NZDF General discussion thread

[recce.k1]

So an article from ASPI was posted on the RAN thread which looks at the RAN deficiencies in air defence and missile strike capabilities and makes a number of suggestions (Some of which is already happening)

Equipping Australia’s navy to meet the threat from PLA anti-ship cruise missiles | The Strategist

‘Vampire! Vampire! Vampire!’—three words that would send shivers down the spine of any ship’s captain. This is because ‘vampire’ is the US military’s brevity code for a hostile anti-ship missile. Typically, advanced anti-ship cruise missiles ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

$3.5 billion to accelerate missile strike capabilities for the ADF | Defence Ministers

The Morrison Government has approved the accelerated acquisition of improved weapon capabilities for the Australian Defence Force (ADF) at a total cost of $3.5 billion.Minister for Defence the Hon Peter Dutton MP today announced that Defence will accelerate the acquisition of:

www.minister.defence.gov.au

Now obviously the RNZN is not the RAN, and some of the suggestions may well be impossible given our limitations, but I was wondering if there anything from this piece that NZ should take on-board.

Yes good take on things from NZ's perspective, yes we are limited to what we have that can be better armed (Frigates, P-8A's, SH-2G Seasprites, Army LAV's) but I think what's just as important would be for NZG to support these Aus Govt initiatives by becoming involved where practical and when thinking about future capabilities (new/replacements) prioritise the integration of Aus built missile systems into the NZDF.

It just makes sense to utilise weapon systems that can be bought and supplied from an allied nation that is literally "across the ditch" (as opposed to half-way around the world, which would be a greater and riskier proposition eg supply ships could be sunk anywhere within that long supply chain etc).

Of course just as important (as weapons) if not more so is situational awareness, hence ideally NZG would bring forward the post-2030 requirement for long range maritime UAV (and satellite) surveillance systems, commit to the ANZAC Frigate replacement sooner (as advocated by the likes of former DefMin Wayne Mapp in various articles) including the requirement to have fitted the Mk41 VLS again (and illuminators etc) which as well as fitting quad packed Seaceptor for point defence could be supplemented by other longer range missiles that the RAN are also seeking, acquire mobile radar systems (as suggested by Aussie Digger and NgatiMozart last week) etc.

A major issue for NZG's is the amount of expenditure needed (for defence) and the fact that essentially that money is largely spent overseas. We are too small to do many things ourselves unlike the Australians (eg they can afford to undertake major ship building projects or assemble helicopters and aircraft etc), so something else I'd like to see would be better co-operation with the Aussies in terms of supplying Army vehicles and some naval vessel types, which may then see opportunities for NZ manufacturing to be better involved.

(I'd also like to see local NZ shipbuilding again for smaller vessels eg patrol craft and up to OPV size (otherwise partner with Aus to build OPV size vessels), my thinking is with a greater RNZN fleet (as per WW2) it will result in more local manufacturing jobs and tax revenues spent within the country - everything a prudent govt (like the Aus govt for their situation) would want! To make this sustainable though it means increasing the fleet size (and personnel numbers and infrastructure etc) ... I might talk about exactly what and why another time).

 

[kiwi in exile]

Luxon and Seymour are advocating 2 percent defence spending on rnz this morning. Maybe it will become an election issue. Also talk about having to back up our words with actions. Labour is big on words, light on delivery across many area's

 

[recce.k1]

While the RAN waits for the Hunter-class frigates to arrive, what else can be done to radically improve the survivability of deployed RAN taskforces against the sprawling and increasingly sophisticated ASCM threat spectrum?

The answer is that any solution should consider tackling four critical issues: deeper fleet magazines; disaggregation of expensive crewed surface combatants into cheaper and expendable uncrewed assets; efforts to break the PLA’s ASCM kill chain; employment of long-range ordnance to engage in offensive air- and missile-defence operations, principally by targeting enemy ASCM launch platforms.

Not sure why this quote from BG88 didn't come thru in my last post, but quickly what could potentially sustain a local NZ shipbuilding plan (or joint A/NZ plan) is to undertake something similar to Australia with their Arafura class shipbuilding plan which for them is to replace 26 vessels across four separate ship classes.

If NZ could build vessels say up to 2,000 tonnes (IIRC Vosper Thornycroft teamed up with New Plymouth's Fitzroy Engineering a couple of decades ago proposing to build the Castle-class OPV in NZ for Projector Protector), probably in partnership with a major (like BAE for example), then that could give us some interesting options for future fleet composition (and we know that the RNZN are interested in "modularity").

