|
|
Post by yogi on Oct 18, 2009 17:15:50 GMT 12
thank you old navy & phil for your insightful comments
makes for good reading.
The only thing I can say about John Key is I think at least Him and national will begin to turn the NZDF in the right direction. Only time will tell.
Besides theres no other option really.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Oct 18, 2009 21:53:00 GMT 12
This is an excellent debate and many people are making outstanding observations/comments. I am with yogi, the tide is turning...and I stress I really don't have anywhere near as much local knowledge on the politics to be too forceful. However, from the debate I do understand there are issues and problems, many may seem so high up in the decision making chain as to be insurmountable, but something has to be done. Straight question to cut through the "what can and cannot be afforded" discussion, and the unarguable "lack of political will" statements, are you guys seriously happy with the unequivocal fact that you are vulnerable to the point of losing nation status? Over here, I nearly believe the pitch that there are only 1 or 2 nations on earth who have the wherewithal to actually stage a hostile invasion of Australia...under any circumstances. Similarly, despite the fact that I believe much more should be done to make things really secure, and to seriously impede anyone anywhere from impacting on our international relationships and trading status, the insurance premium phil82 is talking about continues to be paid. Over your side of the ditch the story is very different. As phil82 says, you are not paying the premium! What exactly are your defence forces supposed to do as ill equipped as they are? Forget the chances of an organised invasion, or the difficulty you have in putting a meaningful contribution into a regional hot spot, let's face it, a few angry blokes on an RPT flight have a good chance of disproportionately mucking you about. As a nation, you've dropped your guard and someone needs to pick it up. Nobody is actually disagreeing with me, you are just making excuses as to why your situation has deteriorated so badly! This is not a game or a friendly competition we are talking about. It is not about whether you prefer Holdens or Fords. We are talking about the survival of your country! FlyCookie has an idea for a symposium. That would be one thing you could all advocate straight away. You are already agreeing your fighter jocks have emigrated, so jointly advocate formal agreements with the countries they have gone to! People will listen if enough people speak up. The old guys in 2002 were disregarded because of the times and the flavour of govt. This is 2009! The tide has turned. Do something...do anything...or take the NZ$1 million  BTW, I am not a Gripen advocate. Pretty as it might be, once you start spending money on fast jets, you'll find F16s come in ahead in terms of cost effectiveness because of the sheer numbers already built. For the same reason, wait a few years and the numbers game will draw you into the F35. |
|
|
|
Post by mstokes on Oct 19, 2009 0:17:51 GMT 12
The Gripen is not a perfect fighter, the range of the aircraft is an issue but that was also a consideration noted when th F/A 18 was selected for the RAAF. Having visited the Czech Republic and Switzerland last year, it was really great to see that the Air Forces of those nations (with reasonably small populations like NZ) have been able to push ahead with new aquisitions or improve their current fleet even with significant economic disadvantages (yes... the old budget cuts). This does mean that Swiss F/A 18s only operate 9-5 on Monday-Fridays and that the Czech Gripens are leased, but it does show that a professional and competent air force can be maintained and allows these countries to participate in European operations such as the Baltic Air Patrol, NATO etc. The biggest issue to the F16 is the same as buying your computer, it is pretty much out of date as soon as you buy it, at the rate in which the Blocks (50-52 etc) are coming out. This is not a bad thing at all as it shows a healthy progression exists in the aerospace industry, but if NZ acquired F16's at present, surely we would need at least the additional fuel pods as seen on the bulky bock 50's and at least the European MLUG. I personally like the Gripen as it is reliable, there are many acquisition options offered by SAAB and an almost immediate availability. The big plus is the purpose under which it was designed, for air defense, ground attack and anti-shipping with the flick of a switch. The aircraft is also very economical in terms of operational support. Whilst I would love a reformed NZ armed air force wing to operate something like the RAAF Super Hornets, it won't happen and I think the Gripen could make the bean counters a little less apprehensive (or half the engines, twice the airframes  ). We could also operate 9-5 on Monday to Friday only, 9-3 on Fridays during Super 14 ;D |
|
|
|
Post by flyinkiwi on Oct 19, 2009 10:10:51 GMT 12
That fella Petronius had it about right I reckon: "We trained hard ... but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization " Arbiter, Gauis Petronius That could be the basis of NZ Defence policy! Sounds like the NZ Public Service in general!  |
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Oct 19, 2009 10:56:07 GMT 12
Why not add a small symposium element to the next Wonzaf get-together? Wouldn't take much for a handful of members (and any others) to put some words together and open up for questions and comments. Would take effort to get media interest in such a shindig, but not much. Given the intelligence and passion shown here, I believe there enough fellas to make that work. Even making a little noise is better than no noise at all on this issue, and you never know how it might develop. Some members might need to start their diets now for their debuts on the telly..... Just a thought. .............................. Also, many thanks to Moderator Dave and Corsair67 for not deleting my previous post on this thread. When I checked-in this arvo I fully exptected it have been deemed unwelcome and/or inappropriate and thence removed. absolutely how do we get started? |
|
|
|
Post by timmo on Oct 20, 2009 8:10:25 GMT 12
Good post Corokid. As always, half the difficulty in selecting the 'correct' aircraft will be in acceptance of that aircraft by the public. And that acceptance will only be forthcoming with their understanding of the wider roles of armed forces.
