NZDF General discussion thread

[BullyHayes]

The recent sinking of the survey vessel and resultant inquiry report has made it glaringly apparent to the public what a massive mountain the NZ military has to climb to re-establish expertise and experience to be an effective organisation. I do wonder however, whether the Govt has made the same realisation

 

[kiwi in exile]

The recent sinking of the survey vessel and resultant inquiry report has made it glaringly apparent to the public what a massive mountain the NZ military has to climb to re-establish expertise and experience to be an effective organisation. I do wonder however, whether the Govt has made the same realisation

I'm sure I heard part of a clip on rnz where defmin Collins blamed part of on the mess they inherited from the previous govt. Henare also blamed our COVID response.

Even if our forces were optimally skilled and staffed for their current capabilities, big picture is we still wouldn't have relevant combat capability or deterrence for the current geopol reality, which has clearly been evolving to where it is now for 5 or so years.
There are two concurrent problems: loss of staff in terms of skill, experience, numbers. And decade long failure to build and invest in actual fighting capability (too few frigates, cancelled sopv, no missiles) etc.

We need to fix the 2 st before we can fix the 2 nd. But we need to start working on both

 

[Rob c]

I'm sure I heard part of a clip on rnz where defmin Collins blamed part of on the mess they inherited from the previous govt. Henare also blamed our COVID response.

The personnel retention problem mainly dates back to the Key government reforms of the the terms, conditions and pay of the defence personal in 2012. While there was the start of a problem concerning the retention of experienced staff as pointed out in the 2011 defence white paper, so the government instead of addressing this problem went and made it far worse by removing or reducing terms and conditions of those personnel who they had been warned that there was a problem developing. (Real Smart, not )

And decade long failure to build and invest in actual fighting capability (too few frigates, cancelled sopv, no missiles) etc.

This failure dates back far further to 1999 and the Clark government and the cancelling of the AFC and the third frigate, pluss major reductions in update and replacement projects with the exception of the LAV 111 as this was seen as good for peacekeeping.

 

[htbrst]

The DCP is being released now

Watch live: Coalition unveils $12 billion dollar Defence Capability Plan

Christopher Luxon speaks to media after today's Cabinet meeting.

www.rnz.co.nz

 

[pea032]

Doesn't help the MoD website is down...

But doesn't sound like anything revolutionary, existing projects continuing and maybe ASMs for the frigates and P8s

 

[Bevan]

Devil will be in the detail and understand they need to sort out recruitment first - something they could have started 1 year ago..

At the moment, Im underwhelmed tbh.

Website seems to be working, DCP finally downloaded.

 

[ADMk2]

https://www.nzdf.mil.nz/assets/Uploads/DocumentLibrary/24-0253-NZDF-Defence-Capability-Plan-Single.pdf

The plan…

 

[RubiconNZ]

Doesn't help the MoD website is down...

But doesn't sound like anything revolutionary, existing projects continuing and maybe ASMs for the frigates and P8s

It is exactly the foundation that is needed to get the NZDF on track. I would have been suspicious in anything "revolutionary" as it would have been out of place for our immediate needs this is exactly the shot in the arm we need, coupled with a favourable budget in May for pay and conditions for personnel.

Important details are up to 2 Billion for Maritime Helicopters, that is no half measure and would see a respective sizeable number for us. (Spain Purchases 8 MH60's for $950 US)
Unmanned capability across most areas, though the spend indicator suggests Tritons are sadly out of the picture. Up to 1 billion for Strategic Transports with reference to personnel movement and freight, seemingly divergent from a commercial lease of A320 size aircraft which was mooted last year and reference personnel only. I don't want to get carried away but if joint capability is on the cards RAAF has capability in that space which I think we could mirror, and Whenuapai has the space for all of it.

Strike capability for P8's, Frigates, and potential land based systems which going down the joint path with Australia may see the 16th Field Regiment being renamed.

