NZDF General discussion thread

[chis73]

I have to say that I can see where ZA is coming from, a maritime blockade solely against NZ is improbable. That said, I expect NZ forces should be, at least, capable enough to ensure the country's local economic / maritime security (in terms of keeping the lights on, and allowing shipping trade to continue) in a wider conflict. So, for me, maintaining an airborne ASW capability would be a high priority. Raids by submarines and surface vessels have been the major feature in NZ waters in both world wars. We should practice for that.

This brings me to two other capabilities that NZ is currently deficient in in this regard, namely, mine countermeasures and oil storage capacity. We should have a stronger standing mine-countermeasures force, consisting of several regular force ships. At the very least, the role should be practiced routinely and and an arrangement made with Australia to produce dedicated vessels (ie GRP hulls, with Australia maintaining a mould) on-demand if conditions deteriorate. In terms of oil storage, we need to do much better. Currently we are not even meeting the IEA agreements we have signed up to. Relying on Australia isn't an option, as far as I can tell they are in a worse position than we are (but at least they talk about it publicly - link).

An attack on maritime trade in SE Asia will bring about major disruption for NZ, at least in the short term. Overall, trade / shipping is pretty resilient, like The Borg - it will adapt, but this will take time. There will be a severe economic shock initially - which is something that NZ should prepare itself to absorb. Currently we are dangerously exposed. We need to be ready to take a hit.

Can I just add that I thought the mods were a little harsh against Donald_of_Tokyo a week or two back on the RNZN thread. I thought he had a reasonable point, just as ZA has here. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Has the white paper been delayed (again?) because there is so much money available that the MOD can't decide how to spend it? Or is it that there isn't enough, and they can't decide what is possibly left to cut? Selling the cheap-as-chips IPVs and downsizing Waiouru sounds desperate to me.

 

[Todjaeger]

Repeatedly telling people to listen to you without being able to persuade them why it's a good idea is the definition of arrogance.

I do not normally respond this way to DT members, but relax you sphincter and withdraw your head. There have been numerous examples given of situations which can threaten NZ's interests and well-being. Heck, Ngatimozart even uses a term "sea-blindness" for the continual short-sightedness of the NZ populace and policy makers on how dependent NZ is on maritime trade and what can impact that. Whether people are persuaded or not has little to do with arrogance, and revolves around how well the person providing the information can make the point, as well as how willing to receive, process and potentially modify their thinking the recipient is. If the recipient is bound or blinded by their ideology, then they may very well completely disregard any/all information which does not fit with their ideology, without any respect paid to the merits of the information.

When I say your argument is implausible, let me categorically state that I have heard a former Defence Minister say the idea was totally fanciful.

This forum has a thread on it somewhere telling people to stop talking about countries buying the F22 because it's been ruled out. Some of the arguments in this thread are similar.

Regarding comments by an ex-DefMin... given the actions of some of the recent NZ Gov'ts, as well as events around the world, then either the ex-DefMin's comments were being taken out of context, the ex-DefMin was an idiot, or the ex-DefMin was similarly afflicted with "sea-blindess". Or a combination thereof.

Looking at the entire entity that is the NZDF, in many respects it has been re-structured into a local/regional constabulary and international peacekeeping force for Chapt. VI-type deployments. What forces could NZ deploy which would have value in either re-opening a closed SLOC, or maintaining one against threats?

The OPV's and MRV are worth SFA for such a situation. The frigates once the SeaCeptor upgrade is completed will have some value, but without a towed sonar array and a dipping sonar-kitted Seasprite their ASW capability is not particularly good, plus with only two, the RNZN would have trouble maintaining long-term presence. The RNZN lacks any sort of proper MCM capability, so that is effectively out. The P-3K2's can provide a broad area picture of an area, and for a conflict, numerous aircraft would be required to maintain that surveillance. What the P-3K2's currently lack is an ASW capability (which should be getting remedied), but that leaves the NZDF with some damned thin options in terms of anything valuable to contribute which coalition allies would be interested in. Some airlift to move goods around? An AOR which would require an escort since the RNZN capability to escort is limited? Ground troops could be deployed for base security in a region, but other than that...

