NZDF General discussion thread

[Whiplash34]

I believe there was an aspiration to get a couple of the whitetail C-17's, which would have filled the strategic airlift/oversized loads perfectly, but a combination of domestic politics and Qatar purchasing more aircraft than expected killed it.

C2 would be a useful, albeit unlikely option. Another would be the A330 MRTT. In service with 3 FVEY partners and Singapore, and able to carry passengers or pallets. In-flight refuelling would also be a useful contribution to allies, as well as extending the range of our own C-130J and P-8 aircraft.

Speculation aside however, the reality is that the GOTD wants a 737/A321 like for like replacement.

Rgr that mate. I remember the whitetail debacle (I seem to remember that the Govt of the day - National and John Key - didn’t want to fork out that sort of money - along with what you said about Qatar snatching them up).

I agree with your points about the A330MRTT - it would give us a huge leap in capability across the board but they are $300mill a pop and therefore likely cost prohibitive. I think the A2A refuelling would be great for our P8’s and to actually give something back to Aussie mates but our new C130J’s don’t have A2A.

Any new airframe will have the usual associated costs (aircrew conversion / hangers / simulator…?)

 

[Whiplash34]

I think we should be extremely grateful we are getting a 757 replacement full stop, Minister Judith Collin’s kept going on about the costs of the replacements.

That’s the problem though isn’t it….we shouldn’t have to be (nor should our NZDF men and women) ‘extremely grateful’. They should be facilitating getting defence the right tool for the job or ‘fit for purpose’ as is the words de jour.

 

[Hawkeye69]

That’s the problem though isn’t it….we shouldn’t have to be (nor should our NZDF men and women) ‘extremely grateful’. They should be facilitating getting defence the right tool for the job or ‘fit for purpose’ as is the words de jour.

The same applies to Health and Education as well

 

[Whiplash34]

The same applies to Health and Education as well

Both of which have hundreds of millions poured into them (rightfully so) but Defence has been on the back burner for far too long by comparison.

 

[jbc388]

Both of which have hundreds of millions poured into them (rightfully so) but Defence has been on the back burner for far too long by comparison.

The trouble NZ has is that out pollies are idiots/self centred/blinded by their own self importance!! and treat defence as "we will do as little as get away with!!"

 

[recce.k1]

Putting aside the silly headline the substance of this story gives a good indication of (some of the) Govt priorities - support for domestic technological development to align with FVEY collaboration/strategy/projects etc.

New Zealand has at least five of these deals now, and papers show multilateral meetings about the 'memorandum of understandings' or MOUs, taking place almost every fortnight.

One MOU is about 'Square Dance'. This programme undertakes research up to top-secret level among the Five Eyes intelligence group, including helping with a US-led programme to launch many more small satellites in a military version of Musk's Starlink satellite web, US papers said.

Collins had a briefing on Square Dance from Australia's defence tech unit last July. The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) withheld details of this and the other MOUs on security grounds.

Briefings showed NZDF's meetings with Australia's defence research wing last year had a "strong space theme", and that the New Zealand Space Agency based within Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) was being kept in the loop.

Australia recently announced a strategy that engages hundreds of workers to try to speed up its notoriously "slow and sclerotic" development of new defence tech.

NZ faces dilemma as Trump demands more defence spending

Analysis: Everywhere Trump's "eye of Sauron" lands, ructions follow - Gaza, Ukraine, Europe. Next up, will it be this side of the world?

www.rnz.co.nz

Another positive National and Labour appear to be in lockstep over potential Defence deployments to Ukraine.

There’s agreement from both sides of Parliament that New Zealand should be willing, and should consider, sending troops on a peacekeeping mission to Ukraine - if required.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Labour leader Chris Hipkins said they were open to deploying a peacekeeping mission to Ukraine, if there was a peace agreement that needed protecting.

Granted it's too early to tell whether this would eventuate and realistically though it may take a herculean effort to deploy with some substance (albiet to support the UK) ... but presumably there is (or will be) some serious planning being undertaken and on the flip side it might provide a timely wake up call to our political class to further better support retention (and re-enlisting) efforts, and to grow them. Because unlike previous deployments, in relatively "peaceful times", (hopefully) this time we need to ensure there are sufficient personnel available for Indo-Pacific activities.

