NZDF General discussion thread

[Gibbo]

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'm not directing this to anyone specifically but there was great speculation before the election that National was going to be the saviour of the NZDF - yet if you look at what wa ssaid objectively you'd see nothing National said or did necessarily suggested this was to be so. I met with Dr Mapp for an hour 2 years ago and to be honest I was not overly impressed on his knowledge - I guess a Territorial officer is only a fairly narrow window of 'expertise'!?!

There was a lot of 'opposition speak' but no firm commitments other than a review & an expected amount of posturing. But yes they are in fact sticking to their word - a review is underway & we should not get too excited nor nervous until that is complete.

For NZ forum members I suggest ensuring you have a part to play in the 'public consultation' stage, bearing in mind on areas that have been signalled already (ie: no ACF; no major funding increases; air-transport & naval combat replacements etc).

I don't think it's enough to simply argue for more expenditure (not that it's a realistic argument at the moment anyway). You need to justify everything you submit in terms of how it will assist delivering capability in the most effective and efficient manner.

Now I don't mean to get political but since the 1980's it's been Labour that has spent on the large-ticket items, whereas National's tenure was marked more by savage cuts - so let's hope we've turned away from this thinking.

Roll on the review...

 

[EnigmaNZ]

Pity that say 20 of the LAVs couldn't be sold and the proceeds used to upgrade the other 24 or so surplus units. 6 fitted with the 120mm mortar turret, 6 with the turreted 105mm cannon, 6 with the AD turret with the 25mm gatling and 2 Mistral packs, and 6 with the TOW missile dual launcher. 1 at Waiuru for training, 1 spare and 4 on active service.

As for fighters, we did have more than we needed. A squadron of 8 single seat Skyhawks for maritine strike etc, remember they were upgraded to a similar standard to the F16A, and 4 dual seat plus 4 Aermacchi in the training squadron, keep a couple of each type for spares and sell off the rest, using the proceeds to upgrade those kept. When the F35 begins to replace the F16s, there should be spare C/Ds around to replace the Shyhawks.

Transport is overworked, we really need a 6th Hercules, another H series put through the upgrade path, a KC130-H even better, its air fueling ability can help the Hercs and Skyhawks extend their endurance. Perhaps a couple of second hand C17s, the US AF may like to purchase a couple more new to keep the production line open, and sell off a couple of early models.

Maritine patrol are adequately serviced by the current Orions, although they seem overkill for the task, probably can be taken over later by the Casa 295 MP or the Dash 8 MP. The latter is already in service in NZ plus is used by the Australian CG. Anti-sub should be fitted to 3 for overseas deployment as many areas deployed to have subs operating in them, not always friendly.

A 3rd frigate would round out the Navy, perhaps when Australia brings in its AD Frigates, manpower issues would free up a ANZAC we could buy cheap. Replacing the diving tender with one of Australias mothballed Huons would boost our MH capabilty.

Then stay out of other peoples wars except those sanctioned by the UN or to support those countries we have a defence agreement with.

1% of GDP should be enough to support such a force structure that covers most bases, with around 25% going in capital expenditure and 75% on operational. In 2007 iirc about $NZ970m went into the latter, so $1.2B should cover it today, with $NZ400m for the former. 1% of GDP is about $NZ1.6B.

http://defence.allmedia.googlepages.com/home
Interesting research into NZs defence needs.

 

[Lucasnz]

Maritine patrol are adequately serviced by the current Orions, although they seem overkill for the task, probably can be taken over later by the Casa 295 MP or the Dash 8 MP. The latter is already in service in NZ plus is used by the Australian CG. Anti-sub should be fitted to 3 for overseas deployment as many areas deployed to have subs operating in them, not always friendly.

A 3rd frigate would round out the Navy, perhaps when Australia brings in its AD Frigates, manpower issues would free up a ANZAC we could buy cheap. Replacing the diving tender with one of Australias mothballed Huons would boost our MH capabilty.
QUOTE]

The Orions are what is need for operations in the South Pacific and NZ long term security, given the weapons it can carry. The C-295 I don't think has the range (different sites give different ranges though EADS states an 11 hour endurance and 3040nm) and has an extermely limited payload. A huge difference. Personally I think the ASW threat is underrated in NZ. If I was a overseas government looking to pressure NZ using military force, the best option would be a sub (mines, threat to shipping, limited land attack in some cases, plus they're hard to find). Low risk all round to the overseas government.

