NZDF General discussion thread

[recce.k1]

I am very well aware of the capabilities of the E7A and have been following it for years. If I was the Minister of Defence and had Treasury based at Waiouru in hooches during the dead of winter, it would be on my shopping list, but I am not so Treasury is pretty safe in Wellington.

We don't have an unlimited money pot and at present to bring NZDF up to a credible 21st century defence force with a maritime focus, we are looking at $55 billion in acquisitions alone. That's spread over a 15 year period and would mean an extra $3.6 billion in defence expenditure per annum on top of the $6 billion that 2% GDP would give us. Would the pollies and country be willing to fund such expenditure? That $3.6 billion is about what NZDF gets now per annum, so even if the NZG took it out of the $6 billion that would leave $2.4 billion for operational expenditure and NZDF couldn't survive on that. We have far greater need of other capabilities than the E7A. You know more and replacement frigates, LPD / LHDs, more P-8As & C130Js, UAVs, more rotary wing, Seasprite replacements, upgrade Army capabilities, GBAD, Army SHORAD, RNZAF ACF, Naval Patrol Force upgrade and strengthening, and so. So any E7A acquisition is a long way down the list of priorities and at the moment about the same priority as RNZN SSBNs.

Well I don't disagree with much of what you are saying except for dismissing a capability such as the E-7A outright, and assuming for the purposes of discussion (and the rules) as long as contributors can back up what they are saying with a bit of research and thought, then I'd like to add the following thoughts and leave it at that.

What are the options for NZ to have better situational awareness of its vast maritime domain? I think we can conclude it is a "priority" (judging by recent defence assessments and future capability plans eg mention of satellites and long range UAV's).

The other critical aspect to consider (for these options) is to have capabilities that are networked (securely). A recent APDR article (page 28) touched upon the importance of Network Centric Warefare (NCW).

The overwhelming influence of information and communications technology is changing society at an extremely rapid pace. In military affairs it is enabling a fundamental shift from platform centric warfare to network centric warfare (NCW).

The ADF’s move to NCW requires it to integrate all three services plus intelligence and cyber groups into a secure fully networked force, enabled by technology.

The NZ Army has recognised this and is proceeding with its various Networked Enabled Army (NEA) projects, and to be fair so has the NZDF as a whole (for the last several years) as it talks about linking land forces, naval combat and patrol forces and air force maritime patrol/ISR aircraft (via satellites etc).

But what if we lose satellite access (eg if they are destroyed or incapacitated or compomised etc), can the RNZAF contribute to providing an alternative system, which is secure, if so what is it? Could it be a long range aircraft platform? If so what are the options? Or do we do nothing? Or do we rely on our allies? If allies, presumably they will have their own priorities and likely at the sharper end of any potential conflicts. And doing nothing, with a wide area of responsibility, would presumably be risky as we would not only be blind we would be ineffectual (eg naval assets would effectively be platform centric again, relying on its own sensor footprint).

So could the E-7A a solution? To be fair that's a question for Defence so of course I cannot answer that. But what we do know is that apart from existing regional operators Australia and South Korea, apparently there could also be interest from the likes of Japan (and possibly some others).

The E-7A is expensive (I figure around > NZ$600m ea if based on the UK's pricing but unclear if that includes other project related costs) and no doubt if such a capability is important then Defence will assess other options for value for money. But could that change now that the USAF is committed? With the US as a customer now, that then brings the E-7A into the FMS system.

As for Defence as a whole, there is a snippet in a recent Janes article confirming that recent announcements on a change to NZ's defence settings is in motion. So I'll leave any further E-7A commentary until we know more about what Defence is thinking!

Michael Swain, deputy secretary of Defence Policy and Planning at the MoD, told Janes, “It is clear that the regional and international security environment is changing rapidly. This was illustrated in Defence Assessment 2021. Subsequent developments, including the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Solomon Islands-China security agreement, have underscored the challenges we face.”

He added, “Current policy settings were designed for a more benign strategic environment. Aotearoa [New Zealand] will need new policy settings and capability planning to meet the challenges of this new environment.”

 

[Xthenaki]

When our P8s are accepted it would be prudent to ask Aussie if they would provide NZ with regular updates covering our EEZ of course paying for that information. Then the true value to NZ of the E7 would be known. We could be in the loop within two years for the P8s if acceptable to both governments.

