NZDF General discussion thread

[Norm]

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

Gibbo we should ponder on this part of the speach:

The basic test for a Defence Force as small as New Zealand's is that it should essentially consist of those capabilities that are likely to be used, whether for peacekeeping or for combat, rather than capabilities that are unlikely to be used except in the most extreme case.

What is the unlikely to be used ? Jet Strike has gone ,what else? a few spare Lav111's, never have enough if we commit our current Brigade potential.

 

[Gibbo]

Gibbo we should ponder on this part of the speach:

The basic test for a Defence Force as small as New Zealand's is that it should essentially consist of those capabilities that are likely to be used, whether for peacekeeping or for combat, rather than capabilities that are unlikely to be used except in the most extreme case.

What is the unlikely to be used ? Jet Strike has gone ,what else? a few spare Lav111's, never have enough if we commit our current Brigade potential.

Yes it does worry me a little - the logical extreme of that argument is that we only really need LOV's & Steyrs! Hell I hope Wayne Mapp's not reading this - he'll make it the corner-stone of the defence review!nfloorl:

But seriously yes I do worry - Wayne Mapp did express to me a couple of years back that he wasn't convinced the Frigates should be replaced 'like for like' - and that P-3K's don't ned to be chasing subs! Hopefully the Aussies will poke their noses into the review process.

 

[recce.k1]

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.

I found this article explaining the battle (as I hadn't heard about it till now). Special Forces Heroes - Telegraph

If it weren't for the recent Fiji coup, I suspect Australia and NZ would have welcomed having several hundred (or more, isn't the RFMF several thousand strong?) highly trained and skilled Fijian troops available for regional stabilisation missions (as they've worked on UN ops in the Lebanon and Iraq before etc). (And whilst being one supporting continuing dialogue with the regime, perhaps I should also acknowledge that the regime need to wind back some of their draconian measures of late eg press censorship & freedoms, otherwise they are just painting themselves into the corner even further. It's all rather silly and pointless at the end of the day)!

 

[recce.k1]

Gibbo we should ponder on this part of the speach:

The basic test for a Defence Force as small as New Zealand's is that it should essentially consist of those capabilities that are likely to be used, whether for peacekeeping or for combat, rather than capabilities that are unlikely to be used except in the most extreme case.

Well the good news is, the word "combat" was mentioned (for if one were to re-read all the previous administration's P.C. speeches - still available at Beehive - Advanced Search - then I wouldn't be suprised to see that that word was never used at all)! So it is good news that the Govt of the day acknowledges that the NZDF will find itself, funnily enough, in either peacekeeping or combat situations.

My interpretation of the above was simply:

1. Don't expect the Defence Review to recommend restoring a full and proper Air Combat Force (which is consistent with the occassional comments on the issue by the PM etc). As to whether that could mean restoring the Aermacchis's to some sort of training role, I guess the Review will either rule it out or open the door (although there were some rumours on Wings over NZ forum recently suggesting the A4/Macchi sale is still all go, so who knows, be prepared for the worse I suppose).

2. Perhaps a reduction in the LAVIII fleet (seeing that comments to that affect have again been raised by Mapp himself from memory) as a number of them are in storage (mainly due to lack of trained/qualified support and crew personnel I understand)? Personally I doubt we'd get much money for selling some LAVIII's so if it were up to me, since they've been paid off I believe, just keep them in storage until they are needed (on deployments or as replacements for damaged LAVIII's etc). After all NZ is the only country that operates the NZLAVII variant, so who would want to buy them? A non LAV operator would need all the associated spares and test jigs plus training etc - it wouldn't be as cheap as it appears to be on paper etc. Perhaps the Canadian LAVIII's are similar but do they have the same fit out? I'd doubt it, so why bother wasting Defence's time and effort in looking at selling them? Like the A4/Macchi sale fiasco, sure one or two parties might express an interest but at the end of the day when everything is weighed up, a purchase might have more hooks to make it worhwhile, plus we'd need US State Dept approval no doubt etc.

Not that I would know for sure of course, but I wouldn't read the comments as meaning ditching any other combat capability eg P-3 ASW. IMO that would just be mad and plain stupid. It's one thing to not have an ACF because their operational use is limited (seeing the wider A-P region isn't at war) but on the other hand the same could not be said of the sub threat which is growing in the A-P region as regional players are increasing their fleet numbers. Also we don't have the RAAF and USN operating their P-3's out of NZ so I wouldn't expect those two countries, stretched as they are, would look favourably on having to step in and provide that capability as well. Mapp needs to remember his history whereby in WW1 we had German subs around NZ and in WW2 both Japanese and reports of German subs, so I can't see any future regional conflict being any different.