Personally I think this is where (over) relying on the Reserves to maintain a continuous deployment will become problematic ... like it has in the past. But now the stakes are much higher. Has the time come to raise another Regular Force battalion (accepting that having additional cadre of the likes of NCO's, junior and middle ranked Officers and all the logistics and accommodation required simply do not grow on trees)? But we have to make a start somewhere and what better time than now? Perhaps some worthwhile incentives/enticements aimed at re-enlistment may be a helpful accelerator? Historically there is of course a precedent for doing this (I'm referring to the post-war example which set the foundations for the current structure) but this now needs strengthening.

From the same article the Prime Minister confirms (again) a commitment to boost defence efforts.

Luxon also discussed increasing Government spending on defence.

“We will need to spend more money on defence, and we will do that,” he said.

He said the coalition parties were in agreement that defence spending needed to increase. ACT has been pushing for the Government to spend 2% of the country’s entire GDP on defence. That would be almost double the current defence spend.

Yes Labour seem to be taking a slightly different view .... but at the end of the day what the Opposition are stating (their concern about "arbitrary targets") amounts to the same thing as the Govt at the end of the day in terms of capabilities. I mean I think we all here recognise that although an increase to (up to) 2% GDP will provide some very useful funds to better equip Defence (extra $billions), it really needs to go higher to provide decent substance, provide for technological developments and overcome the handicap of the likes of Capital Charge. At least though Labour are acknowledging spending does need to increase.

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

 

[Gooey]

Armchair

Absolutely, the Hunters are a lot of boat and coin. I would contend that we need this class to build up the war fighting side of the NZDF. I don't know if we would ever fit in with the Osborne production schedule; however, I assume that this could be asked for given the lead time and that the proposed follow on DDG build is just that, proposed.

The fag-packet planning of 6 NZ FFG lends itself to getting something like SEA 3000 acquired asap to increase the mass part of the RNZN frigate force with the Hunters being longer term.

The rational for identical boats to the RAN is integrate logistics, weapons, and training. With modern comms/EW/secure systems there is also a huge compatibility integration/accreditation/evolution if we went for something different, sourced from Korea/Canada/UK. I think it as being similar to getting a standard P-8 and sticking in our own radar and then wondering why that is difficult.

htbrst

Not saying that we burn future hospital plans and dig up the schools in order to fund any future defence vote but 2% GDP is just the start. Purest say that this is an inaccurate way to plan defence (yes, you buy the capabilities that you identify not just spend percentages). But this is for a NATO standard peacetime. Sadly, the peacetime ship has sailed and we should be planning now for 3%.

Rob c

I would suggest that we are closer to squaring the circle rather than having any disagreement.

The rule of 3 units ((1 training, 1 deployment, 1 reconstitution) E.G., with 6 P-8s, you could deploy 2 whilst having 4 at home in various stages of availability), means there is mass to enable support of Allies whilst retaining operational capability at home plate.

Now that PLAN Renhai Class (Type 055) guided missile cruisers have become the new normal for CCP floating around the Tasman, I would guess that any NZDF planning includes the ability to provide ISR deployed (a JTF in Malaysia) as well as in our own AO.

 

[Challenger]

I think we should be extremely grateful we are getting a 757 replacement full stop, Minister Judith Collin’s kept going on about the costs of the replacements.

I’m not sure I’d agree. I enjoyed Luxon initially talking about leasing options adhoc when needed. Don’t think the 757 replacement is an important given other pressing capex needs and/or emerging threats. We all know the 2% spending is a ‘I’ll believe it when I see it’. If they want the extra aircraft would prefer at least 2x additional C-130Js as 757 replacements over A321s/737s. In war time - can just requisition Air NZ’s A321s if that’s the difference between life and death.

 

[recce.k1]

Defence Minister confirmed yesterday that NZDF (P-8 & FFH) are working with their ADF counterparts to monitor the PLA-N vessels transiting the Tasman Sea off Australia's east coast.

