Future options for the RNZN

[chrishorne]

RNZN? One for one replacements is what is needed, allthough I would want a salvage tug type vessel, as has been mentioned in this thread; Its worth remembering the Brit destroyer that had a wee accident a couple of years back.
The ANZACS need to have that upgrade and they need to get Harpoon.

I would want an extra two frigates, with similar/same plant systems and weapons as the ANZAC's, but that is a political choice that wont get a look in with any Labour government, and the Nats havent got their act together on defence policy {or many others, truth be known}

I do think we need a couple of other combat ready ships, however frigates aren't versatile enough perhaps. I have been reading with great interest info on the us navies Littoral Combat Ship (both designs) and i must say I'm quite impressed. The General Dynamics design especially looks like a cross between a frigate and the MRV. I'm quite amused the us navy calls them small! These are ships that can both carry a vast quanity of load (including the LAV IIIs it seems) and can look after themselves. The General Dynamics version can also carry a couple of NH90 class helios.

http://www.gdlcs.com/gd_opsCapability.html

I agree the ANAZACS need to be upgraded - ESSM at least, even better if Mistral/RAM (SeaRam?) were added as well and perhaps a 25mm canon for small surface threats. Harpoon however, I just don't know - it would be nice but I doubt a friagte and an Aircraft would get it in NZ service. In case only one could get it then I'd prefer air launced.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

The Sandowns, I saw the same article, and was thinking along the same lines. Even 1 at $US22 would do, it does have a recompression chamber plus other diver support facilities and ROVs, plus a good late model ocean salvage tug/supply vessel for about half the above. For the IPV, a MSI 25mm on the bow would do, as had the version offered to the Oz navy for it's patrol boat replacement. Add 2 more to the Endeavour, on each beam, IIRC she only has a couple of .50 cal GPMGs, needed if a explosive ladden speedboat is heading her way. About $NZ60m all up. As far as MH goes in NZ water, I don't think really the Sandown would ever be needed to clear mines from NZ waters, the WW2 Orion was not typical., and at 52m, the size of the IPV, it is not going to be jaunting all over the ocean. It would do inshore hydrographic survey in peacetime, with the MH capacities there PRN. 3 would be nice but probably a waste of scare resources.

 

[thegoldenhorde]

The most important thing for New Zealand is a strong ampihibious capability that would let it take over some island nation or something like that if need be. Therefore I would say New Zealand should go with the frigate/s to allow it to have a more helicopters in the area and to increase its fire-support capability. Minesweepers as well would be an excellent investment to support New Zealand's capability to execute operations like it did in the Solomon Islands in 2004.

 

[Lucasnz]

I do think we need a couple of other combat ready ships, however frigates aren't versatile enough perhaps. I have been reading with great interest info on the us navies Littoral Combat Ship (both designs) and i must say I'm quite impressed. The General Dynamics design especially looks like a cross between a frigate and the MRV. I'm quite amused the us navy calls them small! These are ships that can both carry a vast quanity of load (including the LAV IIIs it seems) and can look after themselves. The General Dynamics version can also carry a couple of NH90 class helios.

From some of the information I read the LCS does not come cheap - Frigates are better, just as cheap (it seems), and can be perform across the specturm without reconfiguration, as a rule. While I would perfer frigates Corvettes seem more suitable for NZ situation - Ability to conduct low level operations independently, including NGS. Corvettes are also capable of operating in a medium level environment independently for most missions, but are more dependent on higher level assets for providing a clearer picture. I thinking something on like an ANZAC hull for seakeeping, range etc. Diesels only with 76mm, RAM and 2 x 25mm. Crew size would be about half, with the savings going towards extra helicopter capability (NH90) and special forces, raiding party capability. Sensors would also be more limited, reducing cost.
I see the need for frigates, given the inherent limitations of corvettes, but not more than 2, with the say 2 - 4 corvettes making up for the lost of the 2 frigates (netural manpower impact at this level).