Also one just has to look at a map of the world and funnily enough the only submarine routes from the Pacific into the Indian Ocean are via Singapore (a nice little ASW choke point) and around the top and bottom of Australia, which means the Tasman Sea, and little ol' NZ! Ditto heading east to around the bottom of South America involves subs transiting the Northern Pacific (where the US Pac fleet is based) or the Southern Pacific, which involves transiting NZ's wider operating area. Former RNZAF personnel have publically raised the Pacific sub routes where they were involved in tracking subs, so they were (and could be) still lurking around.

On a positive note, at least the door is open to acquiring combat capabilities should there be a demonstratable need. I'd be hoping the stand-off missile for the P-3, the ANZAC Frigate weapon & sensor upgrades and the Army's fire-support upgrades still make it thru (and whatever "new" capability that Defence thinks we need i.e. that's not been made apparent in the recent Govt's LTDP's etc).

 

[recce.k1]

But seriously yes I do worry - Wayne Mapp did express to me a couple of years back that he wasn't convinced the Frigates should be replaced 'like for like' - and that P-3K's don't ned to be chasing subs! Hopefully the Aussies will poke their noses into the review process.

Trouble is, history shows, NZ has been down this path before in trying to acquire cheaper solutions and I think it would be fair to say that they never work out as planned. Take the Project Protector MRV concept for example (long range ocean patrol ship with sealift capabilities. Result sealift good, patrol poor eg RHIB/alcove issues & lack of decent search radars etc). Ditto the search for a third non-ANZAC Frigate just prior some 10 years ago now.

Anyway I thought the rest of the speech made a refreshing change and there is mention towards the end of it of building up industrial capacity which suggests to me NZ continues to assist with Australian ship building projects, such as ANZAC II, so therefore it seems logical to me that the RNZN's future combat fleet is pretty much assured.

 

[Gibbo]

Trouble is, history shows, NZ has been down this path before in trying to acquire cheaper solutions and I think it would be fair to say that they never work out as planned. Take the Project Protector MRV concept for example (long range ocean patrol ship with sealift capabilities. Result sealift good, patrol poor eg RHIB/alcove issues & lack of decent search radars etc). Ditto the search for a third non-ANZAC Frigate just prior some 10 years ago now.

Anyway I thought the rest of the speech made a refreshing change and there is mention towards the end of it of building up industrial capacity which suggests to me NZ continues to assist with Australian ship building projects, such as ANZAC II, so therefore it seems logical to me that the RNZN's future combat fleet is pretty much assured.

Agree with your sentiments, but not so convinced that the ANZAC replacement will be as combat capable as the ANZACs are (limited as that is). Mapp told me he's a fan of the LCS concept - although he told me that before it bacame apparent the US Navy LCS project is going to be WAY expensive.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Agree with your sentiments, but not so convinced that the ANZAC replacement will be as combat capable as the ANZACs are

WTF? The Anzac replacements are going to be very capable. Displacing ~6,500t (~7,000t at the eol) based off the AWD platform most likely with Auspar/seamount radar and capable of ballistic missile shielding, at the very least its going to be one up on the ANZAC, more likely it will be a destroyer lite with a simular loadout to a AWD but lacking some CEC/AEGIS features.

If NZ so wanted it could always upgrade to a full AWD model SM-3 and TacTom and remove satellites from orbit while striking at enemy positions 1000 km away and shreding migs at the horizon while heating the meat pies on the bridge.

Why buy into the LCS when the Austal OCV seems to do pretty much the same job at a much lower cost. You could get a spanish built AWD (almost) for LCS costs.

Okay I may have exagerated a little but still, I don't see many people saying anzac replacements are not going to be very capable.

 

[Lucasnz]

Agree with your sentiments, but not so convinced that the ANZAC replacement will be as combat capable as the ANZACs are (limited as that is). Mapp told me he's a fan of the LCS concept - although he told me that before it bacame apparent the US Navy LCS project is going to be WAY expensive.

