Sorry, what I meant by "home security problems".is the threat of invasion by a foreign military.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
Sorry, what I meant by "home security problems".is the threat of invasion by a foreign military.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Errr um, I'd probably be very quickly demoted to pushing the tea trolley around and handing out bikkies
Hi Recce.k1,
1210 was a well thought out post. Thanks.
I hadn't included UAVs in my maritime patrol position (going straight to the P8s) but they should be seen as an option - technology marches on. You might also be right about a National Party contribution to the Iraq war being more limited with reduced chances of lives lost. I still think we were right to stay out. 2035 is far enough away to put aside thoughts of current economic troubles and do some long-term military planning so I'm interested in what they will come up with.
One small point is that we would not have four frigates for long as the existing two were commissioned in the late 1990s and may be clapped out by 2025, so perhaps a third new one delivered in the 2020s would be better. I'm also not sure of the justification for eight OPVs/ OCVs (two is definitely not enough when looking out into the future) but with better communication those issues would canvased and decided upon with the White-Paper (no real point in arguing numbers now - even though I've done just that).
MrConservative - I guess the low-low cost light attack fighter option is not really an option for what I was thinking of. That is why governments pay large sums for jet fighters instead. Thanks.
1210 was a well thought out post. Thanks.
I hadn't included UAVs in my maritime patrol position (going straight to the P8s) but they should be seen as an option - technology marches on. You might also be right about a National Party contribution to the Iraq war being more limited with reduced chances of lives lost. I still think we were right to stay out. 2035 is far enough away to put aside thoughts of current economic troubles and do some long-term military planning so I'm interested in what they will come up with.
One small point is that we would not have four frigates for long as the existing two were commissioned in the late 1990s and may be clapped out by 2025, so perhaps a third new one delivered in the 2020s would be better. I'm also not sure of the justification for eight OPVs/ OCVs (two is definitely not enough when looking out into the future) but with better communication those issues would canvased and decided upon with the White-Paper (no real point in arguing numbers now - even though I've done just that).
MrConservative - I guess the low-low cost light attack fighter option is not really an option for what I was thinking of. That is why governments pay large sums for jet fighters instead. Thanks.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Sorry mate, I would have replied alot sooner (if I had the time to write a detailed answer with supporting facts and figures) alas I don't seem to have the time so here's a quick reply.
I'm probably repeating myself but it would be nice if this review (and subsequent reviews in the future under both major party's i.e. whoever is in govt later) could outline a plan for say, the RNZN as an example, to strive to build a capable fleet with X capabilities, Y personnel (as it will take years to build up capabilities), Z supporting facilities etc etc.. to link to various Govt "outputs" requiring XYZ etc (this is where I haven't had time to assess, but see NZ MoD website for the annual defence reports for this info etc). And after all it's not like the Govt has to committ the money now (although perhaps a few years ahead at a time).
So perhaps a 3 or 4 Frigate Navy would give NZ the ability to always have 1 Frigate available for tasking (or on operations), with the other working up and the other winding down/training after a deployment. Obviously 4 allows at least 2 to be away on ops (or be in two different locations).
Similarly the OPV's be that 6 to 8, would allow perhaps say 2 or 3 deployed at once (eg 1 covering the Southern Ocean, 1 in the Pacific and one off-shore from NZ ... again with the other 3 -5 working up/resting/refitting etc).
Apart from the money/funding issue, it will take years to train the right people (eg require X marine techs, Y officers etc) so surely it would be good for career development to have a future aim or target?
About the Frigate numbers last week, sure the current 2 would need replacing around the early to mid 2020's but I actually meant acquiring a 3rd around the same time and maybe a 4th a little later (but that's normal, a shipyard can only produce them every year or two etc ... and again I assuming we're in some project with the RAN but I suppose it could always be another type). No doubt if security in our region deteriorated in the next few years something could happen quicker (assuming political will/funding is there). As another member here said at the moment the RNZN is building up in a similar way with Project Protector into the short term, so I wouldn;t expect anything radical (for NZ) to occur unless perhaps we look at something a little more radical for the MCM/Survey replacements (eg Lucasnz's modular OPV or Twickiwi's BAM variants etc).
Well you defencetalk guys have got 3 weeks to get your White Paper submission to Wellington so hopefully they are well underway and detailed. I have not posted the last few weeks as I have been working on my own submission. Possibly thats what you guys have been focusing on.
Just a few points I have discussed in my submission to let you know where I am at.
The key thrust is Regular Forces must be able to be combat capable and able to handle Chapter VII contingencies. The Reserve/TF must be able to deploy and handle South Pacific orientated low spectrum Chapter VI and humanitarian missions. NZ's main economic interests are in the wider region so we must have the ability to contribute at that level and be engaged in the wider regions security. Bluntly put the South Pacific costs us money - Asia-Australia makes us money. The bottom line role of the NZDF is to protect and enhance our economic interests and soveriegnty. The South Pacific is important for other reasons and needs to be part of the factor in our defence outlook. But it must not be the precedent factor alone and above our wider regional (and economic) responsibilities.
