NZDF General discussion thread

[MrConservative]

Yep, but I also think that the NZG has a significant part to play in this too. Many startups have to do go offshore for funding and end up being owned and operated offshore, which isn't good for NZ Inc and the retention of NZ STEM graduates in the country, as well as the associated IP. If the NZG was to decently fund R&D and help with startups in the technology sector, we would benefit from it in the long term.

The NZ government cannot do everything. Yes a bit of seed money for space. But who pays for it - when there are baseline infrastructure issues such as poor roading, old bridges, sewage schemes, aging port facilities to address - let alone defence. I certainly pay more than my fair share of tax. NZ was and is built on foreign equity - fact of life when you have only 5 million people - triple it then you may have the economies of scale to get an industrial fortress New Zealand. Start ups go offshore because Kiwi's are addicted to property investment and not commercial ventures which if done correctly create much greater returns. They certainly put their money into that - driving up property prices suppressing other investment and savings.

 

[ngatimozart]

I would be very much surprised if they cut Defence and delay capabilities. They will borrow. Besides Winstone will turn on them and he is very good at the takedown and needs a popularist niche issue. Because I think that the next Black Swan event could be conflict.

I agree about the next Black Swan event, and hope that you are correct in your assessment. Do you think that Winston will campaign on Defence? I hope that he does because it will force the 2 major parties to discuss it on the hustings, and that's what needs to happen.

 

[ngatimozart]

The NZ government cannot do everything. Yes a bit of seed money for space. But who pays for it - when there are baseline infrastructure issues such as poor roading, old bridges, sewage schemes, aging port facilities to address - let alone defence. I certainly pay more than my fair share of tax. NZ was and is built on foreign equity - fact of life when you have only 5 million people - triple it then you may have the economies of scale to get an industrial fortress New Zealand. Start ups go offshore because Kiwi's are addicted to property investment and not commercial ventures which if done correctly create much greater returns. They certainly put their money into that - driving up property prices suppressing other investment and savings.

Gawd don't get me started on on the property market. I understand that, but I still think that the govt can do more to make it easier, such as tax breaks for R&D etc., interest free business loans if necessary. It could be done as part of the economic recovery plan to start with.

Of course certain sectors in society would argue for increasing taxes and increasing the top rate from 33c to 39c/$ is their suggestion. Maybe a rise to 35c/$ for the top rate and leave the GST at 15%

 

[Rob c]

I agree about the next Black Swan event, and hope that you are correct in your assessment. Do you think that Winston will campaign on Defence? I hope that he does because it will force the 2 major parties to discuss it on the hustings, and that's what needs to happen.

We are getting a bit close to politics, but Winston will do what Winston thinks is best for Winston and if he thinks defence will get him a few percent he will use it, but over the years he has not been that strong on defence himself as opposed to his party.

 

[MrConservative]

I agree about the next Black Swan event, and hope that you are correct in your assessment.

Quite the reverse. I hope I am very much wrong in my assessment. NZ has had over the last decade three huge earthquakes, facedown the GFC, suffered a major terror attack, a volcanic explosion and now a health pandemic that may send us into another global economic depression. The last thing I need is conflict even of a medium intensity Chp VII variety.

 

[ngatimozart]

The budget is out and it appears that Defence has been voted NZ$3.9 billion https://treasury.govt.nz/publicatio...vernment-new-zealand-year-ending-30-june-2021. I haven't gone through it in detail, but couldn't find anything relating to the Hercs.

 

[Rob c]

The budget is out and it appears that Defence has been voted NZ$3.9 billion External Sector - The Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the Year Ending 30 June 2021. I haven't gone through it in detail, but couldn't find anything relating to the Hercs.

Did see in the microsoft news a statement that 900 million was available for the C130 replacement should cabinet aprove it.
there was also a raft of other spending.

NZ Defence Force gets huge $1 billion cash injection in Budget

 

[MrConservative]

I would be very much surprised if they cut Defence and delay capabilities. They will borrow. Besides Winstone will turn on them and he is very good at the takedown and needs a popularist niche issue. Because I think that the next Black Swan event could be conflict.

