NZDF General discussion thread

[MrConservative]

I can't remember the name of the outfit offhand but their is company out there who can retro fit A2A systems on the B757's, something which might be a better and cheaper prospect than the cost of paying more for the KC-130 if we wanted to provide that as a back up.

 

[Sea Toby]

Frankly, I believe New Zealand should have bought new Hercules five years ago before they decided to upgrade their old aircraft which has not gone smoothly whatsoever. They could have sold the old Hercules to help pay for the new ones. Now they will get almost nothing for their old Hercules ten years from now when they do decide to buy new aircraft. Its been another waste of funds prolonging the life of old Hercules....

They prolonged the life of their Skyhawks, and eventually couldn't sell them several years later. They are making the same mistake with their Orions as well. Within fifteen years I wonder whether they will be able to afford new Hercules or Orions having to settle for lesser capable and smaller new aircraft.

Since the cost of both aircraft have gone up considerably, I am beginning to believe New Zealand will have to settle for buying two prop aircraft to replace both... Maybe New Zealand will be able to afford more than 5 new two prop aircraft to overcome a reduction in airlift capacity...and at least 6 patrol aircraft too.

The more I think about it the more I would like to see New Zealand buy the new Embraer KC-390 for airlift, patrol, and refueling. One jet aircraft to do all of the missions which should provide flexibility and possibly a reduction in aircraft numbers... New Zealand could be able to replace all eleven of their Hercules and Orions....

 

[t68]

I am not sure if this is a step in the right direction for NZ but if it were to acquire KC130J Hercules, the US Marines have a kit called Harvest Hawk ISR equipment on the aircraft.
It’s more to do with overwatch and limited ground fire support, not sure if it could provide a back up for maritime patrol in conjunction with other assets , interesting idea it’s not meant to be precise like the AC130.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/05/marine_kc130weapons_053009w/

 

[Lucasnz]

This article was posted on another site from

NZ Confident White Paper Will Provide Adequate Capabilities
By Nick Lee-Frampton
Published: 1 Apr 2010 10:50

Wellington - New Zealand's delayed defense white paper "will cover a capability mix that … will allow us to meet our security obligations and deliver value for money," Defence Minister Wayne Mapp told delegates at the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific 2nd Study Group on Naval Enhancement in the Asia-Pacific.

Mapp said that some defense observers have pointed with concern to modernization plans, in particular naval modernization efforts, by regional defense forces, but that he is optimistic that change in the Asia-Pacific region can be "managed peacefully."

"It is inevitable that naval capability will grow along with economic capability," Mapp said March 26.

New Zealand's next defense white paper (DWP) had been expected at the end of March but has been delayed six months while officials find about 50 million New Zealand dollars ($35.5 million) a year for the next few years.

As Mapp explained March 7 when he announced the DWP would not appear as scheduled: "There are some challenges, largely due to the recession and things of that nature, that we have to deal with over the next five years, so we're doing a value-for-money exercise, a deep look into the defense system to see if we can get resources essentially from the back office to the front. We've got to sort that out because when the report's published, people have got to have confidence that it's affordable actually over the entire 25 years.

"It's not a cost-cutting exercise; what's occurring over the next three years or so, we're receiving nearly 2 billion dollars of new equipment - helicopters, upgraded aircraft, of course the Project Protector fleet. That pushes up operational costs in particular, and right at a time when the economy is, you know, recovering. So we do have to be able to shift a bit of resources out from the back to the front," he said.

There is no possibility that New Zealand will increase its traditional funding of 1 percent of GDP spent for defense. Indeed, Roderick Deane, erstwhile head of (NZ) Telecom and the State Services Commission, and known nationally for imposing ruthless economic efficiency, has recently been appointed to lead a so-called "value-for-money review." It may be that defense spending will go down, if not simply sideways as Mapp said is required.

Defense News understands that the defense force was not forewarned of Deane's appointment.

Mapp is blunt about what has to be done: "New Zealand faces tight fiscal realities, and so we must be more deliberate on where our defense dollars are spent. The DWP will therefore outline a realistic and affordable defense plan."

Ron Smith, co-director of International Relations and Security Studies at the University of Waikato in Hamilton, told Defense News he expects the white paper will be "driven by financial considerations, by what we want to spend rather than by an assessment of contingencies and what we might need."

Smith cautioned that "a policy that doesn't anticipate capability requirements in a broad way is a policy that is going to fail you."

Lance Beath of the Centre for Strategic Studies at Victoria University of Wellington expressed dismay at the financial focus that has delayed publication of the white paper.

"It seems to me a credible, if disappointing, line for those of us where there was hope held out that this defense review might attempt to tackle additional resources."

Beath said that "over the last 20 years or so there has been a marked divergence" between Australian and New Zealand white papers, the former arguing they have to be prepared to fight a conventional war.

"We tend to say the prospects for … war appear to be … vanishingly small, therefore it is a waste of time and resources to prepare for the improbable, so instead lets focus on peace-related operations."

Phil Goff, defense minister with the previous (Labour) government and now Labor Party leader, said he was puzzled at the explanation for delaying the DWP.

"Given the white paper is at a strategic level, I can't see any good reason why that should have to rely on a short-term focus on a cost-cutting exercise. It doesn't really make sense to me that that is the reason for the deferral.

