NZDF General discussion thread

[Todjaeger]

There is a lot of "ifs" there Markus and a 5th AWD is at least 13~14 years away if at all. Can NZ afford to wait that long for what will then be a ship that has done 20+ years service. I think NZ can do better than that.

Hooroo

Depending on how RAN shipbuilding plans go, one Anzac might (repeat MIGHT) be available earlier. If the RAN decides to keep the Adelaides in commission a little longer, and instead decomm an early Anzac (either Anzac or Arunta) when one of the Hobarts commissions, that could make an Anzac available for sale to NZ. Given that if the above scenario does occur, it still would likely not be until 2014 or later, and the purchased ship would, depending on time and usage only have perhaps 5-15 years of effective life.

The other important thing to remember about such a circumstance, is that the overall situation would need it to be in Australia's best interest to sell the Anzac to NZ. Not sure that will happen.

-Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

Depending on how RAN shipbuilding plans go, one Anzac might (repeat MIGHT) be available earlier. If the RAN decides to keep the Adelaides in commission a little longer, and instead decomm an early Anzac (either Anzac or Arunta) when one of the Hobarts commissions, that could make an Anzac available for sale to NZ. Given that if the above scenario does occur, it still would likely not be until 2014 or later, and the purchased ship would, depending on time and usage only have perhaps 5-15 years of effective life.

The other important thing to remember about such a circumstance, is that the overall situation would need it to be in Australia's best interest to sell the Anzac to NZ. Not sure that will happen.

-Cheers

Yes the timeframes are trickey in all this, if an extra Frigate was deemed neccessary by a NZ Govt, I'm sure most of us here would want to see something bought sooner rather than much later. I suppose another option could be to purchase a new European Frigate (people here have previously suggested a similar Meko type etc). But if we were to be realistic, at this point in time it's hard to assume that a NZ Govt within the next 2-3 years, would be seeing that 1 (or 2) extra new-build Frigate's as being a priority. In the other NZ related thread, Gibbo says Wayne Mapp is interested in looking into an option for a third Frigate, which isn't quite the same as saying that a third Frigate is an important requirement. Ok, we need to see what comes out of a defence whitepaper if the Govt changes or the current one undertakes one to be sure. But I'm wondering if both political parties are prioritising the Army (and associated sea and air support and logistics etc), one at this early point would have to assume that a new Govt would being looking at second hand options (or possibly build new uparmed OPV's in the interim)? The interim being now to when the time comes to replace the ANZAC's of course.

The thing about Australia wanting to sell NZ an early model ANZAC etc. I don't believe the timeframes are right, as I've said before. However you have correctly said that it would have to be in Australia's best interests to do so. Possibly from a RAN perspective it might be relucant to see this happen. However from a political perspective, if I may speculate, this could be possible (or then again it might not). It would depend on the NZ and Australian Govt's relationship at the time (which can be up or down depending on the egos involved. Currently the relationship between Howard and Clark has been regarded as extremely good over here) and what signals NZ gives out to the Australian Govt (and others etc) as to how seriously NZ will take defence over the next several years and in what directions it is heading (eg Labour signalled early on where it wanted to take defence and they've been consistent, whether we here agree or not is not my point, but at least Australia and the US know where it is heading. But will a change of Govt or the incumbent Govt rethink things in the near future as one can't rely on a policy formulated in the 90's to be credible nowadays)? Therefore if both NZ Parties one day decide that due to rising regional and near neighbour instability etc, that some additional re-arming is required eg a third Frigate, then politically, Australia's Govt, might consider it a worthwhile idea to release an early ANZAC to NZ, especially if there was some serious indications that NZ will lock into the ANZAC replacement programme, get my drift? In other words the economic benefits to Australia if NZ purchased a number of new Frigates in the 2020's could potentially outweigh the loss of an early RAN Frigate (and lets be realistic the RAN would be refocusing manpower and training for its new fleet anyway, assuming there is no major or regional conflict going on requiring all valuable RAN assets of course). Of course Australia's Govt will also be weary due to past NZ Govt reluctances etc.

