The Potomac runs into Chesapeake Bay a good one hundred miles. But the river is navigational, the capital is two miles away from the river and the White House is one mile away, easily. Not two blocks.It's not too difficult to imagine that same crack commando team boating up the Potomac either
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
t68
Well-Known Member
Looking into possible corvettes for the RNZN is the Milgem class corvette she does not have long endurance but i believe it would be useful around the pacific islands and home defense duties free up Anzac MKII if they go down this route.
Milgem class corvette - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Milgem can also be increased in size to make a small frigate also, but i do not believe this would make sense for NZ to do as it would be vastly inferior to the ANZAC class in service now.
If this is not feasible RNZN should look into getting there hands on 3 Australian ANZAC ships to complement the 2 existing ships when Australia gets ANZAC MKII,how useful and what condition the ships would be in i don’t know, but would have the RNZN increase it frigate capability to 5 ships of the one class.
Milgem class corvette - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Milgem can also be increased in size to make a small frigate also, but i do not believe this would make sense for NZ to do as it would be vastly inferior to the ANZAC class in service now.
If this is not feasible RNZN should look into getting there hands on 3 Australian ANZAC ships to complement the 2 existing ships when Australia gets ANZAC MKII,how useful and what condition the ships would be in i don’t know, but would have the RNZN increase it frigate capability to 5 ships of the one class.
As with a lot of countries, NZ defence is under staffed and has trouble manning its existing ships. More hulls will just exacerbate the problem. Plus the extra maintenance involved will make this a non starter. The existing 2 OPV could be upguned if needed as they were designed to be, but weren't due to budget constraints, A discision on the Anzac upgrade was suppose to happen in 2010 under the previous government, several hundred million had been suggested as the budget for the 2 vessels, along the lines of what the Ozzies are spending per boat. But with the change of government as the budget cuts, who knows.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Having looked at the design diagrams, I do not believe that the OPVs can be upgunned to any significant degree, and they do not appear to have been designed with upgunning in mind either. They could be armed with port, starboard and perhaps aft mini-Typhoon mounts, and the current Typhoon mounting might be able to be changed from a 25 mm Bushmaster to something in the 30-40 mm area. Other than that though... Not much is really possibly without making significant alterations to the ship.
For example, if a larger gun like a 57 mm were to be mounted in place of the current Typhoon mounting, the gun would penetrate the deck 2 to deck 1 below at least given the diagram here. While this could possibly be done during a ship overhaul, it would require significant work to relocate the displaced compartments. Also it would exacerbate the OPV's weight issue even further.
If the OPVs had been designed with upgunning in mind, I would have expected that a compartment, or at least space for a compartment immediately beneath the gun mounting would have been reserved for a magazine. That does not appear to be the case.
-Cheers
Too right Todjaeger.
The OPVs are Offshore Patrol Vessels and as such I think they can do the job (hopefully the OCV will be even better). Wishing them to be corvettes does them a disservice and misses the point. Having an OPV force liberates the combat arm to focus on the high end requirements. Its way, way cheaper than a specialist warship, and economically speaking for NZ its a force multiplier.
Having OPVs means NZ can have a bigger fleet, cover more ocean, be more useful to our allies and do more things (provided we have a serious Combat force). Having a bigger gun won't make the OPV a useful warship, and won't make it any better at patrolling.:lul
Update White Paper Release Date now end September2010
Just caught the TV 1 current affairs programme Q&A which had an interview with Wayne Mapp, NZ Minister of Defence. When questioned he said the White Paper was being delayed till the end of September 2010 while ways to achieve further savings where worked through. These needed to be covered of in the White Paper.He mentioned savings of $50m where being targeted which I suspect is on top of the $50m already sought last year.
The Minister outlined that he NZ economy was expected to slowly recover from the effects of the downturn over the next three years[= less Taxes collected] and there will be no extra money for Defence along with other Government Departments as a result . Pressure will come on funding as the new Helicopters enter service and Fixed Wing aircraft return from refit for example . The Government was looking for savings to fund the front end of Defence from the back activities of Defence, the back office of Defence was under review as a result eg each service has its own HR function and he hinted these could be combined. He's still very keen on private funding of Defence assets eg Government spent $150M on a new hanger for the NH90's which could have been privately funded and rented back,Fitsroy Engineering if given more certainty over tenure at the Devonport Naval Base would invest in the base Infristructure were some examples given. I struggle with this as surley the Govenment can supply cheaper capital than the private sector unless the Government is looking to like a big business to degear its investment.Eg Norm works for a Kiwi business with net funds of $140m ,if we owned rather than leased our branches we would tie up a further $350m+.
With money tight it will be interesting to see if the Defence Sustainability Iniative which the Finance Minister canned in December 2008 just when progress was finally being made to address a raft of issues is restored . Ammunition stocks were finally getting some attention, for example its in the public domain that the Navy only had in 2008 3 ship sets of torpedoes and the Airforce 6 plane sets ,80 odd in total.
Just caught the TV 1 current affairs programme Q&A which had an interview with Wayne Mapp, NZ Minister of Defence. When questioned he said the White Paper was being delayed till the end of September 2010 while ways to achieve further savings where worked through. These needed to be covered of in the White Paper.He mentioned savings of $50m where being targeted which I suspect is on top of the $50m already sought last year.