"I don't think the explanation is adequate and the consequences of the deferral [include] an absence of policy and an absence in any area of moving forward with defense. I just find it extraordinary that [the government] will have had no defense policy of their own for [so long]; they are simply maintaining the status quo."

Its interesting that Mapp talks about naval capability growing with economic capability.

 

[t68]

This article was posted on another site from

Beath said that "over the last 20 years or so there has been a marked divergence" between Australian and New Zealand white papers, the former arguing they have to be prepared to fight a conventional war.

"We tend to say the prospects for … war appear to be … vanishingly small, therefore it is a waste of time and resources to prepare for the improbable, so instead lets focus on peace-related operations."



Its interesting that Mapp talks about naval capability growing with economic capability.

I found this i bit difficult to believe what i was reading,
So they are saying INTERFET did not happen how close that was from turning into a hot war, Indonesain submarine trailing logistic supply ships, F111 on standby, border clashes, and an entire Marine MEU sitting off the coast It does not take much for thing’s to go pear shaped real quick from peace keeping to a major fight.

You also have deployed force in the Afghanistan there not there for Boy Scout convention.
You don’t buy the insurance policy after you have the fire do you!!

But i do believe the most the part the pollies are missing, YOU HAVE TO BE PREPARED TO FIGHT A CONVENTIONAL WAR, does not mean your looking for a fight.

 

[Todjaeger]

I can't remember the name of the outfit offhand but their is company out there who can retro fit A2A systems on the B757's, something which might be a better and cheaper prospect than the cost of paying more for the KC-130 if we wanted to provide that as a back up.

Not sure that having the B757's refitted as MRTT's would be worthwhile at this juncture. If Government had thought chosen to do so as part of the overhaul the B757's were just given, then it would/could provide a useful capability. Unfortunately, given the deficiency the NZDF currently has in terms of airlift, IIRC there was only a single C-130H transport available during a recent crisis in Thailand... I do not think it would be a good idea to take the B757's back out of service again for another refit. Once all the C-130H Hercs are back from being overhauled, and/or their replacements or augments begin entering service, then perhaps the B757's can be refitted as MRTT's. OTOH depending on when the B757's will need replacement, it may be better to retire them a little earlier than planned and order 2-3 other MRTT's, possibly from the USAF KC-X programme (whenever that actually enters production...) or from Airbus.

Yes, yes, I know the B757's are a new piece of kit for the RNAZF, the particular jets in question are not themselves new. The last B757 was completed in October of 2004 and delivered to Shanghai Airlines in April of 2005. While I have not been able to determine just how much usage the RNZAF B757's have seen, I suspect they are older than 5 years old. I suspect that they are more along the lines of ten to 15 years old. After the significant update just completed on them, I would expect them to be replaced within two decades, if not sooner (within 10-15 years). If anyone can find out when the B757's in Kiwi colours were completed, please post it, as that can determine when they will need some form of LEP.

-Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

I found this i bit difficult to believe what i was reading,

Yeah again more fuzzy reporting, I wouldn't stress out too much, let's be realistic, it's hard to interpret a few words offered up at this Council for Security Cooperation meeting (and the rest of the defmin reporting was plulled from his oblique Q+A interview last month), so the defence analysts being quoted are just as much in the dark as us. Again lazy reporting of Rob Deane's time as the public service hatchet man - interviewing one's type writer comes to mind. The defmin has said expenditure will increase recently (but probably at small increments ie nothing huge) whereas the article quoted no-one and said expenditure will decline - again more typewriter self-interviewing going on etc.

So what do we know? With the Govt working its way out of the recent recession, I too wouldn't expect to see any major increase in defence in the short term, most likely little or nothing, whilst at the same time finding extra funding to pay for the increased operating costs of the new/recent hardware etc (hence the value for money exercise, which will see some cost cutting in some areas). I'd expect defence expenditure then to pick up in later years of this decade as other new hardware comes on board and as new challenges arise (as well as because of NZ's upgraded hardware being utilised more in coalition efforts etc).

As Lucas points out above, the interesting new statement is that of overseas "naval capability growing with economic capability". With that one can deduce the defmin isn't oblivious to the changes taking place in the AP region and certainly NZ's economy will be growing as a result of this need for resources and commodities by the emerging powers, thus expect (modest) upgrade planning for NZ maritime patrol and survellience capabilities and building up the practical relationship with its like minded friends over time. (Frigates and airbourne MP assets, training etc).

Also the NZ Herald's Sydney correspondant yesterday reported on what Lancaster Bomber mentioned in the RAN thread a couple weeks ago of Oz needing to build up its western coast defences because of the power play that is emerging in the Indian Ocean, this may have practical implications for NZ's forward defence planning in time (think maritime survellience and patrolling etc). As well as having limted capabilities to assist with SEA/5PDA etc, NZ will need enhanced capabilities to help on Oz's back door step. From a public perception perspective, this is actually good because previously the SE Asia stance is somewhat oblique i.e.one couldn't talk negatively of Indonesia in public etc), so having a better defined defensive line should be a plus.

 

[Lucasnz]

I found this i bit difficult to believe what i was reading,
So they are saying INTERFET did not happen how close that was from turning into a hot war, Indonesain submarine trailing logistic supply ships, F111 on standby, border clashes, and an entire Marine MEU sitting off the coast It does not take much for thing’s to go pear shaped real quick from peace keeping to a major fight.

