useful for rapid damage assessment over a wide area. You wouldn't even need to mention the combat part.
|
|
|
Post by tbf25o4 on Nov 14, 2019 8:07:52 GMT 12
Look for the next issue of NZ Aviation News and the coverage of the annual RAeS symposium. A lot of what is being discussed here was addressed in the symposium with some clues to government and defence forward thinking on RPAS etc as a "combat force"
|
|
madmark
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 78
|
Post by madmark on Nov 14, 2019 10:14:49 GMT 12
It's quite an interesting proposition, but I can see our politicians having ethical & political problems with it. They probably will have more problems with armed UAVs than with manned fast jets in combat roles because of the perceived and possible public backlash against armed UAVs. Certainly some members of the community would be very vocal in their opposition against such an acquisition; the same & similar ones who don't like Skyhawks, F-16s and US warships. Having said that, once our Aussie brethren do sort all the bugs etc., and have it integrated with the P-8, it definitely would have potential for possible RNZAF service. Yeah, there's always going to be a vocal minority who push back against all things combative, but they're idiots, so screw them. They can be first against the wall when China invades. The reason this would be an easier sell than manned combat jets is the flexible, multi-role nature of the platform. You could emphasize it's capability as an ISR platform. For example, a P-8 on maritime patrol or conducting SAR could search a much larger area with LW drones than it could alone. In a SAR scenario a P-8 sent to investigate multiple EPIRB signals wouldn't have to decide which one to check first, just send a drone to each allowing fast assessment of false signals or which vessels are in the most trouble. Even in a HADR situation they could be useful for rapid damage assessment over a wide area. You wouldn't even need to mention the combat part. I think your SAR argument is pretty flimsy. What is the range/endurance and sensor fit of one of these things? How often have their been instances where numerous EPIRBs have required investigating simultaneously, did our current P-3s struggle to resolve this? Given that these drones appear to be optimised for escorting strike packages I'm going to guess that they won't have a suitable maritime radar or the range/endurance to work with an MPA. If NZ wants fast jets it would be cheaper, less complex and more practical to buy fast jets rather than drones that rely on having to have one of only 4 P-8s in the air at the same time
|
|
|
Post by senob on Nov 14, 2019 13:49:34 GMT 12
It's quite an interesting proposition, but I can see our politicians having ethical & political problems with it. They probably will have more problems with armed UAVs than with manned fast jets in combat roles because of the perceived and possible public backlash against armed UAVs. Certainly some members of the community would be very vocal in their opposition against such an acquisition; the same & similar ones who don't like Skyhawks, F-16s and US warships. Having said that, once our Aussie brethren do sort all the bugs etc., and have it integrated with the P-8, it definitely would have potential for possible RNZAF service. Yeah, there's always going to be a vocal minority who push back against all things combative, but they're idiots, so screw them. They can be first against the wall when China invades. The reason this would be an easier sell than manned combat jets is the flexible, multi-role nature of the platform. You could emphasize it's capability as an ISR platform. For example, a P-8 on maritime patrol or conducting SAR could search a much larger area with LW drones than it could alone. In a SAR scenario a P-8 sent to investigate multiple EPIRB signals wouldn't have to decide which one to check first, just send a drone to each allowing fast assessment of false signals or which vessels are in the most trouble. Even in a HADR situation they could be useful for rapid damage assessment over a wide area. You wouldn't even need to mention the combat part. It's not so simple as that. There are already platforms available that can do that, such as the MQ-4C Triton or the MQ-9 Watchkeeper. You are changing is mission. I have also been having a think about this overnight as well. UAVs are great in unopposed air spaces because they don't have to react instantly, however when they are controlled from a distant via COMSATS and operating in a highly opposed airspace where they will need to react instantly to attacks, my view is that they will be far more vulnerable than manned platforms. This is because of signal latency between the UAV and the ground station. Whilst the signal travels at the speed of light (300,000 km per sec) it still takes time to travel from the UAV to the COMSAT - COMSAT to ground station - operate to react and send command - to COMSAT - COMSAT back to UAV - UAV to execute command. That could take anywhere from 1.5 to 5 sec meaning that the UAV could be shot down during that period. The latency vulnerability could be mitigated by using AI in the UAVs, but that opens up another whole highly charged ethical and political discussion.
Secondly, I also think that they wouldn't be that cheap to acquire. From what I understand the acquisition cost of 4 MQ-4C Triton is roughly similar to the acquisition cost of the 4 P-8A Poseidon that we are acquiring. The base station alone is quite expensive and some people put it at somewhere between NZ$750 million - NZ$1 billion. Remember that the Triton is designed to work closely with e Poseidon and be controlled from it.
