Ministers Launch Defence Review 09 Document

[kiwiscanfly]

The army want UAV's in Afghanistan but they have just been denied them....... Are they ready to be deployed yet or is the Hawk still under development. The white paper may get the RNZAF some UAV's

[oldnavy]

I still think UAVs are over-rated and over-stated. Capability is nowhere near as good as the computer generated glossies suggest and using them for surveillance is like viewing the world through a straw.

Army people like them because it makes them feel as though they have more control, and they think their private soldier operators are just like pilots because they have played computer games in their youths. The truth is that they are being sold a pup by the vendors. The problem is all you can do with a UAV are a few set piece manoeuvres, and they really offer none of the dynamics a real aeroplane can give.

Just my thoughts...

[kiwiscanfly]

I do agree with having manned aircraft but Just in the context of Afghanistan they would be handy! In truth i would rather see the RNZAF have more helicopters!! It annoys me that the Skyhawk deal is likely to fail with 155 million the Gov could double the order of A109 LUH's!! the current package was 139.26 million!!

[Dave Homewood]

They would not end up with $155 million to spend though. With that money NZ would have to pay to get the aircraft flying, which would be millions, and pay the rest would no doubt go to Treasury, not the Ministry of Defence.

[arclight]

8 nh-90s.. and one for spare parts...that's laughable. So I guess we'll be using the aw109s to suppliment the force if and when required? is a plan to keep hold of a few of the Iroquois just in case? - I mean, if our forces are deployed off-shore (4x nh-90s on the HMNZS Canterbury & 1x aw109 on the HMNZS Otago) - e.g. scenario Timor, Solomons or sent down to Antartica, what do we fall back on? Or if we are to lose 1 of the precious 8... nh-90s or 1 or more are out of service... then what happens? I'm just curious, does anyone really know what the story is?

[arclight]

I wish I could be more optimistic about the DoD White Paper. Five more A109s would be great, at least for serious deployment on the OPVs, MRV, for S&R, and other tasks. But I doubt the penny-pinchers in our govt will even bother, and it would be hard for them to explain further purchases after the financial crisis we just endured, it's pretty much a lost cause.

[yogi]

*ahem*

[skyhawkdon]

Man that is one ugly Viper! But it carries quite a payload!

Welcome to the discussion Arclight. Care to tell us a bit about your background and interest in this discussion?

[yogi]

its very pointy isnt it, I thought it was a great shot.

[skyhawkdon]

There sure is a lot of drag there! Even more than the old RAN HS748 EW aircraft, which were so slow with all the extra bumps and antennas on them that in a head wind flying to Perth the East West trains used to race them!

[Hoffy]

Sept 3, 2010 18:35:07 GMT 12 yogi said:

*ahem*

I must have bad eyesight , the registration email I just got sent doesn't seem to have a number to key in. Anyway , hope you are all doing well across the Tasman.

Imagine the radar profile of this aircraft!!!

I have been following this discussion for a while now , and I felt that I might offer some thoughts.
From an Aussie perspective we would love to see the RNZAF with greater capability.It's interesting to observe the 2 differing attitudes that are expressed by the Kiwi public when it comes to the NZ Defence White Paper and the future capabilities it will outline.
You either seem to believe in a completely utopian hippie version of regional defense issues , or you hold dear the idea of having a credible defence force. Not stupidly robust - just strong enough to make a noticeable contribution with Australia and other allies.
There doesn't seem to be the same overall level of understanding of the importance of maintaining strong military forces in NZ by the general public. If there was , then things would be quite different I suspect.

We tend on average to support a strong military , perhaps because we are much closer to potential threats. Our strategy is primarily based on a maritime denial capability and this includes having a significant level of RAAF capability.
Whilst I can see why Sirbean was annoying for many of you I can also see that he/she was expressing what too many of your countrymen actually believe.

[yogi]

"Whilst I can see why Sirbean was annoying for many of you I can also see that he/she was expressing what too many of your countrymen actually believe"

Yeh trust me when I say we know.
The general new zealanders view towards defence and the airforces need for an acf in particular is usually indifference coupled with ignorant naivety, this is not helped by the lame opinion laden muck raking NZ media who instead of doing their jobs and reporting objectionally only ever report negative defence related news, (usually 'scandals') or put a negative spin on it.

The problem is how do we change this.
I have noticed that most people when debated with on defence topics (i'm referring to personal experiences) are usually open to being educated and once they have absorbed all the relative information suddenly realise why having an ACF is a crucial part of an effective defence force.
There are of course the stubborn, closed minded types like sirbean who refuse to see the need, but theres always going to to be some of them right?

What we need is education.

[obiwan27]

I think that yogi and Hoffy have hit on an important point: the lack of education of the great unwashed NZ public with regards to defence and security matters. I can't help but feel that the reason countries like Australia and Singapore take such a strong position in these matters is that they were both subject to either Japanese invasion or attack during WW2 and it's something they will never forget. NZers are ignorant of our own history with regards to WW2 and apart from a few shipping losses haven't the same perspective as our other allies. Also there is a certain amount of political/ideological influence with regards to educating our future generations that omits the importance of regional security and doing our part in defence as part of collective obligation and interests. I guess it's down to as many organisations as possible such as the RSA, Cadet Forces, various museums and displays or commemorations to try to balance out the picture.

[skyhawkdon]

It think it is a "disease" many NZers have to "preparedness"and planning ahead in general, be it personal planning, Military Defence or Civil Defence.

The events of the last few days in Christchurch have really brought that home. Immediately after the earthquake many people rushed to the nearest petrol station or corner dairy to stock up on batteries, water, food etc - things they should already have at home for just such an emergency. Thinking about these things AFTER the event is too late! Much like deciding we do really need an Air Combat Force after an event has brought it to the forefront of the public's mind - it is too late!