As a slight aside, do we think that the F-16 deal really was a 'once in a life time' situation? It's not as if the US is in short supply of surplus aircraft and to my knowledge, the ex Pakistani F-16's are still sitting there at AMARC?
Surely a new deal could be brokered if that was the path we chose to go down?
|
|
|
|
Post by Naki on Oct 20, 2009 8:21:36 GMT 12
The ex Pakistani F-16s are in service with the US Navy as aggressor aircraft..but yes I agree there are a number of surplus F-16s floating around not only in the US but also with the Belgian and Dutch Air Forces although these would be quite old.
Even better the Swedes have a fleet of surplus Gripens which are a lot newer and these can be leased like the Czechs and Hungarians did.
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Oct 20, 2009 10:23:18 GMT 12
I think that if there were any good surplus F-16s around the USAF would have gobbled them up by now.
Due to the high tempo of operations over the past 8 years, the USAF is seriously running out of hours on much of its F-16 fleet - the USN is experiencing the same issues with it's classic F/A-18A/B/C and D models.
|
|
|
|
Post by flycookie on Oct 20, 2009 10:58:36 GMT 12
As a slight aside, do we think that the F-16 deal really was a 'once in a life time' situation? Yes. No chance of a repeat. Skyhawkdon once outlined the details of the whole deal, including offset revenue from a linked sale of the Kahus to Phillipines, elsewhere on Wonzaf. Only nations likely to get that sort of deal these days are distinctly C-class nation states, and they're paid for with "loans" from the US, which have a marked tendency to be converted to "aid" in the Treasury ledgers at a later date. The reason I earlier advocated starting with a small number of Hawks was to break a fast jet restart into small, politically and fiscally digestible pieces. If/when a Hawk unit was either in the pipeline or operation, then the subject of front line fast jets could be publicly eased into the equation. Smaller amounts of money always look better to the pollies, media, et al, than whopping big ones! Mr Yogi, as you're keen on the symposium idea, why not delve a bit on the net, or ask around, and come back to the forum with some organsiational thoughts on that? It won't happen out of thin air, and I think you've just volunteered to get things moving.  |
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Oct 20, 2009 14:27:43 GMT 12
Maybe this is what New Zealand really needs?
It'll even wash the dishes, and put the rubbish bin out for you! ;D
(Please note: None of the featured unconvincing over-actors were harmed during the making of this clip!)
|
|
|
|
Post by corokid66 on Oct 20, 2009 15:00:57 GMT 12
The key to getting back an air combat capability over the long term is the Macchi. It is not the favourite aircraft of everybody, but the whole argument from the political side is predicated on simplicity, usage and cost.
There are a few things which currently count against it.
Firstly, the government still officially has the Macchi up for sale. Thus for any alternative proposal to proceed the Macchi needs to be withdrawn from the sale process. That is why I hope the ‘deal’ falls over.
Secondly, the version we have of the Viper is not the greatest, however as has been pointed out if the engine was derated its reliability would improve. (or replaced with the improved Rolls-Royce RB582 engine as was proposed for the T-Bird version for the USAF in the late 1990’s)
Thirdly, the Macchi needs a digital cockpit so as it can be used as a modern trainer as well as avionics that would make the Macchi suitable for wider roles within the RNZAF.
On the positive side of the ledger
1. As we know we currently own 17 of them. Bought for $262m back in 91-93. So we are already halfway there.
2. They are a ‘low hours’ going concern airframe.
3. We know our way around them. There is still enough in-situ knowledge to make them operationally viable and reasonably quickly in the scheme of things.