But some of you wil be aware of a subtle (but nevertheless highly important) shift occurring with the warming of the NZ-US relationship (thus NZ-US-Australia as well), that had its beginnings in the last National Govt and now this current Labour Govt has been building upon it. This can only be a good thing that both NZ main political parties are taking a bi-partisan approach to NZ's wider relationship with its traditional allies. Here's the latest interesting developments http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10463050 and http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10462672

What's this got to do with a third Frigate? Firstly, although it is still early days in the warming of NZ-US relations, NZ has been publically signalling that a greater US presence is required in the Pacific due to the regional instability and the cheque-book diplomacy that is occuring between two certain neighbouring countries affecting the Pacific (note: A greater US presence may not necesarily be military, it may also be diplomatic, developmental and investment in better governance etc). And this is a far cry from NZ's isolationist stance that resulted from the 1980's fallout. Politically then, from the Australian (and US) Govt's viewpoint, possibly selling off an old RAN ANZAC earlier (or howabout an old USN OHP FFG?) might also be a tactiful move in order to shore up greater regional co-operation.

And this is how the F16 lease deal came about in 1998, a warming of the NZ-US relationship (although the new Labour Govt disagreed on having F16's as a priority, as we all know, and the cancellation was a bit of a set back on the relationship). Hence if something comes out of these current/future initiatives, and if it turns out the US happens to have a Frigate to sell rather than Australia, then let's hope the NZ govt accepts something practical rather than something else with more glam (eg such as ex-USAF F16's which would be a political liability seeing there are many other capability gaps in the NZDF that need addressing first).

Note this is all just an opinion (and perhaps wishful thinking). I like anyone cannot predict what the future holds!

 

[Todjaeger]

I like anyone cannot predict what the future holds!

Sure you can, anyone can predict the future. The ability to do so accurately though, now that is a different matter...

Two items of interest for me are as follows.

1. When was the last comprehensive NZ defence review? I am talking of White Paper or similar-type reviews, not updates or reviews of niche capabilities? The last I am aware of was around 1998 Defence 2000 IIRC. As a follow up on this, why has one not been conducted since? I have a few theories myself, but would be interested to hear the thoughts of others.

2. What do other members see as being gaps in the capabilities of the NZDF? By this I mean reasonable capabilities that the NZDF either lacks, or lacks enough of, to carry out differing types of missions, and what could be done to fill any gaps.

As for the Army appearing to be the main branch receiving support, that does seem to be true to a degree. In many respects, it is like the opposite of the 1980's ADF Defence of Australia strategy.

I do agree that the Army could use strengthening, but IMV it should not be at the cost of the RNZAF or RNZN. Given the existing security situation in the NZ area, the Army I think will only see use as part of an expeditionary force. Given how the Army has been structured, it appears to be capable of long-term deployment of small units in relatively low conflict areas, or shorter deployments of larger sized units. Again, in relatively low conflict areas. I do not include the NZSAS deployment in this, because it is a special forces capability and therefore is typically used differently than a line unit.

An issue I have with this is NZ's ability to support any deployed forces. For example, if things were headed seriously pear-shaped on an NZ detachment, how quickly could the NZDF either extract or reinforce the units? Given the present NZDF assets, it could take some time. What concerns me though is what appears to be a lack of supporting units, capabilities and infrastructure for the NZDF.

As I see it, there are four potentially significant gaps in the NZDF, either now or soon to occur. Some also have proposed solutions. They are as follows.

1. ASW capabilities. At present the ASW capabilities of the RNZN and RNZAF revolve around the hull-mounted sonar aboard the Anzac frigates, and sonobuoys from the P-3K Orion and I believe the Seasprite as well. Also, the lightweight torpedoes are expected (per the LTDP) to reach end-of-servicelife in 2008 but IIRC a replacement is not expected until ~2015 (again from LTDP). What that looks like to me, is that the NZDF ability to conduct ASW operations is degrading, at a time when submarines are becoming more common around the world, and in trading areas for NZ.

2. MCM capabilities. The RNZN currently (if it has not lapsed yet) can conduct MCM on an emergency basis from HMNZS Manawanui via the ODT. I believe that some MCM capability had existed, at least on a training basis, from HMNZS Kahu, attached to the Royal New Zealand Naval College. Given the importance of maritime trade to NZ, I see this as a potential issue since NZ might not become aware of any mines without someone getting wet. There could also be a issue where NZ has to rely on aid from other countries in order to clear a minefield. If NZ is present as part of coalition force, that likely would not be an issue. OTOH if NZ is operating alone or for NZ interests, or the incident happens in and around NZ, then the NZDF would be vulnerable.