I agree we need more surface combatants, but does that equate to a frigate. Why not LCS with better range and a bigger gun. I'd still prefer another OPV with modular MCM capabilities rather than a specialist vessel.

 

[steve33]

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.

Things are ceratinly looking bad and no doubt there will be plans in place to grab pakistans nukes if the Taliban ever start to look like taking over the whole country and as for an exit strategy i saw John Key on the news the other day talking about a deployment of our forces and he said they didn,t know if they were going to because the situation was getting dangerous i nearly feel off my chair i mean when do you deploy your military when it,s safe.

 

[Gibbo]

Closer ANZAC Military ties mooted

Interesting article from NZHerald - related to recently released Australian Defence white paper. Given comments from NZ defence minister that the NZ defence budget is 'about right' then it will interesting to see how much will come of this. Certainly the widening gap between the ANZAC forces will make it harder to work together.

I suspect the timing of these comments in the Aussie paper are clearly timed to co-incide with the change of Govt & start of work on our own defence white paper.:lam

Given the NZDF has little to offer that the ADF can't already provide, I guess once again it'll be a case of 'one-way' traffic to NZ's benefit ! I suspect to a degree this is Australia's way of trying to get more NZ buy-in to regional defence - they've figured if they can give NZ a clearly defined role for the NZDF then the NZ Govt has less 'wriggle-room' to try & worm itself out of committing too much.:jump2

Now I wouldn't say that the Aussie Govt is trying to guide the NZ defence white paper... hell I'd rather they came over here & wrote the damned thing!

Closer relationship for NZ and Aust militaries - National - NZ Herald News

 

[battlensign]

Interesting article from NZHerald - related to recently released Australian Defence white paper. Given comments from NZ defence minister that the NZ defence budget is 'about right' then it will interesting to see how much will come of this. Certainly the widening gap between the ANZAC forces will make it harder to work together.

I suspect the timing of these comments in the Aussie paper are clearly timed to co-incide with the change of Govt & start of work on our own defence white paper.:lam

Given the NZDF has little to offer that the ADF can't already provide, I guess once again it'll be a case of 'one-way' traffic to NZ's benefit ! I suspect to a degree this is Australia's way of trying to get more NZ buy-in to regional defence - they've figured if they can give NZ a clearly defined role for the NZDF then the NZ Govt has less 'wriggle-room' to try & worm itself out of committing too much.:jump2

Now I wouldn't say that the Aussie Govt is trying to guide the NZ defence white paper... hell I'd rather they came over here & wrote the damned thing!

Closer relationship for NZ and Aust militaries - National - NZ Herald News

I think you will find that relations are fine and that the Australian Defence Force fully supports any contributions to regional security that the New Zealand Gendarmerie, Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron and Royal New Zealand Flying Club make from time to time

Brett..

 

[Lucasnz]

Interesting article from NZHerald - related to recently released Australian Defence white paper. Given comments from NZ defence minister that the NZ defence budget is 'about right' then it will interesting to see how much will come of this. Certainly the widening gap between the ANZAC forces will make it harder to work together.

I suspect the timing of these comments in the Aussie paper are clearly timed to co-incide with the change of Govt & start of work on our own defence white paper.:lam

Given the NZDF has little to offer that the ADF can't already provide, I guess once again it'll be a case of 'one-way' traffic to NZ's benefit ! I suspect to a degree this is Australia's way of trying to get more NZ buy-in to regional defence - they've figured if they can give NZ a clearly defined role for the NZDF then the NZ Govt has less 'wriggle-room' to try & worm itself out of committing too much.:jump2

Now I wouldn't say that the Aussie Govt is trying to guide the NZ defence white paper... hell I'd rather they came over here & wrote the damned thing!

Closer relationship for NZ and Aust militaries - National - NZ Herald News

I think NZ challenge is to find capabilities that are both useful in maintianing its own national defence while maintaining capabilities that compliment the ADF. If I can use the ACF as an example (though its a given that its not coming back) - Australia probably has increased emphasis on Air Defence and regional strike capabilities while NZ could provide Close Air Support & Maritime Strike.

A standing ANZAC Force has some merits, but some of the issues that arise from that are: possible loss of national control, the need for a common set of standing rules of engagement for both countries.

