Some were one and two stars NG. They also indirectly killed the 3rd Anzac option which was going to go to us for a bargain end of run price of iirc $355m.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
Fly in the ointment is that if Australia is attacked New Zealand will almost certainly be under the same gun. Those resources will never be allowed to get there.
The requirement of a greater NZ defence posture with respect to our security umbrella is to add further strategic weight to Australia even before contemplation of coming to their aid with resources if they were under direct attack.
Good. Infrastructure like roads, ports and airfields create jobs and the economy..... but chances are they will FUBAR that up too. With government debt ratios under 20% of GDP we have ample headroom to borrow an equal amount over 10 years for defence above and beyond the 20 billion earmarked.
3rd Division had Valentine tanks in the pacific and they continued in service in NZ until the early 1960's. Of little use except for training.
The cruisers were on loan and had no capital cost except I think that we paid for Royalists upgrade, however the extra crew made available had they been deleted would have enabled all 6 Loch class to be operated, as no more than 4 were operated after the Korean war and then only for a short period. Hawea went into reserve in 1957 until scrapped, Rotoiti from 54 to 57,Taupo from 52 until scrapped , Tutira, from 52 until scrapped. Not a happy story.
Last edited:
Gracie1234
Well-Known Member
It has been a while since i have posted. Being from a tech background I would see any conflict starting in the digital world before it got physical, requiring arms. A small country like ours would get more cost-effective use from digital weapons, these people and resources can be dual-use. Active when needed and supporting NZ businesses when not, there is already a lot of cyber activity happening today where we are very under-resourced.
Just to add a bit more. The 1956/7 NZ Naval Board Reports that:
As New Zealand is not capable of defending herself unaided, her main defence effort in peace and war must be made in co-operation with allied forces. Measures for local defence are being undertaken only insofar as is warranted by the threat of enemy action and will not unduly prejudice the collective effort overseas.
In peace there is a need for New Zealand to maintain an effective contribution to the forces in South-East Asia and to maintain further forces in a state of readiness, which will enable them to be brought speedily to bear in war or other emergency. Within this concept the Navy’s peacetime contribution to the overseas force is one cruiser or alternatively one or two frigates.
A big advance in the modernization of the Fleet has taken place this year with the arrival of the cruiser ROYALIST. Orders for two of the latest anti-submarine vessels of the WHITBY class have been placed. In addition to the most modern anti-submarine equipment they will have a sufficient armament to provide good protection from aerial attack and a useful surface gunnery role. They are fast and have a good range and will provide a most useful contribution to the allied forces on joining the Fleet in 1960. A further four will be required to complete the replacement of the existing frigates, which are nearing the end of their useful lives.
So as the First Cold War was gearing up in the late 1950's the Naval Board at the time were contemplating SIX Type 12 Frigates for the RNZN. Subsequent NZ Naval Board Reports state that the first of these were to replace Tutiri and Taupo and that "until further Whitby replacements are received the effectiveness of the fleet will, however, remain limited. In the meantime these two ships will form a most effective nucleus upon which to build the future fleet." NZNBR 1959/60.
"A programme for the re-equipment of the RNZN over the next 10 years has been put before the Government, as all ships of the RNZN, with the exception of OTAGO and TARANAKI, will reach the end of their effective lives during that period. The development plan concentrates upon anti-submarine and minesweeping ships because it is considered that these provide the best all-round defence in meeting New Zealand’s two main commitments – the defence of the New Zealand area; and providing a worth-while contribution to allied maritime forces arising from New Zealand’s defence commitments." NZNBR 1959/60.
"The re-equipment programme of the Royal New Zealand Navy aims to provide modern general-purpose frigates and a mine-clearance force. This programme has already started with the arrival in January of HMNZS OTAGO, and HMNZS TARANAKI is due to arrive in New Zealand later this year. While these two ships will enhance the effectiveness of the Fleet at present, the future is not assured. ROYALIST and the four remaining Loch class frigates reach the end of their effective lives by 1965-66. Although containing a modern gunnery system, the ROYALIST has a hull and machinery, which are already 20 years old. As it takes from four to five years to build and deliver a modern warship further replacements must be ordered now if the Navy is to be able to meet its share of New Zealand’s defence commitments, both overseas and at home, in 1966, and be of a minimum shape and size upon which an effective service can be built up in cast; of war or emergency." NZNBR 1959/60.