3. Transport/logistics capabilities. At present the NZDF has seven transport aircraft capable transporting personnel and/or supplies, and one MRV just entering service able to do so. Given the age and operational availability of some of these assets, this can (and has) caused issues for the NZDF in terms of deploying assets, and sending reinforcement or supplies. Of particular note is the difficulty the NZDF could have if it needed to respond to two or more events by ship at the same time, like natural disasters on Niue and Chatham Island for instance.

4. ISR capabilities. The current ISR assets are the air and sea search radars aboard the two Anzac frigates, the sea search radars on the six P-3K and five SH-2G Seasprites, the short ranged air search radar for the Army Mistral manpads, and civilian ATC radar. I could be mistaken, but that seems to be a distinct lack of ISR resources available. I see that as a problem because without adequate information, situations are difficult to respond to properly, be they defence, customs, law/fishery enforcement or SAR.

I would interested to hear what others think about gaps in capabilities, in particular, which ones should be addressed first, why, and how.

-Cheers

 

[Markus40]

Im sure it can barra. Or perhaps i should say it should. I think what i proposed is basically a realistic option for the RNZN and for the current NZ governemnt. Im not entirely convinced that the RNZN or the government for that matter would be wanting to "toy around with a different class of ship other the ANZACs for obvious integration reasons. I do think the exception is the FFG as perhaps a "flagship" type for the front end of the Navy.

If you have an alternative to this suggestion that would have a logical conclusion to perhaps the ideal choice option for NZs needs, i would be glad to hear it. Cheers.

There is a lot of "ifs" there Markus and a 5th AWD is at least 13~14 years away if at all. Can NZ afford to wait that long for what will then be a ship that has done 20+ years service. I think NZ can do better than that.

Hooroo

 

[Markus40]

"And this is how the F16 lease deal came about in 1998, a warming of the NZ-US relationship (although the new Labour Govt disagreed on having F16's as a priority, as we all know, and the cancellation was a bit of a set back on the relationship). Hence if something comes out of these current/future initiatives, and if it turns out the US happens to have a Frigate to sell rather than Australia, then let's hope the NZ govt accepts something practical rather than something else with more glam (eg such as ex-USAF F16's which would be a political liability seeing there are many other capability gaps in the NZDF that need addressing first)."

Your last sentence i have some difficulty with, however i do agree that there is a very tiny warming of the relationship between NZ and the US, however i dont think its very significant right now and will require NZ to do a lot better in its overall Defence doctrine. A lot better.

Im not particulary bought on this frigate issue with the US, as NZ needs to run a common type of warship for its operational issues, not one that is fragmented in its diverse types. This is why i am a strong advocate for the HMAS ANZAC to be passed onto the RNZN IF the chance is there to actually purchase the ship at some point in the future, and if the RAN looks at upping its surface combatant numbers, which looking at the road the RAN in the future wants to take, could make this proposition a likely option.

As to the F16 debate, that deal is simply not going to happen again. "The mouse that roared" mentality of our government towards excellent fighter deals has already done the damage, and the US is unlikely to want to be putting itself out again. A smaller number of F16s in prestine condition, say around 16, would be far more viable and would make the warming of our relations with washington far more warmer. Its then the FTA will look more likely.

Yes, there are big capability gaps as suggested however this topic lends itself to one huge capability gap within the NZDFs and having this addressed will in many ways eclipse the other capability gaps excluding the 3rd frigate option.

Yes the timeframes are trickey in all this, if an extra Frigate was deemed neccessary by a NZ Govt, I'm sure most of us here would want to see something bought sooner rather than much later. I suppose another option could be to purchase a new European Frigate (people here have previously suggested a similar Meko type etc). But if we were to be realistic, at this point in time it's hard to assume that a NZ Govt within the next 2-3 years, would be seeing that 1 (or 2) extra new-build Frigate's as being a priority. In the other NZ related thread, Gibbo says Wayne Mapp is interested in looking into an option for a third Frigate, which isn't quite the same as saying that a third Frigate is an important requirement. Ok, we need to see what comes out of a defence whitepaper if the Govt changes or the current one undertakes one to be sure. But I'm wondering if both political parties are prioritising the Army (and associated sea and air support and logistics etc), one at this early point would have to assume that a new Govt would being looking at second hand options (or possibly build new uparmed OPV's in the interim)? The interim being now to when the time comes to replace the ANZAC's of course.