You also have deployed force in the Afghanistan there not there for Boy Scout convention.
You don’t buy the insurance policy after you have the fire do you!!

But i do believe the most the part the pollies are missing, YOU HAVE TO BE PREPARED TO FIGHT A CONVENTIONAL WAR, does not mean your looking for a fight.

In regards to East Timor, NZ still has the ability to contribute the same naval force and air force and army force. I don't think anyone has forgotten ET or the risks it entailed, especially since most of the senior officers in the NZDF had operational experience in East Timor. This risk I see is that the Naval element will be lost, given the size and visability of the army/air element

While there is a focus on peace keeping in our undersized army, I don't think Behive or NZDFHQ have forgotten conventional war. Rather its a case now, and this can be seen in the requipment of the army, that the Navy and Airforce are no longer intended for that purpose as evidenced by the loss of the ACF, the lack of stand off missiles for the P-3 and reduction in Naval Combat Force to 2 ships (not to mention the upgrade they need to be viable in the AAW and ASW area). A lot of these shortcomings are highlighted in the Annual report.

To that extent the Army is the sole conventional warfighting force, but only upto a Battalion group level. The army lacks the equipment and stores to fight at Brigade level. A brigade level force would only ever be raised IMHO if NZ, Australia or a South Pacific nation were directly threatened. New Zealand's contribution to the Korean war I think offers the best example of what NZ might offer in the event of a conventional war.

.

 

[MrConservative]

Not sure that having the B757's refitted as MRTT's would be worthwhile at this juncture. If Government had thought chosen to do so as part of the overhaul the B757's were just given, then it would/could provide a useful capability. Unfortunately, given the deficiency the NZDF currently has in terms of airlift, IIRC there was only a single C-130H transport available during a recent crisis in Thailand... I do not think it would be a good idea to take the B757's back out of service again for another refit. Once all the C-130H Hercs are back from being overhauled, and/or their replacements or augments begin entering service, then perhaps the B757's can be refitted as MRTT's. OTOH depending on when the B757's will need replacement, it may be better to retire them a little earlier than planned and order 2-3 other MRTT's, possibly from the USAF KC-X programme (whenever that actually enters production...) or from Airbus.

Yes, yes, I know the B757's are a new piece of kit for the RNAZF, the particular jets in question are not themselves new. The last B757 was completed in October of 2004 and delivered to Shanghai Airlines in April of 2005. While I have not been able to determine just how much usage the RNZAF B757's have seen, I suspect they are older than 5 years old. I suspect that they are more along the lines of ten to 15 years old. After the significant update just completed on them, I would expect them to be replaced within two decades, if not sooner (within 10-15 years). If anyone can find out when the B757's in Kiwi colours were completed, please post it, as that can determine when they will need some form of LEP.

-Cheers

I’m not really serious at all about a refuelling capability. We never bothered even when we had all the A-4’s in service. We need to concentrate on baking the cake rather than worrying about the icing. A2A is icing really. I think it would be unlikely to happen just as it is unlikely that a KC would be bought.

The two B757 were manufactured through 91-92 and delivered to the Dutch airline Transavia Airlines early in 1993 and made their last commercial flight for the company 10 years later. They were transferred to us mid 2003 and began their life as Broomstick One.

Project Waka the acquisition stage cost $183m and this was followed up with a further $38m to undertake the conversion into the QC configuration. Total cost to the taxpayer $221m to date for two 17 year old aircraft that had 10 years of short haul around Europe prior to their NZ service.

 

[recce.k1]

In regards to East Timor, NZ still has the ability to contribute the same naval force and air force and army force. I don't think anyone has forgotten ET or the risks it entailed, especially since most of the senior officers in the NZDF had operational experience in East Timor. This risk I see is that the Naval element will be lost, given the size and visability of the army/air element

While there is a focus on peace keeping in our undersized army, I don't think Behive or NZDFHQ have forgotten conventional war. Rather its a case now, and this can be seen in the requipment of the army, that the Navy and Airforce are no longer intended for that purpose as evidenced by the loss of the ACF, the lack of stand off missiles for the P-3 and reduction in Naval Combat Force to 2 ships (not to mention the upgrade they need to be viable in the AAW and ASW area). A lot of these shortcomings are highlighted in the Annual report.

Yup, we've all been witnessing massive sea changes to NZ's defence policy and posture, but some things appear to be turning full circle again as a result of recent events.

As a result of WW2 and prior to the ANZUS bust up, NZ realised the value of collective defence and played its (small) part.

When the ANZUS bust up occured the NZDF was cast adrift - the Air Force and Navy's combat capabilities seemed at odds with (then) Govt Policy eg what the heck were the ACF and NCF really useful for (became the catch cry by certain elements etc)? Then to top it all off the Cold War ended, we weren't exercising with the US (and from a public perception perspective, it was easy for these elements to criticise having Frigates, Skyhawks (or F16's) (and to a lesser extent, the Army's feild gunners) in such an "benign" environment).

