New Zealand awards contract for $500 Million Dollar Project "Protector".

[nz enthusiast]

Jason_kiwi , will all the weapons you listed fit on the OPV, and if so why dont we just have them on there anyway and call them corvettes?. I think two corvettes sounds more impressive than two OPV. Its just another letter combination i need to remember along with lav, lov, ipv, mrv etc

 

[alexsa]

Hi Jason

You have me confused. First you state

Can such massive expenditures possibly be justified, given the social and infrastructural needs evident elsewhere in New Zealand? The armed forces do face recruitment and retention problems – but then, so do the health and education systems, without being blessed with such a slew of new, ameliorative projects.

then we get

The Navy is good except short 1 frigate,2 frigates,2 OPV's,1 MRV,1 Replemish,2 survey,1 diving/mine,4 patrol,2 LCM's,2 training.

The airforce is good except needs 20-30 fighters,7 transport,12 helis,3 short range patrol,new medium range patrol being considered,6 orions,5 seaspites,16 stunt/training,etc

all we need is 1-2 more frigates and some fighters

If you think they are spending too much now 23 to 30 fighters (even if you get ex RAAF HUG F/A18s) along with all the other goodies (1 to 2 frigates, new patrol air craft etc) will really blow your budget.

 

[Jason_kiwi]

That first quote was from an article on how NZ has a poor little rich military.



I think every thing is good exept we need an air strike force and possibly 1 or even 2 more Frigates. that would only cost about 2 billion...not to bad for 2 120m frigates and 28 F-16's.

 

[nz enthusiast]

and what about the hurcleus and orions which always seem like they are going to fall from the sky, do you agree they should be getting these pathetic upgrades.
What about the army they have been waiting for fire support vehicles nw for eight years.
and the navy, they are still using armament from the 1980's, would you prfer two good well armed friagtes or three useless ones, and what about endevour (the tanker), the survey ship and the diving boat. They are all coming up to replacement time too, what would you do about them?

 

[alexsa]

Hi Jason

The cost of actually buying the hardware is only half the issue. Training maintenance and intergration swallow up a whole lot of money as well. the problems is the hardware will never be effective unless the money is spent on training, maintenance and intergration.

An issue that will confront NZ should they decide to expand their forces or add new weapons systems is the time and cost assocaited with learning the skills. The vessels included in project protector could be operated by a crew with a much lower level of training (they could be managed by a 'competent' merchant navy crew) than that required to effectively operate something like an AWD.

The impact of lost skills cannot be understated. If NZ allows itself to become a patrol craft navy the cost impliations of trying to ramp back up to a higher capability level will be considerable.

Slightly off thread but this will certainly also be the case if NZ re-establishes it Air combat capability.

Australia is certainly not immune from this and I suspect that if we ever decide to put F35Bs on the amphibs (we can only hope) we are going to have a very steep learning curve if we don't do some preplanning.

 

[Supe]

That first quote was from an article on how NZ has a poor little rich military.

In future, please provide the original source by pasting the link. (It should be fricken mandatory!)

Edit: Going by these articles,I'm beginning to wonder if there is any balanced reporting on defence affairs going on in mainstream NZ newspapers. Spending all that money on defence... how horrible! Any decent journo would know the reason why NZ is having to spend that money and that is obsolence and spiralling costs in maintaining such old equipment. You can't put off upgrades indefinitely as the price to pay may be that of significantly reduced capability and in the worst case, loss of NZ personnel lives.

 

[gf0012-aust]

General word of advice.


Can people please merge posts rather than run them one after the other.

In the past we have just deleted posts that could have been merged as it becomes a bit irritating after awhile.

I've had to edit quite a few in the last few days.

Also, if you are replying to a post - then quote that person. It makes it very difficult if people have to try and backtrack what you are replying to.

 

[Aussie Digger]

In future, please provide the original source by pasting the link. (It should be fricken mandatory!)

