That NZ has to maintain thousands of KM more of infrastructure than Singapore is expensive, but not so expensive they have to give up the airforce etc...
I am only guessing but NZ gave up these things cos the threat level is way too low?
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
I am only guessing but NZ gave up these things cos the threat level is way too low?
How about projecting what kind of role, mission, threat scenario, etc... you see the NZ armed force tasked with in near to medium future, that is different from now?
That's usuallly how armed forces decide what kind of weapons to procure.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
Well New Zealand will probably remain a isolated country so they will only go to war if they have to. They will probaly only go to low threat scenario type of wars, not one like a war with China or Russia.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I feel the first thing NZ should do would be to draw up a new defence White Paper. IIRC there hasn't been a White Paper done in some time, certainly not since before the disestablishment of the ACF. Any such White Paper would need to be well thought out and thorough, looking at both the near-term and long-term security needs of NZ both in the local vicinity as well as overseas areas that can effect NZ.
By way of example I mean places like Afghanistan, for those people who feel NZ has no business being deployed over there (certain peace/isolationist movements in NZ come to mind). Approximately 150 (maybe more) refugees fleeing Afghanistan and the Taliban were granted asylum by NZ as part of the MV Tampa incident in August, 2001. This was prior to the 9/11 attacks of six years ago and well before foreign troops had established a presence in Afghanistan. If conditions had been better in Afghanistan, then the refuges would not have fled, ultimately leading to them being granted asylum in NZ.
With such a document prepared (I feel it should be done, regardless of which party wins any election) then NZ should be able to properly assess whether assumptions like the local/regional area is benign is accurate. My suspicion is that, given the increased need worldwide for natural resources, as well as governmental/societal instablities, the South Pacific/ASEAN regions are not as benign as has been assumed. Particularly given the fact that many of those same nations are currently expanding or upgrading the capabilities of their respective defence forces.
Once any potential threats have been determined, as well as the likelihood of such threats and their impact, perhaps NZ will revise the budgetary priority of the NZDF.
As for things like purchasing additional Anzacs, that is not possible unless Australia decides to sell one. The Anzac project has finished and therefore would need to be restarted before any additional such ships could be built. IMV that would not happen given the startup costs required unless a number of additional vessels are to be built (likely 4+).
With regards to the difference in infrastructure costs between Singapore and NZ, yes, it is likely that there are differences. The question here becomes what are the respective costs for government provided/subsidized infrastructure? Given that both countries have similar populations, the differences in infrastructure needs are likely to stem from the differences in geography and population density, but those differences in costings are not necessarily going to be significant. What might be a better comparison is how much NZ spends per person on infrastructure vs. Singapore. I will do some research to see if I can determine an answer, but it will likely take some time. Incidentally, the 2000/01 figure for state/local road construction & maintenance was ~NZ$1.8 bil which works out to around 1% of NZ's annual budget, a roughly equal figure to the amount spent on the NZDF per annum.
As for NZ having to support a high percentage of non-contributing people relative to contributing society, like I wrote...
-Cheers
By way of example I mean places like Afghanistan, for those people who feel NZ has no business being deployed over there (certain peace/isolationist movements in NZ come to mind). Approximately 150 (maybe more) refugees fleeing Afghanistan and the Taliban were granted asylum by NZ as part of the MV Tampa incident in August, 2001. This was prior to the 9/11 attacks of six years ago and well before foreign troops had established a presence in Afghanistan. If conditions had been better in Afghanistan, then the refuges would not have fled, ultimately leading to them being granted asylum in NZ.
With such a document prepared (I feel it should be done, regardless of which party wins any election) then NZ should be able to properly assess whether assumptions like the local/regional area is benign is accurate. My suspicion is that, given the increased need worldwide for natural resources, as well as governmental/societal instablities, the South Pacific/ASEAN regions are not as benign as has been assumed. Particularly given the fact that many of those same nations are currently expanding or upgrading the capabilities of their respective defence forces.
Once any potential threats have been determined, as well as the likelihood of such threats and their impact, perhaps NZ will revise the budgetary priority of the NZDF.
As for things like purchasing additional Anzacs, that is not possible unless Australia decides to sell one. The Anzac project has finished and therefore would need to be restarted before any additional such ships could be built. IMV that would not happen given the startup costs required unless a number of additional vessels are to be built (likely 4+).