Defence Minister monitoring Chinese navy vessels in the Tasman sea

Three Chinese navy vessels have entered the Tasman Sea, off of Australia's coast.

www.newstalkzb.co.nz

 

[Gooey]

recce.k1

It is interesting indeed that DefMin is a 'happy little pixie' WRT DCP and 2% funding.

Does anyone have a date for the DCP release?


Challenger

Good call. From a military perspective the greater 757 replacement priority, with our limited resources, is additional tactical transport/ISR capability to give greater flexibility to our NZDF logistics. Increasing the C-130J-30 numbers to 8-10 aircraft would seem sensible vice the effort of supporting a mini-VIP service for the government.

Expanding C-130 operations into AAR would be an interesting possibility too. It is something ADF doesn't have and could support long range ANZAC helicopter missions. As is replacing our plastic wocka's with real tactical ones.

Finally, any notional KC-30A procurement by RNZAF as a 757 replacement would need to consider the limitations that this large and heavy footprint A330 aircraft has around Pacific airfields. Strategic AAR is another enabler that could do very good ANZAC work but is offset, perhaps, by our other needs with a higher priority (more P-8, MH-60R, FFGs, ACF). If we were to go ahead with this mission, possibly the KC-46A would be a better fit?

 

[Gracie1234]

Things are heating up:
- China and the Cook Island agreements clearly demonstrate that China has no regard for our the Realm of NZ as an entity and is happy to push into any areas it feels could benefit it. The worst case scenario is that we have large fishing fleets and mining operations there which are then monitored and protected by China's Navy. This would result in NZ and Aus essentially being pushed out of this region with the legitimate backing of a sovereign state.
- Many Pacific Island are looking to develop their resources, rightly so. The challenge they have is wanting to have your cake and eat it to. Most Western Funds are gifts while China provide loans and the Western States have security issues. Case in point as part of the Cook Island agreement China will provide Cyber Protection. So a state who is actively attacking us in the Cyber Domain is going to provide Cyber Security to part of the New Zealand Realm. This is a real issue.
- A real wake-up call with the Chinese Navy demonstrating it can deploy and operate close to us i.e. we are in their striking range. To be fair we do the same thing in the China Sea. But this is hard power not just words.
- The impact of this for me will be security will move up the priority list with 2 % GDP investment being seen as a low number, I expect we will get closer to 2.5% over 10 years. We need to remember that govt spending is always a choice, the funds are their. Our economy will rebuild strongly, the recession was created by the reserve bank not any inherent weakness.
- AUKUS, we are already starting conversations to be involved in projects that could be considered AUKUS pillar two, now whether we official sign up, in some respects is not relevant. It is marketing, the detail is what projects are we working on.

 

[Catalina]

Defence Minister confirmed yesterday that NZDF (P-8 & FFH) are working with their ADF counterparts to monitor the PLA-N vessels transiting the Tasman Sea off Australia's east coast.

Defence Minister monitoring Chinese navy vessels in the Tasman sea

Three Chinese navy vessels have entered the Tasman Sea, off of Australia's coast.

www.newstalkzb.co.nz

As the maritime environment to the West, East, North, and South of New Zealand becomes more contested by Communist Chinese warships and vessels, it is time to dramatically increase naval funding. Australia is doubling its navy. In New Zealand we need to likewise push for a transfer in defence force budget allocation from the Army (currently the most funded) to our Navy (currently the leasted fund). These funding priorities must be reversed - Navy first, and army, should we decided to even keep it, last.

Ideally our army will mold into a tighter smaller marine force under our Navy. Our land forces need to drop their obsession with artillery and vehicles and focus on drones and anti-ship missiles. Ideally we should create a single Littoral Marine Battalion, as per the USMC 3rd Marine Littoral Regiment, which can interdict its littoral environs. SAS specialisation in jungle and Antarctic warfare will also be of obvious future benefit.

As demonstrated by last week's successful launching of our nation's only air to surface missile, a Penguin missile fired by a Seasprite helicopter, and demonstrated by last year's successful Sea Ceptor missile launches, only our Navy has the advanced weaponry necessary to survival in the new reality New Zealand finds itself in - the adversarial maritime environment of the 21st century.