Ministers Launch Defence Review 09 Document

[corokid66]

Mar 3, 2010 20:45:39 GMT 12 nige said:

Good grief! I didn't realise his second article on the RRF has come out, here's the link:
werewolf.co.nz/2010/03/playing-aussie-rules-on-defence/
I'll have a read and comment when I get some time later etc.
I don't like bagging people personally, but this guy is no friend of the NZDF and our traditional role in the world. And thanks others here for your kind comments, sure I'd be happy to debate him on his blog, except I want to be sure of my facts (for I am a civviee defence supporter and not an expert, hence please anyone correct any mis-facts of mine from last night or add some insights etc). I'd be a bit cautious of using my real name on his blog, for clearly there is an underhand public misinformation campaign going on (his), and I suspect he will censor opposing viewpoints so let's see in due course what eventuates)! Note how there are many defence related forums in the world, it's a great place for these activists to troll for information (and notice that in general most peacenik sites don't allow public comments to counter their propaganda) but luckily for us, unlike say in 2000 when this chap was denigrating the NZDF, we live in an era of bloggs and we too can get our side of the arguement out to the public! (As opposed to say the Listener at the time deliberately not publishing letters countering his claims etc). Interesting since the Listener ditched Gordon and Finlay, hard case lefties have accused the Listener of being right wing now! Heh heh (I have always bought the listerner and continue to do so), at least the hard core left have the Sunday Socialist Times and their anti-NZDF writings!

Nige, I hope you dont mind pointing you and the other forum members in the direction of a couple of interesting articles relating to Defence and Strategic matters; it all helps to educate ourselves on the bigger picyure after all.

Take a look at this analysis by Dr. Subhash Kapila as part of your crusade against leftist mis-information.

CHINA’S ESCALATING MILITARY POWER: GLOBAL AND REGIONAL IMPACT

www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers27%5Cpaper2620.html

Also take a look at this article from the US Left. They are hell of a lot more realistic than journo's on the NZ left. Pretty sobering stuff (Other than the Climate Change crap at the end).

The Blowback Effect, 2020 by Michael Klare, Tomgram

www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=21158

[kiwiscanfly]

Mar 3, 2010 9:33:23 GMT 12 skyhawkdon said:

1. As already "rumoured" maybe a few extra light helicopters with weapons?

2. An anti-ship missile for the Orions?

3. Mid Life Upgrade for the Frigates (but not to the same capability level as Australia's)?

4. Perhaps a third 757?

Sadly there won't be a return to service for the Macchis. Instead we will pin our hopes on the Singapore deal coming off.

Well mate having been in the RNZAF and with me going to go in i have a feeling what you are saying is as close to the truth as we are going to get.
it would be good to see the A109 being armed i have made a post a few pages back on what i thought on this and am almost pleased to see that my ideas are not that bad
i had no idea that another 757 was possible as i believed that we were short on tactical transport capabilities- i also believed that we might but C-295 as we keep sending the massive C-130's on jobs that only require half of what they carry!!
Anti ship missiles? does that include other air to ground weapons??
And a mid life upgrade for the frigates! any idea what this adds to the current ANZAC ship project already underway??
must say having heard this am feeling a bit better about the NZDF (feel free to look at the comments i made on the A109)
ANd just to finish what is the Singapore deal???

[kiwiscanfly]

NZDF has just signed a contract worth USD$100 million to Lockheed Martin !! this is for warehousing and repair services!! would this give anyone any clear ideas as to what is coming up in the white paper? i think they are laying down the groud work for new things to come......... Lockheed Martin makes a number of diffrent systems!! SkyhawkDon reackons there could be new anti-ship missiles... if Lockheed Martin makes them i think we can see a clear link. Any one else get a certain feeling about such a large contract being signed so soon to the white paper release?