Told you folks there was nothing to worry about.

 

[KiwiRob]

Yes! This sort of thing is what I was alluding to. We don’t have to ‘give up sovereignty’ or hand over the keys to major defence assets to make it work. But like you said, in the past Aus & NZ have been closer at various levels of government. Airlines are a perfect example, you can operate under either countries rules in the other one. Also QF/VA can have an airline in NZ (but Air NZ can not operate domesticity in Aus, that option was removed). Also I’m pretty sure Australians can get access to government benefits in NZ but it doesn’t work going the other way.

I’m not arguing for NZ giving up sovereignty on fighter jets, just suggesting there could be a cheaper way that benefits both sides.

We have two similar countries with similar interests in our region. I’m suggesting that there may be a framework that could be created to allow a mutual benefit.

Air NZ have the approval to provide domestic operation in Australia, they are also allowed to fly international from Australia, this is covered under the Australia New Zealand Open Skies agreement.

THE OPEN SKIES AGREEMENT AT A GLANCE

The main provisions of the new agreement and MoU are:

· Australian and New Zealand international airlines will be able to operate unrestricted international services across the Tasman and continue those services beyond to third countries.

· Australian and New Zealand owned airlines will be able to operate unrestricted services across the Tasman and domestic services in both countries, subject to safety approvals.

· Australian and New Zealand international airlines will be able to operate dedicated freight services from either Australia or New Zealand to third countries. For example, a New Zealand international carrier could operate a freight service from Australia without flying through a New Zealand port at any stage of the journey.

· All international services will continue to operate to and from designated international airports. The existing customs, immigration, and quarantine restrictions will not be affected by the agreement.

· Airlines will make commercial decisions on the number of services they operate and the destinations they serve. Airlines will no longer have to obtain government approval for their airfares, subject to Australia’s legislative processes.

· Domestic competition laws will continue to apply to the operation of the airlines of both parties. In addition, the two governments will use their best endeavours to ensure fair access to airports in both countries.

· Australia and New Zealand will mutually recognise each other’s air safety approvals by December 2003.

· Australia and New Zealand will examine the possibility of introducing seventh freedom traffic rights for passenger services. The introduction of seventh freedom rights would allow (for example) an Australian international carrier to operate from New Zealand to a third country without flying to an Australian port at any stage of the journey.

@KiwiRob LINK TO SOURCE PLEASE. THANKS.

NGATIMOZART.

Source: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInf...t will,to third countries without restriction

 

[OldTex]

MrConservative wrote on the A400 forum -"However as this thread is about the A400 it is best that further discussions about any future use of that or other aircraft should be discussed on the RNZAF thread. The point also being when you get there that 1) there are no longer plans under the DCP or DWP for an outsize load strategic air mobility capability as all that will be covered via two sealift vessels, and 2) that a commercial airliner based aircraft which can comfortably have no PSR restrictions is preferred and much more indicative of what platform meets the requirements."

I think that this thread is a more appropriate location to discuss NZDF strategic mobility as it affects both air and sea platforms.

In reply to points 1 & 2) The NZ Defence Capability Plan 2019 on page 30 has this statement:
"Operations in the Pacific and globally will require an air transport option for the movement of personnel, equipment and stores over long ranges. The eventual withdrawal from service of the current Boeing 757 fleet will allow for the procurement of a strategic airlift capability that meets capability requirements across a range of tasks."
This statement does not preclude the option of a strategic air mobility capability that is able to move outsized cargo over long distance. As the size of NZDF equipment will change (based on overseas experiences) between 2019 and the expected (my emphasis) in-service date of 2028 (from the DCP) precluding an outsize airlifter would be unnecessarily restricting the NZDF from achieving the NZ Gov task.