One issue that becomes increasingly apparent is that acquiring top hardware is very expensive. Thats why in the new era we need to look laterally and not just where we have operated or where we are now. Defence technology is constantly changing especially with skirmishes and war across the globe. Ive always supported a three frigate NZ Navy but can only see this working with a new vessel being introduced every so many years (flexible) to spread the outlay - and then we need more OPV*s. Another example of equipment value - 2/3 x P8s or a frigate.

 

[Todjaeger]

When our P8s are accepted it would be prudent to ask Aussie if they would provide NZ with regular updates covering our EEZ of course paying for that information. Then the true value to NZ of the E7 would be known. We could be in the loop within two years for the P8s if acceptable to both governments.

One issue that becomes increasingly apparent is that acquiring top hardware is very expensive. Thats why in the new era we need to look laterally and not just where we have operated or where we are now. Defence technology is constantly changing especially with skirmishes and war across the globe. Ive always supported a three frigate NZ Navy but can only see this working with a new vessel being introduced every so many years (flexible) to spread the outlay - and then we need more OPV*s. Another example of equipment value - 2/3 x P8s or a frigate.

Oz surveillance data of Kiwis EEZ areas and responsibilities would most likely come either from one of the Oz OTHR systems or RAAF P-8's. The Wedgetail's L-band MESA radar is mounted dorsally and more intended for monitoring airspace and conducting air searches. It should have some capabilities for ground/sea searches, but the radar array is not in an optimal position for such activities.

From an NZDF perspective, I do not see much value in getting the E-7 simply because NZ lacks the sort of assets which could make the most use of the sensor coverage an E-7 should be able to provide.

 

[ngatimozart]

Well I don't disagree with much of what you are saying except for dismissing a capability such as the E-7A outright, and assuming for the purposes of discussion (and the rules) as long as contributors can back up what they are saying with a bit of research and thought, then I'd like to add the following thoughts and leave it at that.

What are the options for NZ to have better situational awareness of its vast maritime domain? I think we can conclude it is a "priority" (judging by recent defence assessments and future capability plans eg mention of satellites and long range UAV's).

The other critical aspect to consider (for these options) is to have capabilities that are networked (securely). A recent APDR article (page 28) touched upon the importance of Network Centric Warefare (NCW).


The NZ Army has recognised this and is proceeding with its various Networked Enabled Army (NEA) projects, and to be fair so has the NZDF as a whole (for the last several years) as it talks about linking land forces, naval combat and patrol forces and air force maritime patrol/ISR aircraft (via satellites etc).

But what if we lose satellite access (eg if they are destroyed or incapacitated or compomised etc), can the RNZAF contribute to providing an alternative system, which is secure, if so what is it? Could it be a long range aircraft platform? If so what are the options? Or do we do nothing? Or do we rely on our allies? If allies, presumably they will have their own priorities and likely at the sharper end of any potential conflicts. And doing nothing, with a wide area of responsibility, would presumably be risky as we would not only be blind we would be ineffectual (eg naval assets would effectively be platform centric again, relying on its own sensor footprint).

So could the E-7A a solution? To be fair that's a question for Defence so of course I cannot answer that. But what we do know is that apart from existing regional operators Australia and South Korea, apparently there could also be interest from the likes of Japan (and possibly some others).

The E-7A is expensive (I figure around > NZ$600m ea if based on the UK's pricing but unclear if that includes other project related costs) and no doubt if such a capability is important then Defence will assess other options for value for money. But could that change now that the USAF is committed? With the US as a customer now, that then brings the E-7A into the FMS system.

As for Defence as a whole, there is a snippet in a recent Janes article confirming that recent announcements on a change to NZ's defence settings is in motion. So I'll leave any further E-7A commentary until we know more about what Defence is thinking!

I have dismissed it outright for the reasons I gave, and @Todjaeger has supplied the technical reasons why. If you had read some more you would understand that its radar isn't optimised for maritime search, and that doesn't justify it enough for a Cabinet to acquire. There are other capabilities that can provide such surveillance and would be far more persistent, and it's persistence which is required. Jeez I could suggest to the NZG that we should acquire F-22s but do really think that they would agree to that? Besides the point that they can't be exported anyway by an Act of Congress. Just be realistic because we just can't afford them and we can't justify them.