 

[Twickiwi]

A standing ANZAC Force has some merits, but some of the issues that arise from that are: possible loss of national control, the need for a common set of standing rules of engagement for both countries.

Putting aside the issues of funding and political will (I know it is integral to the answer, but for the sake of getting moving) for a moment what do you think would be an appropriate and sustainable NZ contribution to an ANZAC force?

The Ozzy White Paper emphasis on amphibious capability may be a clue to Australian future requirements. Since NZ already has over the beach capability with HMNZS Canterbury and intend to use the NH-90 in that role, this may be some an equipment starting point of commonality of thinking across the Tasman.

As you write, there will be a lot of diplomatic and doctrinal work to be undertaken and any ANZAC force may require a new treaty. Even without, it would be at least 3-5 years before a new structure would find its feet.

It would be interesting to read peoples views as to a possible hypothetical force structure of an amphibious ANZAC ready reaction taskforce.

 

[Twickiwi]

In the absence of a response and a week's worth of thinking about it I've come to a couple of conclusions/questions.

First if NZ contributed a dedicated even a company group to an ANZAC taskforce it would be impossible to sustain the current level of peacekeeping in the Asia-Pacific area let alone any contribution to Afghanistan, not to mention a dedicated stand-alone independent ready-reaction force. There is a question in my mind about if the NZ army can sustain even the current level of commitments long term.

I'm not a defence analyst. Is a 2 infantry battalion regular force sustainable if NZ is actually deploying multiple company size forces (even in low intensity conflicts)? If not how many infantry battalions are needed for this level of engagement?

NZ has specialised in light troops historically, IIRC the only time NZ had a significant Armoured contingent was from 1943 to 1945. However, given the discussion about the Iraq and A-stan experiences of troops in light armour or less, is there a rationale for a heavier armoured infantry unit in NZ's forces?

Second, does NZ or Australia want an "ANZAC" taskforce if NZ's contribution is symbolic or trivial. Would it be a way for Australia to drag NZ into a regional engagement politically? Is Australia really willing to foot the bill for something that NZ has the right to veto its use? These are political questions I guess so treat them rhetorically.

Third, how close are Australian and NZ military in terms of cooperation, culture, doctrine etc? I have heard a number of kiwis state that NZ troops are better at peacekeeping than Oz because of attitudinal differences. As appealing as that is, it smells of national-myth building. Does ANZAC mean something different in each country or is there a shared understanding that allows the 2 militaries to cooperate better than with other nations?

Twickiwi

 

[battlensign]

In the absence of a response and a week's worth of thinking about it I've come to a couple of conclusions/questions.

First if NZ contributed a dedicated even a company group to an ANZAC taskforce it would be impossible to sustain the current level of peacekeeping in the Asia-Pacific area let alone any contribution to Afghanistan, not to mention a dedicated stand-alone independent ready-reaction force. There is a question in my mind about if the NZ army can sustain even the current level of commitments long term.

I'm not a defence analyst. Is a 2 infantry battalion regular force sustainable if NZ is actually deploying multiple company size forces (even in low intensity conflicts)? If not how many infantry battalions are needed for this level of engagement?

NZ has specialised in light troops historically, IIRC the only time NZ had a significant Armoured contingent was from 1943 to 1945. However, given the discussion about the Iraq and A-stan experiences of troops in light armour or less, is there a rationale for a heavier armoured infantry unit in NZ's forces?

Second, does NZ or Australia want an "ANZAC" taskforce if NZ's contribution is symbolic or trivial. Would it be a way for Australia to drag NZ into a regional engagement politically? Is Australia really willing to foot the bill for something that NZ has the right to veto its use? These are political questions I guess so treat them rhetorically.

Third, how close are Australian and NZ military in terms of cooperation, culture, doctrine etc? I have heard a number of kiwis state that NZ troops are better at peacekeeping than Oz because of attitudinal differences. As appealing as that is, it smells of national-myth building. Does ANZAC mean something different in each country or is there a shared understanding that allows the 2 militaries to cooperate better than with other nations?

Twickiwi

In response to your points:

1) No. Each Battalion, roughly, allows about a company group on operations. At present, with only 2 Battalions (possibly less) full time, NZ would struggle with anything more than the deployment of about 1 Company Group, 1 Infantry Platoon and 1 Special Forces Troop. In the same way as Australia really needs 4 Brigades plus reserves (including a High readiness Battalion and several Company groups) NZ to be viable, really needs 1 Brigade Group.

2) Australia doesn't want or need an 'ANZAC Taskforce'. It ought to be possible for significant NZ contributions to such a force on an ad hoc basis, but NZ hasn't maintained the capabilities required. It is telling that even the Amphibious Deployment and Sustainment (ADAS) force being assembled for the LHDs does not anticipate NZ contributions. Indeed there would not even be space aboard the ships.

3) Yeah, and we say the same crap about the US. Put it this way. You are using the same weapons we use to a large extent.......and everybody knows how much of a Heavy Mechanised/Armoured formation the Australian Army is, with no real history of Light Infantry operations......

Brett.

 

[Twickiwi]

Even if you have fairly isolationist anti-militarist politics the growing requirement seems undeniable. If Oz sees the greatest threat to regional stability as coming from China it probably will be, but I see the greatest struggle not coming from between the US/Oz and China, but between India and China (struggle as in rivalry and proxy fights, not actual direct face to face war inshallah).

Burma, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia all have political issues that could spill over into destabilising local troubles, hell PNG or Fiji aren't exactly an Athenian democracies. NZ will have varying amounts of skin in all of those games and will want not only stability but to influence the shape of the stability.

It seems highly likely that NZ will need to be able to deploy 2 company groups in Asia-Pacific, while having something to contribute to a multinational/UN force in some part of the world simultaneously over the next 30 years. That's a lot more than we have capability for now. As Battlensign wrote that looks a lot like a Brigade group.

 

[Gibbo]

White Paper

Interesting speech from Minister of Defence - gives some indication of what the white-paper will come up with. Light forces focused on Sth Pacific - which is what he's stated publicly before.

Beehive - Why a Defence Review?

I think he's also realistic about having niche capabilities for further afield, but interestingly it seems to foreshadow a relucatance to remain in Afghanistan!?! Does anyone else read it that way?

Also just in case there's any doubt I have it directly from Wayne Mapp himself (2 years ago) that (any) Govt will put in the white paper what it wants to - so don't expect an independent review reeccomending lots of exciting stuff that then gets ignored. Expect relatively low key reccomendations that generally will be followed-up.

There's some good points he makes - but I suspect we may see the Frigates replaced with a 3-4 'low-end' comat vessels with Island operations in mind. I suspect this as it is also effectively what he told me at the time - he was quite keen on the Littoral Comat Ships (LCS) - a lot of 'fitted for but not with'.

 

[Lucasnz]

Interesting speech from Minister of Defence - gives some indication of what the white-paper will come up with. Light forces focused on Sth Pacific - which is what he's stated publicly before.

Beehive - Why a Defence Review?

I think he's also realistic about having niche capabilities for further afield, but interestingly it seems to foreshadow a relucatance to remain in Afghanistan!?! Does anyone else read it that way?

Also just in case there's any doubt I have it directly from Wayne Mapp himself (2 years ago) that (any) Govt will put in the white paper what it wants to - so don't expect an independent review reeccomending lots of exciting stuff that then gets ignored. Expect relatively low key reccomendations that generally will be followed-up.

There's some good points he makes - but I suspect we may see the Frigates replaced with a 3-4 'low-end' comat vessels with Island operations in mind. I suspect this as it is also effectively what he told me at the time - he was quite keen on the Littoral Comat Ships (LCS) - a lot of 'fitted for but not with'.

Light Forces make sense for the South Pacific and even further afield, given their Strategic mobility and New Zealand's remoteness and NZ limited over the beach capability.

I wouldn't be to upset about the LCS, in terms of air defence Sea RAM is an improvement on Sea Cat or Phalnax in terms of range. I think the range and endurance would need to be addressed however for South Pacfic Operations. Also if you consider the creep in capability that I think is evident since NZ first developed a frigate navy - maybe buying LCS is returning us to a similar capability level (After saying this I'll never be welcomed in the ex navalmens again )

I still see a need for the ANZAC's (and any replacements) as it would give the government the ability retain Command & Control of operations it considers to be in NZ interests, not to mention the longer range detection capabilities. They could also be NZ niche contribution to high intensity combat operations.

If the focus is on light forces and niche ops - maybe using the MB-339 as COIN / CAS / Foward observation aircraft could be an idea to dream about.

 

[Twickiwi]

Light Forces make sense for the South Pacific and even further afield, given their Strategic mobility and New Zealand's remoteness and NZ limited over the beach capability.

I wouldn't be to upset about the LCS, in terms of air defence Sea RAM is an improvement on Sea Cat or Phalnax in terms of range. I think the range and endurance would need to be addressed however for South Pacfic Operations. Also if you consider the creep in capability that I think is evident since NZ first developed a frigate navy - maybe buying LCS is returning us to a similar capability level (After saying this I'll never be welcomed in the ex navalmens again )

I still see a need for the ANZAC's (and any replacements) as it would give the government the ability retain Command & Control of operations it considers to be in NZ interests, not to mention the longer range detection capabilities. They could also be NZ niche contribution to high intensity combat operations.

If the focus is on light forces and niche ops - maybe using the MB-339 as COIN / CAS / Foward observation aircraft could be an idea to dream about.

It seems axiomatic that NZ can't/shouldn't/won't ever field a european style armoured brigade. The NZ army is always going to be a light infantry unit. But stating that doesn't provide any guidance over how and when NZ should mount its troops in the situations that require them, or how NZ infantry should be provided direct fire support.

In business there are two routes into niche markets- focus and failure. To a certain extent the things that NZ military does now is defined not so much on Darwinian superiority than survivors luck. I suspect that using a 'niche' skill-set argument to explain NZ's residual capabilities obscures a discussion of what the NZ military needs to achieve NZ's foreign policy aims and ambitions. I guess assuming current capabilities is the limit of NZ's abilities has the virtue of minimising expenditure.

I don't want to be critical because I think NZ is starting to grasp the nettle of addressing needs in Project Protector. NZ has a Navy that can do the many of things NZ may want. This is long way from the situation David Lange described in the 80s where there was no army units available and no navy vessels capable of landing these non-existent units if the NZ government wanted to respond to the first Fiji coup.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Interesting speech from Minister of Defence - gives some indication of what the white-paper will come up with. Light forces focused on Sth Pacific - which is what he's stated publicly before.

Beehive - Why a Defence Review?

I think he's also realistic about having niche capabilities for further afield, but interestingly it seems to foreshadow a relucatance to remain in Afghanistan!?! Does anyone else read it that way?

Also just in case there's any doubt I have it directly from Wayne Mapp himself (2 years ago) that (any) Govt will put in the white paper what it wants to - so don't expect an independent review reeccomending lots of exciting stuff that then gets ignored. Expect relatively low key reccomendations that generally will be followed-up.

There's some good points he makes - but I suspect we may see the Frigates replaced with a 3-4 'low-end' comat vessels with Island operations in mind. I suspect this as it is also effectively what he told me at the time - he was quite keen on the Littoral Comat Ships (LCS) - a lot of 'fitted for but not with'.

It seems to me, that the review and susbsequent capability plan, will focus on:

Air and surface surveillance capabilities,

Special forces capabilities.

Army land force "agility" (ability to deploy and manoeuvre capability I suppose)

and investment in longer ranged deployment capabilities.

I suspect that capability priorities will then translate into:

Hercules replacement/additions.

Possible additional sea surveillance capability and deployment capability.

Upgrades or replacement of the P-3C capability.

Ongoing upgrades to special forces and light infantry based capabilities already extant in the force.

Investment in engineering, logistics and deployable medical capabilities.

I don't necessarily see much in the way of "greater firepower" so far, but there is quite a bit of talk of having forces capable of conducting combat should it occur, so who knows?

Like Australia, until 2 weeks ago, we will have to wait and see...

 

[Gibbo]

It seems to me, that the review and susbsequent capability plan, will focus on:

Air and surface surveillance capabilities,

Special forces capabilities.

Army land force "agility" (ability to deploy and manoeuvre capability I suppose)

and investment in longer ranged deployment capabilities.

I suspect that capability priorities will then translate into:

Hercules replacement/additions.

Possible additional sea surveillance capability and deployment capability.

Upgrades or replacement of the P-3C capability.

Ongoing upgrades to special forces and light infantry based capabilities already extant in the force.

