NZDF General discussion thread

[ngatimozart]

I love your opinions and insight, but this is an incredibly lazy take … If something doesn’t work the first time due to poor leadership it’s not worth trying again? Come on mate …

It's not being lazy. CDR - Closer Defence Relations has been discussed and touched on throughout the various NZ threads over the years.

CDR is great on paper but in practise it is not working. The two countries have divergent policies and funding, along with the very important point of sovereignty. Australia makes acquisition decisions that are unsuitable / unsustainable for NZ. We don't buy F-35s, nor do we require the expensive AMSD upgrade for our frigates. It's been argued that the recent systems upgrade for our frigates is on par with the RAN AMSD and less costly. I would like to see our frigates have NSM fitted and integrated into them and at the end of the day that's a political decision.

The only reason we acquired the SH-2G(NZ) Super Seasprite was because Australia did and it would've provided commonality. However as history shows, Australia changed its mind about the OCV and it wasted AU$1.7 billion trying to be clever by insisting upon highly difficult, dodgy, bespoke changes to the cockpit, which spectacularly crashed and burned. So we ended up being lumbered with an orphan platform which was problematic as well. We would've most likely gone with the AW Lynx / AW159 Wildcat instead and that would've been the better option by far. Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing.

Rob c and Nga

the failure/fizzle of Anzac CDR and closer integration has everything to do with a failure of NZ political leadership to rationally assess national security and nothing to do with the respective Staffs. The concept of common training, logistics, tactics and industry is beyond self evident and would actually help fight the NZ MoD disease of procuring tiny numbers of bespoke, non-combatant orphan systems. If I may opinion, I have seen nothing beyond banter to support a big/little brother narrative.

Actually, I am continually amazed how good relationships are between ADF and NZDF operators considering the different trajectories. More than once I have amazingly and personally seen pity for the kiwi plight. Moreover, if basic RNZN and RNZAF war fighting abilities are to be regenerated it will most likely be through the support of the respective Australian services.

As to why NZ has not generated an order of battle in proportion to its status and requirements is another question altogether. Alongside, why this has been ignored by the NZ citizenship. Perhaps a good book to write sometime!

The USMC aviation fire-sale is an interesting option: so long as the frames are actually not knackered the UH helo’s in quantity would be a great replacement for 3Sqns euro trash. As to ARH: I’d suggest RNZAF higher priority is additional P8/C130 before slaughtering whatever vertical lift capability we have by letting Army bugger up that as well.

It's not all the Kiwi pollies fault. Aussie pollies can share the blame as well. There's been lots of yap about from pollies on both sides of the ditch, but that's all it is.

... NZ MoD disease of procuring tiny numbers of bespoke, non-combatant orphan systems.

What the NZMOD and NZDF recommended to Cabinet and what was actually approved by Cabinet are two different stories. Up until 2013 - 15 Cabinet and Treasury almost always went for the cheap and nasty option because of their shortsightedness. However the NZMOD and NZDF finally convinced both Treasury and the pollies that this attitude had to change because that shortsightedness was costing far more money than it ever saved. The SH-2G(NZ) Super Seasprite saga drove that lesson home. During the same period the NZMOD Acquisitions Branch was overhauled with a change in roles, more people hired and the professionalisation of its Acquisition personnel. Now it's much larger than it used to be and is used by Treasury as a model / exemplar for NZ Govt acquisition programs. They worked with Treasury on the upgrade and at same time Treasury learned that Defence procurement, technical requirements, and how defence forces utilise their equipment are unique and different to all other govt depts and the commercial / business world. For example Treasury learned that military vehicles such as trucks etc., have different requirements than that of a trucking company's vehicles and they are used differently. Military transport aircraft aren't used the same ay as civilian airlines operate their aircraft.

The pollies who sit around the Cabinet table now have the confidence that the business cases put forward by the NZMOD have all the required information to enable them to make an informed decision. Unfortunately the pollies still haven't grasped the concept of the ideal quantity that is required for NZDF to operate efficiently and not repeat the SH-2G(NZ) Super Seasprite saga, where enough airframes weren't acquired, spares problems, and the aircraft being thrashed so that NZDF could meet govt policy requirements. Routine maintenance was continually being deferred in order for the taskings to be completed. They are having the same problems with the current SH-2G(I) Super Seasprites, and the NH90 hours are far higher than those in other militaries.