The thing about Australia wanting to sell NZ an early model ANZAC etc. I don't believe the timeframes are right, as I've said before. However you have correctly said that it would have to be in Australia's best interests to do so. Possibly from a RAN perspective it might be relucant to see this happen. However from a political perspective, if I may speculate, this could be possible (or then again it might not). It would depend on the NZ and Australian Govt's relationship at the time (which can be up or down depending on the egos involved. Currently the relationship between Howard and Clark has been regarded as extremely good over here) and what signals NZ gives out to the Australian Govt (and others etc) as to how seriously NZ will take defence over the next several years and in what directions it is heading (eg Labour signalled early on where it wanted to take defence and they've been consistent, whether we here agree or not is not my point, but at least Australia and the US know where it is heading. But will a change of Govt or the incumbent Govt rethink things in the near future as one can't rely on a policy formulated in the 90's to be credible nowadays)? Therefore if both NZ Parties one day decide that due to rising regional and near neighbour instability etc, that some additional re-arming is required eg a third Frigate, then politically, Australia's Govt, might consider it a worthwhile idea to release an early ANZAC to NZ, especially if there was some serious indications that NZ will lock into the ANZAC replacement programme, get my drift? In other words the economic benefits to Australia if NZ purchased a number of new Frigates in the 2020's could potentially outweigh the loss of an early RAN Frigate (and lets be realistic the RAN would be refocusing manpower and training for its new fleet anyway, assuming there is no major or regional conflict going on requiring all valuable RAN assets of course). Of course Australia's Govt will also be weary due to past NZ Govt reluctances etc.

But some of you wil be aware of a subtle (but nevertheless highly important) shift occurring with the warming of the NZ-US relationship (thus NZ-US-Australia as well), that had its beginnings in the last National Govt and now this current Labour Govt has been building upon it. This can only be a good thing that both NZ main political parties are taking a bi-partisan approach to NZ's wider relationship with its traditional allies. Here's the latest interesting developments http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10463050 and http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10462672

What's this got to do with a third Frigate? Firstly, although it is still early days in the warming of NZ-US relations, NZ has been publically signalling that a greater US presence is required in the Pacific due to the regional instability and the cheque-book diplomacy that is occuring between two certain neighbouring countries affecting the Pacific (note: A greater US presence may not necesarily be military, it may also be diplomatic, developmental and investment in better governance etc). And this is a far cry from NZ's isolationist stance that resulted from the 1980's fallout. Politically then, from the Australian (and US) Govt's viewpoint, possibly selling off an old RAN ANZAC earlier (or howabout an old USN OHP FFG?) might also be a tactiful move in order to shore up greater regional co-operation.

And this is how the F16 lease deal came about in 1998, a warming of the NZ-US relationship (although the new Labour Govt disagreed on having F16's as a priority, as we all know, and the cancellation was a bit of a set back on the relationship). Hence if something comes out of these current/future initiatives, and if it turns out the US happens to have a Frigate to sell rather than Australia, then let's hope the NZ govt accepts something practical rather than something else with more glam (eg such as ex-USAF F16's which would be a political liability seeing there are many other capability gaps in the NZDF that need addressing first).

Note this is all just an opinion (and perhaps wishful thinking). I like anyone cannot predict what the future holds!

 

[barra]

I think that the NZ Navy is stuck with the force structure it has now. The opportunity to buy extra Anzacs is gone and frankly I think any plan to buy an "old" aussie warship could be easily scuttled by opposition parties and interest groups. I can hear it now "Why are we buying second-hand Aussie crap" " its a 20 year old rust bucket" "the Aussies are ripping us off" Blah Blah Blah. Sorry got carried away with possible complaints.
So if NZ can't economically expand the fleet why not make better use of what you have got? Has NZ taken any steps towards NCW? I would guess that the Anzacs at least have Link 11? Are Link 16 terminals being investigated for the Anzacs, OPV and p-3k's? With a handfull of Global Hawks routinely patrolling high above NZ their surveillance gear could relay air and surface tracks hundreds of miles back to ships and aircraft via link 16. They would then have a complete surveillance picture of a massive area which would cut down patrolling time as you could steam/fly directly to contacts. A couple of Global Hawks or similar in the air at the same time would cover an even larger area as messages are relayed via GH to the ships/aircraft.
I know this is still expensive but it does make better use of your assets and acts as a force multiplyer. Australia is in the process of buying GH surely there must be some benefit to be had in piggy backing on Australias order. Anyway that is what I have been thinking that NZ could do. Over to you.

