NZDF - Now and the Future.

[Aussie Digger]

Maybe, but there is one problem, we know what the budget was, we know what the cost increase was, Goff may say that the 500 mil figure was a guesstimate but that still leaves a 271 shortfall unless they make up the differeance from somewhere.
So, whats gong to get cut? My bet is on the artillery, if anything goes, hasnt been used in action since Vietnam....

That'd be a GREAT idea. No air support, no tank support, now no artillery support.

Maybe NZ should just form a Peace Corps and let go ANY pretense of a military force...

 

[mug]

From Stuff:

Mr Goff said the cost would be met within the $3.3 billion already committed to that plan, but admitted it might make it "tight" for other smaller purchases.

One of those purchases was six smaller light-utility and training helicopters.

Mr Goff said he expected a deal would soon be completed that would see the smaller helicopters operational by 2009 at a cost of "about two NH90s".

Who speaks 'politician' here? What does making it "tight" mean in plain English?!

 

[Stuart Mackey]

That'd be a GREAT idea. No air support, no tank support, now no artillery support.

Maybe NZ should just form a Peace Corps and let go ANY pretense of a military force...

Lol..hasnt happned yet, but the money has to come from somewhere, the artillery is almost due for replacement, and this government is very cost concious when it comes to defence.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

From Stuff:



Who speaks 'politician' here? What does making it "tight" mean in plain English?!

When looking at this governments previous statements and previous actions..he means there is a good chance of cuts..
Ahem
'because this government was elected on the promise to give depth to the armed forces, and focus them on the things they do well. The artillery has not been used since the Veitnam war and isnt likley to ever be deployed, and no one has ever asked us to deploy it, the government has decided to scrap the artillery and ensure that the airforce helicopter fleet is properly equipped and trained for the duties they currently do'.

How was that?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Lol..hasnt happned yet, but the money has to come from somewhere, the artillery is almost due for replacement, and this government is very cost concious when it comes to defence.

Yes, but there's plenty of "cheap" ways of upgrading your existing L119 105mm artillery. ATK and Raytheon have a range of "guided" munitions that can be used to provide a PGM capabiltiy for 105mm towed guns, Raytheon's GPS "fuze" mounted guidance system in particular seems to be "low cost".

There is also an extensive range of modern digital fire control system and extended range 105mm ammunition that increases 105mm artillery to the range and effect that was only formerly achieved by 155mm arty.

New ammo, guided fuzes and fire control systems may be a way of achieving a significantly improved artillery capability at a VERY small cost (compared to buying new 155mm kit). Australia looked very closely at it, before deciding to consolidate on 155mm artillery...

 

[mug]

Hmm, good and bad. Sir Humphrey would be proud!

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Yes, but there's plenty of "cheap" ways of upgrading your existing L119 105mm artillery. ATK and Raytheon have a range of "guided" munitions that can be used to provide a PGM capabiltiy for 105mm towed guns, Raytheon's GPS "fuze" mounted guidance system in particular seems to be "low cost".

There is also an extensive range of modern digital fire control system and extended range 105mm ammunition that increases 105mm artillery to the range and effect that was only formerly achieved by 155mm arty.

New ammo, guided fuzes and fire control systems may be a way of achieving a significantly improved artillery capability at a VERY small cost (compared to buying new 155mm kit). Australia looked very closely at it, before deciding to consolidate on 155mm artillery...

Oh, I agree with you, but its a political choice, remember.
If if it comes down to a choice of funding the LUH, or find more money for defence, then artillery/replacement item X will probably get the chop. There is no way that the government will allow a situation to develop which would vindicate the oppositions claims that more needs to be spent on defence, and undermine their base reason for scrapping the strike squadrons at the same time.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Hmm, good and bad. Sir Humphrey would be proud!

Thank you! I always did wonder how well I would do in the civil service

 

[Aussie Digger]

NZ to get 8 NH-90's.


31st July 2006
New Helicopters Represent Quantum Leap Forward


Defence Minister, Phil Goff today signed a contract with NH Industries for the purchase of eight NH90 helicopters to replace the Royal New Zealand Air Force's fleet of ageing Iroquois.