As for the Sandown MCM capability - I'm slobbering at the very thought - if only Auntie Helen got a new job.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

From some of the information I read the LCS does not come cheap - Frigates are better, just as cheap (it seems), and can be perform across the specturm without reconfiguration, as a rule. While I would perfer frigates Corvettes seem more suitable for NZ situation - Ability to conduct low level operations independently, including NGS. Corvettes are also capable of operating in a medium level environment independently for most missions, but are more dependent on higher level assets for providing a clearer picture.

Or NZ can have properly equipped frigates which can do more.

I thinking something on like an ANZAC hull for seakeeping, range etc. Diesels only with 76mm, RAM and 2 x 25mm. Crew size would be about half, with the savings going towards extra helicopter capability (NH90) and special forces, raiding party capability.

The MRV can do that, but would need RAM and a bigger pop gun.

Sensors would also be more limited, reducing cost.
I see the need for frigates, given the inherent limitations of corvettes, but not more than 2, with the say 2 - 4 corvettes making up for the lost of the 2 frigates (netural manpower impact at this level).

Three, preferably four frigates, properly equipped plus a battalion landing ship and all of a sudden NZ can do a lot more indepenently, without bludging of every other nation to do even basic tasks.

As for the Sandown MCM capability - I'm slobbering at the very thought - if only Auntie Helen got a new job.

Wouldnt matter, the Nats are so inneffective on defence that you could have Bozo the Clown running Labour and the Nats would still get a beating on defence.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

Wouldnt matter, the Nats are so inneffective on defence that you could have Bozo the Clown running Labour and the Nats would still get a beating on defence.

I take issue with that. Aside from scrapping the air combat force, Labour has been very smart politically with defence. They have successfully avoided several audit office inquiries, a criminal prosecution and several employment law disputes with little fuss. Much of the blame has been squarley placed with the Ministry. Ultimatley this led to the Hunn review, which Labour initaited.

National, ACT and NZ First successfully called for inquiries in to troop conduct, equipment purchases and pay and service conditions.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I take issue with that. Aside from scrapping the air combat force, Labour has been very smart politically with defence. They have successfully avoided several audit office inquiries, a criminal prosecution and several employment law disputes with little fuss. Much of the blame has been squarley placed with the Ministry. Ultimatley this led to the Hunn review, which Labour initaited.

National, ACT and NZ First successfully called for inquiries in to troop conduct, equipment purchases and pay and service conditions.

Thats nice. Its also irrelivant, because Labour has consistantly set the debate on defence issues and that is what counts. What good is it to National, and the nation, if they cannot actually justify any thing they say on defence? Their defence of the established order pre and post 'Defence Beyoned 2000' was an unmitigated failure and amounted to 'we need X,Y and Z because...well, Just Because!' and stamped their collective foot like a petualant child. They have consistantly failed to present any alternative policy that actually makes sense or, indeed, that is rational.

Labour, on the other hand, has put forward a rational and detailed policy that they have effectivly, and successfully, argued to the satisfaction of the majority of voters. And that, in the final anlasyis, is what counts.


I stand by my statement above. National will be clobbered by Labour on defence untill it can actually come up with a policy that is more reasoned than meaningless genralisations that amount to no more than a reveiw, a reveiw that it prays will tell it what to do with defence, because they Havent. Got. A. Clue.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

Reality

I stand by my statement above. National will be clobbered by Labour on defence untill it can actually come up with a policy that is more reasoned than meaningless genralisations that amount to no more than a reveiw, a reveiw that it prays will tell it what to do with defence, because they Havent. Got. A. Clue.

Thanks for that coherent, balanced analysis Stuart. National's 2005 policy was as detailed as it could be. It talked about pay and conditions, reducing the attrition rate amongst defence staff and working closely with allies. The reality is that without access to classfied OPRES information, budget projections and force development propositions Opposition parties, irrespective of which one, simply don't have the detailed information available to produce much more than this. Defence isn't like the health system - their aren't the same level of reports produced and there certainly isn't the same degree of transparancy reporting capability.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Thanks for that coherent, balanced analysis Stuart.

Hey, thanks for showing no evidence that I was wrong, and avoiding the point!