It's clear from Projector Protector experiences that the navy would rather have larger patrol vessels (OPV's rather than IPV's) and in an ideal world they would have greater numbers than what was eventually funded (4-6 without checking back past articles). The navy also has a need for MCM capabilities (with autonomous underwater vehicles) and its current single vessel can't be in two (or three or four etc) places at once. Perhaps a number of "modular" vessels could fit the bill?

Also if we accept that the CCP and/or its gray zone activities will only increase in the pacific region over time, it could be argued that the RNZN (and RNZAF) actually has to grow.

With the increases in submarine activities in our wider region (both unfriendlies and AUKUS friendlies) wouldn't it be prudent to increase our underwater awareness? If so, this is where the modular/shipbuilding plan comes back in, as a number of modular OPV type vessels could also be built specifically for this purpose. I'm thinking half-a-dozen or more types (to cover the Tasman, Pacific and Southern oceans) in a role similar to that of the former HMNZS Resolution (which was a US Stalwart-class ocean surveillance ship), their primary role would be to drop a towed sonar array (and other autonomous systems) into the ocean and hoover up as much data as they can over long periods of time. These vessels would be relatively cheap to build and fit out, as they won't require sophisticated offensive systems - basically only minimal self-defence systems eg torpedo and missile countermeasures, perhaps one or two LM ExLS 3-Cell Standalone Launchers for point defence (12 or 24 quad packed Seaceptor missiles). And if anything "unfriendly" decided to take them out well that may only reveal their own position, which could be countered by armed UAV systems performing overwatch (or call in the P-8A's etc), hence they more likely to operate unhindered most of their time. Food for thought?

 

[recce.k1]

Luxon and Seymour are advocating 2 percent defence spending on rnz this morning. Maybe it will become an election issue. Also talk about having to back up our words with actions. Labour is big on words, light on delivery across many area's

Also heard Luxon interviewed on NewstalkZB this am where he supported sending Javelin ATM's to Ukraine (and criticised the govt for not doing so). Yes it is easy for an Opposition party to talk things up ... except here in NZ they usually don't (well at least not until today)! Something appears to be "up" with the two main Opposition parties perhaps they are simply being realistic that the world has changed. Let's see what else they are prepared to stand up and talk about and support, interesting times ...

 

[Gibbo]

Also heard Luxon interviewed on NewstalkZB this am where he supported sending Javelin ATM's to Ukraine (and criticised the govt for not doing so). Yes it is easy for an Opposition party to talk things up ... except here in NZ they usually don't (well at least not until today)! Something appears to be "up" with the two main Opposition parties perhaps they are simply being realistic that the world has changed. Let's see what else they are prepared to stand up and talk about and support, interesting times ...

Luxon & Seymour are just tapping into a topical subject and basically committing to nothing from behind the safety net of not being in charge of the purse-strings. Govt spending cuts are their current theme & neither represents a party that has splashed Defence cash around in the last 20-30 years... I wouldn't get too excited. <edit> however the good thing is finally the issue is starting to be debated not only in the MSM, but more importantly in political circles.

 

[Gibbo]

Luxon & Seymour are just tapping into a topical subject and basically committing to nothing from behind the safety net of not being in charge of the purse-strings. Govt spending cuts are their current theme & neither represents a party that has splashed Defence cash around in the last 20-30 years... I wouldn't get too excited. <edit> however the good thing is finally the issue is starting to be debated not only in the MSM, but more importantly in political circles.

National wants lift in defence spending

Christopher Luxon says party has been discussing defence policy for months.

www.nzherald.co.nz

To summarise Luxon's argument in this article: 'We need to spend more, but we are unlikely to be able to afford it'... just more wasted hot air! The amount given as needed to meet a 2% GDP commitment is the same as the amount their planned tax cuts will deliver... so basically expect no change! Sorry to get political but it's topical.

 

[recce.k1]

National wants lift in defence spending

Christopher Luxon says party has been discussing defence policy for months.

www.nzherald.co.nz

To summarise Luxon's argument in this article: 'We need to spend more, but we are unlikely to be able to afford it'... just more wasted hot air! The amount given as needed to meet a 2% GDP commitment is the same as the amount their planned tax cuts will deliver... so basically expect no change! Sorry to get political but it's topical.

In our great Kiwi vernacular - yeah ... nah?

