NZDF General discussion thread

[Todjaeger]

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.

I would be interested in seeing/reading what would be done that would allow some form of 'quick-change' between an MPA-roled Q300 (or other similar twin engine) to something like a transport or training aircraft. To my understanding, even with some of the mission modules and workstations which have been developed, the equipment has to be essentially fixed to the aircraft to be used and is only taken out when doing significant upgrades of deep level maintenance. What otherwise comes to mind is transport aircraft equipped with Mk 1 Eyeballs and perhaps a nose-mounted search radar. From what has been posted though, it appears that other capabilities are being suggested.

One thing I would be interested in seeing NZ deploy (and I believe I am repeating myself here...) is some form of ground-based OTH surveillance radar. As has been mentioned, NZ has a vast EEZ and area of interest. What makes this situation more significant is the comparably small size and population of NZ itself. If my memory serves, it would require NZ to have a minimum of 10 Orions aloft simultaneously to provide a sensor footprint roughly equal to the area of NZ and the EEZ. Given that NZ does not have that many P-3K's, that means NZ does not have the ability to constantly monitor the air and ship traffic within the EEZ without needing to calculate what sort of overlaps are required so that there are no radar 'blindspots'.

I feel that a properly selected and operated system could allow a more efficient and effective use of existing and proposed NZDF assets in the area around NZ and that such a system would likely cost less to establish and operate than the current array of systems performing essentially the same function.

By improving the basic situational awareness the NZDF has within NZ's own 'backyard' as it were, at a lower cost could then allow greater levels of funding for higher level capabilities of the sort used when suspicious/threat vessels or aircraft are detected.

-Cheers

 

[MrConservative]

I would be interested in seeing/reading what would be done that would allow some form of 'quick-change' between an MPA-roled Q300 (or other similar twin engine) to something like a transport or training aircraft. To my understanding, even with some of the mission modules and workstations which have been developed, the equipment has to be essentially fixed to the aircraft to be used and is only taken out when doing significant upgrades of deep level maintenance. What otherwise comes to mind is transport aircraft equipped with Mk 1 Eyeballs and perhaps a nose-mounted search radar. From what has been posted though, it appears that other capabilities are being suggested.

One thing I would be interested in seeing NZ deploy (and I believe I am repeating myself here...) is some form of ground-based OTH surveillance radar. As has been mentioned, NZ has a vast EEZ and area of interest. What makes this situation more significant is the comparably small size and population of NZ itself. If my memory serves, it would require NZ to have a minimum of 10 Orions aloft simultaneously to provide a sensor footprint roughly equal to the area of NZ and the EEZ. Given that NZ does not have that many P-3K's, that means NZ does not have the ability to constantly monitor the air and ship traffic within the EEZ without needing to calculate what sort of overlaps are required so that there are no radar 'blindspots'.

I feel that a properly selected and operated system could allow a more efficient and effective use of existing and proposed NZDF assets in the area around NZ and that such a system would likely cost less to establish and operate than the current array of systems performing essentially the same function.

By improving the basic situational awareness the NZDF has within NZ's own 'backyard' as it were, at a lower cost could then allow greater levels of funding for higher level capabilities of the sort used when suspicious/threat vessels or aircraft are detected.

-Cheers

Only about 6% of the NZ EEZ gets coverage each year according to the MFR 2001. Yes the work stations on MM aircraft are fixed and usually in the forward quarter of the cabin. How much space they take up and work stations required is comensurate to how many mission capabilies the platform would require. I am envisaging however a fairly basic coastal patrol ability with a FLIR camera pod mounted, a search radar, and other odds and ends for Fisheries, SAR, Customs, VIP, Medvac. Bombardier use to reckon on less than an hour to change from a cargo mode to a VIP mode with the Q200MM which I believe wil soon stop production. Could the GH be your answer to covering the huge EZZ area we have Tod? It will vastly increase the situational awareness per coverage and per dollar spent.

 

[Sea Toby]

Peter King's blog I am referring to:
Defending New Zealand - Defence New Zealand 

 

[Lucasnz]

Peter King's blog I am referring to:
Defending New Zealand - Defence New Zealand*

He has thought about what he's saying on the website, but I don't think its grounded in reality, especially when you look at the deployments that have taken place in recent years.