National's 2005 policy was as detailed as it could be. It talked about pay and conditions, reducing the attrition rate amongst defence staff and working closely with allies. The reality is that without access to classfied OPRES information, budget projections and force development propositions Opposition parties, irrespective of which one, simply don't have the detailed information available to produce much more than this. Defence isn't like the health system - their aren't the same level of reports produced and there certainly isn't the same degree of transparancy reporting capability.

With all due respect, but thats nonsense. It was not detailed at all a simple look at other parties policies shows this can be done.That opposition parties do not have access to the full range of information that government does, is no excuse for what I can only describe as lazyness. A counter point to Nationals defence policy is that of NZ first. it spells out exactly what they wish to do not only with force structure but also over all policy, here are some examples:

honour, maintain and build upon existing Defence agreements including the Five Power Defence Agreement and the Closer Defence Relationships with Australia. We will seek to strengthen relationships with the United States, Britain, France and all South Pacific Island nations with the aim of extending opportunities for military training at all levels;

# refocus the Infantry Battalions into three Marine Battalions (two regular and one territorial) capable of deployment by air, land or sea, by foot or by vehicle with their primary area of operations being the South Pacific and South East Asia but with the ability to operate with Coalition Forces anywhere;

# expand the size of the New Zealand Special Air Service and have them work more closely with British, Australian and US Defence Forces in order to improve their experience base and unit/force interoperability;

It is not good enough, in this day and age, to come out with what amounts to a promice for yet another reveiw.At the risk of sounding like an appeal to authority, here is Rodney hides comment on the Nats policy.

“New Zealand has been shirking its defence responsibilities for years. We now have the National Party shirking their responsibility to even produce a credible defence policy. It’s no wonder that National released its ‘no defence’ policy late on a Friday afternoon hoping nobody would notice. National’s clearly not proud of its policy, nor should it be,” Mr Hide said.

But lets not take his opinion, lets look at Ron Mark's opinion, remembering that he is a former army officer {QAMAR}

Meaningless drivel was the description New Zealand First afforded National’s defence policy, which was released late yesterday.

Defence spokesperson Ron Mark said that surely after nine years in government and six in opposition, with the resources that were available to them, National could have come up with something better than this.

“At a time when concerns over national security have never been higher, the best National can offer is another review, proving that they lack even a basic understanding on defence matters,” said Mr Mark.

“Anyone who does understand knows what is needed.

‘This a ‘Clayton’s’ policy, which is a policy you have when you don’t have one. It’s pathetic and it confirms that National cannot be trusted to rebuild New Zealand’s defence forces.

Admittadly, they are other parties, but these are parties that the Nats should be able to turn to for support on defence issues, and they are rubbishing them!!

National has had ample time to come up with a viable policy and time spent in research would have provided them with this. There is a good chance that the Nats will be in government after the next election and promises of reveiws, after this amount of time in opposition, do not show that thay are capable of doing the job properly.
If they cannot come up with policy after all this time, how on earth will they be able to do it in government?

This is waayy of topic, in any case. My apologies to the staff.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

I wonder if it is due to the fact that unlike posters here, and in similar forum elsewhere, and with the exception of Ron Marks, with his military background, there simply is noone in any party with a clue on military matters, even when they have a reveiw, it is done by somone who probably wouldn't know their RAM from their SLAM. I have to agree with Ron, with the small size of the NZ military, it should be more integrated along the lines of the US marines, ie primarily a ground force with air and sea support with a common command structure. Look at the tasks required of them, then what they need to accomplish those tasks in an efficient way, should lead to the correct choice in weapons and other assetts purchases.

There is IMHO very little likelihood that NZ will be invaded, or attacked from the air. There is a small liklihood that a aircraft or train may be takened and flown into a public place, either by a terriorist, someone angry at the government, or a nutter. There is a greater likelihood that NZ shipping will be interferred with by pirates as they pass through the SE Asian waters, that NZ forces sent overseas will be threaten by land, sea and less likely, by air. The latter is less likely as any task force is likely to include air assetts from a major power. So we need to be able to operate against opposing land forces with surface to surface weapons, against subsurface marine threats like mines and diesel/electric submarines, against surface threats from small high speed, explosive filled suicide craft, against RPGs and similar. Back in NZ we need to cope with illegal ocean going trawlers and whalers, and against the rare unarmed aerial threat.