[skyhawkdon]

I have no idea if a 3rd 757 or anti-ship missiles for the P-3 are likely or not. They are just my personal thoughts on what "might" be an outcome of the white paper (given the financial constraints the NZDF is under) and would make sense. The anti-ship missile for the P-3 might just end up being the AGM-65G Maveric, which is already available (the ex A-4 missiles) and has all the logistics and support infrastructure in place. However anyone who thinks sending a P-3 within visual range of a modern warship to fire a missile at it is... well... dreaming! But that is the sort of cheap arse solution you are going to get if you don't fund defence adequately!

[caromeg]

Arming the 109 is very likely from what I've heard in the Army Net and said before in this thread. It wont be for any tactical operational effect rather to support DLOC and OLOC training for Army. This highlights how important Aviation in general is important to Land Forces. Which begs the question why is the NZ Army so very poor at understanding Aviaition and it's effects?
The Navy are alot better but even they could improve. With our small numbers you have to wonder why the Navy train aircrew.
I think the Army on one hand does Aviation better than the Navy in that it throws it completely to the Air Force to do, but in doing this it has also absolved itself of responsibility of keeping the "contract" honest. One or two Army Aircrew going through PTS every now and then would mean that the Army would understand aviation better and meet its end of the bargain of providing a better customer requirement. I know that Army's responce to the NH-90 was not - lets do this properly and get a Helo UR sorted. It was how can we keep it as cheap as possible so we can have the money thats left for our stuff.
The end result is the NH-90, which awesome helicopter as it is, is not suitable for the region or the Army. When you have a 100-115? kg limit on seating, big antenna at the rear exit and a requirement to lay and peg down matting in the battlefield due to the poor ground clearance, you sort of appreciate the Huey a bit more.

A Mini WIP for the frigates is important, hopefully a loan of an extra ANZAC from RNZN would help our T Boat fleet, certainly help in maintenance scheduling due to work effort. I think HMAS ANZAC is very similar in build and config as TM and TK.
I'm wondering with self interst what they are doing with UAVs - heard nothing apart from Army guffing it up.

[skyhawkdon]

Mar 4, 2010 16:49:04 GMT 12 kiwiscanfly said:

NZDF has just signed a contract worth USD$100 million to Lockheed Martin !! this is for warehousing and repair services!!

Does anyone know how far this contract goes within the RNZAF? i.e. are they going to take over the running of the supply system on base and eventually the aircraft repair facilities/servicing bays as well? US$100M is a lot of money to pay them just to run a few warehouses and MT workshops?? This sounds like something much bigger...

[Dave Homewood]

Don, here's more detail:

www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-zealand-defence-force-awards-lockheed-martin-10-year-logistics-contract-86202072.html

New Zealand Defence Force Awards Lockheed Martin 10-Year Logistics Contract
ORLANDO, Fla., March 3 /PRNewswire/ -- Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) was awarded an initial 10-year contract valued at more than $100 million by the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) to provide its Army with warehousing and repair services.

The contract allows for syndication with other New Zealand agencies, including New Zealand Police, for which Lockheed Martin could also assume warehousing and facilities maintenance work. The agreement includes the maintenance, repair and overhaul of the organization's equipment and supply chain services ranging from soldier store acquisition, such as tents and weapons, to warehouse sustainment.

The New Zealand Army is composed of 7,500 regular and reserve forces and civilian personnel. Approximately 500 NZDF personnel are deployed on multiple peacekeeping operations, United Nations missions and defence exercises around the world. The Army's fleet of more than 500 vehicles includes NZ Light Armoured Vehicles, Pinzgauer Light Operational Vehicles, Unimogs, and transport, service and supply vehicles.

"Our goal is to ensure we provide the best possible supply service in the most cost-effective way," said Debra Palmer, vice president of enterprise logistics solutions at Lockheed Martin's Simulation, Training & Support business unit. "We are focused on improving the availability of equipment and supplies to sustain current operations while moving toward improved capabilities in the future."

