|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Jun 11, 2016 17:36:09 GMT 12
Interesting article and it sums up NZ's hand wringing and inability to state (truthfully) the real strategic issues facing the Asia/Pacific region. We have been a joke in the eyes of Australia since 2001 and this White Paper does nothing to change that perception.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Jun 12, 2016 9:33:32 GMT 12
Australia's white paper is a document with a fundamentally different purpose than ours. In the next context, the white paper is the 'head document,' with details flowing through subordinate documents like the capability plans, capital investment plans, etc. That is why you won't see specific types of equipment named and schedules published. Australia's white paper is a shopping list. They don't publish the same level of subordinate documents NZ does.
There is also a profound level of arrogance from parts of the Australian commentariat who expect New Zealand to follow Australia's lead to the letter. In particular they struggle with NZ's focus on the Pacific, often ignoring the fact that New Zealand has much deeper connections to the Pacific States than Australia does, and they're much closer to us economically and socially. Jennings raising PNG is an example of that. We have almost zero connection with PNG, whereas Australia has an unstable country sitting of its northern border. Chalk and cheese. Of course it isn't a priority for NZ.
NZ of course has a much higher ability to use soft power in the Pacific to influence than Australia does. In the context of emerging major power rivalries in the Pacific that counts for something.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Jun 13, 2016 17:30:49 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 13, 2016 23:34:42 GMT 12
Some of the uninformed nonsense comments that individuals make with great gusto and confidence make me shudder. These people are walking around out there unleashed, and even scarier, they vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jun 14, 2016 1:09:24 GMT 12
and even scarier, they vote. That's democracy. The alternative is totalitarianism. |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jun 14, 2016 6:07:56 GMT 12
Find a copy of last night's news and find we are losing 30 aircraft, 757's, Orions, Hercs, ... what else is going? Is this man mad? Oh and two Frigates as well... Orions are to be upgraded more sensors and probably an engine upgrade as well. there is already a tender out for ASW with sensors, think a MAD upgrade, not sure regards engines. never heard that one. |
|
|
|
Post by camtech on Jun 14, 2016 10:52:55 GMT 12
I hope any MAD upgrade is primarily solid state. I spent many hours tweaking the old system, getting 24v motors to run at 2v, polishing 2mm copper berylium ball bearings and balancing 800mm long, 3mm dia shafts. But we did have the best mad serviceability of any operator.
|
|
|
|
Post by flyinkiwi on Jun 14, 2016 11:04:59 GMT 12
Geez that was hard, Don, or should I say, RSMAD!  Intelligent discussion and debate on Defense issues in NZ is all but impossible in the general media. My biggest issue with the way NZ conducts it's defense is that we have claimed a HUGE EEC but are pretty lax at defending it. I'd doubt we even have proper surveillance of all of it. I think we as a country need to sit down and think long and hard about our area of influence and decide whether we want to rethink (i.e. downsize) those boundaries or start properly funding the services we task with looking after it. |
|
|
|
Post by pepe on Jun 14, 2016 11:09:27 GMT 12
Is the MAD technology actually going to be updated? I've read that it has been superseded by other detection methods. The USN and pending RAAF P-8 Poseidons don't utilise the MAD systems, though I believe India has still requested it for their new aircraft. www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20150414-p8-acoustic.html |
|
|
|
Post by area51 on Jun 15, 2016 7:35:31 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by suthg on Jun 15, 2016 18:49:04 GMT 12
I wonder if ARatepayer is on the board? Interesting debate!
|
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Jun 16, 2016 12:21:06 GMT 12
I see they talk about the acoustics being twice as good or better than the P3C, that raises the question have subs got twice as quiet in the same time frame (is this the classic, the seats have got 2" wider but the asses are now 3" wider).
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Jun 18, 2016 8:20:03 GMT 12
|
|
b757
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 1 
|
Post by b757 on Jun 18, 2016 15:28:14 GMT 12
My two cents worth, is mixture of types x 2 C17A, x 2 C130J, x 3 C27J and 3 or 4 P-8A.
As for B757 replacement, charter Air New Zealand aircraft, as a number of countries do for VVIP transport. An example of this is China who use Air China aircraft.
Air New Zealand already operates a number of military charters for Countries within Asia/Pacific region.
I think this will give NZDF the airlift capability required for our Tactical, Surveillance, SAR and Relief Missions in the Pacific and around the World.
Why the C17 and not A400M?
Remember were are part of the Five Eyes Agreement, we are the only country that doesn't operate C17's (Australia, Canada, UK and USA) do.
C17 to operate to Antarctic in support of USAP and Antarctica NZ programmes, therefore no US C17s to the frozen continent.
P.S. Interesting, P-8A was operating out of Auckland International and not Whenupai, maybe something to do with not getting 5 SQN folks hopes up too much?
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Jun 18, 2016 15:53:02 GMT 12
... P.S. Interesting, P-8A was operating out of Auckland International and not Whenupai, maybe something to do with not getting 5 SQN folks hopes up too much? Or Whenuapai too short to depart with enough fuel to get to Nadi, plus plenty of B737 support infrastructure at AKL, plus a bunch of people that you are showing it too at flying up from Wellington on AirNZ? Hoping to get one to Ohakea Feb 2017! |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 18, 2016 16:01:45 GMT 12
Is Whenuapai's runway seriously too short for the _P-8 to take off from with a full fuel load? If that's the case it's not the right type for us, unless they are going to extend the runway or move the squadron (two unlikely scenarios).
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Jun 18, 2016 16:29:44 GMT 12
I don't know, but isn't the B757 payload limited from there? Or am I thinking of the B727?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 18, 2016 16:32:15 GMT 12
I've never heard of a limitation on either Boeing. The No. 40 Squadron Boeings regularly depart fully laden from Whenuapai to fly around the world, so would be interested to hear this confirmed one way or another.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 18, 2016 16:43:53 GMT 12
Whenuapai's 03/21 runway is 2,031 metres (6,665 feet). The 08/26 runway is 1,581 metres (5,187 feet).
I found an article saying the US Navy deemed Kaneohe in Hawaii tohave too short a runway at 7,771 feet for P-8's. That's only a little shorter than Ohakea's longest at 8021 feet.
Mangere's runways are indeed much longer but how long do these P-8 things require? They do not sound ideal for use in either NZ or the Pacific.
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Jun 18, 2016 17:15:41 GMT 12
I found refs to B727-100 needing 2,700m, and B757-200 needing 1,710m, so I was probably remembering a benefit of the B757 being not requiring the hop to AKL for long heavy trips.
Same site gave 2,070m for standard B737-800 or B737-900, the P-8 is based on a B737-800 with the wings from the longer B737-900. I wouldn't be surprised if military equipment, possibly more fuel capacity than the airliners, and a desire to operate in more varied conditions increased the required length.
RAAF Edinburgh (P-3/P-8 base near Adelaide) is 2,560m, RAAF Darwin 3,354m, RAAF Townsville 2,438m, RAAF Pearce (Perth) 2,439m.
|
|