The Minister outlined that he NZ economy was expected to slowly recover from the effects of the downturn over the next three years[= less Taxes collected] and there will be no extra money for Defence along with other Government Departments as a result . Pressure will come on funding as the new Helicopters enter service and Fixed Wing aircraft return from refit for example . The Government was looking for savings to fund the front end of Defence from the back activities of Defence, the back office of Defence was under review as a result eg each service has its own HR function and he hinted these could be combined. He's still very keen on private funding of Defence assets eg Government spent $150M on a new hanger for the NH90's which could have been privately funded and rented back,Fitsroy Engineering if given more certainty over tenure at the Devonport Naval Base would invest in the base Infristructure were some examples given. I struggle with this as surley the Govenment can supply cheaper capital than the private sector unless the Government is looking to like a big business to degear its investment.Eg Norm works for a Kiwi business with net funds of $140m ,if we owned rather than leased our branches we would tie up a further $350m+.
With money tight it will be interesting to see if the Defence Sustainability Iniative which the Finance Minister canned in December 2008 just when progress was finally being made to address a raft of issues is restored . Ammunition stocks were finally getting some attention, for example its in the public domain that the Navy only had in 2008 3 ship sets of torpedoes and the Airforce 6 plane sets ,80 odd in total.
So its that sort of National government. Its hard to gauge these things for half a world away. I sort of figured John Key for a more strategic thinker, but these guys appear to believe the government's role is to be Chief Financial Officers, and apply management accounting techniques to Defence spending.
PPP's (Private Public partnerships- decapitalising government infrastructural projects) have been a runaway debacle in the UK. The 1990's ideological notion that private companies are more efficient or better managers of capital projects, or that asset management is better done privately has been tested to destruction in the UK. It would be a shame for NZ not to learn from international mistakes, particularly in a so far hollowed out defence establishment.
t68
Well-Known Member
I can never get my head around the PPP’s concept; yes it frees up money in the short term but in the long term government will pay out more for the same infrastrucre, the private company has to make a profit on it’s investment and dividends to shareholder’s, were as government is a supply or service component for the people who pay taxes to that countries government as the government is effectively broke without the people. Is it better to wait or pay more long term?
White Paper delayed till September 2010.
Here is the TVNZ link , full transcript on the TVNZ site.
Q+A: Wayne Mapp interviewed by Guyon Espiner | Q AND A News
Here is the TVNZ link , full transcript on the TVNZ site.
Q+A: Wayne Mapp interviewed by Guyon Espiner | Q AND A News
Personally I think Mr Espiner didn't do a great job. He lost a golden opportunity, despite starting well, to push Mr Mapp on the strategic issues. At least Mr Mapp admitted that China was not considered a threat, which will differentiate the reivew from Australia to a certain extent. Mr Espiner focus on issues like the SAS that are really dead stories I think in the end ruined what could have been an excellent opportunity.
I reserve judgement on Public Private Partnerships, given the apparent success regarding the civilian operation of the dockyard.
With regards to back office savings I think the approach is the correct one in light of size of the defence force, fiscal restraints etc. Some areas such as HR and even recuirting could and should be streamlined, noting that each service has specific requirements. An ex RN WO that joint the RNZN once said to a group of use that "Neslon is dead - the navy should get over him". For me that means tossing a lot of tradition into the rubbish bid - Suggested starting points, in addition to above
- Joint Basic Training (for the first 8 weeks or so, with the last 4 being service specific)
- Close the last of the old HMNZS Tamaki and shift it to Whenupai or Whangapora if joint basic training isn't going to happen.
- Standarised Ceremonial uniform (think of the economy of scales). I appreciate that many ex service and serviing people will be consider lynching me as haven "got off lightly" but the are ways to distingish the services within such a uniform (Branch or trade badges, Cap bagdes, stable belts etc). As an aside the navy uniform is so dated as to be a disincentive to join.
From what I remember reading, the OPV and the MRV were to have a OM76mm in the bow, but this was dispenced with to free up money to include the IPV within the allocated budget of $500M. A Bofors 57mm would be quite adequent, along with 2x2 lightweight torpedo launchers and a light AD system, such as Sadral or Simbad, with appropiate sensors. There is a version of the Bofors that doesn't require deck penetration, though with a smaller magazine.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Except i'm fairly sure that the weight margins no longer exist for future additions.
Many on this & other defence forums with a NZ flavour expected National to come to power & be the saviour of the NZDF, including re-establishing the ACF & spending large. Actually even without the recession it was clear from what little they did say at the time and more importantly what they weren't saying that they weren't really going to commit to anything much more. They even basically said to expect a continuation of Labours policy.
They now have a rather fearsome cost-cutting focus - and guess what's always on the chopping block in NZ when that happens! Remember Ruth(less) Richardson in the early 1990's slashing the defence budget by about 1/3 overnight with no strategy - just turned the tap! :sniper
Getting political I know - but Labour are the ones who did the spending in the last 2 decades, National only ever talked about it! :tomato ...Not that I agree with Labours defence efforts!
Still a recession doesn't mean not planning for spending - so hopefully there'll at least be an acknowledgement that more needs to spent!?!
There is that old truism that defence is the national insurance policy. The reality is that NZ has for the last 20 years or so got away with paying a small premium third party type policy with very little ‘theft’ cover and absolutely no ‘fire’ cover.
Murphy’s law as it stands means that one day fate is going to come ‘a’knockin’ and we’ll be a National version of those feral stoner halfwits you see on TV after their house burns down whinging “we ain’t got no home and no we didn’t get comprehensive insurance, ….. Can we have a hand out please?”
My father Mr C Snr who is now well into his eighties and still going strong :ar15, remembers 1942 very well and describes the fear he had as a 17 year old when they thought they were just months away from invasion. He also talks about the months and months at a time when shipping and aircraft movements where very much curtailed right through the war period and made life very uncomfortable and vulnerable for citizens at times. He is of the mind that what it will actually take to get the public and the pollies off their backsides and properly fund defence is the nation getting a sense of that fear, discomfort and vulnerability again. Not from a direct invasion like in 1942 but from something happening elsewhere in the world that means that the causal Kiwi lifestyle can’t be taken for granted and we are given a "bloody good fright".