Roll on Bosnia, the then National Govt deploying an Army peacekeeping force to quite correctly act as a good international citizen but alas in this ANZUS vacuum these same elements then use that as further proof that Frigates and ACF's weren't needed, hence these viewpoints in the Defence Beyond 2000 inquiry which more or less became the basis of the then (1999) incoming Labour Govt defence policy and priorities. (By the time the East Timor deployment occured the DB2000 inquiry had ended. But the Indonesian Govt kept its word and NZ combat forces (Frigates and SAS) were replaced by the peacekeeping forces). So peacekeeping was to be the priority and cornerstone of NZ's then defence policy.

Roll on 9/11 and the response afterwards, and the combat (and combat support elements) are called up and sent into the Middle East (SAS, Frigates, Orions) as well as the peacekeeping elements (engineering to Iraq, infantry for the Afghan PRT mission). Those elements that were criticising the Frigates and Orions suddenly found out that campaigning against them (as being not needed) wasn't being swallowed up by the uniformed public (and general news media) anymore. (But they had their victory re ACF demise).

So where we see things today is a hyrid, almost collective defence posture (albiet with some lingering dysfunctions still resulting from the ANZUS exercising bans that even the general news media nowadays see as unnecessary and are questioning it), with the Army (and other NZDF support/logistic elements) bearing the brunt of the various peace keeping functions, which are naturally important, but we're appearing to see now that the pollies are acknowledging dual importance of peacekeeping and combat/combat support functions especially maritime and further ranging semi-expeditionary abilities (Frigates/tanker/sealift, Orions/air transport capable of supporting these and Army deployments). Witness also the economic transformation of the likes of China and India (and publically, their military build-ups) and the economic/military changes that their surrounding neighbours are also undertaking, finally means NZ pollies can't sweep under the carpet all these changes occurring around us (and suggest that past conflict was merely Cold War posturing that could be contained by disarming their nukes etc). But economic realities won't alas see a major NZDF arms build-up, more steady as she goes enhancing of exisiting capabilities, especially as recent purchases start to come into service over the next couple of years. But I'm expecting at least a couple of advancements in the upcoming whitepaper, intentions hopefully to build-up maritime survellience and intentions to build up the means to transport personnel and equipment to various areas of varying threat levels, and to be able to better support them. (Hopefully other items such as Macchi training comes back but for various reasons this isn't a certainty).

 

[Todjaeger]

I’m not really serious at all about a refuelling capability. We never bothered even when we had all the A-4’s in service. We need to concentrate on baking the cake rather than worrying about the icing. A2A is icing really. I think it would be unlikely to happen just as it is unlikely that a KC would be bought.

The two B757 were manufactured through 91-92 and delivered to the Dutch airline Transavia Airlines early in 1993 and made their last commercial flight for the company 10 years later. They were transferred to us mid 2003 and began their life as Broomstick One.

Project Waka the acquisition stage cost $183m and this was followed up with a further $38m to undertake the conversion into the QC configuration. Total cost to the taxpayer $221m to date for two 17 year old aircraft that had 10 years of short haul around Europe prior to their NZ service.

I agree that a refueling capability would currently be something which is "nice to have" as opposed to a critical requirement. The reason I would hope some serious consideration is given to getting a refueler variant is that whatever replaces the C-130H Hercs is likely to be kept in service for 30-40 years. That is assuming Government does not do something stupid like only focusing on short-term needs. IMO the B757 purchase does fit that bill... Getting a 17 year old, 2nd hand civilian airliner that is out of production to replace the old B727's that need to be retired. Given the age, I suspect that they (the B757's) will be reaching retirement ~2021-2027.

Touching on refueler aircraft again, as I understand if from USAF factsheets, Australia is ~200 n miles out of range for a heavily laden C-130H. The ability to do AAR could allow more/faster deployments of NZDF personnel/kit to Australia (and beyond) in a crisis. While that could likely be added onto a C-130H replacement during an upgrade, IMO it would be better to have the ability designed in, as opposed to installed as an upgrade, given how upgrade programmes sometimes go.

-Cheers

 

[Lucasnz]

Roll on 9/11 and the response afterwards, and the combat (and combat support elements) are called up and sent into the Middle East (SAS, Frigates, Orions) as well as the peacekeeping elements (engineering to Iraq, infantry for the Afghan PRT mission). Those elements that were criticising the Frigates and Orions suddenly found out that campaigning against them (as being not needed) wasn't being swallowed up by the uniformed public (and general news media) anymore. (But they had their victory re ACF demise). ....but we're appearing to see now that the pollies are acknowledging dual importance of peacekeeping and combat/combat support functions especially maritime and further ranging semi-expeditionary abilities (Frigates/tanker/sealift, Orions/air transport capable of supporting these and Army deployments).

I was reading a PDF called "Timing is everything", the abstract had this in it...

This book identifies the critical factors that shaped and influenced defence acquisition decision-making processes from the election of the Fourth Labour Government in 1984 and the subsequent ANZUS crisis, through to the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States and the following ‘war on terror’. It explores and analyses decision-making processes in relation to six acquisition decisions which have been made over a 20-year period.

In effect it argues that 9/11 affected how NZ approaches defence, with specific emphasis on the P-3 upgrade. I think it acknowledges your comments above and that Labour could not ignore the change in the short - medium term strategic environment, in upgrading the Orion capabilities. Regretfully that thinking didn't get the flow through to Project Protector in the form of the missed second stage of the Maritime Forces Review. An internal MOD audit report that available shows that this lack of a second stage contributed to some of the problems faced by Project Protector.