 

[Todjaeger]

Only about 6% of the NZ EEZ gets coverage each year according to the MFR 2001. Yes the work stations on MM aircraft are fixed and usually in the forward quarter of the cabin. How much space they take up and work stations required is comensurate to how many mission capabilies the platform would require. I am envisaging however a fairly basic coastal patrol ability with a FLIR camera pod mounted, a search radar, and other odds and ends for Fisheries, SAR, Customs, VIP, Medvac. Bombardier use to reckon on less than an hour to change from a cargo mode to a VIP mode with the Q200MM which I believe wil soon stop production. Could the GH be your answer to covering the huge EZZ area we have Tod? It will vastly increase the situational awareness per coverage and per dollar spent.

The GH would of course help. What I am not sure of is whether or not they would provide a capability beyond what currently exists with the P-3K, at least in the surface/maritime search. Duration and persistence should be greater, but will the radars be able to achieve the same range and level of detail? Also, what effect would there be on mission effectiveness if one cannot focus a Mk I 'Eyeball' on a target when one just is not sure?

As for the MM medium/light aircraft, I still just do not know. From what I have seen and read, the Surveillance Australia Q200 & 300 aircraft meet the systems description you have for a short-ranged or coastal MPA. Having seen some of the images, they have turret-mounted FLIR and search radars as well as (IIRC) a satellite datalink to relay the data to a ground-based monitoring station. Nothing I have seen though suggests that the internal wiring loom and workstations required to make the sensors effective in an MPA role lend themselves to being easily removed. The only thought as to how such an aircraft could be used for multiple roles would be that a certain portion of space be set aside for when the aircraft is acting as an MPA. All the rest of the time, the systems and space onboard would be occupied by MPA equipment and mission systems but be otherwise unoccupied. The easiest analogy I can give to the situation I am thinking of would be to take an aircraft like a 737 and convert the 1st class section into a series of workstations. When the aircraft is needed as a transport, the regular coach seats are used and no one goes into where 1st class would have been.

I will think on it a bit more, and then try to explain more fully what sort of situation I am thinking of. Perhaps I can use what I develop for my WP submission.

-Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

He has thought about what he's saying on the website, but I don't think its grounded in reality, especially when you look at the deployments that have taken place in recent years.

Can you (or anyone) explain what he meant by the following?

Construct a counterfactual hypothetetical force...

The way it is written, it does not make sense to me...

-Cheers

 

[MrConservative]

ANZAC Joint Force??

Prime Ministers John Key and Kevin Rudd have this afternoon announced via a press conference a joint force 'contingent' concept for future deployments.

It is only at the planning stages obviously, but seems to be an excellent step forward for the NZDF.

I wonder what develops out of this.

 

[recce.k1]

I wonder what develops out of this.

Radio NZ reports the two defence forces are quite keen and have been working on it etc. Mention of Timor and Solomons cooperation etc.

Presumably an Asia-Pacific affair.

So, a joint Ready Reaction Force, perhaps?

Presumably NZ could contribute a company in terms of numbers? Be that light infantry and/or LAV calvary?

Backed up by Air Transport and Helos?

And HMNZS Canterbury (currently re-supplying the ADF & NZDF in Timor)?

Hmmm, what about if that was complimented by a platoon or two of the finest from Tonga & Samoa (after all, the Wallabies and All Blacks can testify to their strengths)! Too bad the Fijians have ruled themselves out for a long time, their UN expertise would have been very useful! (Mind you, except for the Brits, they must know a good thing as apparently a lot of Fijian nationals sign up with the British Army recruiters)

Update: audio interviews with NZDF & defence academics this morning:

http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/mnr/2009/08/21/new_anzac_force_to_be_examined

http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/nati...d_and_australia_investigate_joint_anzac_force

 

[stoker]

What is wrong with these people, all they will do is create a bureacratic monster hamstrung by incompatable Aust/NZ political foreign policy differences.

Australia and New Zealand have had a good working military co-operation going back to the WW 1.

Having served alongside the NZ navy back in the early 1960's, yes we even had very similar Whitby type frigates, the same as we now have the Anzac type frigates,I can assure you that except for the name tags on our caps, as both our Navies had the origins in the Royal Navy, operational procedures made us basically the same navy.

I have no doubt the same would go for our Armies and our Airforces.

However, why would we want to bugger up a perfectly good working relationship, for the opportunity for our politicians to gain some media time.
Our politicans need to learn if it aint broken, don't try and fix it.