While I support the need for some combat capabilty for the navy does it have to be frigates given the diversity of designs like the Abalsom class or even the LCS (Which I don't favour despite the curves). Ignoring the issues of range and endurance and in some cases lack of ASW, some corvettes like the German K130 are just as capable as the current ANZAC's in many respects.

If we hark back to the days of the ANZAC frigate project the basic specs were not that high...
6000nm @ 18kts (Thats the LCS out of contention).
Medium Calibre gun (LCS in)
Point Defence Missile System (Any thing from RAM to Sea Sparrow, but given the supposed distance ESSM can cover I think RAM meets the requirement).
Basic ASW Capability.

Overall East TImor I think will influence any future design in light of the roles the frigates undertook. That been said I can't see NZ going for a vessel with SM3 or anti ballistic missile capability. Something like Abalson or the German F125 is more likely to interest NZ, given the varied and joint nature of operations (I'm sort of thinking Fiji) in the South Pacific and deployments to places like the Persian Gulf.

 

[Gibbo]

WTF? The Anzac replacements are going to be very capable. Displacing ~6,500t (~7,000t at the eol) based off the AWD platform most likely with Auspar/seamount radar and capable of ballistic missile shielding, at the very least its going to be one up on the ANZAC, more likely it will be a destroyer lite with a simular loadout to a AWD but lacking some CEC/AEGIS features.

If NZ so wanted it could always upgrade to a full AWD model SM-3 and TacTom and remove satellites from orbit while striking at enemy positions 1000 km away and shreding migs at the horizon while heating the meat pies on the bridge.

Why buy into the LCS when the Austal OCV seems to do pretty much the same job at a much lower cost. You could get a spanish built AWD (almost) for LCS costs.

Okay I may have exagerated a little but still, I don't see many people saying anzac replacements are not going to be very capable.

Um, I'm talking solely about the NZ context here! What I meant was I won't be surprised if whatever our (NZ) Govt chooses to replace our ANZACs with will be less capable - possibly more 'patrol' and/or 'littoral' focused.

 

[Gibbo]

While I support the need for some combat capabilty for the navy does it have to be frigates given the diversity of designs like the Abalsom class or even the LCS (Which I don't favour despite the curves). Ignoring the issues of range and endurance and in some cases lack of ASW, some corvettes like the German K130 are just as capable as the current ANZAC's in many respects.

If we hark back to the days of the ANZAC frigate project the basic specs were not that high...
6000nm @ 18kts (Thats the LCS out of contention).
Medium Calibre gun (LCS in)
Point Defence Missile System (Any thing from RAM to Sea Sparrow, but given the supposed distance ESSM can cover I think RAM meets the requirement).
Basic ASW Capability.

Overall East TImor I think will influence any future design in light of the roles the frigates undertook. That been said I can't see NZ going for a vessel with SM3 or anti ballistic missile capability. Something like Abalson or the German F125 is more likely to interest NZ, given the varied and joint nature of operations (I'm sort of thinking Fiji) in the South Pacific and deployments to places like the Persian Gulf.

Yep agree! I think we'll see a choice between 2 Frigates of similar current capabilty to our (RNZN) ANZACs or 3 slightly less capable vessels of a similar size! Gut-feel!!!

 

[recce.k1]

Agree with your sentiments, but not so convinced that the ANZAC replacement will be as combat capable as the ANZACs are (limited as that is). Mapp told me he's a fan of the LCS concept - although he told me that before it bacame apparent the US Navy LCS project is going to be WAY expensive.

I was just being being optimistic

If the NZ Govt wants to join with the Australian Govt and get on board the ANZAC II project in any significant way (also to boost NZ industry - ANZAC I brought hundreds of millions of dollars to the NZ ecomony), then no doubt the Australian Govt would insist that NZ sign up for some vessels, otherwise why should the Australian Govt be so generous next time round?

The Australian Govt will be embarking on a major shipbuilding programme for some 20+ vessels over the next decade and beyond, the NZ Govt would be foolish to not realise the vast opportunties that exist here, thankfully this Govt does seem to, hence some vessel buy in would have to be a pre-requiste, surely.