Hooroo

 

[Markus40]

Any thought that NZ is "piggy backing " on any "cheap" discounts on military assets with Australian acquisitions is not a good look. We are back to our old traits of "bludging" again. Something NZ has a reputation of having. NZ needs to get serious about Defence . Period. Its taken some small steps so far, but it doesnt go far enough.

I think a possible purchase of a Meko, which is of similar design to the ANZACs wouldnt be too bad. I think thats a good idea, if the Germans were still producing them. At least we would be running the same type of warship in keeping with commonality.

There has been some discussion that now is a good time for a review of the White Paper Defence Report on New Zealand Defence needs and requirements. I think the sooner this is done the better our options will be.

I think that the NZ Navy is stuck with the force structure it has now. The opportunity to buy extra Anzacs is gone and frankly I think any plan to buy an "old" aussie warship could be easily scuttled by opposition parties and interest groups. I can hear it now "Why are we buying second-hand Aussie crap" " its a 20 year old rust bucket" "the Aussies are ripping us off" Blah Blah Blah. Sorry got carried away with possible complaints.
So if NZ can't economically expand the fleet why not make better use of what you have got? Has NZ taken any steps towards NCW? I would guess that the Anzacs at least have Link 11? Are Link 16 terminals being investigated for the Anzacs, OPV and p-3k's? With a handfull of Global Hawks routinely patrolling high above NZ their surveillance gear could relay air and surface tracks hundreds of miles back to ships and aircraft via link 16. They would then have a complete surveillance picture of a massive area which would cut down patrolling time as you could steam/fly directly to contacts. A couple of Global Hawks or similar in the air at the same time would cover an even larger area as messages are relayed via GH to the ships/aircraft.
I know this is still expensive but it does make better use of your assets and acts as a force multiplyer. Australia is in the process of buying GH surely there must be some benefit to be had in piggy backing on Australias order. Anyway that is what I have been thinking that NZ could do. Over to you.

Hooroo

 

[recce.k1]

Link 16

So if NZ can't economically expand the fleet why not make better use of what you have got? Has NZ taken any steps towards NCW? I would guess that the Anzacs at least have Link 11? Are Link 16 terminals being investigated for the Anzacs, OPV and p-3k's?

A quick reply to this particular question, I've found the following info that states that the P3K will have link 16. It's from an article by Derek Quigley, sourced from the web. (I am assuming now, that the RNZN ANZAC's and OPV's will have the same technology at some point as the NZ Govt's LTDP suggests that the P3 Mission Management, and Communication, and Navigation Systems Upgrades will have linkages to these other ships and a proposed Land based C4ISR project etc). Maybe MUG may be able to confirm the RNZN situation etc?

Here's some of the blurb from the web. The reference to the Cabinet is the incoming Labour Govt Cabinet of 1999:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Evolution of New Zealand Defence Policy
Hon Derek Quigley

THE P-3K ORION UPGRADE
The 1997 Defence White Paper contained a proposal to upgrade the Orions called Project Sirius. After rejecting an initial proposal the Cabinet commissioned work on four options ranging from disposing of the fleet to restoring the existing military capability as envisaged in Project Sirius. Cabinet was advised that the fleet was the central component of New Zealand’s maritime patrol force and that it contributed to all five of the government’s policy objectives. The issue was therefore the extent of the upgrade.

In a departure from previous New Zealand defence procurement practice, non-defence agencies made crucial input on the nature and scale of the Orion upgrade. Immigration wanted to be able to focus on people in groups on the ground; Customs on ship movements and coastline activities; the Police on vehicles during the day and the night; the NZDF—following the experience of its Orion missions in Afghanistan and Iraq—required a surveillance capability for overland operations.

The result will be an upgrade to LINK 16 and a capability substantially better than the NZDF could have justified on its own. The one exclusion is a submarine detection capability (which seems odd given the alleged operation of some 200 submarines in the region).

 

[Todjaeger]

Any thought that NZ is "piggy backing " on any "cheap" discounts on military assets with Australian acquisitions is not a good look. We are back to our old traits of "bludging" again. Something NZ has a reputation of having. NZ needs to get serious about Defence . Period. Its taken some small steps so far, but it doesnt go far enough.

I do not consider a joint ADF/NZDF order of equipment "bludging" and I personally would like to see it occur more often. By having common equipment between the two forces, it allows joint operations to be conduct more smoothly than might otherwise be the case. There is also a cost benefit. On joint operations, there would be fewer separate logistics trains needed, simplying support. Also there can be, depending on order size, a lower cost per unit than would be found in small orders that are more akin to one-off orders.

Also, as I mentioned before, it is likely that a RAN frigate (Anzac or Adelaide) would not be available for sale to NZ until ~2014 at the earliest. And if the desired equipment was an Anzac, the first RAN one would not be available until 2020 most likely. About when the Anzac replacement frigate would start entering service, which would likely be why the RAN would not need the HMAS Anzac any longer.

As much as I would like to see NZ have a third frigate, I do not see a good option that is realistic IMV. Given what I have seen on ship construction, it can take 2+ years between placement of order and entry into service. That would mean that if a frigate was ordered today, it would likely enter RNZN service at the beginning of 2010. There would also have to be all the work done to place the order, receiving bids, estimates, etc. The other option would be to purchase another navy's Meko 200 and refit it to resemble an Anzac. The situation here does not IMV look much better, since there are only a few nations using the Meko 200, and I do not believe any is looking to part with their ships.

What perhaps needs to be done, is to impress upon government decision makers of the importance in having a minimum of 3 frigates as part of the Anzac replacement program.

-Cheers

 

[barra]

I did not mean "piggy backing" in a derogatory way, more as a way to create an economy of scale with both nations operating the same equipment.
It is good that p-3 are getting link 16, but who else is? That is the idea of networking, multiple platforms sharing information on the same network.

Hooroo

 

[NZDF FAN]

It may seem foolish to base my assumptions about the NZSAS on a television documentary alone, but the recent documentary opened my eyes to the tenacity and diligence of NZ soldiers. The NZDF is blessed with high-quality personnel already, and with a small but significant cash injection they can only become more skilled and greater in number. Who needs a strike force when you have an army of lean, mean, troops and (hint hint) just a couple more ships to transport them? :unknown

 

[Todjaeger]

I did not mean "piggy backing" in a derogatory way, more as a way to create an economy of scale with both nations operating the same equipment.

I quite agree. Take the NZ NH-90 order herefor example. Eight helicopters are expected to cost ~NZ$771 mil, including support and logistics costs estimates representing over a third of that figure. I have some questions on the quoted numbers, like if the logistics and support is supposed to cover the whole service life of the RNZAF NH-90. Is the number supposed to be the total program cost (like the A$6 bil cost for 24 F/A-18F for the RAAF for 10 years) and what the actual, per unit cost would be for the NZ aircraft. Using the numbers given as they are, I have a figure giving a rough price of US$46 mil each, depending on currency, etc.

Australia currently has orders for some 46 MRH-90 versions of the NH-90, of which, a second batch of 34 was ordered mid-2006 for approximately US$43 mil each.

As such, the two (or rather three, Australia has a 12 aircraft order and another 34 aircraft order) orders are very similar in pricing. It might have been possible for a slightly lower per unit price to be negotiated if there were a larger number ordered though. Also, since Australia and NZ are to receive slightly different models, it is possible that any logistics support for jointly deployed aircraft might be higher than if just one model was owned by both.

It remains to be seen if the planned 8 NH-90 and unspecified number of T/LUH will be able to fulfil the roles carried out by 14 UH-1 Iroquois and 5 Sioux helicopters. If NZ does need to increase the size of the NH-90 fleet in inventory, it might be able to place them with the ADF order to keep costs down.

On a related subject, the RAN is looking at replacing the 14 AS350 Squirrel with a newer LUH, if the mission requirements are close enough to those of the RNZAF for it's T/LUH then there could be economies of scale.

Are there other areas where Australia and NZ could make joint/combined purchases to get a better per unit price? Ammunition and small arms come to mind, price per 25mm round, 127mm shell, per torpedo, that sort of thing.

-Cheers

 

[NZDF FAN]

I agree that the C-27J would be an awesome supplement to the current C-130 fleet. It would allow a bit more flexibility with transport operations, and another attraction at the already awesome NZ airshows!

That said, the A400M looks like a pretty slick aircraft.....we'll have to see how development turns out.

 

[NZDF FAN]

I believe it would be great having another Special Ops unit, but the question always lingers when contemplating any military expansion in NZ. Do we need it?

 

[recce.k1]

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...

