Ministers Launch Defence Review 09 Document

[corokid66]

Sept 25, 2009 7:41:52 GMT 12 skyhawkdon said:

The first aircraft hasn't been accepted by the RNZAF (that is why it isn't back in NZ). Lots of software and sub-contractor problems going on. That is what you get when you try and design your own avionics system for only 5 aircraft! The project was recently moved (including both our Hercs and all our personnel that are over there) from Canada to Texas, as L3 has closed up shop in Canada. The Orion upgrade is the same - 3 years late and a lot of software issues still to work through.

I'm confident both will get sorted in time (with a lot of money and assistance from the RNZAF), but by the time the last Herc is handed back to the RNZAF they will be almost due for retirement. Remember the Herc upgrade was only designed to give them another 10 years of life - out to 2017. We should have bitten the bullet and just replaced the Hercs with new off the shelf J models. We had the option to add on to the end of the Aussie buy at a very good price, but let that lapse. While the J model also had a lot of problems initially they have now been sorted.

They are very interesting comments Don.

Maybe someone out there can answer these questions?

Did the first C-130 to head up to L3 in Canada for the LEP 3 years 11 months ago?

Was that aircraft to be back in RNZAF service mid 2008?

Did the second C130 leave for the LEP 2 years ago?

Has it really been 7 years 2 months since the LEP upgrade tender was announced?

Does this mean that the RNZAF has actually had only 3 C130's in service during the last 2 years?

What has been the impact on the NZDF with only 3 C-130's in service?

Is it true that the budget for this was NZ$226 million as laid down by the tender price in December 2004, some five years ago?

Could someone get Kevin Brady the Auditor General on the case?

Personally I cannot believe that any of the major projects over the last decade have been 'hand on heart' supported by defence professionals. The systemic failure in defence acquistition projects has classical top down political interference all over it. The signs are that the tenders have been drawn out as defence officials have been scampering around trying to deliver something plausible within the stripped down cost/operational parameters that have been enforced.

[skyhawkdon]

I think everything you say above is correct and your final paragraph has hit the nail on the head!

[Dave Homewood]

I decided that I don't know enough details of the modern Defence Forces in order to make a submission on their behalf. However I'm surprised only 250 have been received, I thought every current service person in the country would want to submit a say on their future. Were they gagged by Military Law? I hope not, that would be just wrong if that's the case.

I really think that this whole think will come to nothing, like the anti-smacking referendum. Everyone will want an increase in budget and capability and the ministers will say no as they cannot afford it.

[flycookie]

Mr Beagle, From memory the RAAF's C130J order was 20 aircraft, to be delivered in two batches of 10. The first ten were delivered and the second batch never confirmed and so not delivered. The recent purchase of C17s has initiated what will play out as the drawn down and retirement of the old C130Hs. The RAAF recently ordered another two J models, so the heavy lift fleet will be 12 C130Js and four C17s.

I think!

[Dave Homewood]

Thanks Mike.

[skyhawkdon]

The 250 submissions were just from the NZ general public I believe.

[yogi]

250?! wow that is very disappointing...

[caromeg]

Here are my picks for the review, lets see how close I am when it pops out:

1. HQ2LFG and HQ3LFG will be disbanded and 1 Brigade HQ formed (ie Army remove essentially a superfluous HQ.

2. Some Lavs are sold 1 RNZIR = LAV Battalion, 2/1 RNZIR = Light Infantry.

3. QAMR Disbanded or drastically re-roled

4. Attack Helicopters. you heard it here first folks

[nige]

Can you answer something for me that I don't understand....why isn't there a 1LFG (i.e. 1 & 2LFG rather than 2 & 3LFG)? Or was there a 1LFG in the past etc?

[skyhawkdon]

Nov 25, 2009 20:43:41 GMT 12 @caromeg said:

4. Attack Helicopters. you heard it here first folks

That makes about as much sense to NZ (a country surrounded by water!) as buying 105 LAVs!

If we can afford attack helicopters then we can afford fast jets which are far more useful in the NZ context. In fact I would prefer we had another frigate rather than attack helicopters.

[caromeg]

I have no idea why there is no 1LFG - good question to those in army land

[caromeg]

That makes about as much sense to NZ (a country surrounded by water!) as buying 105 LAVs! If we can afford attack helicopters then we can afford fast jets which are far more useful in the NZ context. In fact I would prefer we had another frigate rather than attack helicopters.

Could not agree more. I know that some in the review are seriously looking at this as an option - good on them for thinking outside the box. the big question will be what will happen when they look at the cost. What level of attack helo are they after?
If they go for a kiowa with rockets and 50 cal then its going to compete with tactical UAVs which are far superior in this sort of engagement context, otherwise all else - Cobra Tiger are very expensive. Don't even mention Apache you're dreaming.
Again it will a platform buy and not a study of effects based operations.
Personally a UH-1Y and AH-1Z would have been a good buy vs NH-90. Hard to justify a Battlefield Helo that needs a concrete pad most of the time

[Dave Homewood]

It's hard to justify a battlefield helicopter that is unlikely to ever see a battlefield too.

[30sqnatc]

Nov 26, 2009 10:19:53 GMT 12 nige said:

Can you answer something for me that I don't understand....why isn't there a 1LFG (i.e. 1 & 2LFG rather than 2 & 3LFG)? Or was there a 1LFG in the past etc?

1 LFG (had a variety of previous names) based in Papakura was disbanded in the late 1970's(?).

The other two formation headquarter titles remained unchanged, one to keep its removal from the Organisation of Battle visible (future governments would ask 'why is there no No 1 '), and two the practically of renaming the other two - every publication, database, sign etc would need changing.

[caromeg]

It recall 1 Brigade not 1 LFG

[corokid66]

The CTTAG are to be expanded to 1 Commando Squadron as of next week and there continues to be rumours of a deployable Rangers Squadron to bridge the capability gap existing between 1 NZSAS Group and 1 RNZIR to come into existence sometime down the track. A Rangers Squadron did exist between 1987-1990 to augment the NZSAS (The Rangers name has an even older history in the unit stemming from its use in the mid 60's to 70's as 1 Rangers Sqd NZSAS. All of this is to be placed in the new ‘New Zealand Special Operations Forces’ organisation to be based at Rennie Lines (Papakura) under the Commanding Officer of 1 NZSAS Group. The NZSOF will also include 1 EOS Squadron.

[Dave Homewood]

Is this a sneaky way to get more NZ Army deployed overseas since the Government only sends the SAS to the front lines these days?

[corokid66]

Nov 26, 2009 19:29:00 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

Is this a sneaky way to get more NZ Army deployed overseas since the Government only sends the SAS to the front lines these days?

I dont think the Commando Squadron has been expanded for overseas operations - its for the Purple role - an expansion from it usual CT Black role into a counter maritime role. However there are some who have been pushing for a Rangers Squadron to be able to take the strain off the NZSAS personnel - that might lead to a sneaky way of deploying more.

[Bruce]

regarding the "attack helicopter" idea, I personally dont think its a bad one. I've actually thought for a while they would be a useful addition to deployments in the likes of East Timor etc. We wouldnt be talking Apaches here, more like MD530N / 630N defenders. The Leonard manning incident in ET suggested we need "in house" close air support when operating in hostile areas against "guerilla" type forces.
Defenders would be ideal in my opinion as they are inexpensive, have excellent existing civilian spares and logistics chains in NZ, engineers qualified to maintain them are plentiful here, you can fit 2 in a Herk at once, and they are excellent, nimble performers, able to operate from very small areas. They can sling a variety of weaponry including a couple of miniguns which can make provide a lot of firepower on demand. They would be more practical to deploy than fixed wing aircraft, and they can be based away from the main RNZAF bases. Perhaps 3 or 4 in an operational training role at Ohakea and the rest at Burnham, Linton or Waiouru.
I await my consultancy fee....

[Naki]

Why not an armed A109LUH? Last thing you need is yet another helicopter type.