NZDF General discussion thread

[Gibbo]

Joint Defence Ministers press conference was planned for 1300 today in Beehive Theatrette. Heres TVNZ report of Press Conference Closer NZ-Australia defence ties pledged | POLITICS News

"....Mapp said a Pacific-focused Ready Response Force, first announced 18 months ago, would be taken to the next stage.

Two NZ Defence Force personnel will be going to Brisbane shortly and joint training will follow later in the year...."

Wow - 2 personnel, massive NZDF contribution! :nfloorl::lol2

The HMNZS Canterbury will also be involved in joint humanitarian operations to help fill a gap in Australia's forces, Smith said.

As mentioned in above... should see Canterbury enjoying busy times...who'd have thought RNZN could be lifeline to the RAN :jump2

Clearnet News

 

[ngatimozart]

A couple of links regarding the P8 and the EADS Maritime Patrol Aircraft based around the A319 airframe.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/mma/

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/a319mpa/

I don't know how old the info is because they have put dates on the web page.

 

[Rob c]

I take it that this post is in reply to a previous one of mine. Use of the quote icon in the future will be helpful when posting.

The purpose of our Defence Force is outlined in s5 of the Defence Act 1990. It has six fundamental objectives. There is no heirachy intended in those objectives in s5. Thus the purpose of raising armed forces in New Zealand cannot just solely be attributed to s5(a) of the DA90, but also s5(b) - (g).

If you are raising an opinion that this country refuses to take full responsibility for its own freedom, then taking it up with Hon Simon Power who seems to be your local MP would be more productive than here. He is in a far better place than any of us here to do something about it.

That said - as if you say you are ex- Sqd 75th I can quite understand your anger for what was done on the 13th of December 2001.

It would have to be one hell of a conflict not for US or Australian forces not to at least provide a plausible screen to assist New Zealand. It is also unlikely that any agressive actor would sneak up on us without us or our defence partners knowing something was up e.g INT Links. We might not have a plausible ACF but we do have assets which provide for both domestic and regional security.

I have written to poiticians in the past but you seldom get inteligent replies, one politician of some years ago who did give inteligent considered replies was Mike Moore, but sadly he is long gone. There have been one or two others who had a brain, they either agreed or disagreed with what I said, but had obviously throught about what they said, the rest just quoted the party line.
The current state of the NZD means that they may not hold out long enough for help to arrive.
I would also state that Acts of Parliament are not necessary reflecting reality.

 

[Rob c]

Another note. Politicians write Acts to say what they want them to say with the aim of not committing them to too much in the future, but the primary aim of defence has been laid down over thousands of years of tradition, need and logic.

 

[recce.k1]

Another note. Politicians write Acts to say what they want them to say with the aim of not committing them to too much in the future, but the primary aim of defence has been laid down over thousands of years of tradition, need and logic.

Seems like the answer then is to have ex-military and diplomat's etc, to stand for political office? Well why don't they come forward then?

As for Mike Moore he's currently NZ Ambassador to the US, so now is the time to bend his ear again ...

Trouble is the argument for an ACF to counter a NZ invasion I suggest would even ring about hollow in Moore's ears nowadays (that may have been so in the times of Sukarno's Indonesia - you still haven't said who will invade NZ?), but I hazard a guess Moore may be interested in the collective defence, relationship and economic well-being angle of an ACF? Or something else, what would be politically and publically acceptable rationale nowadays in your opinion, seeing that defence spending would have to rise (because I wouldn't want to see any current capabilities removed to accomodate the cost from within)?

 

[ngatimozart]

Seems like the answer then is to have ex-military and diplomat's etc, to stand for political office? Well why don't they come forward then?

As for Mike Moore he's currently NZ Ambassador to the US, so now is the time to bend his ear again ...

Trouble is the argument for an ACF to counter a NZ invasion I suggest would even ring about hollow in Moore's ears nowadays (that may have been so in the times of Sukarno's Indonesia - you still haven't said who will invade NZ?), but I hazard a guess Moore may be interested in the collective defence, relationship and economic well-being angle of an ACF? Or something else, what would be politically and publically acceptable rationale nowadays in your opinion, seeing that defence spending would have to rise (because I wouldn't want to see any current capabilities removed to accomodate the cost from within)?