I have endorsed the current two regular Battle Group model ( cavalry and light infantry) and proposed the reallignment of the TF into three Regionally based enhanced Battle Groups (down from 6 currently) which will focus on deploying into the South Pacific Forum states in humanitarian, peace support, disaster relief and reconstruction and other options at the low end of the Chp VI spectrum. I have also plumbed for a regular force High Readiness Company and a TF Commando equivalent to be developed over the next five years once the TF and Regular RNZIR are back to full establishment, with a hope to develop post 2020 into a 3rd Battalion. I have endorsed the reduction and sale of LAV's down to 55 but with the proviso that 22 tracked vehicles are the pay off - so back to the 1998 default position you could say.
Navy wise - rebuilding the naval combat force into four 120m + surface combatants by around 2020/21, an Endeavour replacement that can back up the Canterbury in sealift, and the retasking of the Protector Class OPV's into "Maritime Support Vessels" that can be the "platform" for a variety of tasks which means need not replace the Resolution and Manawanui as well as continuing EZZ patrol duties to back up the four IPV's. Finally three new ice strengthened OPV's built to naval hull standard and with a standardflex modular system offering an improved and flexible weapons package and general capability.
Air Force - 2 further NH-90s, 6 NHF-90s to replace SH-2(G), 3 further LUH's. Four C-130J's and 2 C-17's to complement the ADF and help to build a stronger ANZAC strategic lift, 5-6 Multi-Mission type aircraft like the C-235 for light transport, Coastal patrol, VIP, and training.
I have plumbed for the Global Hawk RQ4 over the P8 in my submission as the 1st tier maritime platform - part of the rationale is that in terms of synergy with the ADF we can both work together towards a BAMS model. I have also promoted a Defence Satellite and a light multi-mission aircraft for the 2nd tier coastal/EZZ capability.
After been a tad sceptical on UAV's the future is looming faster than I expected and I am begining to come round to the idea what with the emergence of the Predator C (Avenger). It looks promising in that it is meant to complement the F-35 JSF and will change how CAS/Interdiction is to be done. In my view it is something that needs to be considered per the NZDF. We lack an air combat component and this could be the cost effective and appropriate solution.
Just a few points I have discussed in my submission to let you know where I am at.
The key thrust is Regular Forces must be able to be combat capable and able to handle Chapter VII contingencies. The Reserve/TF must be able to deploy and handle South Pacific orientated low spectrum Chapter VI and humanitarian missions. NZ's main economic interests are in the wider region so we must have the ability to contribute at that level and be engaged in the wider regions security. Bluntly put the South Pacific costs us money - Asia-Australia makes us money. The bottom line role of the NZDF is to protect and enhance our economic interests and soveriegnty. The South Pacific is important for other reasons and needs to be part of the factor in our defence outlook. But it must not be the precedent factor alone and above our wider regional (and economic) responsibilities.
I have endorsed the current two regular Battle Group model ( cavalry and light infantry) and proposed the reallignment of the TF into three Regionally based enhanced Battle Groups (down from 6 currently) which will focus on deploying into the South Pacific Forum states in humanitarian, peace support, disaster relief and reconstruction and other options at the low end of the Chp VI spectrum. I have also plumbed for a regular force High Readiness Company and a TF Commando equivalent to be developed over the next five years once the TF and Regular RNZIR are back to full establishment, with a hope to develop post 2020 into a 3rd Battalion. I have endorsed the reduction and sale of LAV's down to 55 but with the proviso that 22 tracked vehicles are the pay off - so back to the 1998 default position you could say.
Navy wise - rebuilding the naval combat force into four 120m + surface combatants by around 2020/21, an Endeavour replacement that can back up the Canterbury in sealift, and the retasking of the Protector Class OPV's into "Maritime Support Vessels" that can be the "platform" for a variety of tasks which means need not replace the Resolution and Manawanui as well as continuing EZZ patrol duties to back up the four IPV's. Finally three new ice strengthened OPV's built to naval hull standard and with a standardflex modular system offering an improved and flexible weapons package and general capability.
Air Force - 2 further NH-90s, 6 NHF-90s to replace SH-2(G), 3 further LUH's. Four C-130J's and 2 C-17's to complement the ADF and help to build a stronger ANZAC strategic lift, 5-6 Multi-Mission type aircraft like the C-235 for light transport, Coastal patrol, VIP, and training.
