NZ hypothetical: Reconstitute strike role with surplus USN S3's

[Sea Toby]

When I look at the inventory of the New Zealand navy, it appears to be one frigate short. However, if the decision has been made to acquire frigates in twos, 15 years apart to avoid block obsolescence, then its two frigates short. One of the older frigates can do the training ship role better, freeing the MRV from that role.

I also agree ASW is not be taken so lightly. As it is one enemy submarine lurking off New Zealand's coast can bring the government and economy down to its knees. But like Auntie Helen, I don't see that submarine presently.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

When I look at the inventory of the New Zealand navy, its appears to be one frigate short. However, if the decision has been made to acquire frigates in twos, 15 years apart to avoid block obsolescence, then its two frigates short. One of the older frigates can do the training ship role better, freeing the MRV from that role.

You won't be able to find evidence of such a decision, it's simply what has happened. National tabled a Cabinet Paper to purchase a third frigate, but this did not gain support in Cabinte. I understand that the New Zealand First members in Cabinet at that time block-voted against the purchase.

 

[Sea Toby]

Yes, I understand National didn't purchase either option, and why? I also understand Auntie Helen's position too. While I don't agree with her position, like you, I feel ASW and sea lanes should not be taken so lightly. After all, New Zealand is a maritime nation, not land locked by any means, something I think Auntie Helen has forgotten.

I also agree some sort of air combat force is necessary, too. It don't have to be a large force, nor does it have to be deployed abroad. But some sort of maritime strike is useful for a maritime nation, along with joint close air support training with the army. 12-18 aircraft should suffice, possibly the Hawk aircraft could fit the bill. Its also not so much the type of aircraft either as long as its new, but the training of the pilots who fly the aircraft which will make the difference.

In my last post I said I don't see the enemy sub presently. The time to be concerned though is when neighboring nations start to purchase the newer generation of submarines with air independent propulsion. At that time ASW should be reviewed by another government in the future. Some of my friends in the US navy are very concerned about how quiet the Swedish sub with the Sterling engine is thats in the States.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

logic

Yes, I understand National didn't purchase either option, and why? I also understand Auntie Helen's position too. While I don't agree with her position, like you, I feel ASW and sea lanes should not be taken so lightly.

Can you explain to me why exactly you think I share the Prime Minster's view? Unsubstianted assertions don't convince me.

I also agree some sort of air combat force is necessary, too. It don't have to be a large force, nor does it have to be deployed abroad. But some sort of maritime strike is useful for a maritime nation, along with joint close air support training with the army. 12-18 aircraft should suffice, possibly the Hawk aircraft could fit the bill.

Couple of points here. First, you make the implicit statement that air combat will occur within our borders. What conditions prevail that lead you to this conclusion?

Second, the notion of using light training aircraft for maritime strike has been generally refuted. Hawke has been especially singled out as being not suitable by official sources.

In my last post I said I don't see the enemy sub presently. The time to be concerned though is when neighboring nations start to purchase the newer generation of submarines with air independent propulsion. At that time ASW should be reviewed by another government in the future.

Neighbouring nations? Which - Fiji, Samoa, PNG, Chile or Tonga?

 

[Sea Toby]

It appears I should have placed like you at the end of the sentence. I know you don't agree with Auntie Helen. Sorry.

Is New Zealand land-locked? No, New Zealand is a maritime nation. Relations with the French haven't been great in the past, any resumption of nuclear testing in the Pacific will more than likely turn up the tenisons again. New Caledonia is French territory, which I would consider a neighboring country. And yes, the French do have in their inventory nuclear and air independent submarines in their inventory. The French also have a nuclear powered aircraft carrier which may be sent to the nuclear free South Pacific, especially in a show of force against the troublesome underarmed Kiwis.

If Labour is still in power, and a French aircraft carrier task force arrived in your waters showing the flag, I doubt whether Labour would so easily dismiss an air combat force ever again.

Is the above scenario so out of date? Is it possible? Is it probable? In my opinion its not so out of date, is possible, and probable. Of course, it all would depend on New Zealand's answer to renewed nuclear testing in the Pacific, wouldn't it?

 

[Rocco_NZ]

It appears I should have placed like you at the end of the sentence. I know you don't agree with Auntie Helen. Sorry.

(snip)

If Labour is still in power, and a French aircraft carrier task force arrived in your waters showing the flag, I doubt whether Labour would so easily dismiss an air combat force ever again.