Witness also the economic transformation of the likes of China and India (and publically, their military build-ups) and the economic/military changes that their surrounding neighbours are also undertaking, finally means NZ pollies can't sweep under the carpet all these changes occurring around us.

I would tend to agree with you here, but I would also agree with the Ministers comments that NZ should not see one country (i.e China) as a specific threat. Rather it is my view that NZ should look at the capabilities of those nations in the Asia-Pacific region generally and seek to counter those most likley to pose a threat to NZ short term security (i.e subs laying mines etc).

But economic realities won't alas see a major NZDF arms build-up, more steady as she goes enhancing of exisiting capabilities, especially as recent purchases start to come into service over the next couple of years. But I'm expecting at least a couple of advancements in the upcoming whitepaper, intentions hopefully to build-up maritime survellience and intentions to build up the means to transport personnel and equipment to various areas of varying threat levels, and to be able to better support them. (Hopefully other items such as Macchi training comes back but for various reasons this isn't a certainty)

.

Rebuilding and developing he NZDF combat capability is going to take years (as in 20 years), especially in the current fiscal climate. That said theres any number of things I'd like to see happen / proposed...

1. Reinstate the Macchi's and scrap the King Air replacement.
2. Third Frigate and OPV or another class of ship that's in between the two.
3. Improved Maritime survellience
4. Introduction of Harpoon / RBS 15 or the like onto the Orions. Ideally I like to see this capability with a limited land attack role.
5. Establishment of a standing Ready Reaction company or expanision of QAMR into a third battalion.
6. Upgrade of Frigates, including new ASW Torpedos. Wouldn't mind seeing the Orion ASW upgraded to.

 

[recce.k1]

Cheers there Lucas, hey, just found the defmin's speech at the Council for Security Cooperation meeting (which means the defensenews.com article, as I suspected was a rehash of public releases, not so much as the journalist being at the actual meeting and reporting something new etc).

Beehive - Speech to CSCAP 2nd Study Group Meeting on Naval Enhancement in the Asia-Pacific

At least the Govt isn't backing away from "combat" options, despite the idealism in having managed growth in the AP region etc (which at the end of the day is what just about everyone would want, not perpetual conflict etc) but whilst the defmin doesn't explicity say it, a stick will be still carried etc. Good to see NZ Govt releases finally mentioning the US (and France) again, countries that had "disappeared" (or not noted) in defence policy over the last 15 years or so.

So the defmin acknowledges the maritime aspect (far different from the previous administration) and its importantance to economic growth in the AP region. Whilst there could be enhanced air and naval survellience and patrol priorities for NZ, I wouldn't see Army missing out (it just means they may be heading off to other exotic locations) . Wonder if the Army becomes more "marine" focused (a la their roles with HMNZS Canterbury etc - expect to see some of them deployed onto the new Aussie LHD's in the near future for training and exercises etc (at least sometimes now, they won't have to dig holes to sleep in, as much)!

 

[Todjaeger]

Rebuilding and developing he NZDF combat capability is going to take years (as in 20 years), especially in the current fiscal climate. That said theres any number of things I'd like to see happen / proposed...

1. Reinstate the Macchi's and scrap the King Air replacement.
2. Third Frigate and OPV or another class of ship that's in between the two.
3. Improved Maritime survellience
4. Introduction of Harpoon / RBS 15 or the like onto the Orions. Ideally I like to see this capability with a limited land attack role.
5. Establishment of a standing Ready Reaction company or expanision of QAMR into a third battalion.
6. Upgrade of Frigates, including new ASW Torpedos. Wouldn't mind seeing the Orion ASW upgraded to.

On a point by point basis, here is my take

1. Reinstating the Macchi's IMO is of minimum value unless they are significantly upgraded with avionics, or are used to train fast jet pilots. That in turn would mean that some form of fast jet has been or will be added to the RNZAF inventory and an ACF reconsituted. As much as I would like to see that happen, I do not forsee that without either a significantly positive change in the economy, or a significantly negative change in the perceived sercurity environment. The King Air replacement I do not know enough about to have a real opinion at this point.

2. My concerns about adding a third frigate (or OPV) have already been voiced recently (in the RNZN I think?) There is a limit to just how many personnel the RNZN can add to the ranks in a given amount of time. Similarly, if the vessels are deployed frequently with only a small personnel pool to be crewed from, it will increase the likelihood that personnel retention will be an issue and sailors will not make the navy a career.

A potentially better approach would be to begin talks with the RAN about what features and capabilities the RAN is considering for their OCV. With RNZN involvement, the OCV minor warship programme can be a joint venture between Australia and NZ (not unlike the Anzac FFH) which could help some areas of the NZ economy. From a defence perspective, the OCV type vessel could be the sort of vessel the RNZN needs to carry out multiple roles (or be reconfigurable depending on needs). The OPVs which are now entering service should be fine for EEZ patrolling, SAR and other policing tasks. They might even be able to have some modules developed and fitted for disaster relief and some MCM work. However, they are whole unsuited to operating in anything other than a benign environment. Depending on what range of tasks is envisioned for the OCV, it might be possible to get a vessel which can operate in some threatened environments. By getting involved now, it would give the NZDF time to increase the number of personnel in the RNZN so that when the initial vessels launch, New Zealand can add them to the fleet without too much strain. As an added benefit, Australia is looking at getting something like 20+ OCV-type vessels to replace basically all RAN minor warships and survey vessels. This means that the programme cost per vessel is likely to be fairly low and could allow the RNZN to purchase as many as six over the course of the programme. This would allow replacement of HMNZ Ships Resolution and Manawanui, as well as the two OPVs, an additional OCV to provide year-round patrolling, and then a final OCV which could be used primarily as a training vessel. This would likely allow NZ to add a third frigate back into the fleet when the Anzac replacement programme comes along, yet not leave NZ vulnerable like it is currently if a frigate is away on a deployment and the other is in for a yard for maintenance or refit. A OCV would still be potentially available for deployment in case of a crisis.

3. Maritime surveillance should certainly be increased. I have mentioned some possibilities for a short/mid-range fixed wing MPA which I feel should be added to provide additional coverage. When the P-3K Orions start to be replaced, a minimum of 3 P-8 Poseidons or their equivalents (A320 MPA perhaps?) should be purchased. While it would be nice if NZ could do a 1:1 Orion to Poseidon replacement, I suspect that the significant costs of the P-8 will prevent that. What should likely be done then is for land-based navigation and surveillance radars to be positioned at various points around NZ territories to guide traffic and monitor the air and sea-based approaches to NZ. This could help both in detecting vessels or aircraft in areas that they are not supposed to be, as well as potentially providing more up to date last known positions in the event of emergencies. Additionally, the NZDF should start looking for a replacement naval helicopter. The SH-2G(NZ) Seasprite is approaching its service life mid-point, and parts have apparently been problematic. Between that, the fact that there is no commonality with allied naval helicopters after the RAN could not get theirs operational for a number of reasons, the Seasprites only being configured for ASuW and using a design from the late 1950's, it might be time to look for something else. It would be nice if the replacement was able to conduct both ASW and ASuW ops, which means the NFH-90 or MH-60R Seahawk would be candidates. However, something smaller might be desired, as I understand that an NH-90 is a tight squeeze in an Anzac FFH hangar. If the OCV's are equipped with helicopter hangars (and it would be foolish IMO not to equip them with hangars), then something smaller would likely be needed. I personally am rather partial to the navalized AS565 Panther variants. As a side note with that, if 6 OCVs are ultimately added, along with 3 Anzac replacements, then the 5 Seasprites would likely need to be augmented with 10 more naval helicopters, or 15 replacement naval helicopters ordered.

4. While it would be nice to introduce some form of mid/long-ranged AShM or land-attack missile onto the Orion, I am not sure that is a real possibility. IIRC the P-3K Orions were re-winged a few years ago as part of an upgrade/SLEP. However, the wiring connections within the wing were not upgraded to the current MIL-STD databus (1760 IIRC, but it might be 1553B) which means that the Orion could not carry the Harpoon Block II. Given the advanced nature of the RBS-15, I doubt it would be able to talk to that, and I am not too certain that it could be used with a Harpoon Block I, which is just an out of produciton AShM anyway. The only real way to fix that which I am aware of is to have the Orions get re-winged again, only this time have the wiring harness in the wing get brought up to current standards. Given the cost and time required, plus the limited service life remaining in the Orions, I am not sure it is worthwhile.

I will leave off discussing the last two points for now, as I have been rambling on long enough.

-Cheers

 

[Lucasnz]

I will leave off discussing the last two points for now, as I have been rambling on long enough.

-Cheers

Thanks for the feedback, I had thought the P-3 had been fitted to take Harpoon. I think you've got a valid point regarding the RAN OCV and the manning issues are similar to the problems the Canadians faced with rapid expansion in WWII.

Anyway the rambling is welcomed as it contributes to my thinking.

 

[Gibbo]

I was reading a PDF called "Timing is everything", the abstract had this in it...



In effect it argues that 9/11 affected how NZ approaches defence, with specific emphasis on the P-3 upgrade. I think it acknowledges your comments above and that Labour could not ignore the change in the short - medium term strategic environment, in upgrading the Orion capabilities. Regretfully that thinking didn't get the flow through to Project Protector in the form of the missed second stage of the Maritime Forces Review. An internal MOD audit report that available shows that this lack of a second stage contributed to some of the problems faced by Project Protector.



I would tend to agree with you here, but I would also agree with the Ministers comments that NZ should not see one country (i.e China) as a specific threat. Rather it is my view that NZ should look at the capabilities of those nations in the Asia-Pacific region generally and seek to counter those most likley to pose a threat to NZ short term security (i.e subs laying mines etc).

.

Rebuilding and developing he NZDF combat capability is going to take years (as in 20 years), especially in the current fiscal climate. That said theres any number of things I'd like to see happen / proposed...

1. Reinstate the Macchi's and scrap the King Air replacement.
2. Third Frigate and OPV or another class of ship that's in between the two.
3. Improved Maritime survellience
4. Introduction of Harpoon / RBS 15 or the like onto the Orions. Ideally I like to see this capability with a limited land attack role.
5. Establishment of a standing Ready Reaction company or expanision of QAMR into a third battalion.
6. Upgrade of Frigates, including new ASW Torpedos. Wouldn't mind seeing the Orion ASW upgraded to.