So we look for weapons to minimise these threats, trading cost for efficiency where expediant. If the threat analysis changes in the future, the operational and weapon mix will be tweaked as necessary. At this present time the only possible future threat on the horizon, is radical islam getting hold of disaffected young maori, the biggest growth in islam in NZ is in the prisons amongst maori at present. Something to keep an eye on only at this stage.

There you go, only a synopsis, but considering Quigley got paid millions to present his analysis, where do I send the bill, lol.

 

[Supe]

This is waayy of topic, in any case. My apologies to the staff.

Interesting comments actually. Now that you have described opposition party defence policies, I'd be interested in your opinion of what should constitute a sound defence policy for NZ.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

With all due respect, but thats nonsense. It was not detailed at all a simple look at other parties policies shows this can be done.That opposition parties do not have access to the full range of information that government does, is no excuse for what I can only describe as lazyness. A counter point to Nationals defence policy is that of NZ first. it spells out exactly what they wish to do not only with force structure but also over all policy, here are some examples:

Go to the website and look at it - it specifically detailed the items I mentioned

It is not good enough, in this day and age, to come out with what amounts to a promice for yet another reveiw.At the risk of sounding like an appeal to authority, here is Rodney hides comment on the Nats policy.

Well gee Stuart, what possible reason do you think a minor party would have to run down their main competitor for votes? Do you think they just agree in advance which votes to conceded between one another? The only place ACT is can look for votes from is from National supporters.

But lets not take his opinion, lets look at Ron Mark's opinion, remembering that he is a former army officer {QAMAR}

So what? Wayne Mapp was too. Richard Worth was a Captain in the RNZNVR. It doesn't mean a thing. Governance is not the same as commanding troops. Decisions are even less clear.

NZ First have never detailed their planes beyond what the bullet points say, nor have they ever been required to account for where they spend money. Minor parties don't have the same level of accountability for spending promises National and Labour do. The reason - the National and Labour ignore them to starve them of oxygen.

Promising specific defence widgets is not how good public policy is created.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

I wonder if it is due to the fact that unlike posters here, and in similar forum elsewhere, and with the exception of Ron Marks, with his military background, there simply is noone in any party with a clue on military matters, even when they have a reveiw, it is done by somone who probably wouldn't know their RAM from their SLAM.

Captain Mark is a passionate advocate for service people. That doesn't mean he is the only person in Parliament with a clue. It certainly doesn't mean the other parties don't have very experienced advsors. A Captain in the Army is not a senior rank. Respectale yes, but nowhere near the level where strategic decisions are made. Being able to talk about specific weapons might impress an audience, but it doesn't make a good minister.

 

[Mercenary]

Why Not Submarines?

I believe what the RNZN needs is a purpose built, ocean capable (not coastal), conventional Attack Submarine. Either an advanced, larger Collin's class or an extended dimensional Type 214 German built with the latest AIP and combat info. system's installed, the latter...not Aussie made but German or Swedish.

The design of said Attack Submarine would be of sufficient size for patrols lasting 30-days at a time. Torpedo capacity doubled to at least 24 total weapons including tube launched Harpoon ASM's and dual role torpedoes of an advanced type maybe European design for the latter.

Just the thought of knowing there is an Attack Sub around is cause for worry of any surface warship commander...period.

The RNZN could procure say 3-Attack Submarines for long-range EEZ recon. and to support Special Warfare troops similar to the USN currently does using swimout underwater vehicles. During peace time one Sub would always be out on combat patrol, another out for training, and the last in port for refit.

The best solution to Anti-Submarine Warfare is having another Attack Submarine to counter it.

New Zealand cannot afford to just let their ASW capabilities and training go to waste on a couple of ill-suited ANZAC Frigates when Attack Submarines are superior. Conventional Attack Submarines are proliferating all over the world. The Royal New Zealand Navy needs to get smart and invest in a Submarine program.