"Looking forward, the Naval Board see no reason why this level of efficiency cannot be maintained. They feel that a six-frigate, basically anti-submarine force, with supporting auxiliary ships is substantially the future shape of the Royal New Zealand Navy. It is a reasonable compromise between what is needed, what the country can afford, and what it can man. As a result they are planning, not on an increase in the present size, but on progressive replacement of ships by modern equivalents as they become too old to be economically maintained and too outmoded to be militarily efficient." NZNBR 1962/63.
"The Naval Board has calculated the commitment and the need for maintenance. The answer is inescapable. To do all the Navy is required to do, and to continue doing it regularly and without fail requires six operational frigates. Fewer will not be sufficient. This, then, was the conclusion that emerged confirmation of the earlier decision that New Zealand needs a Navy designed for commerce protection, that it should be equipped with modern frigates and that six are needed." NZNBR 1962/63.
"This stage is approaching with ROYALIST and with the two Loch class frigates, which remain in service. Within a predictable time these three ships must go out of service. Unless they are replaced, New Zealand will fall short of the six ships that it requires. Re-equipment accordingly needs to proceed at a somewhat accelerated pace if an efficient Service is not to deteriorate." NZNBR 1962/63.
In 1966 those three vessels were replaced by Waikato and the leased Type 12 Blackpool which was to stay until 1971 until the arrival of the Canterbury which was ordered that year. With the end of Indonesian confrontation the two minesweepers HMNZS Hickleton and Santon were returned to the United Kingdom and paid off and were never replaced.
Note at that time former RAN Bathhurst Class Corvettes HMNZS Kiama and HMNZS lnverell continued in the offshore fishery protection and sea training role until 1976. The two other former RAN Bathhurst Class Corvettes HMNZS Stawell and HMNZS Euchua were held in reserve. What is depressing is that the Muldoon government never replaced these vessels which would patrol fairly long range out to the Chathams and Kermadec and were used in show the flag visits up to the islands, especially so since that the NZ Govt signed the UNCLOS laws in 1977. The late RADM Ted Thorne once told me the Naval Staff wanted the Island Class patrol vessels as replacements. That by the time he was a CNS during that era he had accepted a four Frigate fleet and the Kirk government ordered four Lake Class IPC's for the inshore role but we needed a larger longer range patrol vessel instead.
One of the misconceptions that has for many years been perpetuated both on Defence Talk and in the MSM is that New Zealand cannot afford a capable Defence Force.
These two macro-economic indicators give a fundamental read on the health of an economy and that economies governmental books. It is broad stroke stuff but raises a cogent illustration of a point that I have been making for some time so as to bust this affordability myth. The first set of figures Government Debt % of GDP from a Quarterly Market Overview Report to Institutional Investors from a major Australasian Bank (It does not list NZ and OZ figures as they assume we already would know them). These are most recent figures I had, which generally line up with the open source IMF, World Bank, CIA figures circa 2017-19. The Government Surplus / Deficit % of GDP figures are from The World Factbook.
They show comparatively where NZ sits with respect to other OECD nations.
2019 Q3 Government Debt % of GDP
Austria 74
Belgium 101
Canada 87
Chile 24
Denmark 34
Finland 60
France 96
Germany 59
Czech 33
Ireland 66
Israel 61
Italy 130
Japan 238
South Korea 40
Netherlands 53
Norway 36
Poland 49
Portugal 120
Singapore 112
Spain 97
Sweden 37
Switzerland 40
UK 87
USA 106
For reference to these other OECD nations both NZ and Australia have core Government GDP debt ratios under 20. Which means both countries have ample headroom to borrow more, which Australia is already doing so - indicating NZ's ample capacity is there to borrow to "invest" into defence capabilities in comparison to other nations.
2017 Government Surplus % of GDP
Switzerland 0.2%
Netherlands 0.6%
Korea, South 0.6%
Germany 0.7%
New Zealand 0.7%
Sweden 0.9%
Norway 4.2%
Pretty much world number 3 in the surplus stakes is NZ. 0.7% of GDP!!