I have plumbed for the Global Hawk RQ4 over the P8 in my submission as the 1st tier maritime platform - part of the rationale is that in terms of synergy with the ADF we can both work together towards a BAMS model. I have also promoted a Defence Satellite and a light multi-mission aircraft for the 2nd tier coastal/EZZ capability.
After been a tad sceptical on UAV's the future is looming faster than I expected and I am begining to come round to the idea what with the emergence of the Predator C (Avenger). It looks promising in that it is meant to complement the F-35 JSF and will change how CAS/Interdiction is to be done. In my view it is something that needs to be considered per the NZDF. We lack an air combat component and this could be the cost effective and appropriate solution.
MrConservative, nice looking submission you have there. Just be politically aware in what approach you take. Why because in the past few weeks I have attended multiple select committees for my second year politics paper at Victoria University.
From analyzing select committee meetings I have found interesting trends.
First prominent people and organizations get far more attention and are taken a lot more seriously. Although you probably can't get around this you can make your submissions more interesting. Have things like punch lines, perhaps even a small joke (like Billy Connolly's Americas Cup joke about half of Switzerland not even being able to point to the sea). Thing is for your submission to have any impact it has to be remember able. I remember one phone submitter, made a submission backed up by a complementary phone submission that sounded like he was reading from a phone book. Fact is MPs and public servants in general are human, they get bored just like the rest of us despite their best efforts.
Second thing, be realistic with what you ask for. If you make an insane demand/s they'll ignore you. I say because of the expense that is likely to come with your submission was taken up as a policy. Truth is these guys aren't about to spend a whole lot of money on defense, it doesn't win votes simply put. Target specific areas, such as a third frigate, the sale of LAVs or the purchase of UAVs. You are going to really have to justify everything you say. Defense acquisitions are big, especially since the public tends not see immediate benefit such as a tax cut. The biggest thing you need to do is trigger a change in mindset, you need to convince them to go from a "it will never happen", to a "what if" one.
Thirdly, you get far far far more credibility if you are prepared to make a phone submission or a submission in person. The MPs will not want to look daft and are more likely to read your submission or have a staff member do so, to ensure that they appear to be doing their job and subsequently ask questions.
Lastly, I don't actually know how the exact public submission process is working in this case. Like I don't actually know to what extent the foreign affairs, trade and defense committee is involved in this. Some select committees are open for the public submission part which I have been to for three select committees, others are closed. This is more sensitive policy area so the process may be modified to an extent.
Notably on Thursday I went down to Parliament hoping to go to the Defense acquisition briefing from senior officials for the foreign affairs, trade and defense select committee. Initially it was going to be open to the public, but literally a minute before we are allowed to walk in the MPs on the committee decided they wanted it to be close it to the public. Talking to a member of the media who was expecting to go in as well to me "suspicious very suspicious".
I hope this helped in some way and its good to see people making submissions to committees, I am tossing up doing one myself.
From analyzing select committee meetings I have found interesting trends.
First prominent people and organizations get far more attention and are taken a lot more seriously. Although you probably can't get around this you can make your submissions more interesting. Have things like punch lines, perhaps even a small joke (like Billy Connolly's Americas Cup joke about half of Switzerland not even being able to point to the sea). Thing is for your submission to have any impact it has to be remember able. I remember one phone submitter, made a submission backed up by a complementary phone submission that sounded like he was reading from a phone book. Fact is MPs and public servants in general are human, they get bored just like the rest of us despite their best efforts.
Second thing, be realistic with what you ask for. If you make an insane demand/s they'll ignore you. I say because of the expense that is likely to come with your submission was taken up as a policy. Truth is these guys aren't about to spend a whole lot of money on defense, it doesn't win votes simply put. Target specific areas, such as a third frigate, the sale of LAVs or the purchase of UAVs. You are going to really have to justify everything you say. Defense acquisitions are big, especially since the public tends not see immediate benefit such as a tax cut. The biggest thing you need to do is trigger a change in mindset, you need to convince them to go from a "it will never happen", to a "what if" one.
Thirdly, you get far far far more credibility if you are prepared to make a phone submission or a submission in person. The MPs will not want to look daft and are more likely to read your submission or have a staff member do so, to ensure that they appear to be doing their job and subsequently ask questions.
Lastly, I don't actually know how the exact public submission process is working in this case. Like I don't actually know to what extent the foreign affairs, trade and defense committee is involved in this. Some select committees are open for the public submission part which I have been to for three select committees, others are closed. This is more sensitive policy area so the process may be modified to an extent.
Notably on Thursday I went down to Parliament hoping to go to the Defense acquisition briefing from senior officials for the foreign affairs, trade and defense select committee. Initially it was going to be open to the public, but literally a minute before we are allowed to walk in the MPs on the committee decided they wanted it to be close it to the public. Talking to a member of the media who was expecting to go in as well to me "suspicious very suspicious".
I hope this helped in some way and its good to see people making submissions to committees, I am tossing up doing one myself.
Apologies for the double post but I have decided to include a sample of what I am likely to include in a submission that I may choose to make. Do note that this is a draft, so obviously spelling and grammar faults would be fixed and I would certainly be looking at making my writing more lively featuring statistics etc.
"A change is needed in the all over focus of New Zealand's armed forces, in particular an increased focus on the combat culpability of the Royal New Zealand Navy. New Zealand's true national interests lie the its surrounding oceans and the island nations that are in those oceans, not in a war on another continent. The focus needs to be dropped from the Royal New Zealand Army in which the majority of New Zealand defense force personnel serve, to that of the Royal New Zealand Navy. The Royal New Zealand Navy's maritime focus allows it to better defend New Zealands interests including its exclusive economic zone and its trade routes, notable around the Asia/Pacific region. This requires the purchase of truly 21st century Naval combat vessels, similar in armament to current NATO and US vessels such as those in development in the joint French and Italian 'FREMM' project."
"A change is needed in the all over focus of New Zealand's armed forces, in particular an increased focus on the combat culpability of the Royal New Zealand Navy. New Zealand's true national interests lie the its surrounding oceans and the island nations that are in those oceans, not in a war on another continent. The focus needs to be dropped from the Royal New Zealand Army in which the majority of New Zealand defense force personnel serve, to that of the Royal New Zealand Navy. The Royal New Zealand Navy's maritime focus allows it to better defend New Zealands interests including its exclusive economic zone and its trade routes, notable around the Asia/Pacific region. This requires the purchase of truly 21st century Naval combat vessels, similar in armament to current NATO and US vessels such as those in development in the joint French and Italian 'FREMM' project."
Thanks for that. Pleased to hear you are making a submission. What I wrote above was a very brief fast outline to give DF folk where I am heading on this. My submission which runs to 25 pages and is very detailed outlines a 15 year transitional process from where we are now to where I believe we should be at around 2025. I understand the policy process professionally and know the individuals in the process who matter. In fact I will be putting my submission through these channels directly.
The following paragraphs are still in draft stage of what I am writing. I have yet to edit the submission into the policy opinion format I was taught as a law student. The key client will be the Minister who in his previous career was an Assoc Prof of International Law at Auckland Law School. Note the paragraphs are taken from different parts of the submission and are not sequential.
"This is an area of some complexity. Therefore, we cannot ‘holus bolus’ say that our priorities need to be ranked arbitrarily with the EZZ/Pacific first, then with wider regional concerns and global concerns following on from that in some predisposed weighting exercise. My point is that either on an EEZ/Pacific basis, regional basis or global basis, the requirement of New Zealand to act militarily within the auspices Chapters VI and VII of the UN Charter under any UNSC resolution could likely eventuate within any of the strategic environments. One of the principal themes I wish to focus on and reiterate is the fundamental difference between the capability requirements that NZDF needs in terms of achieving the spectrum of security solutions that arise in reference to Chapter VI and Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
Therefore the real question in terms of priorities is whether New Zealand has the right range of military capabilities between events that might trigger a response under Chapters VI and VII of the UN Charter."
"One thing I fear from this Defence White Paper is a sense of pre-determination in outlook. That we will again fall into the trap of being one dimensional by concentrating purely on sustaining narrow ‘niche’ capabilities at the lower end of the UNSC Chapter VI spectrum. I am fully aware that New Zealand has for 40 odd years been a ‘niche’ provider of the defence output and not been (mistakenly regarded by some as) a balanced force. In my view we should begin with how the shape of New Zealand’s Defence Force commitment must look like beyond 2010. We should ask how New Zealand is to develop and integrate its defence strategy to cope with its own future security realities, but also how its components fit in with that of Australia and our regional allies. It is abundantly apparent that we have lost the capability of being able to provide military assistance to the regional security umbrella at a UNSC Chapter VII level. It is all very well to provide Chapter VI niche capabilities at the lower end of threat spectrum for the present. However, in the future our wider region will become increasingly more strategically complex and challenging."
"The strategic environment in the South Pacific region in terms of the capability required of our Land Forces will essentially be manpower specific more than technological. Operations will most likely involve the lower end of the combat spectrum in terms of military capability, as there will continue to be a need for Humanitarian and Peace Support Missions, as well as possible situations of low intensity conflict."
"However, one issue to be aware of is the potential unraveling of Fiji, which may involve a significant New Zealand contribution. This is a situation that can never be deemed to be likely or unlikely. But the geographical proximity of Fiji and the ‘history’ between New Zealand and Fiji means it matters to us significantly. That is why the Regular Force of the New Zealand Army needs to be able to sustain a Battalion Group at Chapter VII level. Failure to militarily contribute commensurate to our political involvement and interest in Fiji if it all goes array, or a less than effective response, will expose New Zealand to a number of regional diplomatic and geo-political costs. The last 100 years of diplomatic influence and defence credibility in the region and possibly globally would evaporate significantly overnight."