"These new helicopters represent a quantum leap forward in terms of capabilities from our present Vietnam war era Iroquois helicopters.

"They are a vital enabler for all three Defence Force Services, for military and peacekeeping operations, for police and counter-terrorism work and for civil emergencies in New Zealand and the Pacific.

"This purchase is the last of the core capability projects on the ten year Long Term Development Plan, regarded as necessary to avoid policy failure.

"Ten years in development, the NH-90 represents current state of the art technology. It will be the cornerstone of the Defence Force capability over the next 30 years.

"The acquisition of these aircraft is an integral part of our new modernized, joint focussed Defence Force that is equipped with greater mobility through Light Operational Vehicles (Pinzgauers) and Light Armoured Vehicles, which will all be deployable in the new Multi-Role Vessel, HMNZS Canterbury.

"Compared to the Iroquois, the NH90 can carry 19 rather than 8 passengers or 12 fully equipped troops as opposed to 5.

"At 260 kilometres an hour cruise speed, it is more than a third faster.

"Its maximum range is 800 kilometres rather than 330.

"It can lift up to 4,000 kilograms rather than 820.

"Militarily it is far more versatile in deploying soldiers into action and in dealing with complex counter-terrorism operations.

"For deployments and disaster relief in the Pacific, with long range tanks the NH-90s can self-deploy.
"They are capable of lifting Light Operational Vehicles off the multi-role vessel in situations where there are no port facilities and landing craft cannot be used.


"For civil disasters in New Zealand or elsewhere, such as floods, earthquakes, snow, cyclones or tsunamis, they can operate for extended periods and with large loads in all weathers, day and night, with significant flexibility.

"For search and rescue, they have much greater reach and are better able to recover people in extreme environmental conditions.

"For border control, they can operate at night over land or sea in support of land and maritime interdiction operations against drug, illegal migrant or terrorist threats.
"The new aircraft have the additional advantage of being interoperable with the Australian Air Force which is purchasing 46 NH-90s.

The NH-90 is likely to become the most widely used medium utility helicopter among our security partners.


"The total cost of the NH-90s is $771 million. More than forty percent of this cost includes logistics and support, which includes spare parts, project costs, training, software and equipment, as well as currency hedging.

"This cost will be met within the existing Long Term Development Plan in which $3.3 billion has been invested.

"The first aircraft will arrive in New Zealand in 2010 and the fleet will be fully in service by 2013," Mr Goff said.

Obtained from: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/74xx/doc7424/07-25-F-22.pdf

 

[Stuart Mackey]

"The total cost of the NH-90s is $771 million. More than forty percent of this cost includes logistics and support, which includes spare parts, project costs, training, software and equipment, as well as currency hedging.

"This cost will be met within the existing Long Term Development Plan in which $3.3 billion has been invested

"The figure used in the long-term development plan of up to $560 million was a 'guesstimate' in 2002 for an aircraft not yet off the production line."

As I said, there is a short fall, of around $211 million; that money has to come from somewhere, or there has to be cuts to some programme.

 

[Markus40]

Yes you are right, and this gave the NZ public something to think about then when we did have our airshows going. I remember the big one at Mangere back in the early 90s and the whole RNZAF came out and demonstrated what it could do and 10s of thousands turned up over that weekend. I think the public need to see the defence forces as a belief structure again, and the government can only do this with its purchasing and defence policies. I agree schools and high schools are an excellent venue for those wanting to enrol and get into the armed forces. It would be great to see more of this happening. Maybe we might need to wait a little longer to see some of the implimentations the government or future government is going to make and be put into place so as to give the NZDFs a more solid footing and solid direction into which application this country takes.

I am not sure I agree with that. While I agree the NZDF needs to promote itself, doesn't that lead back to 'looking at the Toys'? That is good for recruitment, but does it buy public understanding? The Skyhawks flew lots of public displays, the ANZACs have had lots of open days all around the country, did not stop the air strike being scrapped or the number of frigates being cut. The public needs to support the NZDF, it needs to be a base value, ANZAC needs to be about history, but also how that history fits into NZs current security. As posted above it starts at school.