With regards to the difference in infrastructure costs between Singapore and NZ, yes, it is likely that there are differences. The question here becomes what are the respective costs for government provided/subsidized infrastructure? Given that both countries have similar populations, the differences in infrastructure needs are likely to stem from the differences in geography and population density, but those differences in costings are not necessarily going to be significant. What might be a better comparison is how much NZ spends per person on infrastructure vs. Singapore. I will do some research to see if I can determine an answer, but it will likely take some time. Incidentally, the 2000/01 figure for state/local road construction & maintenance was ~NZ$1.8 bil which works out to around 1% of NZ's annual budget, a roughly equal figure to the amount spent on the NZDF per annum.
As for NZ having to support a high percentage of non-contributing people relative to contributing society, like I wrote...
That is a question of priorities.
-Cheers
It would also make little sense to build a 'repeat Anzac' as the current class is already stuggling to accept the weight penalties associated with existing upgrade programs. Acquiring a second hand ex RAN unit may be feasible down the track but, IMO, NZ would be better to seek a new design for its next frigate.
Tas
BTW, I agree with the need for a new Defence White Paper, something that is also needed in Australia, IMHO.
This idea of NZ aquiring a second hand RAN ANZAC Frigate is really starting to annoy me. NZ had the chance to convert 1~2 options on ANZAC frigates to actual orders but declined for whatever reason.
The notion that the RAN should give up one of its already to few surface assets to the RNZN for a bargain basement price is just ridiculous. Why should Australian taxpayers subsidise NZ defence purchases?
The Australian Govt has always paid a premium for defence equipment to have a great deal of the actual expenditure done within Australia to stimulate the economy, create jobs and basically justify the massive costs involved in some programs. We could buy alot of this equipment off the shelf at a considerably cheaper price but choose to make an investment in the skills required for a local defence industry. Plenty of NZ companies can thank the ADF for the majority of their business, in fact the amount of work sent NZ's way is probably disproportionately in favour of NZ.
Basically what I am saying is there is no free ride when it comes to defence. If you want to operate 30-40 year old warships like some South American banana republic then that is fine. But then don't expect to be able to inter-operate with your allies (read USA). Australia faced this fact 10 years ago and we are starting to see the beginnings of NCW in the three services.
Anyway by the time the RAN is finished with these ships they will be close to their use by date.
Hooroo
The notion that the RAN should give up one of its already to few surface assets to the RNZN for a bargain basement price is just ridiculous. Why should Australian taxpayers subsidise NZ defence purchases?
The Australian Govt has always paid a premium for defence equipment to have a great deal of the actual expenditure done within Australia to stimulate the economy, create jobs and basically justify the massive costs involved in some programs. We could buy alot of this equipment off the shelf at a considerably cheaper price but choose to make an investment in the skills required for a local defence industry. Plenty of NZ companies can thank the ADF for the majority of their business, in fact the amount of work sent NZ's way is probably disproportionately in favour of NZ.
Basically what I am saying is there is no free ride when it comes to defence. If you want to operate 30-40 year old warships like some South American banana republic then that is fine. But then don't expect to be able to inter-operate with your allies (read USA). Australia faced this fact 10 years ago and we are starting to see the beginnings of NCW in the three services.
Anyway by the time the RAN is finished with these ships they will be close to their use by date.
Hooroo
The only reasons I can think of that an Australian Anzac would be offered to NZ would be if:
1. the RAN could not man it, or
2. the ship was being replaced by new construction.
In the first case I think Australia would look for a reasonable price. In the second case, as you have said, the ship would most likely be close to (or even beyond) its use by date.
It is possible the RAN might seek early replacement of the Anzacs as there are reportedly concerns about them having topweight problems which are complicating upgrades. However, seeking early replacement and having it funded is another matter.
I still think NZ would be better to look to a new design.
Tas
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Agreed! And as Todjaeger says, one couldn't just restart up the ANZAC production line just like that (costs, key project personel may have moved on or be involved with other projects, new techology would have to be integrated etc).
Absolutely, no RAN ANZAC's would be available in the short to medium term, not especially as the FFG's are being upgraded. Perhaps when the AWD's are commissioned? Possible but if so, not for a few more years or more then?
It's a pity that the NZ Govt doesn't have a flexible defence acquistion policy eg it had already made up its mind on a 2 Frigate/2 OPV Navy. (And perhaps, despite concern in the RNZN that the "3rd" Frigate Canterbury had to be decommissioned in 2005 before the replacement MRV (and OPV's) could be commissioned in 2007 thus resulting in a two year hole in the training programme whereby opportunities to go to sea were reduced and some sailors and recruits left).
