5 Sqn in Army co-operation

[phasselgren]

I found following in Army News of 12 December:

"Improved ground-air co-operation between 1 RNZIR and RNZAF 5 Squadron was trialled in Auckland in November.
The Commanding Officer of 1 RNZIR’s Tac Party, consisting of two NZLAVs from Whiskey Company, and a LOB (light obstacle blade) variant from 2 Engineer Regiment, travelled up to Whenuapai Air Base and Kaipara Range to train with 5 Sqn.

A series of experiments were conducted in Whenuapai, in conjunction with a NZLAV shoot in Kaipara. The combined ground and air activities achieved some success, and offered new challenges to 5 Sqn’s maritime-focused P3K Orion aircrew. Contributed by CAPT Aldis Malskaitis"

It would be interesting to learn a little more about the use of Orion in army support. Close air support missions must be out of the question or?

[Bruce]

Airborne command and control perhaps? I cant see a LAV being tasked with assisting the rescue of stricken yachties - we didnt get the amphibious version !

[phil]

The intention has always been to use the new P3K2's sensors to assist the army on the ground. This sounds like an early step in this process.

Close air support is not out of the question, but perhaps unlikely given that the only bombs currently deployed by the P3 are Mk82 'dumb bombs'.

There has been talk for the last couple of years of trying to deploy GBU-16s from the P3, but I understand that since the P3 does not have a Fuze Function Power Supply, that the electrical fuzing used for the FMU electronic fuzes in the GBU bombs is a non starter. There was some talk of acquiring a mechanical tail fuze instead, but I don't believe that this has happened.

Whether the P3K2 will have the wing wiring installed or not I don't know, it would seem logical to re-wire the wings for modern weapons.

The most likely outcome for CAS might be the introduction of JDAM and/or SLAMMER some time in the future.

[Dave Homewood]

Interesting, but not altogether new for No. 5 Squadron, they were an Army Co-operation squadron for a short term in WWII (having previously been established as a General Reconnaissance squadron, and later becoming a Flying Boat squadron.) They flew Vincents and Singapores whilst an AC Squadron.

[phasselgren]

phil said:

The intention has always been to use the new P3K2's sensors to assist the army on the ground. This sounds like an early step in this process.

Close air support is not out of the question, but perhaps unlikely given that the only bombs currently deployed by the P3 are Mk82 'dumb bombs'.

There has been talk for the last couple of years of trying to deploy GBU-16s from the P3, but I understand that since the P3 does not have a Fuze Function Power Supply, that the electrical fuzing used for the FMU electronic fuzes in the GBU bombs is a non starter. There was some talk of acquiring a mechanical tail fuze instead, but I don't believe that this has happen.

I know that US Navy modified some of their P3s for overland survelliance including weapons (like Maverick) for use against land targets but I do not know if they have been using these weapons in action.

It has been a mystery to me why the RNZAF did not use their GBU-16s or Mavericks on the P3s but now I understand why this was impossible. Some years ago there was a photo of P3 firing rockets on RNZAF´s site but I guess this was only a test. I have never seen the use of rockets confirmed in text and a P3 must be very vulnerable during a rocket attack.

[corsair67]

The most likely outcome for CAS might be the introduction of JDAM and/or SLAMMER some time in the future.

Not likely whilst Herr Clark is in charge!

[xr6turbo1]

Well it looks like the government trying to replace an A4 with a P3.
Army support should be carried out by a quick fighter/bomber aircraft instead of a maritime patrol aircraft.
I guess the next move will be to cut the hours spent on surveillance and exercises attacking ships and subs just to play around with the army.
Doesnt make a lot of sence to me anyway.

[Calum]

Can understand the use of a P-3 is in the overland surveillance role. USN, RAAF and RAF MPA's have been doing this for years. (The Nimrod lost over Afghanistan recently was doing this).

And I guess it makes sense to have a few weapons options if you see something you want to kill. But you'd want to make sure the bad guys have no AAA, MANPADS otherwise it's going to get pretty dangerous for the P-3.

Losing a P-3 attacking some little terrorist target would be a waste.

I'd still like to see a decent ASM and an increase in the ASW capability for the P-3

[phasselgren]

I found this complementing information about army support in Air Force News 77.

"No. 5 Squadron, 1RNZIR and TG 6 took the first steps towards developing the P-3K’s new Enhanced Early Electro-Optics (E3O) (electro-optics) as a Joint capability for use in overland operations. The first trial flights with 1RNZIR Light Armoured Vehicles (LAVs) from Linton, and TG 6 were conducted in conjunction with a 1RNZIR shoot on 13th and 14th November at Kaipara weapons range.
The trial flights, carried out over two days, included tracking a LAV/LOV convoy and observing the stationary LAVs in different configurations, including a weapons shoot and various forms of camouflage. Air riders were taken on the flights to help with communications and offer tactical advice.
A face-to-face debrief was conducted which was a great success, and also a chance for No.5 Squadron members to climb all through the LAVs, and for the LAV operators to explore the P-3K, so all involved could get a better appreciation of each other’s kit.
With the first of the stepping stones laid, No.5 Squadron is looking forward to developing the potential of the MX-20 EO equipment, and the chances No.5 Squadron will get when we go live and start developing a Joint overland capability to support Land Forces."

[flyjoe180]

So in summary we are now being told that the NZDF DOES need a strike capability?

[Dave Homewood]

I'm sure the Army and Air Force knew that much all along Joe.

[Radialicious]

Seems odd to use a LARGE slow(ish) turboprop with some of the sootiest, smokiest old engines to sneak up on people and surprise them with unguided munitions. Stealth elephant comes to mind.

"Sarge I think we are under attack!"
"Yeah I see that. OK, let me have a think about it......... Righto, when you have finished your cuppas, just take a wander over there and hide.
"Can we shoot at it Sarge?"
"Yep, take your time. You can't miss it. Concentrate on the tail end though. Most of them are probably down the back having a chicken roast and chip butties."
"Roger that!"

[Dave Homewood]

Maybe they could use the B.757 instead! Now that with a few missiles and a bomb bay would make an awesome fighter bomber.

[phil]

This appears to be more of an observation thing rather than a strike thing. I think you'll find the P3s were using their sensors to try and find the LAVs.

Other P3 operators do this already, most famously the US was using a P3 over Mogadishu during the black hawk down incident, relaying real time footage back to the commanders.

The strike thing isn't likely to come about 'until we have a change in our political climate', to quote a certain GPCAPT who briefed us about the current and future projects.

[xr6turbo1]

Well I havent heard the national party come out and say they intend to do anything about replacing the strike force
Would be tough for anyone in the airforce to be able to say what will happen, if I remember correctly just beofre the last election Brash said he had no intention of re activating the A4 squadrons or replace the stike force so Im not hopeful Im afraid.

[phil]

I didn't say anything about reactivating the A4s. 'Strike' does not necessarily mean A4s.

I was talking about the capability of the P3.

We already use Mk82s from the P3, so the capability is already there, albeit limited. I was refering to expanding it with the addition of more capable weapons to compliment the P3K2s new sensor suite. However, the addition of these weapons is currently beyond the scope of the long term developement plan due to political expediency.

[Dave Homewood]

All right, All right, calm down our kid!

[phasselgren]

phil said:

IWe already use Mk82s from the P3, so the capability is already there, albeit limited.

I have seen in RNZAF that 5 sqn has increased it´s "bomber"-traning with three Bombing Weeks during 2006. Does anyone know in what role they train: against ship, submarines or land-targets? (I hope I´m not asking about any secret information)

At least in the beginning Mk82s was intended to be used as a shallow water depth-charge.

[xr6turbo1]

phil said:

I didn't say anything about reactivating the A4s. 'Strike' does not necessarily mean A4s.

I was talking about the capability of the P3.

We already use Mk82s from the P3, so the capability is already there, albeit limited. I was refering to expanding it with the addition of more capable weapons to compliment the P3K2s new sensor suite. However, the addition of these weapons is currently beyond the scope of the long term developement plan due to political expediency.

Fair enough, strike is mentioned I immedately thought strike force not the P3 ability.
I would like to see good cover for the aircraft if they are to be used in the bombing role, and I guess theres no problem with co operating with the Army.

I dont think anyones getting shirty Dave

[Dave Homewood]

Nah, I was just having a laugh. Harry Enfield rocks. I'd wanted to use that for a while but no-one gets anti enough on this forum. :-) (which is brilliant!)