Edit: Going by these articles,I'm beginning to wonder if there is any balanced reporting on defence affairs going on in mainstream NZ newspapers. Spending all that money on defence... how horrible! Any decent journo would know the reason why NZ is having to spend that money and that is obsolence and spiralling costs in maintaining such old equipment. You can't put off upgrades indefinitely as the price to pay may be that of significantly reduced capability and in the worst case, loss of NZ personnel lives.

Journalists usually know nothing of defence. Even those asked to report on it. Those that do aren't interested in reporting truth, because it doesn't sell. Fantasy does... If this journalist new anything of defence, he would know that NZ spends bugger all on defence compared to most countries. NZ currently spends around 0.8% of it's GDP. Basically every other "Western" Country spends well over 1.0% of it's GDP. Australia for instance spends around 1.9% (which is still too low...)

He whines about NZ's massive expenditure and states words to the effect that NZ education and Health have no such investment programs. That's more than likely because they are maintained properly. Health and Education are such big Vote winners, no politican can afford to skimp on them. Defence is not so lucky. If there's no actual war on, most people consider defence a White elephant. If he were interested in fair reporting he might compare the respective annual budgets provided to Health and Education as opposed to defence. Of course, it probably wouldn't support his sensationalist argument though...

In Australia defence is well behind Social Security, Health, Education, transport, infrastructure and probably several other Government programs. You simply can't get enough votes by investing in defence. Other than in war time that is, when under-funding of defence is ALWAYS dramatically exposed by you losing and your soldiers being killed...

 

[Aussie Digger]

There current proposed armament is
25mm vullcan rapid fire cannon, 50 cals
Seaspite helicopter armed with mavrick anti ship missiles,torps,depth charges,homing torps and mg's

I think the opvs hav a fine armament for now. If they were to go onto combat I think they should arm them with

A twin 60mm Cannon
2 25 mm vulcans
2 triple torpedo tubes
1 mistril SAM site
4 50cal mgs

The OPV's are currently being equipped with a Typhoon 25mm gun on the front deck. A cursory glance at said shows that the ship is not large enough to mount a much bigger gun than this. It is being designed for patrol duties, NOT combat duties.

Possibly a Swedish Mk 3 57mm Naval gun, here is a pic: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNSweden_57-70_mk123_mk3_pic.jpg

the specs are here: http://www.boforsdefence.com/eng/products/nav3_57mmmk3.htm

such as that being fitted to the US LCS could be fitted, which would greatly improve the utility of these vessels in higher level combat situations. I doubt a 76mm gun could be fitted into the OPV's, too intrusive into the ships hull. I'm not aware of any current generation 60mm guns.

The Mistral or SADRAL as it is known when it's fitted to Naval vessels is a possibility.

Specs are here:

http://www.mbda.net/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=164

This system is being proposed as the CIWS for the Australian ANZAC anti-ship missile defence upgrade. If the space on the OPV's is not sufficient, SIGMA also manufactured by MBDA might be an option. This is a combined 25mm Typhoon gun and 3x Mistral missile combination used from the same MSI mount as the simple 25mm Typhoon gun already being fitted to the OPV's...

 

[Jason_kiwi]

Yes they should go through with the orion upgrades and they will probably arm them with anti ship missiles. I would replace all the ships u mentioned and arm them with a 25mm. The army has its new 105 fighting vehicles which are better than what the oz's have.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yes they should go through with the orion upgrades and they will probably arm them with anti ship missiles. I would replace all the ships u mentioned and arm them with a 25mm. The army has its new 105 fighting vehicles which are better than what the oz's have.

Except we've got 264 of ours... :

 

[EnigmaNZ]

Lol, aussie digger, never argue with a patriotic teen, facts just get in the way, you can never win the debate hehe.
Most probably we will have a Brash led National government with a Peters led NZ First as a coalition partner, so any plans from 2006 on are fluid, existing capital expenditure plans should proceed but anything new or any role changes are really mute at this point. Brash is promising billions in tax relief so the kitty is going to be tight. Brash is an economist first, use to head the Reserve Bank, Peters is more your "tell them what they want to hear and bask in the popularity" type politician.
My own view is, as we do not have the ships to play escort to our auxilaries, they should have a more capable self defensive fitout. The MRV and OPV are intended to be used outside of NZ waters, though in the case of the OPV, probably only as far as our Pacific neighbours, but the OPV is the size of a light frigate, and if armed as such, could participate in low level peacekeeping operations in the wider region. I just hope they are capable of being upgraded later. The only way I think the government is going to get shaken from their "peacenik" way of thinking is for a Cole like incident to happen to one of our vessels. I just hope loss of life in such a situation is minimal if at all.