It's a pity then because of this inflexibility that NZ could not be tempted by the UK back in 2004? when it axed 3 of its Type 23 Frigates (including the then 8 year old HMS Grafton) - all 3 Frigates for £100M! (Trouble is all 3 had to go in one lot. Perhaps the RNZN could have put the 3rd Duke in reserve or perhaps hired it/on-sold it to another Navy? But then again Blair and Clark were actually good buddies and perhaps a compromise could have been worked out eg NZ to get 1 or 2 Dukes only, maybe, and one as a training ship anyway)? Costs for extra manpower would have needed to be budgeted for of course, but the Govt is putting an additional NZ$4.6B into recruitment and related projects over the next several years, so no problem really). Dunno, just a thought that is irrelevant now anyway.
Anyway the RNZN ANZAC's (and if things had turned out differently and some Dukes were bought ... or in the near future a NZ Govt decided to buy a second hand ship from elsewhere, but not the RAN) then all ships would require replacing from 2020 onwards and NZ would be better to link into the RAN ANZAC replacement programme.
That's one thing that NZ Labour Govt have constantly ruled out, but the Opposition have been clear on one being needed for a few years now. The last NZ Whitepaper was in 1997, by the then National Govt. (Labour's current policy relies on the just as outdated Defence Beyond 2000 multi-party committe report of 1998. Critics point out DB2000 wasn't actually a proper Whitepaper as such and its scope was mainly limited to NZ's immediate vicinity. Plus the world has changed alot since then especially post 9/11 etc). But who knows, maybe if Labour retains power in 2008 or their leadership changes, one may be considered.
Last edited:
Why dont we take a big step and order a AWD along with Australia sure it might cost a bit more but then its got more features and is a decent warship with capabilities that will put us up with the best of them. We have little option now of acquiring a third frigate so it seems sensible to buy new ones in the future when our frigates come to the end of their life. This is just a suggestion anyway.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
This idea was thrashed out (in this thread?) a few months ago and I think the consensus was for that to happen it could only occur once the new AWD's are commissioned. Realistically it ain't going to happen.
But if it were to happen for some reason, I don't think anyone here really expects "the RAN should give up one of its already to few surface assets to the RNZN for a bargain basement price" and rip off the Australian taxpayer.
Apparently from what I've read elsewhere there was a suggestion (if that's the correct term to use) from the Australian Govt to the NZ Govt that it could acquire, probably HMAS ANZAC in lieu of NZ opting out of the 3rd new ANZAC Frigate build project. I think a price of NZ$600M (roughly A$500M-odd was mentioned). I suspect the Aus Govt reason, apart from ensuring NZ had a credible combat Navy, was because the first 4 ANZAC Frigates had welding issues (since rectified) and possibly the Aus Govt would simply build an additional new ANZAC replacement for the RAN with the proceeds (after all the RAN would surely be happier to have a new build ANZAC rather than a patch up early ANZAC). I dunno, it's what I've heard but it may simply be a myth or the story has grown some legs but someone else here will know the real details and can elaborate.
(Incidentally, perhaps if the NZ Govt was interested a few years ago, would it have been feasible for NZ to buy one of the FFG's that was recently decomissioned? Or was it too worn out? As National were on the way out in the late 1990's one of their tasks for the MOD/NZDF was to assess other options for the replacement of HMNZS Canterbury, in lieu of signing up for a third ANZAC).
Again someone better qualified than me can explain why the NZ Govt didn't take up the additional ANZAC options. But from my reading of the situation, in 1998 when a decision was required, NZ was suffering from an exchange rate "crisis", the backwash from the Asian economic crisis and because of other competing defence priorities that had become critical as National started to involve the NZDF in more UN Operations such as Bosnia in the early 90's which showed up alot of deficiencies (and as Mr Conservative stated, MMP coalition issues may have played a part). At the time in 1998, two high defence priorities were the F16 acquisition of 28 aircraft (approved) and the 3rd ANZAC Frigate (rejected). As well these there was the procurement of Army direct fire weapons and new comms equipment. Tenders at the time were soon to go out for new armoured vehicles and 4WD vehicles and the $500M P3 ASW and sensor upgrades. So it looks like the 3rd ANZAC was deferred due to other more pressing priorities and I think the option to buy the 3rd ANZAC finally expired around 2001 or 2002 when the new Labour Govt said they weren't interested.
Remember too that although the Australian Govt is paying a premium for locally produced equipment, so is NZ when it purchases Australian made equipment. However you are correct in that NZ companies have benefitted from for example the ANZAC project, hence it is in NZ's best interests to support these types of projects and set out as intended (it's a pity that sometimes domestic politics over here gets in the way). NZ companies benefit, true, but also alot of`Australian companies that are based in NZ such as James Hardie and Tenix, who own NZ's main ship building facility in Whangarei.
Now to answer my question from yesterday, which to recap was:
If an opportunity arose whereby NZ could buy two new, Anzac type frigates for say, NZ$80M for both, would this be a good idea?