The problem is that there is no clear and present danger to NZ to justify the raising of an ACF in the public's or politicians eyes. Whilst us people on this forum have some understanding of defence and security issues, it is not something that is in vogue in mainstream society nor will it be until a direct threat probably appears on the horizon. I for one would like to see an air combat force but in the present political, social and economic climate it can be no more than a pipe dream. We have to deal with realities and the reality is that there is no obvious clear and present danger to NZ at the moment the necessitates a big spend up on a ACF.

 

[recce.k1]

The problem is that there is no clear and present danger to NZ to justify the raising of an ACF in the public's or politicians eyes. Whilst us people on this forum have some understanding of defence and security issues, it is not something that is in vogue in mainstream society nor will it be until a direct threat probably appears on the horizon. I for one would like to see an air combat force but in the present political, social and economic climate it can be no more than a pipe dream. We have to deal with realities and the reality is that there is no obvious clear and present danger to NZ at the moment the necessitates a big spend up on a ACF.

Yeah, that seems to sum up the situation pretty well NM!

Now that the simple but politically acceptable MB339 plan has been ruled out due to OEM support issues, that only leaves the dim chances of an ADF tie-in.

So if anyone can come up with a practical reason to re-establish an ACF in this climate I'd be very interested.

Anyways regarding the Mk 46 torpedo, despite the concern of a few years ago that they were reaching life of end, I thought there was a suggestion that Defence were looking to work with Aus to extend them? I can't seem to find any links now but there was some mention here at the time.

I'm not sure any current RNZN members here can confirm (as they don't appear to be weapons branch types) but here's a link to the ADF's "Joint Ammunition and Logistics Organisation" (JALO), where it specifically mentions they provide "whole of life support to undersea weapon systems" such as NZDF Mk46 torpedoes. Perhaps one of the Aus defpros could comment, but on the surface it may appear the NZDF Mk 46 situation is in "good hands" anyway.

(For interest here's an article of the RNZAF using practice Mk 46' s over in Ozzie. That's surely a positive sign)?

Finally if anyone is interested in picking up some second hand Seasprites, this link has some useful info including some system fit-out details of the current NZ model and the ones on sale etc. Note only $18M ea "fully loaded"! Hmm some nice air-to-surface missile options "AGM-119b Penguin, AGM-114 Hellfire, AGM-65 Maverick, Sea Skua" (to stop any invaders)!
OFFER#

And some early info on the AGM-65D(NZ) Maverick missile etc.
Kaman To Begin Final Weapon Trials For SH-2G Next Week | Defense Daily | Find Articles at BNET

Note that the current SH-2G(NZ) "helicopters lack onboard sensors to locate and prosecute a target. The SH-2G(NZ)s receive targeting information for their mother ships."

Whereas the SH-2G(I)'s (???) carry the "Northrop Grumman LN-66HP multi-mode radar provides the helicopter with ASW, ASuW and anti-ship surveillance and targeting (ASST) capability."

Maybe we should push the 5 current G(NZ) models onto the OPV's and Canterbury (3 operational and 2 in maint/training), and obtain some of the ex-ADF models for the Frigates? 4-5 would do .... 2 for concurrent deployments on-board, (1 on standby at base for any deployment if the ship-board unit goes wrong, like it did the Gulf a few years ago?), leaving 2 for training/in-maintenance?

 

[MrConservative]

Eleven SeaSprites for USD$180m or a pick and mix job at USD$18m a pop.

Very good spotting Mr Recce.K1. I find that this package will be very hard for the NZDF to ignore especially with the Bootboys from Treasury pressuring them every step of the way.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Eleven SeaSprites for USD$180m or a pick and mix job at USD$18m a pop.

Kaman have been very aggressive in trying to flog off the ex RAN Seasprites.

Even if they were not bought as going concerns there are some critical spare parts that can't be remanufactured and were always a sustainment issue for RAN even if the Govt had not euthenased the project.

(I've got an ex-Seasprite Project Engineer working with me)

 

[recce.k1]

Even if they were not bought as going concerns there are some critical spare parts that can't be remanufactured and were always a sustainment issue for RAN even if the Govt had not euthenased the project.

Hmmm, wonder if NZ could get, say, up to 10 years life out of them? As that might tie in nicely with getting them replaced in the 2020's anyway (as originally planned according to NZ DWP) when the Frigate replacement is under way?

I suppose it depends on what these critical parts are and the associated risk etc?

If it could be done, nevermind what Defence wants, the bean counters might see a cheap capital outlay, a lower depreciation and associated capital charge, meaning the books looks good? Then again VfM auditors were critical of the Seasprite's operational costs. (The last thing NZ needs is the bean counters killing off the G(NZ) model for lower cost A-109's instead. Maybe the ex-RAN Seasprites may be too sweet for the Govt to pass-up and kills off the bean counter's alternative path a la A109 etc)?

Just hope Defence undertake thorough due-dilligence checks to ensure NZ doesn't suffer its own version of the 'seasprite debarcle' etc.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hmmm, wonder if NZ could get, say, up to 10 years life out of them? As that might tie in nicely with getting them replaced in the 2020's anyway (as originally planned according to NZ DWP) when the Frigate replacement is under way?

I suppose it depends on what these critical parts are and the associated risk etc?

boils down to hours and types of flying in the end.

they should last till the mid 20's with the right cache of spares and depending on usage issues (type of flying, conditions, maint cycles etc...)

these (particular) parts can't be remanufactured, so if I was NZ I'd be using the RAN platforms as a defacto AMARC opportunity. I imagine US State would be more than happy to assist in the FMS transfer (Kaman cannot sell directly to NZ even though they nominally "own" the assets)

 

[recce.k1]

.... so if I was NZ I'd be using the RAN platforms as a defacto AMARC opportunity. I imagine US State would be more than happy to assist in the FMS transfer (Kaman cannot sell directly to NZ even though they nominally "own" the assets)

That too is a very good practical reason.

Regarding the FMS transfer situation, is that normal/unusual/legacy of NZ's ANZUS bust up (which needs to be addressed)?

 

[gf0012-aust]

That too is a very good practical reason.

Regarding the FMS transfer situation, is that normal/unusual/legacy of NZ's ANZUS bust up (which needs to be addressed)?

US and NZ are basically back to being Kumbayah partners again , so I couldn't see any difficulty in organising a Seasprite fire sale with State

 

[Adzze]

Yeah, that seems to sum up the situation pretty well NM!

Now that the simple but politically acceptable MB339 plan has been ruled out due to OEM support issues, that only leaves the dim chances of an ADF tie-in.

So if anyone can come up with a practical reason to re-establish an ACF in this climate I'd be very interested.

There is no clear and present danger to NZ's own sovereignty, but perhaps there is an indirect risk to our neighbours in the South Pacific.

It doesn't sound particularly serious at this stage, but on the news recently there was a story about a territorial dispute between Fiji and Tonga over a mineral-rich reef known as "Minerva".

If Fiji remains a dictatorship increasingly backed by Chinese aid (with concomitant strategic influence and mineral interests), conceivably this could be a complicating factor in resolving disputes such as the above. Not sure if this would count as practical reason enough to re-establish an ACF though.

 

[recce.k1]

Thanks for that link Adzze, I hadn't seen it.

Oh now great, NZ (and Aus) who can't put aside their ideals of democracy and actually work with the Commodore to find a lasting solution to Fiji's internal problems, will now find themselves in another difficult position, diplomatically.

Personally the sooner we stop lecturing the Fijian regime (as in the way we don't lecture any other non-democratic but friendly regime), the sooner we can get Fiji back into the fold, the better.

As the article states, the Pacific is awash with minerals.

If I were the US/EU/NZ/Aus, I would engage in a major soft-power build up and sure up arrangements with Fiji and the other PI nations (before the "emerging powers" ramp up their efforts), invest in critical port infrastructure (dual civil/military use) etc and wave the flag by investing in EEZ OPV's & Environmental Protection Agency vessels to operate around the region etc. Keeps the Greenies, NGO's & communities happy whilst the military is in the background maintaining a "presence" (which can be stepped up when and if required, as the infrastructure will be there to sustain them). Can expand if anyone is interested.