 

[swerve]

Yup!
"its radar isn't optimised for maritime search " - while that of the P-8 is, & the P-8 also has other sensors for maritime search.

 

[JohnJT]

I would suggest NZ's best option for persistent, wide area surveillance of it's huge maritime area is a satellite based system or systems. There are already several companies that provide satellite based radar, optical and ELINT surveillance to military customers, and that number is growing as satellite technology becomes cheaper, smaller and more effective.

For example, military analysts have been able to accurately track Russian ship movements in the Mediterranean and Black sea using publicly available, commercial satellite SAR and optical data. And that's not even the more advanced and accurate data these companies reserve for their government and military customers.

NZ needs three layers of surveillance: satellite, unmanned ISR and manned ISR. The P-8 fulfills the manned component, you just need the other two. If there's money in the budget for extra manned assets then buy extra P-8s.

 

[recce.k1]

If you had read some more you would understand that its radar isn't optimised for maritime search, and that doesn't justify it enough for a Cabinet to acquire.

Actually I'm very well aware the E-7A's radar systems aren't best optimised for maritime search (compared to the P-8A's AN/APY-10 certainly) ... I'm mainly looking beyond maritime search.

I would suggest NZ's best option for persistent, wide area surveillance of it's huge maritime area is a satellite based system or systems. There are already several companies that provide satellite based radar, optical and ELINT surveillance to military customers, and that number is growing as satellite technology becomes cheaper, smaller and more effective.

For example, military analysts have been able to accurately track Russian ship movements in the Mediterranean and Black sea using publicly available, commercial satellite SAR and optical data. And that's not even the more advanced and accurate data these companies reserve for their government and military customers.

NZ needs three layers of surveillance: satellite, unmanned ISR and manned ISR. The P-8 fulfills the manned component, you just need the other two. If there's money in the budget for extra manned assets then buy extra P-8s.

Thanks this is nicely put and succinct.

What are your thoughts beyond maritime search and in the realm of, for example, subsonic, supersonic, and hypersonic adversary missile detection; guiding and tracking of allied missiles beyond radar range within the maritime domain ... I thinking of a high-tech adversary, be that military or "gray zone"/covert vessels striking (or conducting EW/ELINT against) NZ (or Aust) military vessels or a task force within the pacific theatre (or bordering on SE Asia) with both long range missiles and/or long range armed UAV's .... would the satellite / P-8 / eg MQ-4C or other type combo still be as effective providing tracking/situational awareness?

 

[ngatimozart]

What are your thoughts beyond maritime search and in the realm of, for example, subsonic, supersonic, and hypersonic adversary missile detection; guiding and tracking of allied missiles beyond radar range within the maritime domain ... I thinking of a high-tech adversary, be that military or "gray zone"/covert vessels striking (or conducting EW/ELINT against) NZ (or Aust) military vessels or a task force within the pacific theatre (or bordering on SE Asia) with both long range missiles and/or long range armed UAV's .... would the satellite / P-8 / eg MQ-4C or other type combo still be as effective providing tracking/situational awareness?

Let's deal with hypersonic first. Not really anything we can do at the moment. The US is looking at an orbital constellation for hypersonic weapons detection How The New Hypersonic Weapons Tracking Constellation Will Work (thedrive.com). The reaction time is short and some hypersonic vehicles are capable of radical alterations of course during the terminal phase. Whilst hypersonic velocity is defined as any velocity Mach 5 and above, the velocities being achieved by some of these vehicles would be in the region of Mach 15 - 20. Missile Defense Agency Lays Out How It Plans To Defend Against Hypersonic Threats (thedrive.com).

The first requirement is good surveillance capabilities and this has been spoken about on here before, but in an ideal world we would have a mutilayered system comprised of:

1. Satellite based surveillance.
   • Multiband surveillance.
2. HALE / MALE UAV. (High / Medium Altitude Long Endurance).
   • The MQ-4C may not be the best idea now because the USN decided not to proceed with it, so that makes it a lot riskier and far more expensive. It's quite expensive as it is.
3. P-8A MMA.
   • Many include myself have said that we require another two. I would suggest that another three might be better, maybe even four
4. Twin engined Turbo Prop.
   • Something with good range. It doesn't really need to be armed but it requires:
     • Maritime search radar.
     • E/O turret.
     • Satellite communications.
     • Secure communications for both air and naval communications.
     • Link 16.
     • Two or three max consoles on its rail.