Sadly I think their is a lot of good old fashioned truth in what the old boy says, that it will take as he puts it a bloody good fright.
Murphy’s law as it stands means that one day fate is going to come ‘a’knockin’ and we’ll be a National version of those feral stoner halfwits you see on TV after their house burns down whinging “we ain’t got no home and no we didn’t get comprehensive insurance, ….. Can we have a hand out please?”
My father Mr C Snr who is now well into his eighties and still going strong :ar15, remembers 1942 very well and describes the fear he had as a 17 year old when they thought they were just months away from invasion. He also talks about the months and months at a time when shipping and aircraft movements where very much curtailed right through the war period and made life very uncomfortable and vulnerable for citizens at times. He is of the mind that what it will actually take to get the public and the pollies off their backsides and properly fund defence is the nation getting a sense of that fear, discomfort and vulnerability again. Not from a direct invasion like in 1942 but from something happening elsewhere in the world that means that the causal Kiwi lifestyle can’t be taken for granted and we are given a "bloody good fright".
Sadly I think their is a lot of good old fashioned truth in what the old boy says, that it will take as he puts it a bloody good fright.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I think the Q+A interview (and the subsequent media coverage) was a bit of a beat up and I share Lucas' sentiments that Mr Espiner sometimes doesn't do defence reporting and analysis well, despite him being TVNZ's premiere political reporter (and no disrespect intended, he has other strengths in other areas) as evidenced here and in his past stories on defence - sometimes he scratches the surface and as he doesn't appear to understand the subject well enough, he doesn't know to either dig deeper or that he's been deflected onto another topic that the interviewee feels comfortable with - his interview with Goff as DefMin in 2008 is a classic example (eg Espiner started off stating the Mistral's weren't yet full operational but Goff responded by saying that the Seasprite's Maverick live firing had proven the Maverick fully operational 24/7 - and that was the end of the subject! Duh! Did he ever realise he was had? And more than once in that interview)!
Anyway in this interview Defmin Mapp gives very little away, as usual. Unlike subsequent media reporting I don't see the review delay necessarily being tied into the $50M saving. All Govt Depts have been asked to make do with exisiting budgets and to trim fat, for over a year now. Govt is also quite rightly looking at reducing unnecessary duplication of efforts, eg we in NZ had previously heard that the various health entities have different HR and payrol systems at the "back end". How astonding that this has not been tackled until now?! Same applies to Defence. In fact if all Govt's trimmed the fat that had built up in these recent years of economic boom, for example the poor Brits wouldn't need to be considering flogging off one of their carriers, I'd suggest a potential change of govt there if it had the courage could simarly save hundreds of millions, if not a billion or two or so pounds in efficiencies throughout their Govt sector!
For the NZ Whitepaper it is a big ask to be projecting out funding, presumably both operational and capex, 25 years into the future - it has never been done before! Even the previous Labour LTDP looked 10 years (2002-2012), was underfunded, and operational costs weren't included.
And those operational costs are a bit of a grey area - after all transitioning from Huey's to NH90's is a giant leap for NZ in terms of new capabilities, how would any Govt really know what to expect these costs to really be? It's fantastic but unproven kit, what sort of support issues will come up on future deployments? Which items can be repaired by local support staff and which items will be sent back to France for repair? How do we make do in the interim? Fire up the 9th (spare helo) and send it off to the deployment as the replacement? Or ratt the spare helo for parts? There's too many unknowns.
Same with Project Protector's operating costs. The IPV's/OPV's will undertake tasks never handled before by the old IPC's/ANZAC's - again a fresh set of unknowns.
The upgraded P3's and C130's - new glass cockpits and lots of new clever boxes of tricks - how will they fare in the varied/harsh climates NZ operates in. Etc.
Throw in a prior recession, now growth again, what growth does the future hold - in terms of Vote Defence budgeting? I'd say the NZ economy will fair well thanks to our trading with Asia and Australia, but things will rebalance - some areas will do well and some areas will be less relevant - but these are still in play and will be for some time. So I don't think the $50M operational savings is the main issue causing the delay.
So what (little) do we know?
Previous statements to plan for the C130/P3/ANZAC Frigate replacements (although we don't know what that really means eg are we talking ANZAC II or other Euro/Asian/US possibilities? Are we talking Frigates or Corvettes or OPV's etc)? At least the capabilities aren't being dismantled, yes?
As for the PPP idea, sure in NZ the thought of a private investor building a hanger doesn't seem plausible. But we see ventures overseas eg UK Govt investing in long term support from the likes of BAE Systems etc. As Lucas says for Devonport NB a similar contract with VT or whoever could see them investing in better facilities, how about a bigger dry dock perhaps, seeing they also undertake commercial repairs? For the Air Force, how about an arrangement, with say, LM? They're in the news for securing a 10 year NZ Army logistics contract. What if they assisted with the funding of additional hangerage or workshop facilities? What if they took over some RNZAF servicing - is that good or bad? But it's possible. What if they were successful in the Singapore training aircraft tender and based some of their aircraft here? What if that meant the NZ Govt did bring back the Macchis (as signalled as a possibility) but then after say 5 years NZ leased some TA50's off LM once the macchi's did their dash?
I don't think the Defence Whitepaper will mean anything radical good or bad eg I don't expect at all for the Govt to emmulate Australia's and signal a major boost in capabilities, although I would hope they would make for some flexible planning in case should say the US reduce their capabilities or expect NZ (and Aust) to handle lower threats in order for the US to stay focused on Northern Asia etc, as is more or less is the case now etc.