 

[Markus40]

Mod edited. Watch the insults guy's there's no need for any of it. Disagree if you wish, but do it civilly. Cheers. AD.

That'd be a GREAT idea. No air support, no tank support, now no artillery support.

Maybe NZ should just form a Peace Corps and let go ANY pretense of a military force...

 

[Markus40]

Mod edited. Watch the insults guy's there's no need for any of it. Disagree if you wish, but do it civilly. Cheers. AD.

Thank you! I always did wonder how well I would do in the civil service

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Mod edited. You know the policy Stuart... AD.

Perhaps it might surprise you to learn that one does not need to be a member of the armed forces to discuss the subject, this being a democracy and all, and being a member of the forces certainly does not suddenly grant said member the intelligence to discuss the matter either.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Well the South China Sea is also considered to be in China's backyard, and if you will check a map, you will see that Australia and the Tasman Sea is not that far off,

And if you check that map you will notice that China is still, literally, half the planet away.

of course, that will necessitate China having an aircraft carrier, so this is something that is not really a concern in the short term, its really more of a long term concern,

Thats right, and I rather think that the politburo will be more concerned about the USN than anything the RNZAF can throw at them.

I did not say the New Zealand can take on China alone, I am saying that it can make a difference if it does so with a coalition of other countries, that is the US, UK, and Australia,

No one has ever argued otherwise, unless you would like to show where?.

if it really does not want to even touch US foreign policy with a ten foot pole, then maybe the New Zealand government can consider close relations with India, which will also become a major power at about the same time China really starts to have the capability to challenge the USN.

Thats nice, now do you have anthing of substance to say? Like show why NZ should reconstitute the strike arm over gaining the ability, oh, have operational independence in the South Pacific for the first time in its history?

 

[RubiconNZ]

Anywho

According to defense news, NHI has announced the purchase of nine rather thatn 8 reason being that one will be reserve, clever of RNZAF, extra frame while keeping it quiet, Additionally number 400 NH90 will be a Kiwi, quite nice really. Now lets see a good 8-10 LUHs announced.

 

[abramsteve]

When you talk of awareness, a question came into my head. How much publicity does NZDF deployments get in New Zealand media? Are they forgotten, ignored or are they taboo? I believe that the public has to see their money doing somthing before they would attempt to understand it. Education at school level is good, but 'positive' PR on the 6o'clock news (if thats the time use have it there?) would also be useful for reaching the people who matter the most at the moment, voters.

Sorry to get political, but I think until the current politicians (on both sides) over there either retire or move on and the public becomes a little less isolationist, thinking on defence will be stuck 30-20 years in the past (eg the whole no US warships thing. I cant beleive that that still has relevance?!?!).

Another point. IMO the argument for fighters for the RNZAF is harmful to any public defence debate. Its too easy to attack and discredit, thus destroying any other valid points. Yes they would be nice, Yes they may even be necessary. But with precious few funds its not going to happen, so look for more attainable options.

I know this will offend some of you but the NZDF is primarily used for peacekeeping operations. Whats wrong with that? Equip it better to suit that role eg more Hurcs, deploy it more often (I like the forward basing idea mentioned a while ago) and increase public awareness, then the NZDF can start looking for some more lethal hardware.

Anyways thats my take on it

 

[Markus40]

I agree with you about NZDFs need to show something before being able to sell the NZDFs concepts to the public and for public relations advertising. Not to mention selling the concepts of Defence careers in our High schools without shoving the ideals and defence matters down their tiny necks.! We do get a fair bit of advertising from all 3 triad forces, and the best one in my opinion is the Navy. The Airforce and Army are weak.

Yes. NZ and the US need to close this door on the past on Nuclear ships and open our ports to the US Navy. However, as i have mentioned in other posts there is this ideology that still exists and is a sensitive matter in our defence matters that anything American coming here has the smell of Uranium, and this makes the Greenies puff more marujauna and banter on the streets, as well puts the whole political system in NZ at unrest. Its now become our psyche. So i think its always going to be here, and i would be very surprised if anything else changed.

