NZDF - Now and the Future.

[nz enthusiast]

What would I do?

If I was to do anything with the New Zealand Defence Force I would want to see projections on possible recruitment. Not much point in spending billions on equipment when it is just going to sit in storage. My choice of equipment is based on my political views. I would like to see New Zealand maintain its semi-neutral stance that it has now but be a strong contributing member of the five power defence agreement.

Army
First I would like to see the armies anti-tank capabilities enhanced with more effective short range and medium range anti-tank systems. The Javelin is by no means the best anti-tank system in the world but it will do (I believe the best is some Russian system I was reading about). More javelin systems could be ordered so the Territorial’s could also operate them.


Mistral air defence system will do fine although I would have preferred the RBS-90.


LAVs and Pinzgauers we are just going to have to put up with. We would encounter all sorts of penalties if we tried to return them to the manufacturer or tried to sell them. The best solution I can see is to invent an armoured 'skirt' to protect the wells and possible armour upgrades. Nothing wrong with their 30mm cannons. Although it would not have been my choice of APV/IFV (I would have chosen CV-90) I can live with it.


The army does need to do something about its artillery though. I would quite like them to get some self propelled artillery (105mm Lavs are alright) and in an ideal scenario some precision rocket artillery would be great.


The army also needs to get some good small basic UAVs for recon purposes. I don't think anything I have listed there is practically expensive and it could probably be paid for with out significant budget increases.

Navy


I hate the ANZAC frigates, Australian hunks of shit in my opinion. I would have preferred to have gotten something smaller and probably more capable. Ideally a corvette like the Swedish 'Visby'. It is true it doesn't come with an anti-air missile system as standard but the Swedes are more then capable of adding it.


There was a defence review done in the 80's by David Lange which basically said one of the best options for the development of the Royal New Zealand Navy would be submarines (he left government to soon to begin work on the project). I would quite like to see work to acquire up to 4 attack submarines once again the Swedes offer top of the class with the Gotland class, gee it works unlike the Collins class.


Multi Role Vessels are all good perhaps by another one in about 10-15 years time. I would wait a bit because I don't some in the future having to deal with block ageing of equipment like we have had to.


Offshore patrol boats and Inshore Patrol boats are all good. I really like how the new Inshore Patrol Boats are larger than the old ones.


Getting gunboats like those that Sweden (yep Sweden again) uses wouldn't be stupid for the naval reserve to operate.


Air Force
the C-130Hs have just got to go. They are ancient rust buckets offering New Zealand limited capability. I would like to see New Zealand become a part of the A-400M program. Be could buy them in groups of 2 next decade buying a lot of 6.


P-3Ks also have to go. You guys keep talking about major upgrading. I don't see the point. Get a more capable air frame where it will come as standard. I am interested in acquiring a jet powered replacement like the P-8 or Nimrod, greater range etc. This can wait till after the C-130H replacement so we can look at the P-8 properly.


NH-90 is great. We should buy a first off batch of 6 and then decide off the final amount from there, twelve sounds good to me. As the multi role vessel will cart 6 of the things and we will still have enough at home to do training etc.


I have no idea which light helicopter to get but preferably something multi role that could carry a few troops on commando style attacks and give some light fire support (perhaps even hellfire’s or TOW missiles). We could be looking at up to 10 of these.


Air Combat capability you can bitch about it all you like. It ain't coming back. It is far too expensive, no minister of finance will ever give you the cash required to make this worth while. You guys just don't see all the hidden costs in get it back. It is going to cost BILLIONS, as $3 billion is a minimum. Anyway if a country has the ability to get air power out to us we are pretty screwed anyway. For air combat capability you need to train 1.5x the number of planes you plan to operate (ideal ratio in the opinion of NATO), 16 modern fighter aircraft with modern weapons (so you can deploy some and still have them available at home, you will need Air Refuelling capability so we are not a burden on our allies when we deploy them, we are going to have to make some arrangement with an ally for AWACS support (Yeah E-2s and E-3s are very expensive if you didn't know). Now you have this idea of forming an air combat unit with the help of Australia. The costs believe it or not are going to be the same if not higher; all you are doing is dragging things out. If you are really concerned about air defence go buy some patriot or S-300 missile defence systems. You will almost as well off.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Navy


I hate the ANZAC frigates, Australian hunks of shit in my opinion. I would have preferred to have gotten something smaller and probably more capable. Ideally a corvette like the Swedish 'Visby'. It is true it doesn't come with an anti-air missile system as standard but the Swedes are more then capable of adding it.

Interesting that it was the acoustic management technology developed by Australians for the Collins Class that was asked to be applied to the Visby for US assessment.