That brings me to another point, the Aussies are OCD about trashing the NH90 / MRH, yet they can never answer the question about why the RNZAF is achieving relatively high availability rates compared to them. Last I heard was that the RNZAF availability rate for the NH90 is 72%. The one problem that the NZDF does have with the NH90 is its high CPFH. I have read all the excuses that the Aussies have for the MRH90 and the Tiger, but they aren't really convincing. It's very similar to the RAN SH-2G(A) Super Seasprite fiasco where they blamed Kaman for what was actually the RANs fault. So when the CoA acquired the MRH90 and Tiger ARH they didn't order spares, which is a very basic mistake and should never have happened; but it did. NZ acquired an extra airframe to use for spare parts which they do; at the same time when they take a part of the 9th airframe, they order a replacement from Airbus Helicopters. That way we don't have a NH90 AOG because of unavailability of spares in NZ. It's not ideal but it works.

As to why NZ has not generated an order of battle in proportion to its status and requirements is another question altogether.

You know as well as I do it's because of political indifference. The pollies don't care.

Alongside, why this has been ignored by the NZ citizenship.

History pure and simple. NZ towns and cities weren't bombed by the Japanese during WW2 so the Kiwi public attitude is different to the Aussie public attitude because the attacks on Darwin, Broome etc., are burned into the Australian psyche; we never suffered those. Also the Kiwi political elite and Treasury have been successful in downplaying defence over the decades. As much as Kiwis and Aussies are similar, there are marked differences socially, culturally, and politically. We don't have the Australian ambition to be Americas' policeman in the South Pacific or being more American than America. Hence our having amore independent foreign policy than Australia. You claim to be Kiwi and as such you should know that.

 

[Gracie1234]

Has everyone provided input into the Defence Policy Review? Engage | Ministry of Defence Website
The more voices are shared the better.

 

[Gooey]

Nga, my old mukka I bet you would be fun to be with in a life boat when the rum starts failing.
1. The tired and lazy assertion that Australia has 'marked' differences from New Zealand, is wheeled out when small minded nationalists want to define our country and attempt to justify an 'independent' foreign policy. The other being the Australian brashness vehicle. Usually followed by that country being racist. I also disagree about the lack of Darwin attacks being the reason for our pacifism; our casualty list from the last century should have been enough to burn our psyche.
2. You conflate two countries divergent funding, and the need for different hardware, with one of those countries being unreliably flakey over the past 40 years. Alternatively, there is an argument that we could come to the same conclusion as Finland, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, UK, Singapore, Israel, and South Korea etc etc; that the F-35 weapons system is indispensable for a modern nation to achieve meaningful air power. Additionally, that HUNTER Class should be sought for RNZN. The fact that the NZ political system does not draw this conclusion does not mean this localised decision process is correct. Likewise your claim that the RNZN ANZAC Class updates are on par and cheaper to the RAN is technically incorrect, ignores a local industry base, combined training, and makes no allowance for our costing and time slips.
3. It is splendid news that MOD acquisition is held in good favour by yourself and the government system. On the glass-half-empty sight picture, our failed armed forces would suggest otherwise. Even the successes of P-8 and C-130J are soured by the number of units and equipment procured, and their delays into service.
Having served elsewhere I have different experiences. It is unique to understand that a mixed nationality makes me less than a Kiwi or less able to argue a national security position unless I agree with my mukka.

 

[ngatimozart]

