NZDF General discussion thread

[Todjaeger]

Like it or not the Navy will end up more Coast guard in nature and more aligned to deal with the effects of climate change and natural disasters, it’s the way it will play out. How long were both ANZAC frigates both in Canada at the same time out of action? And were they missed? Has the ACF been missed in the past 23 years?
The Public and the politicians right across the spectrum have 0:00% appetite for major defence rearmament, however what you will get buy into is a well equipped and trained Defence Force that is able to respond to the effects of climate change and natural disasters in a fast and proficient manner.

Anything else is simply a pipe dream.

You could be correct. OTOH, you could also just as well be wildly mistaken.

International relations seem to be heading towards greater conflict worldwide, as competition increases for power and resources between nations and peoples. The world might be heading back to a bi-polar type conflict like existed during the Cold War, or the situation could become more multi-polar. IMO it is unlikely that conditions which had repeated been described as 'benign' following the end of the Cold War will continue. As an aside, one of the increasing drives in the competition for resources is likely due to climate change.

The NZ public might not have much interest in defence, or certainly on paying for defence, but that does not mean that NZ does not need defence, or that circumstances which would require a Defence as opposed to a constabulary response, will not occur. I strongly suspect that the average Kiwi is rather unaware of how security events occurring in far off places can have a profoundly negative impact on their normal, daily lives, and therefore do not associate having a defence force which is able to actually participate in influencing security outcomes could be in their own self-interest.

It is distinctly possible that active conflicts will break out within the next five to ten years which could have worldwide impacts either due to the participants, the location of the conflict zones, or both. The in turn makes it distinctly possible that NZ could suddenly find itself with an inadequate defence force to protect NZ or NZ interests, and with a future NZ gov't forced to suddenly increase resources for Defence in an attempt to make the NZDF into what it would need to be.

As common as "sea blindness" seems to be in NZ, NZ is too dependent on international trade for needed goods and resources for people to continue to believe that threats to NZ do not exist unless/until they are hostile boots on NZ soil. NZ is an island nation (or really, a nation of islands) but it is by no means self-sufficient.

 

[Rob c]

How long were both ANZAC frigates both in Canada at the same time out of action? And were they missed? Has the ACF been missed in the past 23 years?

Has the strategic situation remained the same for 23 years?
there was a poll about 3 years ago reported in the papers, In which it was reported that 68% of those polled would like the ACF restored. Mind you the current political lolly scramble is currently more important to the un washed.

 

[ngatimozart]

Like it or not the Navy will end up more Coast guard in nature and more aligned to deal with the effects of climate change and natural disasters, it’s the way it will play out. How long were both ANZAC frigates both in Canada at the same time out of action? And were they missed? Has the ACF been missed in the past 23 years?
The Public and the politicians right across the spectrum have 0:00% appetite for major defence rearmament, however what you will get buy into is a well equipped and trained Defence Force that is able to respond to the effects of climate change and natural disasters in a fast and proficient manner.

Anything else is simply a pipe dream.

That's absolute rubbish. Maybe you should read the various govt policy requirements. There is also the matter of defence diplomacy and how such as you suggest would have gross negative impacts upon our relationships with both Australia and the US.

You have made various claims so provide evidence / sources to support your claims.

 

[Rob c]

I think there will be Superhorets available should NZ be serious about getting back in the fast jet business, Hornets are past their best before date…accept in junior’s RCAF!

Yes they are, however they would be quick and easy to get operating and would significantly shorten the time to become proficient. the RAAF ones from memory were up date in the early 2000's. I would by a hole bunch of them say 30 + and aim to slowly increase the numbers operating up to 24, which is the recognized number to form a sqn and have conversion training available, the rest would be broken down for spares thereby saving money. As has been pointed out the f18 has a limited life expectancy, so it is likely the government would be forced to replace them probably with in the decade, by which time the sqn would have gained a reasonable level of proficiency. Trying to start with new will add at least 5 years to the process and would also mean that any pilots or ground crew that were borrowed would also need to be retrained . Going second hand with aircraft that other air forces still have knowledge in is the quickest and cheapest way forward and using the F18 limits the time they can stay in service

 

[kiwi in exile]

As has been pointed out the f18 has a limited life expectancy, so it is likely the government would be forced to replace them probably with in the decade

You know this is a new Zealand thread right ; )

 

[Rob c]

You know this is a new Zealand thread right ; )

Yep and it has happened before that the government has had to replace equipment that was no longer sustainable. Also the screw has started to turn, not much at this stage, but it is still turning slowly.