So it appears logistical support will be important - air transport upgrades and perhaps sea (JSS?)?
Fitting out a Company for the ANZAC force and the support elements required?
Hopefully further P3 upgrades (stand off missile/ASW plug ins) to get the most out of the platform, then its replacement and the UAV area etc?
More rotary assets and enhancements to them?
Further opportunities to work with US forces on stabalisation missions etc.
As for the differing view on China compared to Australia, as the DefMin says Australia is a middle power and NZ has never, nor will ever likely, be in such a position therefore there is no point being a mini version of Australia and having exactly all the capabilities, albiet smaller, of our bigger cousin. I may not totally agree with that personally, but that is the realpolitik of the situation.
The other realpolitik of the situation is that China is unlikely to militarily threaten Australia and NZ in the next decade etc. But that's not to say that unconventional threats will be a problem for Australia and NZ eg Chinese espionage and cyber warfare already is. Ditto geopolitical issues with Chinese bases in SE Asia or the buying of Pacific Island states awash with "aid and development" money, creating further situations of instability, thus requiring intervention to assist weakened Govt's in the Pacific by Australian and NZ (and other PI) troops etc. These are the issues we face now and accordingly the (NZ) Govt needs to prioritise its limited resources into these areas. Granted I do hope the expansion of the PLA (N) sees NZ Govt grow some balls and up-arm the ANZAC's/P3's and similarly their outdated ASW sensors etc, but there is unlikley to be any direct confrontation, but no doubts incidents of espionage (spy ships, maybe spy drones - maybe the NZDF needs a better capability to shoot down marauding drones, if not necessarily over NZ itself, certainly in the wider Pacific region where NZ deploys). Maybe this is what Defmin Mapp was alluding to...
Finally I and many others have said if NZ could work on slowly increasing its defence budget from approx 1% of gdp incrementally to say 1.5% (sure higher would be nice) in 10 years etc, we would get extra capabilities (or at least be able to realise fuller capabilities of existing etc). Despite all the gloom and doom with the economy, and despite defence operational savings making life harder for the NZDF on day to day matters, the Govt has said before that some areas will be able to grow where appropriate such as national security/policing etc. Therefore I don't see why capex projects should necessarily suffer, except that say in the next few years Defence will be still busy getting the Labour Govt initiatives fully operational and there won't be much if any slack for many new, no doubt, so the signal for the years following that will be of interest (in terms of this Govt setting the next agenda in terms of capabilities or outputs as they are known here).
Anyway in this interview Defmin Mapp gives very little away, as usual. Unlike subsequent media reporting I don't see the review delay necessarily being tied into the $50M saving. All Govt Depts have been asked to make do with exisiting budgets and to trim fat, for over a year now. Govt is also quite rightly looking at reducing unnecessary duplication of efforts, eg we in NZ had previously heard that the various health entities have different HR and payrol systems at the "back end". How astonding that this has not been tackled until now?! Same applies to Defence. In fact if all Govt's trimmed the fat that had built up in these recent years of economic boom, for example the poor Brits wouldn't need to be considering flogging off one of their carriers, I'd suggest a potential change of govt there if it had the courage could simarly save hundreds of millions, if not a billion or two or so pounds in efficiencies throughout their Govt sector!
For the NZ Whitepaper it is a big ask to be projecting out funding, presumably both operational and capex, 25 years into the future - it has never been done before! Even the previous Labour LTDP looked 10 years (2002-2012), was underfunded, and operational costs weren't included.
And those operational costs are a bit of a grey area - after all transitioning from Huey's to NH90's is a giant leap for NZ in terms of new capabilities, how would any Govt really know what to expect these costs to really be? It's fantastic but unproven kit, what sort of support issues will come up on future deployments? Which items can be repaired by local support staff and which items will be sent back to France for repair? How do we make do in the interim? Fire up the 9th (spare helo) and send it off to the deployment as the replacement? Or ratt the spare helo for parts? There's too many unknowns.
Same with Project Protector's operating costs. The IPV's/OPV's will undertake tasks never handled before by the old IPC's/ANZAC's - again a fresh set of unknowns.
The upgraded P3's and C130's - new glass cockpits and lots of new clever boxes of tricks - how will they fare in the varied/harsh climates NZ operates in. Etc.
Throw in a prior recession, now growth again, what growth does the future hold - in terms of Vote Defence budgeting? I'd say the NZ economy will fair well thanks to our trading with Asia and Australia, but things will rebalance - some areas will do well and some areas will be less relevant - but these are still in play and will be for some time. So I don't think the $50M operational savings is the main issue causing the delay.
So what (little) do we know?
Previous statements to plan for the C130/P3/ANZAC Frigate replacements (although we don't know what that really means eg are we talking ANZAC II or other Euro/Asian/US possibilities? Are we talking Frigates or Corvettes or OPV's etc)? At least the capabilities aren't being dismantled, yes?
As for the PPP idea, sure in NZ the thought of a private investor building a hanger doesn't seem plausible. But we see ventures overseas eg UK Govt investing in long term support from the likes of BAE Systems etc. As Lucas says for Devonport NB a similar contract with VT or whoever could see them investing in better facilities, how about a bigger dry dock perhaps, seeing they also undertake commercial repairs? For the Air Force, how about an arrangement, with say, LM? They're in the news for securing a 10 year NZ Army logistics contract. What if they assisted with the funding of additional hangerage or workshop facilities? What if they took over some RNZAF servicing - is that good or bad? But it's possible. What if they were successful in the Singapore training aircraft tender and based some of their aircraft here? What if that meant the NZ Govt did bring back the Macchis (as signalled as a possibility) but then after say 5 years NZ leased some TA50's off LM once the macchi's did their dash?