Granted, if this was a go-er, can NZ justify the larger vessels? I don't think size is really an issue (and Devonport could be modified to accomodate larger vessels), after all a larger vessel would cope with the Southern Ocean better (as from that experience Te Kaha took a hammering that caused hull stress issues), so it would simply mean that NZ would have "fitted for but not with" to reduce some weapon/sensor costs. Presumably the ANZAC II lifespan would be better than that of ANZAC I, which keeps the bean counters happy. Also the extra space could accomodate several govt agency staff (when needed) and trainees (seeing we don't have the luxury of a dedicated training ship) etc. I like the twin hangers, one for a helo and the other for a UAV (or second helo or simply storage on occasions). The RNZN must have UAV technology for enhanced survellience etc.

Granted, as Lucasnz points out there other options though, but I do hope a decision is made quickly and NZ doesn't get bogged down forever looking for alternatives etc.

IMO I don't think the Australian OCV would make a good RNZN ANZAC replacement, as we'd only have the same problems we have now but on a much smaller vessel (if not, more). However I would support OCV's to compliment the current OPV's if that were possible.

I do actually support the current concept of a two (or 3) tier RNZN i.e. a couple or so of combat Frigates for NZ's wider defence interests and committments; a second tier of OPV's for NZ, Southern and Pacific general patrolling and EEZ enforcement (with much reduced combat capabiliites, which is a reality alas), thus freeing up the ANZAC's for serious deployments (and the 3rd tier is that of inshore patrolling of course). So I do hope when the RNZN ANZAC's are up for replacement this model is kept.

I suppose though, if NZ finds the ANZAC II idea unsuitable, perhaps a compromise is to find another vessel be that some sort of LCS/Absalon/F125 type that could be built under licence in Australia (to keep the two Govt's/economy's happy), but I'm a little cautious on this due to the experience with Project Protector (OPV's etc), as we'd be talking about a much smaller production run (2, 3, maybe 4 vessels) hence the economies of scale issues (and costs etc) hence it could cost more than it is worth. Granted NZ could buy direct from the country of origin to reduce costs, but whether this is politically acceptable in this joint ANZ-era I don't know but am somewhat sceptical. Plus the RAN & RNZN wouldn't have some commonality, which in times of "emergencies" (eg Timor 99), could become an issue (I'm thinking of spares & transferable skillsets etc).

So again being the optimist, political pragmatism might mean NZ signs up to ANZAC II (and/or OCV)?

 

[stoker]

WTF? The Anzac replacements are going to be very capable. Displacing ~6,500t (~7,000t at the eol) based off the AWD platform most likely with Auspar/seamount radar and capable of ballistic missile shielding, at the very least its going to be one up on the ANZAC, more likely it will be a destroyer lite with a simular loadout to a AWD but lacking some CEC/AEGIS features.

Hopefully they will be built on the F-106 hull and have a two helicopter hangar similar to that on an FFG.
By standardising on one hull we could make significant gains in training and logistic costs.

Hopefully N.Z. will come on board the same as the original Anzac set-up. This combined project has been a very sucessful endeavour for both Aust. and N.Z..

Personally I don't think N.Z. needs a Aegis capability, to me it would be more cost effective to buy
4 Auspar Anzacs.

The OPV 20 ship buy for Australia could also be of great interest for N.Z. co-operation, 4 OPV's in 10 years time for N.Z. and Australia's 20 POV's would provide a very potent force in our Pacific/Asia operational area.

 

[AWEC viper]

Why Bother? all New Zealand needs to do is be absorbed into the Australian military and problem solved. become a state and all will be fixed economically and militarily.

 

[MrConservative]

Why Bother? all New Zealand needs to do is be absorbed into the Australian military and problem solved. become a state and all will be fixed economically and militarily.

I dont think that would be the answer. NZ actually has greater potential being an independent nation that works within an interdependent relationship with Australia and Australia with NZ. What has been the problem from the NZ end is that we have suffered from inconsistent and inept political and strategic leadership that has effected defence and foreign affairs outlook as well as economic performance. The same has happened to Australia at various times in its history but comparitively NZ it has not achieved as much as Australia during recent times. The bottom line is that both countries are very fortunate in an international context with NZ's recent under-performance now starting to trend strongly in the opposite direction, global recessionary conditions not withstanding. So indeed it is very much worth bothering.

(On the other hand the new "Wallyblacks" would have Sir Richie McCaw as Capt and the "Baggy Green & Blacks" would obviously have Sir Dan Vettori as Capt-Selector as well, plus we would really thrash the Boks and Poms.)

