New Zealand Defence Force

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
Post Reply
User avatar
swoop
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 03 May 2015, 21:25
Pitcairn Island

Re: New Zealand Defence Force

Post by swoop »

The C-17 would be nice, but is far too expensive in addition to the production line closed down for these a little while ago (iirc).
The only time the -17 was required was deployments to Afgan, where all the kit could be hauled at once.

A-400? Personal choice here is "no". C-130J would be preferable.

Really a smaller fleet of 130J's (3?) coupled with 3-4 CASA-235's would be ideal.
The old Andover fleet worked their arses off in many roles and have been missed by a few folks.
Timmymagic wrote:Mind you our definition of shagged and the RNZAF definition of shagged are completely different.
Quite true. Kiwi's had the Yanks coming downunder attempting to work out how the Iroquois fleet kept flying! There were some very impressed visitors to NZ!

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3243
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: New Zealand Defence Force

Post by Timmymagic »

Really a smaller fleet of 130J's (3?) coupled with 3-4 CASA-235's would be ideal.
The old Andover fleet worked their arses off in many roles and have been missed by a few folks.[/quote]

I can understand the need for small airlifters, like the C-295, it makes a lot of sense in many ways. But realistically C-130 doesn't cut the mustard, it can't fly anywhere from New Zealand with a load aboard. It's either fuel or load. Thats a pretty significant failing.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: New Zealand Defence Force

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote: it can't fly anywhere from New Zealand with a load aboard. It's either fuel or load. Thats a pretty significant failing.
Nevermind, it is only the internet... may be I should stop myself fro being too sarcastic
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: New Zealand Defence Force

Post by Caribbean »

From Wiki: Range: 1,800 nmi (2,071 mi, 3,334 km) at max normal payload (34,000 lb or 15,400 kg)
How Far is it Between Sydney, Australia and Auckland, New Zealand? Distance as the Crow Flies (Miles): 1341.398

Pretty sure Australia counts as "somewhere"
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: New Zealand Defence Force

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Caribbean wrote: Pretty sure Australia counts as "somewhere"
... to invade/ support combat operations in?


I do have to pack myself off to the beach, afterall!
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Smokey
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: 18 Feb 2017, 13:33
Cyprus

Re: New Zealand Defence Force

Post by Smokey »

NZ's overseas deployments.

http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/operations/

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: New Zealand Defence Force

Post by Aethulwulf »

Caribbean wrote:From Wiki: Range: 1,800 nmi (2,071 mi, 3,334 km) at max normal payload (34,000 lb or 15,400 kg)
How Far is it Between Sydney, Australia and Auckland, New Zealand? Distance as the Crow Flies (Miles): 1341.398

Pretty sure Australia counts as "somewhere"
Distance from Christchurch to Scott Base in Antarctica is 3,832 km. New Zealand currently uses C130s for supply flights to Scott Base during the Antarctic summer, working within the limitations that this imposes. I would guess that the ability to resupply Antarctic bases will a key factor in the requirements for their C130 replacements.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2325
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: New Zealand Defence Force

Post by R686 »

swoop wrote: Really a smaller fleet of 130J's (3?) coupled with 3-4 CASA-235's would be ideal.
Dont think that idea is going to make it past the front office, as to the best of my knowledge NZG has stipulated a capability of no less than equivalent current capability. If taken literally that means a minimum capabilty of 5X C130J. In addtion the NZG is exploring secondary role capability

The below is from the RFI's for the FAMC (Future Air Mobility Capability) and the FASC (Future Air Surveillance Capability) have been released via GETS. I don't have access to it below is from another source.

Secondary Roles
In addition to the FASC project, the NZDF is currently executing a Future Air Mobility Capability (FAMC) project, with Full Operating Capability (FOC) planned over the 2020-2023 timeframe. The NZDF is interested in identifying any possible synergies between the two projects including exploring opportunities for the FASC to provide Air Manoeuvre (AM) and Air Transport (AT) capabilities as a secondary role, as detailed below.