A good start on defence estate but a lot more is needed but will get the ball rolling. Devonport looks like it will stay put for the foreseeable future and recent developments to Whenuapai and Ardmore will see RNZAF Auckland and Papakura retained also.

Finally a focus on the defence industry it doesn't take a genius to see we lost out in hundreds of millions by not working with Australia with its invigoration of their defence industry over the last 10 year.

This is exactly the jumpstart required and if adhered to will be incredible for the NZDF and NZ. As the PM said this is the floor not the ceiling.

NB Should the coalition be returned I would expect the Frigate replacement to be mentioned in the next 2 year review.

(Low Quality) Press Conference 50 Minutes Youtube

 

[downunderblue]

Anyone know whether the Defence Capability Plan is bipartisan?

I went looking for Labour Party comment but couldn't find it.

 

[Bevan]

Important details are up to 2 Billion for Maritime Helicopters, that is no half measure and would see a respective sizeable number for us. (Spain Purchases 8 MH60's for $950 US)

And Norway purchased 6 MH-60R and associated equipment for $1.1B USD. $1.1B USD is roughly $2B NZD - lets hope thats a rather large + or we are getting a better deal somehow.

Unmanned capability across most areas, though the spend indicator suggests Tritons are sadly out of the picture.

I hope they are talking Sea Guardian at least. Long Range Remotely Piloted Aircraft are also listed under Future Indicative Investments so suggests they will purchase more later once RNZAF are more mature witht he capability.

 

[ADMk2]

And Norway purchased 6 MH-60R and associated equipment for $1.1B USD. $1.1B USD is roughly $2B NZD - lets hope thats a rather large + or we are getting a better deal somehow.


I hope they are talking Sea Guardian at least. Long Range Remotely Piloted Aircraft are also listed under Future Indicative Investments so suggests they will purchase more later once RNZAF are more mature witht he capability.

Not sure what the budget is again, only skimmed the report, but Belgium‘s 4x aircraft (unarmed) order for MQ-9B Sky Guardian placed in 2022 and equipped with the Lynx SAR radar, aircraft and ground control satellite connectivity and designed for maritime patrol was valued at USD $600m. I don’t imagine they have got that much cheaper since then?

US State Department approves sale of Sky Guardian drones to Belgium

The deal could be worth $600 million for four MQ-9Bs and associated systems.

www.defensenews.com

 

[recce.k1]

NB Should the coalition be returned I would expect the Frigate replacement to be mentioned in the next 2 year review.
(Low Quality) Press Conference 50 Minutes Youtube

No doubt you saw it too but in the press conference the CDF mentions the ANZAC's "... skeleton of the ship" are "pretty tired" and are to be funded to give them another 6-7 years in service i.e. 2031/32 (which is consistent with DCP 2019's end-of-life projections - although it had "mid-2030's") ... which presumably aligns with the time it would take for the replacement project (and a shipyard) to build the replacement vessels (well assuming Maritime Fleet Renewal programme makes a recommendation which is approved by Cabinet "soon").

Also interesting the review talks about a potential common hull design (or systems) for the replacement Frigates and OPV's.

Anyone know whether the Defence Capability Plan is bipartisan?

I went looking for Labour Party comment but couldn't find it.

Seems to be bipartisan.

The announcement of new defence spending has been met with initial support from the Opposition, with Labour leader Chris Hipkins saying the Defence Capability Plan was largely in line with what Labour had done while in government.

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

And only a few days ago ...

Labour leader Chris Hipkins says an increase in defence spending is justified regardless of whether New Zealanders support it or not.

Ukraine a case study in how NZ needs to change defence spending - Hipkins

The Labour leader says an increase in defence spending is justified regardless of whether New Zealanders support it or not.

www.rnz.co.nz

 

[Gooey]

RubiconNZ

To a degree yes. If this is funded through the full 8 years, DCP 2025 is certainly far better than the rudderless stagnation that has become the normal for New Zealand since arguably the mid 80's.