That should cover it. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world.

 

[recce.k1]

Let's deal with hypersonic first. Not really anything we can do at the moment. The US is looking at an orbital constellation for hypersonic weapons detection How The New Hypersonic Weapons Tracking Constellation Will Work (thedrive.com). The reaction time is short and some hypersonic vehicles are capable of radical alterations of course during the terminal phase. Whilst hypersonic velocity is defined as any velocity Mach 5 and above, the velocities being achieved by some of these vehicles would be in the region of Mach 15 - 20. Missile Defense Agency Lays Out How It Plans To Defend Against Hypersonic Threats (thedrive.com).

The first requirement is good surveillance capabilities and this has been spoken about on here before, but in an ideal world we would have a mutilayered system comprised of:

1. Satellite based surveillance.
   • Multiband surveillance.
2. HALE / MALE UAV. (High / Medium Altitude Long Endurance).
   • The MQ-4C may not be the best idea now because the USN decided not to proceed with it, so that makes it a lot riskier and far more expensive. It's quite expensive as it is.
3. P-8A MMA.
   • Many include myself have said that we require another two. I would suggest that another three might be better, maybe even four
4. Twin engined Turbo Prop.
   • Something with good range. It doesn't really need to be armed but it requires:
     • Maritime search radar.
     • E/O turret.
     • Satellite communications.
     • Secure communications for both air and naval communications.
     • Link 16.
     • Two or three max consoles on its rail.

That should cover it. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world.

Thanks NG, appreciate the effort you put into this (not only helpful for me but no doubt some others too explaining layered surveillance systems).

This is all good and hopefully at some point (i.e. once they finish setting up these layers) perhaps our Govt. needs to realise it needs to constantly improve this situational awareness and provide a response, for the threats we are likely to face. And we will have to do it "smarter" as we not only don't have the luxury of a bottomless pit of funding, but also that of having large numbers of trained and experienced personnel with the right skill sets, all in the right place and the right time.

I'm thinking (out loud here) we will be potentially facing an adversary that is incredibly "high-tech" but also "overwhelming" (in shear numbers, capability levels and layers and new technological developments in time, eg AI and/or say anti-ship missiles with programmed "libraries" of Western/ASEAN naval combatants that specifically recognises the profile of such vessels and ignores counter measure/decoy systems etc).

I think we can also extrapolate the lessons from the war in Ukraine (eg the advantages of smart and loitering munitions, UAV situational awareness for precision fires, counter UAV systems, EW, mobility, protection and precision strike etc) to expect to encounter all this but also, in our vast maritime domain, to also expect eg long range precision missile strikes against both land/island targets, against vessels transiting at sea and aerial assets etc. These strikes may likely be launched from at sea (or undersea), if not from combatants then from other vessels operating in that gray zone and from aerial platforms launched from them (presumably more likely than eg traditional long range maritime patrol or bombers that will likely be seen by allied forces and targeted closer to their departures from airfields in the wider Asia region - such adversaries would be prioritising striking "locally" anyway presumably).

So what does that mean for us? It could mean for example missile strikes against our naval combatants transiting the Pacific (and other high value assets such as tankers and sealift etc) but prevention is having resilient surveillance systems and presence, to warn of (or avoid), then respond against such threats.

I would hazard a guess one of the most riskiest times for us or anyone else, should conflict erupt (even if it's initially far, far away from us eg say in the Taiwan Straits) is within that 24-48 hour of "confusion". Eg as merchant vessels en-mass divert to the nearest safe port or carry on transiting the oceans sea lanes to reach the next planned destination (or alternative destinations). And can we trust they will all be "friendly" or will some innocuous adversarial vessels then "blend in", posing risk to us?