Thirdly, in any peer on peer conflict, read US / UK Vs PRC / Russia etc., space will be a battleground as combatants knock each others spaceborne capabilities out right from the start, so all of a sudden operating UAVs beyond line of sight (BLOS) becomes very problematic, until those spaceborne assets can be replaced. A quick fix is an Airborne Communications Node (ACN) which is an aircraft that acts as a quasi COMSAT but at a significantly lower altitude like FL350 - FL400. It's weakness would be that it's range, which is determined by its height AMSL, would be limited by the curvature of the earth. Such aircraft could be the B757-200 Combi (& its replacement) / KC-30A / KC-46 / C32 / C40 etc., that only need the required equipment added and this would be another capability that they acquire, whilst retaining their original capability. (You could also add EW to this as well making the platform a truly multirole platform.) Like AEW&C aircraft this platform would be a high priority for enemy fighters, so would require strong fighter escort and / or be within a GBADS (Ground Based Air Defence System).
Finally, we already know that that things like GPS spoofing are happening; the Iranians used it in the Gulf of Aqaba recently to lure the British registered tanker into their waters, and the Russians used it on an exercise near the Norwegian border earlier this year, and it caused problems with GPS devices in Norway including aircraft. We know that both the Russians and Chinese have destroyed satellites in orbit using killer satellites. I wouldn't be surprised if the US has that capability, but they haven't made it public to my knowledge. So whilst many pundits say that UAVs will be able to do this and that in the next hi tech war, I would counsel a note of caution for the reasons outlined. At the moment I would prefer manned fast jets over combat UAVs any day.
|
|
|
Post by kiwiruna on Nov 14, 2019 16:33:41 GMT 12
In combat I wonder how you get around Time lag issue ie: from UAV to ground station(input) back to UAV I know its a second or two it doesn't seem like much but look at the issues you can get with live TV (not including any built in censor time you often get delays of many seconds) at speeds that combat take place does anyone know how this effects things.
|
|
|
Post by beegeetee on Nov 14, 2019 17:30:50 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by senob on Nov 14, 2019 19:06:32 GMT 12
Has it and how do you figure that?
|
|
|
Post by beegeetee on Nov 15, 2019 6:35:03 GMT 12
Has it and how do you figure that? I've already sated that in my earlier posts, but here's a re-cap: much cheaper (huge reason right there), a flexible multi-role platform that can be used for missions other than combat, it's an Australian program so there is huge scope to work with our closest ally and leverage their knowledge, training, maintenance, etc to mitigate the risks and costs of introducing a new type into service.
|
|
madmark
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 78
|
Post by madmark on Nov 15, 2019 10:21:41 GMT 12
Beegeetee. Are you sure its cheaper? You could get a sweet deal on some refurbed F-16s out of Davis Monthan, they don't need a ground station or a P-8 to hold their hands, plus no development costs. Its not flexible, as according to the graphic you posted, it needs to fly with another platform, or be controlled by a ground station. Could you please explain what "non-combat' mission you envisage this platform doing, as it can't move things and doesn't appear to be capable of any meaningful ISR role.
|
|
|
Post by senob on Nov 15, 2019 19:22:28 GMT 12
Has it and how do you figure that? I've already sated that in my earlier posts, but here's a re-cap: much cheaper (huge reason right there), a flexible multi-role platform that can be used for missions other than combat, it's an Australian program so there is huge scope to work with our closest ally and leverage their knowledge, training, maintenance, etc to mitigate the risks and costs of introducing a new type into service. How do you know that it will be cheaper. Has there been a cost attached to it yet? Can you provide some reliable figures to back up your claims? What about the ethical and political risks that are associated with armed UAVs that any Kiwi politicians will want to avoid? They are the ones who will be approving and paying for such an acquisition. Pollies when they make decisions about defence acquisitions assess factors beyond pure defence needs and capabilities. They also weigh up the costs including the term of life costs, do they wish to expend political capital on it, what will be the public reaction, diplomatic ramifications, are their votes in it for them etc. I know this because I had it explained to me by someone who worked in the Beehive, in an administrative capacity, for a number of years and is thoroughly familiar with how the Dept of the PM & Cabinet works, hence they are familiar with the mechanics of how Cabinet arrives at decisions. So instead of being airy fairy creating a fantasy, be realistic about it.
|
|
|
Post by beegeetee on Nov 16, 2019 7:41:19 GMT 12
This bloke knows what he's talking about: "... it definitely would have potential for possible RNZAF service." - senob
And to quote Boeing for the second time: Kristin Robertson, vice president and general manager of Boeing Autonomous Systems, said: 'It is operationally very flexible, modular, multi-mission. It has a very disruptive price point. Fighter-like capability at a fraction of the cost.'
I've stated my opinion and have nothing more to say.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Mar 5, 2020 15:47:03 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 5, 2020 16:00:39 GMT 12
You do realise the New Zealand government will never restore the air combat force, don't you? This entire thread is a moot point.
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Mar 5, 2020 16:44:09 GMT 12
You do realise the New Zealand government will never restore the air combat force, don't you? This entire thread is a moot point. but, but, tbut, gawd dang it
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Mar 5, 2020 18:39:14 GMT 12
You do realise the New Zealand government will never restore the air combat force, don't you? This entire thread is a moot point. Yeah I know but it’s not like the capbilty is not needed unless you consider yourselves to be on the same par as the ROI Would have been a cheap way to rebuild as an interim fighter with a maritime strike/air interdiction role
|
|