Lockheed Martin offers similar services to a number of military customers. These include asset management capabilities to the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence through its Joint Asset Management Engineering Solution, a program which will ultimately enable the MoD to manage its land-based equipment throughout all its services by providing an end-to-end logistics management system. In addition, Lockheed Martin supports the U.S. Marine Corps with the Embedded Platform Logistics System, and manages the supply chain for automotive parts for the U.S. military's land-based vehicles with the Fleet Automotive Support Initiative.

The contract begins in June 2010 after a transition from the current service providers.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 140,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation reported 2009 sales of $45.2 billion.

For additional information, visit our web site: www.lockheedmartin.com


SOURCE Lockheed Martin

[kiwiscanfly]

Mar 5, 2010 6:58:26 GMT 12 @caromeg said:

Arming the 109 is very likely from what I've heard in the Army Net and said before in this thread. It wont be for any tactical operational effect rather to support DLOC and OLOC training for Army.

So they would pay to arm the A109's just to use them for training! come on if the NZDF had that kind of capibility they would be able to deploy!!

[Dave Homewood]

The RNZAF does no deploy its training wing aircraft anywhere.

[caromeg]

And where would you deploy an armed A109 to? - a back water conflict shooting fuzzy wuzzies armed with sticks?
They're nothing more than training or constabulary assets. Training the Army in Airborne FAC using helo is incredibly important and fully justifiable as a Defence in-house capability. (Would need FJ as well). When you get offshore this is reality (Apache, Predator, A-10 and AC-130 are tools we potentially get to work with).

I doubt the fit would include an advance integrated targeting and fire control system. Its more likely to be semi-iron sights and bolt on fire sticks. (Just guessing here).

[corokid66]

If we were to increase the numbers of A-109LUH’s to around 8-10 or so, it might allow for example, 3-4 to be used primarily by the helicopter training flight and the others could be placed with the rest of 3 Sqd for operations.

In this White Paper I am hoping that a few more are bought. Though the NH-90 and A-109 are larger than their replacements and can carry more pax, the breadth of the rotary role is growing and will continue to grow over the next couple of decades. This will mean there are potentially just as many different types of tasks that the A-109 will end up probably performing for the wider NZDF and Government as there are actual airframes. For example pilot conversion training, operational support and training for the Landforce Groups and SAS Group in the NZ Army, SAR, Medvac, NZ Police support, Navy support on the OPV’s, other Government agencies like DOC, Customs and Fisheries, VIP transport because I bet Mr Key will love using it, and potentially to be used to support small scale deployments in the Pacific if the NH-90 is not suitable due to cost or tasking or even available if the NH-90’s are deployed supporting a battalion group somewhere.

If another 3 A-109’s were bought would 8 all up justify another squadron being formed – say a reformed 41 Sqd for old times sake?

[caromeg]

This is a valid concept and essentiallly constabulary in nature - even SF work in NZ. Add - bolt on a bang stick device and do shoot me ups in Waiouru and you have another tool in the tool box on fleet outputs.
What this airframe is not, is a deployable go into harms way armed helo for armed recce or combat. If for example, we armed it and used in Timor it would have unessearily upped the anti and that one extra anti step - ie GBAD would kill it real quick, even quicker than a purpose built helo. I Reckon the Poly's would reckon the risk would to be too high.

[kiwiscanfly]

have a look at these (directly from Augusta Westland A109 info i have a pdf on this but can' t put it onto the forum)
SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT
- Pilot / copilot armored seats
- Chaff & flare dispenser
- Crashworthy fuel system
- Self sealing fuel tanks
- Radar warning
- Laser warning
- Missile approach
warning system
- Infrared jammer
WEAPON SYSTEMS
- the A109 LUH¡¦s low
vibration and highly
stable flight tracking
and firing capabilities to
attain the highest
effectiveness of an
airborne weapon
system.
EXTERNAL ARMAMENT
TWIN MACHINE
GUN-POD 7.62 mm
RPM-POD
12.7 mm MACHINE GUN POD
with 3 TUBES 70 mm ROCKETS
ANTITANK MISSILES
TOW, HOT, or HELLFIRE
AIR-TO-AIR MISSILES
STINGER or MISTRAL