Investment in engineering, logistics and deployable medical capabilities.

I don't necessarily see much in the way of "greater firepower" so far, but there is quite a bit of talk of having forces capable of conducting combat should it occur, so who knows?

Like Australia, until 2 weeks ago, we will have to wait and see...

His statement "The basic test became that the Defence Force should essentially consist of those capabilities that were likely to be used, rather than having capabilities that were unlikely to be used except in the case of general warfare" suggests to me we shouldn't expect much in the way of "greater firepower". That makes the ANZAC Frigate replacement the most likely 'hot-spot' for those that care about NZDF capability.

There's a couple of points I've picked up from 'NavyToday' magazine that points to Navy's thinking - wonder if they'll be picked up on by the review!?!
(1) Navy is thinking is that the (tanker) Endeavour's replacement should be a tanker / logistics support vessel - a bit like the MRV Canterbury that can offer RAS capability. (2) suggestion (May issue) that Manawanui (dive tender) & Resolution (survey) will be replaced with a single vessel, providing dive support; MCM; and inshore hydrograhy - a 'littoral warfare' vessel!?!

Wonder if my pet project of light armed recon role for AW109 will ever eventuate!?! He did state to me he thought 5 T/LUH irframes wasn't enough, but that was even before the AW109 had been selected (& the recession giving Govt the perfect excuse to argue against raising defence spending). I should point out he was less than complementary about the NH-90 purchase which he reckoned was simply "to placate the RNZAF after the loss of the ACF" - so that kind of exposes his thinking I guess!

Yep - just have to wait & see...and contribute to the public discussion part of the review that the Govt has signalled!

 

[Aussie Digger]

Wonder if my pet project of light armed recon role for AW109 will ever eventuate!?! He did state to me he thought 5 T/LUH irframes wasn't enough, but that was even before the AW109 had been selected (& the recession giving Govt the perfect excuse to argue against raising defence spending). I should point out he was less than complementary about the NH-90 purchase which he reckoned was simply "to placate the RNZAF after the loss of the ACF" - so that kind of exposes his thinking I guess!

Yep - just have to wait & see...and contribute to the public discussion part of the review that the Govt has signalled!

What "placate the RNZAF" more than 10 years after they lost their Skyhawks?

It would be interesting to see what he suggests would have been a better option to replace the Hueys, as they DO need to be replaced. The NH-90's are one of the more expensive options, though not THE most expensive option (Chinooks anyone?) but they will provide a level of capability NZDF has never had before.

The Huey's will be unsupportable in their present configuration within a couple of years and even in upgraded Huey II form, which would allow them to fly a bit longer, are not a survivable helo on a modern battlefield where there is an actual threat anyway.

UH-60M, AW139 or one of the French Cougar variants are the competitors to the NH-90 and there would be very little in the way of savings, if any, with these (presuming the same sized fleet) helos and NZ wouldn't ever be able to tap into Australia's logistical setup (not that they're that keen to right now anyway, but ops with deployed helos will be different) nor sponge simulator time off us...

As to the armed LUH, I think it a fine idea. I'd suggest another 7-9 platforms would be needed to develop a deployable capability , however I think for marketing purposes given the NZ political sensitivities on defence, it might be better to try and sell the capability as a "reconnaissance" helicopter that maintains a self-defence capability...

 

[recce.k1]

His statement "The basic test became that the Defence Force should essentially consist of those capabilities that were likely to be used, rather than having capabilities that were unlikely to be used except in the case of general warfare" suggests to me we shouldn't expect much in the way of "greater firepower". That makes the ANZAC Frigate replacement the most likely 'hot-spot' for those that care about NZDF capability.

Actually that statement "The basic test became that the Defence Force should essentially consist of those capabilities that were likely to be used, rather than having capabilities that were unlikely to be used ...." was not DefMin Mapp's words but those of the previous Labour Govt and/or Defence Beyond 2000 committee from memory.

As we all know, the former Govt pretyy much adopted the DB2000 findings and hence this was a justification used to get rid of the air combat sqn and similary downgrade the navy and army's war fighting abilities in favour of peace keeping (as Dr Mapp notes in his speech, "... Should, as the June 2000 Defence Policy Framework states, the emphasis be on land forces "supported by the Navy and Air Force" or should this emphasis be re-balanced?".

