Ministers Launch Defence Review 09 Document

[ceskazbrojovka]

Sept 15, 2010 12:35:43 GMT 12 Calum said:

ceskazbrojovka said:

.

I couldnt help but notice that someone said that the majority of Australians dont care about defence. That couldnt be further from the truth.

That was me. Perhaps care is the wrong word. In my experience most just aren’t that interested in it to extent people like us think they are. As there is effectively no difference between the 2 major parties and as Australia is pretty rich, the vast sums expended (and wasted) here on defence just isn’t noticed.

Even the majority of people in the defence industry aren’t interested in anything more than the programme that employs them.



Sure, but there is a difference between valuing and being interested in. But I’d argue Kiwis value their defence force just as much as us.

ceskazbrojovka said:

It was only back in the 50s and 60s when we werent far off aquiring nuclear weapons (indos), hence the reason for the F-111 purchase.

Only, that’s was 50-60 yrs ago.

I thought that you said you were a New Zealander living in Australia? So when you say 'we', are you saying Australia or New Zealand? Because the line " But I'd argue Kiwis value their defence force just as much as us" contradicts what you said a few posts back were you said you were Kiwi living in Australia.

[oldnavy]

Really excellent debate going on here!

So who owns and operates Global Hawk? Not really sure, but I think even the yanks doubt its capability to the degree they don't use it.

Most of us will still be around to check my forecasts. My point remains, the currently claimed capability of all UAVs is grossly overstated by protagonists. This includes those protagonists on this forum. Wishing pilots away is premature until adequate artificial intelligence is created, and even then a suitable means of feeding the data back to HQ without taking down every other comms link will have to be developed.

Specifically, the Australian programme to look at purchasing 3 or 4 Global Hawks was reported to cost AU$3 or 4 billion!! Let's just call that AU$1 billion each. By any stretch of the imagination, and by any other measure, that is really expensive for a single role surveillance aeroplane...with no weapons capability That's why it has been shelved and Air 7000 for the P7 replacement to the P3 is alive and well.

[Calum]

ceskazbrojovka said:

I thought that you said you were a New Zealander living in Australia? So when you say 'we', are you saying Australia or New Zealand? Because the line " But I'd argue Kiwis value their defence force just as much as us" contradicts what you said a few posts back were you said you were Kiwi living in Australia.

I am a Kiwi, born there.

I do live in Australia. I've been in here about 20 yr's and I'm also an Australian citizen.

I'll always be a Kiwi at Heart but I also consider myself an Australian for most things (except sporting events) as my life is here. I've now also spent more time involved with ADF (over 15 yrs) than I did in the RNZAF (about 8 yrs)

But I can see where my use of the word "we" is confusing.
To claify,

I 'd argue that Kiwi's value their defence force as much as Australians do.

[Calum]

Sept 15, 2010 17:04:51 GMT 12 oldnavy said:

Really excellent debate going on here!
That's why it has been shelved and Air 7000 for the P7 replacement to the P3 is alive and well.

Ah yes but IIRC air 7000 is still planned to be mix of the P-7 and a UAV.

The P-3's aren't being replaced 1 for 1. I believe we (Aus) are only getting 1/2 the number of P-7's of the current P-3 fleet.

[ceskazbrojovka]

Sept 15, 2010 17:18:39 GMT 12 Calum said:

Sept 15, 2010 17:04:51 GMT 12 oldnavy said:

Really excellent debate going on here!
That's why it has been shelved and Air 7000 for the P7 replacement to the P3 is alive and well.

Ah yes but IIRC air 7000 is still planned to be mix of the P-7 and a UAV.

The P-3's aren't being replaced 1 for 1. I believe we (Aus) are only getting 1/2 the number of P-7's of the current P-3 fleet.

Sorry to nit pick again, but when you say P-7, do you actually mean the P-8 poseidon? Once again I dont mean to go off topic here.

[Calum]

Yes the P-8 is what I meant.

[oldnavy]

And me!

[nige]

I'm a bit baffled by the latest round of discussions of an air combat force being unaffordable and thus not viable with the public and politicians (at their peril etc)!

Let's look at the figures.

1. From the Labour Govt's review to disband the ACF in 2001 etc.
www.defence.govt.nz/reports-publications/air-combat/air-combat-force.html#costs
The operational costs back in 2000 were $150M/year. (That figure presumably included the Macchis in their LIFT role etc).

2. From this website (again) which used Treasury sources to plot defence spending 2002-2008.
www.policy.net.nz/ftn-df.shtml

Looking at the figures from 2002 (as the 2000 figures weren't included & obviously I haven't worked out yet the data from Treasury breakdowns myself etc), the ACF costs would have been similar to the maritime patrol annual costs, but still less than procurement (equipment), fixed wing transport, land combat, land combat support and naval combat.