Also what if we wanted to have a four frigate navy again, thus spend instead, NZ$160M for four. Would this be a good idea?
From one source I've`read (historian Matthew Wright), the cost for NZ to buy two brand spanking new ANZAC Frigates, when the ANZAC Frigate project was signed in 1988 or 89 was ........ <$80M per year spread over 16 years (i.e. 1989-2005). In other words some $1200M all-up (although the MOD website stated the overall project cost was some $900M back in 2005).
(And obviously I've assumed that if NZ signed up for 4 Frigates back in 1989 it would be paying twice that or $160M per year spread over 16 years).
Ok, some of you may think I've been a bit cheeky or misleading but the reason why I did this was to make people think about defence costs in a different way, perhaps a more realistic way as NZ did not pay Australia some $900-1200M up front at the time!
Despite what the anti-Frigate peace-groups wanted the NZ public to believe at the time. Sure at the time in the 1980's, $1B was an unheard of sum back then (and no wonder the public grumbled, especially as NZ's economy was absolutely FXXXXD at the time and tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people were being laid off, factories closing, companies bitting the dust and NZ public assets were being prepared for sale). No wonder the public protested and the Labour Govt did not want to commit to 4 Frigates up front.
But look at things in a different way. Say current NZ health expenditure was some $10B/year, then over 16 years (in today's prices) that's some $160B. Again for NZ that's an unheard of sum! If the (whatever) Govt said that the Health budget was $160B (even saying it's over 16 years) then every blXXdy man and his dog would be protesting - for example, women would be protesting that they can't get subsidised Herceptin (unlike in Aussie), hip replacement patients would be protesting that they are sick of the waiting lists and want immediate operations, people would want Pharmac to subsidise every drug they require etc etc.
So it's a matter of`perception. If the NZ Govt wanted to buy a third`Frigate now as an example, whatever they cost, say $1B in today's prices, well if you paid it off over only 10 years at $100M per year (plus inflation) - the defence budget needs to increase only $100M per year (plus additional operational and`crewing costs of course, as well as factoring in for inflation etc). Considering the NZ economy is generally in better shape with operating surpluses of several billion dollars per year at present, please don't tell me that NZ can't afford a third Frigate or a 4th Frigate or whatever else deemed important (an expanded Army perhaps)? As AD said recently, it's due to the will of the politicians. As Todjaeger said recently when comparing NZ to Singapore (well maybe not exactly the way I am), should NZ be lifting it's defence GDP expenditure from 1%? Even a "modest" 0.5% increase would provide alot of additional capabilities to support current govt policy (eg no need to get carried away with high-end capabilities etc and yes I'd like to see our overseas debt reduced/paid off).
Last edited:
NZ really should revive some of the arms it had stood down.
Get started with 2nd-hand equipment that can gradually be replaced.
Defintely have an air strike or interdiction capability again. Nothing else can be achieved without this.
Get more small OPVs with modern anti-ship and anti-air missiles instead of one large frigate for homeland defence.
Start new arms that you never had. E.g. - definitely get a submarine force going as this is the most economical "power projection" a small navy can hope for.
Of course, get more people into uniform.
The obvious threat?
An agressive China has to fight its way through the whole South East asian region as well as through Australia to even reach NZ. There are a few countries between NZ and China (As well as between NZ and the rest of the wordl) before they can hope of being in striking range.
Or do you expect a not existing blue water task force including amphibs from China is going to sail through the pacific, passes nearly everybody else including Australia and some US CVBGs just to land in NZ?
An agressive China has to fight its way through the whole South East asian region as well as through Australia to even reach NZ. There are a few countries between NZ and China (As well as between NZ and the rest of the wordl) before they can hope of being in striking range.
Or do you expect a not existing blue water task force including amphibs from China is going to sail through the pacific, passes nearly everybody else including Australia and some US CVBGs just to land in NZ?
I am going to be honest and put some brute reality into this suggestion that NZ should replace the ANZAC at some point in the near future. Quite simply, the government should, but its not going to happen.
The ANZACs will be around to stay for the forseeable future for the RNZN. Like the Leanders they will be with us for a long time and any "necessary" upgrades will be done within the context of relevant financing when available to make sure they are able to sail the seas and relevant to their weight restrictions etc. What i do see is an additional frigate added for future Navy requirements but thats where it stops. Anything else is pure fantasy and dream piping.