I bet many of these same people also have no insurance and will expect the government to pay to fix their houses and replace their plasma TVs - such is the welfare nanny state they have been brought up in.

These same fools would be the first to complain if we ever need an Air Combat Force again and would be moaning about why can't the Air Force just go out and buy some planes - "what do you mean it will take 2 years to get them and another 2 to train our people to operate them?"

[obiwan27]

You are 100% on the money there Don. I must admit to being guilty of a lack of preparedness regarding emergency supplies for many years until I lived with someone who was prepared and it's been something I've been mindful of ever since. I was lucky that the house I am looking after for my rellies was stocked appropriately and I had a few days of food supply of my own as well. The Welfare state and public health and social security in your old age are important but the de-emphasis on personal responsibility and self sufficiency has had detrimental effects on NZ society. A big wake up call, problem is, who's listening?

[Chris F]

Don I agree with your comments on an ACF its all about "Forward"planning not chasing your tail after an event.
I just can not see a change to Defence planning on this subject at all and Bill English only last week said the country has not come out of recession as well as expected and we need to save and stop spending money.Now add extra asstistance to the disaster in Chrischurch and any Defence issues will be really on the back burner for a long time.
As for Welfare this is a touchy subject and everyone views it differantly but we should not knock it as we dont know when we might need it...and there will be plenty in Chrischurch I am sure very grateful for welfare assistance.

[kiwiscanfly]

I would love to see an ACF back in NZ but I know this will take time but I hope that some forward planning will come with the white paper. I would like to see some advanced trainers up and running either the macchi's or a PC-21/Tuccano type aircraft. All of these options are very possible and even the AVM said that that "I rather like this idea as it would help retain key operational skills and improve homeland security" With regards to an advanced trainer such as the PC-21 or Tuccano (May 2010 aerospace international magazine UK). But on the other hand arming the A109's would do the same (almost) And I too agree that it is all about forward planning and with the review looking to the next 20-30 years anything could happen in that time and we need to be sure that we can deal with any threats or instability in the region we hope we never have to but we need to know that we can deal with these possible problems.

As I have said before "The NZDF does a lot of Peacekeeping but peacekeeping is optional we can choose to go to Afghanistan, we can choose to go to East Timor. But defending our country if we ever had to is not optional we can't back out, we need to make sure that if the worst happens, we can react appropriately, to an extent."

[Dave Homewood]

Just a few thoughts here about New Zealand's first ever Air Force Review, in 1937...

The more I look at what happened in the period of 1937 to 1939 with the overhail and build up of the RNZAF, I find it quite staggering.

They went from an Air Force with a handful of obsolete fighters and some trainers, and only a couple of dozen full time pilots, to an Air Force with really great credibility.

After the review by Ralph Cochrane the Government invested in:
- 30 brand new medium bombers
- 100+ second hand reconnaissance bombers
- New trainers
- In fact orders were placed for 250 aircraft for the RNZAF before the war began, enough to re-equip the Flying Training School at Wigram, and create seven new operational Squadrons plus three operational Flights for NZ's defence, all of which were planned
- New bomber bases at Ohakea and Whenuapai
- Major upgarde for Wigram to become a proper flying training station
- Major upgrade to Hobsonville to establish it as a proper Stores and Repair Depot, and ground training establishment as well as an operational station
- New aircrew and groundcrew staff, both regulars and territorials

The budget for all this over the period of the years 1937-38 to 1940-41 involved the expenditure of NZ £3,698,590, as quoted in 1939. The country's population then was 1,641,600 people. That works out to around £2.25 per person

The Reserve Bank of NZ's inflation calculator puts that at in today's money at more than NZ $322 million. Given our population is now 4,378, 356 people as of today, [Statistics NZ site], that works out that each individual would have to spend around $735.50 to get the same amount.

So that expenditure must have been deemed huge back then but the people wore it, they allowed the Government to go ahead and do it and they were proud of the Air Force that was built up.

And it was done in the nick of time too. I would think that in order to build up a properly capable Air Force again now of the same level comparitively, give or take a few bomber squadrons and the likes, we would need to spend more like at least 20 times the amount spent in the 1930's, as military technology has become so damned expensive. That's around $14,000 per person in NZ. The people will never wear it.

[oldnavy]

DH said:

That's around $14,000 per person in NZ. The people will never wear it.

Except that back then to buy a level of capability you needed:

- 30 brand new medium bombers
- 100+ second hand reconnaissance bombers
- New trainers
- In fact orders were placed for 250 aircraft for the RNZAF before the war began, enough to re-equip the Flying Training School at Wigram, and create seven new operational Squadrons plus three operational Flights for NZ's defence, all of which were planned
- New bomber bases at Ohakea and Whenuapai
- Major upgarde for Wigram to become a proper flying training station
- Major upgrade to Hobsonville to establish it as a proper Stores and Repair Depot, and ground training establishment as well as an operational station
- New aircrew and groundcrew staff, both regulars and territorials

Despite all the cuts and self destruction, much of what you say was needed in the late 30s is not needed now. Instead of 350+ new (to you) aircraft, 2 new bases and several major base upgrades, you need a refurbished, already owned jet trainer and 12-20 fast jets. Everything else you need is still in place. The air force you have now is like a rifle without a barrel. Just fit a new or replacement barrel and you'll be fine. It won't cost you NZ$14K each, especially if it takes several years.

[kiwiscanfly]

Well if we are talking about getting a wish list of the following:
1) 3 light transports or MPA's
2) 10 Advanced trainers PC-21's
3) 5 more A109's armed
4) 2 more NH90's

What could that cost each NZ'er............. if you can do the same math with this Dave