"Also maritime operations within the Pacific and Southern Ocean region over the next 25 to 30 years will require a more maritime centric and technological response than has been evident over the last couple of decades. In many ways the RNZN and RNZAF will need to be provided with significant investment regarding its capability in terms of long-range ocean patrol and surveillance. With the eventual demise of our P-3K Orion aircraft and the requirement for the replacement of our Anzac Frigates also around 2020, the planning of replacement platforms needs to be considered soon. These replacement platforms will also require enhanced technologies beyond current legacy standards."
Last edited:
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
From what you've written, it seems to me to be a very fair assessment of where the Govt could be taking the NZDF in a 10+ year timeframe that would build upon and add value to exisiting capabilities (some if not most of which are in high demand already) to meet NZ's various committments assisting with stabilising areas of the Pacific and to play its part as a good international citizen in the Asian and Middle East regions.
Seeing practically the whole NZDF has been focusing on training up on new hardware, systems and increased interoperability with other nations, moreso over the last several years compared to say 20 years ago, at least here, the NZDF can get on and enhance these modest but practical capabilities further with a sense of direction and purpose into the (near) future, hopefully without fear of the upheavals of the mid-80's (ANZUS breakdown), the 90's (more deeper cutbacks) and then 1999/2000 (re-orientation away from balanced force) etc. In theory there should be cross-party consensus seeing that National is pretty much building upon Labour's tinkering with defence but has the opportunity to go further in a positive manner (but then again even today Labour flips-flops by now opposing today's decison to committ the SAS to Afghanistan despite doing so three times themselves, despite the new US Administration's strategy to engage more there and with other regional players etc, so nothing can be taken for granted when it comes to NZ Govt's it seems)!
A couple of things though, firstly, without wanting to quibble over item X v item Y etc, regarding the structure of the Army, I take it that you mean the Territorials would deploy to the SP for low end ops once a location has been secured by the Regular Forces? Otherwise I'm wondering how quick one could assemble the TF's and trained up ready for the deployment, whereas for the RF's (and SAS) this would be their bread and butter etc. If the former, it seems to me that (like the Solomon's TF deployments recently), this gives the RF's time to regenerate before being whisked off to some other trouble spot or at least allows them not be stretched in one particular location for months if not years. The Army structure could be a topic in itself here (pity the NZDF staffers aren't allowed to comment publically on structure themselves, their words would be wisdom to us supporters who can get the word out) so onto the Air Force, the only thing I may have a problem with is ditching a direct P-3 replacement (eg P-8 or similar etc). For I do agree with maritime survellience UAV's and working more with the Australians and (by default) the US (as let's be realistic, the US already have the network systems in place etc) and build up the investment over time to do so etc, I still believe a manned patrol aircraft (eg P-8 etc) has its place due to the multi-mission nature of the P-8 (etc) over a UAV. Because NZ tends not to purchase equipment with a narrow focus (eg it would likely buy a broad survellience UAV which would tend to be its main use over something that is armed which would see very little use) at least with the P-3/P-8 etc we get the best of both worlds including ASW etc). I also wonder whether a concentrated "network" attack is more likely to disrupt communications to/from UAV's (eg even if the HQ's were targeted etc) as opposed to a P-3/P-8 that hopefully can at least search and destroy targets with its own on board systems if comms to base have been disrupted?
The other thing is, Colin James, the veteran NZ political commentator, who writes very infrequent but very insightful defence opinion pieces has had a timely article published in yesterday's Dompost (who tend to kill their links within a few days, so it is reproduced here as food for thought in a moment). Amongst what he is writing about, are some issues we touch upon here occassionally, which is the need to be both able to perform stabalising operations and more higher end operations (in NZ's case, excepting SAS etc, that would include East Timor 1999, when the NZDF were on a war footing). Granted that as inferred, NZ is not a country that can afford to be a full fighting force nation by any means, but at the very least he is inferring (in his most usual circumspect manner) that due to the geopolitical winds of change that is occurring in the Asian region, NZ should not be scared to discuss what this shift could mean for NZ's relations with its traditional and (new found) trading partners. This could open the public's mind a bit more to how defence fits into this bigger picture of preserving NZ's way of life and this defence review (like the Australian one) is a worthwhile opportunity for the public to have these matters put forward for debate one way or another, as defence planning is a long term objective. Small increments now will assist with the future.
Thanks for the feedback Recce. Yes it is my intention that following RF stabilisation in a Chp VI SASO mission in the South Pacific the TF would rotate through.
For RNZAF maritime patrol in the future I have looked at a two tier structure. The Global Hawk as the BAMS platform and a manned twin engined turbo-prop aircraft (CASA 235/Q200/B1900D) as the second tier inner EZZ patrol aircraft (which can double up in other roles). I have also promoted a NZDF/ Govt satellite capability to wire it all together.
Colin James does his homework when writing on defence matters as a journalist. Completely without any merit are Gordon Cambell, Russell Brown and Findlay McDonald.
Mr Conservative, You have deliberately picked out the non-conservative commentators for your criticism while supporting the conservative James. I should not have assumed you could get passed your ideology, and keep politics out of this forum. Have you and your supporters ever wondered why you only get right wing zeolots to this forum? You deserve each other.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Heh, heh, whilst not wanting to be defending Mr Conservative (for he can obviously do that for himself), for a centralist like myself (who can see good and bad on the left and the right) I have no idea whether Colin James is conservative or left wing, which is actually a good thing because in theory a Journalist should be objective and politics should not taint their writing. Also if you look at his previous defence opinion pieces in the link to his site, Colin James actually takes to time to interview both sides of an arguement and in depth. On the other hand (being someone with a media background) I find the opinion pieces of the other three people mentioned quite frustrating to read at times because of their blatant anti-americanism (and two of the named people don't even bother to interview both sides for a balanced viewpoint for their readers, they simply regurgitate their biases time after time and stack their articles with others that agree with them). However imo it's good to see balanced arguements "from the left and the right", apart from political blog sites (where sometimes these can be found) I can't think of any non-conservative media commentator that doesn't have some sort of agenda, perhaps excepting Chris Trotter who can be pro or anti depending on the topic of the time (although he's seen by the very left as a conservative socialist, so go figure)!
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Gudday at0, about the second to last pararaph where the public were excluded from the defence acquistion briefing, I wonder whether perhaps (as it was about acquisition) they were to discuss providing some technology or hardware to the SAS for their deployment (as the nature of their equipment etc is always kept secret) and hence this is why the meeting was closed to the public? Or not?
Regarding your insights into the select committee process, surely all public submissions (eg to the defence review) will be read but are you meaning that in most cases a public servant (for lack of a better word) may simply read a lot of the submissions (noting the writers position and/or credability) but only pass on a few "interesting" ones to the committee to read themselves?
If so, would this mean only "controversial" submissions make it thru to the committee? To me it seems one can say something controversial (eg like "let's ditch Frigates as Patrol Boats are cheaper and we can invest the money elsewhere" etc) as opposed to someone trying to advocate increased defence capabilities (eg presumably then someone advocating for high-tech Cruisers over Frigates will be seen as an unrealistic nutcase etc).
Anyway your insights into the defence review process would be most welcomed by people here (well me at least) if you have the time to go as part of your studies during the year etc.
Yes I deliberately picked them out for criticism because on defence issues they are superficial, disengenious, lack a fundmental knowledge base and therefore are without merit in my opinion.
Note also that I was commentating on the merit of journalists work regarding the reporting and analysis of defence issues and not politics. I also not make any claims regarding where these individuals posit themselves on a left-right paradigm. Mr James is famously politically neutral.
Your comments lack objectivity in this context.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Been a bit busy to respond in full sooner. I'd agree that the area of BAMS is quite exciting in terms of much enhanced capabilities for the NZDF, especially if NZ could join in with some Australian or "coalition" system to provide coverage for this region etc. I take it though it is actually a huge investment, (but NZ has to keep up with advances in network/warfare/ISR systems surely).
However some questions to ask and consider are:
- what are the timeframes for when NZ participation would be a realistic (and worthwhile) proposition for all parties concerned?
- and how does that tie in with the timeframes to replace the P-3? Bearing in mind some years of evaluation, selection and training will be required?
- can NZ afford the full range of capabilites BAMS/RQ-4 offer? Does NZ need the full range of capabilities that BAMS/RQ-4 offer (esp. for the South Pacific)?
- the reality of politics interlinked with defence in NZ. The Greens would kick up a stink about NZ joining in with their arch enemies and Labour flipflops periodically on defence meaning their support can't be guaranteed. But does that matter if National can grow some balls?
- maintaining long range ASW (from the air)? That would be a capability that NZ would lose perhaps?
- maintaining the all important search-and-rescue of a vast area of millions of square miles, and the ability to drop supplies and rescue dingy's etc (the RNZAF Orions have notched up another successful South Pacific SAR mission in the last few days and two were searching for Tongan ferry survivors a few days before and I saw something in today's paper about another Pacific rescue).
- would the govt ensure the second tier inner EEZ patrol aircraft include respectible ASuW and ASW systems?
