NZ and Australia defence relations

[Stryker001]

Difference of opinion on how geo-political matters are handled in the Rim.

New Zealand is mentioned in the Australian Constitution as another state, not ratified, so a change of wording would allow for the encompassing into the ADF. As the arms race increase, it is something New Zealand should consider.

If I was New Zealand I would purchase 2 to 3 AEW&C's, 3 more Orion's and 2 to 3 air to air refuellers. For constant patrolling out in the South Pacific all the may to the Cape Horn and out to Central America. Very important capability in the future, very important task that would free up Australian air assets.

Now if it was given the greenlight from the DOD, Australia could sell the Collins Class Submarines to the NZ navy, when Australia get their next generation submarines.

 

[barra]

Question for you all regarding Australia and New Zealand becoming one nation.

What is in it for Australia?

Personally I can't see any benefits from an Australian perspective.

 

[Stryker001]

That would Australian and New Zealand a combined submarine fleet of around 14 to 16 vessels. The time line for delivery of the next generation Australian submarines will have to fast tracked by at least five to seven years with the first coming online in 2018 or 2020 in my opinion.

If Federation was occurring today New Zealand would be a state of Australia, just as mentioned in the Australian Constitution, when considering globalization.

I would only want control of defense and what they procure, when and where they deploy inline with Australia's strategic interests, the Australian strategic interest is paramount to the DONZ. Hence the reason they spend next to nothing on defense. But you are right it would cause a lot of problem in its working, there have been suggestions in the past to bring defense forces in the Rim under ADF control, that was unpopular also, and would be problematic in its working.

The benefit for Australia is they get an already established defense struture which is basically which is embedded into the ADF, which allows a expeditionary force to be created to go around 'pull the arms off anyone in the region' as ADF put it, meaning the Islanders. Include a US Marine Base for an expeditionary in Australia and the future looks bright then you can rip the arms off a much larger adversary.

 

[Stryker001]

That would Australian and New Zealand a combined submarine fleet of around 14 to 16 vessels. The time line for delivery of the next generation Australian submarines will have to fast tracked by at least five to seven years with the first coming online in 2018 or 2020 in my opinion.

If Federation was occurring today New Zealand would be a state of Australia, just as mentioned in the Australian Constitution, when considering globalization.

I would only want control of defense and what they procure, when and where they deploy inline with Australia's strategic interests, the Australian strategic interest is paramount to the DONZ. Hence the reason they spend next to nothing on defense. But you are right it would cause a lot of problem in its working, there have been suggestions in the past to bring defense forces in the Rim under ADF control, that was unpopular also, and would be problematic in its working.

The benefit for Australia is they get an already established defense structure which is compatible with the English system that can be embedded into the ADF.

Which allows a expeditionary force to be created to go around 'pull the arms off anyone in the region' (I assume that's why the LHD's) as ADF put it, meaning the Islanders. Include a US Marine Base for an expeditionary in Australia and the future looks bright then you can rip the arms off a much larger adversary.

 

[Stryker001]

If I was New Zealand I would purchase 2 to 3 AEW&C's, 3 more Orion's and 2 to 3 air to air refuellers. For constant patrolling out in the South Pacific all the may to the Cape Horn and out to Central America. Very important capability in the future, very important task that would free up Australian air assets.

I will would happy to settle for NZ having the above and do the above.

 

[t68]

Difference of opinion on how geo-political matters are handled in the Rim.

New Zealand is mentioned in the Australian Constitution as another state, not ratified, so a change of wording would allow for the encompassing into the ADF. As the arms race increase, it is something New Zealand should consider.

.

as taken from another post from battlesign

1) At the time of Federation all the australian states were as independent as the Aus/NZ relationship is now (only linked by mutual defence and economic interests). So including NZ was more about making an offer to a fellow state (Read: British Colony) in the area. Given the 3000 or so miles to WA there was little difference in the 3000 or so to NZ. The reason for not taking it up (the Offer to NZ from the NZ perspective) was a concern about the Australian position on the local peoples (indg isn't really the right word for them). Aust regarded aboriginals to be part of the flora and fauna til '67. Whereas the more left enlightened NZs had an actual treaty with the Maoris which guaranteed certain rights and benefits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry I am still lost on this, which hawks have we upset?


Yes New Zealand can become part of the commonwealth under the act, with the passage of time and the changing environment in which both countries since the late 1800;s have in respect to local customs and laws it is insurmountable to overcome.

I think it is similar to the debate her in Australia some time ago about changing the national flag, there is a lot of history and identity and people have died protecting country and flag it is a symbol of national character, some thing which the New Zealanders have a lot of pride in. to ask them give up their history and national character is something you cannot just throw away for the sake of coming under the umbrella of the ADF

 

[StevoJH]

Difference of opinion on how geo-political matters are handled in the Rim.

New Zealand is mentioned in the Australian Constitution as another state, not ratified, so a change of wording would allow for the encompassing into the ADF. As the arms race increase, it is something New Zealand should consider.

If I was New Zealand I would purchase 2 to 3 AEW&C's, 3 more Orion's and 2 to 3 air to air refuellers. For constant patrolling out in the South Pacific all the may to the Cape Horn and out to Central America. Very important capability in the future, very important task that would free up Australian air assets.

Now if it was given the greenlight from the DOD, Australia could sell the Collins Class Submarines to the NZ navy, when Australia get their next generation submarines.

1) What has the defense relationship between New Zealand and Australia got to do with the US Secretary of State?

2)If New Zealand was ever going to Merge with Australia to form a single country it would have happened in World War 2, it is unlikely to ever occur now. Correct me if i'm wrong, but doesnt changing the constitution require a referendum? if so, that would explain why New Zealand is listed as a state.

3) Why does NZ need AEW&C aircraft along the lines of wedgetail when even if it did detect a hostile aircraft, they have nothing that can shoot them down. Why does NZ need to be able to send patrol planes Central and South America? What would it achieve?

4) By 2020+ when the RAN plans to start getting rid of the collins class they will be about 25-30 years old, and obsolete, not to mention that the RNZN has enough trouble getting the engineers for its TWO frigates, let alone 6 Collins class submarines.

 

[Stryker001]

That would Australian and New Zealand a combined submarine fleet of around 14 to 16 vessels. The timeline for delivery of the next generation Australian submarines will have to fast tracked by at least five to seven years coming online in 2018 or 2020 in my opinion.

I don't what your health system, it is unworkable as has been stated.

Pride I understand but it is unwise to live in the past. It is like a football club merging, they have pride also.

Yeah I know Australia is South Africa.
Australian future projection of 57,000 personnel, if New Zealand restores personnel levels to 1990’s standard of 20,000, a US Marine base of a minimum of 23,000 personnel would give a strength of 100,000 personnel. Due to the streamlined structure of command between the NZDF and ADF additional salary savings could be obtained.

With the potential by 2020 to have 115,000 personnel.

Hawks the ones that read the body count of enemy KIA every morning, the ones that don't want a Russian base behind Guam. You muscle Frank on your own.


I would have a rethink because you are sitting on a lot of energy that you cannot defend, including the Ross dependency.

3) Well it is called joint cooperation, call the RAAF they would shoot it down in war, patrol out towards those areas also is joint cooperation, relieving some of the burden on the ADF so they can do other things that in the end aid the DONZ.

The basic format of the Collins is sound, if you can't see it or hear it and it can still torpedo the enemy it is sound. The US played a role in getting them shipshape after the problems so they would probably not allow them to be sold to NZ.

 

[StevoJH]

I'm having a few issues Understanding what you are trying to say but i will try to reply. I also rearranged your paragraphs a little.

That would Australian and New Zealand a combined submarine fleet of around 14 to 16 vessels. The timeline for delivery of the next generation Australian submarines will have to fast tracked by at least five to seven years coming online in 2018 or 2020 in my opinion.

The basic format of the Collins is sound, if you can't see it or hear it and it can still torpedo the enemy it is sound. The US played a role in getting them shipshape after the problems so they would probably not allow them to be sold to NZ.

The oldest of them will have been in commission for 24 years in 2020, it is simply a matter of age, as a piece of equipment gets older, its costs more to maintain and needs that maintenance more often. In regards to the US, i believe the input they had was the supply of a replacement combat system, which was a COTS system, it will also be over 20 years old in 2020, so that might not be an issue. The biggest issue, and the one you ignored from my last post, is that the NZ Navy would have massive issues trying to find the engineers to run the, the RAN are having enough trouble themselves finding enough people because of the mining boom.

I don't what your health system, it is unworkable as has been stated.

Sorry to quote Pauline Hanson, but "Please Explain". The few times i've had to go to hospital (injuries and removal of wisdom teeth), including overnight stays, i've never had a problem.

Pride I understand but it is unwise to live in the past. It is like a football club merging, they have pride also.

What has the merging of a football club to to do with the absorption of one country by another? As i said, if it was going to happen, it would have been during World War 2 which was only 40 years after federation occured, and when the threat to New Zealand and Australia was greater then it is now (war with japan, fear of invasion etc).

Yeah I know Australia is South Africa.
Australian future projection of 57,000 personnel, if New Zealand restores personnel levels to 1990’s standard of 20,000, a US Marine base of a minimum of 23,000 personnel would give a strength of 100,000 personnel. Due to the streamlined structure of command between the NZDF and ADF additional salary savings could be obtained.

With the potential by 2020 to have 115,000 personnel.

A US Marine force based in Australia or New Zealand would not be under Australian or New Zealand command and as such could not be added to a total # of ANZAC personnel. With the success of the Gap Year program (all services fill their quota, quota is doubling to next year) it is always possible that the armed forces could be expanded with the raising of addition battalions and more ships, though an increase in airforce strength would be unlikely given the short period of the enlistment.

Hawks the ones that read the body count of enemy KIA every morning, the ones that don't want a Russian base behind Guam. You muscle Frank on your own.

Umm, what are you going on about? What base behind guam?

I would have a rethink because you are sitting on a lot of energy that you cannot defend, including the Ross dependency.

The only countries who can currently project enough power against Australia to cause a problem are France, the UK and the US, all of whom are "allies". China and India will soon probably join that list.

3) Well it is called joint cooperation, call the RAAF they would shoot it down in war, patrol out towards those areas also is joint cooperation, relieving some of the burden on the ADF so they can do other things that in the end aid the DONZ.

Not possible without basing in New Zealand, and not to that distance. Not feasable due to the cost of developing a new Fighter base in New Zealand including full support facilities compared with the number of aircraft available.

 

[Stryker001]

I'm having a few issues Understanding what you are trying to say but i will try to reply. I also rearranged your paragraphs a little.


The oldest of them will have been in commission for 24 years in 2020, it is simply a matter of age, as a piece of equipment gets older, its costs more to maintain and needs that maintenance more often. In regards to the US, i believe the input they had was the supply of a replacement combat system, which was a COTS system, it will also be over 20 years old in 2020, so that might not be an issue. The biggest issue, and the one you ignored from my last post, is that the NZ Navy would have massive issues trying to find the engineers to run the, the RAN are having enough trouble themselves finding enough people because of the mining boom.


Sorry to quote Pauline Hanson, but "Please Explain". The few times i've had to go to hospital (injuries and removal of wisdom teeth), including overnight stays, i've never had a problem.


What has the merging of a football club to to do with the absorption of one country by another? As i said, if it was going to happen, it would have been during World War 2 which was only 40 years after federation occured, and when the threat to New Zealand and Australia was greater then it is now (war with japan, fear of invasion etc).


A US Marine force based in Australia or New Zealand would not be under Australian or New Zealand command and as such could not be added to a total # of ANZAC personnel. With the success of the Gap Year program (all services fill their quota, quota is doubling to next year) it is always possible that the armed forces could be expanded with the raising of addition battalions and more ships, though an increase in airforce strength would be unlikely given the short period of the enlistment.


Umm, what are you going on about? What base behind guam?


The only countries who can currently project enough power against Australia to cause a problem are France, the UK and the US, all of whom are "allies". China and India will soon probably join that list.


Not possible without basing in New Zealand, and not to that distance. Not feasable due to the cost of developing a new Fighter base in New Zealand including full support facilities compared with the number of aircraft available.

I guess NZDF will run it own race and the ADF will do it own thing. I was just thinking out loud.

You could run two Collins Class.

Australia will have to find the 12,000 or so personnel that are currently available to NZ from another source.

Health system just using as an example say all I wanted was defense incorporation if NZDF could by itself go back to 1990 staff levels of 20,000, not that your health system was floored.

I disagree that the threat in WW2 was greater than the future threat we will all face over the fight for energy.

Like I said I was just think out loud, there is no real benefit for either nations to join their defense forces together.

 

[rossfrb_1]

Question for you all regarding Australia and New Zealand becoming one nation.

What is in it for Australia?

Personally I can't see any benefits from an Australian perspective.

Well, Australia would have a rugby team that might be able to win the world cup, and a horse that could win the Melbourne cup.
New Zealand would have a cricket team that could winnfloorl:

sorry, couldn't help myself
rb

 

[barra]

Well, Australia would have a rugby team that might be able to win the world cup, and a horse that could win the Melbourne cup.
New Zealand would have a cricket team that could winnfloorl:

sorry, couldn't help myself
rb

Yeah well Richie McCaw as Wallaby captain would be a benefit, but we have won two Rugby world cups to the All Blacks one so your example is irrelevant. For now anyway.

There are only benefits for NZ in a union with Australia and realistically it will never happen, can you ever imagine a politician doing themselves out of a job? Me neither.

 

[recce.k1]

Hawks the ones that read the body count of enemy KIA every morning, the ones that don't want a Russian base behind Guam. You muscle Frank on your own.

Umm, what are you going on about? What base behind guam?

Stryker, just to clarify, are you generalising that if Australia & NZ (& US?) don't sort out the Pacific (eg establish a vast military presence a la WW2), then one day the Russkies will muscle in and set up bases throught the Pacific (to counter the US)?

Is the reference to "Frank" meaning Fiji? And if so, just to clarify, are you meaning Australia & NZ should sort out Fiji on its own militarily? And if so, why not involve the US? Is that not to inflame the Russians (if the US got involved) or simply because it's "our" problem? Is this the Sec of State/geo-political issue you refer to? If so, to clarify, what's the problem - Australia and NZ having differing views on deaing with Fiji or Australia & NZ having to drag in the US to sort out a problem in its own backyard (one that in theory Australia & NZ should be able to do itself militarily)? Never mind the Pacific Forum ideal of consenus between the Island states etc.

I wonder also, if you are referring to Fiji, whether you are alluding to possible Russian aid to that country? I haven't heard about that one although Fiji's "Frank" has raised Chinese aid as a possibility. (Personally I don't believe NZ's stance on the Fiji issue is the correct one, it's viewing an issue through western eyes and not taking into account underlying problems. This article touches upon some of these problems if anyone is interested http://pc.blogspot.com/2008/09/just-scratching-living-in-paradise.html

I wondered also, whether initially you were meaning Chinese bases in the Pacific (thus "behind Guam" so to speak)? One problem in the Pacific is cheque-book diplomacy whereby China and Taiwan are using aid as means for the Pacific states to officially recognise one country or the other, sometimes playing C & T off. It's a worry for Australia & NZ.

Incidentally there was that issue of the Chinese satellite tracking station in Kiribati a few years ago (shut down recently). A quick search of a NZ newspaper brought up the following:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=3538124
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10439654
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10508312
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/maps/pacific/

Anyway maybe I'm on the wrong track with what you are saying, but I've found some of your other points quite interesting nonetheless.

 

[recce.k1]

Joint sea patrols?

Another question. Australia & NZ operate together keeping the peace in "local" troublespots eg the Solomons & Timor etc.

One thing I don't understand is why Aus & NZ don't seem to operate together (much if at all) in "peaceful" areas.

I'm thinking of say, joint sea (and air) patrols off the northern Aust coastline (border protection etc), perhaps in the Pacific (where say an NZ P-3 will work with Pacific Is. patrol boats on EEZ duties etc). Southern Ocean joint patrols?

Why is this? Is it a "sovereignty" issue? I know that Aust and NZ have different areas of responsibility (Melanesia v Polynesia), but in a practical sense this goes out the window where there is trouble to be dealt with. It seems to me that NZ could gain some valuable experience working say north of Aust where there are real issues of poaching and people smuggling etc (and vice versa for Aust in the Pacific, esp. engaging with other friendly cultures).

Strategically, especially for NZ, it means that the taxpayer gets their money's worth on expensive sea (and air) patrol assets being used to a greater extent, and ideally it may mean additional assets can be better justified etc. It could assist with recruiting i.e. being based overseas for a period but somewhat close to home.

It also re-enforces the NZ/Aus defence relationship (especially practically in the public's eye), you know, the relationship where the NZ Govt is committed to defending Australia but conveniently forgets about (publically) when say cutting back on Frigates and Air strike capability etc.

 

[AnthonyB]

recce,

Not to distuub your enthusiasm, it sounds like a great idea. But looking at the naval side of things starting with the RNZN, and my sources aren't that good, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

2 Anzac Frigates, one in the Gulf and the other one preparing or dry docked following deployment.
2 Offshore Patrol boats
1 MRV that doesn't like rough seas
1 Fleet tanker
4 Inshore Patrol Vessels

So EEZ patrol duties (in blue seas) from NZ is 2 OPV's and occasionally a frigate.

You have 4 million Km2 of EEZ, we have 8 million km2. So adding 50% to the sea territory the RAN needs to patrol, when we probably don't have the vessel we should already have. RNZN OPV's have to often cover 2m km2 each. That is when both are on duty and presumeably they have to spend sometime in dock.

 

[Todjaeger]

recce,

Not to distuub your enthusiasm, it sounds like a great idea. But looking at the naval side of things starting with the RNZN, and my sources aren't that good, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

2 Anzac Frigates, one in the Gulf and the other one preparing or dry docked following deployment.
2 Offshore Patrol boats
1 MRV that doesn't like rough seas
1 Fleet tanker
4 Inshore Patrol Vessels

So EEZ patrol duties (in blue seas) from NZ is 2 OPV's and occasionally a frigate.

You have 4 million Km2 of EEZ, we have 8 million km2. So adding 50% to the sea territory the RAN needs to patrol, when we probably don't have the vessel we should already have. RNZN OPV's have to often cover 2m km2 each. That is when both are on duty and presumeably they have to spend sometime in dock.

AFAIK no Project Protector vessels have been accepted into service in the RNZN at present. As such, EEZ patrols can be currently conducted by the RNZAF P-3K Orions, the Moa IPC (within ~25 n miles of land) and the Anzac FFH not deployed to the Gulf. Assuming of course that it is not currently in drydock.

Once the acceptance issues with the Protector Fleet are resolved, and crews can be found for them... Then the two OPVs will increase the force available for EEZ patrol work. Something that had been an issue given the very limited number of oceangoing hulls the RNZN had for patrols.

To be honest though, I still do not think the NZDF will have sufficient surveillance and patrol assets to engage in cooperative "peaceful" patrolling. As I understand it, for the next year or so for all intents and purposes there will be no RNZN Anzac frigate deployable in the region. This means any searchs, patrols, etc will be conducted by either of the two OPVs once in service, with the Canterbury realistically functioning as a lift ship vs. MRV-cum-patrol vessel. Given the large EEZ... the two OPVs are going to pressed to maintain coverage. Particularly since I am unaware of any significant radar tracking system used by NZ to monitor the EEZ and shipping lanes apart from what is aboard the NZAF Orions. Incidentally, I had sat down and worked out the numbers at one point. Assuming perfect positioning and correct ranges, NZ would need a minimum of 8 Orions aloft simultaneously to provide radar coverage for both North and South Island and the EEZ surrounding NZ proper...

Then I would also expect there would be some law enforcement/sovereignty issues with joint EEZ patrols, i.e. authority for an RNZN vessel & crew to know & apply Australian fisheries laws & regulations, International Law of the Sea issues etc.

There could be some value with having personnel rotations between the RAN and RNZN so that members of both navies will have some exposure to things like drug enforcement, boarding and ship search & seizure, etc. However, given the possible crewing issue the RNZN has looming once Protector is fully introduced, there might be less personnel available to do such exchanges. Particularly since the RAN also seems to be having a bit of a personnel crunch as well.

-Cheers

 

[MrConservative]

recce,

Not to distuub your enthusiasm, it sounds like a great idea. But looking at the naval side of things starting with the RNZN, and my sources aren't that good, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

2 Anzac Frigates, one in the Gulf and the other one preparing or dry docked following deployment.
2 Offshore Patrol boats
1 MRV that doesn't like rough seas
1 Fleet tanker
4 Inshore Patrol Vessels

So EEZ patrol duties (in blue seas) from NZ is 2 OPV's and occasionally a frigate.

You have 4 million Km2 of EEZ, we have 8 million km2. So adding 50% to the sea territory the RAN needs to patrol, when we probably don't have the vessel we should already have. RNZN OPV's have to often cover 2m km2 each. That is when both are on duty and presumeably they have to spend sometime in dock.

The two OPV's, the four IPV's and the Sealift Ship are non starters at present. Could be awhile before they are in service and then only within operational limits. The granting by the UN to NZ of an additional tract of Ocean based on the continental shelf boundary on the 22nd September - an area another 6 times the land mass of territorial NZ has been announced this week. This extra 1.7 km2 gives NZ "rights to the continental shelf with certainty, including its rights in the future, if it chooses to pursue them, to resources such as minerals and petroleum" said our Dear Leader Helen Clark.

 

[AnthonyB]

How about chipping in for a JORN based in Aus directed over NZ? At least would give you radar coverage over parts of your EEZ and assist if Australia ever needed to supply air combat forces.

 

[recce.k1]

Thanks for the replies chaps, although I'm still none the wiser why Aust & NZ don't do some joint patrolling - even at the basic end as Todjaeger suggests of personnel exchanges (unless perhaps it does happen but in very small numbers hence there's not alot of publicity? Although RNZN personnel are or have served with USGC personnel this year in the Pacific, that's generated some media interest over here). Or even at a higher end (for lack of a better phrase), occassionally like NZ may have a Frigate in the Gulf as part of a coalition task force, then how about an occassional NZ Frigate or OPV or IPV (when the new ones go into service) with another Australian Frigate or PB in a smaller joint task force?

Incidentally, I could be wrong, but my understanding is that Project Protector is the Navy's (and Govt's) show piece so personnel have been prioritised to train up for the OPV and IPV patrol fleet over the last 3 or so years, perhaps at the detriment of the Frigate manning. Like I say I could have that wrong but that's been my reading of the situation (and someone else could easily clarify) but on the other hand if I'm right then there shouldn't be too many issues with crewing the new patrol fleet, not unless personnel have resigned in frustration or been moved into other areas due to the delays etc.

Now if you read behind the lines of my posts, I'm actually angling at "what are the needs" to which to justify "what would be needed" to contribute to this or that. I know the current RNZN fleet is limited in numbers (and there are retention issues - you Aussies have too many minerals attracting our personnel!!), so if a case can be made and which there is public understanding and acceptance, well perhaps it might very well assist in public and political support for eg a 3 or 4 Frigate Navy again, a 3 or 4 or 5 OPV fleet, a 6 or 7 or 8 IPV fleet etc. The RNZN fleet is to small for serious NZ EEZ, Pacific and Southern Ocean patrols currently and I'd like to see some expansion even at the cheaper IPV and OPV end.

We haven't really touched upon air assets but I'd say robust UAV's, the proposed medium range air patrol a/c (so far all low cost relatively speaking) and ideally if the world situation gets a little scary then a few more P-3's (or P-8's) would be the ideal. All of these would be useful for joint training and operations with the ADF around Northern Australia etc.

Over the horizon radar sounds interesting, it's not an area I know much about but if they were reasonably good for detecting ships within EEZ ranges (air traffic here is minimal compared to other more populated areas of the globe), I wonder how effective and how much would it cost to have a few systems spread around the SW Pacific and Melanesia? Or could satellites do a better job? Sometimes we can get carried away with this weapon system and that one but it seems to me that more surveillence and intelligence gathering assets on sea, air and the land is what NZ requires around the wider region.

 

[mattyem]

in reply to recce

There are several reasons why we dont have joint patrols with the RAN and the main are, there is no real operational need. Our waters are that of a low risk and simply do not need any joint operation to patrol these. Also each defence force will have its own priorities and operational deployments to accomplish first and foremost. We also have several programs in place where we exchange pilots for helos, officers on ships, and even down to naval ratings. The main exchanges are between that of our anzac's and coastal patrol craft.
Each year we also undertake several exercises with the ADF this year alone I have been involved with two onboard HMNZS CANTERBURY in both Australia and New Caledonia. Both the Anzacs have been on exercise with the ADF, We have had RAN coastal craft over on customs/boarding exercises along with the americans and french. Earlier this year the Australian Amphibious fleet was also over conductiong exercises with our army and naval personal.

And this is just what I have seen and participated in with the navy, Im sure there have been more exercises with the army and air force also.

With all these exercises going on, the need for joint patrols falls low on the list.

The problems with manning the frigates also doesnt relate to project protector at all, its simply a manning issue, we just dont have the numbers. Everybody has the commen training, and dont commence their specific training until they are already posted to that specific ship. I joined 3 years ago and undertook training for the anzac and protector class both at the same time simply because it was unknown where I was to be posted.

Also the EEZ patrols are in large done the by air force, with improved detection systems, speed, and abillity to cover large areas in small amounts of time, its effectiveness is far greater than that of the RNZN,

Thats just touching on the matters, but drop me a line and I can try be a little more in depth and explanative