I get where you are coming from but that article highlights some very positive developments, firstly the Opposition acknowledges 2% is the international benchmark (whereas the Government won't and neither of them did previously). Secondly they have acknowledged that NZ needs to be "carrying our responsibilities" (in other words, we need to stop bludging on others eg Aust/US etc). Thirdly it has been an ongoing discussion over the last few months (either since or predating Luxon gaining the leadership), in essence pollies (managers, anyone etc) don't carry on converations unless there is merit (I'm sure we can all relate to that in our own workplace-life experiences) so particularly over many months ... this is good. Fourthly too many geo-political "grenades" are being lobbied about recently and the latest CCP one in the Solomons and other places like PNG) can no longer be ignored (when even our "pacifist" PM is using "diplomatic" terms such "gravely concerning" then that suggests even they are lifting their heads out of the sand to assess what's going on around them ... and probably highly annoyed they can't fit it back into the sand)!

The counter claims (in the media) like paying for tax cuts is somewhat of a red herring. The same thing happened yesterday I believe, when Luxon was apparently questioned on where the money is coming from he used examples of culling wasted govt spending (so I heard a talkback host later dissing Luxon for picking on closing down an uneconomic train service as an example - the Te Huia Waikato to Auckland train service that is costing ten times more than it is earning). What I'm noticing is the media is (typically) asking the Opposition to cost its promises (fine) but totally not asking the Govt to cost its promises (not fine), so we have the Govt announcing all sorts of nonsense like $15-30B rail lines to Auckland Airport or $1-1.5B cycle bridge over Auckland harbour and the media uncritically "supporting" these unrealistic proposals without any realistic scrutiny! (To overseas readers unlike say the UK and Australia with both a left and right leaning media outlets, NZ journalists are predominantly left leaning - there are academic surveys confirming this if anyone is interested - off the top of my head it's roughly 90% left leaning and less than 10% right leaning). Anyway this is OT so enough for me on these aspects.

To conclude and to be fair whatever the Opposition proposes isn't here or there as they are not in power, but the signals being sent are positive. As to the reality if they were to gain the Treasury benches, I would expect to see an increase but like other nations it could be over time (so may not be 2% straight away, grumble grumble). I hear ACT on the radio news again calling for increases to 2% so like I said before something seems to be up.

(If anything I would actually criticise both Opposition Parties, 2% is still not enough when there is depreciation and capital charges to contend with, the figure should be higher eg 2.5-3%)

 

[Gracie1234]

I think this is very positive, having two parties advocating for an increased focus on and funding of defence is only positive. Obviously, this will need to be budgeted for. The real test will be what the public response to this will be....likely positive.

 

[ngatimozart]

According to Stats NZ the GDP at the end of the December 2021 was $350 billion so using 2% GDP for defence that would give NZDF an annual budget of $7 billion. 1% GDP at December 21 figure is $3.5 billion which is $0.7 billion less than the $4.2 billion allocated in the 2021 / 22 budget. In order to bring NZDF up to where it should be would require expenditure of 3% GDP for the next 15 years; 2% GDP on the normal budget and 1% GDP on the acquisition budget as a capital injection. The one thing that would have to go is Treasury's capital charge. It's annual cost to NZDF could pay for a new P-8A Poseidon and a C-130J-30 Super Hercules some years.

 

[kiwi in exile]

(To overseas readers unlike say the UK and Australia with both a left and right leaning media outlets, NZ journalists are predominantly left leaning - there are academic surveys confirming this if anyone is interested - off the top of my head it's roughly 90% left leaning and less than 10% right leaning). Anyway this is OT so enough for me on these aspects.

Not sure I agree with your percentages. I think there is a conservative bias on DT, so the centre looks left from here. Any links to studies would be appreciated. I laugh when people state that the Herald is left.
Off topic sorry.

Back to the 2% issue. Act/National could make defence spending more of an issue if they started identifying capability gaps and where they would spend the extra dollars. Would be good to hear more from Penk (although he's no longer the National defence spokeperson.

 

[ngatimozart]

Not sure I agree with your percentages. I think there is a conservative bias on DT, so the centre looks left from here. Any links to studies would be appreciated. I laugh when people state that the Herald is left.
Off topic sorry.

Back to the 2% issue. Act/National could make defence spending more of an issue if they started identifying capability gaps and where they would spend the extra dollars. Would be good to hear more from Penk (although he's no longer the National defence spokeperson.

