NZDF General discussion thread

[Rob c]

I can’t see any strategic benefit for NZ

The strategic value is it makes the task of threatening our sovereignty a little bit more difficult to achieve.
It is also the one capability that we can deploy and become operational the quickest
Another factor is that in the event of conflict it puts the least number of lives at risk. A battalion going into action puts 700 to 1000 men's lives at risk and is slow to deploy. A frigate 100 to 200 and again not that quick, an AFC squadron 15 to 25max.
It can react to threats of our sovereign area quicker and cover a wider area than anything else.

 

[Todjaeger]

Why do they need to forgo anything? If history is any guide money goes where it's politcaly expedient or simply meets a unavoidable requirement, like disaster recovery.
Fact of the matter is that NZDF successfully ran an ACF as part of a relatively balanced force until it was no longer fiscally or ideologically expedient for two successive governments. Absent those two factor's there is no reason for it not to be restored, imo.

Yes, the NZDF and RNZAF did have a very competent ACF, but that was 20 years ago. Going further with this, the A-4K Skyhawk aircraft which the ACF had operated, was a subsonic attack aircraft which first entered service in the mid-1950's. What this means is that not only is there no institutional knowledge on the operation or deployment of fast jets in the NZDF anymore, there also is no real knowledge base which would be familiar with how air warfare has been changing over the last 20 years since the disbanding of the ACF, never mind over the last 50 years (when the A-4 Skyhawk first entered RNZAF service in 1970. Yes, the NZDF could spend the time and resources to recreate an ACF, but these would both be significant commitments.

Areas where I can foresee multiple issues with the idea of reinstating an ACF appearing has to do with both the resources and time required. Take the resources for instance. How does the current size and purchasing power of NZ's Vote Defence in real terms compare with was it was back in 1984 or earlier? I have not kept up on how much costs have risen in NZ since then or what the defence budgeting had been back then, but the impression I have gotten over the years is that the effective purchasing power of Vote Defence has declined over the years which is part of why the NZDF as a whole is in the state it currently is. If the current Vote Defence is insufficient to afford properly existing/replacement kit and personnel, then either Vote Defence needs to be increased enough to cover everything associated with raising and operating an ACF, or existing defence funding would need to be diverted. Diverting existing funding would also mean that some current defence capabilities would be either further reduced or IMO more likely, lost. Having the NZDF lose even more capabilities is very unappealing and I do not yet believe there is sufficient public interest, never mind among politicians, ideologues and policy makers, for Vote Defence to be increased enough to afford raising an ACF.

Now for the time problem. Time would be required to recruit and train the personnel which would make up the ACF, and/or replace existing RNZAF personnel in their current billets if existing personnel transferred to an ACF. However, if raising an ACF does get agreed upon by politicians and policy-makers, those same groups would need to maintain the agreement that having such a capability is worthwhile for NZ. Given how the ACF was disbanded in the first place, as well as the limited resources being made available to the NZDF by successive gov'ts, I have serious doubts that commitment to raising an ACF could be maintained for the time which would be required. All it would take is a single gov't to again decide to axe a nascent ACF to bring such a programme to an abrupt halt.

With all the above in mind, if Vote Defence were to end up getting an injection of additional resources, it would be better expended maintaining or expanding one ore more of the current capabilities, particularly those which can be multi-role in nature.

 

[Stuart M]

Yes, the NZDF and RNZAF did have a very competent ACF, but that was 20 years ago. Going further with this, the A-4K Skyhawk aircraft which the ACF had operated, was a subsonic attack aircraft which first entered service in the mid-1950's. What this means is that not only is there no institutional knowledge on the operation or deployment of fast jets in the NZDF anymore, there also is no real knowledge base which would be familiar with how air warfare has been changing over the last 20 years since the disbanding of the ACF, never mind over the last 50 years (when the A-4 Skyhawk first entered RNZAF service in 1970. Yes, the NZDF could spend the time and resources to recreate an ACF, but these would both be significant commitments.

Areas where I can foresee multiple issues with the idea of reinstating an ACF appearing has to do with both the resources and time required. Take the resources for instance. How does the current size and purchasing power of NZ's Vote Defence in real terms compare with was it was back in 1984 or earlier? I have not kept up on how much costs have risen in NZ since then or what the defence budgeting had been back then, but the impression I have gotten over the years is that the effective purchasing power of Vote Defence has declined over the years which is part of why the NZDF as a whole is in the state it currently is. If the current Vote Defence is insufficient to afford properly existing/replacement kit and personnel, then either Vote Defence needs to be increased enough to cover everything associated with raising and operating an ACF, or existing defence funding would need to be diverted. Diverting existing funding would also mean that some current defence capabilities would be either further reduced or IMO more likely, lost. Having the NZDF lose even more capabilities is very unappealing and I do not yet believe there is sufficient public interest, never mind among politicians, ideologues and policy makers, for Vote Defence to be increased enough to afford raising an ACF.

Now for the time problem. Time would be required to recruit and train the personnel which would make up the ACF, and/or replace existing RNZAF personnel in their current billets if existing personnel transferred to an ACF. However, if raising an ACF does get agreed upon by politicians and policy-makers, those same groups would need to maintain the agreement that having such a capability is worthwhile for NZ. Given how the ACF was disbanded in the first place, as well as the limited resources being made available to the NZDF by successive gov'ts, I have serious doubts that commitment to raising an ACF could be maintained for the time which would be required. All it would take is a single gov't to again decide to axe a nascent ACF to bring such a programme to an abrupt halt.

With all the above in mind, if Vote Defence were to end up getting an injection of additional resources, it would be better expended maintaining or expanding one ore more of the current capabilities, particularly those which can be multi-role in nature.

So your objections are willpower, funds and expertise; the two latter are no issue, money has a habit of appearing as if by magic if politicians deem it wise and expertise can be brought in easily enough, indeed all of us ex Brit empire nations armed forces were founded by doing just that, so that's no great issue.

But poltical willpower on the other hand is a fickle thing indeed, but self interest is a great stiffener of spines. The prospect of a suitably placed cruise missile with Xi's smiley face on the nose into Wellington's power transformers if NZ doesn't bend the knee, then I suspect the 9th floor will be more than likely say they have always been in favour of a nations right to self determination and self defence in the face of removal for not doing their job.

After all, this is what a party founded on pacifist principles did in 1939, and with the same inducement of self preservation they will do the same again.

And on this issue I am sure we can take some comfort from Australias sudden conversion to the glowing green light of the SSN cause.

 

[ngatimozart]

Ngati, do you really think there is any chance that you will get T26? I would have thought something like a T31 is much more likely; maybe not that actual ship fit, I hope not anyway, but that sort of all up cost. I would love to see the RNZN with three T26, but just can’t see where that sort of political will is going to come from. I accept that many of your people might want an increase to defence, but your current crop of pollies doesn’t seem to (or even understand what is going on in the real world). And they are running the show. Without something to put the real frighteners on them I can’t see them changing their spots.

I hear scuttlebutt that the RNZN senior sirs want the T-26, but realistically I can't see that happening. However I have been very keen on the idea of the Arrowhead 140 hull and machinery with the SPY-7, AEGIS, CEC etc., from the the RCN CSC. Of course part of the CSC fitout isn't suitable for NZ but it would work. The AH140 is 7,000 tonnes displacement and if needs be say a 5m or 10m plug could be used to extend the hull length. Steel is cheap and air is free. The other thing I have been taking close note of is the SH Defence CUBE Modular System which I think is ideal, especially because it uses the footprint of the 20ft ISO TEU (container).