For us then, what happens if we happen to encounter (or be in the wider proximity of) an adversary combatant which could be "out this way" as it was originally on a defence diplomacy mission to say South America? Or an adversaries massed "fishing fleet" (potentially operating with other innocuous looking vessels which happen to carry containerised strike weaponry, carry weaponised UAV's or deploy mines etc). Presumably we observe and track but do we then "take them out" ourselves (to mitigate future risk), if so do we have the correct assets and abilities to do so as our allies, the likes of the ADF and USN for example, will be extremely busy dealing with their own matters if not outright warfare closer to their bases or borders!

(PS I'm not directing this all at you, I'm thinking out loud our Govt needs to pull its weight with its future planning and give Defence the tools it needs to control/deny/respond initially to an area or activity of interest - we have the advantage of being able to "island hop" across friendly island nations to do so - as long as that isn't denied to us by an adversary in time)!

 

[ngatimozart]

@recce.k1 No probs.

I found this piece of "wisdom" today:


It's one of 40 but I think it's one that is appropriate to most discussions on here. Whilst it's tongue in cheek it is also good advice because you should be able to to argue both sides of an issue equally well. When I was at Uni I had to especially on some of my non science courses especially when I went to the dark side and did a humanities qualification. It's something that I regularly do in my own mind when I am writing posts. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't especially if I am working on the fly.

Here's another and this one is really appropriate to NZ pollies, Treasury and defence procurement:



They always take the path of short term gains underestimating long term pain. They love their "hyperbolic discounting" because it's always an easy out due to them convincing themselves that they have saved money and made themselves look good. However in reality in the long term the costs increase substantially, reduce the capability and effectiveness of NZDF which in turn reduces the options of the NZG. Our biggest security problem isn't so much the PLA threat but the lack of awareness and urgency of our pollies to any security threat to NZ, and the anti defence stance of Treasury. Sometimes I have to wonder who it's working for; the NZG and NZ Inc? Or the KGB / SVR and / or the CCP? Can ask the same questions about some of our pollies to.

We now know how the CCP/PRC undertakes its on water gray zone OPs and we know how to counter them. Whether or not our glorious leaders choose to do anything about is a completely different story, but by the time they finish having focus groups, getting consultants in, hold public consultations, make announcements about announcements, and have meetings, my 8 year old grandson's grandson will be entitled to draw his old age pension.

 

[chis73]

Crikey!, some high drama during the 80th anniversary of the Guadalcanal battle commemoration ceremony:

A Japanese person was stabbed in the neck (thankfully not fatally) with a pair of scissors by a Solomons civilian, metres from our Defence minister. Not Cool (link)

Then even worse news. Unsurprisingly, our C-130 has managed to break down again, stranding the NZ contingent. One of the 757s is on the way to rescue them (let's hope it doesn't break down as well). Once again, the NZDF and the NZ Govt becomes a laughing stock (link)

 

[John Fedup]

Crikey!, some high drama during the 80th anniversary of the Guadalcanal battle commemoration ceremony:

A Japanese person was stabbed in the neck (thankfully not fatally) with a pair of scissors by a Solomons civilian, metres from our Defence minister. Not Cool (link)

Then even worse news. Unsurprisingly, our C-130 has managed to break down again, stranding the NZ contingent. One of the 757s is on the way to rescue them (let's hope it doesn't break down as well). Once again, the NZDF and the NZ Govt becomes a laughing stock (link)

Certainly can understand your pain, the CAF have similar embarrassments. Some small glimmers of hope for us. Hopefully we get P-8s like NZ before production ceases. Like Putin, Xi is working hard to increase defence awareness amongst his neighbours. Hopefully there is time for kit to be in place before things go pear shaped.

 

[Redlands18]

Certainly can understand your pain, the CAF have similar embarrassments. Some small glimmers of hope for us. Hopefully we get P-8s like NZ before production ceases. Like Putin, Xi is working hard to increase defence awareness amongst his neighbours. Hopefully there is time for kit to be in place before things go pear shaped.

Knowing Canada's history they will probably decide to buy A320s and fit exactly the same systems as fitted to the P-8, have a 20 year battle to get it right with IOC reached about 2045

 

[ngatimozart]

Crikey!, some high drama during the 80th anniversary of the Guadalcanal battle commemoration ceremony:

A Japanese person was stabbed in the neck (thankfully not fatally) with a pair of scissors by a Solomons civilian, metres from our Defence minister. Not Cool (link)

Could be a variety of reasons, but maybe utu for something that occurred during the war. The Melanesians most likely have have a similar concept of utu to Maori and I suggest you see that evident in PNG between the different tribes there - no insult is left unpunished.