I don't think the Defence Whitepaper will mean anything radical good or bad eg I don't expect at all for the Govt to emmulate Australia's and signal a major boost in capabilities, although I would hope they would make for some flexible planning in case should say the US reduce their capabilities or expect NZ (and Aust) to handle lower threats in order for the US to stay focused on Northern Asia etc, as is more or less is the case now etc.
So it appears logistical support will be important - air transport upgrades and perhaps sea (JSS?)?
Fitting out a Company for the ANZAC force and the support elements required?
Hopefully further P3 upgrades (stand off missile/ASW plug ins) to get the most out of the platform, then its replacement and the UAV area etc?
More rotary assets and enhancements to them?
Further opportunities to work with US forces on stabalisation missions etc.
As for the differing view on China compared to Australia, as the DefMin says Australia is a middle power and NZ has never, nor will ever likely, be in such a position therefore there is no point being a mini version of Australia and having exactly all the capabilities, albiet smaller, of our bigger cousin. I may not totally agree with that personally, but that is the realpolitik of the situation.
The other realpolitik of the situation is that China is unlikely to militarily threaten Australia and NZ in the next decade etc. But that's not to say that unconventional threats will be a problem for Australia and NZ eg Chinese espionage and cyber warfare already is. Ditto geopolitical issues with Chinese bases in SE Asia or the buying of Pacific Island states awash with "aid and development" money, creating further situations of instability, thus requiring intervention to assist weakened Govt's in the Pacific by Australian and NZ (and other PI) troops etc. These are the issues we face now and accordingly the (NZ) Govt needs to prioritise its limited resources into these areas. Granted I do hope the expansion of the PLA (N) sees NZ Govt grow some balls and up-arm the ANZAC's/P3's and similarly their outdated ASW sensors etc, but there is unlikley to be any direct confrontation, but no doubts incidents of espionage (spy ships, maybe spy drones - maybe the NZDF needs a better capability to shoot down marauding drones, if not necessarily over NZ itself, certainly in the wider Pacific region where NZ deploys). Maybe this is what Defmin Mapp was alluding to...
Finally I and many others have said if NZ could work on slowly increasing its defence budget from approx 1% of gdp incrementally to say 1.5% (sure higher would be nice) in 10 years etc, we would get extra capabilities (or at least be able to realise fuller capabilities of existing etc). Despite all the gloom and doom with the economy, and despite defence operational savings making life harder for the NZDF on day to day matters, the Govt has said before that some areas will be able to grow where appropriate such as national security/policing etc. Therefore I don't see why capex projects should necessarily suffer, except that say in the next few years Defence will be still busy getting the Labour Govt initiatives fully operational and there won't be much if any slack for many new, no doubt, so the signal for the years following that will be of interest (in terms of this Govt setting the next agenda in terms of capabilities or outputs as they are known here).
Great post Recce.k1! That was a good read. Its good to read an insight in kiwi strategic policy. I like how this thread incorporates robust discussion on hardware but it is always well grounded in strategic purpose.
Anyway one question I have is this: To what degree would it be feasible to attract NZ citizen's to join the RAN as direct entry into our submarine FEG?
Would NZDF take a dim view of this as it bleeds talent from your civi pool (obviously the same pool your own Navy recruits from) or would NZDF potentially see such a move as in your national best interest?
I wouldn't mind shifting the RAN sub FEG to a serious ANZAC platform. I think our boys would respond a lot better with a pretty substantive kiwi influence (NO ONE likes getting shown up by a kiwi.. ).
I understand running your own sub fleet might be prohibitive financially but what if RAN assumes responsibility for hardware platforms and in exchange we target young civi kiwis for direct entry into our sub FEG.
I only have to look at the aussie cricket team...they have been in an absolute coma all summer playing pakistan and the windies (both district level cricket teams at best) and yet as soon as they land in NZ our boys go to a different level (clearly matched by the kiwis).
I wouldn't mind tapping into that kiwi influence and opening up our sub FEG as an Anzac platform.
Would you kiwi's tell us to stick it where the sun dont shine or would there be a few kids who might consider it?
Anyway one question I have is this: To what degree would it be feasible to attract NZ citizen's to join the RAN as direct entry into our submarine FEG?
Would NZDF take a dim view of this as it bleeds talent from your civi pool (obviously the same pool your own Navy recruits from) or would NZDF potentially see such a move as in your national best interest?
I wouldn't mind shifting the RAN sub FEG to a serious ANZAC platform. I think our boys would respond a lot better with a pretty substantive kiwi influence (NO ONE likes getting shown up by a kiwi..
). I understand running your own sub fleet might be prohibitive financially but what if RAN assumes responsibility for hardware platforms and in exchange we target young civi kiwis for direct entry into our sub FEG.
I only have to look at the aussie cricket team...they have been in an absolute coma all summer playing pakistan and the windies (both district level cricket teams at best) and yet as soon as they land in NZ our boys go to a different level (clearly matched by the kiwis).
I wouldn't mind tapping into that kiwi influence and opening up our sub FEG as an Anzac platform.
Would you kiwi's tell us to stick it where the sun dont shine or would there be a few kids who might consider it?
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Going in a slightly different direction but I came across this story here...
Something I did notice which struck me as a little odd though was the the soldier was mentioned as having previously served in the New Zealand Army. That makes me think that he was discharged from service in the NZDF and enlisted in the UK. Given the soldier's actions in this engagement (and that this is not the first army he has served with) I think it fair to say this is a soldier who wants to serve in the military. What I wonder about is what reason(s) did the soldier have for stopping service within the NZDF? Was it a lack of potential growth within the service? Limited pay/compensation? Or some other reason entirely perhaps.