As you rightly note, the pollies are the problem, but if there's a change of govt next November then the NZ National Party has an ex RNZN / RAN officer in it's top five who was a Collins Class XO or CO. Other National Party MPs are ex military as well and that cohort is fairly high in the Parliamentary wing of the Party. The other right wing Party, ACT has a very strong defence policy, which is unusual for them. They are wanting to start spending NZ$9.6 billion on defence per year from 2026. If they stick to that and get it through, that gives a CAPEX of say NZ$3.6 billion per year (in 2022 dollars) and if that's spent over 15 years, that will turn NZDF into a lean, mean, fighting machine. This is a Party that is allergic to government spending. If they get enough MPs into Parliament - either an electorate seat or 5% of the Party vote they will go into coalition with the National Party. However there's 11 months between now and the election and anything can happen in that time. I also don't trust pollies.

Post this on their twitter time line on a regur basis? Point out that the CCP knows where Parliament and the Beehive are.

Yes, maybe I should.

It was that crushing downwards push. Again China doesn't have to defeat every ship and plane in the western World, just those that are located near it. The Americans are split all over the world. The Europeans underfund their own defence capabilities and can't see past the Russian threat.

Australia and NZ aren't the main aims of Chinese war planners. The military have neither the taste for Waikato beer or a war like hunger for Cheese. But cutting off the straits would be a serious concern and threat to them.

Look at the history and strategy of the Pacific war during WW2 and have a look at a map of the region. Australia is an unsinkable aircraft carrier and base for an American pushback into PRC conquered areas if it's managed to annihilate Guam, and removed the Japanese and South Koreans from the war. The Japanese may possibly have three enemies to deal with - PRC, North Korea, and Russia. South Korea - North Korea and PRC. The Japanese and Russians still haven't solved their differences over the Japanese islands north of Japan, occupied by Russia, two of which Russia was supposed to have returned to Japan.

I am genuinely curious of what comes out of the NZ defence review.

We all are. But given the current govts track record with its organisational abilities, don't hold your breath.

Well 4 I think may be possible, in the realm, perhaps with a lighter fitout, it could be an overbuild OPV, that could take on additional systems etc. 3 It seems very doable. Even if things are rotated through crewing during peace time like Norway does it. But there are options, depending on what type of frigate, capabilities that are considered, money and crew available.

I think that the Norwegians aren't the best example. We would be better looking at the RDN - Royal Danish Navy because we have more in common with them.

There are many bad possibilities in our future. Collapsing US or China would be terrible.

Yes it would and given all the political shenanigans and divisiveness present in the US, one has to wonder about its future. Nightmarish.

However, I think Xi is most likely to make his 4th term. What I have said is basically what Kevin Rudd is currently telling anyone who will listen. The time to assert against Xi has passed when he made his 3rd term. There is now no challenge to him, and he will be leader until he dies, he has re-established the cult of the personality.

Xi Jinping is China’s most audacious leader for decades, argues Kevin Rudd

He has smashed the economic and political precedents set by his predecessors, says Australia’s former prime minister

www.economist.com

Kevin Rudd is now Australia's ambassador to the US. He wrote his PhD thesis on Xi. He heads up the largest Asian think tank in the west. He lived in china for over a decade and is familiar with Xi personally. He officially represents Australian policy.

I know about Rudd's credentials, however things can change and Xi has changed the PRC; not for the better. Unlike the time of Mao, Deng, and even Jiang Zemin, many of the PRC population have access to the internet and even though it's behind the Great Firewall, they can still generally find out what's happening and make their views known.

Depends what platform the RNZN and NZG end up settling on. Agree with regards both acquisition cost and crewing that even 3 x Type 26 will be a stretch.

If NZ opted for a highly automated platform such as the Mogami class it's conceivable that the ANZACs could be replaced on a 2 for 1 basis.

Considering the OPVs are due for replacement in 2032 ($600m - 1bn) and HMNZS Manawanui around 2035, perhaps a class of 6 could be considered. While not the gold plated solution, this approach would simplify logistics and training, delivering more capability than at present, with broadly similar crew numbers.

The trouble with multi-rolling is that you can do to much of it and it inhibits you rather than increasing your abilities. Do you really want a 7,000 tonne frigate undertaking a role that an OPV used to do? Maybe that's where a corvette comes in. At the same time you cannot expect a Gucci'd OPV to undertake the role of a frigate. It just doesn't work because they fill two completely different roles. A Gucci'd OPV or a corvette isn't going to survive a high end combat, but a corvette has a far better chance than a Gucci'd OPV, but not the same chance as a frigate. To use a racing term, it's horses for courses.

We actually have 2 FFHs, 4 IPVs and 2 OPVs to replace, plus 1 FFG because two are clearly not enough, so that's 9 hulls and those 9 hulls are a minimum. I would suggest a frigate / corvette combination with 3 FFG and a minimum of 6 corvettes. Because of our location and requirements, a generic Euro corvette isn't going to meet out requirements. We should remember the lessons of the Loch / Lake Class PBs and Protector Class IPVs and OPVS, none of which were / are suitable for NZ requirements. It's the basic hull that's the problem so something around 3,500 tonnes displacement is required. The hull used for the MEKO 200 frigates comes to mind because it's roomy enough and with a change of machinery, NZ stipulated fitout etc., it would be ideal.

If you have a frigate / corvette combination then there are many commonalties including weapons, sensors etc., but the most important one is the CMS. If you use the same CMS then that is a big problem sorted. Take it to the next step and use a modular mission system, and you have a system that's right across your fleet for mission modules. Any ship can become a minelayer, mine hunter, oil spill recovery, operate UUVs / USVs, have extra battery capacity, carry extra electricity generators, extra weapons and so on.

Thanks for the detailed answer Ngati.

I found this to be a very interesting point. Would you start here and then work else what you can do given budget constraints.

Regards,

Massive

I have been running a NZDF procurement spreadsheet for the last 8 years and look at it quite regularly. Each year the costs grow, not because of inflation but because of more NZDF capabilities requiring replacement and / or being lost. At present my costs are running with a CAPEX of $3.6 billion per annum for 15 years over and above the current NZDF annual budget allocation.

 

[Rob c]

With all the above in mind, if Vote Defence were to end up getting an injection of additional resources, it would be better expended maintaining or expanding one ore more of the current capabilities, particularly those which can be multi-role in nature.

What you have written is mostly true and would be seen as sensible, but it ignores the basic point that the prime reason for having a defence force in the first place is to protect a countries sovereignty. Yes there are a lot of other tasks that they carry out and the politicians often get so tied up in all the details of these other tasks that they do forget the prime task. Even our own defence forces taskings have at the number 1 task as defending NZ. The question should be how is this too be achieved.
I know that to defend NZ over a period of time will require the help of friends, however depending on both the strategic, vatical and political situation of the time their is no guarantee as to how long it will take to arrive. so the question must be how do we best maintain our sovereignty until help arrives.

 

[Todjaeger]

So your objections are willpower, funds and expertise; the two latter are no issue, money has a habit of appearing as if by magic if politicians deem it wise and expertise can be brought in easily enough, indeed all of us ex Brit empire nations armed forces were founded by doing just that, so that's no great issue.

But poltical willpower on the other hand is a fickle thing indeed, but self interest is a great stiffener of spines. The prospect of a suitably placed cruise missile with Xi's smiley face on the nose into Wellington's power transformers if NZ doesn't bend the knee, then I suspect the 9th floor will be more than likely say they have always been in favour of a nations right to self determination and self defence in the face of removal for not doing their job.

After all, this is what a party founded on pacifist principles did in 1939, and with the same inducement of self preservation they will do the same again.

And on this issue I am sure we can take some comfort from Australias sudden conversion to the glowing green light of the SSN cause.

Not really, no... Those are not really the issues I foresee, and I am certainly not as blaise about these issues being resolved or even solvable when needed.

AND

What you have written is mostly true and would be seen as sensible, but it ignores the basic point that the prime reason for having a defence force in the first place is to protect a countries sovereignty. Yes there are a lot of other tasks that they carry out and the politicians often get so tied up in all the details of these other tasks that they do forget the prime task. Even our own defence forces taskings have at the number 1 task as defending NZ. The question should be how is this too be achieved.
I know that to defend NZ over a period of time will require the help of friends, however depending on both the strategic, vatical and political situation of the time their is no guarantee as to how long it will take to arrive. so the question must be how do we best maintain our sovereignty until help arrives.

From my outsider's perspective, albeit with contacts and family in NZ as well as Kiwis living aboard, what I have written seems absolutely true, but it does not appear you read what I meant.

I absolutely agree that the primary role of a defence force is to defend it's nation, which is one of the reasons why I see so many issues with the continuing desire to recreate an ACF within the NZDF. It is not that such a capability would "useless" but much more about it would take significant time and resources to achieve the desired outcome, when the defence capabilities of the NZDF has been allowed to decline across the entirety of the force to such a degree. TBH there are many moments when I strongly suspect the current state of the NZDF was a deliberately desired outcome on the part of certain stakeholders and policy makers.

With me maintaining such a suspicion, I have a hard time believing that attempting to recreate an ACF would be successful since it would only take a single gov't with a pacifist, anti-defence, or non-aligned ideology to completely upend and derail what would be an effort carried out at significant expense over the span of multiple gov'ts before actually being achieved. Indeed, it might not even require an entire gov't to be opposed to the effort, but it might just need someone in one or more key positions in the GotD.

Further, when one looks at the current state of the NZDF as an entire entity and one sees what capabilities have been diminished, needed replacements postponed or cancelled, or replacements ordered but in insufficient quantities and/or without all the kit needed to be effective in assigned roles, then one sees that additional resources are really needed across the entire NZDF. Also, when I mention resources I am referring not just to additional funding, but also to personnel as well as space/infrastructure. When one recognizes that the current, rather emaciated NZDF has had issues carrying out normal peace time ops due to being under funded for decades it becomes rather hard to seriously consider something so time and resource intensive.

Since I am not assuming that Vote Defence would get a massive increase in funding, enough to permit an entire range of current NZDF needs to be met, I see there being more value in directing any extra resources which might pried loose from gov't towards getting existing capabilities to where they really should already be at. This might be adding a few extra transport aircraft so that there are sufficient numbers to enable proper training, maintenance, upgrade and deployment cycles. There is a reason why specific numbers of assets get recommended, but it does seem that NZ often buys less than the recommended number which works up until there is an unplanned issue or failure. Or it might be actually purchasing armaments suitable for anti-shipping roles either from RNZAF aircraft or RNZN warships. Given that the NZDF has not yet seemed to convince gov't to purchase standoff AShM for use from either the frigates or the Poseidon's, it seems illogical to believe that an ACF with a strong maritime strike role could be formed, since such a unit would likely be armed with much of the same ordnance.

IMO it would far better, as well as much more viable, to take the capabilities the NZDF has been able to maintain and get them up to scratch whilst moving the NZDF in a direction away from being a "Kumbaya" Blue Helmet Corps good international citizen peace-keeping group that prior gov'ts seemed to set so much value in. As a side note, I recall about a decade ago, when the NZDF was basically starting to see some capabilities break down, this was due to the number and size of concurrent int'l deployments of NZDF personnel. IIRC there were a total of ~900 personnel or just over 10% of the NZDF, spread across some 27 different international deployments of varying sizes in different locations around the globe. The impression I formed at the time was that the previous gov'ts saw a certain cachet in having NZDF personnel involved in so many UN deployments around the world, meanwhile NZDF personnel were having trouble maintaining needed skills as well interest in serving because so many were scattered about.

I also maintain that the NZDF needs to make sure that various assets are multi-role, having a number of different defence uses vs. specializing in just a single capability or role. Take the frigates for example, properly kitted out (which IMO they are not, not really) the RNZN frigates can cover ASW, air defence and ASuW roles, doing so to protect NZ's SLOC, or to protect NZ or allied forces/assets in or transiting through a potential conflict area. Once the Poseidons are in service, they will be similarly multi-role with a broad area maritime surveillance/SA capability as well as an ASW one to protect the SLOC or sanitize a potential chokepoint. Unfortunately with the Poseidons, in addition to likely having too few in service without standoff ordnance they cannot fulfill an anti-shipping or maritime strike role. They could theoretically detect and track a hostile TF, but would only be able to relay that data to others and be unable to do anything itself directly.

As for some of the "whole of gov't" approach, I have some very mixed feelings about that. It would nice if NZDF capabilities which were useful to other gov't agencies could be made use of as needed and when available. However, in a number of instances it does seem like the "whole of gov't" approach was more about getting the little Vote Defence did receive used to fund other departments and agencies, rather than any core Defence role or capability.

 

[Stuart M]

Not really, no... Those are not really the issues I foresee, and I am certainly not as blaise about these issues being resolved or even solvable when needed.

AND



From my outsider's perspective, albeit with contacts and family in NZ as well as Kiwis living aboard, what I have written seems absolutely true, but it does not appear you read what I meant.

I absolutely agree that the primary role of a defence force is to defend it's nation, which is one of the reasons why I see so many issues with the continuing desire to recreate an ACF within the NZDF. It is not that such a capability would "useless" but much more about it would take significant time and resources to achieve the desired outcome, when the defence capabilities of the NZDF has been allowed to decline across the entirety of the force to such a degree. TBH there are many moments when I strongly suspect the current state of the NZDF was a deliberately desired outcome on the part of certain stakeholders and policy makers.

With me maintaining such a suspicion, I have a hard time believing that attempting to recreate an ACF would be successful since it would only take a single gov't with a pacifist, anti-defence, or non-aligned ideology to completely upend and derail what would be an effort carried out at significant expense over the span of multiple gov'ts before actually being achieved. Indeed, it might not even require an entire gov't to be opposed to the effort, but it might just need someone in one or more key positions in the GotD.

Further, when one looks at the current state of the NZDF as an entire entity and one sees what capabilities have been diminished, needed replacements postponed or cancelled, or replacements ordered but in insufficient quantities and/or without all the kit needed to be effective in assigned roles, then one sees that additional resources are really needed across the entire NZDF. Also, when I mention resources I am referring not just to additional funding, but also to personnel as well as space/infrastructure. When one recognizes that the current, rather emaciated NZDF has had issues carrying out normal peace time ops due to being under funded for decades it becomes rather hard to seriously consider something so time and resource intensive.

Since I am not assuming that Vote Defence would get a massive increase in funding, enough to permit an entire range of current NZDF needs to be met, I see there being more value in directing any extra resources which might pried loose from gov't towards getting existing capabilities to where they really should already be at. This might be adding a few extra transport aircraft so that there are sufficient numbers to enable proper training, maintenance, upgrade and deployment cycles. There is a reason why specific numbers of assets get recommended, but it does seem that NZ often buys less than the recommended number which works up until there is an unplanned issue or failure. Or it might be actually purchasing armaments suitable for anti-shipping roles either from RNZAF aircraft or RNZN warships. Given that the NZDF has not yet seemed to convince gov't to purchase standoff AShM for use from either the frigates or the Poseidon's, it seems illogical to believe that an ACF with a strong maritime strike role could be formed, since such a unit would likely be armed with much of the same ordnance.

IMO it would far better, as well as much more viable, to take the capabilities the NZDF has been able to maintain and get them up to scratch whilst moving the NZDF in a direction away from being a "Kumbaya" Blue Helmet Corps good international citizen peace-keeping group that prior gov'ts seemed to set so much value in. As a side note, I recall about a decade ago, when the NZDF was basically starting to see some capabilities break down, this was due to the number and size of concurrent int'l deployments of NZDF personnel. IIRC there were a total of ~900 personnel or just over 10% of the NZDF, spread across some 27 different international deployments of varying sizes in different locations around the globe. The impression I formed at the time was that the previous gov'ts saw a certain cachet in having NZDF personnel involved in so many UN deployments around the world, meanwhile NZDF personnel were having trouble maintaining needed skills as well interest in serving because so many were scattered about.

I also maintain that the NZDF needs to make sure that various assets are multi-role, having a number of different defence uses vs. specializing in just a single capability or role. Take the frigates for example, properly kitted out (which IMO they are not, not really) the RNZN frigates can cover ASW, air defence and ASuW roles, doing so to protect NZ's SLOC, or to protect NZ or allied forces/assets in or transiting through a potential conflict area. Once the Poseidons are in service, they will be similarly multi-role with a broad area maritime surveillance/SA capability as well as an ASW one to protect the SLOC or sanitize a potential chokepoint. Unfortunately with the Poseidons, in addition to likely having too few in service without standoff ordnance they cannot fulfill an anti-shipping or maritime strike role. They could theoretically detect and track a hostile TF, but would only be able to relay that data to others and be unable to do anything itself directly.

As for some of the "whole of gov't" approach, I have some very mixed feelings about that. It would nice if NZDF capabilities which were useful to other gov't agencies could be made use of as needed and when available. However, in a number of instances it does seem like the "whole of gov't" approach was more about getting the little Vote Defence did receive used to fund other departments and agencies, rather than any core Defence role or capability.

I think you are missing what is being said to you. No one is denying most of what you are saying, this has been said for years because it's objectify true, what we are saying about a ACF is that is something that is in principle a nessesary thing. Yes there are priorities in timelines, but an ACF is no different to any of the other things you have said are needed.

Ask yourself this, would you be arguing against restoration of airborne ASW capacity, the SAS or the artillery had the Clark era government got their way and abolished them too? Because they were practically a signature away from doing it and your argument aginst an ACF holds for them as well had they been abolished.

 

[Todjaeger]

I think you are missing what is being said to you. No one is denying most of what you are saying, this has been said for years because it's objectify true, what we are saying about a ACF is that is something that is in principle a nessesary thing. Yes there are priorities in timelines, but an ACF is no different to any of the other things you have said are needed.

Ask yourself this, would you be arguing against restoration of airborne ASW capacity, the SAS or the artillery had the Clark era government got their way and abolished them too? Because they were practically a signature away from doing it and your argument aginst an ACF holds for them as well had they been abolished.

At best I would say it seems that I have a bit of a different view on where things fall on the NZ threat matrix, as well as what is practical and reasonably possible. If Vote Defence is increased to an annual amount in excess of NZD$8 bil. p.a. and 2% GDP, all in real terms, then I would consider raising an ACF potentially viable, as would a number of other areas within the NZDF that need improvement or to be restored to service.

FWIW NZ had de facto abolished aerial ASW capabilities for a number of years. That is effectively what happens when the stocks of Mk 46 LWT's reach their end of service life without being re-manufactured or re-certified as being fit and effective for continued service. The LWT issue was further exacerbated by the aircraft which would have been used for ASW ops, namely the SH-2G(NZ) Super Seasprite and the P-3K Orion. IIRC the Seasprite fitout that NZ opted for lacked a dipping sonar and TBH I am uncertain whether or not a sonobuoy dispenser was fitted since the initial intention was that the Seasprites were to be used to aide the ANZAC-class frigates in ASuW, in the RAN's case using Penguin Mk 2 Mod 7 AShM and for the RNZN/RNZAF using AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground missiles as well as providing sea/surface search. The Kiwi Orions were also a bit of an issue for many years, since the mission systems and particularly the ASW systems had last been updated during Project Rigel back in the early 1980's. The later Project Kestral was done to re-wing the Orions and extend or replace parts of the airframe. It was not until 2016 when many of the mission systems used for ASW were finally upgraded or outright replaced with modern systems.

As a side note, when the Orions were re-winged during Project Kestral the wings were apparently not fitted with the appropriate MIL-STD wiring harness to permit proper carriage and deployment of Harpoon AShM. Given the gov't in power during at least part of Project Kestral, I would not have been surprised that such an omission was done deliberately rather than an oversight, since the lack of an appropriate wiring harness made the Kiwi Orions more unsuitable for service in a hypothetical conflict. The oversight could of course have been corrected, but that would have required the new wings getting taken back off the aircraft to have the proper harnesses installed, taking more time and costing even more money. All at a time when the NZ public had been getting told that NZ was in a "benign security environment" for years.

Also, looking realistically NZ has basically abolished artillery, at least artillery that would be relevant and survivable during a conflict with a peer or near-peer adversary. 105 mm towed howitzers would likely prove very vulnerable to the types of long range fires and/or counter-battery fires available to a number of adversaries. As such, NZ should likely be looking at some form of replacement for long ranged fires that are more mobile and/or protected (both would be better) than what is currently in service.

Lastly, yes, a NZ gov't could certainly have disbanded the NZSAS. However, such a decision would have been quite foolish given the range of potential uses such a capability can provide, both within NZ as well for or on deployments away from NZ. Having highly skilled operators for recce roles as well as assault and/or hostage rescue provides a number of benefits across a range of different scenarios.

As already mentioned, the NZDF did for a number of years let ASW capabilities wither and dwindle. That IMO was a rather foolish path for a nation-state made up of islands which has an enormous percentage of it's trade transit over SLOC to take. Fortunately now there has been decisions made and work done to remedy this, but it will still take more take more time and require ongoing resource commitments.

 

[recce.k1]

Why not make the NZ Army a complete "Marines" type formation? That would fit in with the JATF concept and NZ's maritime position. The NZ Army is to wedded to its colonial Pommy origins of being a continental army.

To be fair I would have to defer to DefPros on the pros and cons of that idea (as I would assume it would be a complex process)?

Another suggestion: Possibly do-able if defence spending was raised to 2% or >2% of gdp (eg 2.1-2.2% of gdp), could be to raise a third "light" rifle battalion and model that on 2RAR? If so, advantages:

1. If Army has to deploy a battalion overseas (eg 2/1 RNZIR) it could be sustained with 1 RNZIR rotating in to replace them after 6-12months. Then once that period expires, rather than rotating in the Reserve Forces (as per doctrine) instead bring in this 3rd (3/1?) battalion OR a combination of the 3rd batt. and with some of the Reserve Forces.

If I understand Australian doctrine correctly their Army structure will see their Battalions or Brigades sustain their overseas delpoyments, however their Army Reserve units are instead part of their home-defence formations. I believe the NZDF should "aspire" to this model (subject to political will and funding). A third battalion will better sustain an overseas deployment without breaking the Army as per experiences over the last 20-30 years. It also means having Reserve units available to guard critical domestic infrastructure and support eg future coastal air/sea missile defence systems (if that is an outcome of the Defence Policy Review).

Note: There appear to be plans under current Govt settings (which presumably DPR will solidify) have a greater Army (or NZDF) presence in the regions again. Perhaps we can take this conversation over to the NZDF or NZ Army thread if we (here) wish to discuss this in further detail?

2. If modeled on 2RAR experiences, which currently has two rifle companies (plus other HQ and Support Coy elements), it means for NZDF (Army & Navy) joint-service support for the future 2nd LPD to be acquired in the late 2020's (and potential future replacement of MRV HMNZS Canterbury with another LPD in the 2030's). These timeframes give "time" to raise and train that 3rd battalion (clearly, like the ACF restoration, it will happen over time as defence funding rises - it won't and physically couldn't happen overnight of course).

I could be wrong but my (non-defpro) perspective suggests that the NZ Army having 3 battalions with primary expertise as eg 2/1 RNZIR = light infantry, 1 RNZIR = light/motorised with LAV, "3 Batt" = amphibious ops (but with the last two reverting to light infantry when required to sustain overseas deployments) might be more "sustainable" for a small and lower funded defence force (when compared to other countries) but one that requires to operate land/sea/air and both regionally and globally.

What I also mean is, could a small and lower funded defence force sustain a "Marines" type structure with presumably both battalions (or a potential third batt.) being able to master all the skills required to proudly be called a Marines unit? We (as in Army) couldn't manage two motorised LAVIII battalions and reverted back to light infantry (or rather than Army itself at fault, additional Govt funding wasn't forthcoming to make it properly work for Army)?

* What would a 3rd ("amphibious") battalion be tasked with? If we look at 2RAR it "will be responsible for amphibious reconnaissance and surveillance, small boat operations, battle space shaping and limited scale raiding in support of a Joint Amphibious Task Force". Also "It is to be responsible for reconnoitring and seizing beaches, helicopter landing zones and airfields for the Australian Amphibious Force's main ground combat element. Following the completion of amphibious operations, the battalion will either re-embark or remain ashore as a reconnaissance unit. In the latter role, it is to be capable of conducting reconnaissance patrols well behind enemy lines and providing information to other units" (from Wiki).

Interestingly, 2RAR has its own organic artillery battery. I wonder if in a NZ context (subject to funding/people/pollies willing of course), could the towed/NH90 helo-carried light artillery be reallocated to this 3rd ("amphibious") battalion, providing a potential pathway for the NZ Army's Artillery Regiment to eventually acquire SPH capabilities?

 

[Stuart M]

At best I would say it seems that I have a bit of a different view on where things fall on the NZ threat matrix, as well as what is practical and reasonably possible. If Vote Defence is increased to an annual amount in excess of NZD$8 bil. p.a. and 2% GDP, all in real terms, then I would consider raising an ACF potentially viable, as would a number of other areas within the NZDF that need improvement or to be restored to service.

Snip

.

As already mentioned, the NZDF did for a number of years let ASW capabilities wither and dwindle. That IMO was a rather foolish path for a nation-state made up of islands which has an enormous percentage of it's trade transit over SLOC to take. Fortunately now there has been decisions made and work done to remedy this, but it will still take more take more time and require ongoing resource commitments.

There are murmurings of funding going back to 2% in both ACT and National, who at this stage look likely to form the next government, imo it needs to be more like 2.5.
Your comments about SAS and ASW are essentially no different to what's has been said in favour of ACF, but what has been said about its abolition was being said about ASW and SAS, and they were a whisker away from going the same way and the reasons would have been similar.

You are right about the Artillery, but at least we have retained base skills, and that's better than nothing.

 

[ngatimozart]

I absolutely agree that the primary role of a defence force is to defend it's nation, which is one of the reasons why I see so many issues with the continuing desire to recreate an ACF within the NZDF. It is not that such a capability would "useless" but much more about it would take significant time and resources to achieve the desired outcome, when the defence capabilities of the NZDF has been allowed to decline across the entirety of the force to such a degree. TBH there are many moments when I strongly suspect the current state of the NZDF was a deliberately desired outcome on the part of certain stakeholders and policy makers.

Emphasis mine. You are correct in your suspicion and there are two particular groups who have worked tirelessly for this outcome.

The first is Treasury who campaigned for 40 years to axe the ACF. They saw it as a waste of money because it hadn't been used in anger. They tried to kibosh the Skyhawk acquisition in the 1960s on cost effective grounds. When the Skyhawk replacement was politicised in the 1990s by Clark, Burton, Goff et al., Treasury were great supporters of the anti F-16 acquisition side. In 2000 Treasury proposed to the GOTD that funding for the RNZN and RNZAF should be cut back, but Army funding was ok because of the 3 services it was the cheapest option because it was less technology dependant.

Then we have the NZ Labour Party. Since 1958 it has been NZ Labour Party policy to ban nuclear weapons. That was overlooked during the 3d Labour Govt of Kirk / Rowling (Kirk died in 1974) from 1972 - 75. Although this govt deployed a frigate to French Polynesia to both monitor and protest the French nuclear atmospheric tests at Mururoa Atoll. IIRC there was a Cabinet Minister aboard the frigate for the deployment. The French were not impressed; highly annoyed they were. Then we had the 4th Labour Govt from 1984 - 90 under Lange. They bought in the anti nuclear policy and made it law, which upset the Americans, causing then US SECSTATE George Schultz to blow a couple of gaskets and let rip with a rant or two. At the time there wasn't a lot of support in NZ for the anti nuclear legislation, but when Schultz let rip on TV etc., that really annoyed a lot of Kiwis who didn't support the legislation and turned them into fervent supporters. If Schultz had kept quiet and controlled in public, there would've been a good chance that the legislation may have been watered down an agreement reached. It might have even been revoked by a later Parliament. But no Kiwi pollie worth their salt will even suggest getting rid of it now if they want to be re-elected.

In 1972 when the Skyhawks were delivered to Auckland by the USN, aboard a flat top, there to meet them was a bunch of hippies protesting against them. These were the PYM - Progressive Youth Movement, a Marxist Leninist organisation that is believed to have received funding from the Embassy of the USSR in Wellington. Amongst that group of protestors were Helen Clark, Mark Burton, Phil Goff, Tim Shadbolt, John Minto and a few others. It should be noted that both Burton and Minto are still fervent Marxist Leninists. A photograph of Clark on the wharf protesting is known to exist but copies have been difficult to locate, especially since 2000. Clark also was known to have vowed then and later, that if she was ever in the position to be able to, she would get rid of the Skyhawks. In 1985 Clark had done the dirty with Geoffrey Palmer on Lange over the USS Buchanan visit and later she had managed to position herself as the main power inside the Labour Party. After the 4th Labour Govt was turfed out of office in 1990 Clark took over from Mike Moore as Party Leader.

When the Anzac frigate replacement project was announced, Clark and co then politicised that, stirring up opposition amongst the looney left with some fools pushing for Castle Class corvettes. Later in the decade when the Skyhawk replacement project was announced, it was like a red flag to a bull where Clark was concerned and she politicised the whole project. In 2000 she cancelled the F-16 deal and in 2001 scrapping the ACF as we all know. We know that she doesn't like the Americans and that during her first 4 -5 years as PM she ran an anti American and Australian foreign policy.

I have always wondered where Clark, Burton, Goff et al., true loyalties lie, especially Clark's and Burton's. From the 1960s - 1991 someone with a suspicious nature could harbour suspicions that they possibly may have been KGB assets. When the USSR collapsed along with the rest of the Warsaw Pact, what was the impact on them? If they were fervent Marxist Leninists then who to turn to so as to enable them to continue following their religion? Castro's Cuba? Not really because it has no presence in this part of the world. That sort of leaves only one major player in the Marxist Leninist world and that is the PRC. Have they transferred their religious affiliation to the CCP? Of course this is pure supposition on my part and I am definitely not suggesting that they were / are KGB / CCP assets, however it doesn't stop me having have my suspicions, given the damage that they did to NZDF. It should also be noted that the current NZ PM Ardern is Clarks acolyte.

 

[ngatimozart]

To be fair I would have to defer to DefPros on the pros and cons of that idea (as I would assume it would be a complex process)?

Another suggestion: Possibly do-able if defence spending was raised to 2% or >2% of gdp (eg 2.1-2.2% of gdp), could be to raise a third "light" rifle battalion and model that on 2RAR? If so, advantages:

1. If Army has to deploy a battalion overseas (eg 2/1 RNZIR) it could be sustained with 1 RNZIR rotating in to replace them after 6-12months. Then once that period expires, rather than rotating in the Reserve Forces (as per doctrine) instead bring in this 3rd (3/1?) battalion OR a combination of the 3rd batt. and with some of the Reserve Forces.

If I understand Australian doctrine correctly their Army structure will see their Battalions or Brigades sustain their overseas delpoyments, however their Army Reserve units are instead part of their home-defence formations. I believe the NZDF should "aspire" to this model (subject to political will and funding). A third battalion will better sustain an overseas deployment without breaking the Army as per experiences over the last 20-30 years. It also means having Reserve units available to guard critical domestic infrastructure and support eg future coastal air/sea missile defence systems (if that is an outcome of the Defence Policy Review).

Note: There appear to be plans under current Govt settings (which presumably DPR will solidify) have a greater Army (or NZDF) presence in the regions again. Perhaps we can take this conversation over to the NZDF or NZ Army thread if we (here) wish to discuss this in further detail?

2. If modeled on 2RAR experiences, which currently has two rifle companies (plus other HQ and Support Coy elements), it means for NZDF (Army & Navy) joint-service support for the future 2nd LPD to be acquired in the late 2020's (and potential future replacement of MRV HMNZS Canterbury with another LPD in the 2030's). These timeframes give "time" to raise and train that 3rd battalion (clearly, like the ACF restoration, it will happen over time as defence funding rises - it won't and physically couldn't happen overnight of course).

I could be wrong but my (non-defpro) perspective suggests that the NZ Army having 3 battalions with primary expertise as eg 2/1 RNZIR = light infantry, 1 RNZIR = light/motorised with LAV, "3 Batt" = amphibious ops (but with the last two reverting to light infantry when required to sustain overseas deployments) might be more "sustainable" for a small and lower funded defence force (when compared to other countries) but one that requires to operate land/sea/air and both regionally and globally.

What I also mean is, could a small and lower funded defence force sustain a "Marines" type structure with presumably both battalions (or a potential third batt.) being able to master all the skills required to proudly be called a Marines unit? We (as in Army) couldn't manage two motorised LAVIII battalions and reverted back to light infantry (or rather than Army itself at fault, additional Govt funding wasn't forthcoming to make it properly work for Army)?

* What would a 3rd ("amphibious") battalion be tasked with? If we look at 2RAR it "will be responsible for amphibious reconnaissance and surveillance, small boat operations, battle space shaping and limited scale raiding in support of a Joint Amphibious Task Force". Also "It is to be responsible for reconnoitring and seizing beaches, helicopter landing zones and airfields for the Australian Amphibious Force's main ground combat element. Following the completion of amphibious operations, the battalion will either re-embark or remain ashore as a reconnaissance unit. In the latter role, it is to be capable of conducting reconnaissance patrols well behind enemy lines and providing information to other units" (from Wiki).

Interestingly, 2RAR has its own organic artillery battery. I wonder if in a NZ context (subject to funding/people/pollies willing of course), could the towed/NH90 helo-carried light artillery be reallocated to this 3rd ("amphibious") battalion, providing a potential pathway for the NZ Army's Artillery Regiment to eventually acquire SPH capabilities?

Don't have time to answer this in detail so will after Xmas.

 

[Gooey]

Nga,

Thank you for a rather nice but depressing summary. The trend is clearly visible and I too can't help but think that we are here by a minorities design. The populous have no reason to doubt the mainstream "NZ is never going to be invaded" narrative and the countries national security leaders & warriors have been replaced by generations of small minded managers.

Sadly, this is why I just can't see any significant changes next year with the new review. Perhaps some increased political interest after the election if Nat & ACT form a new government. There remains the critical bipartisan buy-in.

An aside; I socially knew a DS in Christchurch when I was a pup and he said during the 81 Springboks tour that he arrested Minto. He mentioned this because he said JM was the most unpleasant person that he had ever had the misfortune to meet professionally. Historically, I wonder if the early 80's period needs reviewing some time as I categorize The Tour as a bit like a Civil War.

IMHO, I believe you are placing too much blame on US for the NZ Strategic Disaster that was the withdrawal from ANZUS.

recce,

An expansion to a 3 battalion RF structure is the absolute answer. Including balanced armour, artillery, EW and AD. I like your 2RAR type thoughts and note that in the 80s I recall an airborne company Ranger type force was at one stage happening; some stupid name like Pegasus and it sounded a bit too SF lite: it was not really providing the rule-of-3 structure for prolonged Land operations and duplicated RF/SF. Additionally, I mentioned CMT before but Nga was right to say a return to stronger TF numbers is also absolutely required too.

Todg and ASSAIL

You guys are nearly there. Think of 10 years instead of the next few and you might get the correct context that people have been communicating consistently to you chaps. Of note: the RNZN and our national ASW are already shot as a combat force-as a maritime nation, of course they need drastic resourcing too; the possible RNZAF ACF missions are obvious and exactly the same as RAAF 81 & 82WG, except with a smaller number of 15-20 aircraft-for NZ to provide an additional sqn of FJ to support our common AO from approx 2030-35 would increase our common resilience for exactly the same reasons that COA is going down the SSN route; your NZ Army artillery observations are contradicting your ACF stance because this provides Land with the skills to expand rapidly, when desired

Merry Christmas, one and all!

 

[kiwi in exile]

I have always wondered where Clark, Burton, Goff et al., true loyalties lie, especially Clark's and Burton's. From the 1960s - 1991 someone with a suspicious nature could harbour suspicions that they possibly may have been KGB assets. When the USSR collapsed along with the rest of the Warsaw Pact, what was the impact on them? If they were fervent Marxist Leninists then who to turn to so as to enable them to continue following their religion? Castro's Cuba? Not really because it has no presence in this part of the world. That sort of leaves only one major player in the Marxist Leninist world and that is the PRC. Have they transferred their religious affiliation to the CCP? Of course this is pure supposition on my part and I am definitely not suggesting that they were / are KGB / CCP assets, however it doesn't stop me having have my suspicions, given the damage that they did to NZDF. It should also be noted that the current NZ PM Ardern is Clarks acolyte.

NM i value your contribitions to DT but this is perhaps a little too speculative.

 

[Shanesworld]

NM i value your contribitions to DT but this is perhaps a little too speculative.