Sell the 2-ANZAC Frigates to Australia and supplement them with 3-to-4 enhancedTHETIS class missilearmed ice-capableFrigates.

The THETIS class GM Frigate is designed to operate in ice where the hull design can punch through one-meter thick important because there is a requirement with the RNZN for a warship that can routinely operate in the Southern Hemisphere around artic waters. Something the ANZAC class is ill-equipped for. www.naval-technology.com has a link for the Thetis classes' outstanding capabilities.

Range is in the order of a modern Offshore Patrol Vessel = an impressive 8,500-miles at 15-knots plus a 20% fuel reserve. Multi-role.

Enhanced would mean a Thetis Frigate armed with a 16-cell Mk 41 VLS amidships loaded with 32-ESSM SAM's (quad packs), and 8-Harpoon ASM's; A position a 5" light weight gun, Y position (hanger roof) 20mm Phalanx, and about 6-.50cal HMG's on stabilized, low angle, lt. wt. armored mounts spread throughout the warship forward, amidships and aft near the stern. Internally retractable Mk 32 triple tubes with ASW torpedoes would complete the armament.

Helicopter would be a navalized NH-90 in the future with containerized, removable ASW, OTTH, and ASuW combat and sensor systems so the Helo' could also perform medium range SAR, armed assault and special forces support missions where these latter roles require large amounts of space inside for specialized equipment not to mention alot more personnel, i.e., survivors, medics/doctors, fully equipped/heavily armed SF troops.

A Rotterdam or an Endurance LPD with 'floodable' stern well and a large enough hanger to hold 4-NH-90's would be ideal. One 5" DP gun (shore bombardment), 2-Phalanx CIWS, an 8-cell MK 41 with 32 ESSM, plus 6-.50cal Sea Typhoons would be about right.

Anytime the RNZN would commit itself to an out-of-home EEZ's deployment it would always be in a joint mission role with the Royal Australian Navy so the latter's more capable surface warships would be providing the long-rangeoffensive and defensive weapon's coverage that the RNZN does not need to acquire such as expensive Standard SAM system's, etc.

Thee Royal New Zealand Naval Inventory I'd like to see would be:
3-ATTACK SUBMARINES

4-THETIS Multi-Role Missile Frigates

1-Missile LPD

3-Mine Hunters (Licence built GAETA or ex. RN HUNT class),

8-Coastal, multi-role FLYFISKEN class Fast Patrol Boats which offer excellent electronics outfit, good armament capabilities (anti-ship/anti-aircraft/anti-terrorist, etc) and a posses both a high speed and good range as well. Licence build 'em.

Too bad there is NO funding nor any Naval planners that have the insight to think outside-the-box for what is right in the long term for the Royal New Zealand's Navy.

 

[Lucasnz]

I believe what the RNZN needs is a purpose built, ocean capable (not coastal), conventional Attack Submarine. Either an advanced, larger Collin's class or an extended dimensional Type 214 German built with the latest AIP and combat info. system's installed, the latter...not Aussie made but German or Swedish.

The RNZN considered submarines in the early 80's and dumped the idea because they are simply not as flexible as surface warships. NZ needs at least one more surface combatant to ensure it can meet low level threats at all times. NZ does not need SSK's in any form!

Just the thought of knowing there is an Attack Sub around is cause for worry of any surface warship commander...period.

Agreed - look at how many torpedo's the UK dropped in the Falklands Conflict.

The THETIS class GM Frigate is designed to operate in ice where the hull design can punch through one-meter thick important because there is a requirement with the RNZN for a warship that can routinely operate in the Southern Hemisphere around artic waters.

The Thetis class has often been raised as a viable alternative to the frigates. The key problem I have with the Thetis class is its top speed of 22kts - good for EEZ patrol, but thats about it. With the purchase of the ice strengthened MRV and OPV there is now no need for such a vessel. The ANZAC's will no longer perform this role.