Air Manoeuvre (AM) refers to those operations, conducted principally within the land tactical battle-space, aimed at achieving decisive advantage through exploiting the third dimension. The components of (AM) that are of interest to the FASC project are:
 Air Landing Operations: inserting ground forces using fixed-wing aircraft;
 Airborne Operations: inserting initial entry forces by parachute.

The components of Air Transport (AT) that are of interest to the FASC project are:
 Air Logistic Support (ALS): the ability to deploy, distribute or recover personnel, materiel or forces and provide special purpose airlift. ALS missions may be inter theatre or intra-theatre, and can use a traditional ‘hub and spoke’ logistics delivery model as well as providing direct access to smaller and/or austere airfields.
 Aeromedical Evacuation (AE): the movement of patients under qualified medical supervision to, and between, medical treatment facilities by air transportation. The levels of dependency care are defined as:
o High Dependency - Patients who require intensive support during the flight. For example, patients requiring ventilation, monitoring of central venous pressure and cardiac monitoring. They may be unconscious or under general anaesthesia. These will be stretcher patients.
o Medium Dependency - Patients who, although not requiring intensive support, require regular, frequent monitoring and whose condition may deteriorate in flight. For example, patients who require a combination of oxygen administration, one or more intravenous infusions and multiple drains or catheters. These will be stretcher patients.
o Low Dependency - Patients whose condition is not expected to deteriorate during flight but who require nursing care of, for example, simple oxygen therapy, an intravenous infusion or a urinary catheter. This level of dependency will enable patients to be seated in standard passenger seats.
 Air-to-Air Refuelling (AAR): used to extend the range, on-task time, or payload
of receiver-capable aircraft.
To me that's written for a C17 C130J and KC-46 Pegasus, but with the failure to grab a C17 A400 is the next logical alternative that will give a majority of secondary roles

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: New Zealand Defence Force

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

R686 wrote:Dont think that idea is going to make it past the front office
That is so funny... we may be speaking a different language here. Smiles and mini-skirts?
When I was working in the front office (FX) I personally did a bn (USD) deal... err, had to get two board members to sign for it - in the middle of the summer holiday season
... took some bloody time and instead of $ 4 mln only bagged a one and a half
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
swoop
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 03 May 2015, 21:25
Pitcairn Island

Re: New Zealand Defence Force

Post by swoop »

R686 wrote:
swoop wrote: Really a smaller fleet of 130J's (3?) coupled with 3-4 CASA-235's would be ideal.
Dont think that idea is going to make it past the front office, as to the best of my knowledge NZG has stipulated a capability of no less than equivalent current capability. If taken literally that means a minimum capabilty of 5X C130J. In addtion the NZG is exploring secondary role capability
The 235's would be ideal for domestic operations and into the Pacific Islands. Training roles could be based on these which would make multiple users happy.
Getting a 235 to Aus could still be done the Andover way (via NI) if range limited for whatever reason. Herc's will still perform as currently done but with better capability.

I wonder what the Wellytown brains-trust will decide...

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: New Zealand Defence Force

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

swoop wrote: the Wellytown brains-trust
You know, the first one to grant women universal voting rights (everyone thought it was a joke, and did not bother leaving the pub, for the vote) :) .

What is NI, as a place?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Mercator
Member
Posts: 681
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: New Zealand Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

NI= Norfolk Island

Lovely place. Smallish runway – around 6000 feet if I recall, but a doable shortcut between Australia and New Zealand for most smaller aircraft.

Lord Howe Island is an option too, but slightly smaller still, if I recall correctly.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: New Zealand Defence Force

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Thanks. NZ being in the 5 powers, should the minimum range for any transport not be doing Butterworth in two hops?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Mercator
Member
Posts: 681
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: New Zealand Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Nah. That's what the Herc is for. The CN235 (or equivalent) doesn't start its job until it gets to the main operating base (Butterworth, in this case). Just carrying the crew and their duty-free is fine until then.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: New Zealand Defence Force