 

[MrConservative]

Hmmm, wonder if NZ could get, say, up to 10 years life out of them? As that might tie in nicely with getting them replaced in the 2020's anyway (as originally planned according to NZ DWP) when the Frigate replacement is under way?

I suppose it depends on what these critical parts are and the associated risk etc?

If it could be done, nevermind what Defence wants, the bean counters might see a cheap capital outlay, a lower depreciation and associated capital charge, meaning the books looks good? Then again VfM auditors were critical of the Seasprite's operational costs. (The last thing NZ needs is the bean counters killing off the G(NZ) model for lower cost A-109's instead. Maybe the ex-RAN Seasprites may be too sweet for the Govt to pass-up and kills off the bean counter's alternative path a la A109 etc)?

Just hope Defence undertake thorough due-dilligence checks to ensure NZ doesn't suffer its own version of the 'seasprite debarcle' etc.

Sustainment issues might mean they go for the $180m buy 10 and get one free offer from Kaman. That would hedge the potential issues at stake.

Which will mean - where would we put all these RNZAF Sprites? The 11 newbies, 5 current ones plus the 6 Sprites bought for the GTW only months ago. We'll be inundated with them.

(GTW Sprites - some have said was a clue that Sprites would be around for sometime yet - upgrade or no upgrade. Actions speaking louder than words and all that.)

 

[recce.k1]

Which will mean - where would we put all these RNZAF Sprites? The 11 newbies, 5 current ones plus the 6 Sprites bought for the GTW only months ago. We'll be inundated with them.

Good question, but I'm sure Defence could come up with some ideas.

(Although GF hit the nail, keep some as low cost attrition/spares).

When we were last discussing these extra Seasprites, I wondered whether some could support the Army on land operations (a la coalition naval helos in A'Stan) due to their sensor and weapon fitout? NZ may not have Apache's or Tiger's but would a SH-2G(I) and A109 recon/cmd& control helo combo work to provide the land forces and NH90's some hefty self-protection? Could they be trialled in Timor to provide an eye in the sky on events on the ground?

 

[dave_kiwi]

And some early info on the AGM-65D(NZ) Maverick missile etc.
Kaman To Begin Final Weapon Trials For SH-2G Next Week | Defense Daily | Find Articles at BNET

Note that the current SH-2G(NZ) "helicopters lack onboard sensors to locate and prosecute a target. The SH-2G(NZ)s receive targeting information for their mother ships."

I'll think you'll find that the above info is a tad confused between ASW and ASuW.

From Naval Technology Website:

SH-2G Super Seasprite - Multi-Mission Naval Helicopter - Naval Technology

The SH-2G's for New Zealand are fitted with Northrop Grumman LR-100 ESM.

Sensors

The Northrop Grumman LN-66HP multi-mode radar provides the helicopter with ASW, ASuW and anti-ship surveillance and targeting (ASST) capability. Alternative multi-mode radar fits available include Northrop Grumman LN-66 HP Enhanced, BAE Systems Seaspray, and Telephonics APS-143 advanced search radar. The APS-143, chosen by New Zealand, has optional Inverse Synthetic Aperture (ISAR) mode.

Some "google fu":

http://www.pr-inside.com/telephonics-aps-143c-v-3-accepted-as-r597343.htm

The APS-143C(V)3 is the latest in the OceanEye(TM) family and features Enhanced Small Target Detection, fine-resolution SAR/ISAR imaging and the only internally integrated IFF Interrogator capability available. APS-143C(V)3 has been chosen by a wide array of international fixed-wing and rotary wing operators requiring the best performance and lowest weight radar solutions.

Think that gives you the general idea.

The Raytheon AN/AAQ-16 FLIR (forward-looking infrared) is available with a laser designator. The SH-2Gs for New Zealand are fitted with a FLIR Systems AN/AAQ-22 thermal imager.

Also:

Royal New Zealand Navy SH-2Gs have been fitted with the Fabrique Nationale (FN) MAG-58M 7.62mm machinegun as an urgent operational requirement. First operational deployment with the gun was in May 2008.