That's the problem with the defence dabate in New Zealand - it quickly degenerates in to implausible scenarios that the public loose interest in.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I look at the defence debate, especially regarding frigates, this way. NZ is dependant on Sea Lanes for its economy. Any threat to Sea Lanes is a threat to NZ. It does not have to be close to NZ to effect NZ.

But this means that NZ cannot then say that there is no threat to NZ if it happens to be in the Sea Lanes further away. Therefore NZ must be able to contribute to keep the Sea Lanes around the world open.

Like it or not NZ has embraced the world economy, it therefore has an obligation to help maintain that world economy, as NZ is part of it.

Hope that all makes sense.

edit: I have just noticed we are talking frigates on the military aviation section, may want to mve over to naval.

 

[Lucasnz]

That's the problem with the defence dabate in New Zealand - it quickly degenerates in to implausible scenarios that the public loose interest in.

I seem to remember that during the Rainbow Warrior Crisis that the French moved one of their carriers into the Indian Ocean and that there was some concern about its location. So while the public may lose interest, I think there is some relevance in discussing them.

I'd have to agree with Whisky Jack also on the importance of sea lanes.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

Like it or not NZ has embraced the world economy, it therefore has an obligation to help maintain that world economy, as NZ is part of it.

That's the point - we have an obligation to help. We can choose on what terms we do it. Any threat to the sea lanes will involve many other nations, almost all of which are much larger than us. Our ability to help won't impact on the decision of any other country to keep the sea lanes open. We therefore have the luxury of being able to pick and choose how we contribute.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

I seem to remember that during the Rainbow Warrior Crisis that the French moved one of their carriers into the Indian Ocean and that there was some concern about its location. So while the public may lose interest, I think there is some relevance in discussing them.

No, not really. New Zealand hasn't contemplated a defence of its own territory from air attack since World War II. It's nothing more than a red herring.

 

[Whiskyjack]

That's the point - we have an obligation to help. We can choose on what terms we do it. Any threat to the sea lanes will involve many other nations, almost all of which are much larger than us. Our ability to help won't impact on the decision of any other country to keep the sea lanes open. We therefore have the luxury of being able to pick and choose how we contribute.

Yes we do, to a point. While we pick and choose we also have to take into account what out ‘allies’ consider to be a fair contribution and recognise that while we are protecting NZ’s economy we are also playing politics.

I argue that any asset NZ sends (from a naval point of view) must be able to operate independently within a multinational structure. That is be definition IMO is a frigate.

I think that any other asset that would be appreciated are MPA aircraft or UAVs like the Mariner etc…

NZ has a GDP of around $NZ150 billion, as a % we spend half of what Australia spends but relies on Australia (whether NZ likes to admit it or not) as ‘barrier’ that protects NZ. So IMO NZ also seriously needs to consider assets that are useful in the defence of Australia. I have said above investing in Recon assets that can be used in surveillance of NZ’s EEC and region from Antarctica to the Equator benefits NZ and will be greatly appreciated by allies.

Finally the region NZ finds itself in, is a region where it should be capable of intervening in the Island states to restore peace, rescue citizens and foreign nationals etc. This does not mean an opposed Amphibious landing as none of the Pacific states have militaries capable of defending their shores. I exclude Australian and French territory from this. This means forces trained for the ‘sharp end’ of conflict.

This is just my opinion. I recognise that NZ makes policy in a democratic nature and that is just the way it is (I just don’t agree with the policy!).

 

[Sea Toby]

As I recall, one of the principles agreed by Admiral Collins in the heyday of the Anzus Alliance was that Australia and New Zealand were responsible for shipping in the South Pacific up to Samoa, where America would take over the responsibility. Yes, even the mighty America navy has only so many ships. Ships capable of doing this are called frigates.

But I said above why I thought New Zealand should have some sort of air combat force. For maritime strike, for close air support, and inderdiction plus the ability to train fighter pilots. The force doesn't have to be large, a small force will do. Fighter pilot training in my opinion is more important than the quality of the aircraft.

The cream puff Falcons are no longer available. It seems New Zealand cannot afford brand new Falcons, used ones may be the solution. Or brand new trainer type aircraft, since the F-5s Freedom fighters are no longer in production, that leaves the Hawk aircraft or something similar.