- would their short range mean that NZ may be better off basing some EEZ patrol aircraft in the Pacific again to ensure faster responses? (Personally I wish the RNZAF were still based in the Pacific a la the Sunderlands based at Fiji etc).
- presumably EEZ patrol aircraft don't have the range to fly to Antarctica (and NZ's remote southern islands don't have airstrips although one of the Aussie islands has a small strip I think?) whereas BAMS could, but would the extreme weather conditions in the deep south affect BAMS more than P-3 type aircraft?
Don't get me wrong, I'm for NZ moving towards long endurance unmanned survellience, ISR and satellite systems etc, it would be logical for NZ's unique environment (that of a large area to look after).
Trouble is NZ Govt's can be cautious eg buy of the shelf, wait until systems mature (mind you the last administration threw that out the door with yet to be proven LAV3's, Project Protector & state of the art NH90's) so who knows maybe the times are changing in terms of technology uptake (the plus to all this is NZ's leap frogs some areas to the some of the latest systems and methods etc, so maybe I shouldn't sound as if I'm complaining)!
Personally I hope the Govt defence review gives direction and funding to NZDF to move into these areas. But I'm not sure whether this is in fact too early in the piece to be looking at the direct replacement of the P-3's with something else altogether because of these timeframes involved and some of these other reasons etc. IMO better that (as you and Kip wrote in the current RNZAF thread) that the Govt defence review set some direction and have NZ sign up to new systems, and with an eye on BAMS, if it were me I'd be giving the RNZAF total certainty that they have a future with long range maritime survellience, their new overland surveillence capabilities, SAR, ASW, ASuW etc, and sign up to the (hopefully to be) proven P-8 programme. I guess the RNZAF (no doubt already looking at the P-8 and what the Aussies are planning) if given a formal approval to sign up to the P-8 prog will need another say 3-4? years of training (plus the aircraft build timeframe) to become operational?
If so I'd do it as a first tier buy of 3 aircraft. That would give us time to decide whether we plumb for a 4th etc, or whether additional BAMS (i.e. the maritime UAV study/acquisition programme running in paralllel with the P-3 replacement, say 2 or 3 BAMS/UAV's initially at some point in the next 5 or so years?). In terms of numbers ideally we'd want 2 P-8 types operational for a contingency situation (SAR/warfare etc) so that one aircraft crew could be relieved and the aircraft checked out again before rejoining the mission the next day, so 3 min, 4 more likely, any more than that depends on cost v alternatives eg a couple of BAMS v more BAMS .... (plus although I haven't mentioned it of late, short-medium EEZ aircraft are a must regardless of whatever happens, an these should be bought as soon as practically possible. Even "today" apart from inshore tasks around NZ and the Pacific, they could relieve the P-3's so that 2-3 P3's could be deployed into NZ's wider area of assistance, SE Asia or the Gulf etc for an operation or exercises etc). Anyway just some thoughts, there's probably many possibilites, and this is just one of them!
Last edited:
Many Questions Recce - but that is good. I will quickly deal with them as follows:
Timeframes - replacement per Orion phasing out late next decade.
The Global Hawk is far cheaper than the P-8. Less to purchase and less running costs with double the sortie length. It uses sophisticated radars and other sensors to monitor developments on land, sea, and air over an area of about 100,000 square km in a patrol. Very impressive. Four P-8's will cost us nearly NZ$2 Billion dollars - the alternative of three Global Hawks systems and five Q200/CASA235 multi-mission aircraft would cost half that. That extra Billion can be used elsewhere in the defence force. Yes I agree the multi-mission aircraft are needed now along with a further three LUH's.
Politics - You are always going to have someone having a winge. The Greens - who cares! Labour will probably have David Shearer or Shane Jones as their Leader in 5 years - they have to claim the male 'centrist' vote who are fairly broadminded when it comes to defence matters. I am aware of political surveying that puts NZ males under 45 as quite pro defence force. That is something Labour will have to accomodate. A Shearer or Jones lead Labour party would move into a defence policy setting more similar to the Australian Labour Party than under the Clark era.
ASW and BAMS - In a way the RQ-4 and Defence satellite would be an integrated component within an ANZAC BAMS matrix. Note they have the P-8 coming and the Wedgetail. Airborne ASW capability as part of this ANZAC approach would tend more towards the RAN. The second tier multi-mission aircraft may well be able to offer a lower level ASW capability.
SAR - capability. Well the RQ-4 can deploy a payload of 3000kg. Also it can detect and loiter for significant periods. A tasked C-130J would be able to raft drop if required. The second tier multi-mission aircraft would also be able to do the job within a 900km range of an airstrip which could include CAA cleared Nuie and Raro.
Southern Ocean Operations RQ-4 - They operate at 20000m well above the usual issues of weather.