From the one of the Armed Forces monthly mags - it appears that the MAGs have been fitted with laser sights, not "open iron sights" as per the M-60 (?) on the UH-1Hs. Also, again, read that on one exercise, a Sea Sprite used fore said MAG to take out A RAN Sea Hawk after it had attacked an RNZN ANZAC. Unfortunately cannot remember which mag is was in - RNZAF or RNZN -- most likely mid 2008.

Just take a look at any pictures of the RNZN Sea Sprites -- and see the radar fitted in the "cylindrical" housing on the bottom. Given that the Sea Sprites were purchased to prosecute AuSW at some distant from the ANZACS, it wouldn't make any sense to buy them unless they had the appropriate systems.
(Not sure if they are fitted with LINK 12 / 16 though -- would make sense if they were fitted with LINK 16 - as I believe the upgraded P3-K2s will be, and the ANZACS are or will be)

What they are not configured to do, is carry out ASW, different kettle of fish, and that is where they rely on targeting info from the ANZACS.

I would rank the Sea Sprites as one of the more capable NZDF systems, and there's no real reason (except numbers) why it couldn't support the Army in a land operation - after if the A-10 can use Mavericks to great effect, so can the Sea Sprite.

Pity though it is a bit of an orphan.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just take a look at any pictures of the RNZN Sea Sprites -- and see the radar fitted in the "cylindrical" housing on the bottom. Given that the Sea Sprites were purchased to prosecute AuSW at some distant from the ANZACS, it wouldn't make any sense to buy them unless they had the appropriate systems.
(Not sure if they are fitted with LINK 12 / 16 though -- would make sense if they were fitted with LINK 16 - as I believe the upgraded P3-K2s will be, and the ANZACS are or will be)

What they are not configured to do, is carry out ASW, different kettle of fish, and that is where they rely on targeting info from the ANZACS.

the current RAN fitout would not come across in a sale anyway - you would in all likelihood end up with everything but the compressed combat suite and flight system. The rest of the platform is vanilla

hence why as running spares they are more than useful. as I said before, one of the critical components cannot be remanufactured, so the only way forward to get them is to either get the exRAN Seasprites, or buy some off the Egyptians - we bought the last remaining critical bits from the USG..

There is no reason why the exRAN Seasprites could not be refitted to your current spoec using your current spares and then cycle them through to load balance the existing fleet.

In all likelihood, assuming that you had the bodies available, you'd probably end up with a brace of functioning platforms albeit in different roles. (eg similar to what RAAF did with the F-111G's, they were not able to perform F-111C missions but some were still combat effective in other roles)

remember that the exRAN SeaSprites were cherry picked and zero framed - thats a bargain in any language - and in actual fact the govt pulled the plug too early. There are a number of RAN engineers who think that the platforms were euthenased prematurely and that we were at 98% resolution of the integration probs.

There was a lot of political malice in the end, even though these things cost a fortune to modify for RAN needs, they were not that far away from employment.

 

[ngatimozart]

There is no clear and present danger to NZ's own sovereignty, but perhaps there is an indirect risk to our neighbours in the South Pacific.

It doesn't sound particularly serious at this stage, but on the news recently there was a story about a territorial dispute between Fiji and Tonga over a mineral-rich reef known as "Minerva".

If Fiji remains a dictatorship increasingly backed by Chinese aid (with concomitant strategic influence and mineral interests), conceivably this could be a complicating factor in resolving disputes such as the above. Not sure if this would count as practical reason enough to re-establish an ACF though.

I saw that on the TV news last night. From the sounds of it Fiji is flexing some muscle. If Chinese military assets, particularly the reconnaissance version of the Xian H6, were to appear in Fiji on a semi permanent basis IMHO it would be a pretty valid reason for acquiring an ACF quickly. I would also be talking to the ADF about contributing towards a the running costs of a Wedgetail in return for one being semi permanently operating out of NZ. For the ACF Super Hornets or Strike Eagles would be my choice with a preference for the Super Hornet - commonality with RAAF. The trick would to be to get funding out of the US. They're happy to pay for other countries arms so we might as well try. No harm in asking and it certainly would keep the bean counters happy.