Waba

 

[stryker NZ]

Just a note to all those planning on submitting something to the defence review they are due in next week and from what i heard from a member of the ministry they havent really had many sent in.

also i went to one of the public meetings attended by Dr Mapp last week up at Auckland uni and wasnt too impressed. There were a few good ideas presented but the whole thing was kinda ruined by a conspiracy theorist who wouldnt shut up about our deployment to Afganistan and how 911 was staged

 

[Lucasnz]

Just a note to all those planning on submitting something to the defence review they are due in next week and from what i heard from a member of the ministry they havent really had many sent in.

I'm working on it - can't let the Green nutters have too much of say. Currently at 13 pages and counting. Should be finished tommorrow. It relation to the 10 questions this is a summary of whats done to date...

1. Cyber warfare unit embeded in GCSB and CO's of Warships given general powers of arrest through out the EEZ. The Defence force is two small to respond to a major disaster within the first 36 hours and lacks mobile medical equipment. That excessive concentration of CTTG forces reduces the ability to respond rapidly to terrorism.

2. The primary focus given the New Zealand's surrounds and the South Pacific should be on maritime capabilities. The result is an expeditionary army. That requires a balanced force appoarch. The primary focus would be on the South Pacific, with the ability to deploy and maintain a deployment on an indifinite basis.

3. Within the South Pacific New Zealand must have some ability to operate independently. This recognises NZ has difference in relation to Foreign Affairs with some of its mates.

4. Working on it.

5. Navy - 16 ship fleet with 4 classes (Surface Combatant, OPV x 4, IPV, Canterbury)
Air Force - Replacement of P-3 on a one for one basis. Limited upgrade ASW sensors in mean time. Purchase 6 aircraft to replace C-130. More Helicopters. I'm going to argue reintroduction on MB339 (I know they won't listen) in the specialised COIN and Anti Ship roles only. More Helicopters namely LUH.

6. Deployment of CTTG and specified forces in support of police without ministeral approval.

7. Introduce a Corporate Board for general defence management with a civilian member (full or advisory) but CDF has operational control of the Defence Force.

8. Remove the provision for 3 months notice and make people serve out their engagement, except in execptional circumstances or subject to needs or service. Improve housing and provide medical cover to family members, so that don't sit on waiting lists and don't need private health insurance. TF would be smaller but deploy operational units while RNZNVR would help establish brown water / riverine capability.

9. Invest in quality which brings a return in lifespan and operational time. Avoid purchase of orphan equipment like the Seasprite.

10. Not answering - I think they need to decide this based on what they know.

also i went to one of the public meetings attended by Dr Mapp last week up at Auckland uni and wasnt too impressed. There were a few good ideas presented but the whole thing was kinda ruined by a conspiracy theorist who wouldnt shut up about our deployment to Afganistan and how 911 was staged :confused

Must have been a member of the Green Party - sure it wasn't Lockwood in disguise.

 

[recce.k1]

Australia and New Zealand have had a good working military co-operation going back to the WW 1.

I couldn't agree more. It's amazing how sometimes people seem to forget that!

I guess though, closer operational planning would be desirable, especially for those ops that Australia and NZ deploy together on eg Timor, Solomons & Tonga

(And let's not get distracted by certain well known elements here trying to fog the issue to the public by bringing up foreign policy differences. This is not what this is about eg foreign excursions with the US into the Middle East etc).

So ... what about an ANZAC Joint Force HQ? This is what is needed surely? Defence planning staff from the two countries working side by side.

No doubt based in Australia (heh heh you aussies need to think about where it should be - inside or well away from Canberra)

The planners would have a wide range of equipment and personnel available. It could be a ready reaction force. At the extreme end it could be F-111's taking out a hostile surface vessel off the Chatham Islands (of the east coast of NZ).

Good time then to think about NZ infrastructure, fuel and storage etc. A couple of F111's topping up at Ohakea would allow a quick response if joint-air force support personnel had a workshop and office accomodation, comms/ops rooms etc.

There's no reason why defence planners couldn't dust off (again at one planning extreme), the restoration of a NZ Aermacchi training regime (eg FAC, anti-ship) and feed a handful of skilled pilots onto the RAAF in an exchange programme. Win-win. Think about it. think about the synergies, cost savings, future possibilities depending on the geo-political climate and the fact that NZ maintains a small but critical skillset.

 

[Gibbo]

I'm working on it - can't let the Green nutters have too much of say. Currently at 13 pages and counting. Should be finished tommorrow. It relation to the 10 questions this is a summary of whats done to date...
.....

