My own view is that the government would like to join AUKUS, if the can get away with it with the least political damage. The reason being that they can then be involved in a defence structure without having to actually spend any money on our armed forces, which are hopelessly underfunded. They can say that they are pro defence without doing anything about our own defence.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Given the recent history of NZ and Canada defence investment I doubt either country would be particularly welcomed. Both countries are lucky to remain in the 5eye club.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
More signals that change is coming. Foreign Minister Winston Peters delivers an address to the NZ Institute of International Affairs, covering foreign policy, security and AUKUS P2 (and gives a robust smack down to the agenda driven uninformed critics of AUKUS P2).
Whist defence is not the Foreign Minister's primary domain he did make an "interesting" comment that:
"New Zealand’s long history of parsimony when it comes to defence cannot hold if we wish to continue garnering respect from, and influence on, others".
I won't bother linking to MSM articles on his speech only because they cannot fully emphasise the points and detail he covered. So for those that are interested here is his speech.
www.beehive.govt.nz
Whist defence is not the Foreign Minister's primary domain he did make an "interesting" comment that:
"New Zealand’s long history of parsimony when it comes to defence cannot hold if we wish to continue garnering respect from, and influence on, others".
I won't bother linking to MSM articles on his speech only because they cannot fully emphasise the points and detail he covered. So for those that are interested here is his speech.
Speech to New Zealand Institute of International Affairs, Parliament – Annual Lecture: Challenges and Opportunities
Good evening –
Last edited:
'Not good enough': Defence Force staff left stranded in Antarctica for a month Stuff
Latest negative news on the NZDF.
Sadely we all know RTNZ dates and times are a moving feast from all overseas missions, this is not new , noting the location and the means of transport its no surprise. My only thought is if NZ wants to take activities on the ice seriously , we need to aquire a platform that can conduct a return trip on one tank , C2 would be good , dreaming i know.
Latest negative news on the NZDF.
Sadely we all know RTNZ dates and times are a moving feast from all overseas missions, this is not new , noting the location and the means of transport its no surprise. My only thought is if NZ wants to take activities on the ice seriously , we need to aquire a platform that can conduct a return trip on one tank , C2 would be good , dreaming i know.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
KC-46 may also be a worthy contender? (It has been suggested here before by a couple of the mods, with Antarctic ops in mind).
(Acquire a long range true multi-role transport/tanker and enabler and lookee-here it also does VIP .... oops we weren't thinking of ourselves say the pollies, honest guv)!
I agree, dream option is C2 , the KC46 would be a great 757 replacement , the variety of fit outs, a cargo door plus being a comms link/node and then a tanker. Air NZ have a wealth of experience too.
The KC30 is just to big for little old NZ
Attachments
Last edited:
Not really sure range is a game changer especially if it is just to suit Antarctica. Either way a full tankload still does not change the weather so no point flying all the way down there just to turn around vs half way. It would be different I guess if we didn't have people, technology and infrastructure already down there to make the D on "weather" or not to land beforehand. If it was such an issue the US would only use C-17, but even they use C-130 and they still have the same issues, or should I say consideration.
A KC46 would surely have the same cut off date as the 757, ie earlier, and I doubt it's range related.
I also think whoever this person who was in "contact" is being alittle precious and should be more than well aware before they left of possible delays on any deployment, but Antarctica especially as it is very much weather dependant. Along with the supposed information updates which I find again alittle off as what did he expect, a direct line to the pilots?
You can actually follow the comings and goings of these particular aircraft on the Canterbury planespotters page and they were almost routinely turning back, C-17s included, so delays in flights are actually not as uncommon as people seem to think and they do not just become "reliable" for aero-medical events and breakdown every other time, although breakdowns are still a factor of life. Infact that C-17 mentioned in the article WAS the broken down aircraft and they had to wait for a part which took a few days and the RNZAF C130 went in the meantime (for the aero) as the US hercs had already left.
Point is I just don't think we need to base our military aircraft on essentially a civilian mission as IMO they are there to support, which is nice to have but this is why we have a joint support operation with the US and share resources not essentially duplicate them.
Totally agree with this point, However the aircraft mentioned (C2-KC 46) would definitely add to our ability to position and support army operations in our area and would boost our logistical abilities overall.
As a side note has anyone seen the range payload of our new C130Js as fitted with under wing tanks? As it appears that we may be the first to have them.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
This article link claims an extra 4 hours of flying but no load specs are mentioned so range can only be guessed at but 1,000-1200 miles minimum seems reasonable.
USAF Demos Max Endurance Flight of Super Hercules With External Fuel Tanks
The US Air Force has completed a max endurance flight test of a C-130J military transport aircraft equipped with external fuel tanks.
www.thedefensepost.com
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
RAAF also have (or certainly have been trialing) external fuel tanks, increasing the fuel capacity from 19t to 27t according to AF-T.
www.airforce-technology.com
RAAF’s C-130J Hercules to conduct flight tests using external fuel tanks
The RAAF is set to carry out trials of the external fuel tanks on two of its military C-130J Hercules military transport aircraft over the next one year.
If these are the same tanks as fitted to the H I remember installing them after a servicing at base Auckland in the late 1960's and they were marked as a bit over 1300 US gallons each. If my memory is any good
It was a hell of a job due to the extreme torque settings for the attachment bolts. The new sockets supplied di not hack it and split, we reverted to gnarly old King Dicks to complete the job, they did not break.
It was a hell of a job due to the extreme torque settings for the attachment bolts. The new sockets supplied di not hack it and split, we reverted to gnarly old King Dicks to complete the job, they did not break.
Last edited:
Hawkeye69
Member
I see our PM on Sky News Australia talking about this and that and he brought up how NZDF will now be working for commonality of platforms with Australia, so one wonders when the MH-60R Seahawk will get the green light. I see a big push for the Wildcat but it goes against the commonality with Australia and it’s got the European factor and we have had great success with proven US products, the Texan, P-8A and C-130J as examples and I am sure that will be well considered even if the cost makes a few faint feeling.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Finance Minister interviewed by the Australian Associated Press.
Finance Minister also interviewed by Newstalk ZB today.
Future investments and real improvements to be articulated by the Defence Capability Review when it is released in June.
The extent of which will be dependent on future defence expenditure settings ...
Finance Minister also interviewed by Newstalk ZB today.
So in summary small steps forward at this point in time when the Budget is released at the end of the month.
Future investments and real improvements to be articulated by the Defence Capability Review when it is released in June.
The extent of which will be dependent on future defence expenditure settings ...
Gracie1234
Well-Known Member
Interesting day with $500 million announced for defence to increase pay and replace the transport fleet.
Minister Collins said it would be nice to get defence funding to 2% of GDP when asked. Of note she did not say that was too much or that we would not get there. Different that the previous Minister.
Labour did not make an issue of the additional funding either!
Confirmation that the defence capability plan will be at Cabinet next month, I guess once they agree on it, it will be released to the public. Timeframe covers from now until 2040. I would expect to see some pretty transformative things as this is the era of the largest changes in warfare since the aircraft.
Minister Collins said it would be nice to get defence funding to 2% of GDP when asked. Of note she did not say that was too much or that we would not get there. Different that the previous Minister.
Labour did not make an issue of the additional funding either!
Confirmation that the defence capability plan will be at Cabinet next month, I guess once they agree on it, it will be released to the public. Timeframe covers from now until 2040. I would expect to see some pretty transformative things as this is the era of the largest changes in warfare since the aircraft.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
She looks awkward on the one news video talking to soldiers. makes you miss Mark.
much of the coverage has been about replacing the Unimogs and pinzgauer fleets.
Dumb question: can someone please explain why we are still running these vehicles as I thought the 200 or so MHOVs were unimog replacements at least.
Why are we running two concurrent fleets of military trucks? (Mogs & MHOVs)
NZDF and media coverage of local and pacific HADR ops shows unimogs traversing floodwateres etc.
I appreciate their extra height and fording capability over the MHOVs.
Apologies if this has allready been explained.
What has been reported as the cloud based service for maritime domain awareness sounds promising.
much of the coverage has been about replacing the Unimogs and pinzgauer fleets.
Dumb question: can someone please explain why we are still running these vehicles as I thought the 200 or so MHOVs were unimog replacements at least.
Why are we running two concurrent fleets of military trucks? (Mogs & MHOVs)
NZDF and media coverage of local and pacific HADR ops shows unimogs traversing floodwateres etc.
I appreciate their extra height and fording capability over the MHOVs.
Apologies if this has allready been explained.
What has been reported as the cloud based service for maritime domain awareness sounds promising.
The MHOVs replaced the operational side of the truck fleet and the remaining garrison portion of the fleet is slowly (very slowly at that) being replaced now including the remaining unimog, 2228 and specialist fleets. DF is finally realised trying to have a larger 1/2 type fleet to cover all roles dosent actually work and actually 3/4/5 more tailored fleets better fits the increased roles more suitably and also more cost effectively.
The ability to then drag out the overall fleet replacement in stages and over years is also a bonus in terms of overall cost but the remaining mogs are still in dire need of replacement as they were deemed to be 20 years ago so nothing has changed in that regard. It has actually taken so long now the "new" trucks are a decade old already. The wheel is definately turning very slowly on this project that's for sure!
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
You should have seen her talking to Sky News then!
"Crusher Collins" means business: Defence Minister unveils new New Zealand flag.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I see the Govt press release states:
Nice to see but do you have a view on garrison vehicles needing integrated/interoperable comms etc (or do you think they may also be deployed ... into threat scenarios rather than HADR as the Press release implies? After all as you note the existing deployable MHOV's are now around a decade old already, so perhaps utilising the soon-to-be obtained replacements gives Defence some flexibility when it comes to operational deployments etc)?
In terms of the trucks (all vehicles actually) it all comes down to the threat level for any particular mission as to what is then employed/deployed. Afghanistan would have different operational requirements to say the Solomons therefore the vehicles deployed can be adjusted accordingly. The operational fleet can be/is uparmoured due to risk, the garrison fleet not so much as there is generally no requirement and are literally peacetime logistics. The garrison fleet does not generally have comms at all bar the spec vehicles as a requirement and even then are not military grade rather civilian ie non crypto shorter range off the shelf commercial and are more a safety feature than security if anything. Military radios have different power, security and usage considerations vs the vastly cheaper and simple civilian radios that are literally just bolted in where it fits.
It all comes down to cost as there is no point having high spec military grade equipment/vehicles to do low end basic support and vice versa although they have obvious crossovers (transports transport) to certain degrees. Quantity vs quality is a balancing act in any organisation, ours even more so with ever decreasing fleets and funding.
Just wish they would get on with it as the mogs and 22s especially are not getting any younger, more reliable or less costly to maintain.