Australian forum guys have asked about the system covering the Eastern side of Australia. May as well buy in with them on such a system. That, and a harder to shoot out Milsat communication network.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I do not recall that specifically. NZ has for a long period of time needed broader surveillance capabilities, that is one of the potential weaknesses that comes from having significant depth of defence.
The issue as I see it (and this is not a new perspective of mine) is that OTHR systems/arrays that I am aware of use long wavelength RF, usually bounced off the ionosphere. IIRC though there is some potential for using the troposphere as well.
One of the areas where the tech gets rather tricky, particularly for a place like NZ, is that JORN and similar systems do not use an antenna but rather a multi-element antenna array which combined is in the kilometre + length. The array is configured in such a way so that the individual elements work together to receive some of the very long wavelength returns. As I see it, this would likely be problematic for NZ to accomplish because the location and position of the individual receiving elements is quite important to ensure that there is sufficient return signal received. With NZ's tendency to move around a little, keeping such an array functional could be quite problematic.
There has to be a distinction between weapons deployed to kill humans and no longer under human control as opposed to weapons that develop deploy and formulate strategies to kill humans using its own intelligence and able to learn
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
I'd concur, however given the budget it seems short of even that level of capability.
It is only a gut feeling and but I do believe if we are able to source the second hand aircraft we maybe looking at MRTT along the lines of the second tranch of the RAAF's purchase. 2015 numbers but it falls within the up ceiling of the allocated fund. RAAF to Acquire Two Additional MRTT's.
I agree on all fronts, and perhaps I was being to flippant in my writing but I was hinting at the potential of long range fires, however after some reading have seen that all RRNZA units have been referred to as Field Artillery. If anybody wants some light reading I read a brief history about it here. We must advance our capability in this area and I think we should save time
I concur completely re Air Defence + Boxer. To be honest I'm surprised we are even upgrading the LAV turrets, however there must be an obsolescence issue, or perhaps a capability deficiency perhaps within in the Anti-Air space RWS spring to mind.
Along this topic this area actually concerns me:
I would argue this is a mistake and based in the previous fiscally constrained benign environment. Ukraine is showing us the how much we need to fight with what we have, we can't rely on access to materials or vehicles or industry to be able to ramp up, nor allies to stump with "surplus" equipment. As far as I am concerned the NZDF is already rather barebones and relying on the ability to leave equipment in place and rotate personnel through leaves very little room for losses. I maybe over thinking it, but I don't see "Equip the Force" rather than unit as being a good thing.
A small piece from the ozi Defence Connect guys that highlights the scale of national security change associated with DCP 2025, but also touches on what I'd term the glacial pace of change (eg. 8 years to 2%) in NZ:
www.defenceconnect.com.au
"Ross Browne, director of New Zealand defence and national security public affairs firm Museum Street Strategies, said the 2025 Capability Plan was extraordinary in its scope compared to previous defence priorities in New Zealand.
“Extraordinary in one sense, because they're (government leaders) using language and talking about things (defence capability) they haven't talked about since the very early 1990s ... It's definitely a cultural shift,” he said."
It's a great shame that DCP did not start with some form of big bang to set the scene. For example, to expand 5 Sqn in the near future by ordering additional P-8 now that would build on current momentum and add operational capability using the existing basic level. Another, would be to crash start a program for new RNZN FFG units now to increase maritime war fighting capability and a larger navy, quickly.
Is it too little, too late? NZ announces complete rebuild of military capability
The New Zealand government has announced a complete overhaul and universal rebuild of its military forces and defence infrastructure.
www.defenceconnect.com.au
"Ross Browne, director of New Zealand defence and national security public affairs firm Museum Street Strategies, said the 2025 Capability Plan was extraordinary in its scope compared to previous defence priorities in New Zealand.
“Extraordinary in one sense, because they're (government leaders) using language and talking about things (defence capability) they haven't talked about since the very early 1990s ... It's definitely a cultural shift,” he said."
It's a great shame that DCP did not start with some form of big bang to set the scene. For example, to expand 5 Sqn in the near future by ordering additional P-8 now that would build on current momentum and add operational capability using the existing basic level. Another, would be to crash start a program for new RNZN FFG units now to increase maritime war fighting capability and a larger navy, quickly.
I still feel that this DCP is just a re-arrangement of previous plans and while the earlier $20B had not been budgeted formally, both major parties had said they were committed to it and in reality that is all we are getting. The other major problem is the accounting system in use, which discourages capital, as this incurs the capital charge. this means keeping anything in reserve incurs that charge and I suspect that expensive things like spare engines, missiles and other expensive items would fall within the criteria as capital. Treasury would want to recover every cent it could. So in my opinion this system needs to go.
IMHO to undo the damage of the last 30 years of chronic under funding at least 3% GDP is required for a decade if we are to be serious about the value we place on our security, freedom and sovereignty.
IMHO to undo the damage of the last 30 years of chronic under funding at least 3% GDP is required for a decade if we are to be serious about the value we place on our security, freedom and sovereignty.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
I would argue that the resources and political capital spent for such a system wouldn't be good value for money unless the range was several hundred KMs. JORNs range is thousands of kms. A mere 100+ kms doesn't give you much time to respond to an inbound ICBM.
There are truck mounted radar systems with ranges of 250-400 kms (Saab,hensoldt). It would be better to acquire several of these and position them around our cities and major infrastructure if TSHTF. They could be tied to air defence systems. We could get the naval guns from the ex RAN ANZACs mount them at the old WW2 batteries in Auck/WGTN and fit them with BAEs hypersonic projectiles. Good range against missiles and cheaper per shot than SAMs. Perhaps one day.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
And in the Boer war we rode horses.
Over the past few decades nz has chosen what and how we have engaged in war. (I know we need to plan for situations where we don't have a choice).
It's not just Ukraine but globally warfare is evolving. IEDs used by farmers proved effective against the worlds superpower in the GWOT which the at least didn't conclusively win. Commercial drones tied to mortar rounds to take out tanks. Ukraine with no real navy using drones to take out Russian ships. I think spending millions on buying a large fleet of expensive, difficult to deploy IFVs that may never leave our shores in a meaningful way might not be the most sensible idea.
Re munitions thales Australia now manufacturers a mk 82 equivalent that can be used on mq9s as JDAMs. Or quick strike naval mines.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
There is something in the above that needs clarification. That rough 100+ km distance I mentioned was the radar horizon, which is different than any hypothetical radar range a manufacturer might state. A regular radar transmitter emitting from an elevation of ~600 m above sea level can detect targets at sea level up to ~100 km away providing there are no obstructions (like hills or other terrain features). Targets at approximately sea level further away than ~100 km will be below the radar horizon and therefore the curvature of the earth will block radar signals from reaching them.
The importance of detecting contacts at sea level, at least for NZ, is that these are what might need a response from other NZDF assets like RNZN vessels or RNZAF aircraft to investigate what the contact is. Yes, such systems like should be able to detect aerial contacts and at ranges much longer than 100 km because the higher flight paths of aircraft put them above the radar horizon. AFAIK detecting ballistic missiles would not really help much from such systems, because the radars themselves would likely only detect inbound warheads after they have dropped back down in altitude as they are on terminal approach. Not sure that, given the limited funding in Vote Defence, trying to establish a ballistic missile detection capability is a worthwhile expenditure for NZ, especially given the state of the rest of the NZDF.
TBH I still am not really sold on US ballistic missile defence efforts, so NZ trying to replicate even a fraction of that capability...
If NZ could field a capability like JORN, that IMO would be great since it would provide broad coverage of air and sea contacts. What I am uncertain of is whether or not the whole system would be able to compensate for how much the receiving antenna elements might shift around, or how frequently this might happen. If it turns out that multi-element antenna arrays of the size needed to receive backscatter signals from 10 m to 60 m wavelengths bouncing off the ionosphere are not practical in NZ due to seismic activity, then NZ would need to look into other capabilities which could be managed.
Side note, it might even be possible for NZ to 'pay' Australia to establish another JORN array, or add further transmitter and receiver elements, to cover all the areas around and approaching NZ, and then have Australia transmit the contact data to NZ in realtime for response.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
Thanks for the clarification, and yr technical knowledge- which I don't have. I agree nz JORN or even NE facing Eastern oz based JORN that we part pay for would be great if feasible. Seismic concerns aside... Would it be possible or desirable to involve other Pacific islands?
kiwi in exile
Active Member
Depending on how the development plays out I would see it as cheaper and more feasible than re-establishing a manned ACF for intercepting air or sea based threats. Or defending deployed p8s in a contested environment.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Please understand that whilst I have some understanding of RF propagation, I am by no means an expert. Most of my knowledge comes from radio communication which for specific systems like JORN, can use similar techniques and wavelengths. More conventional radar systems are LOS, much like VHF and UHF radio communications which I am also familiar with.
Without even getting into the issues of cost or security, I suspect the answer would be 'no,' from a purely technical standpoint.
I did not go through all of them, but the JORN arrays have distinct and non co-located directional transmitters and receiver arrayss, at least one pair of which is at 120 km apart from transmitter to receivers. Not sure that there is a Pacific Island large enough to host both the transmitter and receiver arrays. That is also before considering whether or not the island is 'stable' seismically, consideration for potential for severe weather events, or anything else which could negatively impact the receiver antenna element positions. Similarly that is also not giving consideration to what direction such a system should be 'aimed' in, or whether the transmitter and receiver sites would need to be located to provide coverage in the desired direction.
I suppose it might be possible to build such a system spread across a S. Pacific island chain with a transmitter on one island and the receivers on another, with the two sites then linked to each other and/or a control centre via undersea cables. However that would likely be a very expensive undertaking and one that could provide quite vulnerable to accidental damage or sabotage. After all, in the last few years there have been quite a few instances where undersea cables on the ocean floor in international waters have been cut.
Yes the shaky isles syndrome and therein lies the problem. If we have an OTHR system in NZ then the transmitters and receivers would be on different tectonic plates. NZ is one of the most seismically active regions in the world and unlike Australia it sits aside a tectonic plate boundary meaning that parts of the country are moving in different directions, three dimensionally, relative to each other. For example Christchurch, where I live moves closer to Greymouth on the West Coast by 6mm per year. I don't know if some vertical movement involved as well. Greymouth is on the Australian tectonic plate and Christchurch is on the Pacific tectonic plate. However technology and knowledge advances so at some stage it may be possible that an analysis program would be able to account for such movements.
An OTHR isn't really going to prevent space warfare because it doesn't have targeting resolution. It is more of an early warning system in that it provides long distance surveillance.
$9 billion over four years is a big bang. That is relatively quick because it is setting things in motion and is stuff that can be done relatively quickly. The bigger stuff will take time and we will see in two years what has changed when the DCP review is published. It is possible that some of the items in the Future Indicative Investments section will be bought forward.A small piece from the ozi Defence Connect guys that highlights the scale of national security change associated with DCP 2025, but also touches on what I'd term the glacial pace of change (eg. 8 years to 2%) in NZ:
Is it too little, too late? NZ announces complete rebuild of military capability
The New Zealand government has announced a complete overhaul and universal rebuild of its military forces and defence infrastructure.
"Ross Browne, director of New Zealand defence and national security public affairs firm Museum Street Strategies, said the 2025 Capability Plan was extraordinary in its scope compared to previous defence priorities in New Zealand.
“Extraordinary in one sense, because they're (government leaders) using language and talking about things (defence capability) they haven't talked about since the very early 1990s ... It's definitely a cultural shift,” he said."
It's a great shame that DCP did not start with some form of big bang to set the scene. For example, to expand 5 Sqn in the near future by ordering additional P-8 now that would build on current momentum and add operational capability using the existing basic level. Another, would be to crash start a program for new RNZN FFG units now to increase maritime war fighting capability and a larger navy, quickly.
Regarding extra P-8A, it's possible that such an acquisition can be bought forward because it is covered in the Future Indicative Investments outlined in the DCP. Although a second tranche of P-8A Poseidon acquisition isn't specifically mentioned, the wording in maritime and aerospace domains WRT to surveillance and strike would cover such an acquisition.
The $20 billion was never enough and it was spread over 15 years. It didn't really address any of the shortfalls and it would not have prevented the slow decline of NZDF.
Yes the new DCP has reworked some stuff previous DCPs because it was informed by them. However it has also included new capabilities that no previous DCP has ever discussed. It is a start.
US allies like NZ a 'critical component of deterrence' in space warfare - generals
Top American generals have raised the threat of China's race for nuclear and space weapons superiority, while praising a network of New Zealand and other allies designed to counter it.
www.rnz.co.nz
You mean something like this? Apparently we're a part of a Operation Olympic Defender.
Yep $20B was not enough and was only a replacement figure not an enhancement figure, but this was in 2017 through to 2032, if you take away what has been spent on replacements up to now (not much in replacements) and what should be left, then the 12B is easily covered by this.
It would be interesting to know what the direction DCP committee was heading before the current government did the reset. My thoughts are that there probably was a significant reduction in the allowable budget o allow for the tax cuts.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It is my understanding that the issue of stability and positioning has more to due with the receiver array antenna elements, rather than the position between the transmitters and receiver arrays.
There is not enough information in the public domain (including receiver site satellite imagery) for me to be able to tell whether or not the antenna elements are vertical or horizontal. However, it does appear that whatever the positioning of the antenna elements, they are linked together to provide capabilities comparable to what a single, very large antenna might be able to provide. This is done because it just is not really practical or possible to construct a single, continuous antenna of the potential lengths involved. Having looked at maps of the receiver sites, the three sites show coverage of areas for the antennas of ~3 km, either 6km or 2x 3km (covering two directions at right angles to each other) and ~2.8 km at the third.
Before even considering any possible damage to antenna elements as a result of seismic activity, there is the potential that one or more elements might be knocked out of position, so that the individual elements can no longer together cover distances of ~3km, or even the potential for two different elements to start receiving the same signal back. Yes, it might be possible for software and electronics to be programmed to account for such positional shifts but...
I tend to suspect that in order for any such positional changes to be accounted for, the specific conditions and positions of each antenna element would need to be inspected and checked after each/every seismic even of sufficient magnitude to alter their positions. Given that NZ daily experiences somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-80 quakes, then it might not be practical.
I don't disagree that DCP is a relatively huge sea-change in comparison to previous NZ efforts over the past 3 decades; however, in 8 years this brings us up to a NATO peacetime standard when we are well into a new era of strategic competition.
I do argue that a statement like additional P-8 or FFG now could have been the center piece of what is a rather glacial plan.
Edited to add: For example, a statement such as 2 P-8 now and another 2 in x years; or, "we intend to get 2 FFG asap and total 4-6 FFG eventually from Australia (the only real choice once operational, political, logistics, training, interoperability considerations are examined) from their Hunter Tier 1 and GPF Tier 2 programs"
Last edited: