Ministers Launch Defence Review 09 Document

[skyhawkdon]

For your information Mr Bean I didn't state that. I'd appreciate it if you get your facts straight.

[sirbean]

Ok then some one did...sorry Don.
Any idea on a time or cost frame for the Macchis to re enter service??

[Naki]

Heres my vision of where the Air Force should be (and what should of been done in the past) without going over the top - entirely affordable I would of thought ;D:

Whenuapai

5 sqn
4 Lockheed P-3C
3 EADS CN-235MP

Lesser number of Orions with SAR/MP work taken up with the CN-235MPs whilst the Orions (replacing P-3Bs a few years back) armed with Harpoons etc concentrating on ASW/ASV work

6 sqn
6 Westland Super Lynx
3 Agusta-Westland A-109LUH

Never been a fan of the Seasprite mostly because of my fear of it been a orphan with very few Navies using it, therefore Wasps replaced in mid 90s by Lynxes (which is the standard small/medium sized helicopter in most Navies) armed with Sea Skuas. A-109LUHs used for training, aboard OPVs (3 in Navy) and SAS work in Auckland. Super Lynx aboard Meko-200s (3 - all armed with Harpoons) and Canterbury.

Ohakea

Transport sqns moved here where they are closer to the customer (Army, Govt) - is there room for all these sqns at Ohakea not sure?

75 sqn
12 Lockheed F-16C
3 Lockheed F-16D

Instead of updating the Skyhawks F-16s were bought in the early 90s to replace them. Armed with Amraams, Harpoons, Mavericks, LGBs and ASRAAMs.

14 sqn
15 BAe Hawk-100

Never a great fan of the Aermacchi - Hawks bought as they are the proven and most popular platform in adavanced training

40 sqn
4 Lockheed-Martin C-130J-30
3 Boeing 757-200QC

Instead of updating C-130Hs they should of been replaced with new gen Hercs now that they are proven in servivce. Lesser number as the stretched J models carry more, at faster speeds and more reliably. Any extra lift capacity required taken up by the CN-235s and an extra 757

42 sqn
4 EADS CN-235

3 sqn
10 NHI NH-90
5 Agusta-Westland A-109LUH

10 NH-90s should suffice - A-109LUHs lightly armed for low intensity conflicts. I think the A-109LUHs will be very useful therefore 13 airframes spread over 3 units.

Woodbourne

Training moved here to make room at Ohakea for transport sqns.

CFS
15 Pacific Aerospace CT-4E

HFTU
5 Agusta-Westland A-109LUH

[sirbean]

WOW Stunning.
I think Bill English has just been rushed to hospital with a heart attack....cause Defence spending by Naki.
I am all for the Macchis coming back into service plus some new Hercules and a commercial airline type to free up the Orion in the off shore patrol work(not sub antartic).
Also remember the Navy may get a look in soon for an Endeavor replacement and I pick this to be at the top of the list.

[Naki]

If you read my post properly my scenario is over a number of years not all in one go so I am going back in time as well as forward. ie F-16s, Hawks, Super Lynxes, CT-4Es in the 90s, P-3Cs in the 80s, C-130Js, NH-90s, CN-235s and A-109LUHs, 2000 - 2015.

If the defence budget was at a steady point of say 2% of GDP (which is still quite low) over the years instead of 1% I am sure all this would be quite affordable. From where we sit now, I do eventually see an Air Force resembling the above minus the combat force (F-16s, Hawks) plus maybe the Aermacchis.

[Chris F]

Love your attitude here Paul but it is not gonna happen.....why would it when we seem to love giving billions to the Iwi!!!
And my poor kids who arew still at school will when they get a job still be paying out billions to the Iwi...its great with no end in sight...they love pissing our money against a brick wall too.

[luke6745]

Mr Bean, I do not think a commercial airliner is the way to go. The CN-235 would be the best option for replacement for the Kingairs. They would fill the light-medium transport and short-range maritime surveillance roles. I would move the advanced training onto the Aermacchis which would be upgraded eventually.

[sirbean]

Fair call Luke.......I had just read that a Q300 had been considered and the advantage was servicing could be undertaken by Air Nelson which was a huge cost saving...with no new re-tooling required.At the end of the day they could have been leased off Air Nelson/air New Zealand.
Its anyones guess.

[hawkeye]

Nakis list works for - I would add the new c-130 gunship payload.
We could afford it if we scrapped the army.

[flyinkiwi]

I like your thinking Paul, except that the Hawk platform comes with a fairly hefty price tag and is probably beyond our reach. But since we are dreaming I'd love to see the BA609 in service with the RNZAF because I think NZ is a country custom made for tiltrotor aircraft, i.e. rugged terrain and yet small enough for most of the country to be within its effective range.

[yogi]

Aug 31, 2010 10:22:55 GMT 12 Chris F said:

Hi Yogi
The RAAF Super Hornet purchase as I understand it from what I have read is that it is only a stop gap measure to replace the void left by the retirement of the F-111 fleet.
Once the F-35A fleet is in service it will replace both the F/A-18 Hornet Classics and the Super Hornets.This is why the RAAF went for the F-35 to replace both capability's.
I never said we need F-35's jeepers we have more chance of sending a man to the moon.

I dont think you are following me there, I never said YOU said we needed f-35's.
Read my post again please.

[oldnavy]

I had just read that a Q300 had been considered and the advantage was servicing could be undertaken by Air Nelson which was a huge cost saving

It surprises me how many people think something big is the answer to an Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance requirement. Every sensor you can fit into a Dash 8 will go into much smaller platforms. (Exactly the same can be said of the P3).

In fact, places with stretched budgets like New Zealand should stop thinking about platforms and start thinking about capability. In an ISR sense, modern technology makes the platform the least important and expensive issue. The RAF have just bought brand new B350s. Even more cost effective for a small country, take a look at what the British Army use for ISR.

NB: I do have an axe to grind so please forgive me this little personal yet relevant ad. If you want simplicity of operation, local supportability through the existing civilian fleet, and cost effectiveness, it's hard to go past a common or "garden" BN2 Islander for carrying surveillance equipment. eg here is one I prepared earlier



Not suggesting you should use mine...there are a number of other smaller/cheaper options than a Dash 8, and the formula commercial airlines use to make the Dash 8 appear cheap to operate don't really apply when providing real ISR. They can all carry SAR/ISAR radar as well as the EOIR device.

Just a thought...

[Dave Homewood]

I just saw something on the news about the NZ involvement in the Solomon Islands, and the fact that in securing and ensuring peace there for the past seven years New Zealand has spent many millions in having our Defence Force staff and police there, and in sending aid. It makes me wonder just how much does the NZ Government spend all around the world every year ensuring the security of other countries whilst neglecting the security of our own. The Solomon Islands is an Austrlian protectorate and technically we have no need to be involved at all. There are many of these peace keeping missions all over the globe that NZ spends a lot of money on being involved in.

I have nothing against the peacekeeping missions, but I feel the priority needs to be spend the money at home first, and then what's left put toward overseas deployments. The norm now seems to be deploy, deploy, deploy, leaving no money to get things right back home.

[corokid66]

Aug 31, 2010 18:33:30 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

I just saw something on the news about the NZ involvement in the Solomon Islands, and the fact that in securing and ensuring peace there for the past seven years New Zealand has spent many millions in having our Defence Force staff and police there, and in sending aid. It makes me wonder just how much does the NZ Government spend all around the world every year ensuring the security of other countries whilst neglecting the security of our own. The Solomon Islands is an Austrlian protectorate and technically we have no need to be involved at all. There are many of these peace keeping missions all over the globe that NZ spends a lot of money on being involved in.

I have nothing against the peacekeeping missions, but I feel the priority needs to be spend the money at home first, and then what's left put toward overseas deployments. The norm now seems to be deploy, deploy, deploy, leaving no money to get things right back home.

We did sign the Pacific Forums Bikekawa declaration in 2000 which can put UNSC Chp VIII in play. As happened in 2003 with RAMSI. The Solomons had all the hallmarks of becoming so toxic as a failed state that if left alone the down stream costs to us would have become untenable in a number of ways. That boil had to be lanced. Your right Dave we need to also focus at the same time to get our house in order at home.

We dont have a sustainable defence force to met New Zealands needs without having the dosh. There has developed this 1% of GDP glass ceiling mentality that basically is the crux of why Defence Policy on it current track is doomed to fail us. I thought that of all people Treasury who call for a business approach on everything left right and centre (and are the people who probably have ruined more pragmatic sensible defence purchases over the years than your bog average politician) would have the nous to understand that underfunding or under capitalising in a business sense leds to failure.

[yak2]

Aug 31, 2010 18:33:30 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

The Solomon Islands is an Australian protectorate and technically we have no need to be involved at all.

Hardly Dave. Solomons are a constitutional monarchy.
Prevailing treaties have resulted in NZ (and Oz) involvement.

[Dave Homewood]

Did the Solomons gain independence from Australia when PNG did?

I have no problem with NZ helpings its neighbours and unfortunate countries, the point I was trying to make is we need to make home defence the priority first. Investing in other countries' peace and security seems senseless when we can't afford to invest in our own security.

[yak2]

Sept 1, 2010 0:20:40 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

Did the Solomons gain independence from Australia when PNG did?

Nope. It was a British protectorate. Since independence it seems we have been providing substantial financial and administrative assistance.

[Chris F]

I heard yesterday that the Government had come to an agreement for the Hercules to get this troublesome software installed at Woodbourne.....hope they know what they are doing....look at the money Australia flushed down the toilet on their Seasprite.

[skyhawkdon]

Sept 1, 2010 0:20:40 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

Did the Solomons gain independence from Australia when PNG did?

I have no problem with NZ helpings its neighbours and unfortunate countries, the point I was trying to make is we need to make home defence the priority first. Investing in other countries' peace and security seems senseless when we can't afford to invest in our own security.

I think it's called "forward Defence" Dave. Not that anything we have been doing there or elsewhere in the South Pacific has anything to do with defending NZ. More peacekeeping and police work.

[Chris F]

Maybe we could send some of the Iwi that we keep spending billions on every year over there....canoe would be the cheapest way!