I'd like to submit 2 points:
1. Strategically, GDP 2% vote in 8 years is a NATO peace time standard. This is really the amount that we should have been investing since the 90's. With that would have come a core of experienced and well trained personnel who would be able to expand NZDF now. Including ACF.
2. We are not in war but also we are not in peace; with US policy many mainstream European and other countries are now aiming for GDP 3%. The DCP does not seem to apply a degree of urgency in favour of a more measured crawl, walk, run type approach. While that may be politically appropriate it does not address the lack of current NZDF capability. I understand that PM and Collins comments against an instant cash increase/capital equipment buy is the necessity to train but in many ways this is a mountain-comes-to-Mahammad type argument where the youngsters would flood into recruiting in an exciting environment.

Just one of many reasons, mostly kinetic effects of course, why the ACF disbandment killed RNZAF.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Also interesting the review talks about a potential common hull design (or systems) for the replacement Frigates and Opvs

Maybe a combo of say 6 high end fitted for and with and low end fitted for but not with type 31s. The low end opvs can be tooled up as needed with the same systems as the combat ones.

Would have been good to see a commitment to frigate replacement now.

 

[Bevan]

I think we need to consider the common hull statements with the Business Case Development considerations, specifically (and summarising):
1. What is Australia doing, is there a reason for NZ doing something different.
and
3. What is the minimum viable capability needed.

I fear we will get 2x what ever Australia selects for the GPF with the same config and weapons load, then 2x more with weaker radar and gun, but sans vls, AShM, CIWS.. I hope Im wrong on the numbers, but on the plus side the 2x low spec vessals can always be upgraded later.

 

[Todjaeger]

I think we need to consider the common hull statements with the Business Case Development considerations, specifically (and summarising):
1. What is Australia doing, is there a reason for NZ doing something different.
and
3. What is the minimum viable capability needed.

I fear we will get 2x what ever Australia selects for the GPF with the same config and weapons load, then 2x more with weaker radar and gun, but sans vls, AShM, CIWS.. I hope Im wrong on the numbers, but on the plus side the 2x low spec vessals can always be upgraded later.

TBH I think if NZ does opt for some OPV's, then going to the same hull as whatever gets selected as the frigates would be a horrible idea.

People need to remember why OPV's came about, namely so that nations have ocean-going patrol forces that are perfectly adequate for EEZ enforcement and other constabulary duties, but do not cost anywhere near the same as a proper warship. The hull of a typical warship would cost more than that of an OPV because part of the hull design and construction is done with survivability and damage control in mind. The shipboard electronics and CMS for a proper warship, even a corvette the size of an OPV, is going to be both significantly more capable and expensive than would be fitted to an OPV. In terms of costings, IIRC the electronics, CMS and sensors typically approach something like a third of the total build cost. Further, these are systems which cannot typically be added or removed as needed. This means either fitting the systems into the design during the initial build, or a lengthy (a few years at least) rebuild period in a shipyard with the appropriate personnel and skills. A RNZN example of this could easily be the changes made to the sensors and CMS of Kiwi ANZAC-class frigates where the 9LV was removed and replaced by CMS330, along with some changes to the radars whilst in a yard in Canada.

If NZ does decide to get more OPV's, whatever is selected and how many should be completely independent of/not impact the type and number of frigates that the RNZN gets.

If NZ stays in a situation where the RNZN again has two and two of each, the frigates (possibly crew as well) are likely going to be overworked and/or there will be times when NZ gov't needs to be able to deploy a frigate somewhere, but none will be available.

 

[Challenger]

The Arrowhead design must be a shoe in now? With the fleet review being beaucratic theatrics. The Arrowhead is available as both a Frigate (A140) and OPV (A120). Capacity to build them in Scotland quickly, and Babcock have done their homework with NZ Suppliers on board.