So I take (some) heart with his last sentance above i.e. should this emphasis be re-balanced. At least this is being said (no official would've dared utter such words under the previous administration)!

Dr Mapp also mentioned a few weeks ago (when it created some interest here) that the C130's. P3's and ANZAC's were requiring replacement before the end of the next decade etc. Of course he doesn't say "replace with what" etc (well it's too early to say, but hopefully this should be made clearer by the end of the Defence Review, perhaps?)

Maybe I'm naieve, but I've not seen anything to rule out ANZAC replacements. And as you guys suffer reading my comments on the naval forum, surely the logical thing politically and economically is to see whether there are opportunities to join with the Aussie ship replacement programme etc.

What "placate the RNZAF" more than 10 years after they lost their Skyhawks?

It would be interesting to see what he suggests would have been a better option to replace the Hueys, as they DO need to be replaced. The NH-90's are one of the more expensive options, though not THE most expensive option (Chinooks anyone?) but they will provide a level of capability NZDF has never had before.

Although I've previously knocked the NH90 on price (ridiculous price for helos etc) but AD says they and their competition are expensive. Perhaps I should have made my thoughts a little clearer, since we've outlayed a lot of $$$ on the NH90 (which is a fantastic machine) which did include spares, support and training, I wonder then how much would it cost to add, say another 4 NH90's, to make up an operation sqn of say 12 machines (rather than 8)? I'm assuming (dollar plunge excluded) that another 4 then maybe relatively cheaper??? If so, makes sense to me to upgrade the NH90 fleet so that NZ can field a decent helo in a hot/war zone and have some for other ops. Would be good for joint NZ-AU ops because of the commonality (for support) and operations (common procedures) etc!?

Still like the idea of more cheaper A109's for utility work in NZ and South Pacific but I don't think they are being fitted with self-protection/counter measures (unlike NH90's) so I wouldn't want to be advocating more A109's to allow better support deployments in Timor and A'stan, cause they probably wouldn't go there (well maybe Timor where there isn't much shooting)!

 

[Gibbo]

What "placate the RNZAF" more than 10 years after they lost their Skyhawks?

......


As to the armed LUH, I think it a fine idea. I'd suggest another 7-9 platforms would be needed to develop a deployable capability , however I think for marketing purposes given the NZ political sensitivities on defence, it might be better to try and sell the capability as a "reconnaissance" helicopter that maintains a self-defence capability...

Yeah I was a little dissapointed in his comment that the NH-90 was to keep the RNZAF happy - but I guess that's politics! I was similarly dissapointed at the time that when I suggested that the AW109 best fitted the T/LUH spec that he actually said he'd never heard of the AW109!

He said he thought 20 x T/LUH (not knowing the type at the time) would be a good a number as the NH-90 will be too expensive to operate in low-end tasks (quite correct!). NZ is actually getting 9 x NH-90 but one is an attrition airframe. Given that it's intended as a source of spares it's unlikely to ever fly - but you never know I guess!

I'd like to see 3 x AW109 purchased for Navy (OPV's primarily) with folding blades and low-end FLIR / surface radar. Amazingly although the 5 x AW109 on order are intended for some use from Navy vessels, they won't have folding blades! Not essential but surely preferable!?!

 

[recce.k1]

Defence White Paper

This was released last month, but I don't think I've seen mention of it here(?). Here's the upcoming Defence Review plus links to the terms of reference and the review timelines etc.
2009 Defence Review - Defence White Paper

I have also just stumbled upon an article written by Paul Buchanan on the subject:
Scoop: Reorganizing (the) Defence?
I do agree with Dr Buchanan's reasoning that the defence review should be broader and look at recent decisions affecting NZ Defence in the last several years. On the othe hand I wonder perhaps if he is over playing the DefMin's (alleged lack of) abilities (apparently Dr Mapp was involved in defence intelligence or am I mistaken, so should be no dummy to the geo-political landscape?) but again I do share Dr Buchanan's concerns of the DefMin playing down an increase in defence expenditure to align more with Australia's (as even an increase from eg 1% to 1.5% of gdp would provide significant funding for defence).

[Incidentally I noticed last year that Paul Buchanan signed up on DT, it would be great to have him (and others) comment occasionally here and get some informed analysis and discussion going, especially no doubt as some of us here may wish to put in a submission to the Defence review etc].