There was a defence review done in the 80's by David Lange which basically said one of the best options for the development of the Royal New Zealand Navy would be submarines (he left government to soon to begin work on the project). I would quite like to see work to acquire up to 4 attack submarines once again the Swedes offer top of the class with the Gotland class, gee it works unlike the Collins class.

and by this statement I've now worked out that you know nothing of the current Collins capability. You're obviously completely oblivious to the fact that the standard of workmanship done on Number 1 by the Swedes was so bad that there was serious consideration given to scrapping it. None of the Australian made subs experienced structural failures.

Just a small note, you do understand that Gotland is regarded as a "mini me" version of Collins? - and it doesn't have the same band of acoustic properties, has none of the signature managment systems and certainly doesn't have the same capability in range, persistence and warload delivery.

Getting gunboats like those that Sweden (yep Sweden again) uses wouldn't be stupid for the naval reserve to operate.

ah yes, the Swedes, refer to my comment on the Visby and its need to have its acoustics retuned using australian developed technology.

what experience do you have re the problems of the Collins? I'm real curious as you appear to know things that I don't - and I worked on the project.

Just a little hint - a high percentile of the problems with the Collins at the build level were due to Swedish incompetence at not only design stages, but in workmanship. In the end we ended up having to fix their problems with locally designed engineering solutions -and at the ultimate end, gain access to US test facilities.

Would I reccomend swedish vessels for any future fleet requirements - not on your life- and not without some savage contractual control. Kockums were like IBM - lots of promises and not a lot of substance behind it when the key needed to be turned.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

I'm real curious as you appear to know things that I don't - and I worked on the project.

Sounds like some of the comments on this thread (and others) about committments made by political parties before the last election!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sounds like some of the comments on this thread (and others) about committments made by political parties before the last election!

I arc up pretty rapidly on comments like this re the Collins. Invariably they're said out of complete ignorance and then get traced back to "he said she saids" in some local newspaper. These newspapers are the same ones that call M113's tanks, frigates are called battleships, and Orions are called bombers.

The Collins path was somewhat tortuous and can be sheeted home to a number of players - but claiming that the Swedes were good at what they did is a complete contradiction of the reality of what transpired. we had to fix more of their stuff ups than clap our hands in glee at the good things they did.

There is a very clear view that they used Collins as the mule for Gotland - and the Aust govt paid for that development. There is a high degree of friction in some circles about their competency, and we certainly refused to give them access to the sig management tech for Gotland. There was some very real concerns about their integrity at the commercial in confidence level.

when the Singaporean boats were modified, we did it. we refused to let the Swedish engineers anywhere near the test facilities.

 

[Markus40]

Re: NZ Defense Force

Nice to hear you share your view, nothing wrong with that, but im scratching my head about the swedish option for some of our Naval surface units and submarine option.

I am all for what NZ is doing so far and the NZ Defense forces structure so far having taken the first step on the rung of the ladder to getting its forces back into a proper state, doing the right thing. The ANZACs NZ have, have an integral role with the Australians as we got a huge economical benefit into our local economy from choosing the Meko design. So it was a good choice and the range of weopons on board gave NZ a good capable Navy. However a third ANZAC is required in my opinion to keep pace with our defense obligations with Australia and for our expanding Navy in the Sealift role as escort frigate.

The Army is doing fine at this point and im sure that there will be tweaking in years to come with more capable equipment.

The Airforce, i have to agree with Enthusiast_NZ as we have to replace all our prop air craft. This is priority as they are becoming unsafe having gone well beyond their time frame for service. As to the Air Combat wing, there HAS to be some arrangement this governemnt or the next needs to make to address, and bring our Maritime strike and land strike force back. I have laid this out in a previous post and until we do their will always be a "hole" in our offensive/defensive operations that will put our other forces at risk.

 

[Whiskyjack]

What would I do?

Army
First I would like to see the armies anti-tank capabilities enhanced with more effective short range and medium range anti-tank systems. The Javelin is by no means the best anti-tank system in the world but it will do (I believe the best is some Russian system I was reading about). More javelin systems could be ordered so the Territorial’s could also operate them.

What's wrong with the Javelin? Combat proven, very technicly advanced.
The NZDF faces no major Tank threats in any area of operations. Also no way NZ will but Russian. To unreiable logisticly.

I hate the ANZAC frigates, Australian hunks of shit in my opinion. I would have preferred to have gotten something smaller and probably more capable. Ideally a corvette like the Swedish 'Visby'. It is true it doesn't come with an anti-air missile system as standard but the Swedes are more then capable of adding it.