I knew one of her speech writers. It might be speculative but I think there is definitely something there worth investigating regarding her Maoist leanings and her defining political actions. There were plenty of rumours about meeting with soviet cultural attaches.
I think she was someones useful idiot.

 

[Stuart M]

NM i value your contribitions to DT but this is perhaps a little too speculative.

Politicians are seldom 'of the people ': they go to university, get involved in student politics, with all the weird detachment from reality that implies, and never truly leave it behind even when the job location changes.
Were Clark et al doing a Cambridge Five? No, but but they sure as hell weren't living in a world I recognise.

 

[ngatimozart]

Nga,

Thank you for a rather nice but depressing summary. The trend is clearly visible and I too can't help but think that we are here by a minorities design. The populous have no reason to doubt the mainstream "NZ is never going to be invaded" narrative and the countries national security leaders & warriors have been replaced by generations of small minded managers.

Sadly, this is why I just can't see any significant changes next year with the new review. Perhaps some increased political interest after the election if Nat & ACT form a new government. There remains the critical bipartisan buy-in.

An aside; I socially knew a DS in Christchurch when I was a pup and he said during the 81 Springboks tour that he arrested Minto. He mentioned this because he said JM was the most unpleasant person that he had ever had the misfortune to meet professionally. Historically, I wonder if the early 80's period needs reviewing some time as I categorize The Tour as a bit like a Civil War.

Haha. I supped the odd ale in the Police Club there when I was based at Wigram. It was an entertaining place that club. I remember when one cop had "Minto Bar" painted on his long baton during the Springbok Tour. We ended up having a long baton on the boat and being typical navy it was known as a Minto bar. Thinking back about that tour, I think that you are correct about that tour being a quasi civil war. I was in Wellington when the tour was on and we heard a radio report that the protestors were blocking the railway tracks. So all of us serving defence bods went " bags drive the train". However we weren't necessarily happy that Muldoon (then PM) dragged us into what was purely a domestic affair and the cops were more than capable of handling it. Every time there was a big protest in Wellington we weren't allowed to wear our uniforms in the city because the Head Shed were scared of seeing a brawl on the six o'clock news between uniformed NZDF personnel and protestors, resulting in the hospitalisation of many civvies. The protestors had a big hate on WRT to NZDF then, because Muldoon had them assisting the cops in a logistical role.

IMHO, I believe you are placing too much blame on US for the NZ Strategic Disaster that was the withdrawal from ANZUS.

Not so much on the Americans but on Schultz personally. Maybe he was a person who didn't like being told no, or spoken back to. I don't know, but his comments and attitude singlehandedly solidified nation Kiwi support behind the legislation. You know what we are like; we take a lot to stand up on our hind legs, but when we do all hell breaks loose and Schultz's bullying was enough to have the average Kiwi stand up on their hind legs and tell him and the US where to go with the single fingered salute.

recce,

An expansion to a 3 battalion RF structure is the absolute answer. Including balanced armour, artillery, EW and AD. I like your 2RAR type thoughts and note that in the 80s I recall an airborne company Ranger type force was at one stage happening; some stupid name like Pegasus and it sounded a bit too SF lite: it was not really providing the rule-of-3 structure for prolonged Land operations and duplicated RF/SF. Additionally, I mentioned CMT before but Nga was right to say a return to stronger TF numbers is also absolutely required too.

I believe that the Army should structure itself differently to Australia because what works for them, may not work for us. We should look at the USMC way of war and go down a similar road, but with Kiwi attributes.

NM i value your contribitions to DT but this is perhaps a little too speculative.

I did say that it was supposition. I was / am looking at it from a national security angle and where that lot are concerned I do have a suspicious nature. This is because of the damage that they did to our national security and you always have to ask the question of who has the most to gain from any situation. In this case it definitely wasn't NZ, so someone else gained, but who?

I knew one of her speech writers. It might be speculative but I think there is definitely something there worth investigating regarding her Maoist leanings and her defining political actions. There were plenty of rumours about meeting with soviet cultural attaches.
I think she was someones useful idiot.

I know of something else that I am not at liberty to post but it was intriguing and spoke volumes about her.

Politicians are seldom 'of the people ': they go to university, get involved in student politics, with all the weird detachment from reality that implies, and never truly leave it behind even when the job location changes.
Were Clark et al doing a Cambridge Five? No, but but they sure as hell weren't living in a world I recognise.

Let's be fair, I am well known for my dislike of politicians. There are a very few individual politicians whom I do like. However not all politicians go to uni and get involved in student politics. Some actually get jobs in the real world and know what the real world is. It's a certain group that go the route you suggest and in NZ it is mostly the left flavoured variety. In the US it's politicians from all sides and runs in families. Look at the Kennedy's or the Bush's, for example.

But when you look at the current NZ Cabinet, only about one or two have any real world experience outside of politics or trade unions, being employed in non politically / union related fields. They live in an idealised world populated by political theory that doesn't reflect the physical world. It reminds me of the story about the Emperor's new clothes. 50 years ago the majority, if not all of our politicians had jobs outside of politics before they went into Parliament. Norman Kirk was a boilerman in a factory in Christchurch, Bill Rowling was a farmer, Muldoon was an accountant and Keith Holyoake a farmer. Brian Talboys and Jack Marshall were farmers as well and so on. IIRC Mike Moore was a factory worker. Those are the ones that I can remember off hand.

 

[ngatimozart]

To be fair I would have to defer to DefPros on the pros and cons of that idea (as I would assume it would be a complex process)?

Another suggestion: Possibly do-able if defence spending was raised to 2% or >2% of gdp (eg 2.1-2.2% of gdp), could be to raise a third "light" rifle battalion and model that on 2RAR? If so, advantages:

1. If Army has to deploy a battalion overseas (eg 2/1 RNZIR) it could be sustained with 1 RNZIR rotating in to replace them after 6-12months. Then once that period expires, rather than rotating in the Reserve Forces (as per doctrine) instead bring in this 3rd (3/1?) battalion OR a combination of the 3rd batt. and with some of the Reserve Forces.

If I understand Australian doctrine correctly their Army structure will see their Battalions or Brigades sustain their overseas delpoyments, however their Army Reserve units are instead part of their home-defence formations. I believe the NZDF should "aspire" to this model (subject to political will and funding). A third battalion will better sustain an overseas deployment without breaking the Army as per experiences over the last 20-30 years. It also means having Reserve units available to guard critical domestic infrastructure and support eg future coastal air/sea missile defence systems (if that is an outcome of the Defence Policy Review).

Note: There appear to be plans under current Govt settings (which presumably DPR will solidify) have a greater Army (or NZDF) presence in the regions again. Perhaps we can take this conversation over to the NZDF or NZ Army thread if we (here) wish to discuss this in further detail?

2. If modeled on 2RAR experiences, which currently has two rifle companies (plus other HQ and Support Coy elements), it means for NZDF (Army & Navy) joint-service support for the future 2nd LPD to be acquired in the late 2020's (and potential future replacement of MRV HMNZS Canterbury with another LPD in the 2030's). These timeframes give "time" to raise and train that 3rd battalion (clearly, like the ACF restoration, it will happen over time as defence funding rises - it won't and physically couldn't happen overnight of course).

I could be wrong but my (non-defpro) perspective suggests that the NZ Army having 3 battalions with primary expertise as eg 2/1 RNZIR = light infantry, 1 RNZIR = light/motorised with LAV, "3 Batt" = amphibious ops (but with the last two reverting to light infantry when required to sustain overseas deployments) might be more "sustainable" for a small and lower funded defence force (when compared to other countries) but one that requires to operate land/sea/air and both regionally and globally.

What I also mean is, could a small and lower funded defence force sustain a "Marines" type structure with presumably both battalions (or a potential third batt.) being able to master all the skills required to proudly be called a Marines unit? We (as in Army) couldn't manage two motorised LAVIII battalions and reverted back to light infantry (or rather than Army itself at fault, additional Govt funding wasn't forthcoming to make it properly work for Army)?

* What would a 3rd ("amphibious") battalion be tasked with? If we look at 2RAR it "will be responsible for amphibious reconnaissance and surveillance, small boat operations, battle space shaping and limited scale raiding in support of a Joint Amphibious Task Force". Also "It is to be responsible for reconnoitring and seizing beaches, helicopter landing zones and airfields for the Australian Amphibious Force's main ground combat element. Following the completion of amphibious operations, the battalion will either re-embark or remain ashore as a reconnaissance unit. In the latter role, it is to be capable of conducting reconnaissance patrols well behind enemy lines and providing information to other units" (from Wiki).

Interestingly, 2RAR has its own organic artillery battery. I wonder if in a NZ context (subject to funding/people/pollies willing of course), could the towed/NH90 helo-carried light artillery be reallocated to this 3rd ("amphibious") battalion, providing a potential pathway for the NZ Army's Artillery Regiment to eventually acquire SPH capabilities?

I have been looking at this for the last few years and have come to the conclusion that the army should be restructured so that it reflects that fact that it belongs to a maritime island nation and will generally be required to operate in the Indo Pacific amongst islands, island chains and archipelagos. For that the army has to be able to operate much like a marines force and be far more flexible. At the same time it has to be cognizant with the lessons from the Russo Ukrainian War. After much thought and advice, I think that the army should scrap the battalions and form two combat regiments based on companies.

Each regiment would not have a fixed number of companies, except for the HQ company, but have the number and mix of companies required for a given operation. A third training regiment based on the combat regiment structure and methodology would also be raised. Behind the combat regiments would be other regiments such as artillery, infantry, logistics, engineer, training etc., from whom companies / platoons / sections will be supplied for the combat regiments making the combat regiments all arms regiments. In the combat regiments, the companies would be mounted and each section would have its own vehicle(s) that it would live / operate out of. This should be amphibious and there are a variety of such vehicles available. These amphib wheeled IFVs each with a 30mm gun and ATGM, would be the LAVIII replacement. On the same IFV other capabilities such as a 105mm gun / howitzer turret, air defence turret with gun and MANPAD etc., could be acquired if so desired. I would get rid of the towed artillery if possible because it is a liability and one thing Ukraine has shown is that shoot and scoot is the best option. Even though the Russians haven't performed the best at counter battery fire, they have done enough damage to Ukrainian artillery to ensure that the Ukrainians don't hang around. To this end I think it's time the army acquired 8 x 8 wheeled SPH, and ones where the crew stay inside the vehicle at all times during the firing process. A system similar to HIMARS should also be a considered capability, plus an air defence system based around a SAM such as CAMM(L).

Those are my thoughts on it.

 

[Massive]

We actually have 2 FFHs, 4 IPVs and 2 OPVs to replace, plus 1 FFG because two are clearly not enough, so that's 9 hulls and those 9 hulls are a minimum. I would suggest a frigate / corvette combination with 3 FFG and a minimum of 6 corvettes. Because of our location and requirements, a generic Euro corvette isn't going to meet out requirements. We should remember the lessons of the Lack Class PBs and Protector Class IPVs and OPVS, none of which were / are suitable for NZ requirements. It's the basic hull that's the problem so something around 3,500 tonnes displacement is required. The hull used for the MEKO 200 frigates comes to mind because it's roomy enough and with a change of machinery, NZ stipulated fitout etc., it would be ideal.

If you have a frigate / corvette combination then there are many commonalties including weapons, sensors etc., but the most important one is the CMS. If you use the same CMS then that is a big problem sorted. Take it to the next step and use a modular mission system, and you have a system that's right across your fleet for mission modules. Any ship can become a minelayer, mine hunter, oil spill recovery, operate UUVs / USVs, have extra battery capacity, carry extra electricity generators, extra weapons and so on.

Does this include the need for 3 icebreakers though?

Would the numbers in effect be 3 icebreakers, 3 Frigates (~7000t) and 3 light frigates (~4000t)? Or are the 3 icebreakers not in the 9 hulls required?

On the frigates, could a high-low mix need be met by having 6 ships on the same hull form (~7000t) but having 3 fitted for but not with?

Regards,

Massive

 

[ngatimozart]

Does this include the need for 3 icebreakers though?

Would the numbers in effect be 3 icebreakers, 3 Frigates (~7000t) and 3 light frigates (~4000t)? Or are the 3 icebreakers not in the 9 hulls required?

On the frigates, could a high-low mix need be met by having 6 ships on the same hull form (~7000t) but having 3 fitted for but not with?

Regards,

Massive

No the Antarctic vessels are separate again and I had deliberately omitted them from my post because we can't send vessels down to the ice that are armed like frigates or corvettes. Even the 25mm gun on the Protector Class OPVs is potentially a problem. That's against the Antarctic Treaty and yes Russian SSBN operate in the area. We would need to be a tad cunning and build those vessels to naval specs and have FFBNW certain weapons systems for when the treaty collapses. Another thing, the Antarctic OPVs would not be icebreakers per se because that's not their primary role. They are designed to operate in ice up to a designated Polar Class level and PC 5 / 4 would be good. Aotearoa is PC 6 / 5 (mostly PC6 but with some PC 5 capability), but that's because of the ice climate going into McMurdo Sound during the summer. Other areas within our Antarctic Area Of Interest would have areas that the ice climate is PC5 and probably PC4 conditions, especially if we have to operate down their in early spring, late autumn, or heaven forbid winter. From memory icebreakers are vessels with PC 2 & PC 1 classifications. It has been my opinion for a long time that NZ should have one ice breaker.

On the frigates, could a high-low mix need be met by having 6 ships on the same hull form (~7000t) but having 3 fitted for but not with?

No. I did consider it more than once and have discussed it with others over the years. My answer is the same that I gave to you in my post above last Friday:

"Do you really want a 7,000 tonne frigate undertaking a role that an OPV used to do? Maybe that's where a corvette comes in. At the same time you cannot expect a Gucci'd OPV to undertake the role of a frigate. It just doesn't work because they fill two completely different roles. A Gucci'd OPV or a corvette isn't going to survive a high end combat, but a corvette has a far better chance than a Gucci'd OPV, but not the same chance as a frigate. To use a racing term, it's horses for courses." Just to add to that, a corvette can go places that a 7,000 tonne frigate can't and is cheaper to operate and requires less crew. In some cases it is about perceptions and a corvette may be seen as less threatening than a full frigate when dealing with say Polynesian and Melanesian nations.​

So that would bring the fleet up to 12 ships and that excludes Aotearoa, Manawanui, Canterbury, and the ESV (Expeditionary Support Vessel) due in 2028 / 29(?). Add to that the 2nd ESV in ~ 2035 (Canterbury's replacement) and I would like to see; a 10,000 - 15,000 tonne JSS and a couple of 2,000 - 3,000 tonne amphib ships like a LST for insertion / extraction and logistical support of small units on islands etc., that a LHD / LPD / JSS is to big and obvious for. Something that's blue water capable and has at least a 4,000nm range.