Now i am no expert on this but i have seen helo's of lesser capability than the Cobra of Apache being used in Afghanistan such as the Danish Fennecs. now don't get me wrong here I'm not saying that we should send the A109's to Afganistan............. but the main threat modern forces face often in todays world is a non-conventional threat such as insurgencies. I think that the A109's could be deployed to places such as Timor as the Aussie's have send Kiowa's............ and now that i look at them they are evenly matched to the A109's! I think that corokid66 has a point that to have a some of the A109's attached to the NH90's would be a good idea! with the size of the NH90 sending them off to pick up 3 lost hikers would be over-kill having the ability to send a helo that is the right size for the job would just make the Air Force more efficient and let's face it the more cash we save the better. And one more point my hopes is that by the end of the white paper they buy 5 more A109's as well as 5-6 NH90's. at the moment the air force no matter how you look at it is still getting smaller and smaller!

[corokid66]

I understand that UAV's such as the Predator / Warrior are more frequently taking over the role of Light Recon helicopters like the Kiowa's and the Fennac's. Maybe longer term thats where the money and effort should go.

In many ways it is the next 5 years of the White Paper that will interest us the most. That is pretty much the stuff that they have made their mind up. I was told by an MP recently that the leaky home business and its potential multi billion dollar cost will mean that all government departments are going to really have to justify everything they get to spend. So turning A-109's into light attack helicopters looks unlikely in my book.

However in the initial period I think that an extra 3 A-109's would be very helpful and realistically affordable. I think that this is something that the NZDF may be able to argue convincingly and add them on to the current order of five. Maybe a couple more down the line in 5 years or so. About 10 all up by 2015 would be realistic and doable. Same with the NH-90's probably another couple sometime mid decade and about another 4 of the NHF version by about 2020 when the SH-2's should phased out.

The point raised by some about a 2nd Tier light transport / EZZ coastwatch aircraft is a good one. A couple of years ago their was chatter about Q300's. I still think that this has some merit. A couple of Canadian companies do multi-mission / quick-change conversions of Bombardier aircraft and install an enlarged cargo door and can add a simple surface search radar. Four of those with low hours on the 2nd hand market and a QC conversion would be very useful in my view. They would lighten the workload of the C-130's and the P-3's leaving them to concentrate on the larger tasks - just like a couple more A-109's will take the workload off the NH-90's.

[oldnavy]

The point raised by some about a 2nd Tier light transport / EZZ coastwatch aircraft is a good one. A couple of years ago their was chatter about Q300's. I still think that this has some merit. A couple of Canadian companies do multi-mission / quick-change conversions of Bombardier aircraft and install an enlarged cargo door and can add a simple surface search radar. Four of those with low hours on the 2nd hand market and a QC conversion would be very useful in my view. They would lighten the workload of the C-130's and the P-3's leaving them to concentrate on the larger tasks - just like a couple more A-109's will take the workload off the NH-90's.

None of my business and only a spectator. Tried to be quiet for a while. Now there are a couple of comments needed.

Q300s are like hen's teeth and no longer in production. There is no such thing as a low hour Dash 8 Q300.

All the types you are talking about in the quoted paragraph have missions benign enough to be performed by civilian contractors.

In my irrelevant view (as a former Naval Aviator) an air force should have combat capability. To my mind that means fighters, even to the point of ditching the P3s and C130s. Instead of duplicating effort with civilian contractors, arm up your helos and get fighters. To be as blunt as possible, I believe the conversation in this thread is avoiding the core issue. Contributers are trying to be realistic and sensible, and in the process you are aiming way too low!