 

[Warhawk]

New Zealand can't go down the path of 2 frigates just look when Anzac frigates got upgraded that should never happen where you don't have any vessel's to patrol down to poor management . We have massive patrol area and we left to 2 poorly equipped OPV . I believe myself we should have 3 Frigates and then of different class 3 vessels with same design with one hull used for polar and when not heading south for training. Problem with vessel's used for Polar work shouldn't be equipped with above 30mm gun by law if I am correct but I believe others wouldn't run under same rules. OPV should armed with 76mm gun or Minimum 40mm gun as Main armament even with Polar vessel reduced to meet requirements at least it can upgraded .

 

[Gracie1234]

For the Frigates, the CDF stated 5-7 years of life left. Therefore, a decision will need to made soon, this will be additional funding.
I agree with Challenger, Arrowhead Frigate and OPV, is the model that would suit the RNZN the best. Have two platforms that are as similar as possible so that training, operations and maintenance is common. I would think they are looking at 4 Frigrates and 4 OPVs so we end up with a fleet of 12. This would include the Tanker, Southern Ocean Patrol Vessel and a Multirole/Transport(2) vessel. First cab I am picking is the SOPV once numbers are up.
This would be a vessel for vessel replacement to what we had. We had 2 Frigates, 2 OPVs and 4 IPVs with the SOPV being the additional ship.
No manned Air Combat Force, if these effects are required then uncrewed drones will be used, development is underway in the states as part of the 6th generation fighter aircraft. These are being built to fly independently or alongside manned aircraft. This technology will be mature in a shorter timeframe than it would take for us to regenerate a manned capability.

 

[Gibbo]

My 2c worth.... on the whole a good well-rounded DCP with finally a commitment to get the NZDF off the fence & into use of unmanned systems. The beat-up about lethality is somewhat limited though to existing platforms, but this was never going to be exponential growth. Good to see more facilities improvements etc.... now just bump pay rates & don't give allowances in one hand while taking it from the other!

I don't do lists...but notes I took:

Naval:

1. No obvious commitments around the canned SOPV and little indication of what will happen with Canterbury - well anyone's guess given the naval review is only just getting started... some specialisation is necessary.
2. Once again where's decent MCM capabilty (with quantity)... will that fall under a minor <$50M project? Get the RNZVR involved locally.
3. Non-replacement of Manawanui's specialist capabilities a mis-step... as most navies now start acquiring similar capabilities as underwater sabotage becomes a thing we go 'dump' ours before it barely hit it's stride! An OPV or whatever to fulfil Manawanui's role will be a classic jack of all trades and master of none!
4. Lethality upgrade to ANZACs... well the only 'quick' way to deliver that is replicate ADF's ANZAC + Harpoon which is sunset to them ...I suspect anything more capable won't happen until replacements come on line.
5. Concept of a persistent long-duration unmanned maritime vessel pottering around for a month at bugger-all knots is going to be sleep inducing for operators... and can't deploy boarding parties nor do a lot for SAR recovery work ...not sold on me!

Air / Space:

1. Previous DCP suggested 2 large UAV to compliment P8, seems that might be still the case but arguably less capable given indicative pricing...however moderately confident that budget could stretch.
2. P8 is an obvious first cab off the rank for ASM...it's basically a new, known quantity for fitout...just take it down to the drive-thru & job done!
3. EMAC was gone but is now arguably covered by UAV.
4. Where the hell is the realisation that 5 x C130J-30 is NOT ENOUGH ...the most obvious own goal in my book!
5. B757 replacement...who knows, 3 combi-frames would be ideal but that ain't likely.
6. Good to mention suggestion more choppers for 3 Sqn might be a futue consideration.

Land:

1. Mostly stuff previously foretold...NEA & vehicle fleet etc.
2. Counter drone tech excellent...but again where the hell is anti-aircraft tech... maybe another minor <$50M project but suspect it would've been highlighted if considered.
3. Army not really my forte tbh, best left to greater minds.

But DCP's chop & change with whims of Govt's & other geo-political trumpisms so how much we'll get to see delivered, who knows...a good start tho, and the biggest win of all ....it seems we're closer to a concensus with the 2 major parties than we've seen for decades!