Then even worse news. Unsurprisingly, our C-130 has managed to break down again, stranding the NZ contingent. One of the 757s is on the way to rescue them (let's hope it doesn't break down as well). Once again, the NZDF and the NZ Govt becomes a laughing stock (link)

Well we all know who to blame of course; Uncle Helun.

 

[Alberto32]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1559745987815436288

, the first RNZAF P-8, looking forward to seeing more of these soon in NZ.

 

[ngatimozart]

Interesting article in the Conversation by Professor Alexander Gillespie; Nukes, allies, weapons and cost: 4 big questions NZ's defence review must address He asks four questions:

1. What is the nuclear risk?​

2. What would NZ fight for?​

3. Which weapons systems?​

4. How much should NZ spend?​

All of these are very important questions and he's a Professor of Law so he has a legalistic take on it. My answers to his questions might be different to his but at the same time I can see where he's coming from. Nevertheless these questions do have to be asked and his article is well worth reading and discussing.

 

[Xthenaki]

Interesting article in the Conversation by Professor Alexander Gillespie; Nukes, allies, weapons and cost: 4 big questions NZ's defence review must address He asks four questions:

1. What is the nuclear risk?​

2. What would NZ fight for?​

3. Which weapons systems?​

4. How much should NZ spend?​

All of these are very important questions and he's a Professor of Law so he has a legalistic take on it. My answers to his questions might be different to his but at the same time I can see where he's coming from. Nevertheless these questions do have to be asked and his article is well worth reading and discussing.

1. Nuclear Risk - Very real and a major threat.. The catalyst being an attack on Australia and our involvement would be military (to the best of our ability) humanitarian and directly to NZ the effect of nuclear fallout via weather systems
2. What would NZ fight for - Support our allies and neighbours, keep our trade and commerce routes open, our Sovereigntyand continued existance, Freedom as a nation.
3. Weapons systems - Immediately order what is necessary to bring our defence force to an interim capable fighting force. Manpower, Constellation frigate, 2 x OPV+s (cover midlife refits to Otago and Wellington). More P8*s, Helos, Transports, and refuelling aircraft. UAV*s as necessary only. Army - equip as deemed necessary including drones, missles .etc etc. Munitions for all of the forces
4. How much. - whatever is needed to fulfil (2 and 3 above)
Thats for a start only with further planned acquisitions to follow both with replacement and enhancement.
Funding is prioritised to those areas or items that are in dire need.

 

[Xthenaki]

I left the introduction of the ACF out of the equation due to the time it would take to become fully established. The GOD could approach Australia and offer to fund a NZ fighter pilpt scheme where as Kiwis when qualified get to man and if required fight with Australians as a token of our support. You can never have enough trained personal when attrition kicks in. Engineering groundstaff training schemes would also be of immense value.

 

[Simon Ewing Jarvie]

Good morning all. Hopefully this post hasn't been replicated elsewhere. NZ's Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet has rather quietly begun work on a National Security Strategy. Since many of us have been calling for a strategy for a long time, this is great news. However, as far as I can work out, there has been no media announcement of this work. The period of public consultation began in early August and runs to end of September.

You can submit online. There's also a couple of webinars for the public in September which you have to register for. I am working to see if there are any terms of reference for this work but my gut feeling is no. Anyhow, I hope you'll make use of this opportunity. The DPMC site is pretty clunky BTW and I had to turn my VPN off to get the page to stay loaded. Here's the link. Aotearoa's National Security Strategy

 

[Gibbo]

WTF... not much to say about this really, other than don't expect any increase in Defence spending if this is how the Nats feel...

Sir John Key urges diplomacy with China, praises Ardern's efforts

Former PM said it was 'nonsense' to believe China would be aggressive in a military sense.

www.nzherald.co.nz

Bumbling Brownlee had already come out with a nugget of a similar vein. Yes politics but very relevant to this thread methinks!

'On the wrong side of history': Brownlee labelled 'naive' over comments downplaying UN report on Chinese human rights abuses

Brownlee says China is trying to fight terrorism, but a Uyghur Muslim in New Zealand labels that "naive".

www.newshub.co.nz