I wonder because the state of the NZDF at present in some ways reminds me of the condition a number of armed services were in during the 1930's. For those who remember their history, much of the military equipment and doctrine in use by what became the Allied Powers during the early portion of the Second World War was either obsolete or fast becoming it. With the advances in technology and corresponding increase in complexity found in military systems, it now takes significant time to produce such systems, as well as properly train personnel in their operations and maintenance. Given the apparent complacency most Kiwis seem to have on defence matters, it is quite possible that some situation or event could arise which threatens NZ national interests more quickly than the NZDF could execute a buildup for.
-Cheers
Now, a few things came immediately to mind when I read this story about the Kiwi serving in the British Army. The was of course to say, "Well done!" The other was that this particular Kiwi has a pair of hand grenade-sized brass... spheres.
Something I did notice which struck me as a little odd though was the the soldier was mentioned as having previously served in the New Zealand Army. That makes me think that he was discharged from service in the NZDF and enlisted in the UK. Given the soldier's actions in this engagement (and that this is not the first army he has served with) I think it fair to say this is a soldier who wants to serve in the military. What I wonder about is what reason(s) did the soldier have for stopping service within the NZDF? Was it a lack of potential growth within the service? Limited pay/compensation? Or some other reason entirely perhaps.
I wonder because the state of the NZDF at present in some ways reminds me of the condition a number of armed services were in during the 1930's. For those who remember their history, much of the military equipment and doctrine in use by what became the Allied Powers during the early portion of the Second World War was either obsolete or fast becoming it. With the advances in technology and corresponding increase in complexity found in military systems, it now takes significant time to produce such systems, as well as properly train personnel in their operations and maintenance. Given the apparent complacency most Kiwis seem to have on defence matters, it is quite possible that some situation or event could arise which threatens NZ national interests more quickly than the NZDF could execute a buildup for.
-Cheers
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
@ Lancaster Bomber: The DefPros out there would be best to answer that question (as to whether it is viable etc).
But like anything I suspect the answer would depend on Govt-Govt discussions to make it happen (and to get the ball rolling - CN-CN (Chief of Navy) discussions, depending on the strengths of their personal professional relationships etc). I suspect it isn't on the CN's radar anywhere eg RNZN CN may be concerned with filling exisiting surface positions and ensuring talented staff don't leave. Similarly RAN CN may not want it to be felt that they have to call upon the kiwis to help them out etc. Eg patch protections on both sides.
Which is a bit of a shame when you think about the bigger picture, which is ensuring both country's expensive assets and capabilities are fully functioning at max capacity, to justify the huge defence investments etc. For if it were wartime, no one will mind whether your colleague is from another country, as long as they could do the job etc.
Again the DefPros would know better than I but I suspect there would be a few high achievers in the RNZN that would like to progress their careers and try something that is different i.e. subs.
Which neatly falls into Todjaeger's post about Rifleman James McKie. According to this link he joined the British Army in 2006 as a career move (and note his comments at the end "As far as the military experience goes, this is the ultimate for a career soldier"). I don't know the figures but I do know that some NZDF staff do resign and join other forces for career development reasons. It's easier to join the ADF or British Armed Forces due to compatible rank and structure etc. Some people want that sense of adventure and one can only go so far in NZ etc.
Hey another thing I mentioned in my previous post (and I'm sure you said it too a while ago ... and others previously also) is that although the ideal is for OZ and NZ to have 5:1 ratio, which was more or less the case until the aftermath of the ANZUS bust up for us eg RAAF 5 strike sqns v RNZAF 1 strike sqn or RAN approx 14 surface combatants (+ 6 subs) v RNZN approx 3-4 surface combatants etc or 24 Hercs v 5 Hercs (although the RAAF picture has changed with the C130J/C17 combo now etc).
I mentioned that this is no longer the norm here in NZ nowadays (again more or less since the mid-80's) eg there is no way NZ would have say, 1.2 subs v OZ 6 subs, or NZ 20 JSF's v OZ 100 JSF's etc, it ain't going to happen because the NZ Govt (either major party) will do what it feels it ought to do, not what another country wants it to do (seeing that NZ isn't in ANZUS and thus doesn't have the US "pressure" behind the scenes to keep up etc).
But the problem here is that when NZ does (did) have a capability, let's say the air combat sqn of A-4's, the problem is maintaining this investment not only in aircraft, operational and training costs, but periodic upgrades (periodically these can be huge costs in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars etc). Which means say the A-4's don't get these upgrades in a timely manner and more or less become useless for coalition type operations (eg they may not have the latest counter measures, data links, weapons thus doctrines) so they are seen more as a liability for coalition partners eg think GW (when the A4's were considered but not offered) or maybe even East Timor as per Mr C's & GF's discussions in the RNZAF thread a couple of months ago. Which isn't necessarily an issue if the NZ Govt is happy to allow the bigger players undetake these roles and keep the A4's for worse case scenario all out war in this region etc. But the problem we then have is, if they aren't deployed they aren't used and the Treasury (and the peaceniks) start worrying about investments that can be considered white elephants.