From my outsider's POV, it really does seem like most of the people in NZ think nothing is a threat or can impact them, unless/until it is within NZ's home waters, or on NZ soil. The truth is that is not the case, not in this global economy we have now. For situations which arise which are distant to NZ, but threaten NZ's interests, the NZ Gov't has the option of taking steps to mitigate or eliminate the threats to NZ interests, doing nothing with the expectation/hope that someone else will do it, or making a contribution to the efforts of others to mitigate or eliminate the threat. Depending on the level of involvement and value of that involvement, then NZ might have some input into the outcome. If NZ sat back and did nothing, or offered only a token deployment, then NZ would likely have little or no say at all in the outcome.

 

[Todjaeger]

Can I just add that I thought the mods were a little harsh against Donald_of_Tokyo a week or two back on the RNZN thread. I thought he had a reasonable point, just as ZA has here. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Has the white paper been delayed (again?) because there is so much money available that the MOD can't decide how to spend it? Or is it that there isn't enough, and they can't decide what is possibly left to cut? Selling the cheap-as-chips IPVs and downsizing Waiouru sounds desperate to me.

Everyone is certainly entitled to an opinion. I suspect where the mods start getting testy is when people keep presenting ideas or asking questions on situations which have been addressed. Repeatedly.

Look at some of the attempts to Lazarus discussion on modern utilization of battleships.

Or for a good example of a Kiwi straw-man, look at the defence policy presented by the Green Party in 2008 or 2010 IIRC. The one with a central tenet of "passive non-compliance" with an invader. Nothing says 'useful and appropriate planning' like taking one of the significantly less likely vignettes, giving it great importance, then developing a response which likely would not work. When was the last time a nation was able to free itself from invaders by passive non-compliance? The one which sticks out in my mind (and I am unsure how much was actually a result of passive non-compliance) is India becoming independent of the UK in 1947, which is only about 130 years after the UK started taking over India.

People can indeed have an opinion that passive non-compliance is a viable tactic, but at some point a dose of reality really needs to be injected.

Going back to LucasNZ's mentioning of the Rainbow Warrior incident, the presence of a French sub, if things had become hostile, would have a had a dramatically negative impact on NZ shipping, without even needing to fire a shot.

Given the havoc a sub can wreck (heh, pun) on shipping, subs draw a disproportionate attention in terms of numbers. During ET, when an Indonesian naval response would have caused all sorts of problems, IIRC it was quietly let out that the RAN had a sub in the area, and the Indonesian Navy did not intervene. During the Falklands War, the RN used a sub to sink a cruiser, and the rest of the Argentinian Navy stayed in port, except for some smaller vessels which were taken out with helicopter-launched Sea Skua AShM. How willing would merchant vessels have been to transit to, or from NZ, if they knew a French sub might be pointing torpedoes at them? Depending on when/where/how the French captain chose, the sub could have taken shots and sunk one or merchant vessels without anyone even knowing it. Or had the sub been kitted with sea mines in addition to or in place of torpedoes, then some of the channels to Kiwi ports could have become much more 'exciting' to come into. And again, depending on when/where/how it was done, the French could deny any involvement. How long would it take for mined Kiwi ports to be declared cleared by the authorities, and perhaps of equal importance, how long would it take shipping lines and seafarers to believe them?

If France was willing to take the actions it did in 1985 in/towards NZ, is it really so 'fanciful' to consider whether China, Russia, or an emerging power might use a combination of soft & hard power to influence NZ on an issue. Or perhaps just to keep NZ from becoming involved. Using China as an example, NZ is already not (at least AFAIK) directly stating opposition to Chinese activities in the SCS, largely as a result of the importance of China to NZ as a trading partner. Now if things turn more hostile in the SCS between China and any/all the other claimants, I could easily see a quiet word being sent to NZ to 'not get involved' with the attached implication that one or more NZ-bound vessels might not make it into a Kiwi port. The lack of a capable maritime presence would make such a threat that much more plausible, as well as easier to achieve by overt or covert means.

 

[ngatimozart]

Repeatedly telling people to listen to you without being able to persuade them why it's a good idea is the definition of arrogance.