 

[alexsa]

Originally Posted by Jason_kiwi
I would replace all the ships u mentioned and arm them with a 25mm.

Sorry Jason, I haven't got a clue what you are talking about in regards to this comment.

 

[Jason_kiwi]

Sorry Jason, I haven't got a clue what you are talking about in regards to this comment.

you mentioned the replemish,mine/diving and survey ship are due for replacement. I said if I could do anything I would replace them and arm them with a 25mm cannon and several 50 cals.

Except we've got 264 of ours... :

you have 264 we have 105...you have 5 times our population and a threat. We have no threat and we are 5 times as small as you..does that explain anything...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Jason.

I've tidied up your posts. Please note the following:

• Merge posts where possible so that we don't end up with a run of one liners or short responses following each other.

• Please quote whoever you respond to - it makes things difficult to sort out for other readers

re your last post and numbers of LAVs. I think you'll find that AD was talking the mickey out of you - hence Enigmas follow on response.

 

[Aussie Digger]

you have 264 we have 105...you have 5 times our population and a threat. We have no threat and we are 5 times as small as you..does that explain anything...

Relax my son, breath in, breath out... I only meant my previous comment as a joke. Please don't take offence.

 

[Jason_kiwi]

So you realise my comment was true

"You have 264 we have 105...you have 5 times our population and a threat...we are five times as small as you and have no threat. so you should have atleast double what you have...the aussies are gettin behind...hehehe

and you guys reacon we are behind...sheese

 

[gf0012-aust]

Jason, this is the last time I'm going to ask you. Please merge your posts rather than add one after the other. I've spent the last few days following behind tidying up - I don't want to keep on doing it.

In future you run the risk of having them deleted.

 

[Aussie Digger]

At the risk of starting a "mine is better than yours type" futile argument, I'd like to point out Jason, that the Australian Army ONLY uses it's (264) ASLAV's for recon and Cavalry purposes NOT troop transport, (despite current ops in Iraq)...

We use Bushmaster Infantry mobility vehicles (299) and M113's for that, (350) of which are being upgraded to a new AS3/AS4 standard and are to be delivered from 2006 onwards. In addition our new M1A1 Abrams tanks (59) in total are also to be delivered from 2006 onwards.

In total Australia will be receiving around 970 (or around 9 times NZ's TOTAL) new or vastly upgraded armoured vehicles during the 2005 - 2010 period.

NZ by comparison has 105 armoured vehicles. Who do you really think is getting left behind?

Btw, who is a threat to Australia?

 

[Jason_kiwi]

At the risk of starting a "mine is better than yours type" futile argument, I'd like to point out Jason, that the Australian Army ONLY uses it's (264) ASLAV's for recon and Cavalry purposes NOT troop transport, (despite current ops in Iraq)...

We use Bushmaster Infantry mobility vehicles (299) and M113's for that, (350) of which are being upgraded to a new AS3/AS4 standard and are to be delivered from 2006 onwards. In addition our new M1A1 Abrams tanks (59) in total are also to be delivered from 2006 onwards.

In total Australia will be receiving around 970 (or around 9 times NZ's TOTAL) new or vastly upgraded armoured vehicles during the 2005 - 2010 period.

NZ by comparison has 105 armoured vehicles. Who do you really think is getting left behind?

Btw, who is a threat to Australia?

you cant really call m113's fighting vehicles and the infantry mobility.

How many fighting vehicles do you have???

NZ has 105 (the LAV's) as described by the canadians