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

The current Hercs only got a 10-yr life extension (when turning about 50!), but of course the current practice as per below could continue for longer and allow for a smaller tactical transport - which in its turn would help to pay for any P-8s
swoop wrote: NZ would be fine with C-130J's since we borrow C-17's if a whole Squadron of Army needs to be moved.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
swoop
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 03 May 2015, 21:25
Pitcairn Island

Re: New Zealand Defence Force

Post by swoop »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:The current Hercs only got a 10-yr life extension...
Only just long enough for the idiots in Wellytown to make a decision. :twisted:

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2325
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: New Zealand Defence Force

Post by R686 »

And they say NZ needs a like for like capabilty, sure looks to me they have a need for a heavy outsize lift capacity.

http://mrcaviation.blogspot.com.au/2017 ... 8.html?m=1

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2325
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: New Zealand Defence Force

Post by R686 »

missed this from a few days ago, the search is on for Anzac replacements. Still early see which the new government goes.

http://www.janes.com/article/75207/new- ... eplacement

Simon82
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

Re: New Zealand Defence Force

Post by Simon82 »

I wonder if they’re hoping to piggyback on the Australian future frigate programme to save costs as they did with the Anzac Class? In that case it’ll be whichever out of Navantia, Fincantieri or BAE Systems that wins the Australian contract.
Of course if they have cheaper tastes maybe it’ll be an export opportunity for the Type 31e... although I credit the New Zealanders with more intelligence than to go down that route when there are so many capable alternatives in the crowded frigate market place.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: New Zealand Defence Force

Post by Lord Jim »

AN export standard T-31 is probably exactly what they are looking for. They seem to be more inclined to look at hull numbers and have little interest in high end capabilities. They would probably want Evolved Sea Sparrow as against CAMM and the option to fit whatever ASM Australia in using at the time plus reuse the 5" main gun but beyond that not much more. What Australia is after will have a far greater capability and hence cost.

Simon82
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

Re: New Zealand Defence Force

Post by Simon82 »

Well the RNZN are currently adapting the Mk. 41 VLS on their Anzac Class to fire Sea Ceptor (CAMM), so that is one thing that might actually go in favour of a Type 31e buy.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2325
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: New Zealand Defence Force

Post by R686 »

well I Would certainly discount a UK Type 26 build on theoretical price alone, I'm not so sure on type 31 either

PapaGolf
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 13 Jun 2017, 21:43
United Kingdom

Re: New Zealand Defence Force

Post by PapaGolf »

Simon82 wrote:Well the RNZN are currently adapting the Mk. 41 VLS on their Anzac Class to fire Sea Ceptor (CAMM), so that is one thing that might actually go in favour of a Type 31e buy.
I thought RNZN were removing Mk41 to reduce weight, complexity and to free up space.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: New Zealand Defence Force

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

PapaGolf wrote: I thought RNZN were removing Mk41 to reduce weight, complexity and to free up space.
Seem to remember to have read about it on those lines. The interesting question is the CMS that goes along with reducing complexity while still bringing onboard the full CAMM potential (including the option for ER later on)
- i.e. what flavour have they gone for
- there's no doubt that the ozzie choice would have been in support of the local industry but there is no such industry (hence "obligation") in NZ
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
swoop
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 03 May 2015, 21:25
Pitcairn Island

Re: New Zealand Defence Force

Post by swoop »

I recently had a play with the new Lewis Machine and Tool MARS-L rifle.
What a beauty and a huge surprise that MOD actually purchased a decent weapon to get rid of that heinous Steyr AUG.

Genuinely ambidextrous with selector, mag release bolt charging handle mechanism and bolt release. A great trijicon acog coupled with red-dot and even a backup iron sights on the acog. Flared magwell is a nice touch and the trigger is rater nice for a service grade unit (I liked it).
Comfortable, nicely balanced and decent size overall. Everything you want is built in as standard. Great stuff!

"Not so good points". A 3-prong flash eliminator? ???? Really?
That shit was binned in Vietnam due to it catching on foliage when bush-bashing. The standard birdcage would have been fine.
Sadly not in 7.62mm. Oh well...

I doubt there will be the extensive recall / modification process that the Aug suffered from, thankfully!

Post Reply