3. Back to this page I posted a couple of weeks ago or so.
www.policy.net.nz/ftn.shtml
Back in 2002 Govt expenditure was $48.5 Billion dollars (compared to $73 Billion projected 2008/09) - so please tell me why the Govt could not have afforded some $150M to retain the ACF back then (and especially nowadays ie 08/09 when Govt expenditure had increased by $25 Billion dollars)

4. To the present. I'm realistic enough to realise, since the ACF is gone, the cost to re-establish it won't be cheap and it will take a number of years etc.

I'm also realistic enough to realise that, because defence expenditure is simply too low at approx 1% of gdp (compared to Australia's 1.8-2% of gdp), that there is simply not enough money there to re-establish an ACF when there are other pressing priorties for the RNZAF (air transport and air-survellience & intelligence replacements etc), and the wider NZDF.

However in the interim I believe the money can be found to re-establish a basic fast jet advanced training capability (eg for the air force and for the Navy - anti-ship, and for the Army - FAC and JTAC training) using the Macchis, and perhaps in a few years, second hand F16's or the new T/A-50 etc. In some respects this would be the foundation for a future ACF, if geo-politically the need arises.

5. In the recent discussions, again, criticism of an ACF and the lack of public and political will, ignores the connection between an ACF and protecting NZ's trade routes and trading interests in a stable SE Asia. If we want economic prosperity and grow the economy, we must be prepared, alongside our partners, to make a contribution to maintain that stability (and cheaper to deploy the air force periodically than deploy and thus tie up NZ's Army, especially as they are under immense pressure on other peace stabalisation and enforcement deployments etc .... unless the Govt wants to spend another near $1 Billion per annum to double the Army from 2 to 4 full strength regular force battalions to ensure that the Army can maintain their operational and increased tempo - would be nice but totally unrealistic financially).

For these other partners, our contribution would be deemed small, but nevertheless the symbolism would be deemed large. Clearly though we couldn't invest in a fully functional ACF overnight (too expensive) but I believe NZ can make some initial, but clear steps in that direction ...

[Chris F]

Nige I agree with you about the Macchis,just all those who hold the purse strings lack "Balls" its not just about capability either,the Macchis offering some form of fast jet flying would in my none expert view do wonders to recuirting!
The last Ohakea air show in 2008 I took the kids and they where only interested in the fast jets...surprise surprise,teenagers today have vast career opportunities to them and big money on offer in IT,some form of jet capability would be a drawcard.

[nige]

All good mate, hopefully the defence review will deliver the Macchis again? But really, the Govt needs to think bigger and better, it appears to be serious in trying to attract LM (eg the Singapore training deal, which the MB346 won out in the end) and really what better way than to be an existing LM client - be that F16 or T/A-50 so I'd be curious to see if these are factored in the review somewhere.

And talking about UAV's (well other fellas recently ;D), some news on the first US Global Hawks being deployed to Guam.

www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20100913.aspx

Interesting developments, and also interesting whole of govt type support (eg disaster monitoring). However I also share Old Navy's concerns about bandwidth issues and the fact is we'd be under US network control (although I can't see that as a bad thing, unless a future NZ Govt annoys the US again and they switch off our access)!

But if the NZ Govt was smart enough, to save investing hundred of millions (or more) on future Global Hawks, could they not come to some arrangement with the US to share costs (a la Echelon etc) whereby NZ patrols a segment of the SW Pacific and feeds the data back to the US as well? (Although it would be anyway if we're plugged into their networks I suppose).

I still wouldn't give up the P-3's (nor future possible P-8's though), they are more versatile, have alot more processing stations etc and can do ASW as well as good ol' SAR and drop lifebouys and comms to those in distress.

[oldnavy]

That's a good find, Nige. Global Hawk is in service, they cost US$120million each, and they need the US C3 network. Can't see that being a happening thing for RNZAF any time soon...

I am with you on fast jets, and will accept P3s as an important capability because RNZAF already own them. You are right about manned aircraft versatility. With the best will in the world, UAVs can never be as versatile as manned aeroplanes.

Keep it going guys!

[hawkeye]

As someone who is both a manned pilot and an experienced UAV operator, I think I can help clarify this issue of UAV efficiency.

1. UAVs are definatley grossly oversold by gun runners. Their true roles and effiencies are still being determined. Give them another ten yrs and I think we will definatley have some progress, as with most technology.

2. Forget talk in NZ on Global hawk and predator, if anyone thinks we are going to be operating these - you're dreaming. Maybe predator if we accepted the cost of operating a Fast-Jet Sqn equivalent in cost and complexity. We also have a bandwidth problem in this part of the world (Civ an Mil sat).

