NZDF General discussion thread

[StevoJH]

Pleassee No Perry Class. I suspect with the changes within each Navy to each ANZAC, especially the recent engine upgrade to the NZ version, that if NZ were to lucky enough to get a 3rd ANZAC then NZ would need to make further modications, but thankfully the core systems (weapons) would be the same.

Not unless the Kiwi ANZAC's have ESSM, Harpoon and lots of 25mm computer controlled guns. Plus in a few more years all the Australian ANZACs will have CEAPAR and CEAFAR.

]What's the state of the RAN ANZAC crewing situation? Could NZ lease an (unmodified/non-upgraded) ANZAC off Australia now-ish (ie within a couple of years)?

I was under the impression that the ANZAC's were all crewed and that the problem was with manning the submarines. First of the ANZACs is already inrefit to receive CEAPAR and CEAFAR, in a couple of years time they will all have it.

Doubt the RAN would willingly give up a surface combatant so soon after loosing two of the Adelaides and while expecting only three AWD's.

 

[recce.k1]

Cheers for your thoughts there StevoJH. I wouldn't really have expected that RAN ANZAC's would be given up so easily, but just put the question out there.

Similarly I'm still interested in whether if the UK's SDR (unfortunately) recommends getting rid of further T23 Frigates, whether NZ should jump in quite quickly and take a couple of them? (Granted, due to geopolitics, it could be in the UK's favour to offer them again to say Chile etc, so shore up support for the Falkland/Argentine issue, so potentially NZ could luck out but that's the UK's choice).

What I find interesting about the T23 is that whilst the crewing numbers are roughly the same, they have approx half the compliment of officers. Surely it's easier to get the trades up to speed than it is to have to find a bunch of commissioned and qualified officers, so surely the T23 may have some advantages in requiring fewer officers?

The other thing is that the T23's would come bristling with weapons (Harpoon etc) and sensors, so may not need much spent on them in terms of future upgrades (unlike the NZ ANZAC's which need some $500M-$1B spent on them depending on where the Govt draws the line), perhaps though some money could have to be spent on commonality of some sensors with what the RNZN use etc?

Another advantage is that the T23's and ANZAC's would need to be replaced in the 2020-2030 timeframe, which allows NZ to nicely slot into the ANZAC II replacement programme i.e. 3 or 4 ships.

The reason why I suggest two T23's (to give a 4 Frigate Navy) is because of two reasons, firstly the "Outputs" as funded by Govt aren't being met with only 2 vessels. Secondly it also means NZ wouldn't need to buy that 3rd or 4th OPV as recommended by the earlier Maritime Patrol Review (the exception being what to replace the dive tender and/or survey vessel with - perhaps a modified OPV as Lucas suggests, or something cheap and OTS in the interim) ....... because that could mean that NZ then can sync its OPV programme with the Australian OCV programme (again post 2020)? If you can see what I'm getting at any further OPV's probably won't see some NZ sync up with the OCV project.

Finally seeing sailors (like money) don't grow on trees, NZ has been (esp the RNZAF) recuiting from the UK (which is rather ironic considering the RAF and RAAF snapped up our fast pilots!), hence there should be opportunities to bring some of the UK crews over to the sunny climes of down under!

 

[StevoJH]

I don't see the UK giving up any T23's, their replacement plan hinges on the T23's holding on long enough for them to get the T26 into production. I could possibly see them ditching the oldest two T22B3's early, however even that is unlikely as that would put additional strain on the other ships, strain that would shorten their service lived and make the replacement timeframe a lot tighter.

Edit: the reason being that the UK frigate fleet is scheduled to drop to 15 units in the early 2020's, not increasing back to 17 units again until the late 2030's (~2038) which shows just how finly balanced their procurement system is already.

I don't see them giving up any ships either.

 

[Sea Toby]

I doubt whether New Zealand will buy a third Anzac, but if they did I would think for the best interest of both nations Australia would sell one of theirs, if only to help pay for a fourth Hobart AWD. In the long run the RAN would consists of the same number of ships.

