Yep, However in the neoliberalist period we basically sacrificed a large per portion of our totally unprotected and unsupported industrial base to this concept. I believe that while the economy in the 70's was hopelessly over regulated, the move to a un regulated and unsupported neoliberalist economy went too far the other way and that we should have stopped some were in the middle. What we need to look at is what the countries that are catching up with us or have passed us are doing, especially smaller countries and see what we can learn from them. I think you will find more support and protection for at least selected industries.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
Denmark has thrived industrially & commercially (e.g. Maersk) by exploiting niches where there was already related expertise, with state encouragement but not necessarily aid. Others have done the same. Finland designs & builds icebreakers, for example. Good technical education provided by the state helps, I think. Adding value to local resources can work.
Unfortunately, such thinking is far beyond NZ pollies, public service, political and business elites. It comprises of words and ideas that are more than one syllable long.
As long as the jury finds the accused mongrel guilty
IIRC sheep dog trials are still a regular occurrence. They can be quite interesting with the dog pitting its will against the sheep, to see who can out stubborn who.
In the last week the NZ Herald has run a series of stories and opinion pieces on the state of NZDF. David Fisher started it with his two articles:
David Fisher: NZDF needs a lot of cash and Judith Collins could be the way to get it PAYWALLED
He cites the following as being causative of the problems:
NZ Defence Force in crisis – our ships can’t sail, planes can’t fly and soldiers have left in droves PAYWALLED
He cites the following as effects of the first article:
This has resulted in NZDF unable to meet govt HADR policy requirements, nor other government policy requirements.
Stephen Hoadley claims that NZDF isn't in dire straits.
NZ Defence Force in crisis – our ships can’t sail, planes can’t fly, and soldiers have left in droves PAYWALLED
He offers five "explanations".
He says in summarising that ...
A Herald editorial states that ...
Fran O'Sullivan Fran O’Sullivan: Winston Peters’ Houthi Red Sea move brings NZ and the US closer - NZ Herald PAYWALLED
writes that ...
Judith Collins, the current DEFMIN, has written an artcile in Line Of Defence:
Judith Collins: Innovation, opportunities and being better together
She talks more about cooperation with partners and AUKUS Pillar II, rather than the current problems facing NZDF.
Peeni Henare, a previous DEFMIN (he who was AWOL most of the time) writes in the same issue that bipartisanship WRT defence is preferable. Unfortunately, he doesn't say much about it in his article.
Peeni Henare: Bipartisan support crucial to provide stability for our Defence Force
Wayne Mapp has an article in the same isue as well, talking up Judith Collins.
MAPP: A place in history is in New Zealand Defence Minister Judith Collins’ future
He actually goes into more detail about what is required in the future including recapitalisation of the RNZN and working more with Canada WRT defence in the Pacific, claiming that:
He does have a good point WRT NZ working closely with Australia and Canada being beneficial to our relationship with the US. But we should be wary of the Nov 24 US Presidential elections because they could result in a significantly increased US isolationalism, and that is not good for the world.
Overall the articles, except for Collins and Henare, do speak to significant NZDF problems. For amny years some of us had said that it has been starved of funds and resources with this now coming home to roost. Whether the current govt will do anything about it or not, is still unknown, but if it is like the 2008 - 17 Key / English govt then the situation will deteriorate because that govt was allergic to spending money on defence. In reality the 1999 - 2017 govts (Clark / Key / English) gutted NZDF and hung it out to dry. Ardern wasn't much better with NZDF only getting replacement capabilities because of Ron Mark.
David Fisher: NZDF needs a lot of cash and Judith Collins could be the way to get it PAYWALLED
He cites the following as being causative of the problems:
- Roughly one third of NZD personnel have left in the last few years.
- Ill fated civilianisation project of 2010.
- Timor and Afghanistan deployments which exhausted personnel and systems.
- Covid 19 pandemic deployment.
- Significant loss of both junior and senior NCOs.
- Poor pay and conditions.
- Long delays in adapting to new technologies and changing situations.
NZ Defence Force in crisis – our ships can’t sail, planes can’t fly and soldiers have left in droves PAYWALLED
He cites the following as effects of the first article:
- Ships can't sail because of lack of crew, especially in the technical roles.
- Army has shortage of technical personnel that are impacting upon its ability to effectively operate.
- RNZAF aircraft are unable to fly because of lack of suitably qualified crew and technical personnel.
This has resulted in NZDF unable to meet govt HADR policy requirements, nor other government policy requirements.
Stephen Hoadley claims that NZDF isn't in dire straits.
NZ Defence Force in crisis – our ships can’t sail, planes can’t fly, and soldiers have left in droves PAYWALLED
He offers five "explanations".
- "First, the challenge of retaining skilled personnel is as old as the NZDF itself, indeed as old as every defence force in the democratic neo-liberal world."
- "Second, the rapid acquisition of fleets of new ships, army vehicles, and helicopters by Helen Clark’s Government in the 2000s heightened demands for new skills to operate the more sophisticated platforms. As those platforms aged, they required more maintenance, a further demand on military specialists, only partially relieved by expensive outsourcing."
- "Third, the rapprochement with the United States during the Obama and Key governments multiplied opportunities for mil-mil cooperation. And at the same time the rise of China increased demand for a counterbalancing Western military presence in the Asia-Pacific region. Deployment to Iraq during the ISIS crisis in 2017 placed further strains on the troops and their supply chain. This high tempo of overseas deployments disrupted family life."
-"Fourth, Covid-19 obliged the Ardern Government to curtail critical training and exercises, divert personnel to quarantine duties and subsidise businesses and individuals. The result was a lag in skills upgrading followed by a surge in inflation, further deepening the gap between military pay and civilian costs of living."
- "Fifth, although successive chiefs of defence force warned successive ministers of defence of the growing mismatch between demands and capabilities, those ministers of defence despite good intentions were unable to prevail against competing ministers’ demands for funds."
He says in summarising that ...
"In short, the NZDF is facing serious problems of skilled personnel attrition, but is managing them. A pay rise would solve many of the problems, but in the current parsimonious fiscal climate this solution is unlikely to materialise. The NZDF will continue to perform its varied and demanding roles credibly, albeit needing to rely increasingly on role adjustments, work-arounds, multi-tasking, damage control, and assistance from partners. Their occasional short-falls, mostly beyond their control, should not obscure their on-going service to the nation."
A Herald editorial states that ...
"NZ can’t continue to let its military muddle along as it has been. The world is not about to suddenly get any safer."
Editorial: Our military can’t keep muddling along PAYWALLEDFran O'Sullivan Fran O’Sullivan: Winston Peters’ Houthi Red Sea move brings NZ and the US closer - NZ Herald PAYWALLED
writes that ...
"The plain fact is that the efficiency of the global economy depends on freedom of navigation. The spiralling attacks by Houthi rebels on merchant ships endeavouring to plough through the Red Sea and Suez Canal have already destabilised global trade.
For a small country like ours, dependent on international trade and battling a cost-of-living crisis, this matters.
So does our voice.
New Zealand’s interests are three-fold: Firstly, economic – the Red Sea is a vital sea lane and already the rerouting of ships around the Cape of Good Hope by Maersk and other major shipping lines is leading to a spike in costs that will be passed on to the ultimate consumers. This country simply can’t afford more supply chain disruptions, which are likely also to impact the cost of oil.What is clear is that New Zealand and the US are drawing closer.
In Sydney last month, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon signalled the Government was exploring Pillar Two of Aukus - a security partnership for the Indo-Pacific region between Australia, the UK, and the US. This focuses on technology and was championed by Blinken in a visit to Wellington last year"
Judith Collins, the current DEFMIN, has written an artcile in Line Of Defence:
Judith Collins: Innovation, opportunities and being better together
She talks more about cooperation with partners and AUKUS Pillar II, rather than the current problems facing NZDF.
Peeni Henare, a previous DEFMIN (he who was AWOL most of the time) writes in the same issue that bipartisanship WRT defence is preferable. Unfortunately, he doesn't say much about it in his article.
Peeni Henare: Bipartisan support crucial to provide stability for our Defence Force
Wayne Mapp has an article in the same isue as well, talking up Judith Collins.
MAPP: A place in history is in New Zealand Defence Minister Judith Collins’ future
He actually goes into more detail about what is required in the future including recapitalisation of the RNZN and working more with Canada WRT defence in the Pacific, claiming that:
"Canada is slowly orienting toward the Pacific as the region becomes more economically powerful. Along with New Zealand, Canada will also wish to be part of AUKUS Pillar Two as part of this trend. There is also the prospect that India may also join Pillar Two.
Although Australia and Canada, for somewhat different reasons, have much closer relations with the US than does New Zealand, they both have their own imperatives for a more distinctive foreign policy. Neither of them see it as in their interest to be considered as no more than little brothers to the US.
This reorientation could benefit New Zealand to do two things that superficially might seem contradictory. First, it could make it easier for New Zealand to build a closer relationship with the US. If New Zealand is doing more things in tandem with Australia and Canada, then New Zealand is less likely to be seen as the odd one out.
Second, it strengthens New Zealand’s independent foreign policy. If New Zealand is taking initiatives in common with Australia and Canada, then New Zealand’s diplomatic voice will be strengthened. Within the Asia Pacific, if Australia, Canada and New Zealand are acting in concert, then their overall voice and role within the region could increase."
He does have a good point WRT NZ working closely with Australia and Canada being beneficial to our relationship with the US. But we should be wary of the Nov 24 US Presidential elections because they could result in a significantly increased US isolationalism, and that is not good for the world.
Overall the articles, except for Collins and Henare, do speak to significant NZDF problems. For amny years some of us had said that it has been starved of funds and resources with this now coming home to roost. Whether the current govt will do anything about it or not, is still unknown, but if it is like the 2008 - 17 Key / English govt then the situation will deteriorate because that govt was allergic to spending money on defence. In reality the 1999 - 2017 govts (Clark / Key / English) gutted NZDF and hung it out to dry. Ardern wasn't much better with NZDF only getting replacement capabilities because of Ron Mark.
Don't forget the major cuts in funding and reduction in capability under the Jim Bulger government, 1989 to 1998.
The navy lost a frigate as funding was withdraw for a upgrade, the same happened to the armies light tanks and the airforce lost the Andovers when the funding for replacement was not approved.
The following governments just continued the underfunding, with a large dose of emotive decision making by H.C.
I found Stephen Hoadley's claims that NZDF is not in crisis rather at odds with the reality being reported unilaterally elsewhere in this series of articles. With all due respect to his position & experience my opinion (caveat duly stated) is that he doesn't really grasp the state of the NZDF. it is a crisis & never before have half the Naval fleet been unable to sail... even though the fleet is small, and even HADR is a stretch let alone core military tasking. The RNZN cannot deploy 6 vessels simulteanously & Canterbury will not for 3 months as scarce key personnel are being rotated & RNZN need to avoid burnout. Nor is Manawanui an effective HADR stand-in for Canterbury other than at a pinch.
Last edited:
Good to see we are actively playing a part , albeit a very small one.
www.beehive.govt.nz
New Zealand deploying NZDF team to protect Red Sea shipping
New Zealand is deploying a six-member Defence Force team to the Middle East region to uphold maritime security in the Red Sea, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says.
This is the type of operation I would like to see our newly upgraded frigates take part in. Meaningfull contribution to international security, proving the recently aqquired systems and justifying their expense/capability/role to the public all the while improving morale within navy adding to the recruitment process of them and the wider NZDF in general. Win win all around IMO.Good to see we are actively playing a part , albeit a very small one.
New Zealand deploying NZDF team to protect Red Sea shipping
New Zealand is deploying a six-member Defence Force team to the Middle East region to uphold maritime security in the Red Sea, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says.
That would be good , even as a second option , to relieve a USN ship on other duties in Asia so they could head that way , wouldnt be the first time we did that , twas a while ago though
Last edited:
Article from about a week ago in defsec.
defsec.net.nz
First time I’ve seen both the Arrowhead 140 GPF and MNV or MNP(Multi-Role Naval Platform) design listed as an offer to the Navy.
These were the two designs on display at Indo-Pacific 2023.
Potentially the same platforms the RAN may be looking at as a tier 2, especially if they decide to put more VLS on the Hunter class replacing the mission bay.
Just realised I may have put this in the wrong thread…. My bad.
Arrowhead 140 to meet Royal New Zealand Navy's future needs - Defsec
Babcock’s capable, adaptable and cost-effective Arrowhead 140 is the company’s answer for the Royal New Zealand Navy’s future needs.
defsec.net.nz
First time I’ve seen both the Arrowhead 140 GPF and MNV or MNP(Multi-Role Naval Platform) design listed as an offer to the Navy.
These were the two designs on display at Indo-Pacific 2023.
Potentially the same platforms the RAN may be looking at as a tier 2, especially if they decide to put more VLS on the Hunter class replacing the mission bay.
Just realised I may have put this in the wrong thread…. My bad.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
DefMin Collins states the personnel will provide "precision targeting" (and PM Luxon states they will be "will be part of a coalition of like-minded partners who will be working together as a team") ... I think that gives us some indication of the "specialisation" of the "forces" to be deployed?Good to see we are actively playing a part , albeit a very small one.
New Zealand deploying NZDF team to protect Red Sea shipping
New Zealand is deploying a six-member Defence Force team to the Middle East region to uphold maritime security in the Red Sea, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says.
Sadly but not unpredictably, the main Opposition party is opposed ... but the fact that the new coalition Govt is in support of our traditional allies (rather than kowtowing to previous Opposition worldviews to maintain political bi-partisanship) this is (depending on one's personal outlook of course) a positive sign that NZ is stepping up where it can.
In the meantime expect further "disapproval" by NZ's minor left wing parties (but that's to be expected), as well as the pro-left/anti-right defence/foreign affairs analysts (these issues sure are flushing out where the analysts stand)!
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Full agree. But reality is rearing its head. Te Mana will now undergo a major refit (similar to Te Kaha in 2022 i.e. new engines, rectifying hull corrosion/replating etc) so will be in dry dock for a while. Te Kaha returns to service but the crew and systems will undergo work ups.
This shows the folly of our political class reducing the Frigate force to two (peace dividend etc). Clearly additional hulls will be needed when the ANZAC's are replaced if the Govt is to be taken seriously by our allies.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Seeing the Frigates won't be ready for deployments as yet, perhaps another Govt/Defence option could be to deploy a replenishment/tanker to support allied combatants operating in the Gulf?
If so the replenishment/tanker may have to embark additional crew (and fit Te Mana's CIWS with some combat system specialists to maintain the weapon. A Seasprite helo and flight/ship crew may also be helpful for vertrep and other duties).
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I like the multi-functionality/options of the A140 and would make a great addition to the RNZN .... but wonder about the lack of a gas turbine for fast "sprints" (something that warships tend to need to do) or whether this is not so critical with the vessels existing engine configuration?Article from about a week ago in defsec.
Arrowhead 140 to meet Royal New Zealand Navy's future needs - Defsec
Babcock’s capable, adaptable and cost-effective Arrowhead 140 is the company’s answer for the Royal New Zealand Navy’s future needs.
First time I’ve seen both the Arrowhead 140 GPF and MNV or MNP(Multi-Role Naval Platform) design listed as an offer to the Navy.
These were the two designs on display at Indo-Pacific 2023.
Potentially the same platforms the RAN may be looking at as a tier 2, especially if they decide to put more VLS on the Hunter class replacing the mission bay.
Just realised I may have put this in the wrong thread…. My bad.
At least the ANZAC Frigates have both options - would an A140 be considered a "step backwards" from a maritime engineering/propulsion perspective operating in the Indo/Asia/Pacific?
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
GTs provide extra speed but at extra cost and fuel consumption. Unless the frigates need to frequently accompany a CSG, minimal advantage I would think.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Right now it is one of the most successful designs on the market, Denmark, UK, Indonesia and Poland don't seem to be too concerned about the lack of GTs. The A140 looks a very good fit for the RNZN, decent size, modular can be fit with both Mk 41 for SM family missiles as well as Sea Ceptor which NZ is currently using, has low crewing, extremely long legged. Is being built for a 5eyes navy.
The RDN Iver Huitfeldt Class regularly operate as escorts in USN CSGs and they don't appear to have a problem. The CODAD isn't a "step backwards" at all, just a different propulsion system. FYI our Leander Class frigates had steam propulsion and they could quite easily keep up with USN CVNs when they were part of USN CBGs. In fact they only they were the fastest non nuclear powered ships of the CBGs.
IF we acquire the AH140, maybe we should look at going full DE with electrical propulsion and the MTU diesels being used for pure electricity generation. That would simplify the drive trains by eliminating the requirement for gear boxes and drastically shorten the drive shafts which in turn significantly reduces the loss of energy to the props. Also, it reduces the noise potential because a source of noise is eliminated.
Pretty sure CAMM is quad packed for the MK-41 VLS. It has been advertised as such for the last few years.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
CAMM is smaller than the ESSM and the Mk 41 can fit 4 of them, so fitting 4 into a Mk 41 shouldn't be a major issue.