3. Significant UAV technology is back-filling into manned aviation - with UAVs smaller is better and this is having significant benifits to platforms of many sizes. There are emerging UAVs in the size and cost that NZ can afford that will be on the horizon. - Think GPS and where we where even ten yrs ago vs today where you you have one in your phone.

4. There are things you can do with a UAV - you cant and dont and wont do with a manned aviation platform of anyshape or size. UAVs are not cheap but they can be more efficient. - but also Vice Versa!!!

5. UAVs are here to stay and if you look at the IDF who fly more unmanned tha manned hours - it says it all. Anyone who thinks they are not relevant is with all due respect out of touch with current ops.

6. Manned aviation is here to stay - anyone who thinks UAVs are going to replace pilots in airliners (yes - seriously discussed) think about Sulley and the Hudson River, like to see an autopilot and programmer do that!

[kiwiscanfly]

Thanks for the info hawkeye i have been reading the recent posts here on UAV use and i think you have summed up for possible use of UAV's for NZ, but when we are looking at cost and operations are there not any UAV's that are smaller and more applicable for what NZ may want of them?

Cheers hawkeye

[flyinkiwi]

Sept 17, 2010 11:37:58 GMT 12 hawkeye said:

6. Manned aviation is here to stay - anyone who thinks UAVs are going to replace pilots in airliners (yes - seriously discussed) think about Sulley and the Hudson River, like to see an autopilot and programmer do that!

Any airline who tried to replace pilots with computers would have a public relations nightmare on their hands. I don't think the public are ready to put their lives in the hands of a computer!

[Chris F]

We as a country may not have the most up to date or fancy defence force but they do a fine job that everyone should respect.Often I hear people say we dont pull our weight(defence wise) but I dare you to look the mums and dads,the wifes and children who have lost a son,husband or dad in the eye and say we dont pull our weight-we do our share and have paid the price and its a price way too high.
Our service people and the police put their lifes on the line everyday performing their duty to New Zealand.Thank you.
Often jobs like search and rescue are seen as boring no thrills jobs for our defence force,but the lifes they save could not speak more highly,nor is it not risky,search and rescue is often in bad weather in either mountains or over the water.Again thank you.

[oldnavy]

Great post Hawkeye! Thanks! Points taken.

[kb]

This may have been said before but my concern about UAV's is that secure data links are only secure as long as they are. Technology leaps ahead all the time and once data is transmitted if the other side make a big technology breakthrough your UAV's and you could be in big trouble.

[hawkeye]

Its very difficult to acquire control of a UAV if you're not entitled to. It is possible to Jam the C2 Link but also very difficult. Although the video downlink on many mini and tactical UAV 2.4 Ghz can be easily received people have been moving away from this for some time to fully encrypted data feeds. The 2.4 ghz issue was mainly due to frequency licenses and rapid use of COTS gear for urgent operational requirements and only the video broadcast. The UAV command link was alot more robust - typically and rightly so, this is to ensure other UAV operators don't acquire your AV by accident or someone else having a go for other reasons.

To Kiwiscanfly:

<<Thanks for the info hawkeye i have been reading the recent posts here on UAV use and i think you have summed up for possible use of UAV's for NZ, but when we are looking at cost and operations are there not any UAV's that are smaller and more applicable for what NZ may want of them?

Cheers hawkeye >>

There are plenty of UAV option that could be utilised for support to land operations tactical use and littoral operations:
Insitu's Integrator, through DTA's technology which is world class.
When it comes down to it the key technologies are the autopilots and payloads. Everything is not that particularly revolutionary.
The sensor is often 80% of the cost of the system so it makes sense to generate a home grown platform industry in order to operate sensors as they develop.

I am just starting to operate a type of sensor in a particular way that has never been done before - all due to the enhancements in sensor technology.

When it comes down to it, with UAV's you need to be very clear on the type of information you want from the system. This drives everything else - ie Platform size robustness etc.

[Hoffy]

So obviously some people will never see the point of NZ having fast air. The debate will go in circles so I'm moving on. (BTW some people here seem to be living in a different Australia to the one I've known all my life!)
QQ's;
When is the final outcome of the NZ white paper to be announced?
What's the likely budget spend?
Is the NZ government likely to announce a renewed/stronger relationship with the USA?
And finally, given that many NZ'ers seem to feel safe & neutral having a "peace keeping/disaster relief" role , what are the odds of increased capabilities in this regard?

[kiwiscanfly]

I only have one answer for you Hoffy and that is for the date of release: and according to the Ministry Of Defense Web site it is some-time next month......... no exact date given last I checked.