A Rotterdam or an Endurance LPD with 'floodable' stern well and a large enough hanger to hold 4-NH-90's would be ideal. One 5" DP gun (shore bombardment), 2-Phalanx CIWS, an 8-cell MK 41 with 32 ESSM, plus 6-.50cal Sea Typhoons would be about right.

The MRV can carry 4 NH90 plus the SH-2G but it does need more defensive capability (SURBOC, Phalanx or Sea RAM / Mistral)

Anytime the RNZN would commit itself to an out-of-home EEZ's deployment it would always be in a joint mission role with the Royal Australian Navy so the latter's more capable surface warships would be providing the long-rangeoffensive and defensive weapon's coverage that the RNZN does not need to acquire such as expensive Standard SAM system's, etc.

That is not always true. There have been a number of operational deployments (Anti Nuke Protesting at Muroroa springs to mind, Bouginville peace talks) where New Zealand has acted independently of Australia.

Too bad there is NO funding nor any Naval planners that have the insight to think outside-the-box for what is right in the long term for the Royal New Zealand's Navy.

I think the navy does try to think outside the square, but is constrained by funding and political interference (i.e The Maritime Forces Review).

 

[Aussie Digger]

Thee Royal New Zealand Naval Inventory I'd like to see would be:
3-ATTACK SUBMARINES

4-THETIS Multi-Role Missile Frigates

1-Missile LPD

3-Mine Hunters (Licence built GAETA or ex. RN HUNT class),

8-Coastal, multi-role FLYFISKEN class Fast Patrol Boats which offer excellent electronics outfit, good armament capabilities (anti-ship/anti-aircraft/anti-terrorist, etc) and a posses both a high speed and good range as well. Licence build 'em.

Too bad there is NO funding nor any Naval planners that have the insight to think outside-the-box for what is right in the long term for the Royal New Zealand's Navy.

I'm sure the RNZN leadership would like to see this as well, but consider a few points. NZ has a Government which despises military forces, even those totally devoted to defence, and woud, IMHO, if they could see a way round it, totally dispose of ALL defence capability.

This ideology flows on into capital acquisition projects for the NZDF. The MRV was initially to be equipped with a 76mm super rapido gun system, giving it a greater defensive AND offensive capability. This was canned in favour of the extremely limited 25mm gun being fitted.

The F-16 program was to cost NZ only $20 million a year (plus operating costs, probably $4-5m a year per aircraft) for a Fleet of 28 F-16A Block 15 OCU aircraft. That was canned and the whole RNZAF air combat force was scrapped and has now been sold (except I think for the Macchi's which have not yet found a buyer).

The P-3K Orion fleet was supposed to get an ASW and ASuW upgrade. The ASW upgrade was canned (Government wouldn't even fund the sensor upgrade), the ASuW offensive part was canned (no maritime strike weapon to be purchased, which would have slightly offset the loss of the A-4K fleet).

Other projects continue to have an un-certain future, such as the ANZAC ship upgrade (un-certain upgrade start date, un0-certain upgrade options etc) ...

As you can probably see there's a re-occuring thread here. Any projects which will significantly boost NZ's offensive capability, are very unlikely to be approved...

Hence, your submarine idea, whilst probably a good idea, is realistically, VERY unlikely. NZ won't pay for options which will balance their current force, (like a 3rd frigate for instance) additional projects have next to no chance...

 

[Supe]

I'm sure the RNZN leadership would like to see this as well, but consider a few points. NZ has a Government which despises military forces, even those totally devoted to defence, and woud, IMHO, if they could see a way round it, totally dispose of ALL defence capability.

The deployment of NZSAS (arguably its most potent asset) to Afghanistan does not fit into that assessment of a Govt despising the military. I do think the Kiwis should be investing in a decent maritime capacity - upgrades to Orions (weapons/sensors) would be cost effective boost to NZ defence and committments.

I was watching abc2 last night and it featured a tidbit on China's influence in the South Pacific vis a vis payments to PI govt's for political purposes (ala recognition of Taiwan) but also political 'consideration' for access to resources. The last few years have seen the larger powers shift almost into overdrive to guarantee access to resources to grow their ecomomies - and by the looks of it, the Pacific is no neutral zone.