The NZDF lacks credible air power. Without air credibility, there is an argument to be said for a small country such as NZ to not have a defence force at all. Either have it or don't have it. But in a forum claiming to support the RNZAF, I reckon you should all aim higher...otherwise don't waste your money.

NB: going down the "no NZDF" path is not one I advocate because very soon after NZ would be absorbed into another country either financially, or through them basing their assets at your place.

[corokid66]

Some Q300's that fit the bill do come up from time to time. It does not have to be a Q series - it just as much can be covered by a Saab 2000 or ATR42. Q300's are a better fit as Air NZ flies them. Yes we are being realistic and sensible and though I would like at least a small air combat capability - it will not happen this decade. We have to work with the cards that are dealt.

[caromeg]

I didn't realise the A109 was that capable and I'm sure as a helicopter, it has plenty of flexibility - a valuable attribute of helicopters in general. But just because people are using plenty of lighter helos in insurgent operations doesn't mean its the right thing to do. The Russians found out about this the hard way (Afghanistan) and so did the South Vietnamese and US Army in the closing staes of Vietnam War. It would only take a couple of rougue shipments from Umpa umpa land (N Korea) and things would change dramaticaly - or unsustainably with helos (probably incl Cobra and Apache). I understand the US Army had major issues on Insurgent operations moving people by helo in Iraq.
I have significant experience using Miniature and Tactical UAVs and being a Pilot as well, I can tell you manned aviation is here to stay. (I worry about effects not platforms). The one obvious area that manned aviation is possibly directly threatened role wise from UAVs, is in the Light Helo recce game. Its just too dangerous. Although I have read some good data on teaming the systems (UAV - Cobra) to work together.
This is an area that the money should go in my view. A Low end tactical system could do alot of our littoral surveillance vs the Dash 8.

[oldnavy]

Okay guys, keep up the talk. At least you are not rolling over and dying!

Combat capability might be more than just fighters... we are talking about what you can afford.

ASW is important? No one you know (other than Australia) has subs! Even if you think there is someone out there threatening you with subs, how often do they sail/submerge? What you are doing is wasting defence dollars on an unrealistic threat...

ASuW is very important for NZ! Anyone who comes in force will need to come in boats. I agree it's the ASuW role you want. Fighters can shoot at surface targets, and so can P3s and Seasprites. But P3s and Seasprites can't be fighters. What you are doing is wasting defence dollars on platforms that can't do everything you need.

I am suggesting you get contractors to do the maritime patrol because contractors cost a fraction of what defence forces cost. Spend your defence dollars on fighters.

Corrokid66 is nearly agreeing with me and pushing a civilian platform to reinforce the P3! If you go to that level of aircraft and acquire modern systems the Dash 8 style platform can replace the P3 at much reduced cost.

My point is, you have been suckered by the army into killing the air force and keeping the wrong platforms. Air Forces need fighters.

I said:

Contributers are trying to be realistic and sensible, and in the process you are aiming way too low!

The reply was:

We have to work with the cards that are dealt.

My retort is that if that's the way you all think then:

I reckon you should all aim higher...otherwise don't waste your money.

I am with HAWKEYE on UAVs.

[kiwiscanfly]

we can't afford fighters simple as that............. not to mention the fact that there is no support for this in the NZ public to a large extent and the NZDF would get slagged off because they would say we are wasting tax dollars!!! I want to have an air combat wing but at the moment it won't happen. what will happen is expansion on our capibilities based on current platforms. (upgrades)

[phil]

You seem to be under the impression the RNZAF has the slightest control over the issue. The govt is the customer that wants certain outputs, and pays for the outputs they want, guess what? They don't want fighters. The RNZAF doesn't dictate to the govt.

Actually, the RNZAF hasn't had a front line fighter in service since the early days of the Vampire and that's pushing the definition somewhat, since even by the late 50s the vampire couldn't really be classed as a front line fighter. It could be argued that we havent had a genuine, contemporary fighter capability since WW2. I doubt the polys will choose to fund that output for us now.