2017 Government Deficit % of GDP
United States −4.6%
Japan −4.6%
France −3.1%
Spain −3.3%
UK −1.1%
Italy −2.3%
Canada −2.0%
Australia −1.7%
Poland −2.2%
Belgium −2.1%
Chile −3.1%
Austria −1.0%
Finland −1.6%
Portugal −1.8%
Greece −1.3%
Denmark −0.6%
Ireland −0.6%
Czech −0.1%
Singapore −1.0%
Even Australia is running a 1.7% deficit. Canada a 2% deficit.
NZ Spends circa 1.0% of GDP on Defence. Its Govt surplus is 0.7% of GDP. Its consolidated fiscal balance grew by 2.5% in 2018/19. Its 5 Year Forecast for Government Revenue will reach $150B by 2025 meaning the money the NZ Government takes in during that year from tax and other means. Its 5 Year Forecast Government Expenditure will reach $139B by 2025 meaning the money the NZ Government takes in during that year from tax and other means. This means there is an accumulation of billions from surpluses viz Revenue less Expenditure. Most of this has been used to aggressively pay down Core Government Debt over the last few years. New Zealand has been in surplus for 4 years.
So what does that mean for NZ defence affordability?
We spend 1.0% of GDP on Defence. Our Government Surplus is 0.7% of GDP and the Forecasts have that locked in if Govt continues to control and balance the expenditure - revenue levers. Put that together is $1.7% of GDP alone. Meaning NZ could dramatically increase defence spend by 70% a year if it chose too, and still pay for everything else, and furthermore not even tap into the massive opportunity to borrow from our incredible low GDP debt ratio base of circa 20% under Triple A credit rating conditions.
These two macro-economic indicators give a fundamental read on the health of an economy and that economies governmental books. It is broad stroke stuff but raises a cogent illustration of a point that I have been making for some time so as to bust this affordability myth. The first set of figures Government Debt % of GDP from a Quarterly Market Overview Report to Institutional Investors from a major Australasian Bank (It does not list NZ and OZ figures as they assume we already would know them). These are most recent figures I had, which generally line up with the open source IMF, World Bank, CIA figures circa 2017-19. The Government Surplus / Deficit % of GDP figures are from The World Factbook.
They show comparatively where NZ sits with respect to other OECD nations.
2019 Q3 Government Debt % of GDP
Austria 74
Belgium 101
Canada 87
Chile 24
Denmark 34
Finland 60
France 96
Germany 59
Czech 33
Ireland 66
Israel 61
Italy 130
Japan 238
South Korea 40
Netherlands 53
Norway 36
Poland 49
Portugal 120
Singapore 112
Spain 97
Sweden 37
Switzerland 40
UK 87
USA 106
For reference to these other OECD nations both NZ and Australia have core Government GDP debt ratios under 20. Which means both countries have ample headroom to borrow more, which Australia is already doing so - indicating NZ's ample capacity is there to borrow to "invest" into defence capabilities in comparison to other nations.
2017 Government Surplus % of GDP
Switzerland 0.2%
Netherlands 0.6%
Korea, South 0.6%
Germany 0.7%
New Zealand 0.7%
Sweden 0.9%
Norway 4.2%
Pretty much world number 3 in the surplus stakes is NZ. 0.7% of GDP!!
2017 Government Deficit % of GDP
United States −4.6%
Japan −4.6%
France −3.1%
Spain −3.3%
UK −1.1%
Italy −2.3%
Canada −2.0%
Australia −1.7%
Poland −2.2%
Belgium −2.1%
Chile −3.1%
Austria −1.0%
Finland −1.6%
Portugal −1.8%
Greece −1.3%
Denmark −0.6%
Ireland −0.6%
Czech −0.1%
Singapore −1.0%
Even Australia is running a 1.7% deficit. Canada a 2% deficit.
NZ Spends circa 1.0% of GDP on Defence. Its Govt surplus is 0.7% of GDP. Its consolidated fiscal balance grew by 2.5% in 2018/19. Its 5 Year Forecast for Government Revenue will reach $150B by 2025 meaning the money the NZ Government takes in during that year from tax and other means. Its 5 Year Forecast Government Expenditure will reach $139B by 2025 meaning the money the NZ Government takes in during that year from tax and other means. This means there is an accumulation of billions from surpluses viz Revenue less Expenditure. Most of this has been used to aggressively pay down Core Government Debt over the last few years. New Zealand has been in surplus for 4 years.
So what does that mean for NZ defence affordability?
We spend 1.0% of GDP on Defence. Our Government Surplus is 0.7% of GDP and the Forecasts have that locked in if Govt continues to control and balance the expenditure - revenue levers. Put that together is $1.7% of GDP alone. Meaning NZ could dramatically increase defence spend by 70% a year if it chose too, and still pay for everything else, and furthermore not even tap into the massive opportunity to borrow from our incredible low GDP debt ratio base of circa 20% under Triple A credit rating conditions.
Well defense is getting any money since the current lot have just restarted most of the transport projects they cancelled when they got the hot seat, this is the most outrageous back flip in govt policy that I can remember. So much for being transformational, they have just moved back to the centre and now there's bugger all difference between them and the last lot.
If they have moved back to the centre then that in the very least is good news. Probably a lot of it is due to learning on the job from the officials in actually how to run a country when their previous management experience was running the NZ University Students Association before they entered politics.
milliGal
Member
Cabinet material for the approval of NEA tranche 2 has just been released.
No real revelations in it, but it did include a nice graphic at the end outlining the governments capability investment requirements that gives a little extra insight. They elected to use a photo of a NH90 NFH to represent the future maritime helicopter replacement, so it is clearly in their thinking. The complementary maritime patrol photo is curiously blank so no insights to what they are thinking for that.
The partially redacted table shown below shows the list of projects likely to be approved in the current parliamentary term. This suggests the enhanced maritime surveillance is well advanced and likely already approved. It also suggests they are moving forward with the southern ocean patrol vessel already, with a shortlist likely already approved.
No real revelations in it, but it did include a nice graphic at the end outlining the governments capability investment requirements that gives a little extra insight. They elected to use a photo of a NH90 NFH to represent the future maritime helicopter replacement, so it is clearly in their thinking. The complementary maritime patrol photo is curiously blank so no insights to what they are thinking for that.
The partially redacted table shown below shows the list of projects likely to be approved in the current parliamentary term. This suggests the enhanced maritime surveillance is well advanced and likely already approved. It also suggests they are moving forward with the southern ocean patrol vessel already, with a shortlist likely already approved.
It is hard for me to see how NZ can have a serious security umbrella without a credible ACF - and that ACF realistically would need to involve the F-35, P-8, and the necessary anti-ship missiles and ASW capability.
At the moment, with no disrespect to those serving in the NZDF, the NZDF isn't particularly serious in terms of capability at the moment. And even 1% of GDP is a fair bit to spend if you aren't getting much for it.
Feel there needs to be a clear strategy, a clear view as to the capability required to deliver on the strategy, and sufficient spending to match deliver that capability.
In my opinion, all three are currently missing.
Massive
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
I generally agree with this, but I think we also need a basic AEW ability which the K2's have, 'sort of' and it does not appear that the P8's have and whether we need the F 35 or a simpler solution will suffice would be debatable as they would most likely in a defensive mode be simply missile platforms in many scenarios without air opposition. Missiles are a given but I would add air to air missiles into the mix as the range that modern air transports and airliners have could be a threat in the wrong hands. I am very aware of the deterrent factor that a well set up AFC would have and would think that it should be a no brainer in this world of an increasingly fragile security outlook. Unfortunately the pollies will say there is no current threadand as per normal when they wake up it will be miles to late (probably more than a decade late). I don't think that a Labour government would sanction an AFC as this would be to admit they were wrong to scrap it and a National government would not as it would be classed as too expensive.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I would say that first NZ needs to take a real honest look at what the real and potential security threats to NZ and Kiwi interests are, not just within NZ or the near enviro, but within the wider S. Pacific and Asia-Pacific regions. As part of this look, I believe the realistic threats and concerns need to be brought to the attention of the normal populace in an attempt to end some of NZ's chronic defence outlook problems like the apparently ever present 'sea blindness' which I still find rather mind boggling given NZ's literal place in the world as a quite remote island nation, with long SLOC to major world markets and very reliant on maritime trade for goods and resources like fuel.