When I say your argument is implausible, let me categorically state that I have heard a former Defence Minister say the idea was totally fanciful.

This forum has a thread on it somewhere telling people to stop talking about countries buying the F22 because it's been ruled out. Some of the arguments in this thread are similar.

You are on a first and only strike warning for being inconsiderate of other members views and failing to follow guidelines from other members and moderators regarding your attitude. Please refer to the forum rules regarding etiquette and behaviour. Any further breaches may result in action by the Mod Team which may or may not include a ban. If a ban is indicated, after internal consultation, the Mod Team decides on the length of the ban.

 

[ngatimozart]

I have to say that I can see where ZA is coming from, a maritime blockade solely against NZ is improbable. That said, I expect NZ forces should be, at least, capable enough to ensure the country's local economic / maritime security (in terms of keeping the lights on, and allowing shipping trade to continue) in a wider conflict. So, for me, maintaining an airborne ASW capability would be a high priority. Raids by submarines and surface vessels have been the major feature in NZ waters in both world wars. We should practice for that.

This brings me to two other capabilities that NZ is currently deficient in in this regard, namely, mine countermeasures and oil storage capacity. We should have a stronger standing mine-countermeasures force, consisting of several regular force ships. At the very least, the role should be practiced routinely and and an arrangement made with Australia to produce dedicated vessels (ie GRP hulls, with Australia maintaining a mould) on-demand if conditions deteriorate. In terms of oil storage, we need to do much better. Currently we are not even meeting the IEA agreements we have signed up to. Relying on Australia isn't an option, as far as I can tell they are in a worse position than we are (but at least they talk about it publicly - link).

An attack on maritime trade in SE Asia will bring about major disruption for NZ, at least in the short term. Overall, trade / shipping is pretty resilient, like The Borg - it will adapt, but this will take time. There will be a severe economic shock initially - which is something that NZ should prepare itself to absorb. Currently we are dangerously exposed. We need to be ready to take a hit.

Can I just add that I thought the mods were a little harsh against Donald_of_Tokyo a week or two back on the RNZN thread. I thought he had a reasonable point, just as ZA has here. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Has the white paper been delayed (again?) because there is so much money available that the MOD can't decide how to spend it? Or is it that there isn't enough, and they can't decide what is possibly left to cut? Selling the cheap-as-chips IPVs and downsizing Waiouru sounds desperate to me.

Chis, we are quite willing to receive and accept comment and criticism from you because you have been a considerate poster who is thoughtful and willing to accept others views. We would suggest that if you have particular issues in how we moderate a given situation, that you take it up with one of the moderators by PM rather than discuss it in open forum.

Haha, I wish NZDF had more money than it could spend. My own view regarding Waiouru is that it does make sense consolidating the basic training etc., in Burnham and Linton whilst retaining Waiouru for weapons live fire etc., training. I think it helps with soldiers families satisfaction because there is not much at Waiouru for them if they didn't like the outdoors and rural lifestyle. I agree with your assessment on the degradation of NZDF capabilities and that has IMHO been the result of deliberate political decisions. Regarding the forever gestating DWP, we can but wait with bated breath. The budget is delivered on the 26th of this month so who knows.

 

[MrConservative]

I have to say that I can see where ZA is coming from, a maritime blockade solely against NZ is improbable.

No one and I have checked this thread carefully has made the claim that New Zealand would be a sole recipient of a maritime blockade.

People have misinterpreted general comments regarding the importance of NZ SLOC (which extend thousands of nautical miles into Asia and the Northern Pacific both East & West) which other than the northern approaches into our EEZ are internationally shared and thus New Zealand has shared interest in keeping free and open for trade and thus in which New Zealand has a responsibility to add its proportional weight to do so by having modern capabilities in ASW either airborne or ship based.

That said, I expect NZ forces should be, at least, capable enough to ensure the country's local economic / maritime security (in terms of keeping the lights on, and allowing shipping trade to continue) in a wider conflict. So, for me, maintaining an airborne ASW capability would be a high priority.

I agree as it is orthodoxy.

Can I just add that I thought the mods were a little harsh against Donald_of_Tokyo a week or two back on the RNZN thread. I thought he had a reasonable point.

Disagree. He was factually incorrect and disingenuous. Only one of us has personally spoken to the Minister at least twice and have attended a 2 hour long defence policy briefing in the last 12 months.

 

[t68]

People have misinterpreted general comments regarding the importance of NZ SLOC (which extend thousands of nautical miles into Asia and the Northern Pacific both East & West) which other than the northern approaches into our EEZ are internationally shared and thus New Zealand has shared interest in keeping free and open for trade and thus in which New Zealand has a responsibility to add its proportional weight to do so by having modern capabilities in ASW either airborne or ship based.

Why does it have to imply airborne or ship based for modern capbilty, members here have used the assumtion of having a submarine parked off the NZ coastline to influence government responce's.

This is a bit off the wall, I think it was Tod who brought up the capability of the current Orion Fleet since their is a air transport review happening. What if NZ went in the other direction in regards to a modern ASW capability.


As part of the review NZ went the A400 and C295 with the MPA pallet for local EEZ patrolling, cancel plans for a P8 fleet concentrating their efforts on 3x Type 26 and 3x Shortfin Barracuda 1A Submarines, turn the tables so to speak on if anyone wanted to lurk along NZ coastline as well as contributing to US/RAN subsurface operations.

 

[Zero Alpha]

You are on a first and only strike warning for being inconsiderate of other members views and failing to follow guidelines from other members and moderators regarding your attitude. Please refer to the forum rules regarding etiquette and behaviour. Any further breaches may result in action by the Mod Team which may or may not include a ban. If a ban is indicated, after internal consultation, the Mod Team decides on the length of the ban.

I'm sure the Mod team can reflect on the fact I haven't done anything you haven't.


And I'm sure pulling out the red card when you're intimately involved in the conversation is frowned upon.

Edit to add - many forums have strong protocols around moderators not moderating threads they are actively participating it. Given NM's habit of labelling people arrogant and ignorant who don't agree with him, I would strongly suggest that protocol could be useful here.

 

[Zero Alpha]

Only one of us has personally spoken to the Minister at least twice and have attended a 2 hour long defence policy briefing in the last 12 months.

Presumably you're talking about yourself?

 

[Zero Alpha]

No one and I have checked this thread carefully has made the claim that New Zealand would be a sole recipient of a maritime blockade.

NM said the following in response to the point that a scenario where NZ is the sole target:

Why not? Blockade is an age old naval tactic and long term strategy. NZ is an island nation and you don't have to invade it in order to coerce it when you can effect interdiction of its SLOC. Read Geoffrey Till.

The 'Why not' part is challenging that idea.

 

[ngatimozart]

I'm sure the Mod team can reflect on the fact I haven't done anything you haven't.


And I'm sure pulling out the red card when you're intimately involved in the conversation is frowned upon.

Edit to add - many forums have strong protocols around moderators not moderating threads they are actively participating it. Given NM's habit of labelling people arrogant and ignorant who don't agree with him, I would strongly suggest that protocol could be useful here.

Be advised that the matter is being discussed by the Moderator team and that another Moderator will advise you of the outcome. I would suggest that in your own interests that you moderate your own approach and attitude whilst this process is undertaken. In this particular case I will take no part in the Moderator discussions unless I am asked for my views.

 

[MrConservative]

The 'Why not' part is challenging that idea.

I disagree. That is your interpretation. It was not explicitly stated that NZ would be the sole recipient of a sea denial action.

 

[Preceptor]

I'm sure the Mod team can reflect on the fact I haven't done anything you haven't.


And I'm sure pulling out the red card when you're intimately involved in the conversation is frowned upon.

Edit to add - many forums have strong protocols around moderators not moderating threads they are actively participating it. Given NM's habit of labelling people arrogant and ignorant who don't agree with him, I would strongly suggest that protocol could be useful here.

You have been the subject of a fair amount of recent discussion between members of the Mod team. The fact that six members of the Mod team have had issues with your engagement style means being the subject of such discussion is unhealthy. With that in mind, a 72 hour ban is in effect while the matter is discussed further. In addition, if you have issues with how the forum is moderated, communicate that with members of the Mod or Admin team via PM.
-Preceptor

PS I am the one swinging the hammer, because I got to it first.