I do believe that a third ANZAC can be purchased from the RAN even if it was an FFG OP which now have the MK41 VLS. New Zealand is NOT going to get them free or on a "fire sale" option unless Australia turns around and offers one at a "fire sale" price. It has been said before that Australia and New Zealand can negociate for the HMAS ANZAC if available and if the RAN did get a 5th AWD in replacement of an ANZAC in the RAN. That is an entirely plausible option, if the long term arrangements for the RAN did include further surface combatants. Cheers.
The ANZACs will be around to stay for the forseeable future for the RNZN. Like the Leanders they will be with us for a long time and any "necessary" upgrades will be done within the context of relevant financing when available to make sure they are able to sail the seas and relevant to their weight restrictions etc. What i do see is an additional frigate added for future Navy requirements but thats where it stops. Anything else is pure fantasy and dream piping.
I do believe that a third ANZAC can be purchased from the RAN even if it was an FFG OP which now have the MK41 VLS. New Zealand is NOT going to get them free or on a "fire sale" option unless Australia turns around and offers one at a "fire sale" price. It has been said before that Australia and New Zealand can negociate for the HMAS ANZAC if available and if the RAN did get a 5th AWD in replacement of an ANZAC in the RAN. That is an entirely plausible option, if the long term arrangements for the RAN did include further surface combatants. Cheers.
Not necessarily a direct aggression.
It is quite inconceivable China wants to invade NZ or Aus directly. Nothing to gain, everything to lose.
But for whatever reasons, China might want to extend her influence to Oceania island states like how she does with many states in Africa. These states often vote in favour of China on crucial world issues like Taiwan etc...
As someone had mentioned earlier China's involvement in Fiji or something.
"FIJIAN military dictator Frank Bainimarama has said he will seek support from China and other Asian nations if Australia continues to campaign against his leadership. Commodore Bainimarama said he assumed China "would always be there" to support Fiji.
"We have always had close ties with Beijing," Commodore Bainimarama told The Weekend Australian newspaper.
"I've already made an official visit there at the invitation of the People's Liberation Army and we've had two senior officers at China's defence college since 2000."
Malaysia, South Korea and Japan were also named as possible allies."
It may begin with economic aid, some military aid etc. America has Samoa so why not China also get some friends in the Pacific?
It is also possible that China eventually challenges Australian/US dominance over that part of the world.
And what should NZ do against it?
Shipping two modernized FFGs to the Fiji cost and start to shell the chinese military advisors? Or even fire a TacTom or Harpoon Blk II at a palace of the Fijian president?
Any F-16s or other fighters are not going to be able to reach anything outside NZs territorial waters.
NZ will never be able to project power in a way which even marginaly can handle such situations.
Shipping two modernized FFGs to the Fiji cost and start to shell the chinese military advisors? Or even fire a TacTom or Harpoon Blk II at a palace of the Fijian president?
Any F-16s or other fighters are not going to be able to reach anything outside NZs territorial waters.
NZ will never be able to project power in a way which even marginaly can handle such situations.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
That's a good point. Assuming a new NZ Govt's defence whitepaper could justify another Frigate, and that it was deemed high priority, and that the whitepaper was done after the Nov 2008 election, i.e. completed sometime in 2009 or 2010, NZ would be looking for a second hand Frigate from perhaps 2010/2011 at the very earliest, would you say? This timeframe would rule out an ex-RAN ANZAC or FFG, hence NZ would be looking elsewhere. And if no second hand Frigates were available, what then? Build new cheap but properly armed OPV's or Corvettes (or try and acquire some second hand - they seem to be out there at the moment)?
Because of both NZ political parties when in Govt deferring/postponing/cancelling ANZAC Frigate's 3&4, the timeframes have been really stuffed up and it might not be until the late 2010's or early 2020's that NZ decides (if they do) to enter into the ANZAC replacement programme again with Australia, which would then see new built ships.
And this cannot be guaranteed this far out. And what if Australia (as suggested by the Aussies in their Naval forums here) go down the F100 path instead, would/could NZ justify such a large vessel? (Personally I think its an interesting concept if it is taken seriously, but we all know how NZ Govt's balk at the extra costs associated with these sorts of things)!
Because of both NZ political parties when in Govt deferring/postponing/cancelling ANZAC Frigate's 3&4, the timeframes have been really stuffed up and it might not be until the late 2010's or early 2020's that NZ decides (if they do) to enter into the ANZAC replacement programme again with Australia, which would then see new built ships.
And this cannot be guaranteed this far out. And what if Australia (as suggested by the Aussies in their Naval forums here) go down the F100 path instead, would/could NZ justify such a large vessel? (Personally I think its an interesting concept if it is taken seriously, but we all know how NZ Govt's balk at the extra costs associated with these sorts of things)!
Last edited:
What's you problem? I said it would not be a direct threat to NZ.