 

[Hawkeye69]

So ineffect, you are saying that NZDF will become an Emergency response force, with very limited military ability. Artillery the next to go?

What I am saying is the Defence Force will be modernised over time and reshaped but one of its main focus areas will be on reacting to the effects of climate change and natural disasters and this will be the major focus in that reshape.
I know of the work and the real concerns within Emergency Management and Central and Local Governments about NZ‘s inability to be able react to one of those natural disasters I mentioned within that critical 24/48 hour period and those 3x natural disaster are going to occur sooner rather than later and behind the scenes there is intense planning going on. For that period of time we are on our own we need to be able to deploy and react fast and with equipment fit for purpose.
If you take Cyclone Gabriel as an example it was not ideal having HMNZS Aoteroa in maintenance so they are looking to have a back up capacity to cover those types of situations, and if it was not for commercial helicopter operators that were on the scene quick smart the death toll would have likely been higher. This is a reason increasing the Air Forces helicopter fleet numbers is so important.
All I can say is those natural disasters I mentioned are front and centre events that will form a big part of the shaping of equipment we procure for the NZDF in coming years.

 

[Hawkeye69]

That's absolute rubbish. Maybe you should read the various govt policy requirements. There is also the matter of defence diplomacy and how such as you suggest would have gross negative impacts upon our relationships with both Australia and the US.

You have made various claims so provide evidence / sources to support your claims.

You will see for yourself in due time.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

You will see for yourself in due time.

So you have no proof or evidence to support your wild claims then... especially in recent times when all parties are wanting to increase defence... especially after the last report about the current state of the NZDF...

 

[Gracie1234]

In my view, no sources. I believe we are heading towards rearming the defence forces. The recent documents clearly states the risk and that we need to respond to and that the response requires sharp pointy things.
It is also worth noting that compared to other countries the NZ Public is more concerned! I believe that the public will support investment in the defence forces, up to 2% GDP. They will also support rearming with credible platforms, there will be a number who do not but the majority will. The pushback against the proposed $20B capability plan and purchases such as the P8 has been minimal.
The NZ govt will be required to invest otherwise it will lose its ability to have a seat at the table, no politician will willing give up power like that. It is also not something the public will be comfortable with as indicated by the previous mentioned survey response which has us more worried than others.
The NZ govt will also get the will and confidence to act by just looking at Ukraine and numerous other countries will support our investment: USA, Aus, UK, India (free trade anyone), Korea, Japan, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines and Malaysia. There will be one who will not like it....China.
Our trade is also going down with China, the opportunity has peaked from all indicators so we will be looking for new trade partners, the likely ones all have issues with China. The only major economy that we do not have an FTA with is India, that will be our focus for the next decade followed by Africa.
I do expect that we will follow Australia with the Frigrates, it seems there will be more of them, they will be smaller and modular. Perhaps 4.
Drones are the future, linked to manned platforms, this might mean we get the outcome by more P8s and Ghostbat type things with the P8 being the communications node out of harms way. I would not underestimate how quickly this capability will evolve.
As for natural disasters, I would expect more National planning on this but this will not stop the rearming of the Defence force.
For those who say we can not afford to rearm, I would note that we are spending $50 Billion a year more than we did 6 years ago. This is just about prioritisation and our current defence minister was clear, the first duty of a government is to protect its people. Duty.

 

[ngatimozart]

You will see for yourself in due time.

That is unacceptable. You provide sources when you post; not when you feel like it. Read the rules.

 

[Rob c]

In my view, no sources. I believe we are heading towards rearming the defence forces. The recent documents clearly states the risk and that we need to respond to and that the response requires sharp pointy things.
It is also worth noting that compared to other countries the NZ Public is more concerned! I believe that the public will support investment in the defence forces, up to 2% GDP. They will also support rearming with credible platforms, there will be a number who do not but the majority will. The pushback against the proposed $20B capability plan and purchases such as the P8 has been minimal.

i Agree with your thoughts on the thinking of the NZ public and I remember a poll publish in the paper 5 or 6 years ago and from memory they were 41% wanted defence spending increased 29% wanted it to stay the same and 19% wanted it reduced, the rest did not Know and this was well before the Ukraine invasion or the strategic review . It all depends who gets into power at the next election and who will swallow the biggest dead rat in the post election scramble. It is notable that when ever Luxon is faced with a defence question, he talks around in circles. So we have the Labour defence minister saying that the budget needs to increase by between 50% to !00% and act saying 2% GDP. and the Greens and National not wanting to have a bar of it. Hmmmm.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Subs were looked at in the 1980s and quickly refused because they met none of the NZGs policy objectives.

??
It's 2023
"Retaining the ACF was evaluated in the 1990s and it was disbanded because it met none of the govts policy objectives in the current benign strategic environment"
Yet look at what we are talking about. I'm not saying we should get subs (they would be a great deterrent, and it would be a long costly road just like an acf). Just you line of reasoning.

 

[kiwi in exile]

the cost in toto is very high. You would require eight MQ-9B Sea Guardian to be effective and that means more fixed and mobile ground stations. They are the really expensive bit.

NM, you are saying the sea guardian package would be too expensive but you are advocating replacing the OPVs with what sounds like a type 31. I am pretty sure you have called for more p8s , attack helicopters amongst other things in the past. Long wish lists. MALE UAVs may give better VfM than light frigates as maritime patrol assets. IMHO some MALE UAVs would be the quickest cheapest way we could improve our maritime domain awareness.

There was an advertorial on the sea guardian posted in a recent line of defence giving comparative capabilities and costs guardian vs p8 in response to the Tongan volcano eruption. I think on a 1 for 1 basis a sea guardian would be cheaper to acquire and operate than a p8. It could mean that the p8s could focus on the high end stuff rather than fisheries patrols. That's the thinking behind EMAC.

Where do you get the 8 number from. At the moment all we have is 4 p8s. 2 sea guardians would be an improvement and a start and we could scale up to 4 if it was appropriate.

 

[Rob c]

"Retaining the ACF was evaluated in the 1990s and it was disbanded because it met none of the govts policy objectives in the current benign strategic environment"

The only formal report on the ACF was the Winneray report of the mid 1990's which recommended retaining the Strike wing and up grading it.(sorry I cannot find it on line)which lead to the ordering of the F16's. Hellen Clark, who had protested the A4's ( for 30years) and had publicly said that if she was in a position to scrap Strike Wing she would and when she became PM she did. She tried at first to say we could not afford the F16's on the current (very reduced)budget and commissioned a report to show this. This came back saying we could afford a reduced number of 14 , she canned them anyway. Then as soon as the dust had settled closed down the A4's as they were to old. Hellen Clark went looking for excuses until she found one to justify her emotive agender which was the reason it was closed and she used the "benign strategic environment" as an excuse. Hellen Clark was a "My way or the highway" type of PM and both the Minister of Defence and Defence personal were never heard to comment.
The parliamentary Defence committee had done a review at the time and the interim report had said to either replace or get rid of the A4's, however the final report recommended F16C's Helen Clark did refer to the interim report saying that now that we were not replacing the A4's we had to get rid of them. She never mentioned the final report.
The current situation is now far from benign.
Sorry this is all from memory, but I have not found any links for it.

 

[Rob c]

Yet look at what we are talking about. I'm not saying we should get subs (they would be a great deterrent, and it would be a long costly road just like an acf). Just you line of reasoning.

I think you would fid the sub's sum a lot more expensive

 

[Todjaeger]

Has the strategic situation remained the same for 23 years?
there was a poll about 3 years ago reported in the papers, In which it was reported that 68% of those polled would like the ACF restored. Mind you the current political lolly scramble is currently more important to the un washed.

Come to think of it, there has been an area of interest/concern with NZ's SLOC which the pre-upgrade Kiwi ANZAC-class frigates were realistically no longer fit for deployment to, never mind HMNZS Otago or Wellington. The Gulf of Aden, which connects the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea, has had land-based AShM's fired into it by Houthi forces in Yemen on a number of occasions, and with that capability there is the potential to either close the SLOC through the Suez Canal to the Med and much of Europe, or seriously threaten those SLOC by dramatically increasing the risks and costs involved in vessels transiting those SLOC. It is also in this area and nearby waters that Somali pirates have operated in, which IIRC at one point caused the costs to ship through the area to increase USD$100k/passage between increased insurance costs, fuel usage/consumption, private maritime security and anti-piracy ship modifications.

 

[Hawkeye69]

My apology as it is not the Heritage Class that the USCG operate that our Navy has looked at, its Babcock Arrowhead Type 31 and you can read more on this in The Australian Financial Review online.

The Harry deWolfe Class is being considered for SOPV only and Wellington and Otago‘s first task is to get crew so they can get back out to sea and they are not due for replacement till early 2030’s but this could be extended.

If you want to know more on the RAAF C-27J Spartan visit with officials going on local flight demonstration you will need to request an OIA to NZDF. During Cyclone Gabriel the RAAF Spartan performed in remote areas our C-130 could not and its highlighted a gap in our capability, a second hand purchase from Australia should not be ruled out and for the Pacific Islands the C-130 would do the heavy lifting.

As for the MQ-9B Sea Guardian all I am saying is don’t beat against it, quality platform and will support the P-8’s and can operate from the Pacific Islands to Antartica.

As for an LHD to replace Canterbury it’s very possible depending on cost but we would need to increase the current helicopter fleet somewhat.

I have advocated on here for the MRH-60R Seahawk as front runner to replace Seasprites but it looks like what you get for a billion dollars in todays money is 4 maybe at an outside stretch 5 airframes with simulator and some basic training ( no weapons),both Airforce and Navy officials online have stated they prefer quantity in numbers over quality of capability so the MRH-60R has likely ruled itself out purely on cost. Most likely contender now is AW-159 Wildcat and when the numbers were crunched before the purchase of the SH-2I the Wildcat came out cheaper to operate than the Seasprite so it might be second time lucky for the Wildcat.

 

[ngatimozart]

??
It's 2023
"Retaining the ACF was evaluated in the 1990s and it was disbanded because it met none of the govts policy objectives in the current benign strategic environment"
Yet look at what we are talking about. I'm not saying we should get subs (they would be a great deterrent, and it would be a long costly road just like an acf). Just you line of reasoning.

Yes it's 2023 not 1978 - 80, however whilst things change over time they also can remain the same. Real simple, how will subs replace the capabilities that the current surface fleet offers? Bit hard to undertake EEZ and other patrol work with subs. There is little difference between the broad maritime / naval policy objectives of govt now than there was during Muldoon's time 45 years ago. Then there's the cost of subs and that is far more than what our surface fleet costs. WRT to VfM or bang for buck, given our broad defence policy requirements subs do not meet them at all.

WRT the ACF that was a huge policy mistake and the culmination of Treasury's 40+ year effort to get rid of the ACF. If you think how much Treasury opposed the ACF, imagine their opposition to subs. They would go ballistic. My line of reasoning is based on how govt works, VfM, actual deliverables for govt policy objectives, and strategy.

NM, you are saying the sea guardian package would be too expensive but you are advocating replacing the OPVs with what sounds like a type 31. I am pretty sure you have called for more p8s , attack helicopters amongst other things in the past. Long wish lists. MALE UAVs may give better VfM than light frigates as maritime patrol assets. IMHO some MALE UAVs would be the quickest cheapest way we could improve our maritime domain awareness.

There was an advertorial on the sea guardian posted in a recent line of defence giving comparative capabilities and costs guardian vs p8 in response to the Tongan volcano eruption. I think on a 1 for 1 basis a sea guardian would be cheaper to acquire and operate than a p8. It could mean that the p8s could focus on the high end stuff rather than fisheries patrols. That's the thinking behind EMAC.

Where do you get the 8 number from. At the moment all we have is 4 p8s. 2 sea guardians would be an improvement and a start and we could scale up to 4 if it was appropriate.

I didn't say that the MQ-9B SeaGuardian is to expensive for NZDF. If you read back through what I have posted over the last few years you will note that I have advocated for the SeaGuardian. My point about its expense is that people think that it's just x number f platforms and Bob's your aunty. Like the MQ-4C Triton the expensive bit isn't so much the platform per se, but the ground based components i.e., the base stations. They are not cheap.

4 x MQ-9B RPAS + 2 fixed ground stations + 2 mobile ground stations, is about US$0.6 billion to acquire. Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States (TECRO) – MQ-9B Remotely Piloted Aircraft | Defense Security Cooperation Agency.​

​

4 x Northrop Grump MQ4C Triton BAMS incl., ground control station, spares and support is about US$2.5 billion to acquire. Germany – MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) | Defense Security Cooperation Agency​

The reason I have suggested 8 SeaGuardian UAV is because of the rule of threes and our AOMI. Taiwan or Germany do not have anywhere near the maritime area to surveil that we do and we could very well be in the position of operating platforms in the Southern Ocean and in sub equatorial regions simultaneously. They are not the fastest UAV on the planet and they take time to reach their AO. Whilst the have reasonably long duration the transit time would be long. With only 4 we would have to have 100% availability at all times and that is not possible. We should be operating the optimal number of platforms, not the absolute bare minimum, which has been the practice for the last 30 years. Next point has the MQ-9B SeaGuardian been integrated with the P-8A? If it hasn't then we will have to pay for that and integration isn't cheap or risk free. it's a highly risky, time consuming and expensive undertaking. It's not just a matter of saying just because the Triton can be controlled from the P-8A, so can the SeaGuardian.

 

[ngatimozart]

My apology as it is not the Heritage Class that the USCG operate that our Navy has looked at, its Babcock Arrowhead Type 31 and you can read more on this in The Australian Financial Review online.

Easily enough done. If you read back over what I have posted in recent years you will find that I am highly critical of the RN Type 31 because it is an oversized OPV and nothing more. Its a complete waste of an excellent design. The AH140 is the design that I strongly advocate for the RNZN with a different fitout to the RN Type 31 and the RDN Iver Huitfeld Class. IMHO we should be watching and following very closely what the RDN does because Denmark is a similar sized country population and economically. They think outside the square on how to get the best possible VfM / bang for buck. FYI I have been following the OMT F370 - Absalon / Iver Huitfeld classes closely for 10 years.

The Harry deWolfe Class is being considered for SOPV only and Wellington and Otago‘s first task is to get crew so they can get back out to sea and they are not due for replacement till early 2030’s but this could be extended.

How do you know? SOURCE REQUIRED.

I have advocated for the VARD 7-100-ICE AOPV for the last 5 years because I believe that it's the best suited vessel for operating in and around Antarctica. The VARD 7-100-ICE AOPV however isn't what the govt was looking at post the 2020 election. Word has it that they were / are keen on the VARD 9-203 ICE which is what the Chilean Navy have just built. It's more of a research ship.

If you want to know more on the RAAF C-27J Spartan visit with officials going on local flight demonstration you will need to request an OIA to NZDF. During Cyclone Gabriel the RAAF Spartan performed in remote areas our C-130 could not and its highlighted a gap in our capability, a second hand purchase from Australia should not be ruled out and for the Pacific Islands the C-130 would do the heavy lifting.

Just because they may have looked at the RAAF C-27J doesn't mean that they are really interested. I posted the maps in my reply earlier reply to illustrate the distances over which we are required to operate. What's the point of flying an empty aircraft up to any of the islands or across the ditch, and have a larger aircraft having to do the initial lift. There are not many places where we can't get in with a Herc / or airdrop supplies in. I repeat my comment that the likes of the C-27J and C295 are not suitable for NZDF operations. We found that out with the Andovers. The Hercules is considered a tactical airlifter by the RNZAF, RAAF and USAF. Ina NZ context a strategic airlifter would be the Airbus A400M, KHI C-2 and the Boeing C-17A. Since we didn't acquire the C-17A either the A400M or the C-2 are the next best options. Of the two the C-2 is better because it is faster and its internal hold height is the same as the C-17A, meaning we can fit in a NH90 without having to remove the rotor mast, unlike the A400M where the rotor mast has to be removed prior to loading. Even then it's a very tight fit height wise. My final comment about the C-27J is that the RAAF have relegated it to HADR roles because it isn't fit for purpose as a tactical airlifter. Since that is the case why would we want to go anywhere near it.

As for an LHD to replace Canterbury it’s very possible depending on cost but we would need to increase the current helicopter fleet somewhat.

Of course we have to increase the size of our rotary wing fleets. The absolute bar minimum were required and the SH-2G(NZ) Seasprite saga illustrates the folly of that policy. Again its short sightedness on the pollies and Treasury parts that created that problem.

I have advocated on here for the MRH-60R Seahawk as front runner to replace Seasprites but it looks like what you get for a billion dollars in todays money is 4 maybe at an outside stretch 5 airframes with simulator and some basic training ( no weapons),both Airforce and Navy officials online have stated they prefer quantity in numbers over quality of capability so the MRH-60R has likely ruled itself out purely on cost. Most likely contender now is AW-159 Wildcat and when the numbers were crunched before the purchase of the SH-2I the Wildcat came out cheaper to operate than the Seasprite so it might be second time lucky for the Wildcat.

The new DCP will show us what the level of govt thinking is and we just have to wait and see.