Nothing wrong with the upgraded ANZACs (or the ANZACs as we use them now.
Visby is far to short ranged to serve the national interest.

Air Force
the C-130Hs have just got to go. They are ancient rust buckets offering New Zealand limited capability. I would like to see New Zealand become a part of the A-400M program. Be could buy them in groups of 2 next decade buying a lot of 6.


P-3Ks also have to go. You guys keep talking about major upgrading. I don't see the point. Get a more capable air frame where it will come as standard. I am interested in acquiring a jet powered replacement like the P-8 or Nimrod, greater range etc. This can wait till after the C-130H replacement so we can look at the P-8 properly.

I agree the A400M is great, but you seem to forget it is not flying yet, nor is the P8. We are talking retirement in 2020 for the P3 which ties in with most of out major allies, until then it needs to be upgraded. Same for the C-130H. For what we do we have the basic force structure and equipment in place.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Sounds like some of the comments on this thread (and others) about committments made by political parties before the last election!

[FONT=&quot]Amateurs talk tactics, proffesionals talk logistics![/FONT]

 

[Rocco_NZ]

[FONT=&quot]Amateurs talk tactics, proffesionals talk logistics![/FONT]

And Analysts talk about how to convince Treasury!

 

[Markus40]

Re: RNZAF Prop Replacement.

[FONT=&quot]Amateurs talk tactics, proffesionals talk logistics![/FONT]

In answer to Enthusiast NZ: This urgent situation with the Air Transport wing and our P3s is important and their are alternatives to the P8 and A400m that this government could consider worthy replacements, thus giving our Airforce a solid airframe for both operations.

First the C-130 could be replaced with a new version. The C-130J. Thats available now and could be considered.

Second the P3s could be replaced either with a near new P3 or P8 or similar. If we wait till 2020 our props are going to fall out of the sky before 2010. So this is an urgent requirement, and wouldnt be surprised to see them replaced within the next 5-10 years.

 

[Markus40]

Re: Defense Force requirements.

If you opened your mind and learnt from other contributions that are made then you would see there is merit in all we say. Thinking you are the only one right suggests a frustrated and closed minded bigot. Ohh yes, please dont take it personally.

Sounds like some of the comments on this thread (and others) about committments made by political parties before the last election!

 

[NZLAV]

I am very impressed with the army, it's great. The Navy (as of 2007) will be good, but the ANZACs need an upgrade. It should be fine then, although some small,fast attack boats would be great. They will be cheap and very effective when hunting subs or reacting to a threat. The airforce will be settled in 2020(lol thats awhile) when the hercs and p3's get replaced. I really think NZ needs 16 super tucanos. They are a valid and practical option for protecting our forces against sea threats and can be shipped into the battlefield.

 

[Markus40]

Re: NZ Military.

Yes the Army is doing well and training going well with the LAVS and Javelins and Mistrals. They could bolster their intake by another thousand more i think.

The Navy need a third ANZAC. Simple. If the Navy have extra vessels to escort. The two ANZACS we have are hard pushed to meet all the obligations they are meant to carry out, like exercises and deployments and maintenance. An upgrade with the ESSM and harpoon would be a great enhancement.

Fast attack craft lack the range and would be only useful like the IPVs which are bigger and more capable than the ones we currently have. The governemt has purchased 4 IPVs for delivery this year and next.

The Airforces props are going to fall out of the sky or there propellors fly off there struts on take off if we dont replace them VERY soon. So we need a replacement for thses aircraft urgently before we put our pilots at risk. I suggest within the next 5 years.

Tucanos are good trainers for our airforce and would be a good supplement for a Jet Air combat force Squadron sorely needed to fill the gap of Air strike. Tucanos are not built to my knowledge for Maritime strike either, something that would be important as NZ is surrounded by water.

I am very impressed with the army, it's great. The Navy (as of 2007) will be good, but the ANZACs need an upgrade. It should be fine then, although some small,fast attack boats would be great. They will be cheap and very effective when hunting subs or reacting to a threat. The airforce will be settled in 2020(lol thats awhile) when the hercs and p3's get replaced. I really think NZ needs 16 super tucanos. They are a valid and practical option for protecting our forces against sea threats and can be shipped into the battlefield.

 

[Whiskyjack]

In answer to Enthusiast NZ: This urgent situation with the Air Transport wing and our P3s is important and their are alternatives to the P8 and A400m that this government could consider worthy replacements, thus giving our Airforce a solid airframe for both operations.

First the C-130 could be replaced with a new version. The C-130J. Thats available now and could be considered.