Presumably, the New Zealand Anzacs may not receive the same upgrades, and I doubt whether New Zealand would ever want the harpoons anyway. However, I do expect New Zealand will refit their Anzacs with ESSM. And I am sure Australia wouldn't sell one of their Anzacs that have already been upgraded with CERFAR or CERPAR anyway, unless New Zealand chose to do so with theirs as well...

 

[EnigmaNZ]

The $NZ250m per ship budget for the weapon/sensor upgrade for the Anzacs is up there with the Australian budget per ship with its Cerfar/Cerpar/Essm systems. I just hope the Key government don't downgrade it. If they don't, what will $250m per ship provide?

 

[Cadredave]

The $NZ250m per ship budget for the weapon/sensor upgrade for the Anzacs is up there with the Australian budget per ship with its Cerfar/Cerpar/Essm systems. I just hope the Key government don't downgrade it. If they don't, what will $250m per ship provide?

I think RNZN will wait and see how the first RAN ANZAC shape up after there upgrade, we should see some movement in about 2 - 3 years by my reckoning, im just basing this on the current IW Steyr upgrade which has been pushed out again till the end of this year or start of 2011 it has now become a NZDF project.

 

[blackhawknz]

NZ requires a 4-3 Frigate navy a 2 Frigate navy is no where near what NZ needs to protect its interests and territory and to do its bit in the international community and to stop relying on Australians to protect us. We need two Frigate out on a patrol/Deployment ,1 in training ,1 in Maintenance. As for the ANZAC Frigate replacement I hate to say it but we need to work with the Aussies on this, like we should of done more with the NH90.If we choose a design with the aussies we are going to get more bang for our buck, NZ do have to get all the bells and whistle like the aussie may. The British Type C1s and C2 seem like a logical solution but can not count out the Meko Class,FREMM and co
I Mean we could be cheap and pick up some frigate second hand and upgrade them but that seems a wasted investment bit pointless. And i hope the navy has learnt its lesson with Project Protector that buying cheap and the best

 

[Sea Toby]

NZ requires a 4-3 Frigate navy a 2 Frigate navy is no where near what NZ needs to protect its interests and territory and to do its bit in the international community and to stop relying on Australians to protect us. We need two Frigate out on a patrol/Deployment ,1 in training ,1 in Maintenance. As for the ANZAC Frigate replacement I hate to say it but we need to work with the Aussies on this, like we should of done more with the NH90.If we choose a design with the aussies we are going to get more bang for our buck, NZ do have to get all the bells and whistle like the aussie may. The British Type C1s and C2 seem like a logical solution but can not count out the Meko Class,FREMM and co
I Mean we could be cheap and pick up some frigate second hand and upgrade them but that seems a wasted investment bit pointless. And i hope the navy has learnt its lesson with Project Protector that buying cheap and the best

Unfortunately, its not the navy that needs to learn the lesson of buying cheap, its the government... And as far as the government is concerned, they bought cheap ships and after gong through mediation ended up paying even less... A home run in their minds....

The navy at the turn of the century needed to be refocused. What is the sense of having warships capable of being deployed half way around the world when you couldn't defend or patrol your own fisheries? Not to mention the navy didn't have a proper sea lift capacity either for the army...

Too many pundits see a shortage of arms, whereas the military sees a lack of logistics... The army and the navy won't go anywhere without logistics.... Recently, the Finns, Swedes, and Irish have learned that proper peacekeepers in Chad and CAR need to do much more in third world nations than patrol... At the moment they are bringing their peacekeepers back home with the mission unfulfilled...

 

[Lucasnz]

Unfortunately, its not the navy that needs to learn the lesson of buying cheap, its the government... And as far as the government is concerned, they bought cheap ships and after gong through mediation ended up paying even less... A home run in their minds....

The navy at the turn of the century needed to be refocused. What is the sense of having warships capable of being deployed half way around the world when you couldn't defend or patrol your own fisheries? Not to mention the navy didn't have a proper sea lift capacity either for the army...

Absolutely correct, on the first point. I agree that NZ should be able to protect its economic resources at sea but I would suggest that the the navy did not need to be refocused (which entails visions of Green Party policies), just better balanced, than what it was. We had a semblance of that balance during the 1980's but lost it with the withdrawal of the Lake Class Patrol craft and the reduction in the survey fleet, which contributed to coastal survelliance.