Generally agree with what you say, with the following to add:
1. Macchi's - yep, bring 'em back! But we need B200 replacements as they fill a quite different role - multi-engine prop trainer etc which the Macchi can't provide.
2. Long-term totally agree. Short-term I doubt we can afford the vessel nor prvide a crew.
3. Goes without saying - P3 (+ replcement - Poseidon please!) & smaller unarmed MPA's - say 4 of each!?!
4. Air-to-surface (anti-shipping as minm) on P3. Where's the self-protection kit for these!?!
5. Not so strong on Army knowledge, but sounds sensible.
6. Yes Frigate upgrade should also include Harpoon & P3 get new ASW package.

Also to add into the mix:
1. NZ needs an ETV - just look at the mess that coal-carrier is causing on the GB reef! Maybe Manawanui / Resolution replacement offers scope for this!?! Good role for RNZN as it could also do some inshore patrol work to earn it's keep.
2. Mark my words, the reality is the OPV's will be seen in the Southern Ocean only occassionally, simply because they have a lot of other ocean to patrol. I suggest a charter or purchase of 2nd hand ice-capable vessel for use as dedicated Sth Ocean patrol vessel, similar to Oceanic Viking. Needs range & endurance not to mention the strength to cope with southern seas. Would need to rotate crews somehow though I'd suggest!

 

[recce.k1]

I'll add my 2cents worth to point no 2 (3rd Frigate/OPV) as per Lucasnz's list.

As expressed, presumably there isn't enough personel on hand to man a potential 3rd Frigate at the moment, but that could be rectified within, what, perhaps 4-5 years (assuming the Govt thought it were a priority and found extra $$$ to fund additional personnel etc)? The OPV's would surely provide a career path for junior personnel onto a 3rd Frigate in that timeframe although admittedly some but not all trades (as found on a Frigate) would come from the OPV's.

The next headache then presumably, would be obtaining a suitable ship. Unless the NZ &OZ Govt's struck a deal over acquiring HMAS ANZAC (which apparently was offered as a 3rd Frigate compromise before), then NZ would be stuck with an "orphan" type, which presumably again wouldn't be very efficient. Unless perhaps NZ bought a second hand Perry type off the USN (or a RAN Perry when their sailors transfer over to the new AWD's), as an interim measure until (assuming they do) NZ buys into the ANZAC II programme (say 3 ships, minimum). Assuming its an original US Perry with original fitout, this may not be a good idea unless this vessel was intended as a training vessel for the ANZAC's and as a back-up, primarily for "home guard" duties similar to the previous HMNZS Canterbury which was the backup/training ship.

The correct path is waiting until for the ANZAC replacements mid-late 2020's but if a 3rd Frigate is deemed important (eg to ensure 365days coverage and to lessen the wear and tear on the exisiting 2 Frigates and crews) then something would have to be done before then. Hence the Perry idea (some commonality with RAN in terms of training), or look at acquiring a couple of RN T23's if they come up for sale again (the complements are interesting - ANZAC 178 crew of which 25 are officers whereas for T23 the numbers appear to be 181-185 crew of which only 13 are officers).

Perhaps a 3rd Frigate type is unrealistic (until ANZAC II time) so perhaps a more practical solution would be to acquire further OPV's instead (or maybe the OZ OCV), which was the original intention several years ago. At least regional patrolling efforts would be better enhanced etc.

In the next 3-5 years presumably we'll see the Endeavour and perhaps the other two auxilliary vessels replaced, so fitting in an extra OPV or two should be possible in a similar 3-5 year timeframe (seeing crewing numbers are smaller 35 crew (6-8 officers I think) plus 10 flight support crew). Anything bigger like Frigates with near 200 crew might be a bit more problematic in that 5 year timeframe (perhaps unless it is mainly used for training/NZ patrolling and thus some of the specialised warfighting positions aren't needed) ... it might be something for 2015 onwards (and once the other minor vessels are replaced thus freeing up resources to get new Frigate crews in place as the next priority)?

 

[Gibbo]

Defence Review - 'value for money' review

2009 Defence Review - TOR External NZDF Value for Money Review [Ministry of Defence NZ]

You know the wording of point #9 in the scope bugs me... it seems the review may set the priorities, now this determines the platforms needed to meet those priorities. I suggest Rod Dean is not the best man for that particular task.

9.The VFM Review should also look at:
specific capabilities and number of platforms to deliver that capability, alongside different modes of delivery such as ownership vs. lease, and contracting out

Hopefully point #11 will avoid any slashing of frontline equipment...

11.The following areas are excluded from the scope of the VFM Review:
the strategic context, defence policy priorities, tasks and the broad capabilities ( expressed in output terms such as ability to transport x troops up to y kilometres within z hours) already agreed by STR;

 

[Lucasnz]

I'll add my 2cents worth to point no 2 (3rd Frigate/OPV) as per Lucasnz's list.