Us conservative? Wash your mouth out with soap you naughty, naughty boy. We just have a bias towards defence that's all. It's not our fault that sometimes our bias is similar to that of Genghis Khan.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Us conservative? Wash your mouth out with soap you naughty, naughty boy. We just have a bias towards defence that's all. It's not our fault that sometimes our bias is similar to that of Genghis Khan.

It's a wonder either party doesn't call defence spending a job creator like they do in the USA and Austrailia with thier respective programs? Thousands of sustainable jobs could be created.

And why is it so easy to whip up national pride when it comes to raising money for an America's cup campaign or new football stadiums but not defence?

Maybe defence needs a new strategy logo and advertising campaign.

 

[Boardgamer88]

If NZ could build vessels say up to 2,000 tonnes (IIRC Vosper Thornycroft teamed up with New Plymouth's Fitzroy Engineering a couple of decades ago proposing to build the Castle-class OPV in NZ for Projector Protector), probably in partnership with a major (like BAE for example), then that could give us some interesting options for future fleet composition (and we know that the RNZN are interested in "modularity").

It's clear from Projector Protector experiences that the navy would rather have larger patrol vessels (OPV's rather than IPV's) and in an ideal world they would have greater numbers than what was eventually funded (4-6 without checking back past articles). The navy also has a need for MCM capabilities (with autonomous underwater vehicles) and its current single vessel can't be in two (or three or four etc) places at once. Perhaps a number of "modular" vessels could fit the bill?

I remember reading about a Multi-mission module system called The Cube™ System, developed by SH Defence.

The Cube™ is a Multi-Mission module system developed to reduce the cost and time required to reconfigure multi-purpose Coast guard, SAR and Navy vessels to new missions.

All it takes is a change of modules to load the vessel with the equipment needed for a new function. It could be a module for ASW, MCM or UAV missions, a module to deploy and recover scientific equipment, working crane modules, weapon systems, surveillance equipment or fast attack boats or RIBS.

Could be something to keep an eye on?

 

[recce.k1]

Not sure I agree with your percentages. I think there is a conservative bias on DT, so the centre looks left from here. Any links to studies would be appreciated. I laugh when people state that the Herald is left.
Off topic sorry.

Back to the 2% issue. Act/National could make defence spending more of an issue if they started identifying capability gaps and where they would spend the extra dollars. Would be good to hear more from Penk (although he's no longer the National defence spokeperson.

Hi KIE those percentages were off the top of my head from something I thought I heard about a couple of years ago, which I thought were "incredible" but after searching I can't find anything to back that up so I will withdraw/won't refer to such percentages again as I accept I may very well be wrong!

However there was a 2014 NZ academic journalist survey which according to this Stuff article stated "22 percent of New Zealand journalists considered themselves Centrists. Just 16 percent said they were on the Right and fully 62 percent said they were on the Left".

The source for that survey is this link but it is no longer accessible (and if one goes to http://ejournalist.com.au/ it reports that "it appears you don't have permission to access this page".

So I thought I heard about an update a couple of years ago in which the "left" leaning figure increased (and I thought I recall "right" was less than 10%), but when I wrote what I did last night I didn't take into account of "centrists", and like I say I can't find any search results, be interesting if anyone else does though, because I do think the media landscape has changed in recent years (to the left IMO, but that could be a reflection of the political popularity of the PM and related reporting etc).

There is a new NZ "media bias" website which uses an experimental "machine learning model" and supposedly shows NZ media is predominantly left leaning ..... anyway this is OT so I won't carry this discussion on further (unless anyone wants to PM etc).

So back on topic, yes agree about Penk, he did sit on parliament's Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and understood the subject matter better than most (when I viewed some of the meeting recordings last year), but although he now has a different role I would suggest his NZDF/ADF experience is still valued and sought when the Opposition is seeking input on defence related matters.

 

[recce.k1]

I remember reading about a Multi-mission module system called The Cube™ System, developed by SH Defence.

Could be something to keep an on?

Wow that's really interesting, thanks for posting! Although I wonder what the likes of our resident ex-Navy members NgatiM, Lucas and Nighthawk think about the practicalities of such systems for the RNZN? For example with our limited personnel pool what do specialists (like in weaponry/electronics etc) do when such vessels are configured for HADR etc? I guess the other issue is, if one wants a combatant vessel, best it is always configured as a combatant? So personnel are fully trained for their tasks (that's something I've picked up from DT members in other threads discussing modularity).

