|
Post by madmac on Dec 16, 2017 22:10:06 GMT 12
Should a new Combat Force even be manned.
For what we need we simply can't support sufficient numbers of the classical single seat fighters to provide the required weight at the distances required to make the best of our available battle space. The current combat type UAV require even more support than manned fighters & are somewhat limited in ability. So that probably leaves us with either a claytons combat force or something rather original like flying aircraft carriers (actually a stand off bomber but current tech provides means that can be launched is more like one way UAVs), converted airliners launching strike packages of stealth missiles or sensor nodes (active or passive). Space based orbital strike considered to be the biggest threat against aircraft carriers. We probably signed something outlawing this, but its not illegal until it has been placed in space (or if you old worn out com's satellites happen to be capable of a controlled reentry& built around an over-strength tungsten spline), it is only illegal until living sufficiency long for there to be consequences is probably off the table anyway.
|
|
|
Post by kiwirico on Dec 17, 2017 0:54:23 GMT 12
Perhaps it would be a good idea to add some (eight?) AT-6B armed trainers to train pilots in tactics of close air support and air support for Marines? It would be a first step... if anything will change in future NZ Government thoughts (if any...).
|
|
|
Post by tfly on Dec 17, 2017 3:54:36 GMT 12
Given the history of RNZAF and Aermacchi could this be a suitable lead in trainer/light attack aircraft for the Air Force? I notice Singapore are already an operator which surely would be an advantage if they are going to be basing aircraft at Ohakea. Closer relationship with Singapore could prove very useful in the short to medium term en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alenia_Aermacchi_M-346_Master
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Dec 17, 2017 6:45:54 GMT 12
Snafu , the Australians have very much changed their tune in relation to NZ in the intervening 20+ years.I stand by my earlier remark. These days we are much better at defence project management than the Aussies,though that wouldn't take much.You might not think so from the media reports but they have had and continue to have some serious F Ups in their projects.Their process tends to be cumbersome and overspec. A prime example being the Seasprites,where in the end we got some benefit, but with no help from over the ditch. The NZDF has no experience managing projects of the complexity and scale as those of the ADF: JORN, F-18 HUG, AWD, submarine construction and sustainment, E-7 etc. While the ADF fields first day of the war, high intensity warfare capabilities, the NZDF is a much smaller force orientated to peacekeeping and civil support, so your comment sounds pretty hollow. Even the RNZAFs P-3 upgrade was pretty limited in capability terms compared to the RAAF AP-3C program.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Dec 17, 2017 6:55:46 GMT 12
Snafu , the Australians have very much changed their tune in relation to NZ in the intervening 20+ years.I stand by my earlier remark. These days we are much better at defence project management than the Aussies,though that wouldn't take much.You might not think so from the media reports but they have had and continue to have some serious F Ups in their projects.Their process tends to be cumbersome and overspec. A prime example being the Seasprites,where in the end we got some benefit, but with no help from over the ditch. Australian defence procurement also always has a high local content, and that comes with a high cost to us. Apologies for going off topic. well I cannot argue that some of our projects have gone off the rails at one point or another, when you push the capability envelope and try to gold plate everything and also keep those skill base at a national level, with the government putting there hat in the ring and it comes down to "too many cooks in the kitchen"
like any major nation NZ is not immune to cost blowouts and projects running behind schedule, like the current Anzac upgrade.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Dec 17, 2017 7:55:39 GMT 12
There in lies part of the problem with sharing capability purchase with Australia.Their level of complexity is either higher than we need and cost is higher than we can afford. As for the Aermacchi,i think the NZ experience would be enough to not go there again. Unfortunately,in the event of getting back some sort of defensive capability ,the most likely course is UAV.I say this from the point of a plane spotter as they are just unsexy,but with the likes of F-35, even manned combat jets are pretty ugly these days too.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 17, 2017 9:27:59 GMT 12
Given the history of RNZAF and Aermacchi could this be a suitable lead in trainer/light attack aircraft for the Air Force? I notice Singapore are already an operator which surely would be an advantage if they are going to be basing aircraft at Ohakea. Closer relationship with Singapore could prove very useful in the short to medium term en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alenia_Aermacchi_M-346_MasterGiven the history of RNZAF and Aermacchi I think that will be a 100% NO. That jet is cute, it looks like a pedal car version of an F-16.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Dec 17, 2017 10:31:23 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Dec 17, 2017 19:00:50 GMT 12
Not disagreeing, Its the difference between aspirational and pragmatic. NZ can only afford pragmatic, so to tag on to an Aussie(aspirational) equipment/capability purchase ,for NZ, would be expensive and wasteful.
|
|
|
Post by typerated on Dec 17, 2017 19:26:25 GMT 12
I think history will record that the Texan buy was a strange. Both in (the high) numbers and role.