It should also be noted that the DCP (on page 33) states, "Acquisition of an enhanced multi-role sealift vessel to complement HMNZS Canterbury will occur in the late- 2020s". The expected in-service date for the second sealift ship is 2029. The DCP also states (on page 34) that "HMNZS Canterbury will be replaced in the mid-2030s, at the end of its service life. The capability acquired will be determined during the business case process, but will improve the Defence Force’s sealift capability at the time HMNZS Canterbury is retired, complementing the enhanced sealift vessel procured in the late 2020s. Options will be explored against the composition of the fleet, the wider Defence Force and the prevailing strategic environment". At best there will be negligible cability gap between Canterbury paying-off and its replacement being commissioned. At worst Canterbury could not be replaced. This worst case scenario would leave the NZDF in exactly the same position it is in now.

The provision of a strategic air mobility capability which is able to transport outsized cargo over long distances would provide the NZDF with an alternative should the worst case happen.

 

[ngatimozart]

Agree with you about the acquisition of strategic air mobility capability, and the government is providing that which is in the 2019 DCP. However there is a big difference between a CAPABILITY and a PLATFORM, and you have to decide whether or not you know the differences between the two. The strategic air mobility capability is the second component of the FUTURE AIR MOBILITY CAPABILITY Project which has been ongoing for about 7 years in its present form. The platform chosen for the tactical component, subject to Cabinet approval of the tender acceptance, is the C130J-30, which replaces the C-130H(NZ). The strategic component is the B757-200 Combi replacement, and since 2016 both major political parties have signalled that it will be a like for like replacement. So the platform will not be a full military airlifter, but a converted airliner and it's the capability of that platform that we are discussing, which is the arse up way of doing things.

It's also about looking at the acquisition in a wider context, not just a RNZAF one but it's a purple asset as well, so a NZDF asset. It has to bring value to NZDF besides just humping pax and freight from point A to point B and beyond. Given the times that we are living in, they will have to become more multirole than the current B757-200 are, so that they are force multipliers for us and our ally and coalition partners.

However whether the pollies see it that way or not is another story and it is they who have the final say at the end of the day.

 

[MrConservative]

MrConservative wrote on the A400 forum -"However as this thread is about the A400 it is best that further discussions about any future use of that or other aircraft should be discussed on the RNZAF thread. The point also being when you get there that 1) there are no longer plans under the DCP or DWP for an outsize load strategic air mobility capability as all that will be covered via two sealift vessels, and 2) that a commercial airliner based aircraft which can comfortably have no PSR restrictions is preferred and much more indicative of what platform meets the requirements."

I think that this thread is a more appropriate location to discuss NZDF strategic mobility as it affects both air and sea platforms.

In reply to points 1 & 2) The NZ Defence Capability Plan 2019 on page 30 has this statement:
"Operations in the Pacific and globally will require an air transport option for the movement of personnel, equipment and stores over long ranges. The eventual withdrawal from service of the current Boeing 757 fleet will allow for the procurement of a strategic airlift capability that meets capability requirements across a range of tasks."
This statement does not preclude the option of a strategic air mobility capability that is able to move outsized cargo over long distance. As the size of NZDF equipment will change (based on overseas experiences) between 2019 and the expected (my emphasis) in-service date of 2028 (from the DCP) precluding an outsize airlifter would be unnecessarily restricting the NZDF from achieving the NZ Gov task.

Nor does the statement rule in any outsize load air mobility capability in either. The reality is that the selection of the C-130J-30 solution over the A400M and C-2 was after the DCP was published and thus has supercede it thus there are no longer plans to seek an outside load capability and the only viable FAMC option is no longer produced. There is also the indicative project budget of between NZ$300-600m which precludes any acquisition of a heavy military lifter again indicating a new or used Boeing or Airbus airliner.

To reiterate point 1) outsize loads will deploy via the enhanced sealift vessels or through an occasional assistance tasking larger defence partner and 2) that a like for like commercial airliner based aircraft which can comfortably have no PSR restrictions is preferred and much more indicative of what platform now meets the future requirements.

The size of the NZDF will indeed change as under DWP the manpower target of the Regular Army is 6000 by 2035 up from the present 4950. Indications that the strategic dimension of the FAMC solution will carry greater loads and pax as well as a much longer range than the present B752 which has limitations in both facets. The opportunity for a platform that has a global reach as opposed to the regional reach of the B752.

It should also be noted that the DCP (on page 33) states, "Acquisition of an enhanced multi-role sealift vessel to complement HMNZS Canterbury will occur in the late- 2020s". The expected in-service date for the second sealift ship is 2029. The DCP also states (on page 34) that "HMNZS Canterbury will be replaced in the mid-2030s, at the end of its service life. The capability acquired will be determined during the business case process, but will improve the Defence Force’s sealift capability at the time HMNZS Canterbury is retired, complementing the enhanced sealift vessel procured in the late 2020s. Options will be explored against the composition of the fleet, the wider Defence Force and the prevailing strategic environment".

At best there will be negligible cability gap between Canterbury paying-off and its replacement being commissioned. At worst Canterbury could not be replaced. This worst case scenario would leave the NZDF in exactly the same position it is in now.

Going down a speculative rabbit hole of worst case case scenarios is not needed or welcome.

 

[OldTex]

Agree with you about the acquisition of strategic air mobility capability, and the government is providing that which is in the 2019 DCP. However there is a big difference between a CAPABILITY and a PLATFORM, and you have to decide whether or not you know the differences between the two. The strategic air mobility capability is the second component of the FUTURE AIR MOBILITY CAPABILITY Project which has been ongoing for about 7 years in its present form. The platform chosen for the tactical component, subject to Cabinet approval of the tender acceptance, is the C130J-30, which replaces the C-130H(NZ). The strategic component is the B757-200 Combi replacement, and since 2016 both major political parties have signalled that it will be a like for like replacement. So the platform will not be a full military airlifter, but a converted airliner and it's the capability of that platform that we are discussing, which is the arse up way of doing things.

It's also about looking at the acquisition in a wider context, not just a RNZAF one but it's a purple asset as well, so a NZDF asset. It has to bring value to NZDF besides just humping pax and freight from point A to point B and beyond. Given the times that we are living in, they will have to become more multirole than the current B757-200 are, so that they are force multipliers for us and our ally and coalition partners.

However whether the pollies see it that way or not is another story and it is they who have the final say at the end of the day.

It is a platform with associated TTPs and support arrangements as well as guiding CONOPS that provide a capability. A strategic air mobility capability must be able to move all current and likely future NZDF (and NZ Gov) assets rapidly over long distances. The fact that "since 2016 both major political parties have signalled that it will be a like for like replacement" results in the perpetuation of a poor initial choice. If platform is to be more multirole in order to be a force multiplier for NZDF, allies and coalition partners then a rebadged AirNZ airliner will not cut the mustard.

 

[ngatimozart]

It is a platform with associated TTPs and support arrangements as well as guiding CONOPS that provide a capability. A strategic air mobility capability must be able to move all current and likely future NZDF (and NZ Gov) assets rapidly over long distances. The fact that "since 2016 both major political parties have signalled that it will be a like for like replacement" results in the perpetuation of a poor initial choice. If platform is to be more multirole in order to be a force multiplier for NZDF, allies and coalition partners then a rebadged AirNZ airliner will not cut the mustard.

It may not cut the mustard for you, but you or I don't make the final decision, our Cabinet on the 9th Floor of the Beehive in Wellington do, so you whinging about it like a roo with his knackers caught in an electric fence ain't gonna change nothing.

I'D BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT YOU POST NEXT BECAUSE YOU'VE MANAGED TO PISS OFF 2 KIWI MODERATORS.

I WOULD SUGGEST VERY STRONGLY THAT YOU READ BACK THROUGH THIS AND THE RNZAF THREAD REGARDING THE FAMC PROJECT . ABOUT 2013 IS A GOOD TIME TO START AND IT DOES COVER THE PERIOD OF THE C-17A ACQUISITION INVESTIGATION (2014 / 15) AND SUBMISSIONS TO CABINET, WHEN THE WHITETAILS WERE STILL AVAILABLE.

 

[MrConservative]

If platform is to be more multirole in order to be a force multiplier for NZDF, allies and coalition partners then a rebadged AirNZ airliner will not cut the mustard.

Obviously you are not aware that a lot of supplementary multi-role capability can be provided for the NZDF, the "quieter" government agencies and their partners from a generic wide body commercial airliner. Even the JASDF's シグナス1 and シグナス2 are able to "moonlight" as an airborne communication node.

 

[OldTex]

lot of supplementary multi-role capability can be provided for the NZDF, the "quieter" government agencies and their partners from a generic wide body commercial airliner.

What are some of these supplementary multi-role capabilies that you are claiming?

Using Japan Air Force 1 & 2 to partially justify the FAMC credentials of a commercial airliner is tenuous. The aircraft are used for VVIP transport and have been enhanced to provide extensive communications facilities, at the cost of seating capacity (~140).

 

[Shanesworld]

I would be very surprised if Army ever reaches those numbers next decade short of war. And if we did our entire back end would need re-organisation. Css ops as it is is struggling for room. Combat arms are still in the same perilous manning situation they were in 4 years ago.
Airbus I imagine will be under severe stress at the moment and the A400m was a problem child program. The EU itself destroyed its monetary policy credibility when it seized deposits to enact a bailout. As it only exists as an economic union the question has to be asked will it continue in its current form and be able to maintain the cost of things like A400m.
Additionally the US is retrenching. It will soon be less obliged to ensure other nations security (my opinion based on promises made by both presidential candidates last election). Given they told the UK the most stalwart ally to go sort out their seized tanker issue I think we need to really reframe the next paper in terms of less assistance not more.

 

[MrConservative]

Using Japan Air Force 1 & 2 to partially justify the FAMC credentials of a commercial airliner is tenuous.

As for generating more roles than just air lift and shift the capability branch think otherwise. The NZDF are looking to what Grp Capt Brownlie head of air domain capability regards as added value. It is not exactly an original proposition. The originating RFI essentials and desirables illuminated it. One of the rationales of the KC-46A upgrade pathway is to add further roles downstream. The whole "honeycomb" approach to KC-30A's unfolding to being more than a simple MRTT.

What is tenuous is banging on about outside load capability, which is not going to happen. You may dislike the use of a wide body commercial airliner but that is the way it is going to be. Get over it.

The aircraft are used for VVIP transport and have been enhanced to provide extensive communications facilities, at the cost of seating capacity (~140).

The comms facilities are mostly not at the expense of the seating capacity which is at a level of comfort beyond cattle class for troops. The onboard office and conference facilities use far greater internal real estate. The 2 conference rooms have boardroom style tables and can open out into one larger room. (For example the 85 seats at the rear are at premium economy level 2-3-2 across, then there are 21 business class level seats. The VVIP guest area and the area immediately behind the cockpit are obviously classified) There are 3 comms workstations are located in the forward overhead crew rest deck. But again this is an example of the principle that large wide body commercial aircraft adapted for military use can offer more that air lift and shift.

 

[t68]

Obviously you are not aware that a lot of supplementary multi-role capability can be provided for the NZDF, the "quieter" government agencies and their partners from a generic wide body commercial airliner. Even the JASDF's シグナス1 and シグナス2 are able to "moonlight" as an airborne communication node.

Crikey what does the Japanese writing mean as I put it in translate and comes up with motor scooters

 

[MrConservative]

Crikey what does the Japanese writing mean as I put it in translate and comes up with motor scooters

Named after the swan constellation seen in the northern hemisphere and particularly bright in early autumn Japanese night skies. The closest translation from Latin is Cygni then into English is Cygnus. By the way motor scooter in Japanese is モーター スクーター pronounced as Mōtā Sukūtā .