From there, then perhaps a realistic strategy can be formed and then maintained through changes in gov't and the parties in power.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
“Brought to the attention of the normal populace”, good luck with that! I think when it comes to defence, the NZ normal populace, like the Canadian populace, doesn’t want to hear reality. Living next to a superpower allows for some lax attitudes in Canada but the US trend towards isolation won’t allow this much longer.
Kiwis will talk about it if given the chance, but it's never an election issue because of a back room deal between the 2 main parties never to make it an election issue.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
We do make defence an election issue in Canada from time to time, usually only on procurement screw-ups, not so much on capability and national defence priorities . Although there’s no official agreement, both major parties will only provide minimal funding towards defence i,e. just enough for a few jobs and keeping defence from becoming an election issue. As long as there is no serious geopolitical downturn this will continue.
My personal opinion is that the easiest way to restore an AFC currently would be with cooperation with the RAAF embed our personnel (both air and ground ) into a hornet sqn as the RAAF switched their personnel to the F 35. We would need to borrow some of their SQN leadership for a while we built up our abilities and would have to increase the size of our training organisations to cover the increased requirements. Eventually we would be able to move the unit back to NZ. This would serve a reasonable function for a further time and at the same time start building up an advance combat training unit equipped for example with the TA 50 or similar. Going for something like the F 35 I think is well outside our capabilities at this time and we do need to learn to walk before we try to run, which as discussed some time previously is going to take a decade and a half to two decades. This is why in my opinion we cannot delay much longer as the strategic situation is steadily deteriorating and due to climate change and an increasingly expanded population and is likely to continue to get worse.
Alternatively, RNZAF can do the same with the RSAF for Viper qualification, as we retire the aircraft type (as Singapore transitions to the F-35B in the late 2030s). Whichever choice NZ picks, the country should begin a plan to send exchange pilots or WSOs and get a few people qualified to type for both Vipers and Hornets to get a feel of the tactics available.
Last edited:
milliGal
Member
The autumn Line of Defence issue has a few interesting pieces, most notably the one from Defence Minister Ron Mark.
To the relief of everyone here I'm sure, it appears the acquisition of the C130J is still firmly on track, despite ongoing covid19 crisis and associate economic downturn. An announcement will be made in "the coming months", probably around the same time as the budget announcement on May 14.
He also talks of an increasing political consensus on defence spending, that bodes well for the rest of the DCP projects. I also expect announcements regarding the updated defence estate plan will be made alongside the budget, as these have the potential to form part of the large public works projects being talked about to kick start the economy again in the coming months.
To the relief of everyone here I'm sure, it appears the acquisition of the C130J is still firmly on track, despite ongoing covid19 crisis and associate economic downturn. An announcement will be made in "the coming months", probably around the same time as the budget announcement on May 14.
He also talks of an increasing political consensus on defence spending, that bodes well for the rest of the DCP projects. I also expect announcements regarding the updated defence estate plan will be made alongside the budget, as these have the potential to form part of the large public works projects being talked about to kick start the economy again in the coming months.
Last edited:
Interesting.... am particularly pleased to see Mark points to an apparent consensus on the need for defence spending... it's all about how the argument is sold. Most planned spending has been pitched as being less about war-fighting & more about resource security, SAR & HADR requirements which of course always makes it an easier sell in NZ. This has allowed the P8A purchase to to fly (excuse the pun!) pretty much under the radar... whilst it's high-end, they've downplayed it's obvious combat capability. I'm not sure however that Frigate replacement will be so easy... that of course depends on the domestic political & international scene when decision time comes.
One thing I would say about Mark's contribution... it completely manages to avoid any mention of COVID so that strongly suggests to me it was written before we faced this head-on...meaning his comments about C-130J-30 purchase being on track may not be valid anymore... although that's now just a case of waiting to see what comes out around budget time.
Leonardo real keen to push their ATR-72MP... not sure that's what is in mind for the Enhanced Maritime Awareness Capability as it seems to be more predicated around (1) satellites 2025+ & (2) UAV 2030+ ... remembering P3K2 won't be fully gone till 2025 so whilst leased KA350 may be a realistic option to get thru to when UAV are planned, I can't see a fairly capable 2nd tier MPA purchased to cover a 5-10 year requirement.
The MQ-9B however (or it's eventual successor) could well be on the table though!....Fingers crossed!