Second the P3s could be replaced either with a near new P3 or P8 or similar. If we wait till 2020 our props are going to fall out of the sky before 2010. So this is an urgent requirement, and wouldnt be surprised to see them replaced within the next 5-10 years.

[FONT=&quot]I think you are overlooking the upgrades that the P3s have undergone, new wings and structural improvements to give enough airframe hours out to 2020, over NZ$200 on that alone, the only thing that was overdue was the Flight, Navigation and Mission Systems upgrade, which is completely rewiring the aircraft to modern standards, so they are not going to fall out of the sky by 2010! The only thing urgent is the upgrade that is taking place now. I have seen only positive reports in professional media from around the world on the upgrades, no suggestion that they are about to fall out of the Sky.

The C-130 is undergoing a similar upgrade, I think that 3 new C-130Hs to take total numbers to 8 would be good, with replacement from 2015 with the A400M[/FONT]

 

[mug]

In regards to the C130s, I would have thought that they were not far behind the helos in needing replacing.

That would present two options as I see it:

1. upgrade them as required and hang on until we can get A400s; or
2. replace them now with C130Js.

I doubt that we would be towards the front of the A400 queue (airforce-technology.com reckons deliveries will be between 2009 and 2025), and so I would have to go with option (2). Give it 15-20 years or so of the new Js and we would be ready for A400s.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

If you opened your mind and learnt from other contributions that are made then you would see there is merit in all we say. Thinking you are the only one right suggests a frustrated and closed minded bigot. Ohh yes, please dont take it personally.

I don't think there is merit in much you say at all, and certainly not all you say.

Find yourself a dictionary. Look up ad-hominem. Learn how to spell, punctuate and how to select appropriate language. Once you’ve done that perhaps you can play with the big kids.

MOD EDIT: Easy guys, play nice or the thread will be closed. Discuss each others idea's or not, but refrain from personal attacks. AD out.

 

[KH-12]

THe C-130 upgrade currently underway is pretty significant, the A/C are basically stripped down and rebuilt, with virtually only the shell / engines and control systems of the original left , I understand they even get a new Air Con system, the major issue is that we are down to 4 airframes for the next few years while they cycle through the upgrade process, likewise the P3 fleet is down to 5 , although 3 have already got their new IR/Optical systems installed. We will also lose a 757 soon due to the cargo mod coming up.

 

[Whiskyjack]

the major issue is that we are down to 4 airframes for the next few years while they cycle through the upgrade process, likewise the P3 fleet is down to 5 , although 3 have already got their new IR/Optical systems installed. We will also lose a 757 soon due to the cargo mod coming up.

I agree, would have been nice to see a few C-130s bought so that the RNZAF could maintain its current strength and come out at the end of the upgrade with 8 Upgraded C-130s. Same with P3s, 2 extra would be nice to see.

Won't happen, but it would have provided for international and local commitments.

Most people don’t realise the extensive nature of structural upgrades the P3 and C-130 have had and are going through.

 

[Markus40]

Re: P3 and C130 Upgrade.

I take note from what you say however it makes sense and better economics for the government in the long term to have these aircraft replaced with new airframes up front and now. The reason i say this is because the new airframes with its current system will be right up to date with the latest technology once fitted, where as if we just keep on holding onto what we got this will cost more to keep upgrading and adding more here and there until its time for them to be replaced and then we have spent more on them over a longer term than what we would have over a shorter term with the new air craft. Besides maybe they might be worth just that little bit more now if they were sold off than later for the scrap yard where there isnt any value in them at all.

I think its going to take too long to consider the A400M at this stage, as its only on the drawing board. The issue facing the C-130 squadron are more urgent. From what i have read there appears to be some funding issues and logistical issues in having the countries involved in putting the A400M Aircraft together, so we will never be able to put a date on when this aircraft will go on the production line.

Second no one ever predicts an aircraft will fall out of the sky but any expert will agree that the longer you leave a plane well beyond its use date, the odds of something happening are greater. It requires more labour intensive work and spare parts and maintenance operations in a hanger than would be the case if we could purchase the new aircraft. As Suggested the J version of the C-130 is an excellent choice with 8 new aircraft of this type being operated by our air transport squadron. The money currently being spent on the current upgrade would be better spent buying new aircraft upfront. If the government has air marked $5 Billion over the next 10 years then a small portion of that for the P3 and C-130 would be preferable.

My suggestion is a new batch of P3Cs or similar. My personal suggestion is that despite the rewinging and reframework reconstruction work the $200 M and the current Several Hundred Million being spent on rewiring could easily go towards purchasing new P3s. Makes better sense to me than waiting till 2020 when parts of the aircraft are flying off the fuselage in 2012 for example and we have to heavily restrict our operations with the 6 P3s we have and our pilots sitting in the ops room twiddling their thumbs because we found out that the restructuring wasnt going to last the distance.