Great if we had fast jets but as we don't they appear as expensive toys. Unless perhaps the majority of seats on the PTS course are bought by foreign airforces - then it might make business sense?
Otherwise they seem at odds with the helicopter/ multi engine force we operate.
The purpose of an airforce is not to operate shiny but benign training machines!
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Dec 17, 2017 20:10:59 GMT 12
i think the Texans provide a faster more complex training environment, that was lacking with the CT-4. Apparently the skills fade was becoming noticable.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Dec 17, 2017 20:17:06 GMT 12
I found an article in relation to Ron Marks and the reestablishment of an ACF from an article, and from a few days ago it stated that the Canadian deal was worth 500M CAD which is about 507M AUD which works out to roughly 546M NZD as an interim starter pack it is good value, with capability straight out of box.
I'm not advocating that NZ gets these at the expense of other areas within defence.But using part 66 of the DWP as justification is nonsense there may be no direct threat to your mainland and surrounding EEZ, there more to NZ direct interest than mainland NZ like SLOC in the SCS
werewolf.co.nz/2017/11/gordon-campbell-on-the-new-pike-river-agency-and-the-air-strike-wing/
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Dec 17, 2017 20:28:14 GMT 12
Maybe equipment straight out of the box,definitely not capability. Remember Canada already has the F-18 in service. Training for fast jet pilots,navs,groundcrew up/re skilling,logistic support. All these have been decimated via the disbandment of the ACF,and would require a massive injection of money,time,training, not to mention consistant political will.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Dec 17, 2017 21:06:32 GMT 12
I found an article in relation to Ron Marks and the reestablishment of an ACF from an article, and from a few days ago it stated that the Canadian deal was worth 500M CAD which is about 507M AUD which works out to roughly 546M NZD as an interim starter pack it is good value, with capability straight out of box.
I'm not advocating that NZ gets these at the expense of other areas within defence.But using part 66 of the DWP as justification is nonsense there may be no direct threat to your mainland and surrounding EEZ, there more to NZ direct interest than mainland NZ like SLOC in the SCS
werewolf.co.nz/2017/11/gordon-campbell-on-the-new-pike-river-agency-and-the-air-strike-wing/ The author of the article is among the many deluded people. These people ignore the possibility of a future war threatening the air and sea lanes in the Asia-Pacific.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Dec 17, 2017 21:23:09 GMT 12
Maybe equipment straight out of the box,definitely not capability. Remember Canada already has the F-18 in service. Training for fast jet pilots,navs,groundcrew up/re skilling,logistic support. All these have been decimated via the disbandment of the ACF,and would require a massive injection of money,time,training, not to mention consistant political will. That's the whole point of my suggestion of leaving it in place as a NZ OCU, along with RAAF pers once we have F35A in numbers. offcourse their is going to be additional cost no such thing as a free lunch.
leaving it in place until you have re-established all the trades needed they are interim capability unless you want to spend 6.5B on new Hornets. Don't forget you are not buying an orphan aircraft the RCAF will continue flying the same capability just as the USMC will be doing the same, they too are pulling legacy aircraft from the boneyard and upgrading then too Cttt standard comparable too the RAAF birds
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Dec 19, 2017 7:13:04 GMT 12
well, my response to that would have to be.."mate,ya dreamin'". However in the seemingly strange worldwide political climate that currently prevails, who knows, maybe the F-35 will be a fantastic aircaft,pigs might fly and NZ might get an ACF element of our own.Your dreams are aspirational .
|
|
|
Post by delticman on Dec 19, 2017 7:43:38 GMT 12
Maybe equipment straight out of the box,definitely not capability. Remember Canada already has the F-18 in service. Training for fast jet pilots,navs,groundcrew up/re skilling,logistic support. All these have been decimated via the disbandment of the ACF,and would require a massive injection of money,time,training, not to mention consistant political will. That's the whole point of my suggestion of leaving it in place as a NZ OCU, along with RAAF pers once we have F35A in numbers. offcourse their is going to be additional cost no such thing as a free lunch.
leaving it in place until you have re-established all the trades needed they are interim capability unless you want to spend 6.5B on new Hornets. Don't forget you are not buying an orphan aircraft the RCAF will continue flying the same capability just as the USMC will be doing the same, they too are pulling legacy aircraft from the boneyard and upgrading then too Cttt standard comparable too the RAAF birds
In these days, specialised companies or aircraft makers support companies maintain military aircraft. They come a lot cheaper than air force personal. This happens with railways as well and the servicing companies build their own workshops or buy/lease them from the previous franchise holder.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Dec 19, 2017 15:31:51 GMT 12
In these days, specialised companies or aircraft makers support companies maintain military aircraft. They come a lot cheaper than air force personal. This happens with railways as well and the servicing companies build their own workshops or buy/lease them from the previous franchise holder. Much of the claimed cheapiness achieved by contracting out is often a reflection of the limits of accounting methods than actual savings. Also in many places contracting out is also used as a solution to poor culture, the classic that comes to mind is the sea harrier overhaul line that was contracted out and they noted the large drop in rivet consumption because stores now issued rivets in amounts less than pounds.[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Dec 19, 2017 16:42:02 GMT 12
In these days, specialised companies or aircraft makers support companies maintain military aircraft. They come a lot cheaper than air force personal. This happens with railways as well and the servicing companies build their own workshops or buy/lease them from the previous franchise holder. Much of the claimed cheapiness achieved by contracting out is often a reflection of the limits of accounting methods than actual savings. Also in many places contracting out is also used as a solution to poor culture, the classic that comes to mind is the sea harrier overhaul line that was contracted out and they noted the large drop in rivet consumption because stores now issued rivets in amounts less than pounds. Yep, such as the Wellington rail commuter system where Transdev (operating company) and Hyundai-Rotem (maintenance) undercut every other bidder by a huge amount to get the contract. One year later, they realised they were losing money, so tried to slash the workers wages by offering a small hourly pay rise but axing all penal rates. The result was that the workers employed by these two companies decided they weren't going to be the fall-guys to cover the cost of the overseas companies' cheap tender, so stood up to their employers (absolute 100% united support) and started 24-hour strikes. Both companies have been forced to back down. But their cheap tenders almost certainly will mean a reduction in quality of the service. And in Auckland, Transdev are trying on similar tactics by trying to divide & rule....ie....offering the drivers a large pay increase to take over the ontrain staff duties by remote control using a large bank of CCTV monitors. However, the drivers have told them where to shove it because they have too many safety-related tasks they have to worry about already and have likewise started industrial action. The workers in Auckland are absolutely determined to not give so much as an inch, and a 100% united workforce is very hard to beat, especially when they have specialist skills which cannot be simply hired off the street, and which are also in world-wide short supply. The blame for this situation rests with a government who changed the law so the cheapest tender got the contract, without taking into account real costs of quality service.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Dec 19, 2017 21:49:43 GMT 12
I think its a bit more fundamental than that, with accounting and economics you simply can't measure everything that matters and often the most important measure is simple not possible to measure directly. So how can a dollar comparison actually have any meaning without the reviewer having a deep understanding of the problem & that requires managers / CEO / Boards with technical know how rather than just accounting & marketing skills.
Back to the topic. Perhaps we need to look use EQC as a relevant example of the Defence funding issue. I seem to recall not long before the Christchurch earthquakes there was a suggestion that the government was going to review the funding with the belief that EQC didn't need so much levey. Clearly EQC didn't have sufficient funds, much the same could be said of the defence force except many of the NZDF actives that the public see fall under keeping busy / feel good activities (civil defence, middle east excursions, disaster relief, etc) rather than sitting waiting around for the world to go off the rails (yes bad for moral and staff quality but such is life). That does raise the slight possibility that if the NZDF a lot less out and about in the world, it would find it easier to get funding doing core activities like Air combat force.
|
|