AFAIK the only European yard offering anything like that at the moment is Damen. The Turkish navy has a couple of bigger (7-8000) LSTs on order, & Hyundai recently built some LSTs that size for the ROKN.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
Some rather shocking numbers have appeared via parliamentary written answers on the state of NZDF attrition:
-----
The summer Line of Defence magazine is out (link here). Of note, Wayne Mapp argues for steadier procurement spending and a need to get on with it (which I whole-heartedly agree with), while Andrew Watts reiterates his modularity argument (which I am am less enthused by - perhaps for some small non-combatants first, eh Andrew), given the failures of the LCS (and the Canadian MCDV), and the modest success of the Danish (why has no one else adopted Stanflex?, and where are the Flyvefisken now - mostly gone from Danish service, and not replaced).
Also, the results of the NZDF Pulse personnel survey have been released (link here). Particular problem issues are housing, pay, morale, trust of senior leadership, and a third of personnel actively seeking to leave.
-----
The summer Line of Defence magazine is out (link here). Of note, Wayne Mapp argues for steadier procurement spending and a need to get on with it (which I whole-heartedly agree with), while Andrew Watts reiterates his modularity argument (which I am am less enthused by - perhaps for some small non-combatants first, eh Andrew), given the failures of the LCS (and the Canadian MCDV), and the modest success of the Danish (why has no one else adopted Stanflex?, and where are the Flyvefisken now - mostly gone from Danish service, and not replaced).
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
IMO mission/capability modules, done properly, could have a place aboard the vessels of many navies which are too small to be able to have specialized vessels for every or even most roles.
There were a number of failures with the USN's LCS programme, including the modular systems. I strongly suspect this was at least in part due to leadership and decision-makers wanting to have the envelope pushed, as well as measures of arrogance and hubris which led to modular systems architecture developed by other nations being ignored. The end result being a large, very fast frigate-sized vessel that was way over the desired cost whilst also being very under-armed. AFAIK many of the planned LCS modules were not developed into working modules, and those that were ended up taking significantly longer to install and configure than originally intended. IIRC it was found that changing out an LCS module was something that could take several weeks in a shipyard. Not as long as a refit, but if a change in fitout was required pre-deployment, it would require a vessel to be docked for several weeks and changes during a deployment were essentially not viable.
As for why no one else has adopted the StanFlex system, not entirely sure. I suspect that part of it is that StanFlex is partially built around or to work with the CMS the Danes. AFAIK to date no one else has taken the modular systems architecture and adapted it to work with the respective CMS being used by other nations' naval vessels. However, I also suspect at least part of the reason why such a system has not been adopted by others is a desire for other nations to develop their 'own' domestic system.
I do disagree about StanFlex having some 'modest' success in the RDN. Whilst the Flyvefisken-class PB has now largely been retired from service, the Iver Huitfeldt-class and Ansalon-class frigates as well as the Knud Rasmussen-class patrol vessels and Diana-class patrol boats all have StanFlex sockets built into their designs. With a total of 40 StanFlex module sockets across the RDN, as well as room for a few more sockets to be installed, I would not really consider that as 'just' a modest success, at least IMO. Having the ability to alter the type of weapons fitted to a vessel fairly quickly, without requiring significant time in dock, could provide a range of useful benefits, benefits which IMO would be worthwhile to a number of smaller naval services.
Danish company SH Defence have launched a modular system known as SH Defence CUBE. SH Defence’s Cube concept offers contemporary approach to capability modularity at sea - Naval News Where STANFLEX had it's problem was that it had a bespoke footprint that was unique and it could take 12 - 24 hours to re-role a vessel on a good day. CUBE's foot print is based on the ISO 20ft TEU (container) so it's easily transportable by any truck / trailer fitted with the standard twist locks. It also has it's on method for moving the modules aboard ship which is easily done by two people. BAE are keen on it and have included it in their Adaptable Strike Frigate design.
SH Defence have videos of the CUBE on YouTube showing how it works.
SH Defence have videos of the CUBE on YouTube showing how it works.
Those numbers are very shocking indeed. I think it's the worse that I have seen for a long time.
Another advantage is that a module which needs a lot of work to restore it to usefulness can be removed, replaced by a spare, & repaired on land while the ship remains in service, fully equipped. An otherwise fully functional ship doesn't have to be temporarily removed from service because of the failure of a weapon or other modular system.
Assuming there are spares, of course.
The disadvantage in the NZ context is that depending on the government of the time and the bean counters, we would likely wind up with ships that were fitted for but not with and no modules to fit at all. Probably some vague statement that they are looking at procuring in the future, which of course never happens.
Lolcake
Active Member
I would be interested to gather the thoughts on this forum regarding what aquisitions NZ should obtain (within the realm of a 2% defence budget) that would better suit supporting Asia pacific operations with allies particularly those that would provide strategic support to a possible South china sea coaltion.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
Read back through the forum that has been done to death and to be fair even if it was at 2% the governments of the day would still not give any true capability to any of the armed forces... why? left leaning greens have a big say... "you can't have that because it goes bang" ...and that annoys the heck out me and most on here...