[FONT=&quot]I think you are overlooking the upgrades that the P3s have undergone, new wings and structural improvements to give enough airframe hours out to 2020, over NZ$200 on that alone, the only thing that was overdue was the Flight, Navigation and Mission Systems upgrade, which is completely rewiring the aircraft to modern standards, so they are not going to fall out of the sky by 2010! The only thing urgent is the upgrade that is taking place now. I have seen only positive reports in professional media from around the world on the upgrades, no suggestion that they are about to fall out of the Sky.

The C-130 is undergoing a similar upgrade, I think that 3 new C-130Hs to take total numbers to 8 would be good, with replacement from 2015 with the A400M[/FONT]

 

[Markus40]

Re: My Punctuation.

I want to say to everyone sorry if i have affended you with the misspelling and punctuation. Its not intentional and its only because i type fast. However im sure most of you are able to read my postings and if unsure reply to me to validate.

MOD EDITED: Leave out the insults, thanks. WE will make sure everyone plays nice, or not at all. This is the 2nd warning. Take heed. It applies to ALL. AD.

I don't think there is merit in much you say at all, and certainly not all you say.

Find yourself a dictionary. Look up ad-hominem. Learn how to spell, punctuate and how to select appropriate language. Once you’ve done that perhaps you can play with the big kids.

MOD EDIT: Easy guys, play nice or the thread will be closed. Discuss each others idea's or not, but refrain from personal attacks. AD out.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I take note from what you say however it makes sense and better economics for the government in the long term to have these aircraft replaced with new airframes up front and now. The reason i say this is because the new airframes with its current system will be right up to date with the latest technology once fitted, where as if we just keep on holding onto what we got this will cost more to keep upgrading and adding more here and there until its time for them to be replaced and then we have spent more on them over a longer term than what we would have over a shorter term with the new air craft. Besides maybe they might be worth just that little bit more now if they were sold off than later for the scrap yard where there isnt any value in them at all.

I think its going to take too long to consider the A400M at this stage, as its only on the drawing board. The issue facing the C-130 squadron are more urgent. From what i have read there appears to be some funding issues and logistical issues in having the countries involved in putting the A400M Aircraft together, so we will never be able to put a date on when this aircraft will go on the production line.

Second no one ever predicts an aircraft will fall out of the sky but any expert will agree that the longer you leave a plane well beyond its use date, the odds of something happening are greater. It requires more labour intensive work and spare parts and maintenance operations in a hanger than would be the case if we could purchase the new aircraft. As Suggested the J version of the C-130 is an excellent choice with 8 new aircraft of this type being operated by our air transport squadron. The money currently being spent on the current upgrade would be better spent buying new aircraft upfront. If the government has air marked $5 Billion over the next 10 years then a small portion of that for the P3 and C-130 would be preferable.

My suggestion is a new batch of P3Cs or similar. My personal suggestion is that despite the rewinging and reframework reconstruction work the $200 M and the current Several Hundred Million being spent on rewiring could easily go towards purchasing new P3s. Makes better sense to me than waiting till 2020 when parts of the aircraft are flying off the fuselage in 2012 for example and we have to heavily restrict our operations with the 6 P3s we have and our pilots sitting in the ops room twiddling their thumbs because we found out that the restructuring wasnt going to last the distance.

I hear where you are coming from, but some things to consider:

• Lockhead Martin has said that the soonest it could deliver a J is 2010, with Canada possibly about to announce a purchase that might be 2011. Upgrade still needs to go ahead.
• The J has no ability to deploy large loads or carry an equipped LAV outside NZ.
• Contract for upgrade already signed and started so NZ$325m, 5 new Js will cost around NZ$670m, 8 will cost NZ$1.1b
• 5 New Js do not provide any increase in lift, with an army that is getting heavier.
• A400, first flight 2008, delivery 2009, so even with a two year delay, 2015 allows time for budgeting, and making sure it is the right aircraft.

Regards to P3:

• Production finished, no new ones available.
• NZ re-winging seen as a route many other countries will follow.
• Cost of P8 likely to be prohibitive (somewhere in the region of US$150m-200m or even more)
• The aircraft is still supported and operated internationally.
• Look at other aircraft, B52 will be 70-80 years old when retired.

In regards to Budget over next 10 years.t NZ$5b (could be as low as NZ$4b) is not a lot when you consider that 25-30% already accounted for.
Just a few thoughts