Part of my submission is that the NZDF buys the best proven OTS solution as it will be the most cost effective over the ling term. I have couched the RQ-4 in those terms by indicating it will be new P-3 and last for decades.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Mr. C, I feel I have to disagree with re: suitability of direct GH replacement for RNZAF P-3K Orions. However, the nature of the disagreement has more to do with the focus and role.
I do agree that on a cost-basis, the GH has lower acquisition and operating costs, therefore allowing more units to be purchased and deployed consecutively or concurrently. This in turn means that a GH-centric solution can scan a larger portion of the approaches to NZ and the EEZ.
Here are the two main areas where I differ. I am of the opinion that, at least at present, first tier assets should be manned. This is my view because first tier assets are capable of taking action and at present I would still want a person taking a look at a potential target prior to launching a strike.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly from a NZ perspective, is that the NZDF ASW capacity seems to have atrophied significantly. Given that NZ is an island nation (properly an archipelago...) NZ needs something more capable and significant than a pair of hull-mounted sonars to detect and deal with uninvited undersea 'guests'. With a GH/BAMS approach, I can foresee NZ not being able to carry out airborne ASW operations. If the situation arises where there is an ASW threat, I am uncertain if the ADF would be in a position to assist, as Australia too would most likely be threatened and ADF assets would be set to defend Australia.
Another are which I disagree on, is whether small to mid-sized multi-engine aircraft could provide a useful MPA capacity and still be capable of being re-roled as needed. The aircraft provided by Surveillance Australia for maritime customs surveillance had to have a fair amount of work done on green airframes to give them surveillance radars, IR and TV systems and the workstations to make them useful. Not the sort of kit which can be removed when needed so UN staffers can flit about the country
I do think a small number of P-8 aircraft, augmented and supported by high endurance UAVs for broad area surveillance, as well as some smaller MPA aircraft and ground-based radar stations is the path NZ should be taking. But that might just be me...
-Cheers
I appreciate your comments Tod. To do away with a manned airborne ASW capability is a big call and no doubt problematic. But the salient point is this - We have only 2.2 million taxpayers to pay for it. And we have boxed ourselves into a corner due to 15 years of reduced defence budgets to the point that it is unrealistic in the present circumstances to more than double our defence budget for the next 15 years. We have 15 years of under investment in infrastructure that to a domestic audience is significantly more of a concern. The lack of an indigenous ASW capability as with a general air combat capability is something we will have to either risk as a nation. On the other hand I still believe that GH can do the important 90% of what we and the region need 99% of the time on a more cost effective basis than P8.Mr. C, I feel I have to disagree with re: suitability of direct GH replacement for RNZAF P-3K Orions. However, the nature of the disagreement has more to do with the focus and role.
I do agree that on a cost-basis, the GH has lower acquisition and operating costs, therefore allowing more units to be purchased and deployed consecutively or concurrently. This in turn means that a GH-centric solution can scan a larger portion of the approaches to NZ and the EEZ.
Here are the two main areas where I differ. I am of the opinion that, at least at present, first tier assets should be manned. This is my view because first tier assets are capable of taking action and at present I would still want a person taking a look at a potential target prior to launching a strike.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly from a NZ perspective, is that the NZDF ASW capacity seems to have atrophied significantly. Given that NZ is an island nation (properly an archipelago...) NZ needs something more capable and significant than a pair of hull-mounted sonars to detect and deal with uninvited undersea 'guests'. With a GH/BAMS approach, I can foresee NZ not being able to carry out airborne ASW operations. If the situation arises where there is an ASW threat, I am uncertain if the ADF would be in a position to assist, as Australia too would most likely be threatened and ADF assets would be set to defend Australia.
Another are which I disagree on, is whether small to mid-sized multi-engine aircraft could provide a useful MPA capacity and still be capable of being re-roled as needed. The aircraft provided by Surveillance Australia for maritime customs surveillance had to have a fair amount of work done on green airframes to give them surveillance radars, IR and TV systems and the workstations to make them useful. Not the sort of kit which can be removed when needed so UN staffers can flit about the country
I do think a small number of P-8 aircraft, augmented and supported by high endurance UAVs for broad area surveillance, as well as some smaller MPA aircraft and ground-based radar stations is the path NZ should be taking. But that might just be me...
-Cheers
I based my comments re MM aircraft after talking with the Survelliance Australia rep back in March. He envisaged the OTS versions coming into fruition that are more user friendly and modulized than the SA Q300 conversions (which do have a greater capability IR/Radar wise). Essentially the multi-mission aircraft requirement is an update of our former C.1 Andovers light transport, multi-engine trainer, coastal patrol (eyes), SAR within EZZ ect. Basically a cheap to run low cost dogsbody for the minor roles that are not been done.