4. The issues over the engine are not insurmountable and it is not like the RNZAF have not before had to overcome or work with technical issues.
5. An upgrade of a glass cockpit will make the aircraft viable for advanced training role and can be part of the mix in our advanced training requirement along with the Kingair replacement.
6. A digital cockpit / avionics upgrade is not overtly expensive in the scheme of things between NZ$2-$6m depending on the goodies we want per aircraft.
7. An upgraded Macchi could offer a wider application than just advanced pilot training. It was re-iterated time and time again throughout the recent public defence forums that having air-surface integration in the context of wider NZDF training was vital for our services to remain viable as a modern military force.
8. Let’s face it. They are way cool. Most small quick jets are. We have lost a generation of schoolboys who have not had the sheer pleasure of a A-4, Blunty or Macchi streaking overhead the playground and boys thinking “I really want to do that!” viz a viz recruitment.
Since as always we are cost-centric in New Zealand the process has to be affordable.
Here are a couple of facts to digest within the upgrade context.
1. Finland has contracted Patria to upgrade the ex Swiss Mk66 Hawks with new CMC4000 digital cockpits for a per unit cost of around NZ$1.7m. To quote Aviation Today, “the Patria upgrade core avionics comprise CMC's powerful open-architecture mission computer, a proven wide field of view SparrowHawk Head-Up Display and Up Front Control Panel, two 5x7 inch Multifunction Displays (one in each cockpit), and a HUD repeater for each aircraft. In addition, the avionics suite features mature and proven operational flight programs that integrate the aircraft sensors, radios and weapons systems to provide a wide range of navigation and mission requirements. CMC's standardized avionics solution minimizes the integration effort required for aircraft installation - a key factor in reducing costs for customers.” So around NZ$2 million upwards in this case is a guideline.
2. The Italian Air Force have upgraded to ‘Batch II’ standard their early 90’s era MB-339-C’s. To quote from flight global.com “Alenia is delivering new avionics and simulation capabilities including identification friend or foe, communications, positioning and night vision systems, as well as a digital map, crash data recorder, emergency locator transmitter, new integrated autonomous air combat manoeuvring suite, plus embedded training simulation (including simulated sensors and virtual tactical scenarios). The upgraded MB-339CD will be equipped with state-of-the-art avionics with a human-machine interface that includes a HUD (Head-Up Display) and three MFD (Multi Functional Display) in both the front and rear cockpits, as well as software to simulate complex operational scenarios. It features an air-refuelling probe, which makes the aircraft even more similar to most modern fighters, and enhanced training and operational capabilities. The contract also includes logistics support activities to manage repairs on a selected range of aircraft components.” The per unit cost of the upgrade is NZ$5.8m for the full monty Italian AF version. The parts for the upgrade are all OTS - the question is could we do this cheaper in NZ. I think we probably could.
Now if we look in the context of flight training we have $75m set aside under the LTDP. Now that includes a requirement for multi-engine training to replace the B200. What we could be able to do is budget for $35m for upgrading the first six Macchi’s to the Bells and Whistles standard as per the Italians. Then use the remaining $40m to acquire four new B350 Kingairs for multi-engine training, VIP and a bit of Mk1 eyeball stuff around the coastlines to keep the fishing boats on their toes. According to that useful website defenceindustrydaily.com new build B350’s are around US$7.5 each which if we had bought four this morning on the current exchange rate would be a nice even 10 mil.
The first six Macchi upgrades could be followed up with a further Batch as soon as Budgets allow. You could do the further six in a couple of years down the track and then keep the rest as attrition spares and INST frames. One of the public policy selling points is that the work can be done in New Zealand. Kiwi jobs and all that stuff.
For $75m what we would have is initially 10 new or virtually new Training Aircraft for the RNZAF all within the earmarked budget per the LTDP. With that we have got a modern multi-engine training capability, an advanced jet training capability to suit our predominantly jet turbine fleet and a wider NZDF training capability that can enhance the ‘jointness’ of the NZDF.
Most significantly you would have in the interim the building blocks of an air combat force. Whether that pans out to be a future purchase of whatever’s going, at least the RNZAF / NZDF has at least got something back to work with per a combat air support capability to build on. It will also buy the RNZAF time to base its future case. It will also be part of a strategic hedge I have mentions previously in that if the region starts to turn to custard we would be in a far better shape to adapt. Right now we have zip. Having the Macchi’s flying and seen to be doing valuable pilot and support training using both RNZAF and Air Force Reserve crew would give immense PR to the RNZAF and the value of the aircraft. And from that point one is able to then control the ‘discourse’ of their role and importance.