Considering Auntie Helen killed the both the fighters and the trainers to save NZ $70 million in operating costs each year, half of that should be able to keep the trainers operational.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

As I recall, one of the principles agreed by Admiral Collins in the heyday of the Anzus Alliance was that Australia and New Zealand were responsible for shipping in the South Pacific up to Samoa, where America would take over the responsibility. Yes, even the mighty America navy has only so many ships. Ships capable of doing this are called frigates.

But I said above why I thought New Zealand should have some sort of air combat force. For maritime strike, for close air support, and inderdiction plus the ability to train fighter pilots. The force doesn't have to be large, a small force will do. Fighter pilot training in my opinion is more important than the quality of the aircraft.

Toby, you said that such an air force didn't need to deploy overseas. For it to be an air combat force it must have combat capability. Do you actually mean a training force, or do you actually expect it to conduct combat operations domestically?

You say a small force 'will do'. 'Will do' for what exactly? You don't seem to have clearly defined your objectives. If it is for training purposes then that assumes it is training for a contingency. What contingency do you see us conducting interdiction operations in? If we are training for maritime strike, whom to you intend us to strike? Obviously your statement about quality of aircraft implies that they will not be used to perform these duties operationally, or do you mean to send substandard aircraft in to harms way?

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what tangible threat we require overseas assistance to be defended from? Mauriding pirates or Viking raiders perhaps?

Take your pick. We still have German mines off Lyttleton harbour from ww2. At the time we were protected by the most powerfull navies in the world.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

When I look at the inventory of the New Zealand navy, it appears to be one frigate short. However, if the decision has been made to acquire frigates in twos, 15 years apart to avoid block obsolescence, then its two frigates short. One of the older frigates can do the training ship role better, freeing the MRV from that role.

I also agree ASW is not be taken so lightly. As it is one enemy submarine lurking off New Zealand's coast can bring the government and economy down to its knees. But like Auntie Helen, I don't see that submarine presently.

How about a converted merchie with mines?

 

[Rocco_NZ]

How about a converted merchie with mines?

I don't think anyone has suggested scrapping the RNZNVR's role of MCM. Recent estimates have suggested that it would take 2-3 years to re-map Q routes if the current surveys were allowed to lapse.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I don't think anyone has suggested scrapping the RNZNVR's role of MCM. Recent estimates have suggested that it would take 2-3 years to re-map Q routes if the current surveys were allowed to lapse.

Yes, and that takes care of the mines, what of the mine layer?say the mine layer has a light naval gun on board and wants to use Marsden point refinery for target practice?. I dont think we will ever face hundreds of enemy aircraft shooting up the beehive {however delightfull that prospect maybe to the public } but some form of antishipping capability needs to be maintained against lowlevel threats; that kind of threat has existed in two conflicts we have been in.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

Yes, and that takes care of the mines, what of the mine layer?say the mine layer has a light naval gun on board and wants to use Marsden point refinery for target practice?. I dont think we will ever face hundreds of enemy aircraft shooting up the beehive {however delightfull that prospect maybe to the public } but some form of antishipping capability needs to be maintained against lowlevel threats; that kind of threat has existed in two conflicts we have been in.

That is the rationale of the Seasprites mounting the Maverick. Like the Skyhawks before them, the Seasprites carry the Maverick because it's suitable for the most likley targets - gunboats, missile boats and small frigates and corvettes. It's also the reason the Orions are getting a anti-ship capability - low level threat response, not the domain of strike fighters.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

That is the rationale of the Seasprites mounting the Maverick. Like the Skyhawks before them, the Seasprites carry the Maverick because it's suitable for the most likley targets - gunboats, missile boats and small frigates and corvettes. It's also the reason the Orions are getting a anti-ship capability - low level threat response, not the domain of strike fighters.

Indeed, conceeded.

 

[Lucasnz]

I don't think anyone has suggested scrapping the RNZNVR's role of MCM. Recent estimates have suggested that it would take 2-3 years to re-map Q routes if the current surveys were allowed to lapse.

Actually the RNZNVR is no longer able to conduct MCM operations. The transfer of the IPC's to Auckland saw all MCM capability removed. Kiwi retained her MCM in Christchurch, but she has now transferred to Auckland also. Manawanui is will be the sole vessel responsible for MCM route survey's after Kiwi's equipment is removed. There was some talk of Resolution carrying out route survey's as well, but the propellers were interferring with the results. The reality with the RNZNVR MCM equipment was that it was dated, impossible to get spares for - ships use to transfer parts between each other to carry out taskings.