As expressed, presumably there isn't enough personel on hand to man a potential 3rd Frigate at the moment, but that could be rectified within, what, perhaps 4-5 years (assuming the Govt thought it were a priority and found extra $$$ to fund additional personnel etc)? The OPV's would surely provide a career path for junior personnel onto a 3rd Frigate in that timeframe although admittedly some but not all trades (as found on a Frigate) would come from the OPV's

IMO NZ needs a third combatant sooner rather than latter. The main reason I lean that way is that with only 2 frigates there is a high risk of policy failure, especially in relations to South Pacific operations, when and if NZ transition to a new class of frigate class, given that there is likley to be a reduction to one frigate, given personnel pool. That's ignoring the risk of policy failure while one ship is refit. During Project Protector the navy increased the number of BCT intakes from 3 to 4 to increase the personnel pool. That could be done again, given that qualified personnel will need to come off the ANZAC's to train on the new ship, freeing up berths in the ANZAC's to conduct training.

The next headache then presumably, would be obtaining a suitable ship. Unless the NZ &OZ Govt's struck a deal over acquiring HMAS ANZAC (which apparently was offered as a 3rd Frigate compromise before), then NZ would be stuck with an "orphan" type, which presumably again wouldn't be very efficient. Unless perhaps NZ bought a second hand Perry type off the USN (or a RAN Perry when their sailors transfer over to the new AWD's).

Pleassee No Perry Class. I suspect with the changes within each Navy to each ANZAC, especially the recent engine upgrade to the NZ version, that if NZ were to lucky enough to get a 3rd ANZAC then NZ would need to make further modications, but thankfully the core systems (weapons) would be the same.

The correct path is waiting until for the ANZAC replacements mid-late 2020's but if a 3rd Frigate is deemed important (eg to ensure 365days coverage and to lessen the wear and tear on the exisiting 2 Frigates and crews) then something would have to be done before then. Hence the Perry idea (some commonality with RAN in terms of training), or look at acquiring a couple of RN T23's if they come up for sale again (the complements are interesting - ANZAC 178 crew of which 25 are officers whereas for T23 the numbers appear to be 181-185 crew of which only 13 are officers). Perhaps a 3rd Frigate type is unrealistic (until ANZAC II time) so perhaps a more practical solution would be to acquire further OPV's instead (or maybe the OZ OCV), which was the original intention several years ago. At least regional patrolling efforts would be better enhanced etc.

Despite my desire and opinions common sense says that this is the best option, if we can't steal an ANZAC of Australia. Assumming each frigate cost $500million, then purchasing 3 or even 4 over 15 years wouldn't be to tough on the budget, especially if part of a joint project with the UK and Australia. If would also provide for a progressive upgrade of the class similar to the first Type 12 Leanders and the later versions.

In the next 3-5 years presumably we'll see the Endeavour and perhaps the other two auxilliary vessels replaced, so fitting in an extra OPV or two should be possible in a similar 3-5 year timeframe (seeing crewing numbers are smaller 35 crew (6-8 officers I think) plus 10 flight support crew). Anything bigger like Frigates with near 200 crew might be a bit more problematic in that 5 year timeframe (perhaps unless it is mainly used for training/NZ patrolling and thus some of the specialised warfighting positions aren't needed) ... it might be something for 2015 onwards (and once the other minor vessels are replaced thus freeing up resources to get new Frigate crews in place as the next priority)?

Replacement of Endeavour I think won't be a problem, though a Joint Logistics Task Force Ship might be more than the government's prepared to commit to. I agree buying two OPV's to replace Resolution and Manawanui should be on the table. Given the risk of policy failure noted above, the acquistion should lean towards a modified version of the existing OPV (no ice belt, 57-76 gun and Mistral (Simbad), plus the addition of air weapons magazine). I see this a brigding the gap measure until the OCV as a replacement for the OPV and the ANZACII comes on line.

 

[recce.k1]

I do agree with your logic Lucas in needing at least a 3rd Frigate sooner rather than later to ensure policy/outputs are met. Currently this cannot be the case, eg with Te Kaha coming out of its engine/platform refit (and presumably Te Mana will receive the same this year, seeing the funding was signed off by Labour a couple of years ago)? So what do these crews do for months on end? Get frustrated and resign? Do other land based duties? Surely this can't be good for crew morale, especially when the next stage is to upgrade the self defence systems which will mean more periods with the ships out of action.

So if somehow a 3rd ship was found, assuming it were another ANZAC compatible type, could the existing crews (of one of the existing 2 ANZAC's) simply transfer over to the 3rd vessel? How does it work in practice? Or would be need a complete third set of crew, or perhaps only 2.5 sets, seeing there will be periods in the next say, 3 years where one ship will be out of action for months undergoing upgrades?

What's the state of the RAN ANZAC crewing situation? Could NZ lease an (unmodified/non-upgraded) ANZAC off Australia now-ish (ie within a couple of years)?

Or should we simply send most of one of the existing 2 sets of RNZN ANZAC crews over to the RAN and help man their ANZAC's (and Perry's) for when they are short (if they are?), when one of the RNZN ANZAC's are on extended maintenance? A bit like when NZ was covered by RN vessels stationed here prior to WW2, with a mix of NZ and UK crews. As an interim measure of course. I then wonder whether once the RAN AWD's start nearing completion, then could one of the RAN ANZAC's be sold or leased to NZ as RAN attention shifts towards manning the AWD's etc? Just a thought.