If the scramble for resources heats up, then this could have ramifications for NZ and how it views Defence.

 

[Sea Toby]

What the RNZN will have in 2008:
2 MEKO 200 frigates: Te Kaha, and Te Mana
2 OPVs: Wellington, and Otago
4 IPVs: Taupo, Pukaki, Hawea, and Rotoiti
1 MRV: Canterbury
1 AOR: Endeavour
1 Diving tender:Manawanui
1 Survey vesse;: Resolution

A 12 ship fleet. No more, no less. Labour does not appear willing to buy another frigate, whereas National blew their chance to use their option for a third frigate at FY 1988 prices.

I can see the Naval Reserve using any additional ships for minehunting. America is decommissioning some of their not so old cream puff Osprey class minehunters. I can see New Zealand acquiring two at the right price, their crews aren't overly large.

Since New Zealand did not take up its options on a third Anzac class frigate, if Nationa stll wishes a third frigate, currently they would be better off acquiring 2 new frigates of a different and more modern Class coming into service at the mid-life point of the Anzacs.

New Zealand could have chosen a small Dutch Enforcer design, but chose the Tenix/Merwede ferry instead. New Zealand could have chosen a Thetis design, but chose an improved Irish Rosin design instead.

Any warship that is deployed outside the region for UN peace keeping roles should have a combat data weapons system installed, similar to the Anzacs. There is no point in deploying half way around the world without the ability to defend yourselves in a potentially hostile air and sea environment.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The deployment of NZSAS (arguably its most potent asset) to Afghanistan does not fit into that assessment of a Govt despising the military. I do think the Kiwis should be investing in a decent maritime capacity - upgrades to Orions (weapons/sensors) would be cost effective boost to NZ defence and committments.

I was watching abc2 last night and it featured a tidbit on China's influence in the South Pacific vis a vis payments to PI govt's for political purposes (ala recognition of Taiwan) but also political 'consideration' for access to resources. The last few years have seen the larger powers shift almost into overdrive to guarantee access to resources to grow their ecomomies - and by the looks of it, the Pacific is no neutral zone.

If the scramble for resources heats up, then this could have ramifications for NZ and how it views Defence.

That is true, NZSAS and PRT have been deployed to Afghan to assist in re-construction and "other" missions.

There is little doubt about the NZ Government's defence policies though. Projects such as the F-16 and 3rd ANZAC ship acquisition and full Orion upgrade project are well within NZ's resources, should they decide to devote those resources to those projects.

That they didn't is an indictment on that Government's policies, not NZ's wherewithal to carry them out. In addition to the other recent acquisition projects (NZ-LAV, Javelin, B-757, Hercules upgrade, NH-90 etc) they would have provided with REAL strategic weight within the South Pacific, and to a lessor degree within the wider Asia-Pacific region. Wasn't to be though, and is unlikely it ever will...

 

[Sea Toby]

New Zealand is also a small nation of only 4 million people, even though it has a very large EEZ. Critics of New Zealand defence acquistions have to understand that most of these dollars being spent are going overseas without much or any positive effects on its economy. Defence spending for new equipment is like a giant sucking sound of money leaving the country.

However, New Zealand has made great strides. There used to be a time in the not to distant past when all of their warships came from the United Kingdom. In the recent new naval construction, New Zealand has been offered offsets, constructing many of the Anzac class frigates modules in New Zealand, not for just its two but for all of the ten Tenix build ships. Likewise, with Project Protector New Zealand is building modules for the OPVs, and are building entirely the IPVs, although many of the weapon and sensor systems are built abroad. New Zealand is seeing over a billion dollars of offsets with the Anzacs, more than the cost of their two frigates, and is seeing over a hundred million dollars of offsets with Project Protector, significantly reducing the sucking sound.

With the upgrades of New Zealand C-130s and P-3s, while foreign corporations are bidding on the contracts, much of the work is being done in New Zealand although most of the parts were build abroad.

There is a big difference using defence acquistions to boost your nation's economy and having a giant sucking sound as these dollars go abroad....