Why not have a peacekeeping defence force? I have several answers for you. 1-NZ needs to train its NZDFs to fight like they are recruited to do with the equipment they are given. 2-Most Defence personel and friends i know who serve in the NZDFs including myself know that we dont want to join the Defence Forces just to replace our Styers with a pair of Binos. 3-NZ should not be a puppet to the UN and have us do what they demand our forces to do, which is peace keeping. If thats the view of our Armed Forces from afar from large countries and other organisations then we are in a sorry state. I dont want to serve in this environment for the sake of peacekeeping. 4-NZ has defence obligations with Australia and im glad to say that we do conduct regular exercises with them on an on going basis.

Now to the Strike Force. Sorry, but this doesnt hold water either. Not having a combat wing as i mentioned in a previous post is like "clipping the wing of a bird" throw it in the air and see if the Air force will fly again. Labour did exactly this, because they knew nothing about Defence and its security obligations with Australia. Its a shame, but if we are to see our Defence Forces resume a healthy balanced outcome and they see seriously that all the other services IE Army, Navy need to have the Air Cover if needed to call on. Thats why i am an advocate for a deal made with Australia with its F18s being based at Ohakea under NZ colours. This isnt going to cost the earth and if so can be incorporated over time to obsorb the infrastructure costs and training costs for the crew.

When you talk of awareness, a question came into my head. How much publicity does NZDF deployments get in New Zealand media? Are they forgotten, ignored or are they taboo? I believe that the public has to see their money doing somthing before they would attempt to understand it. Education at school level is good, but 'positive' PR on the 6o'clock news (if thats the time use have it there?) would also be useful for reaching the people who matter the most at the moment, voters.

Sorry to get political, but I think until the current politicians (on both sides) over there either retire or move on and the public becomes a little less isolationist, thinking on defence will be stuck 30-20 years in the past (eg the whole no US warships thing. I cant beleive that that still has relevance?!?!).

Another point. IMO the argument for fighters for the RNZAF is harmful to any public defence debate. Its too easy to attack and discredit, thus destroying any other valid points. Yes they would be nice, Yes they may even be necessary. But with precious few funds its not going to happen, so look for more attainable options.

I know this will offend some of you but the NZDF is primarily used for peacekeeping operations. Whats wrong with that? Equip it better to suit that role eg more Hurcs, deploy it more often (I like the forward basing idea mentioned a while ago) and increase public awareness, then the NZDF can start looking for some more lethal hardware.

Anyways thats my take on it

 

[Markus40]

Not saying you should have armed services training, im making my point that it would be nice to see an intelligent answer to a fairly straight forward discussion.

Mod edited. You know the policy Stuart... AD.

Perhaps it might surprise you to learn that one does not need to be a member of the armed forces to discuss the subject, this being a democracy and all, and being a member of the forces certainly does not suddenly grant said member the intelligence to discuss the matter either.

 

[Markus40]

Stuart, this posting does have substance, and yes, NZ should reinstate its strike wing to have the chance of extending its soverignty over the Pacific. The NZDF are going to do this with the new OPVs and MRV with the Navy. The capability and opportunity for NZ to work more closely with its neighbours like Fiji would be an excellent extension of our ability to operate with them. We should take the opportunity to exercise with many of the Pacific Islands states. The Air Combat force wouldnt be purchased on the basis of this alone but would be a part of it. I have discussed and debated this issue for a long time and i have the backing of many of my own collegues in the Defence forces and my contact with John Carter. So there is no doubt in my mind over this.

Just a little off the subject, I can tell you the greatest threat to NZs security right now immediatly at home is the fact that many NZers are now going to Australia to live with the skills they have picked up in NZ. We cant replace them as fast as they are leaving and i think this alone is going to cause a huge problem for many of our prospecting new defence force personel in the future.

And if you check that map you will notice that China is still, literally, half the planet away.




Thats right, and I rather think that the politburo will be more concerned about the USN than anything the RNZAF can throw at them.




No one has ever argued otherwise, unless you would like to show where?.




Thats nice, now do you have anthing of substance to say? Like show why NZ should reconstitute the strike arm over gaining the ability, oh, have operational independence in the South Pacific for the first time in its history?