Perhaps then, in this new era of proposed ANZAC cooperation, NZ and OZ should rethink this 5:1 model. For example, if OZ is to buy 24 Super Hornets to replace the F111's for long range strike, hypothetically then (and as there is no way NZ itself will buy a full sqn of 14 or so SH's, maybe NZ should only be buying approx 5 SH's (5:1 approx). Whilst only 3 or so may be operational at any one time, is this really an issue in peacetime? In "wartime" the 3-5 NZ SH's would reinforce the OZ ones, despite the numbers being low at least the NZ ones are full kitted out with the same level of expensive counter measures and so on. At least logistical support would be 100% compatible etc. For me personally, the ideal would be an RNZAF with "long" range strike capabilites to operate with the P3's to deter/counter any hostile martime force in our region or SEA, long range interdiction, some air-air for defensive reasons (and maybe stuff the CAS role for the Army)?
Ok this theory does fall down in places eg if ADF ever acquires 100 JSF's, I still couldn't see NZ acquiring 20 because of the overall costs (and operational/upgrade costs), but maybe the answer is, NZ doesn't not entirley emulate the OZ situation in all cases, eg maybe we buy I dunno, 8-10 SH's and forget the F35 for the timebeing (at least not for another 10 years when prices drop etc)? After all what's it to be, NZ with a small but properly functioning ACF that can seamlessly slot into an ADF OrBat or a second rate NZ ACF eg A4's (or none at all as at present)?
But like anything I suspect the answer would depend on Govt-Govt discussions to make it happen (and to get the ball rolling - CN-CN (Chief of Navy) discussions, depending on the strengths of their personal professional relationships etc). I suspect it isn't on the CN's radar anywhere eg RNZN CN may be concerned with filling exisiting surface positions and ensuring talented staff don't leave. Similarly RAN CN may not want it to be felt that they have to call upon the kiwis to help them out etc. Eg patch protections on both sides.
Which is a bit of a shame when you think about the bigger picture, which is ensuring both country's expensive assets and capabilities are fully functioning at max capacity, to justify the huge defence investments etc. For if it were wartime, no one will mind whether your colleague is from another country, as long as they could do the job etc.
Again the DefPros would know better than I but I suspect there would be a few high achievers in the RNZN that would like to progress their careers and try something that is different i.e. subs.
Which neatly falls into Todjaeger's post about Rifleman James McKie. According to this link he joined the British Army in 2006 as a career move (and note his comments at the end "As far as the military experience goes, this is the ultimate for a career soldier"). I don't know the figures but I do know that some NZDF staff do resign and join other forces for career development reasons. It's easier to join the ADF or British Armed Forces due to compatible rank and structure etc. Some people want that sense of adventure and one can only go so far in NZ etc.
Hey another thing I mentioned in my previous post (and I'm sure you said it too a while ago ... and others previously also) is that although the ideal is for OZ and NZ to have 5:1 ratio, which was more or less the case until the aftermath of the ANZUS bust up for us eg RAAF 5 strike sqns v RNZAF 1 strike sqn or RAN approx 14 surface combatants (+ 6 subs) v RNZN approx 3-4 surface combatants etc or 24 Hercs v 5 Hercs (although the RAAF picture has changed with the C130J/C17 combo now etc).
I mentioned that this is no longer the norm here in NZ nowadays (again more or less since the mid-80's) eg there is no way NZ would have say, 1.2 subs v OZ 6 subs, or NZ 20 JSF's v OZ 100 JSF's etc, it ain't going to happen because the NZ Govt (either major party) will do what it feels it ought to do, not what another country wants it to do (seeing that NZ isn't in ANZUS and thus doesn't have the US "pressure" behind the scenes to keep up etc).
But the problem here is that when NZ does (did) have a capability, let's say the air combat sqn of A-4's, the problem is maintaining this investment not only in aircraft, operational and training costs, but periodic upgrades (periodically these can be huge costs in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars etc). Which means say the A-4's don't get these upgrades in a timely manner and more or less become useless for coalition type operations (eg they may not have the latest counter measures, data links, weapons thus doctrines) so they are seen more as a liability for coalition partners eg think GW (when the A4's were considered but not offered) or maybe even East Timor as per Mr C's & GF's discussions in the RNZAF thread a couple of months ago. Which isn't necessarily an issue if the NZ Govt is happy to allow the bigger players undetake these roles and keep the A4's for worse case scenario all out war in this region etc. But the problem we then have is, if they aren't deployed they aren't used and the Treasury (and the peaceniks) start worrying about investments that can be considered white elephants.
Perhaps then, in this new era of proposed ANZAC cooperation, NZ and OZ should rethink this 5:1 model. For example, if OZ is to buy 24 Super Hornets to replace the F111's for long range strike, hypothetically then (and as there is no way NZ itself will buy a full sqn of 14 or so SH's, maybe NZ should only be buying approx 5 SH's (5:1 approx). Whilst only 3 or so may be operational at any one time, is this really an issue in peacetime? In "wartime" the 3-5 NZ SH's would reinforce the OZ ones, despite the numbers being low at least the NZ ones are full kitted out with the same level of expensive counter measures and so on. At least logistical support would be 100% compatible etc. For me personally, the ideal would be an RNZAF with "long" range strike capabilites to operate with the P3's to deter/counter any hostile martime force in our region or SEA, long range interdiction, some air-air for defensive reasons (and maybe stuff the CAS role for the Army)?
Ok this theory does fall down in places eg if ADF ever acquires 100 JSF's, I still couldn't see NZ acquiring 20 because of the overall costs (and operational/upgrade costs), but maybe the answer is, NZ doesn't not entirley emulate the OZ situation in all cases, eg maybe we buy I dunno, 8-10 SH's and forget the F35 for the timebeing (at least not for another 10 years when prices drop etc)? After all what's it to be, NZ with a small but properly functioning ACF that can seamlessly slot into an ADF OrBat or a second rate NZ ACF eg A4's (or none at all as at present)?
Last edited:
With the white paper looking for savings, I doubt seriously whether New Zealand is going to expand its military capabilities with any air combat force. New Zealand should concentrate on keeping whatever capabilities they have left....
Within the next twenty years, New Zealand will have to replace almost everything they use outside of what they have acquired during the last ten years. The Orions and Hercules will have to be replaced, along with Resolution and Endeavour, There is easily two billion dollars here that need replacement.
Within the next twenty years, New Zealand will have to replace almost everything they use outside of what they have acquired during the last ten years. The Orions and Hercules will have to be replaced, along with Resolution and Endeavour, There is easily two billion dollars here that need replacement.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Fortunately the White Paper isn't looking at savings as such (currently that's an across the board exercise for all Govt depts - plus also the political dimension is that the new Govt came into power on a promise not to cut Govt depts, despite the Govt sector growing much more rapidly compared to the private sector under Labour's term in power, hence in this term the issue one of efficiencies etc), but it is looking some 25 years out and under that scenario, surely I would hope, contingencies are being looked into if things go pear shaped, especially if as we are to believe that in that timeframe the US's role in this wider region will change/reduce as China starts to assert herself to maintain economic expansion etc.
Either the Whitepaper will confirm NZ is out of the game and dipose of the Macchis (either way the A4's won't be coming back, they have had their day), or hopefully it will retain some for pilot and other service training as an insurance measure.
So I am merely putting the thought out there and used an example of the ACF (SH's) also in terms of the proposed ANZAC model being escalated. In other words if this were ever to happen (hypothetical), should NZ retain its traditional "independent" stance and form its own squadron? But history shows we always just manage to afford a more basic capability than the Ozzies, which means they might not be up to spec for a deployment, and find we don't really have the money to actually fund their through-life upgrades in a timely manner etc.
So could the alternative be to purchase a few aircraft (with all the bells and whistles) for an independant flight, but forms part of a wider ANZAC squadron?
(Seeing that the Army always grumbled that the RNZAF's CAS training was simply one, maybe 2, A4's dropping a simulated bomb, I really don't think it will bother the Army if only one SH turned up? Whereas on a real deployment overseas CAS would be provided by allied powers [or maybe this ANZAC sqn concept] ... that was Army heirachy thinking, hence why they didn't careless if the NZ ACF was ditched a few years ago, frees up the money for .. 105x LAV's)!
Bear in mind effeciencies of scale would mean training and conversion in Australia, NZ would have a flight of aircraft to serve peace time purposes here in NZ. But it could also mean periodically a flight of RAAF SH's base themselves in NZ, maybe for a few days or weeks, whilst undergoing mountain terrain flying training exercises with their kiwi counterparts - win/win!
When it comes to major wargame exercises and the like, the flight simply joins their Aussie counterparts and partake as that single ANZAC sqn - no issues here that I can see.
Bearing in mind also that technology is increasingly being supported by the manufacturers/thru life support now etc (think RAAF C17's, Wedgetails and SH's), again this means NZ doesn't need to overly invest in support infrastructure [personnel, accomodation, superannuation....] , just the basics and a few skilled personnel (and I'm sure a few kiwis wouldn't mind being sent over to OZ to work with their counterparts in their support facilities i.e. a handful would be based/rotated over there). Hopefully this would finally put a smile on the faces of the beancounters at Treasury!
Just a thought, it's better than rolling over and taking it up the .... (by thinking we've reached the endgame point as the pollies want us to believe)
Either the Whitepaper will confirm NZ is out of the game and dipose of the Macchis (either way the A4's won't be coming back, they have had their day), or hopefully it will retain some for pilot and other service training as an insurance measure.
So I am merely putting the thought out there and used an example of the ACF (SH's) also in terms of the proposed ANZAC model being escalated. In other words if this were ever to happen (hypothetical), should NZ retain its traditional "independent" stance and form its own squadron? But history shows we always just manage to afford a more basic capability than the Ozzies, which means they might not be up to spec for a deployment, and find we don't really have the money to actually fund their through-life upgrades in a timely manner etc.
So could the alternative be to purchase a few aircraft (with all the bells and whistles) for an independant flight, but forms part of a wider ANZAC squadron?
(Seeing that the Army always grumbled that the RNZAF's CAS training was simply one, maybe 2, A4's dropping a simulated bomb, I really don't think it will bother the Army if only one SH turned up? Whereas on a real deployment overseas CAS would be provided by allied powers [or maybe this ANZAC sqn concept] ... that was Army heirachy thinking, hence why they didn't careless if the NZ ACF was ditched a few years ago, frees up the money for .. 105x LAV's)!
Bear in mind effeciencies of scale would mean training and conversion in Australia, NZ would have a flight of aircraft to serve peace time purposes here in NZ. But it could also mean periodically a flight of RAAF SH's base themselves in NZ, maybe for a few days or weeks, whilst undergoing mountain terrain flying training exercises with their kiwi counterparts - win/win!
When it comes to major wargame exercises and the like, the flight simply joins their Aussie counterparts and partake as that single ANZAC sqn - no issues here that I can see.
Bearing in mind also that technology is increasingly being supported by the manufacturers/thru life support now etc (think RAAF C17's, Wedgetails and SH's), again this means NZ doesn't need to overly invest in support infrastructure [personnel, accomodation, superannuation....] , just the basics and a few skilled personnel (and I'm sure a few kiwis wouldn't mind being sent over to OZ to work with their counterparts in their support facilities i.e. a handful would be based/rotated over there). Hopefully this would finally put a smile on the faces of the beancounters at Treasury!
Just a thought, it's better than rolling over and taking it up the .... (by thinking we've reached the endgame point as the pollies want us to believe)
Last edited: