NZDF General discussion thread

[IPA35]

I agree with the patrol aircraft, but do you need Orions for that?
I agree with patrol ships but why would you need frigates and a LPD?
If you ever go to war with a foreign nation fighters are more important than a navy.

Those A-4 are massivly outdated and should be ditched, but those Aermacchini's could be put back into service I suppose.

 

[Sea Toby]

Where did I say NZ needed an LPD? From appearances the Canterbury will be sufficient to sea lift the army abroad. Every navy in the world operates three frigates to sustain one abroad for any lengthy period. Unfortunately, with only two New Zealand could be in a position when they couldn't sustain a frigate abroad for a lengthly period of time beyond six months. I would rather sustain a frigate abroad for as long as the mission requires, not six months.

If the army was expanded in size, instead of sending an enlarged company group abroad, NZ could sent a battalion. A LPD can sea lift a battalion which is much more than the Canterbury's enlarged company group.

What killed NZ fighters were the inabillity to strike any of their neighboring northern island states due to a lack of range. The same applies in reverse.

 

[KiwiRob]

I agree with the patrol aircraft, but do you need Orions for that?
I agree with patrol ships but why would you need frigates and a LPD?
If you ever go to war with a foreign nation fighters are more important than a navy.

Who would we be going to war with that we would need fighters. Should we go to war with anyone it will be a small part of a much larger force and probably with the Aussies. Now if we were going to intervene in any Pacific Island state then again none of them have an airforce so the Seasprites will probably be more than enough.

 

[Lucasnz]

The NZ Hearld is reporting the Defence review will be completed around August (refer to article on Fiji / Afgan). Sorry about the lack of a link, but I'm at work.

 

[Sea Toby]

The Orions at a time in the past provided a useful anti-submarine platform. Their ASW capabilities have been allowed to degrade significantly. A future replacement for the Orions could be a C-27 Spartan. The Spartan wouldn't have the ASW capabilities of a P-8 Poseidon, but would provide patrol along with search and rescue capabilities.

Eventually NZ Hercules will require replacement. New Hercules, C-27 Spartans, or CASA 295s among other aircraft could be acquired depending upon which fit mission tasks and price best.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think fighter are more important than a navy.

The USA offered 15 F-16 for the price of 1.
They should have accepted that, there navy is useless.

IF anyone would attack new-zealand then they are doomed, because the have no air support.
Or the new Gripen NG, that plane is alot cheaper to maintain.
More important than a P-3 replacement.

Can a fighter jet patrol NZ's waters for months on end without returning to base?

Can a fighter jet land a boarding party comprising Navy, Customs, Fisheries or police officers on a suspect vessel in NZ waters?

Can a fighter jet deploy an infantry company group by itself?

I think you might want to re-consider the relative importance of military capabilities.

A fighter capability is very nice to have, but in NZ's case, with no air threat to face (unless you think Australia is intending to attack NZ) they have plenty of more urgent requirements that need fulfilling before a fighter jet acquisition could even be considered.

Swapping the Royal New Zealand Navy for a fighter jet capability, is not a realistic option.

 

[MrConservative]

The Orions at a time in the past provided a useful anti-submarine platform. Their ASW capabilities have been allowed to degrade significantly. A future replacement for the Orions could be a C-27 Spartan. The Spartan wouldn't have the ASW capabilities of a P-8 Poseidon, but would provide patrol along with search and rescue capabilities.

Eventually NZ Hercules will require replacement. New Hercules, C-27 Spartans, or CASA 295s among other aircraft could be acquired depending upon which fit mission tasks and price best.

In terms of a general Long Range Maritime Patrol capability, I would add into the mix the Gulfstream G550 LR with its 12,500km range and the variety of special mission packages available - including BAMS, for the eventual P3 replacement late next decade. Modulization Packages would be the key element. A second tier such as Q200 MM type aircraft for 0-60km stuff would give it the right balance. One thing for sure is that technology in this area will develop rapidly.

 

[MrConservative]

The only thing NZ needs are a number of fighters.
That's the big gap in there military.

Fighters are the last thing we would ever need. CAS / Interdiction / Marstrike – that’s a different debate well covered on this thread earlier. Most people agree it would be nice (CAS/Interdiction/Marstrike that is), a capability very valuable for us to have, but those same people see a number of more urgent capability gaps or areas which need modernisation first. Also I have been told by a couple of people very close to the decision making mechanisms in this country that Vote Defence will get only a minor lift in the Budget over the next 2 to 3 years whilst the government steers itself out of the global downturn. So "fighters" let alone a platform that does CAS/Int ect will be (and is) off the table. The wish list will be very short during this election cycle. Maybe post 2011 when the economy is marked to pick up. Also the current devalued NZD is a huge problem for defence acquisitions - . The Aermacchi’s require avionics upgrades to give them any modern training relevance for either combat simulation / APT roles. They are pointless or even useless without them. If they did have upgrades they would have good utility as NZDF/RNZAF trainers. But NOT for combat. Maori would have to invent a new local word for Kamikaze.

 

[Gibbo]

NZSAS Deployment under consideration

Afghanistan deployment for NZSAS under consideration... follow link:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10567674

 

[TonyRyan]

NZSAS back to Afghanistan?

In response to Gibbo's post; I think it was the US Secretary of Defense who stated last week that we will be in Afghanistan in ten years. Moreover, the war has clearly spilled over into Pakistan, with more than 500 civilian deaths recorded due to drone missile attacks.

Meanwhile, the 'hearts and minds' programme may be working in Kabul, but evidently not elsewhere. The Taliban rate of recruitment is rising, not falling and experience suggest this is the first sign of theatre expansion; only not just in Afghanistan but to adjoining countries to the north. It is unlikely that Pakistan will not swing the same way, especially its aggrieved Pashtun population.

So, one wonders what PM Key would regard as an exit strategy.

 

[stryker NZ]

a story from TVNZ on the defence review with a few "interesting" points

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/defence-force-undergo-full-review-2661409

 

[Todjaeger]

a story from TVNZ on the defence review with a few interesting points

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/defence-force-undergo-full-review-2661409

Interesting is not how I would describe the article. Disturbing comes to mind instead. From the tone of the article, it seems as though National is looking to continue what I consider to be some of the worst parts of Labour defence policy, with the Labour leader pointing out what/how they can be a problem in the future... I also find it interesting that the figure given in terms of NZDF budgetary allocation is incorrectly inflated as it so often seems to be when it is quoted by politicos and in new media. The % GDP once accounting for the Capital charge and GST (IIRC its GST) is more like 0.68% GDP, or about a third of the ADF's ~2% GDP

Hopefully the defence review will take a real look at NZ defence needs and what the NZDF can realistically accomplish and then begin to work towards making the two meet.

Unfortunately it seems more that the idea is to find further ways to reduce the cost of the NZDF in the short-term, or to gain additional funds through the privatization or sale of Defence assets, without considering what the long term effects such actions will have upon the NZDF and NZ generally.

-Cheers

 

[battlensign]

a story from TVNZ on the defence review with a few "interesting" points

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/defence-force-undergo-full-review-2661409

Oh, that can't be good...........:shudder

Brett.

P.S Wasn't National supposed to restore the NZDF?

 

[Todjaeger]

Oh, that can't be good...........:shudder

Brett.

P.S Wasn't National supposed to restore the NZDF?

That was one of the things running through my mind as well... Unfortunately I cannot tell from the article whether or not National is talking about examing the capabilities and equipment that the NZDF has and eliminating equipment which is no longer mission useful and purchasing proper replacements, or whether it is about further paring back the NZDF to reduce costs.

Hopefully the article was written somewhat out of context.

-Cheers

 

[stryker NZ]

That was one of the things running through my mind as well... Unfortunately I cannot tell from the article whether or not National is talking about examing the capabilities and equipment that the NZDF has and eliminating equipment which is no longer mission useful and purchasing proper replacements, or whether it is about further paring back the NZDF to reduce costs.

Hopefully the article was written somewhat out of context.

-Cheers

I hope it was taken out of context or the labor days may start to look a little more appealing :shudder . They talk about handing military bases over to private industries and leasing them back to the military what exactly would the advantages be in doing that?

 

[Sea Toby]

The rich believe private enterprise operate more efficiently than government. Unfortunately, its been my experience the fat cats, the board members, spend and take more money than government. Whatever savings are consumed by much more corporate greed. Well, that is the way I feel about fat cats. I have seen too many 401k retirement funds deleted by these cats: golf club memberships, private jets, vacation homes, excessive bonuses, stock offerings at no cost, etc.

McCain couldn't tell the American people how many homes he and his wife owned, everyone giving them a tax deduction on her generous income. Almost every Obama appointee have had to pay more income taxes after Congressional review, including his vice president. And they are the tax and spend Democrats! One wonders about Republicans?

 

[TonyRyan]

General defence of Wai Goreng

C'mon fellas, it's a great idea. Private enterprise takes over the defence forces and you join companies modelled on Blackwater. I see it now, the Kiwi company Guns Inc takes over the hardwear, and is quickly bought out by a Chinese corporation; which saves the Chinese from formally annexing NZ. I hear the new name is Wai Goreng and, really, New Beijing sounds better than stuffy old Wellington.

 

[Lucasnz]

Interesting is not how I would describe the article. Disturbing comes to mind instead. From the tone of the article, it seems as though National is looking to continue what I consider to be some of the worst parts of Labour defence policy, with the Labour leader pointing out what/how they can be a problem in the future... I also find it interesting that the figure given in terms of NZDF budgetary allocation is incorrectly inflated as it so often seems to be when it is quoted by politicos and in new media. The % GDP once accounting for the Capital charge and GST (IIRC its GST) is more like 0.68% GDP, or about a third of the ADF's ~2% GDP

Hopefully the defence review will take a real look at NZ defence needs and what the NZDF can realistically accomplish and then begin to work towards making the two meet.

Unfortunately it seems more that the idea is to find further ways to reduce the cost of the NZDF in the short-term, or to gain additional funds through the privatization or sale of Defence assets, without considering what the long term effects such actions will have upon the NZDF and NZ generally.

-Cheers

Having now read the terms of reference for the review, I'm not to concerned about the comments on TV (at this stage), especially during these early stages. The review is pretty wide ranging and while it is focusing on the immediate problems facing defence it's does have foresight to think ahead 35 years in terms of equipment, structure etc.

The ACT party will always promote private ownership ahead of government ownership. I think what they seem to forget are the security implications - "Land lord inspection of the armoury to determine its condition" - I don't think so. The Defence Minister has a point about the number of LAV's. The Royal Marines purchased 106 Vikings for a Brigade - we purchased a similar number of LAV's to equip 2 Battalion's. There's something wrong in the thinking there.

Anyway there is a substanial period of time allowed for public input and I will be making submission, once the discussion document is released.

 

[Norm]

70 LAVs are in use but only 45 have trained crews
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10561409

Auditor General could'nt discovery why 105 LAVs where purchased, too many for 1 Battalion not enough for two.However having extras is useful to protect the logistics tail in the event of a serious commitment.To date NZ has been risk adverse and has not used them overseas outside of a training deployment to Australia.105 seems to reflect replacing the 26 Scorpian Light Tanks and 78M113's=104.

Army roll is an issue, last year in answer to a Parlimentary Question:
Parlimentary question 5598
Approved Current %
Regular Force Strength June-08 Approved Strength
16 Field Regt 284 132 46.5%
2nd Engineer Regt 421 302 71.7%
1st Battalion RNZIR 657 376 57.2%
2nd Logistics Bn 647 481 74.3%
2nd Health Support Bn 456 281 61.6%
2nd/1st Battalion RNZIR 677 474 70.0%
3 rd Logistics Bn 330 267 80.9%
Total 3472 2313 66.6%

Territorial Formations
2 Canterbury,Nelson,Marlborough West Coast 350 254 72.6%

3 Auckland & Northland BN 662 427 64.5%
4 Otago Southland 284 132 46.5%
5 Wellington West Coast
& Taranaki BN 376 190 50.5%
6 Hauraki BN 392 235 59.9%
7 Wellington Hawkes Bay BN 444 262 59.0%
Total 2508 1500 59.8%
Per "The Gunners" a History of NZ Artillery Penguin
16 Field RegT comprises 161& 163 batteries each 6 L119 light guns
( a third light Gun battery is a component TF 3 BN group) plus
G Troop with 5 Mistral Launchers, balance launchers stored.Currently Mortar Platoons in the two RF Bn's being incorporated into 16 Field.

 

[MrConservative]

Possibly around 80 LAV’s would be appropriate, so I can understand selling 25 or so. As for selling defence land I would agree only if it is 2nd tier property such as Tekapo, Whangaparoa, Kauri Pt, Narrowneck and the like. Critical first tier bases such as Ohakea, Devonport, Burnham, Linton etc should never be sold.

Nevertheless, I urge you all to write clear concise appreciations of where the Defence Force should head over the next 20 years and send them to Heather Roy and Wayne Mapp over the next couple of months. Get in early to shape the thoughts of the decision makers before Treasury officials ruin it.