However something like this (with different bells and whistles, although with perhaps some of the "punchy" bits) could be useful for what I was thinking, which was for non-combatant roles, eg second or third tier tasks like EEZ patrolling, MCM and mine-laying, hydro, keeping watch on "grey zone" type fishing fleets and as underwater/surface intelligence gathering "mothership" vessels.

For that latter the former HMNZS Resolution was designed for these roles although unsure of the extent it did so post cold-war, IIRC Nighthawk alluded to the former HMNZS Tui perhaps also being used for similar roles during the cold war ... so how well does the RNZN fulfill such roles nowadays, especially with the growth of submarines in the Indo-Pacific and with the growth of a highly capable "unfriendly" navy/coast guards that can operate in our region?

Perhaps a case could be made for an indigenous fleet of 1,500-2,000 tonne "modular" vessels fulfilling various roles, the selling points being low-cost, low crewing, a greater presence at sea and reassuring our Pacific neighbors. And jobs building and supporting such vessels (domestic spending and tax income) ... but for Navy or MoD it would have to part of a wider Govt strategy on engineering, skills and employment. We seem to have
"de-centralised" such planning since the 1980's reforms, if we have can "we" (as a nation) make a case for such strategic initiatives? Surely the answers are relatively "easy" ... eg study what's being done "across the ditch" (and increase industry and engineering relationships so NZ can take advantage of Aust. knowledge and opportunities for them too to access another market)? What are our pollies doing one wonders (especially when we taxpayers pay them very handsomely)!!

 

[RubiconNZ]

Luxon and Seymour are advocating 2 percent defence spending on rnz this morning. Maybe it will become an election issue. Also talk about having to back up our words with actions. Labour is big on words, light on delivery across many area's

While trying to discuss politics only in direct relevance with to Defence expenditure and policy the only parties which even bothered to even have scant election policies on defence was ACT, NZ First and the Greens (of sorts) for two elections in a row. There are little to no votes in a defence policy in NZ and the major parties have fallen into a horrific sense of complacency, not to mention ideological influences which effect Labour and National.

 

[ngatimozart]

I remember reading about a Multi-mission module system called The Cube™ System, developed by SH Defence.

Could be something to keep an eye on?

Yes have been watching that for a while.

 

[RubiconNZ]

It's a wonder either party doesn't call defence spending a job creator like they do in the USA and Austrailia with thier respective programs? Thousands of sustainable jobs could be created.

And why is it so easy to whip up national pride when it comes to raising money for an America's cup campaign or new football stadiums but not defence?

Maybe defence needs a new strategy logo and advertising campaign.

As per my previous post, there are little to no votes in defence expenditure in NZ. Our academic intelligentsia have very little time for it, our MSM only care for feel good stories or scandals and any expenditure would have the breakfast and evening shows trotting out individuals questioning why we spent 100 million on missiles while children go to school with no shoes or without breakfast. At the moment i would say job creation isn’t even a priority due to the tight labour market.

You are absolutely right that the NZDF need better messaging, their Public Affairs/Relations and recruitment budgets are woeful and poorly targeted. If you’ve ever been on the websites or dealt with their recruitment you’d notice how appalling it is.

It would take an dedicated approach by the government of the day and most like bombers based in the Solomons for society to even see a shift in mainstream attitudes. Its not insurmountable bar for the lack of will.

 

[Gibbo]

I think this is very positive, having two parties advocating for an increased focus on and funding of defence is only positive. Obviously, this will need to be budgeted for. The real test will be what the public response to this will be....likely positive.

Yes and I should have added the rider that it is indeed a revelation to see debate in NZ political circles about increasing defence spending!!!! The debate needs to be had, Luxon is spot on there, but it also needs momentum... hopefully it'll become an election issue next year.

 

[Gracie1234]

I think the noises that Act and National are making will get some good encouragement for our Partners overseas, i would not be surprised if this results in increased encouragement to the current govt as well. The reality is that it is affordable, other countries have similar issues and are prioritising defence spending, Aus and Germany.
As other people have said, this is the first time since WW2 that offensive capabilities will be in striking distance of the homeland and we have never been so limited in capabilities to respond.
Our Pacific family will expect us to be able to provide protection for them or we will lose significant influence, i do not believe that this would be acceptable to our govt. It would essentially be accepting China as the major power in our region and deciding the rules of the game. We either stand up now or never, there is no kicking this can down the road.
The impact of what we d0 will also decide what happens in Antarctica.