5. Navy - 16 ship fleet with 4 classes (Surface Combatant, OPV x 4, IPV, Canterbury)
....

Hey surely you can't leave out a replacement for Endeavour? Need to retain RAS capability. The big 'E' is a valued regional asset and a more capable (& faster replacement) is a must in my book!

Also what about MCM? I've arged against a dedicated MCMV and instead suggested investing in modular equipment to destroy mines - to complement the REMUS).

 

[MrConservative]

I'm working on it - can't let the Green nutters have too much of say. Currently at 13 pages and counting. Should be finished tommorrow. It relation to the 10 questions this is a summary of whats done to date...

1. Cyber warfare unit embeded in GCSB and CO's of Warships given general powers of arrest through out the EEZ. The Defence force is two small to respond to a major disaster within the first 36 hours and lacks mobile medical equipment. That excessive concentration of CTTG forces reduces the ability to respond rapidly to terrorism.

2. The primary focus given the New Zealand's surrounds and the South Pacific should be on maritime capabilities. The result is an expeditionary army. That requires a balanced force appoarch. The primary focus would be on the South Pacific, with the ability to deploy and maintain a deployment on an indifinite basis.

3. Within the South Pacific New Zealand must have some ability to operate independently. This recognises NZ has difference in relation to Foreign Affairs with some of its mates.

4. Working on it.

5. Navy - 16 ship fleet with 4 classes (Surface Combatant, OPV x 4, IPV, Canterbury)
Air Force - Replacement of P-3 on a one for one basis. Limited upgrade ASW sensors in mean time. Purchase 6 aircraft to replace C-130. More Helicopters. I'm going to argue reintroduction on MB339 (I know they won't listen) in the specialised COIN and Anti Ship roles only. More Helicopters namely LUH.

6. Deployment of CTTG and specified forces in support of police without ministeral approval.

7. Introduce a Corporate Board for general defence management with a civilian member (full or advisory) but CDF has operational control of the Defence Force.

8. Remove the provision for 3 months notice and make people serve out their engagement, except in execptional circumstances or subject to needs or service. Improve housing and provide medical cover to family members, so that don't sit on waiting lists and don't need private health insurance. TF would be smaller but deploy operational units while RNZNVR would help establish brown water / riverine capability.

9. Invest in quality which brings a return in lifespan and operational time. Avoid purchase of orphan equipment like the Seasprite.

10. Not answering - I think they need to decide this based on what they know.





Must have been a member of the Green Party - sure it wasn't Lockwood in disguise.

Cyberwarfare embedded with GCSB is an excellent recommendation, as with RNZN CO arrest powers. I have argued for an expansion of the EAB into a full independent Intell bureau alonside NZSIS and GCSB. We are rather under resourced in this area - we should have seen Fiji coming a mile off but - no. Also mobile medical unit - the fact that Bob Tizard when DefMin bought two containerised units back in 87/88 and were hardly ever used should be no barrier - changing times and now the ability to deploy via the Canterbury.

A smaller TF?? Do you mean actually reduce numbers or that the current 6 so called battalions are reformed into say 3 full monty Battalion groups that can deploy company sized ops in the Sth Pac.

 

[MrConservative]

Hey surely you can't leave out a replacement for Endeavour? Need to retain RAS capability. The big 'E' is a valued regional asset and a more capable (& faster replacement) is a must in my book!

Also what about MCM? I've arged against a dedicated MCMV and instead suggested investing in modular equipment to destroy mines - to complement the REMUS).

I figured Lucas didn't forget. 16 Ships - 4 Frigates (2 new), 4 OPVs (2 new), 4 IPV's, 1 Canterbury, 1 Big E replacement, 1 Resolution replacement, and 1 Manawanui replacement.

I too think the MCMV can be done differently, Also I would like the Resolution replacement to be far more Multi-Role (be able to supply Ross Island in Summer)

 

[Lucasnz]

Cyberwarfare embedded with GCSB is an excellent recommendation, as with RNZN CO arrest powers. I have argued for an expansion of the EAB into a full independent Intell bureau alonside NZSIS and GCSB. We are rather under resourced in this area - we should have seen Fiji coming a mile off but - no. Also mobile medical unit - the fact that Bob Tizard when DefMin bought two containerised units back in 87/88 and were hardly ever used should be no barrier - changing times and now the ability to deploy via the Canterbury.