Yes, good observation IMO, China (and Taiwan to some extent) are trying to buy some “influence” in terms of aid (and to overturn an international whaling ban in Japan’s case). Fortunately, it’s not quite in the same league as one hears about China’s soft power plays in some African states, but none the less its all part of the great game eg opportunity to throw around (small) amounts of money (as the islands are relatively small, population wise and economically etc) to gain proportionally large (eg voting) favours as the many island states add up to many votes in certain international forums etc. And whilst there appears to have been instances of corruption amongst a handful of island state officials fortunately on the whole the history of the region has been one of many decades of promoting good governance by NZ, Australia, France, EU, UK, US, UN (and the Pacific Forum themselves) etc. However as reported elsewhere China is in for the long haul and as long as the US continues to dominate the Pacific (and provides the security blanket for many Asia-Pacific countries) we can rule out any direct or indirect military threats etc, but what will be the situation in the next few decades etc? I think it would be fair to say that some people down under shared the recent concerns of the US Govt of not being impressed by the previous French president’s attempts to lift the ban on hi-tech western arms sales to China, how did the US Govt put it, something like they (and some of their allies) could be the ones facing such weapons if any future conflict broke out? Having said that quite a number of Asia-Pacific countries enjoy extremely good relations with China, and are more interested in working in partnership with China for economic prosperity. It’s an interesting situation though, looking at China’s relations with the Asia-Pacific, US, India, Pakistan, Burma, Taiwan etc and figuring out where it may be going etc.

 

[recce.k1]

1. When was the last comprehensive NZ defence review? I am talking of White Paper or similar-type reviews, not updates or reviews of niche capabilities? The last I am aware of was around 1998 Defence 2000 IIRC. As a follow up on this, why has one not been conducted since? I have a few theories myself, but would be interested to hear the thoughts of others.

The last Whitepaper was in 1997 and it was called “The Shape of NZ’s Defence – A Whitepaper”.

We know that National have publicly stated if they become the next govt they will undertake a new Whitepaper (and they have stated this on previous occasions).

Interestingly enough the current Labour Govt had in their 2005 Election policy on defence http://www.labour.org.nz/policy/foreign_affairs_and_defense/2005policy/Pol05-defence/index.html the following point. “Begin work on a new Defence White Paper for release towards the end of the decade”. See the 6th bullet point under "LABOUR'S PRIORITIES - Capability, Capacity, Staffing".

 

[recce.k1]

Your last sentence i have some difficulty with, however i do agree that there is a very tiny warming of the relationship between NZ and the US, however i dont think its very significant right now and will require NZ to do a lot better in its overall Defence doctrine. A lot better.

I’m not sure if you mean me saying if the USN had a surplus OHP Frigate to sell to NZ etc? Don’t worry, this is what I meant by wishful thinking. I simply don’t know what the status of the OHP’s are etc (maybe Todjaeger or SeaToby might). Really at the end of the day, only if a NZ Govt decides a third Frigate is important as the result of a future whitepaper, then the MOD & NZDF will be tasked to look at the available options eg see what is available if at all and if not, what is the next best option etc (OPV etc) if anything etc?

Without wanting to turn this into a major issue and spend too much time on this (after all we’re simply speculating) I do agree with Barra and Todjaeger that NZ’s options are really limited because of timeframes and missed opportunities.

(However as an aside, the HMAS Adelaide is being decommissioned this year after 27 years in service. Unless the ship is falling apart or someone really wants to sink her as a dive wreck, could this ship be useful for the RNZN if a NZ Govt was interested in the next year or so? Even as a tie over until something better came onto the market later (eg HMAS ANZAC, if it ever does etc)? Would need some upgrading of course. Although I do realise this is one of the two US built ships and I may have read once that there are some issues with the Adelaide and Canberra necessitating their withdrawal from service earlier that the other 4 Australian built ships. Hence if this suggestion is nuts then let’s not waste anymore time etc).

Regarding the warming of NZ-US relations, the two Govt’s are patching things up after all these years and it’s a significant development . Here’s another interesting story from yesterday’s NZ Herald, once you get to the article (3 pages) there’s an option to turn it into a single page.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10463650

 

[barra]

Hi Recce,

It would be good for NZ if they were to recommence joint exercises with the US. It would highlight to the brass and hopefully pollies just how far NZ is behind the curve. Could be an impetus for them to try and catch up.

The Labour party document you provided was long on rhetoric with plenty of platitudes about NZ helping peace and security in the region but short on detail of how they have improved the sharp end warfighting ability of the NZDF. An example in point is the Orion upgrade, someone has posted that Police, Fisheries and Customs had input into what the upgraded Orion should be able to achieve. WTF!!!!! Since when do civilian agencies determine the capability of the Air Forces sharp (blunt?) end.

Sooner or later NZ is going to have to bite the bullet on defence spending. A $4.6 Bil increase over 10 years will not go far. NZ has the capacity to lift spending as a % of GDP, how the Govt sells this to the electorate is their problem. Without the ability to project any sort of power in the region the Govt's options are extremely limited once diplomacy fails. The only real options are going to be call Canberra or Washington.

Hooroo

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[recce.k1]

When was the last time NZ called Canberra or Washington when diplomacy failed?

NZ would have called and consulted with both Canberra and Washington regarding regional crisis such as:

2006 - Fiji coup.

2003 - Solomon Islands intervention under Pacific Forum mandate with approval given by the UN.

1999 - East Timor intervention under UN mandate.

1990's - Bouganville under UN mandate.

etc

Regarding NZ's security being threatened - do you mean directly or indirectly?

NZ's security was directly threatened in WW2 by German raiding ships & submarines, Japanese submarines including sub launched aircraft overflying Auckland and Wellington looking for targets (and NZ lives were actually lost off the NZ coast due to civilian ships being sunk by raiding ships). Japanese expansion into the western Pacific threatened NZ being blocaded. Fortunately the US Navy defeated the Japanese in the Coral Sea off Australia and the US with some NZ assistance reversed the expansion in the Solomon Islands (and the US & Australians in PNG and what's now called Indonesia).

Also in WW1 German raiders operated around NZ.

Since WW2 NZ's security was threatened by the USSR in the Cold War. Nuclear powered and armed Soviet submarines would be transitting from their Pacific bases to/from the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic via the Pacific east of NZ, to the south under NZ and Australia, to the west of NZ/East of Australia via the Tasman Sea. Was it any coincidence that the RAAF Orion sub hunters were based in South Australia (whilst NZ Orions were placed to handle any Tasman/Pacific incursions)? Accordingly during and especially post WW2 the RNZN and RNZAF were tasked with anti-submarine warfare (and maritime patrol & anti-surface-anti-shipping warfare). NZ was also protected by the US in the form of the ANZUS Treaty.

Since the demise of the Cold War, NZ politicans (unlike the Australians) have been downgrading NZ ASW and anti-shipping capabilities, saying the threat doesn't exist. Unfortunately you too may have noticed both Russia and China re-arming (and Russia clamping down on civil liberties and dissent) and I suggest you will see both Labour and National revising NZ's offensive anti-shipping and anti-submarine capabilities within the next few years if these trends continue.

Regarding NZ's security being threatened indirectly, I'll point you to the NZ Goverments defence policy as revised by the Labour Govt, which also outlines NZ Security obligations to the wider world (seeing NZ is a "good international citizen"). http://www.defence.govt.nz/defence-policy.htmlDefence

Quote begins:

Defence Policy Framework

The Government's Defence Policy Framework, released in June 2000, is the over-arching strategic guidance for defence policy

Key defence policy objectives

The following five objectives are the basis for the roles and tasks the Government has established for the New Zealand Defence Force.

To defend New Zealand and to protect its people, land, territorial waters, exclusive economic zone (EEZ), natural resources and critical infrastructure.

To meet New Zealand's alliance commitments to Australia by maintaining a close defence partnership in pursuit of common security interests.

To assist in the maintenance of security in the South Pacific and to provide assistance to New Zealand's Pacific neighbours.

To play an appropriate role in the maintenance of security in the Asia-Pacific region, including meeting New Zealand's obligations as a member of the FPDA.

To contribute to global security and peacekeeping through participation in the full range of UN and other appropriate multilateral peace support and humanitarian relief options.

Quote ends.

What are your thoughts on the above Govt Defence Policy? Do you agree or disagree with it?

Regarding US intervention in Iraq, let's not confuse the US's historic ties and assistance with NZ and Australia with the Iraq policies of the current US administration (and like any administration anywhere, there will always be opposing factions, and in the case of Iraq, the neocons won the attention of the President). Remember there is more to the US than simply the Govt of the day, much as there is more to NZ simply than its Govt of the day. Let's not bag people on these forums because they happen to be American, Australian or even NZ etc.