Side note on 7.62mm: Janes recently reported Dutch Maritime Special Ops are tendering to replace their assault carbines with non-NATO standard 7.62x35 mm - reportedly the first military to publicly do so. It will replace their H&K HK416 carbine currently chambered with the NATO-standard 5.56x45 mm.
Reported AFR today: PM's jump jet shelved - PM Abbott's proposal to place 12 F-35Bs on the two Canberra Class LHDs were quietly dropped ahead of the Australian government's defense white paper. Abbott ordered defense planners in May to examine the feasibility of operating F-35Bs from the 27,000 tonne troop transport/helicopter platforms. There were judged too many modifications to enable jump jets to operate from the Canberra and Adelaide. Aside from having to order additional F-35Bs to the 2nd tranche of 58 F35As already ordered ($AUD12.4 billion) for the RAAF (bringing the fleet to 72), the modifications required included; "..new radar systems, instrument landing systems, heat resistant decking, restructuring fuel storage and fuel lines, and storage hangars." In light of an already ballooning $AUD275+ billion procurement list, the modifications have been deemed too costly and providing insufficient cost-benefit to pursue to just join the club of nations fielding F35Bs from Assault ships.
ADF order 30,000 new E (Enhanced) F88 Austeyr 5.56 mm rifles for delivery in 2016 for AUD100 million. Manufactured by Thales Australia at its small arms facility in Lithgow, New South Wales.
The NZDF trials for their Steyr rifle replacment were scheduled for completion in June. The following manufacturers were being trialed;
Beretta New Zealand Limited
Česká zbrojovka a.s.
Colt Canada Corporation
FN HERSTAL
STEYR MANNLICHER GmbH
XTEK Limited (Sig Sauer)
Heckler & Kock GmbH
Lewis Machine & Tools Co Inc
A conventional rifle was said to be preferred over the existing bullpups. Also there was speculation over a calibre upgrade from 5.56mm to 7.62mm. Anyone heard the outcome to those trials?
Now Lockheed is offering a palletised mission package for its C-130Js as cost-effective solution to UK MMA [maritime multimission aircraft] requirement. "The P-8 is a fine aircraft, but the C-130 [upgrade] offers an innovative way to use already existing platforms for a completely new mission, and it means that you can use the infrastructure that you already have also," he said.
If we did replace our C130-Hs with C-130Js, hope someone has the foresight to also consider the Lockheed and Oto Merla pallets as mission modules to accompany the purchase. Then we can rename our C-130s as TB-2s!
NH90s now also being favored by French special forces. I also read somewhere that the Italians have been happy with their performance in CSAR role too. However Gerry cares to politicize the procurement, the Rhinos will continue to prove to have been an astute buy in the years to come ...lets hope we keep upgrading them.
Yes if we are only looking for only a tactical airlift replacement of the C130s then aside from the C-130J there are; C-27J, C-295, KC-390, AN-178 and XC-2. However they all can't move our Rhinos so we need to add some strategic airlifters to the mix and there are only 3 who can offer strategic airlift products - US, Europe and the Russkies. Beagle opinion ed in the C-17 thread that 4x A400M and 6x C-295. I agree that a force mix something like that brokered with Airbus would be a good and affordable transport fleet replacement for NZ. If our negotiators were savvy enough they would also negotiate for commercial offsets for NZ - say establishing an MRO site for the types at Christchurch Engineering. Malaysia was the (export) launch customer for A400 in the region but not sure if any offset was part of that deal. Indonesia is becoming a regular customer for C-295 and I read somewhere that there had been some negotiation on offset with the Indonesian government.
Here are a couple of links to An-178 being show cased in Paris Airshow. I was surprised at the avionics and carbon composites used. See video at this link www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33161945
The Danes are the pioneers (since 1980s) in interchangeable mission payload modules (see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StanFlex). They now do this across 9 vessel classes in their navy. So if NZ wants to invest in the multi-mission capability, the most experience in design and operation will be found in Denmark. They also share similar demographic size to NZ thus understand the economics of optimizing a 'small' Navy with a small population. They are also faced with patrolling a vast EEZ (incl. Iceland and Arctic) with littoral, deep water, and arctic challenges. What I am saying is their operations philosophy is going to be very similar to our own (see: rnzaf.proboards.com/thread/22284/denmarks-newest-frigates-huitfeldt-class)
I remain a big advocate in the Absalon/Iver Huitfeldt design for our frigate choice and sure their design could easily be scaled to supply a third OPV/littoral support vessel too. Yes interchangeable mission payload modules need to be the future Navy requirement because these capital platforms are expensive and will have a 30-40 year life span yet technology advances will continue at a frenetic pace and so some thought to module payload design is necessary for our navy to remain affordable, sustainable, and competitive into the future. If we can afford the funds and manpower I'd love to see our navy operating with 3 Iver Huitfeldt designed frigates and 1 Absalon-class support ship alongside our existing protector patrol fleet.
So the new planes are to be built at Woodbourne? (just keeping the wild rumours flying...)
So we want wild rumours?
"The Textron AirLand Scorpion is an aircraft in high demand ... Sales discussions also are ongoing with several potential buyers. Anderson says three nations are “beyond initial interest”, while one – in the Pacific region – is poised to issue a request for proposals."
Isn't adding two more frigates to a conflict simply adding two more targets? We need maritime strike fighters, not boats.
MPA assets with new frigates equipped with NSMs and Sea Ceptors - might be better than maritime strike fighters?
Agree just having more frigates alone would be presenting more targets. NZ needs to complement over the horizon capability with its sea platforms. Instead of MPAs for traditional ASW and SAR roles, lets augment their ISR and invest in decent comms suite with Frigates. P8s too big and expensive for NZ needs but a fleet of 4-5 bombardier or gulfstream jets (approx 5000nm) tethered to 3 frigates with the right missiles would offer a decent offensive maritime access and denial capability wouldn't it?
New business model for RNZN - install a couple of ATMs on board the frigates and Canterbury. Send them north so they can offer to supply the RAN and Oz Immigration the cash at sea they need to pay their people smugglers. 18% transaction fee on every $3000 withdraw plus exchange rate fee for USD - could help boost fund raising for our new frigates.
Yes 4 Leander-class frigates and 7 Moa-class patrol vessels. Certainly technology threat is vastly different today to then and the socio-economic demands competing also. Organizationally - the levels of seamanship to crew 4 modern frigates is a capability that will be challenging -in terms of time and money - to reconstitute in RNZN. 3 new Iver Huitfeldt designed frigates for $1.5b I'd consider money well spent but politics always skewers the procurement landscape and we will probably end up spending $1.5b on 2 Type 26 ANZAC derivatives that are delivered 3 years later than needed and half finished - lets hope not.
At the very least we should replace our Frigates with modern Frigates. Ideally (but regrettably not sustainable) we should have 4 Frigates or at least 3 Frigates and 3 OPVs. Aside from the capital cost of the vessels, developing the manpower to crew and sustain deployments of that kind of future fleet mix would mean accepting significant increases to our defence spending which is where the pain would be. Recently reported: Australia is currently spending AUD$87m p/day to run their current defense forces and they are forecasting by 2017/18 to need AUD$100m p/day. That assumption probably includes RAN having 1 LHD and 1 AWD in FOC by then, but there is still 1 additional LHD and 2 other AWDs still coming off their pipeline or in IOC. Cost of capital assets always grabs headlines (eg. great debate on C-17s) but real cost is in their operability and utility). 2 new frigates minimum, 3 new frigates would be prudent with how our neighborhood is shaping up. That being said we also really need to invest in upgrading our MPA assets jointly as well. Not P-8s but a combination of smaller modest MPAs i.e. Global5000 and drones to strengthen maritime surveillance and give our frigates the reconnaissance assets to optimise their reach. To be a credible player in diplomacy we need options to use, we need to project our commitments, and reliably be able to survey the scene of contention. Thats why we need these kind of naval and air assets.
will the Type 26 be a serious consideration? - just on the cost dimension alone GBP exchange rate with NZD has never been favorable. Last cost I read in 2013 speculated GBP350m per hull. That roughly translates to a starting price of NZD$750m before fit-out. Even if production was outsourced to BAE Australia, it would likely have to end up being a RAN led variant and thus cost more and subject to postponements. If there is a preference for European designed vessel, the weak Euro and the fact that European shipbuilders have access to cheaper labor shipyards in the Baltics, SE Europe and Asia means Italy & France can offer the FREMMs more competitively, the Danes can offer the Iver Huitfeldt-class $350m euros (NZD$552m) , while the Spanish have the F-100 to offer at $453m euros (NZD$715m). The Germans have the Type 125 but it costs $650m euros (NZD$1b)per vessel to produce in Germany. Closer to home - Japan, South Korea and Singapore all have developed pedigree in building modern frigates over the last two decades. There are other considerations than just the cost dimension, but if cost is as significant to the NZ public as in the past then I think NZ would be better off looking for a relatively straight out MOTS purchase (within tolerances) rather than pursue a hybrid MOTS design and timetable led by either RN or RAN. A budget north of $1.5b for 2 vessels will be difficult to sell domestically in NZ. It will also be interesting to see what kind of displacement and deployment spec will be desired by the RNZN as the current breed of frigate are designed in the 6,000-7500 tonnes profile which is twice the size of current ANZAC class.
project management-wise, I agree the invention of 'a competitive evaluation process' is farcical ...even the DMO admitted as much (which probably was one of the nails to their coffin.) To claim Sweden was not a competent contender was a surprising statement.
Here's an article about the upsurge in submarine procurement and Sweden's re-acquisition of its submarine-building capacity. The first link is WSJ 9 page article. If that link doesnt work for you the second link is an abridged version of same in the ABR.
Does the RNZAF have any CAS capability? Do the NH90s possess/certified even with rockets? ADF have at least Tigers to provide CAS for their diggers. Would be a nice thought for RNZAF to acquire the A10 and reenter the offensive domain but very unlikely. Best they could perhaps hope to do is buy the Oto Merla 20mm vulcan that is palletised and we load them on a couple of our Hercs to transform them into 'makeshift' Spectres*. Only couple million a piece per kit the company is claiming and requires no external modification of the aircraft fuselage just stick it out the parachute door.
(*) The AC-130H Spectre was armed with two 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannons, one Bofors 40mm autocannon, and one 105 mm M102 cannon. The upgraded AC-130U “Spooky” has a single 25 mm GAU-12 Equalizer (Gattling-type) in place of the Spectre’s twin 20 mm cannons, an improved fire control system, and increased ammunition capacity. The AC-130W is armed with one 30 mm Bushmaster cannon, AGM-176 Griffin missiles, and GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs.
Independent Senator Nick Xenophon says he'll be pushing for a Senate resolution for the audit report to be released. He says he thinks the Government doesn't want it made public because it will be critical of the Defence Department and Defence Materiel Organisation. "This argument of "commercial in confidence" doesn't wash anymore with the AWD project, given that so many other commercial partners have been brought in on the process and, by necessity, information had to be shared."
I believe there is an existing budget set aside just for this purpose, and spread out over 5 further years, and for a 10 year plan as well. The money is there already for a wide range of purchases. It can be moderated in direction and scope through those years. I don't think it needed to be funded from the current proposed budget. I believe the funds mentioned in the budget were for increases in the three codes for annual costs and for some alterations on current equipment. Nothing was mentioned about additional funds for new scopes of purchase. There is authority within the MOD for managing the replacement budgets (as they exist) as they see fit.
Does anyone know how much is currently accrued in this replacement fund?
$2-3b? Assuming the procurement needs are replacements for; Hercs, 757s, P3ks on the RNZAF side and 2 frigates, replenishment ship (Endeavour) and a littoral vessel (Manawanui)? on the RNZN side, then just to buy such new assets in the next 10 years could likely set NZ back $2b to $2.5b (excl. initial operating costs) and assuming our exchange rate continues to remain strong against USD & Euro over next decade.