A smaller TF?? Do you mean actually reduce numbers or that the current 6 so called battalions are reformed into say 3 full monty Battalion groups that can deploy company sized ops in the Sth Pac.

I could see a reduction to 2 TF Battalion groups capable of feilding operational units. They would be equipped with the same equipment as the RF. This would fit would in the existing manpower levels that they currently have. I'm balancing this with an increase of one RF Battalion and the scrapping of the current "notional" two brigade structure evident in 2 & 3 Land Force Groups. Instead the Land Component Commander would be designated the Brigade Commander (In the unlikley event we need one) - Based on readings from the Falklands war he would only be able to command 5 Battalions max operationally hence the restriction to 2 TF Battalion Groups. So overall there would be 5 Battalion Groups under the Command of a Col reporting to LCC. 1 Logistics Battalion (modelled on the RM), a Brigade support battalion (that simply brings together exisiting units under one command structure) and an artillery battalion. There would be no engineer battalion because that capability would be at Battalion Group Level. The TF would provide a Field Hospital capability while the RF would have Forward Surgical Units with the Logistics Battalion also having one to supplement deployments. Not perfect but I think better than what we currently have.

I haven't forgotten MCM - that will be assigned to the OPV and IPV using a mixture of equipment such as ROV's, mobile diving equipment etc. I haven't forgotten replacing the tanker either but I think we need to expand our capabilities in tactical sealift.

 

[Lucasnz]

I figured Lucas didn't forget. 16 Ships - 4 Frigates (2 new), 4 OPVs (2 new), 4 IPV's, 1 Canterbury, 1 Big E replacement, 1 Resolution replacement, and 1 Manawanui replacement.

One of the problems I think the navy has is that there are two many classes of vessels for its size. This creates training problems (seeing as you can't just jump from one ship to another these days) and logisitcs problems, not to mention the lost of economy of scale. Given the cost of the frigates we may never had the same class as we'll have to spread the purchase. As for the others.

4 OPV
5 IPV - that includes an additional vessel to replace Kahu
1 Canterbury class
1 Modified Canterbury class (that the builder has on its website) that incorporates a RAS capability.
1 Additional vessel probably a deriviate of the OPV that incorporates the functions of Resolution and Manawanui.

 

[recce.k1]

4 OPV
5 IPV - that includes an additional vessel to replace Kahu
1 Canterbury class
1 Modified Canterbury class (that the builder has on its website) that incorporates a RAS capability.
1 Additional vessel probably a deriviate of the OPV that incorporates the functions of Resolution and Manawanui.

Nice!

And if it were me, I'd have two OPV deriviate vessels as direct Resolution and Manawanui replacements. That way two could deploy seperately to tackle different tasks eg one could be diving/MCM and the other one could be surveying an area of interest, as they do now. We have a vast area to operate in so we need flexibility.

Frankly my ideal would be 3 vessels, as there would actually be two dive/MCM tenders, the second would be for training and limited deployments. Again due to the vast area, flexibility and because since mines are cheap as chips, we could be dealing with several affected areas quite easily (if such a situation arose again) so having a decent backup MCM/dive vessel would be a cheap insurance policy.

Good too for those civilian disaster roles (as recent events demonstrate), (& something quicker to get to A to B too) so there'd be that public support element etc.

A IPV type replacement as indicated to replace Kahu would still be a good prospect for basic training and harbour defence duties.

Is the Navy still interested in an ocean going tug (perhaps coupled up with environmental distaster management tasks - oil & chemical spills etc)?

 

[Gibbo]

Speech gives possible clues to Defence review thinking!?!

Interesting spech! To me it gives some indication that P-3K will remain as a key capability (but what about ASW?). Good to also see Frigates contribution painted in a positive light & focus on maritime aspect.

All speculation at the moment I guess, although with significant Govt borrowing & deficits forecast for some time I wouldn't get too excited about new kit for some time (except of course the kit already on order).

Beehive - Speech to the Australia New Zealand Leadership Forum

 

[KiwiRob]

Too bad the Fijians have ruled themselves out for a long time, their UN expertise would have been very useful! (Mind you, except for the Brits, they must know a good thing as apparently a lot of Fijian nationals sign up with the British Army recruiters)

Funny you should mention Fiji and the British Army, I've just been reading an account of the Battle of Mirbat where a team on 9 SAS troopers held off a force of over 250 Adoo, two of the team were Fijians Sergeant Talaiasi Labalaba and Trooper Sekonaia Takavesi.