I cannot see another way either politically or fiscally of getting back the ACF capability, other than working through the Macchi's.
Its called making a silk purse out of a pigs ear.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Oct 20, 2009 21:42:23 GMT 12
Keep it up, guys! ;D Very informative item corokid66!
|
|
|
|
Post by nige on Oct 20, 2009 22:19:16 GMT 12
I'm with you on that one, Corokid!
Especially seeing the bottom line in NZ is cost/money etc.
The other possibility is a joint NZ-ADF venture (eg buy in, into the Hawks/Hornets/F35's or simply send our best pilots over there etc), but that wouldn't happen overnight (no doubt that would take a few years to work thru even if the political will was there), hence the MB339 option seems to be the most sensible (practical etc). As you say, that would give Defence/Govt some options down the track once the skillbase has been recreated etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Oct 21, 2009 17:26:04 GMT 12
As a slight aside, do we think that the F-16 deal really was a 'once in a life time' situation? Yes. No chance of a repeat. Skyhawkdon once outlined the details of the whole deal, including offset revenue from a linked sale of the Kahus to Phillipines, elsewhere on Wonzaf. Only nations likely to get that sort of deal these days are distinctly C-class nation states, and they're paid for with "loans" from the US, which have a marked tendency to be converted to "aid" in the Treasury ledgers at a later date. The reason I earlier advocated starting with a small number of Hawks was to break a fast jet restart into small, politically and fiscally digestible pieces. If/when a Hawk unit was either in the pipeline or operation, then the subject of front line fast jets could be publicly eased into the equation. Smaller amounts of money always look better to the pollies, media, et al, than whopping big ones! Mr Yogi, as you're keen on the symposium idea, why not delve a bit on the net, or ask around, and come back to the forum with some organsiational thoughts on that? It won't happen out of thin air, and I think you've just volunteered to get things moving. rightio then, i'll give it a crack. |
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Oct 21, 2009 17:46:59 GMT 12
(re-post sorry!)
Dave.
Would you be interested in adding a formal symposium element to the get together?
I wont be able to attend as I am in Dunedin and getting married exactly 1 month and three days after the meeting! ($)
I do however want to help urge people to take a more 'active' role in getting our strike squadron back. I think a serious discussion with a few people who are really clued up on this subject may be a good step.
Thoughts everyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 21, 2009 20:37:45 GMT 12
I have answered this on the forum meeting thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Oct 25, 2009 14:26:42 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Oct 25, 2009 20:07:25 GMT 12
cool, thanks mumbles.
|
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Oct 26, 2009 21:06:49 GMT 12
war birds over wanaka 2020.......... ;D
(an excellent crystal clear vid, full credit to mauld)
|
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Oct 28, 2009 18:26:26 GMT 12
I found this interesting.
ADF stuff.
So why is a full on invasion of Australia so unlikley at present ?
Put simply, there are four basic reasons.
This is specifically the threat that the Australian Army, Navy and Airforce are designed, built and trained to defeat.
It is just about inconcevable that the US would not honour its treaty obligations to assist in our defence
No one in out region has anything approaching the specialised military forces required to launch a full on overseas invasion covering a significant distance
The "Tyrany of Distance" cuts both ways.
To cover the points above in more detail.
This is specifically the threat that the Australian Army, Navy and Airforce are designed, built and trained to defeat.
The defence of continental Australia from invasion is the overriding mission of the Australian Defence Forces. It is explicitly for this mission, defence against a "high intensity" invasion of Australia, that our Army, Navy and Airforce have been designed and built.
(See the the Australian 2000 Defence Whitepaper which states: "The priority task for the ADF is the defence of Australia. Our approach is shaped by three principles. First, we must be able to defend Australia without relying on the combat forces of other countries - self-reliance. Second, Australia needs to be able to control the air and sea approaches to our continent - a maritime strategy. Third, although Australia’s strategic posture is defensive, we would seek to attack hostile forces as far from our shores as possible - proactive operations.")