 

[AWEC viper]

(On the other hand the new "Wallyblacks" would have Sir Richie McCaw as Capt and the "Baggy Green & Blacks" would obviously have Sir Dan Vettori as Capt-Selector as well, plus we would really thrash the Boks and Poms.)

HEY ... who said anything about combining the sports teams. i mean why mess with a winning formula.. all i'm saying is if NZ were part of Australia there might not be such a high birth rate, the currency might be worth more than toilet paper and people will stop thinking you are Australia's messed up cousin. you could be the messed up sister nation

 

[stoker]

HEY ... who said anything about combining the sports teams. i mean why mess with a winning formula.. all i'm saying is if NZ were part of Australia there might not be such a high birth rate, the currency might be worth more than toilet paper and people will stop thinking you are Australia's messed up cousin. you could be the messed up sister nation

I don't think the world is ready for N.Z. combining with Australia to become ONE country.nfloorl:

You Kiwi's would have to learn to speak proper English for a start. LOLnfloorl:
( Yes you are right I am Orstralian and my parents weren't married)

Actually to get back to Forum, I don't trust politicans to sort out ANY programme to combine the Armed Forces of Australia and New Zealand, as I said before we have great working relationships between our Armed Forces going back to WW 1, thats were the name of ANZAC begun.

We already of common military equipment i.e Anzac frigates,Steyr rifles, etc. This should be a field that we should concentrate on.

For any future equipment for our Army/Navy/ Airforce should be mandatory to be as far as practical
identical.

I don't think the big ticker items such as the C17 or the AWD/LHD buys could come under this umbrella, as N.Z. could not afford to buy or operate them. However, equipment like future buys of C130/C27 transports and Aslav/Stryker IFV's could definitely be something to look at,

Trainning and Logistic's would be another area were combing our programmes would be of mutual benefit.

Other than that we should continue on as we have for the past 90 odd years combinning when we need too, and, maintaining our own separate identities for the rest of the time.

I reackon you Kiwi's are very proud to be just Kiwi's, and us Aussies are the same, besides we would lose all those great cricket, rugby and netball match-ups, and you must admit your yatching has picked up since WE beat-uo on the Yank's for that "Cup' they thought they owned.

Hopefully our mutual idiot's of politican's won't stuff things up.

 

[KiwiRob]

Why Bother? all New Zealand needs to do is be absorbed into the Australian military and problem solved. become a state and all will be fixed economically and militarily.

Phew someone finally agrees with me, NZ should have federated with Australia way way back, we were originally supposed to, plus the Australian Consitiutation is written with NZ as a state of Australia, we can join them anytime we like. The benefits to NZ would be enormus, as for sport we could be like Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, we have our own teams in the sports that matter and would have a combined team for the Olympics.

 

[swerve]

Why Bother? all New Zealand needs to do is be absorbed into the Australian military and problem solved. become a state and all will be fixed economically and militarily.

Works for Tasmania.

 

[Lucasnz]

I don't think the world is ready for N.Z. combining with Australia to become ONE country.nfloorl:

]You Kiwi's would have to learn to speak proper English for a start. LOLnfloorl:
( Yes you are right I am Orstralian and my parents weren't married)

You're terribly wrong. It's been proven that New Zealanders speak the purest form of English (with the exception of the North Island). The evidence was in the latest edition of Baa & Lamb. Any way I'm off for Fish & Chips.

We already of common military equipment i.e Anzac frigates,Steyr rifles, etc. This should be a field that we should concentrate on. For any future equipment for our Army/Navy/ Airforce should be mandatory to be as far as practical identical I don't think the big ticker items such as the C17 or the AWD/LHD buys could come under this umbrella, as N.Z. could not afford to buy or operate them. However, equipment like future buys of C130/C27 transports and Aslav/Stryker IFV's could definitely be something to look at, Trainning and Logistic's would be another area were combing our programmes would be of mutual benefit.

I tend to agree with you here, there are huge advantages in terms of minimising training costs etc. The ANZAC already share a common logistics pool, though that may change with the upgrades. From an NZ prospective the I think the economies of scale that come with buying things like C130/ANZAC replacements will be to great to ignore.

 

[Lucasnz]

Defence Review Public Meetings

For those able to attend the MOD website has been updated with the time and dates of the Public meetings schedule at 2009 Defence Review - Public Consultation [Ministry of Defence NZ].

A total of 200 submissions were received by the Defence review team.