Nga, my old mukka I bet you would be fun to be with in a life boat when the rum starts failing.
1. The tired and lazy assertion that Australia has 'marked' differences from New Zealand, is wheeled out when small minded nationalists want to define our country and attempt to justify an 'independent' foreign policy. The other being the Australian brashness vehicle. Usually followed by that country being racist. I also disagree about the lack of Darwin attacks being the reason for our pacifism; our casualty list from the last century should have been enough to burn our psyche.
2. You conflate two countries divergent funding, and the need for different hardware, with one of those countries being unreliably flakey over the past 40 years. Alternatively, there is an argument that we could come to the same conclusion as Finland, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, UK, Singapore, Israel, and South Korea etc etc; that the F-35 weapons system is indispensable for a modern nation to operate a meaningful air power. Additionally, that HUNTER Class should be sought for RNZN. The fact that the NZ political system does not draw this confusion does not mean this localised decision process is correct. Likewise your claim that the RNZN ANZAC Class updates are on par and cheaper to the RAN is technically incorrect, ignores a local industry base, combined training, and makes no allowance for our costing and time slips.
3. It is splendid news that MOD acquisition is held in good favour by yourself and the government system. On the glass-half-empty sight picture, our failed armed forces would suggest otherwise. Even the successes of P-8 and C-130J are soured by the number of units and equipment procured, and their delays into service.
Having served elsewhere I have different experiences. It is unique to understand that a mixed nationality makes me less than a Kiwi or less able to argue a national security position unless I agree with my mukka.

The RNZN like the Type 26 and we could afford to buy maybe two Hunter Class ships at the moment. ll three iterations of the Type 26 are very expensive and we need a minimum of three frigates. There are other ways of doing it and we shouldn't be confined to just one platform.

Next you may not agree with NZ govt policies, but we have a thing called sovereignty, and last time I looked NZ is an independent nation governed from Wellington, not Canberra. We are not, nor have any intention of being an adjunct too, or a state of Australia. It's for us to decide our policies, not Canberra, washing or Beijing. If you don't like it too bad. We have our problems, but so does Australia.

 

[Wombat000]

The RNZN like the Type 26 and we could afford to buy maybe two Hunter Class ships at the moment. ll three iterations of the Type 26 are very expensive and we need a minimum of three frigates.

I may suggest that the RNZN needs more than 3.
In the great ‘theory verse’, they need to have a definitive presence commensurate to their claimed (& historical) position of a supposed regional power for stability, goodness and justice.
They need that presence in the SWPac, Their own SLOC security, and dare I suggest the Australian East Coast when the RAN has its assets busy elsewhere. And plausibly simultaneously. - what is the NZDF mission statement on the brochure?

I suggest the RNZN requires a minimum of 4 capability meaningful frigates, at minimum rotating cycles between Refit -> Training -> 2 Operationally deployable.

I suggest NZ can comfortably afford this (it’s not like their independence and regional security depends on it), they just simply decide not to, and of course their allies simply negligently accept that.

 

[Wombat000]

Next you may not agree with NZ govt policies, but we have a thing called sovereignty, and last time I looked NZ is an independent nation governed from Wellington,

in defence, in its expeditionary ventures it is independent.
in it’s own and regional defence, it is not independent, because it has no capability.
it does independently decide to allow its own defence AND its collaborative contributions to its allies to atrophy & it’s protector allies have negligently stood back and allowed it.

the fact that Wellington even exists as a determining entity is solely reliant on the conventions of historical world order, which is enforced and preserved by its friends.

NZ contributes almost nothing to its own defence, at the end of a long SLOC, so practical defence-wise it isn’t actually that “independent” after all.

 

[hauritz]

Surely it must be obvious that the South pacific may be awash with Chinese submarines, aircraft carriers, destroyers and frigates by the 2030s. This is no time to skimp on capability. I would have thought the Type 26 would almost be the minimum spec design you would consider.

 

[ngatimozart]

Surely it must be obvious that the South pacific may be awash with Chinese submarines, aircraft carriers, destroyers and frigates by the 2030s.

Is it obvious? I don't think so because such a statement has to be apriori, and it isn't. The possibility exists that "... the South pacific may be awash with Chinese submarines, aircraft carriers, destroyers and frigates by the 2030s", but the probability is not 1.0. It's chance is somewhere between 0 and 1.0 and I would suggest that at present it may be around 0.5 +/- 0.25 chances of probability.

This is no time to skimp on capability. I would have thought the Type 26 would almost be the minimum spec design you would consider.

Who said that we would be skimping on capability? The RNZN has different CONOPS to the RAN and we don't have the luxury of being able to specialise in certain capabilities. If you look at the ANZAC Class FFH in RNZN service, they are a GP frigate, not specialised in ASMD. It was an Australian choice to specialise their ANZAC Class FFH from a GP frigate, as originally intended by the RAN, to that of ASMD. The Type 26 is an ASW specialist frigate and not a GP frigate. We still require GP frigates that are jacks of all trades and masters of none. Just because Australia does something it doesn't mean that we have to follow suite.

I may suggest that the RNZN needs more than 3.

I would agree that more than three is desirable, but not a probability.

In the great ‘theory verse’, they need to have a definitive presence commensurate to their claimed (& historical) position of a supposed regional power for stability, goodness and justice.
They need that presence in the SWPac, Their own SLOC security, and dare I suggest the Australian East Coast when the RAN has its assets busy elsewhere. And plausibly simultaneously. - what is the NZDF mission statement on the brochure?

I suggest the RNZN requires a minimum of 4 capability meaningful frigates, at minimum rotating cycles between Refit -> Training -> 2 Operationally deployable.

The RNZN actually requires a combat vessel mix of high end frigates and corvettes / light frigates. That's why I am keen on replacing the IPV and OPV fleet of 6 vessels with a minimum of six corvettes / light frigates. That's why I would be happy with a 3 / 6 mix of high end frigates and corvettes / light frigates; 4 / 8 would be better, but in all honesty I can't see that happening.

I suggest NZ can comfortably afford this (it’s not like their independence and regional security depends on it), they just simply decide not to, and of course their allies simply negligently accept that.

I agree that we can afford it but I am not repeating arguments ad nauseum of why it isn't happening. There has been more than ample discussion on that over the years for outsiders to understand the reasonings. If people cannot understand that by now then they best think seriously about learning more.

 

[kiwi in exile]

The tired and lazy assertion that Australia has 'marked' differences from New Zealand, is wheeled out when small minded nationalists want to define our country and attempt to justify an 'independent' foreign policy.

Next you may not agree with NZ govt policies, but we have a thing called sovereignty, and last time I looked NZ is an independent nation governed from Wellington, not Canberra. We are not, nor have any intention of being an adjunct too, or a state of Australia. It's for us to decide our policies, not Canberra, washing or Beijing. If you don't like it too bad. We have our problems, but so does Australia.

: )


I think we all agree broadly that NZ needs more capability. That our government has let us down in this area over the past few decades, and that given the changing geo-political global/regional environment, the need to do something meaningful is increasingly pressing. I think that we would all broadly agree that given our nations recent track record, we are all pessimistic regarding the NZGs will to meet this challenge. I have no current recomendations on numbers or GP vs ASW assests.

Yes, its is not probability 1.0 that the SW pacific is awash with CCP vessels/assets. But we should plan as though it is. If not now, in the near future. Our future capabilities should reflect this.

I also agree that the NZG could do more, but simply chooses not to. As a soverign country its is NZGs right to make the wrong decisions. I would also argue that our allies should have and should be applying more pressure here +/- incentivising procurement.

 

[Shanesworld]

Is it obvious? I don't think so because such a statement has to be apriori, and it isn't. The possibility exists that "... the South pacific may be awash with Chinese submarines, aircraft carriers, destroyers and frigates by the 2030s", but the probability is not 1.0. It's chance is somewhere between 0 and 1.0 and I would suggest that at present it may be around 0.5 +/- 0.25 chances of probability.

Who said that we would be skimping on capability? The RNZN has different CONOPS to the RAN and we don't have the luxury of being able to specialise in certain capabilities. If you look at the ANZAC Class FFH in RNZN service, they are a GP frigate, not specialised in ASMD. It was an Australian choice to specialise their ANZAC Class FFH from a GP frigate, as originally intended by the RAN, to that of ASMD. The Type 26 is an ASW specialist frigate and not a GP frigate. We still require GP frigates that are jacks of all trades and masters of none. Just because Australia does something it doesn't mean that we have to follow suite.

I would agree that more than three is desirable, but not a probability.

The RNZN actually requires a combat vessel mix of high end frigates and corvettes / light frigates. That's why I am keen on replacing the IPV and OPV fleet of 6 vessels with a minimum of six corvettes / light frigates. That's why I would be happy with a 3 / 6 mix of high end frigates and corvettes / light frigates; 4 / 8 would be better, but in all honesty I can't see that happening.

I agree that we can afford it but I am not repeating arguments ad nauseum of why it isn't happening. There has been more than ample discussion on that over the years for outsiders to understand the reasonings. If people cannot understand that by now then they best think seriously about learning more.

Specifically regards the "light frigate/corvette" any key parameters or principles in mind there for such a nz vessel or fleet? Any current builds in mind?

 

[ngatimozart]

Specifically regards the "light frigate/corvette" any key parameters or principles in mind there for such a nz vessel or fleet? Any current builds in mind?

No current builds because they don't meet NZ (or Australian) requirements.

I would think that something with a displacement of about 3,500 tonnes, range of ~8,000nm, 57mm gun, 8 Mk-41 VLS cells, 4 - 8 NSM in box launchers,* couple of 30mm guns, decoys,* hull mounted sonar, radar of similar specs to current RNZN FFH radar, IRST, hangar and flight deck for medium sized helo and UAV(s). A MEKO 200 hull would be an example of a good fit and stick with diesel engines, because a GT will just incur extra unrequired costs over the platform lifetime. Range can be increased over the ANZAC Class FFH because the weight wouldn't be the same and room could be made for the required extra bunkerage. A max speed of 24 knots would be about right because it wouldn't be required to escort CBG or similar. Basic crew could be cut to about 80 by using automation and only bringing on specialists when particular capabilities are being embarked; i.e., Cube mounted capabilities, such as mine warfare, USV, UAV, UUV etc.

I would definitely include the SH Cube and that capability would be fitted to new frigates as well. The SH Cube modular system allows for UUV, USV, mine warfare, torpedo, missile, gun etc., capabilities to be added and removed as required. It's better than the Stanflex system because it's based on a 20ft ISO TEU footprint.

*Cube module?

 

[At lakes]

No current builds because they don't meet NZ (or Australian) requirements.

I would think that something with a displacement of about 3,500 tonnes, range of ~8,000nm, 57mm gun, 8 Mk-41 VLS cells, 4 - 8 NSM in box launchers,* couple of 30mm guns, decoys,* hull mounted sonar, radar of similar specs to current RNZN FFH radar, IRST, hangar and flight deck for medium sized helo and UAV(s). A MEKO 200 hull would be an example of a good fit and stick with diesel engines, because a GT will just incur extra unrequired costs over the platform lifetime. Range can be increased over the ANZAC Class FFH because the weight wouldn't be the same and room could be made for the required extra bunkerage. A max speed of 24 knots would be about right because it wouldn't be required to escort CBG or similar. Basic crew could be cut to about 80 by using automation and only bringing on specialists when particular capabilities are being embarked; i.e., Cube mounted capabilities, such as mine warfare, USV, UAV, UUV etc.

I would definitely include the SH Cube and that capability would be fitted to new frigates as well. The SH Cube modular system allows for UUV, USV, mine warfare, torpedo, missile, gun etc., capabilities to be added and removed as required. It's better than the Stanflex system because it's based on a 20ft ISO TEU footprint.

*Cube module?

What you have described almost could be meet by the Vard 7 125NGOPV. Its a bit over the top with crewing but that could be solved with a bit of automation etc. The displacement I think is a wee bit more than your listed 3500 tonnes I think this one is more closer to the 4000 tonnes although I cant prove it.

 

[ngatimozart]

What you have described almost could be meet by the Vard 7 125NGOPV. Its a bit over the top with crewing but that could be solved with a bit of automation etc. The displacement I think is a wee bit more than your listed 3500 tonnes I think this one is more closer to the 4000 tonnes although I cant prove it.

Yes I have looked at it. My concern is how well is it able to take battle damage. The other point is the crewing and you have answered that to a certain degree.

 

[Rob c]

Yes I have looked at it. My concern is how well is it able to take battle damage. The other point is the crewing and you have answered that to a certain degree.

I am no expert on survivability of war ships and anyone can dispute this, but I would think that the most likely battle damage for a ship of this size would be a hit from either a anti ship missile or a torpedo in which case a ship of this size I would imagine is unlikely to be of any use to anyone for a considerable length of time and most likely never again. My thinking is that the first priority would be to make sure you are not hit in the first place. The most important item in my mind is crew survivability and probably keeping the crew numbers as low as possible would help this.
Any other thoughts on this by better informed members?

 

[spoz]

While that is to some extent true (although not completely as proven in the Falklands) there is an old saying in the Navy - “The ship is the best lifebelt”. You certainly would prefer it to stay afloat to enable the crew to be rescued, and you would prefer it to get home under its own power so as to not tie down another asset, either in towing or in taking survivors onboard. Most Navy professionals are Very keen on having the best damage control capabilities possible. As an example, merchant ships are only required to exercise emergency drills once a week or so; warships do them at least once a day, and frequently more often.

 

[RegR]

in defence, in its expeditionary ventures it is independent.
in it’s own and regional defence, it is not independent, because it has no capability.
it does independently decide to allow its own defence AND its collaborative contributions to its allies to atrophy & it’s protector allies have negligently stood back and allowed it.

the fact that Wellington even exists as a determining entity is solely reliant on the conventions of historical world order, which is enforced and preserved by its friends.

NZ contributes almost nothing to its own defence, at the end of a long SLOC, so practical defence-wise it isn’t actually that “independent” after all.

So when has Australia come to NZs aid in a regional context out of interest? Did I miss some conflict we were involved in down here in NZ and Australian forces had to take time out of their busy schedule to pop over and save the day?? who were these "enemy" forces??? let me guess, do they reside in the SCS? I am actually interested.

 

[RegR]

Surely it must be obvious that the South pacific may be awash with Chinese submarines, aircraft carriers, destroyers and frigates by the 2030s. This is no time to skimp on capability. I would have thought the Type 26 would almost be the minimum spec design you would consider.

But hasn't it been "awash" with them for a few decades now? and before that it was ze russians?? and before that... may be? tbh if we had chinese carrier battle groups conducting their freedom of the seas "navigation" through the Tasmen sea then we would probably embark on a bit of a naval expanse ourselves all things considered. I'm actually not sure why everybody is so surprised by this, corner the bear in its own cave and see what happens? it doesn't go into hibernation that's for sure.

 

[John Fedup]

But hasn't it been "awash" with them for a few decades now? and before that it was ze russians?? and before that... may be? tbh if we had chinese carrier battle groups conducting their freedom of the seas "navigation" through the Tasmen sea then we would probably embark on a bit of a naval expanse ourselves all things considered. I'm actually not sure why everybody is so surprised by this, corner the bear in its own cave and see what happens? it doesn't go into hibernation that's for sure.

I think it is fair to say the South Pacific hasn’t been contested since WW2, excluding Russian SSNs and SSBNs. That will change as China’s blue water fleet expands significantly in the 2030s. Even Western naval expansion combined will be challenged to match China and that assumes electorates willing to pay the costs. SK, Japan, and Australia yes, Europe (Western) and Canada not so much and the US is pretty much maxed out now.

 

[spoz]

It was hardly war, but Australia provided HMAS Supply to support HMNZSs Canterbury and Otago when they were protesting French nuclear testing in 1973.

There have also been numerous joint responses to HADR and other situations in the region over the last 50 or so years, usually with one or other of the countries taking the lead and the other supporting.

At the operational level, Australian and NZ forces have worked together well, indeed in many cases virtually seamlessly, for decades.

 

[RegR]

It was hardly war, but Australia provided HMAS Supply to support HMNZSs Canterbury and Otago when they were protesting French nuclear testing in 1973.

There have also been numerous joint responses to HADR and other situations in the region over the last 50 or so years, usually with one or other of the countries taking the lead and the other supporting.

At the operational level, Australian and NZ forces have worked together well, indeed in many cases virtually seamlessly, for decades.

I'm more interested in when NZ has apparently left it's defence to Australia (and our allies), as per the statement. I fully understand we have worked together, I was one of them on many occasions, but I'm more wondering when Australia (or others) has actually had to step up and defend NZ? and from who?? (that Australia and our allies have so graciously let us do?? Ahh thanks???) otherwise what exactly is the basis of old mates claim (actual basis not theory basis)?

Just trying to figure out when this was is all.