 

[MrConservative]

Presumably you're talking about yourself?

Yes. And I have meet all the Def Mins since Paul East.

 

[Todjaeger]

Why does it have to imply airborne or ship based for modern capbilty, members here have used the assumtion of having a submarine parked off the NZ coastline to influence government responce's.

This is a bit off the wall, I think it was Tod who brought up the capability of the current Orion Fleet since their is a air transport review happening. What if NZ went in the other direction in regards to a modern ASW capability.


As part of the review NZ went the A400 and C295 with the MPA pallet for local EEZ patrolling, cancel plans for a P8 fleet concentrating their efforts on 3x Type 26 and 3x Shortfin Barracuda 1A Submarines, turn the tables so to speak on if anyone wanted to lurk along NZ coastline as well as contributing to US/RAN subsurface operations.

Seriously?

What is the current size of the entire NZDF budget, including the Capital Charge?

How much would it likely cost to just purchase 3 such subs, $2 bil. each? Never mind the infrastructure which would need to be built, the training which would be required to develop a whole new capability set. Or the level of NZDF force structure distortion devoting so much of the budget to a single capability.

If my numbers are accurate, once the Capital Charge gets factored in, each sub would cost the entire NZDF budget for a given year. So to get the first sub, the entire budget would be spent, leaving no funding to develop the required facilities, train a crew, or pay NZDF personnel. And I mean, all NZDF personnel would have to go without pay. There would be no funding for training, operations, maintenance, etc. Again, this would be across the entire NZDF.

If the subs could be brought into service, I expect their operational costs would not present such a heavy burden, but I would still expect them to require a larger slice of the NZDF budget pie to operate. Which would come at the expense of other NZDF capabilities.

 

[t68]

Seriously?

Just a thought, certainly its not like the NZG could not afford it just a lot of planning.with a multi billion dollars project spread out over what 40-50 years from cradle to grave

What is the current size of the entire NZDF budget, including the Capital Charge?

Budgets going to have to increase if they want a more modern capable force. I can't predict the future but with all the rumblings going on in the SCS and to protect their own national interest and as part of a coalition which capability would greater impact for a small nation the sub, P8 or more Type 26 ASW frigates?

How much would it likely cost to just purchase 3 such subs, $2 bil. each? Never mind the infrastructure which would need to be built, the training which would be required to develop a whole new capability set. Or the level of NZDF force structure distortion devoting so much of the budget to a single capability.

Never said it was going to be cheap or easy, nor would the capability be coming into service in the next five years, but we are looking at a capability set for around the late 2030's ample time to plan and integrate within their force structure. They have to get over the hurdle of the current force structure and there future obselence of major equipment

If the subs could be brought into service, I expect their operational costs would not present such a heavy burden, but I would still expect them to require a larger slice of the NZDF budget pie to operate. Which would come at the expense of other NZDF capabilities.

Again that comes down to the government and the capability they want to achieve

 

[ngatimozart]

Just a thought, certainly its not like the NZG could not afford it just a lot of planning.with a multi billion dollars project spread out over what 40-50 years from cradle to grave



Budgets going to have to increase if they want a more modern capable force. I can't predict the future but with all the rumblings going on in the SCS and to protect their own national interest and as part of a coalition which capability would greater impact for a small nation the sub, P8 or more Type 26 ASW frigates?



Never said it was going to be cheap or easy, nor would the capability be coming into service in the next five years, but we are looking at a capability set for around the late 2030's ample time to plan and integrate within their force structure. They have to get over the hurdle of the current force structure and there future obselence of major equipment





Again that comes down to the government and the capability they want to achieve

Subs aren't part of NZDF CONOPS at the present point in time. Like Todj says such a capability would be too much of a drain on NZDF resources. Subs were suggested back in the early 1980s and discounted then as being impractical. If such funding was made available for ASW / ASuW / ISR resources, then it would be better spent on airborne platforms and shipborne platforms, plus good intelligence. ASW is not easy and it generally requires multiple assets to successfully prosecute. It is usually slanted in favour of the enemy sub and it can be likened to finding a needle in a haystack. Except that the needle moves spatially with delta velocities and the haystack can be vast with properties that have a habit of changing.