The lack of sea lift wasn't the navy's fault, Defence had been been pushing for a sealift capability since the late 1980's. Monawai carried out that function to a limited extent, but the failure of Charles Upham is more the fault of certain politicans, who failed to provide the funds for the necessary modifications than navy, though I accept it would never have been close to Canterbury in capabilities.

I might add that changes in naval capability have largely been brought about by Labour. In 1987 we got Endeavour, after Labour had to rely on on the RAN for the Anti Nuclear protests of the 1970's off Murorua. Shortly after the Rainbow Warrior a new diving tender showed up, and Labour acquired Canterbury I suspect as a result of its experiences with the Fiji Coup, of which most of the last Labour cabient were involved in as members of Lange's government.

 

[Todjaeger]

5. Establishment of a standing Ready Reaction company or expanision of QAMR into a third battalion.
6. Upgrade of Frigates, including new ASW Torpedos. Wouldn't mind seeing the Orion ASW upgraded to.

Sorry for the delay in completing my post made earlier about Lucasnz's points, that is what happens when one gets distracted around tax season...

#5. IMO it could be good for the NZDF to have a standing Ready/Rapid Reaction company, I am just not certain that as the NZDF is currently constituted, it is doable. Same story for expanding QAMR back to battalion strength. The numbers were posted previously either in this or the Kiwi army thread (by Mr. C I think), and IIRC the defence budget would need to be increased by ~20% to fund a third battalion. Something which I do not think is currently feasible (politically anyway) and IMO the two are linked. In order for the NZDF to keep a company-sized unit on alert and able to deploy within 24 hours (or 48, 72, etc) as a unit, the Rapid Reaction company would need to be part of a larger command unit, with each deployable company taking turns being stood up on alert for deployment. This is because the only way a force can be maintained at a ready status, yet still receive the needed periodic skilling and exercises for only a portion of the time to be on the alert status. That or have a very loose defintion of what constituted a 'rapid' reaction, to give personnel time to return from leaves, collect kit, etc. In effect, to have a deployable Rapid Reaction company, a battalion structure would need to be in place, with each company in the battalion taking their respective turns serving as the Rapid Reaction company. Given that the NZDF only currently has ~2 battalions at present, either a third battalion would need to be re-constituted, or one of the two current battalions would need to be re-roled to provide whatever capabilities were desired or deemed necessary in the Rapid Reaction company.

#6. IMO all the upgrades need to be done. The Anzac frigates are approaching their mid-life points, and given the improvements in weaponry (offensive and defensive) as well as electronics, they should certainly be upgraded. At present, they are incapable of operating in a potential high-threat enviroment without a higher level of capability to provide force protection for them. In effect, an escort for what is essentially an escort vessel. In the ASEAN/S Pacific area, the Anzac FFH provide overmatch capability only with some S Pacific island nations. Given the time the ADF has spent in developing their Anzac FFH upgrade, it would seem sensible for the RNZN to follow suit, the possible exceptions of keeping the upgraded RNZN Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS and not adding Harpoon AShM launchers. Excepting the torpedoe and ASW upgrades which I will cover further on, the most critical areas for improvement would be fitting quad-packed ESSM in place of the Sea Sparrow SAM, and the CEA-Mount illuminator for missile guidance. After this, then fitting improved radar arrays like the CEA-FAR which has been trialed aboard RAN Anzacs and is planned for their (the RAN's) upgrade path.

Perhaps the single most needed improvement the RNZN needs though is for a lwt replacement. According to the now somewhat dated LTDP, the current RNZN lwt (light weight torpedoe) stocks were/are set to reach their expiration dates either in 2008 or this year, 2010. As I understand it, what this will then mean is that, without replacing the current torpedoes, the RNZN could find themselves in a position where they fire at a target and the torpedoe might not work. Either the motor might not activate, the guidance could fatal, or the warhead might have decayed into being a dud/effectively inert. This would leave the RNZN with no effective way to conduct ASW operations, making this worse is that according to the LTDP, the torpedoe replacement had been postponed until ~2015 IIRC. Something needs to be gotten to give the NZDF some form of ASW torpedoe, otherwise the NZDF risks finding itself with no effective ASW capability. Not a good place for a nation made up of islands to find itself in.

As a general rule, all NZDF ASW capabilities could do with some boosting. Aside from the issues I indicated above about the lack of an effective ASW torpedo, the ASW sensors are also rather few and poorly suited to providing a reliable submarine engagement capability. The frigates need to be provided with towed sonar arrays, the P-3K needs to have the ASW sonobuoy processors need to be upgraded or replaced, along with the sonobuoys. Also, a naval helicopter capable of ASW operations is needed, as the SH-2G(NZ) is currently configured for ASuW. They can AFAIK carry/drop torpedoes, but the Seasprites lack sonobuoys and dipping sonars. This means that the helicopters are dependent on sub detection and guidance from a vessel. Given that the frigates are currently only fitted with a hull-mounted sonar, a hostile sub might not be detected until heavyweight torpedoes have already been fired at a target.

-Cheers

 

[bonehead]

NZDF could have fast jets ablity with Hawks, as the NZDF is more geared to home defence than force projection and would normally operate with australia who also use hawks though as trainners they are more affordable that f16/18 thay also have airdefence as well as ground attack ablitys, or 2nd hand tornados from the RAF.

as for navy i understand hey are also talking of joining the britsh next frigate programme,

 

[Sea Toby]

The acquisition of a third frigate would enable NZ to maintain a deployment of a frigate as part of a multi national force. It is too late to buy another Anzac, but it may be possible to have a Meko 200 hull built in Germany and fitted out like an upgraded Anzac (with the present ships also being upgraded of course). Alternatively a simplified version of the new Australian AWD minus AEGIS and the long range missile system might be a good solution. I think both these possibilities were put forward in the previous thread.

Coming back to the air combat capability, this may not be something that would be a high priority (though obviously it would be a handy asset) for home defence but, like a third frigate, it would enable NZ to contribute to multi national operations.

In this thread we are talking about a new government that wants to increase NZ's regional power status so we would have to presume that the defence budget would be increased accordingly. Increasing expenditure annually until it reached at least 2% of GDP would be a reasonable target to bring it closer to that of Australia. Over time this should enable a third frigate to be acquired and a small air combat force to be re-established as well as expanding, modernising and further enhancing existing assets, along the lines suggested by AD.


Cheers

But considering budget realities, New Zealand will be lucky to maintain its defence spending of one percent GDP.... I don't see any increased defence spending until there is a credible threat. Until that time New Zealand will find it difficult to maintain a defence force capable of participating in UN peacekeeping missions...

 

[MrConservative]

But considering budget realities, New Zealand will be lucky to maintain its defence spending of one percent GDP.... I don't see any increased defence spending until there is a credible threat. Until that time New Zealand will find it difficult to maintain a defence force capable of participating in UN peacekeeping missions...

Things will be tight in terms of defence appropriations until after the 2013 budget. I agree with what you say in the short term, however there is alot of untapped potential in the NZ economy, which is currently being unblocked after a decade of fiscal economic mismanagement and poor planning by the previous government. Remember the NZ GDP debt ratio is in far better state than alot of nations including your own and the Eurozone.

I have spoken to a couple of members of the defence select committee over the last three months and generally they don't hold pessimistic views regarding defence funding long term. There are core items that need replacing and why the delay we have at present over the DWP is trying to get a long term funding model sorted.

New Zealand would have no trouble with Chapter VI UN ops - however the capability gap is in Chapter VII ops - I think that is the point you must be making. It is doing its fair share at the moment for a DF of only 11000 personnel in regards to incidents around the world.

It is not a blockage of funding that represents a comparitively low GDP defence spend - it is essentially the political choice not to spend so much. My view all along is about getting the right balance in terms of capability per defence spend - in my view there are a number of nations who sort of throw money at defence and leave other areas of their economy and society under-funded. To be honest I dont think NZ needs to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. In my view a gradual rise to a 1.5% to 1.75% spend over the decade would get us into very good shape.

 

[recce.k1]

Talking of the defence white paper, I came across this defense news article from Feb.
New Zealand Budget Flatlines, But Forces Can Expect New Gear - Defense News
Some interesting ideas and figures in there. Seems some in navy and air force are still keen on the JSS and C17/A400 respectively - but time will tell what Govt actually funds. Except to say I hope this Govt has learned the lesson of the previous Govt, which is buying cheap (eg Project Protector and C130 life extension programme) hasn't delivered the "value for money" expected (see the bit about Des Ashton from MoD spending 70% of his time sorting out Project Protector - amazing as I don't think he's been in the job for that long)! Time (for govt) to listen to what the defence forces actually want, rather than dictate what they should buy for a change now eh

On another note I'm curious what the possible Brazil connection to NZ could be. Are they peddling their Real (dollars) to buy influence in the Pacific like China/Taiwan/Japan? NZ has had a "long" standing (economy) relationship with Chile, I would have expected perhaps greater cooperation with them (perhaps esp with the Polynesian/Chillian links to the likes of Easter Island eg perhaps maritime survellience/SAR coordination etc)?

Seatoby: where did ya grab that Tasman quote from? It's been a long time since we've had the pleasure of reading his considered and thoughtful opinions here

 

[RegR]

Seems crazy that the originally envisaged C130 life extension would have got them to 2014 and now with the delays is pushing their lives out to 2017, I'm no enginneer or anything but how can we possibly just keep extending an already over fatiged and worn out platforms lifespan. I suppose that is just the way of our defence force to run equipment into the ground until all they are good for is a junkyard or a museum.
Buy some kit- have a use by date- extend use well beyond that date- give kit some duct tape, bungy chord and a paint job and extend more- finally decide to replace and then have to wait even longer until new kit is chosen, aqquired, learnt, de-bugged, tweaked and introduced.
Why do we spend millions to just drag out the inevitable instead of just biting the bullet, spending abit more and reaping the rewards.

 

[blackhawknz]

NZHERALD: The Government is considering taking over Safe Air in Blenheim so the air force can finish having its five C-130 Hercules upgraded.

Though the $234 million upgrade started in 2005 it has run years late, largely because of software delays in work to be done by overseas contractors hampering the project.

Safe Air was meant to do its part of the upgrade once the planes returned from overseas, but delays meant staff set to do the job could not get onwith it.
Defence Minister Wayne Mapp told Radio New Zealand this morning that discussions were under way and a decision would be made in a matter of weeks, before the deadline for crucial staff at Safe Air to be laid off.

Safe Air no longer wants the contract but the Government wants it done and is considering taking over the Air New Zealand subsidiary to get progress.

"It's our key interest to have the three aircraft upgraded, as I say the kits are there, the people are there and that's why we having the discussions," he told Radio New Zealand
Earlier this year NZPA reported that software bugs were behind Air New Zealand's decision to lay off about 100 staff at Blenheim.

The first aircraft in the fleet went to Canada in 2005. It returned to New Zealand more than four years later, still with bugs in its software and was not accepted by the air force.

After the first aircraft upgrade Spar Aerospace, which won the original contract in Canada, went out of business and the contract was taken over by L-3 Communications.

A second upgraded aircraft had the same bugs in its software, and was also rejected by the air force. It was completed at L-3 in Waco, Texas.

The bugs delayed the Air New Zealand upgrade of the other three fleet aircraft, causing the airline to announce it would have to lay off 100 staff.

Dr Mapp previously said "legal remedies" were being considered against L-3 over the 2-1/2-year delay in delivering the aircraft to Safe Air for the upgrade work.

Today he said there would be no additional cost to have the contract completed.

The upgrade involved the replacement of mechanical, avionic, and structural components, and the design and installation of modern communications and navigations system to meet air traffic management regulations around the world.

The software problems did not cause problems with the performance of the air.


gOD.......... Now we are going to buy the company to get the job done.The Labour Goverment stuffed this protect just so bad it aint fun ,carrys on from there great thinking handling of Project Protector ,Orion Upgrade,B757 upgrade.....They should of jumped on board with the RAAF when they purchased C130j and brought 2-3 aircraft .Then carrired out a upgrade on 2-3 the C130H with an exsiting Avi&Com&Nav upgrade availalbe on world markett.

 

[Gibbo]

Talking of the defence white paper, I came across this defense news article from Feb.
New Zealand Budget Flatlines, But Forces Can Expect New Gear - Defense News
Some interesting ideas and figures in there. Seems some in navy and air force are still keen on the JSS and C17/A400 respectively - but time will tell what Govt actually funds. Except to say I hope this Govt has learned the lesson of the previous Govt, which is buying cheap (eg Project Protector and C130 life extension programme) hasn't delivered the "value for money" expected (see the bit about Des Ashton from MoD spending 70% of his time sorting out Project Protector - amazing as I don't think he's been in the job for that long)! Time (for govt) to listen to what the defence forces actually want, rather than dictate what they should buy for a change now eh

On another note I'm curious what the possible Brazil connection to NZ could be. Are they peddling their Real (dollars) to buy influence in the Pacific like China/Taiwan/Japan? NZ has had a "long" standing (economy) relationship with Chile, I would have expected perhaps greater cooperation with them (perhaps esp with the Polynesian/Chillian links to the likes of Easter Island eg perhaps maritime survellience/SAR coordination etc)?

Seatoby: where did ya grab that Tasman quote from? It's been a long time since we've had the pleasure of reading his considered and thoughtful opinions here

I hadn't seen that 'defensenews' article but it isn't a very encouraging read! It's mentions no funding increase & loss of DSI etc, which was a positive step. With regard to 'expect new gear' - all the article really points to is the stuff already order & due to arrive!

Having said that, I think this is a rather shallow article & more an 'opinion' piece - the reality will lie somewhere in between. I think we'll see a few surprises (possibly even a few cuts) but in turn get a carefully planned sustainable plan to improve the NZDF - although forget any silly ideas of a big spend-up on lots of new high-tech gear.

 

[wkill]

New Zealand IS a regional power. Apart from Australia, which Country in her region can match the military power she can generate?

new zealand couldn't defend its shore from an invasion of rabbits!
i personaaly believe that nzdf wouldn't retaliate from an offensive attack until it would be too late to do anything about it.
to answer his question i would say convert existing factories into tank and munitions factories to give us some fire power that we do not have.

 

[wkill]

Recce, as a fellow Kiwi, I think I can answer the question as to why NZ didn't acquire another ANZAC. This is because our government is an incredibly myopic and bludging bunch of gits who expect everyone else to do our dirty work for us.....God defend NZ, yep, but only because we can't, or won't do it for ourselves. Sorry folks, just a rant is all!

as a kiwi i will second that.
the media and govt are proud that we are reliant on other countries, have a gang problem who are pumping drugs into the streets, crappy actors and very poor technology.

God defend NZ, yep, but only because we can't, or won't do it for ourselves. hit the money

 

[Lucasnz]

new zealand couldn't defend its shore from an invasion of rabbits!

You are correct NZ has failed to stem the invasion of rabbits, despite the use of biological warfare.

i personaaly believe that nzdf wouldn't retaliate from an offensive attack until it would be too late to do anything about it.

Whether the NZDF wants to retaliate against against some aggressive attack, outside of deployed operations with standing rules of engagement is irrelevant. The NZDF is subject to political control, therefore it is the politicians that will decide if we retaliate. It will be the NZDF decision (after talking to the government) to choose the method of retalitation that best meets the governments objectives.

to answer his question i would say convert existing factories into tank and munitions factories to give us some fire power that we do not have.

Tried that in WWII - The tank was a joke, the land mines seemed to work. We could build more OPV's with a big cross saying hit here

If you're new to the defence debate, which your post suggests you are my I suggest a couple of books. The first one is called "Defending New Zealand" and the second one is "The Armed Forces of New Zealand" by James Rolfe. Both good books, though starting to get a little dated.

Defence Talk is a good site for disguntled Kiwis to vent their spleen, but be prepared to learn from what is posted, defend and in the face of overwhelming odds change, your views on issues. Hope to see you on the site more.