Corvettes for Australian Navy?

[Todjaeger]

http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19209656-5002142,00.html

That artical says the boat is much longer 127metres, is that a lengthened version for the US navy? The pictures look the same.

That would be the 50% lengthened version right there.. already under construction. That'd be a better option as the greater length can give further range allowing it to be alot more missions that the Anzacs do.

Okay, need to clear this up. The vessel the article mentioned at the top wasn't the Austal Multi-role Corvette, but the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) for the US Navy. For more info and graphics check out http://www.austal.com/go/product-information/defence-products/littoral-combat-ship-(lcs)

The pictures are indeed from the corvette brochure. It basically looks like someone at the paper goofed and inserted the wrong pictures. Just to keep this in perspective, the Anzac frigate is 118m, and corvettes are small warships from 60-100m in length, with the LCS being 127m.

 

[alexsa]

The Austal website shows both the LCS (127m LOA) and the 'new' multipupose corvette which is 72m LOA and 250 tonnes. Noting the pay load capcity of this vessl will be a function of the displacement there is not much mass required to max it out by weight. Lets fact the payload capacity of LCS at 127m is only about 180 tonnes on 11000 m2. The corvette has a mission capcity of just 490 odd m2.

In addition the stated range is based on economic cruising. Those four water jets and prime movers are designed for high speed operations and will absoultly chew the fuel at any speed above 20 to 25 knots, range will suffer accordingly as will operating costs. Medium speed engines on shafts will provide a better range for a fixed fuel amount.

Finally there is cost. The RNZN OPV cost in the order of 20 to 40 million depending on who you talk to. Aluimium ships by the nature of the materails are more expensive compared to mild steel. Mild steel also stands up to repeated stress much better and can produce a much more rugged hull (noting that poor design can stuff up most htings). So you will pay more for the hull, more to run it and maintain it (for example try dropping mercury on aluminium and see what happens, it is very prone to such problems). Remeber the LCS is going to cost about 300 million USD for a ship that can carry two helos (good capability), Sea RAM (point defence only) and a 57mm gun and some 50 cals before the mission packages are placed on. (these cost extra). On the same basis the multipuspose corvette will be much more expensive the the RNZN OPV even if you fitted a 57mm gun (I don't htink it is necessary) while the OPV provide a vessel with much better seakeeping.

Finally that is before we start adding another

Personally i think its an excellent idea however if it was lengthened by 50% to be able to land one helicopter and store a helicopter it would be MUCH better.

*edit* actually it looks like it does have room for helicopter storage, pretty awesome straight off the bat

Put a six missile SLAMRAAM setup, a couple mobile radar and bolt them to the deck with the control station inside the bridge of the boat. You now have awesome self defence. Replace the 25mm cannon with a much larger gun and you now have excellent sea and air defence.

I suspect that would cost as much if not more than ANZAC noting you are proposing more systems that are on a stock standard LCS. LCS is great for the as part of a layer strucuture. it does not offer the same benifits to a smaller force like the RAN.

We don't need to waste money of a half arsed frigate when we should spend that on the major fleet units we have. I personally wouel vote for eh ASMD and second Mk 41 launcher ont he ANZAC before considereing 57mm guns on OPVs.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I suspect that would cost as much if not more than ANZAC noting you are proposing more systems that are on a stock standard LCS. LCS is great for the as part of a layer strucuture. it does not offer the same benifits to a smaller force like the RAN.

We don't need to waste money of a half arsed frigate when we should spend that on the major fleet units we have. I personally wouel vote for eh ASMD and second Mk 41 launcher ont he ANZAC before considereing 57mm guns on OPVs.

Hear, hear. I fail to see the benefit of a smaller vessel with less sea-keeping and less combat capability for RAN, other than patrol boats. We have brand new Armidales in service now and whilst I would personally prefer a greater combat capability on these, I would not advocate a new class of vessel to be added to RAN. We are a small navy and operating 5 types of major surface combatants is wasteful, IMHO. In my view the FFG's should be payed off as soon as we can build AWD's to replace them. With RAN to operate a force of ANZAC's, AWD"s and Armidales (plus Minehunters, LHD's and support ships).

I think IF we need greater numbers of surface combatants it should go on AWD's and ACPB's, given that we can't get anymore ANZAC's.

Incremental upgrades could be performed on Armidales if necessary to give them greater firepower (Bushmaster III 35/40/50mm canons, Mistral or Spike-ER integrated with canon, plus "mini-typhoon" fitted to 0.50cal HMG's) and if we need greater than 35-50mm canons and "light" surface to surface or surface to air missiles, the ANZAC or AWD are better suited to this type of role as I think you're starting to get into a relatively serious naval warfighting scenario.

The only area for improvement I can really see for Armidales is a lack of aviation capability. UAV's may offer some ability to remedy this situation in future years, but otherwise I think RAN is more than happy with them...

 

[Todjaeger]

My general take on adding a corvette class to the RAN would be more along the lines of a vessel that would be used in place of (or replacing) the Armidale. As I understand it, the Armidale is a fine vessel, better than the Fremantle it is replacing. My chief objection to it is that I don't believe it has the flexibility to carry out missions other than EEZ patrol duties, SAR, or very low-level conflict engagements, or operate in high sea states. If my perception is incorrect, please, by all means correct me.

Regarding possible upgrades to the Armidale and also the Huon MHC, here are a few ideas that I have been mulling over. I don't have the technical information of background to know if these are possibilities but here goes.

Replacement of the 25mm Bushmaster with a larger caliber gun, a 30mm or larger, and also having the same gun used on the MHC. I would prefer the largest caliber the hull can take without a negative impact on sea operations. The gun must be dual-use, with at least limited AA capabilities.

Addition of pods carrying Penguin ASM. I would prefer a pod designed to quickly bolt on or off the vessel, so that it would only be carried when needed, and be able to make use of electronics already carried on board.

In a similar vein, pods for SAM. Although two alternatives exist for SAM coverage. A different mounting could be selected for the gun, MSI makes mounting that allow addition of SAM launchers to be attached to the gun mount. Or Manpads could be done. I believe that some German and Swedish ships respectively carry Stinger and RBS-70 Manpads aboard, though it would be better if the SAM could use the ship radar to help target queueing.

If upgrades like this were done (again, if possible, not a ship designer or engineer) the I believe it would give additional "teeth" if it became needed.

 

[alexsa]

My general take on adding a corvette class to the RAN would be more along the lines of a vessel that would be used in place of (or replacing) the Armidale. As I understand it, the Armidale is a fine vessel, better than the Fremantle it is replacing. My chief objection to it is that I don't believe it has the flexibility to carry out missions other than EEZ patrol duties, SAR, or very low-level conflict engagements, or operate in high sea states. If my perception is incorrect, please, by all means correct me.

Regarding possible upgrades to the Armidale and also the Huon MHC, here are a few ideas that I have been mulling over. I don't have the technical information of background to know if these are possibilities but here goes.

Replacement of the 25mm Bushmaster with a larger caliber gun, a 30mm or larger, and also having the same gun used on the MHC. I would prefer the largest caliber the hull can take without a negative impact on sea operations. The gun must be dual-use, with at least limited AA capabilities.

Addition of pods carrying Penguin ASM. I would prefer a pod designed to quickly bolt on or off the vessel, so that it would only be carried when needed, and be able to make use of electronics already carried on board.

In a similar vein, pods for SAM. Although two alternatives exist for SAM coverage. A different mounting could be selected for the gun, MSI makes mounting that allow addition of SAM launchers to be attached to the gun mount. Or Manpads could be done. I believe that some German and Swedish ships respectively carry Stinger and RBS-70 Manpads aboard, though it would be better if the SAM could use the ship radar to help target queueing.

If upgrades like this were done (again, if possible, not a ship designer or engineer) the I believe it would give additional "teeth" if it became needed.

Sorry you have completely lost me, particualry in regard to the Huon class mine hunter. A few things to note:

1. Most SSMs are not simply "bolt on" and even Penguin takes a reasonable amount of space and imposae a weight penalty, to the point it would impact upon the primary role of the platform in both these cases. Such a conversion would result in the removal of mine hunting equipment on the Huon and boats on the Armidale .... the items of equipement that are necessary for their intended roles.

2. SAM missiles, even man pads take space as well. "if" it was considred necesary mistral can be fitted to the typhoon 25mm mount to provide a limited self defence option.

3. These weapons require a targetting system which is more cost and more weight noting neither is intended to be a Fast Attack Craft. The vision of a Huon 'racing in' (at a thunderous 14 knots) to attack an enermy with penguin missile is just a bit tragic.

4. If anything; replacing the Huon 30mm unit with the 25mm typhoon makes more sens due to economise of scale.

The Huon class are mine hunters and the Armidale are patrol boats. Neither have been designed to carry such weapons (possibly with the exception of the typhoon/mistral combination) so I am at a complete loss as to why money should be spent trying to turn them into unsatisfactory FAC (well slow attach craft inthe case of the Huon).

 

[Sea Toby]

Unlike Baltic Sea nations, Australia has a large EEZ to patrol. Lets compare the range of the comparable sized ships with the Swedish and Australian navies. All of the Swedish fast attack craft loaded for bear have a range of 2,000 miles at 12 knots. The Swedish coastline isn't that large is it? The Australian Armidales, slow and underarmed in comparison, have a range of 3000 nautical miles at 12 knots. All of the other larger warships in the Australian navy have over 4000 nautical miles at 12 knots.

Therefore, it is safe to say the WEIGHT of loaded for bear weapons systems on fast patrol boats have to be compensated for with the WEIGHT of less fuel, therefore receiving much less range.

We know Sweden isn't so concerned about range. Why are their boats loaded for bear? Because their neighboring nations have boats loaded for bear.

We know Australia is concerned about range. Why are their boats not loaded for bear? Because their boats were designed for patrol, Australia has larger warships loaded for bear to wage war with its neighboring nations. Sweden don't.

Its really that simple!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Unlike Baltic Sea nations, Australia has a large EEZ to patrol.

......

Its really that simple!

Australia has responsibility to police and manage territories which comprise 1/9th of the worlds major waters and oceans.

for reasons of depth and scale, the Huons (as an example) are totally unsuitable anyway to undertake a MPV role - especially a blue water role.

 

[Sea Toby]

And with fishery stocks depleted in much of the world, where strict quotas have been implemented, many illegal fishing vessels will stray into your fisheries and deplete them unless they are guarded.

 

[scraw]

And with fishery stocks depleted in much of the world, where strict quotas have been implemented, many illegal fishing vessels will stray into your fisheries and deplete them unless they are guarded.

They already do, not that long ago there were seven boats caught in one trip, mostly junky looking Indonesian things.

Biggest ship that's been caught was 75 metres IIRC.

 

[icelord]

Australia has responsibility to police and manage territories which comprise 1/9th of the worlds major waters and oceans.

for reasons of depth and scale, the Huons (as an example) are totally unsuitable anyway to undertake a MPV role - especially a blue water role.

Who came up with the "bright" idea of the huon for a patrol boat, hey next we'll replace the Anzac with the Manly ferry. Your talking about a boat that leaves port, deploys a couple of MCDs, then goes home. basically a fishin boat with a kick arse sonar. i'm gunna agree with gf0012, its unsuitable for MPV, and it doesn't need a big arse gun on it. You could give the capt. a Glock and he'd use it more then a 25mm.

I stand by a corvette, it can go further then a fremantle, but don't write off the Fremantle in any case. It can stand pursuit in seastate 4, and is outstanding in its recent operations, including the capture of 7 illegal fishing boats in one day, by 2 femantles.

We know Sweden isn't so concerned about range. Why are their boats loaded for bear? Because their neighboring nations have boats loaded for bear.

We know Australia is concerned about range. Why are their boats not loaded for bear? Because their boats were designed for patrol, Australia has larger warships loaded for bear to wage war with its neighboring nations. Sweden don't.
Its really that simple!

It truely is that simple. the greatest threat to a patrol boat is a man with a stick. They attack the fremantle with a couple of poles, why would a 25mm or a missile be needed. The fremantle is to support Customs and Quarantine more then a navy attack vessel.

 

[Todjaeger]

Okay, sorry for the confusion. Apparently what I've been thinking didn't come across too well, sorry about that.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said "bolted on" What I had in mind was something more akin to weapon containers like the Danish SF 300 concept, which was ADI's competing entry for a patrol boat. With the SF 300, standardized containers can be switched out within 48 hours, allowing ships to be re-tasked quickly without extensive refitting.

For the Armidale, it's primary mission is EEZ & Customs enforcement, and is based on the smaller Bay class Customs vessel also by Austal. For EEZ & Customs patrols, it's present armament is quite sufficient. What I have been wondering is if it would be possible and effective to develop add-ons to give the Armidale greater firepower. These add-ons would be something that could be installed quickly and would only be carried if there was an expectation of trouble. The rest of the time, the vessel would just have the normal patroling armament.

As for the Huon MHC, I believe that in addition to mine clearance drills, the RAN is also using them for oceanographic surveying. This is being done to supplement the dedicated surveying vessels the RAN is currently using, since so much of the waters around Australia remain uncharted. I also remember reading somewhere, (and if I can find the source I'll post it) that some of the Huons will be used to carry out patrols. Presumably this is EEZ/Customs patrols where additional hulls are useful and speed is not required.

Right now as I see it, Australia has a great deal of coastline & home waters to cover, but only 18 vessels currently capable of engaging ships, and this is divided into 6 submarines and 12 frigates. I can see situations where it would be useful to be able to deploy additional vessels capable of engaging ships. Right now, the Armidale and Huon (and the decomissioning Fremantles) are unable in my opinion, to offer any threat to a vessel armed with larger weapons. The opposing vessel could potentially cripple or sink a patrol boat or minehunter before the it would be able to even return fire.

On the other hand, the situation I have been thinking about could also be very improbable. Or the effects of mounting additional weapons even for short periods of time could be enough to make it not worthwhile.

I hope this makes it clear what I was thinking, even if it's not a good idea.

 

[Sea Toby]

Yes, Australia is a different nation compared to the United States. A nation of similar size to the continental US, Australia is an island continent with only 20 or so million people, compared to the 300 million of America. Its air force has 100 or so fighters, while its navy 12 frigates and 6 submarines. The continental US is about half the Australian coast line, and the US Coast Guard is a larger force. There are more naval ships and fighter aircraft based in just the state of Florida.

When you Google Earth Australia, its outback area is a bleak desert. Even the state of Nevada appears to be more populated. Only along the eastern coast does Australia appear rural, although its major cities are urban.

Fortunately Australia in the past twenty years have built a few empty air bases along its northern coast, where any air and sea attack must arrive. These empty bases can be filled quickly from bases further south near populated areas. These empty bases allow her allies to fly in their air forces too. The best defense of Australia is to hit the enemy with maritime strikes before any landing. And people wonder why Australia have kept the F-111s in service. If any air force needs a long strike fighter range, Australia is it.

Unfortunately Australia's navy is small for its geographical size. Western Europe with its dozens of nations have more naval assets than Australia. Lately Australia has been developing a two fleet navy, with naval assets on its west and east coasts. Before that its naval was a one fleet navy concentrated on its east coast. To meet an invasion of its Pilabra iron ore deposits in its northwest, it could take a day or two for any naval engagement from Perth, five to six days from Sydney. This disturbing news is where the submarines come in, any adversary can be hit hard by them unaware where they are.

Likewise the Australian army will be hard pressed to block any invasion. Its coastline is so huge, an opponent could land anywhere. Fortunately, most of Australia's population is in its southeast, a long ways from probable northern beachheads of an enemy.

Australia can only do so much with its wealth. Its small population does afford an army, air force and navy equal to any other nation with its population worldwide. While Australia's size makes it difficult for any nation to defend, it also makes it difficult for any nation to invade.

Australia does maintain a wonderful over the horizon radar system and has invested in intellignence and command and control assets. Obviously, to defend Australia, Australia will have to meet its enemy before they land and fight to control those supply sea lanes the enemy needs to prosecute its invasion.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Yes, Australia is a different nation compared to the United States. A nation of similar size to the continental US, Australia is an island continent with only 20 or so million people, compared to the 300 million of America. Its air force has 100 or so fighters, while its navy 12 frigates and 6 submarines. The continental US is about half the Australian coast line, and the US Coast Guard is a larger force. There are more naval ships and fighter aircraft based in just the state of Florida.

When you Google Earth Australia, its outback area is a bleak desert. Even the state of Nevada appears to be more populated. Only along the eastern coast does Australia appear rural, although its major cities are urban.

I guess if I had to I would say that Australia has a strategic depth that rivals that of Russia.

Fortunately Australia in the past twenty years have built a few empty air bases along its northern coast, where any air and sea attack must arrive. These empty bases can be filled quickly from bases further south near populated areas. These empty bases allow her allies to fly in their air forces too. The best defense of Australia is to hit the enemy with maritime strikes before any landing. And people wonder why Australia have kept the F-111s in service. If any air force needs a long strike fighter range, Australia is it.

Unfortunately Australia's navy is small for its geographical size. Western Europe with its dozens of nations have more naval assets than Australia. Lately Australia has been developing a two fleet navy, with naval assets on its west and east coasts. Before that its naval was a one fleet navy concentrated on its east coast. To meet an invasion of its Pilabra iron ore deposits in its northwest, it could take a day or two for any naval engagement from Perth, five to six days from Sydney. This disturbing news is where the submarines come in, any adversary can be hit hard by them unaware where they are.

Likewise the Australian army will be hard pressed to block any invasion. Its coastline is so huge, an opponent could land anywhere. Fortunately, most of Australia's population is in its southeast, a long ways from probable northern beachheads of an enemy.

Australia can only do so much with its wealth. Its small population does afford an army, air force and navy equal to any other nation with its population worldwide. While Australia's size makes it difficult for any nation to defend, it also makes it difficult for any nation to invade.

Well I agree with what you say, any attack must come somewhere, where an aggressor can gain access to a port/airport/infrastructure, otherwise the ability sustain, ‘breakout’ etc would become an issue. Australia has a Strategic depth to the north that many countries would envy, of course NZ has a strategic depth behind australia and 1200 mile of ocean! That’s just my opinion and am open to suggestions.

 

[icelord]

Fortunately Australia in the past twenty years have built a few empty air bases along its northern coast, where any air and sea attack must arrive. These empty bases can be filled quickly from bases further south near populated areas. These empty bases allow her allies to fly in their air forces too. The best defense of Australia is to hit the enemy with maritime strikes before any landing. And people wonder why Australia have kept the F-111s in service. If any air force needs a long strike fighter range, Australia is it.

Every year the RAAF does excercies at these bases, to ensure the airmen and women know the area well, and are trained to fly in and out with the supplies that are on hand. Its possible to be ready in 24hrs and at full operations in 48.

Likewise the Australian army will be hard pressed to block any invasion. Its coastline is so huge, an opponent could land anywhere. Fortunately, most of Australia's population is in its southeast, a long ways from probable northern beachheads of an enemy.

The bulk of the force is based in the north, with 3RAR now in South aus. to give it direct access to Darwin by straight road and rail. The biggest advantage of having a more flexible and mobile army is that it can be swung into action at any time. The IRF in the nth of queensland can be deployed in less then 24hrs if aus was to be invaded,

Australia can only do so much with its wealth. Its small population does afford an army, air force and navy equal to any other nation with its population worldwide.

Even though our defence budget is small for out GDP, we can still afford constant upgrades of most of the equipment, vehicles, ships and aircraft in the ADF. If the navy did decide on a corvette, it could afford it and have it on budget (god willing) and on time, and even if it was blown out, we'd cover it. As long as it does not become a white elephant, which i feel would be doubtful.

Australia does maintain a wonderful over the horizon radar system and has invested in intellignence and command and control assets. Obviously, to defend Australia, Australia will have to meet its enemy before they land and fight to control those supply sea lanes the enemy needs to prosecute its invasion.

The corvette is ideal and basically known for escorts of supply lines, and could even be used as a raider in an invasion. Because of the distance needed, a corvette could wreak havoc on supply convoys, taking it back to the days of old in which corvettes served with honour in WW2. With a crew of 60 the aussie corvette was dubbed the "jack of all trades" and served from the persian to the pacific. It would be more.... "expandable" in an escort role during war, compared to an Anzac.

 

[alexsa]

The corvette is ideal and basically known for escorts of supply lines, and could even be used as a raider in an invasion. Because of the distance needed, a corvette could wreak havoc on supply convoys, taking it back to the days of old in which corvettes served with honour in WW2. With a crew of 60 the aussie corvette was dubbed the "jack of all trades" and served from the persian to the pacific. It would be more.... "expandable" in an escort role during war, compared to an Anzac.

Escort what? Any HVU will be escorted by major feet units and the army would use the rail sytem for internal transport. In so far a wreaking havoc on supply lines an isolated poorly armed corvette wouel be chicken feed to any decent convoy escort with multiple air search assets ..... it would need to be escorted. The probable outcome would be a similar fate to small ships like the HMAS Yarra in WW2, a brave but pointless loss.

I will repeat what I have stated in the past, rather than divert funds and manpower on half arsed warships we would be better advised to spend that money upgrading the ones we have.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Likewise the Australian army will be hard pressed to block any invasion. Its coastline is so huge, an opponent could land anywhere. Fortunately, most of Australia's population is in its southeast, a long ways from probable northern beachheads of an enemy.

Australia can only do so much with its wealth. Its small population does afford an army, air force and navy equal to any other nation with its population worldwide. While Australia's size makes it difficult for any nation to defend, it also makes it difficult for any nation to invade.

Australia does maintain a wonderful over the horizon radar system and has invested in intellignence and command and control assets. Obviously, to defend Australia, Australia will have to meet its enemy before they land and fight to control those supply sea lanes the enemy needs to prosecute its invasion.

In actual fact, Australia could do FAR more with it's wealth, defence-wise than we actually DO, if necessary. Our GDP tipped over a Trillion dollars for the first time in the last "financial year" and only 1.9% GDP is devoted to defence (some estimates put it slightly less at 1.8%).

In a situation of National survival or even signifcantly greater threat to Australia than is presently the case, we COULD devote massive resources to defence. In WW2 our armed forces numbered nearly 1 million personnel. That was with a TOTAL population of 7 million. Imagine the forces we COULD deploy with our current population of approx: 20 Million...

The C-17 purchase is a case in point. No other Country in the world (besides USA) has yet been able to afford to purchase this aircraft (I know UK and Canada intend to, but I don't believe it's happened yet). RAAF show a genuine need for such an aircraft (Afghanistan, Pakistani and Indonesian deployments for "warfighting" and "disaster relief") and all of a sudden "poof" the Government gives RAAF a "supplemental" $2 Billion dollars to go and purchase this unbelievably expensive aircraft.

This is unprecedented in ADF history AFAIK, in terms of the scale of the investment, with such little fanfare and short time-line of the project. It however greatly illustrates that if a genuine need is there, Australia CAN afford a much higher level of defence capability than we currently possess.

An " Australian Strategic Policy Institute" study in 2005, showed that even with a "modest" increase of total Government resources directed to defence and the percentage of GDP lifted to 2.5% (still well below that of China, USA, India and numerous others, percentage wise) Australia would have sufficient funding to operate 9 regular infantry battalions, 2 Tank Regiments, "up to" 140 JSF aircraft, including a purchase of 2x F-35B Squadrons, plus training/attrition aircraft, 2 dedicated aircraft carriers, 6x AWD's and the list went on and on. As should be clear, all of these options provide roughly double if not greater levels of capability than we currently possess.

Fact is Australia purposefully limits the potential size and power of it's Armed forces due to a lack of threat, not a lack of ability to increase the size and power.

As to Army's ability to respond to incursion on Australian soil. This issue provided the basis for the vast majority of Army's training program and capital acquisition programs during the late 80's and 90's. The reason Army is being equipped with ASLAV and Bushmaster vehicles is it was identified that a lack of tactical and strategic mobility was the primary obstacle to Army being able to confidently fulfill it's role in protecting Australia.

Decisions such as these, along with "forward basing" Army's major combat formations in "Northern Australia" along with strategic acquisitions such as the Adelaide to Darwin railway line and C-130J, C-17, A330 HMAS Kanimbla and Manoora purchases and establishment of "NORFORCE" recon/surveillance units have transformed into an ADF and Army in particular into a force particularly well suited to conducting "Defence of Australia" (DOA) operations.

I agree our Coast line is huge however what benefit would it possibly have for an invasion force to land in Northern Australia, (The closest part to foreign Countries and therefore the most likely point an invasion force would land)?

The force would have to travel over thousands of k's simply to reach the population and major infrastructure area's, a feat never before managed in the history of warfare.

To talk of forces wanting to conduct large scale invasions of Australia is pointless. There is no-one capable of it for one thing (besides our primary ally) and no significant tactical or strategic reasons for doing so.

Talk of Countries wanting our National resources is also nonsense. All they have to do is ask (Johnny Howard will sell them as much as they want, even Uranium it seems). Buying it off us is less costly and far more assured than trying to "take" it off us any day...

 

[Sea Toby]

Imagine what military equipment New Zealand could afford with a similar .6% GDP increase in defence spending. While it wouldn't happen at once, but over a period of 5 years or so, New Zealand could afford new Hercules, more helicopters, a third frigate, plus more weaponry for its army. Continue that spending another 5 years, the air combat force could be reconsituted.

While increasing spending may buy the goods, manpower will still be a problem as both nations are under manned. More than likely a good chunk of the extra spending will have to fund recruitment, plus increased salaries and benefits.