As a result we happen to have easily the most powerful high tech military in the region. Whether this is a good idea is very much open to question (for the negative, see this ABC "Background Briefing" which starts out being about the Australia's SAS regiment but eventually moves into discussing the whole basis of current defence policy and the downsides of it). For the positive aspects of the current policy, see below:
Insurance
The threat is very unlikely, but it would also be catastrophic for Australia if someone managed it or even attempted it. As such, despite the low probability of such an event, it is considered worthwhile to build our military to defeat it. If we don't maintain such an ability, we run the risk of someone developing the ability to invade faster than we can develop the ability to resist. The problems the British encountered in the run up to World War Two are a clear lesson in the risks of dismissing the possibility of such a threat ever developing.
Interestingly, given the role New Zeland plays in this series, they have gone the other route. 10 years ago they effectively withdrew from ANZUS (see point 2 below) and now New Zealand appears to have decided that one capability they do not need is the ability to fight a high intensity war. They have scrapped thair airforces' combat capabilities, declined to buy more ANZAC class frigates, sold their heavy lift capabilities. Instead they will rely on distance and diplomacy to keep them safe (and that anyone who wants to invade New Zealand has to come through Australa). It is hard to say they are wrong. For a bit more information, see the Jane's Defence Weekly article on the scrapping of the airforce and the speech by Keith Locke (Green's Party Defence Spokesperson) on the more general dismantling of New Zealand's ability to engage in a high intensity war. In 1999 they were intending to build their "high intensity warfare" military capabilities up, now they are scapping them. In a few years they may start to recreate them - good luck if they try - once these capabilities are gone, they are extremely expensive to rebuild.
Deterrence
So long as we have the ability to defend continental Australia against a high intensity conventional threat, then there is no real point in anyone trying to develop the ability to invade us. The cost and risks of such an invasion would simply be too high to be worth investing the huge resources needed to build a military that could pull off such an invasion.
The "Tyrany of Distance" cuts both ways.
The fourth reason an all out invasion is not credible is the shear size and isolation of the Australian mainland.
Australia is a huge country, with its population centers and military installations widely dispersed. Most of the population is on the east coast, but there is also a significant military and civilian presence in the south and the west and a military presence in the north. The technical challenge of simultanious invasion of Sydney, Melbourne, the Northern Territory, Adelade and Perth is comparable to the challenge of taking Madrid, London, Norway, Athens and Moscow simultaniously, they are that far apart.
Apart from that, there are only so many places it can be launched from. Anyone who wants to invade Victoria (or most of NSW including Sydney) basically has to come from New Zealand, anyone who wants to mount a realistic threat of invasion of Australia need to come through Indonesia or Papua New Guinea (as the Japanese did in WWII) and even then you would be invading the Northern Territory or Queensland, which is not where Australia's population is concentrated.
There is simply no-where to invade Perth or Adelade from while Perth is the home of our SAS regiment as well as a major naval base and Adelade is where we build submarines.
The reason you need a nearby base is the limited tactical range of shipping and aircraft. The United States has the ability to launch attacks around the world with planes based in the US, but to do so they require astonishing amounts of support. In the Falklands War of 1982, when the British wanted to bomb Port Stanley they used Vulcan bombers. To get a single Vulcan down to the Falklands (from their base near Africa) they needed no less than eleven tanker aircraft, and if anything went wrong they lost their aircraft as it was just too far from home. Through the entire war, the substantial British Airforce managed to get just 5 bombing raids in using the Vulcan, and one of the aircraft did not make it home due to a busted air-to-air refueling probe (it had to land in Brazil and was out of the war).
The story with shipping is a bit different. The key to mechanised warfare (and any war in Australia will be mechanised due to the low troop densities and large areas to be covered) is logistics. Mechanised forces are very bulky and heavy, worse, when 'combat loaded' onto ships they are very inefficent uses of space. The amount of shipping required to move a mechanised force (even one stored efficently rather than one intended to assault a hostile country) over any significant distance is astonomical - so large it strains even the United States when they try. It took more than 6 months to move the US forces to the gulf in 1991 and 3 months to move a much smaller force to the same region in 2003. These forces were not opposed, lots of equipment was pre-positioned in the gulf already and the transports were not combat loaded. Then, once the forces are deployed, you have to supply them and that is even worse.
It is just not viable to come a long way to launch an invasion - only the US has anything like the ability to do it and even for them it would be very dicey
That means the 'enemy' has to be a neighbour or have taken over a neighbour, then build up a large stockpile of equipment and supplies. Presuming we would not notice is stretching credibility too far.
You can harm Australia from a long distance. But if you want to conquer us the rules are very different.
|
|
). We could also operate 9-5 on Monday to Friday only, 9-3 on Fridays during Super 14 ;D
