Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comparison with RNZAF

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jetjock
    replied
    The 120km range of the Aster 30 missile employed by the T45 makes any comparison with line of sight capabilities of the 76mm OTO in the AAA role a rather poor one.

    Even then the defensive bubble over London consisted of first and foremost Typhoons in Northolt, a T45 in the estuary, with Rapier and Starstreak installations in the urban area. The T45 was merely a layer in the overall system most probably due to its highly effective Sampson radar.

    It is absolutely insane to compare the use of a T45, one of the most potent anti-air surface combatants on the planet, with a potential upgrade of the main gun on any Irish vessel. Insane.

    Fast Air a one trick pony? Any pony that can fly Air Intercept/Close Air Support/Tactical Recon/Anti Ship is one I'd want in my stable.

    Naval Vessels have their role. Fast Air has its role. They are complimentary, not directly interchangeable. To try and have one do the other's job is to try and reinvent the wheel. Then you'd lose.

    P60s with with Air Search radar lighting up Bears off the west coast. That would give Vladimir as much of a laugh as the results of the aforementioned enquiry.

    Leave a comment:


  • danno
    replied
    The Brits provided AD for the Olympics with a T45 without having to put it in the carpark at the stadium!. As things stand the NS units IMHO are the most suitable platforms for AD be it MR or Hail Mary /sanshiki types. When not lighting up intruding Bears etc the units are doing regular taskings earning their salt whereas fast air units are one trick ponies in comparison. Speaking of Bears any bets on a few visits arising from the publication of the Litiveinhenko killing inquiry report today.

    Leave a comment:


  • Silver
    replied
    Regarding air defence/jets: If leasing Gripens is not an option, the next best option for the Air Corps (imho) would be 6 of these -

    In effect, 'mini' F-16's
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle

    Leave a comment:


  • Jetjock
    replied
    Originally posted by danno View Post
    With a proper fire control radar/warheads the 76's on the NS unitspossibly represent the most capable/economic air defence system here.
    Until you try parking a P60 in the Phoenix Park to cover an EU summit. Bit of an economic nightmare that...

    All joking aside, ship-borne anti-aircraft artillery systems really are a last line of self defence item used against missile or other targets that have evaded systems that should have dealt with them further out. They are not primary air defence weapons. They are a backs to the wall/up Shit Creek/close your eyes and cross your fingers damage limitation weapons. Even with radar/programmable fragmentable ammo. It's throwing lead at the problem as a last resort. They are certainly not area denial weapons like any capable AA system should be.

    Forgetting their use as a national Air Defence asset, which they could never be and intead looking at their potential use for self defence within the NS itself, It would be more cost-effective to continue with the current EO FCS for the gun and fit ships with low cost navalised MANPADS missile systems like Mistral RC. And a hell of a lot more capable.

    Leave a comment:


  • danno
    replied
    Originally posted by Silver View Post
    And, as is also currently the case with the RNZAF, the Air Corps has no air defence (jet) capability.
    With a proper fire control radar/warheads the 76's on the NS unitspossibly represent the most capable/economic air defence system here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Silver
    replied
    And, as is also currently the case with the RNZAF, the Air Corps has no air defence (jet) capability.

    Leave a comment:


  • GoneToTheCanner
    replied
    No medium lift heli, no cargo lift of any kind, Cessnas essentially worn out and obsolete (give them away, please....Flying clubs would use them), Casa replacement needs thinking about now....no potential for overseas unless the Don cadges a lift on someone else's mission.....impending civilianisation?

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Compared with the AC:

    6 x AW139
    2 x EC135
    2 x CN235 MPA (when due for replacement possibly by larger more flexible aircraft)
    5 x Cessna FR172 (to be replaced by 3 larger ISTAR equipped aircraft)
    1 x L45
    7 x PC9

    Plus the 3 GASU aircraft

    Leave a comment:


  • Tempest
    replied
    http://web.archive.org/web/200803091...a/not_pc_9.pdf

    Texan II is actually a different aircraft to the PC9, a highly optimised development of the basic PC9 design. It's potential as a weapons platform is not gone into in the above article, but if you do a bit of searching you'll find that in that regard too it's quite far ahead of the Irish PC9 (which could be more potent if the investment was made available).

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    Is there much difference between the Texan II and the PC9?
    The RNZAF lost all its fast jet pilots to the RAAF (Who needed them badly). It isn't easy to coax that experience home.

    Leave a comment:


  • Silver
    replied
    Would it be fair to say that with the arrival of Beechcraft T-6C Texan II's the RNZAF is moving (back) towards a fast jet/air defence posture?
    (e.g. pilots trained on the Texan II could progress to joint RAAF/RNZAF fast jet operations)

    Leave a comment:


  • expat01
    replied
    NZ arguably had a more benign environment than Ireland, given the geography. Still. Even fit them things change. Having binned their fast air and then cancelled the f16 order, they have now lost the institutional skills... All their fighter jocks got jobs in other air forces. The advent of a Chinese carrier carrier capacity will likely cause a rethink of needs, but now is added the problem of rebuilding a lost skill set.
    Last edited by expat01; 10 November 2015, 07:46.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    A lot of that is getting old; King Airs (unless they are recent-build), P-3s, Hercs, 757s, A109s,etc,etc.....lots of the defence budget going on maintenance....overdependence on American kit...
    T-6 delivered 2014-15
    BKA leased (second hand) since 2012
    P3 delivered 1966 (1 in 1985) last upgraded in 80s
    C130 delivered 1965-69 (upgraded in 2005)
    757 delivered 2003 (upgraded 2008)

    A109 delivered 2011
    Seasprite delivered 2015
    NH90 delivered 2012-14

    Leave a comment:


  • ropebag
    replied
    Originally posted by danno View Post
    Is it fair to say that until lately with the advent of Russian & Chinese carriers that NZ was largely out of range of potential hostile airfleets.
    pretty much - they looked at their defence posture and decided that the only threat was air policing, and that the likelyhood of a problem was dwarfed by the costs of defending against that problem, so made the decision to bin their already aging FJ fleet - not, you'll note, that an A-4 is the fastest, most QRA type FJ you could want...

    the problem they've now got is that their corner of the world has got more exciting, but that there are political issues with joining their neighbours FJ fleet/infrastructure while the costs of going it alone is astronomical. the comparison is not unreasonable...

    Leave a comment:


  • danno
    replied
    Originally posted by Flamingo View Post
    I'm no expert, but is there no air-defence capability in there? Just in light of the discussion on these pages about a fighter requirement (or not) in Ireland.
    Is it fair to say that until lately with the advent of Russian & Chinese carriers that NZ was largely out of range of potential hostile airfleets.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X