However with out bringing in too much politics else I would get yet another slap on the wrist, I personally think, the budget, to get back on track, needs to be more than the 2% up around 2.5% for a few years + to revitalise the armed forces in general...
Edited: Spelling twas early... I can spell... I just can't type.
Last edited:
Professor Anne-Marie Brady on "... how the IndoPacific chokepoints, SLOCs, & island chains directly affect Aotearoa NZ security and that of our Pacific partners." She makes very valid points.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Valid points for all except most NZ and Canadian pollies.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Jacinda Ardern announces resignation as New Zealand prime minister - ABC News
The Kiwi's are looking for a new PM, Adern to step down on the 7th February.
The Kiwi's are looking for a new PM, Adern to step down on the 7th February.
Lolcake
Active Member
Hopefully, means a change in defence orientation.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
A change in NZ defence policy or orientation will depend on multiple things. Who will be the new PM and possibly a new Defence Minister, plus the general election is scheduled for 14 October. The result of that election may see a new Government, which will result in an effect halt to any policy development until such time as a 'comprehensive review' is undertaken (in order to put the new government's stamp on any potential credit). The end result is that NZ defence orientation will be in a hiatus for 12 - 24 months (IMHO).
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
There is already a review underway and im not sure a new government will scrub that.
It is possible, however unlikely, that they may choose to think for themselves and move quickly on something like pay or items that are needed urgently and can be delivered quickly.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Interesting that the ABC News article on her resignation mentions several NZ issues but a big zero on defence. Our CBC would be similar.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
haha you funny...
dosn't matter what party wins the election the government still gets in...
I agree with you on this, I think that the comprehensive review review was just a political move by the current government to kick the can further down the road and not do anything in the mean time. If they had been in power when the result came out, one of two things would have happened.
1, they would have ignored any part of the review that they did not like.
2, They would have ordered more reviews on the basis of either affordability or that the situation was fast changing and the review needed updating.
Nothing is going to change in the short term, just expect the current government to continue to sit on their hands.
Without wanting to get political, tha ABC “analysis” can hardly contain its joy as it sees that a change in PM is likely to increase the chance of Labor retaining government. Whether they are right or wrong in that, it says more about the ABC world view than it does about NZ.
They did make a valid point that not only was her popularity tanking, but perhaps more importantly, the opposition had finally gotten their crap together.
While governments tend to lose elections rather than opposition's winning them, many a low performing government has stayed in because the opposition wasn't seen as a viable alternative.
That comment applies to NZ media as well.
Definitely, but an interesting thing that is appearing is that she's bailed out because she saw the writing on the wall. Some commentators have said that the Labour MPs, party members and activists should be angry with her bailing because she's pulled the pin on them, making it far harder for them to win the election. One went on to say that by resigning now, she's handed the election to a National / ACT coalition. There is a claim that she can't face the idea of electioneering, facing and meeting the public. There is some "evidence" that may support that, because we have had two by-elections in the last few months and although she promised to front up in the electorates and campaign for the Labour Party candidates she never did, only once doing a remote video appearance. Another point is that during the 3 month Auckland lockdown, not once did she appear in the city and her electorate (Mt Albert) is within Auckland. So it could be claimed that she abandoned both her Party electoral candidates and the voters within her electorate. Whether that is correct or not is really moot because politics ais all about perceptions and the public have perceived her non appearances as being unforgivable, especially given her rhetoric of a team of 5 million.
Historically in NZ any government who changes PM during an election cycle, loses at the next election because of the public regard that the new PM doesn't have mandate. Yep, the Opposition have finally got all their shit into the one sock and do have the look of a govt in waiting. It remains to be seen if they can continue to remain high in the polls. A lot can happen between now and 14/10/23. What happens now is on Sunday 22/1/23 the Labour Party caucus will vote on its new leaders and NZ PM. Labour Party rules state that if a candidate in the caucus achieves 66.6% (2/3rd) or more of the vote they will become the leader and PM. If no one achieves that 2/3rds then the vote goes to the wider party and that creates all sorts of problems for the caucus. Then the leadership will be determined by an electoral college comprising the caucus (40%), party members (40%) and unions affiliated to the party (20%). At present there are 64 Labour MPs out of a total parliament of 120 MPs, so the new leader has to either obtain 43 votes in Caucus on Sunday or go through the wider party vote.
Some commentators have called for a snap election to ensure that whoever wins it has the public mandate to be PM. They reason that with eight months from Ardern's resignation (7/2/23) to the election, that will hobble an incumbent PM because of the handover of difficult political decisions that have to be made by the Labour govt some of which will get them offside of most of their factions within the Parliamentary Party, and the public perception that Ardern's successor has no mandate. Even though Ardern has announced the October election date, many feel that since she's resigning she doesn't have the right to make that announcement. If they went for a snap election now they may have a chance of forming a govt with the Green Party, but on present polling that looks difficult; if they wait out the full term, then all bets are off.