 

[Todjaeger]

Just a thought, certainly its not like the NZG could not afford it just a lot of planning.with a multi billion dollars project spread out over what 40-50 years from cradle to grave

The RAN SEA1000 project has a cost estimate of AUD$40-$50 bil. for a dozen subs, over the life of the entire programme. Drilling down, that works out to between a little more than AUD$3-$4 bil. per sub, again over the life of the programme. The usual guidelines I have seen is that ~half the cost of a programme come from through life and sustainment, leaving the other half as the initial acquisition cost.

With the budget of the NZDF at the current level, and with what various NZ gov'ts could likely get away with increasing it to (which is not IMO what they likely will raise it to), does it seem realistic for the RNZN to spend between AUD $4.5-$6 bil. on the initial acquisition of three subs? Which are likely to have a total programme cost of between AUD$9-$12 bil. not including training and rescue facilities, and all of the other specific infrastructure required to support submarine operations which the RNZN does not have.

Including the Capital Charge, the NZDF via Vote Defence is only ~NZD$3.1 bil. p.a. and that covers the entire NZDF, Army, RNZN, and RNZAF. Of which only something like NZD$500-$700 mil. is for Capital acquisitions IIRC.

Hence my comment about force structure distortions. Basically all the current funding and then some would have to be allocated to stand up a sub capability, but that would come at the expense of all and I do mean ALL the capabilities the NZDF currently has.

That does not even get into the question of whether 3 subs would provide sufficient capability. The RAN encountered problems with only having a half-dozen subs, because there was insufficient 'mass' if you will, to ensure a large enough pool of crew with the proper skill sets to operate subs. With the RNZN having even fewer numbers, and basically not much else due to funding limits, there would likely be real problems getting subs deployed.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The RAN SEA1000 project has a cost estimate of AUD$40-$50 bil. for a dozen subs, over the life of the entire programme. Drilling down, that works out to between a little more than AUD$3-$4 bil. per sub, again over the life of the programme. The usual guidelines I have seen is that ~half the cost of a programme come from through life and sustainment, leaving the other half as the initial acquisition cost.

Current dollar costs are estimated at $31bn
The build costs were capped and declared by a few of them as $20bn

that means a 1/3rd is contingency and raise train and sustainment

the extra $19bn is forward estimates on build, R, T, S

btw the $50bn is not a capped price - it could go higher, as could the sheer build costs

 

[Todjaeger]

Current dollar costs are estimated at $31bn
The build costs were capped and declared by a few of them as $20bn

that means a 1/3rd is contingency and raise train and sustainment

the extra $19bn is forward estimates on build, R, T, S

btw the $50bn is not a capped price - it could go higher, as could the sheer build costs

So current projections of around AUD$1.6 bil. per sub, give or take?

That is still something like two or three times the annual amount in Vote Defence for acquisitions, and half the budget, per sub.

I still just do not see NZ getting into the sub game. Too many other capabilities which currently exist and would still be needed would need to be given up. That or Vote Defence would need to be significantly increased, likely past the 2% GDP mark, without the Capital Charge.

Something else which I felt should be pointed out to some of the newer and/or more casual members. With something like force planning, it is a complex process which considers what the resources are, balanced against what the current, likely, and potential future threats.

Where things gets troublesome, is that some of the capabilities which might be required to mitigate or eliminate a future threat are not only expensive, they can take time to adequately develop, in addition to the time required to acquire the capability. With these facts in mind, that is why some of the defence planning activities try and look years into the future. Apart from defence planners, the only other similar future looking activities which come to mind would be insurance actuaries, and long-term investment forecasters. Both attempt to determine the risk/reward probabilities for things in the future.

With that in mind, commentary from most elected or electable officials is of minimal value, because most of their POV would be the current or upcoming electoral cycle. They do not typically look to see what the situation will likely be in 2025 or 2030. Nor do they likely know or care that a decision about equipment made (or not made) while they are in office can have repercussions a decade or more later.