In this edition: Ross Ewing Feeds Back To Mike Campbell’s Feedback Re Axing The Skyhawks - Mike Campbell’s Comments
Timely But Ill-informed - Missiles on the RNZAF's Orions
Ross Ewing Feeds Back To Mike Campbell’s Feedback Re Axing The Skyhawks
Mike Campbell’s feedback shows that he is obviously anti-military, or is mis-informed as to how the rank structure
works in practice. My 20 years in the RNZAF showed that it worked very well.
Regarding the Sidewinder missile, even a basic knowledge of its philosophy reveals it is a very defensive (rpt)
defensive aid, as are chaff and flares. They are to shoot back with if attacked during an offensive mission; they are
not (rpt) not classed as offensive weapons. The Aim-9L version Sidewinder made the A4 a very ferocious adversary.
The question is posed: “Why cannot the air force exist without a strike wing anyway?” The point here is that without any
“force,” an air force no longer constitutes a “force” to be reckoned with. Regarding “the remaining aircraft” (and our
army and navy), the fact is we now have to ask others to protect them…
The military principle of “deterrent” boils down to one of the principles of war: Without a deterrent, people are going
to walk all over you, without hesitation. Why shouldn't they? But Mr Campbell doesn’t seem to know anything about that
aspect, as well…?
For “foeman,” (in the poem), in this day and age, I’d use the term “un-known-person”. If Mr Campbell, or others, can
predict where the next threat to New Zealand’s security or well being is going to come from then we’d all like to hear
about that.
Mr Campbell uses the terms “largely useless” and “defence idealists.” I would save “largely useless” to describe
throwing away the concept of a balanced defence force, and, as an ex-A4 pilot and one who saw combat flying in Vietnam,
I am in favour of the title “defence idealists” any day, to that of naïve pacifists.
If Mr Campbell wants to comment more effectively on defence matters, might I suggest more writing practise and putting
the issues more plainly on the table, rather chips on the shoulder coming through, or trying to shoot the messenger.
Thank you for your attempt. It is good to have a widened discussion, but I think we all have to work on our writing and
commenting ability and knowledge before we put pen to paper.
Ross Ewing
*******
Mike Campbell’s Comments Timely But Ill-informed
Dear Sir,
The comments and observations by Mike Campbell on the demise of the Skyhawks are timely but highlight a fundemental
misunderstanding of where many of us were coming from in our desire to see the strikewing retained.
All appear to have overlooked the fact that it was not the demise of the Skyhawks themselves, it was the disbanding of
the Strikewing that is the cause of most concern.
Equipping 6 Orions (or helicopters as previously suggested by the Prime Minister) with missiles is no substitute for a
well managed, trained and equipped strikewing, even if only one or two squadrons.
Effective Army training relies on its ability to be able to communicate with, appreciate and anticipate the rapid
deployment of such aircraft when in the field.
Effective Naval training relies on its ability to conduct manoeuvres with high speed aircraft so as to be able to
effectively detect and counteract any threat from those aircraft.
This all takes a combined multi-tier approach to an effective military machine.
How are the Army and Navy now to obtain this type of training. It can not be done here. So, there will be an ongoing
requirement to try and deploy our ships and soldiers overseas in order to conduct such activities in as realistic
situations as possible.
Alternatively, the Government will have to find other nations willing to send their ships and aircraft here to conduct
joint exercises so that our forces can keep up with the play
Removing New Zealand's strikewing on the basis of ideological nonsense that does not have the support of the people is
just too extreme in its stupidity.
Mirek Marcanik
*******
Missiles on the RNZAF's Orions
Dear Sir, According to Defence Minister Mark Burton, the Government is to investigating the feasibility of equipping our
Airforce Orions with missiles.
This is one of the "crucial commitments" this Government has made to modernising and re-equipping the RNZAF.
Sounds plausible.
However, it will be interesting to see just how much this investigation will cost the taxpayer when a casual search of
the Web shows the following types of missile are already available for fitting to a P-3C Orion (a variant of the RNZAF's
P-3K's):
HARPOON AGM-84D
This is an all-weather, over-the-horizon anti-ship missile with a range in excess of 111km and costs US$720,000
(NZ$1,726,618) each.
SLAMER
A day/night adverse weather over-the-horizon precision strike missile with a range in excess of 278km and costs
US$500,000 (NZ$1,199,000 each.
MAVERICK AGM-65
An air-to-surface tactical missile designed for close air support, interdiction and defence suppression. Effective
against a wide range of tactical targets including armour, air defences, ships, ground transportation and fuel storage
facilities. It has a range in excess of 27km and a cost of US$180,000 (NZ$431,655) each.
While not exhaustive, these are basic options available to this type of aircraft.
Now, the P-3C Orion has the capability to carry some 9,100kgs of ordnance.
Assuming our P-3K's are capable of similar loading (including air-surface torpedoes are also being carried) then they
would probably carry 4 missiles each.
This would make a total all-up cost of between NZ$1.727M and NZ$6.906M each aircraft (excluding spares and airframe
alterations).
With 6 Orions in the RNZAF that equates to a minimum of between NZ$10.360M and NZ$41.439M depending on the type
employed.
A conservative estimate for all-up costs including spares and airframe modifications would come out at between NZ$20M
and NZ$60M.
There you are Mr Burton. 5 minutes reading, 3 minutes calculation and you have an order of figure. No long and involved
investigation needed. Just ask the Americans if you dare.
The question then becomes, "How are these aircraft going to be used and in what circumstances".
Except for submarine hunting, they are far too slow and ill armoured to be of significant use in almost any other
theatre where they are not supported by more capable aircraft.
As for submarine hunting, we have it on record what the Government thinks of that.
So what is the point of going through the exercise and what, pray, is the crucial role to be.
Mirek Marcanik