Fitting in and complimenting the Austalian Armed Forces must be fairly high on the agenda as we are closely tied to Australia economically strategicaly and by culture. How best do we do this? Is it by supplying increased numbers to the forces they already have or by forfulling roles that they either dont have or there is a shortfall in?
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
They are finding the Lyttelton Harbour mines with the dredge. RNZN has said mines will be safe as long as left in the water. This does prove my point that NZ ports and shipping lanes are not sacrosanct; that hostile acts have been committed in our waters since 1939. Todays SSK's are very quiet, hard to detect and remember we only have two surface vessels capable of combating them. Not all the P3K's are up to scratch plus there has been some doubt expressed in this forum with regard to the serviceability of the torpedoes that the RNZAF presently have for the P3K.
Last edited:
Sounds like they where never actvated correctly, still I am not to sure I would want to be on the dredge
Methinks we need, in part, to look at how some of our business's have succeeded in overseas markets. They found niche markets that larger organisations overlooked because they weren't ramped up to deal with small markets. it would not be cost effective for them. I think in the ADF context there may exist areas were they can't or don't have a specific capability because it wouldn't be an effective option because of its smaller size, but for the NZDF it might be something that we could do because to us it is a viable option fitting into our operational dynamics. It comes down to scale. Large scale like the ADF works for you but can also works against you. The upside of doing a niche style capability for the ADF is that it releases ADF resources to do other things that they need done and it also means more interoperability with them. There is also a political side to this. and by political I mean inter service politics. It helps us re-earn the trust of the ADF that we have lost because of political machinations within NZ over last 25 years.
I agree, the big question is how do we intergate these different niche abilities into the Austalian armed forces without losing national control. Iraq for instance they went we did not but if our niche ability was important to operation are we forced to go or is Australia forced not to go? I am sure it could be worked out but it would be quite difficult.
t68
Well-Known Member
But I do believe that it could become a state of mind similar to the cold war with the former USSR with respects to China. The west spent a lot of money and resources to contain the USSR influence not only in the northern hemisphere, but right here in our own backyard in the pacific.
The former USSR from what little we know with the confrontation with the west, had no direct plans for an invasion of the United States allies in the Pacific namely Australia/New Zealand, with our strategic importance of Australian based communication/listening post’s (Pine Gap/Geraldton,et cetera.)We are a target to destroy the US capability to function effectively, the USSR knows this and so will the Chinese, and we do represent a strategic problem to the Chinese in their efforts to assert their presence in the Pacific in their advance to become a major world player alongside the United States.
If the Chinese influence starts to really strategically dominate in the Pacific, New Zealand and Australia will not have an option but will have to pursue a more vigorous approach to its defence spending on equipment to help contain an overt Chinese military build up in the Pacific.
Through defence eyes what would be the most logical solution to counter a build up. I am sure rebuilding the ACF and additional frigates will go a long way to form a part of it, but an overall commitment to containment will mean more resource will be needed for information, being SIGINT/ENLINT, Australia have Collins class submarine and are in the preliminary stages of building the next. If in the future New Zealand was to able convert the two ANZAC hulls (feasible?) to an intelligence collection ship in the future, it will IMO bring a vitally important asset to the table gathering data on Chinese military fleet/vessel in the future.
Thoughts.
Oste Class Intelligence Collection Ship | Military-Today.com
Australian Defence Satellite Communications Station, Geraldton — Global Collaborative
China’s involvement in Fiji and Australia and New Zealand’s position | East Asia Forum
The O-Boat Mystery Boats
The former USSR from what little we know with the confrontation with the west, had no direct plans for an invasion of the United States allies in the Pacific namely Australia/New Zealand, with our strategic importance of Australian based communication/listening post’s (Pine Gap/Geraldton,et cetera.)We are a target to destroy the US capability to function effectively, the USSR knows this and so will the Chinese, and we do represent a strategic problem to the Chinese in their efforts to assert their presence in the Pacific in their advance to become a major world player alongside the United States.
If the Chinese influence starts to really strategically dominate in the Pacific, New Zealand and Australia will not have an option but will have to pursue a more vigorous approach to its defence spending on equipment to help contain an overt Chinese military build up in the Pacific.
Through defence eyes what would be the most logical solution to counter a build up. I am sure rebuilding the ACF and additional frigates will go a long way to form a part of it, but an overall commitment to containment will mean more resource will be needed for information, being SIGINT/ENLINT, Australia have Collins class submarine and are in the preliminary stages of building the next. If in the future New Zealand was to able convert the two ANZAC hulls (feasible?) to an intelligence collection ship in the future, it will IMO bring a vitally important asset to the table gathering data on Chinese military fleet/vessel in the future.
Thoughts.
Oste Class Intelligence Collection Ship | Military-Today.com
Australian Defence Satellite Communications Station, Geraldton — Global Collaborative
China’s involvement in Fiji and Australia and New Zealand’s position | East Asia Forum
The O-Boat Mystery Boats
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the USSR was specifically focused upon the US & Europe and after 1968, China. Anything else like the South Pacific was incidental apart from as you have said US and allied communication and Sigint facilities like the Echelon facility at Waihopai Valley and Pine Gap. However they would have had a very strong focus on Hawaii and the US 7th Fleet because of their own Pacific Fleet.
I am in agreement that Australia and NZ are a strategic problem for China if it wishes to pursue military objectives in South East Asia, the Indian Ocean and the South Pacific, be they just projection of strength through port visits etc or through trainexs, navexs &operations in the Indian Ocean and the South Pacific. With regard to the Indian Ocean do not be surprised to see combined Chinese - Pakistani naval exercises in the Indian Ocean for two reasons.
1. There are good relations between Beijing and Pakistan with Pakistan being a major buyer of arms from Beijing.
2. They have a common "foe" in India and any Pakistani - Chinese naval - air ops in the Indian Ocean would cause discomfort to the Indians and to the US.
2. They have a common "foe" in India and any Pakistani - Chinese naval - air ops in the Indian Ocean would cause discomfort to the Indians and to the US.
At present there is nothing to suggest that the Chinese will follow this path. I know that in another thread I have suggested a long term goal of the Chinese will be to be "top dog" but that is a separate issue looking at things in a global context rather than a regional context. The article you cite China’s involvement in Fiji and Australia and New Zealand’s position | East Asia Forum supports my view that at present there are no signs of Chinese plans to obtain any strategic dominance in the South Pacific. However just because there are no sign it does not necessarily mean that such plans do not exist. The article cited states that the hard line approach taken by NZ and Australia towards Fiji, has contributed to increased Chinese economic influence in Fiji. I note that the article states that the Chinese are keeping Fiji at arms length with quite hard business clauses in the contracts.
The NZDF let alone the RNZN would never agree to converting the two current ANZAC hulls to non combatant role. It also would go against the DWP. The costs alone would not make it feasible. However during the cold war the Soviets used FVs to trail US and allied naval task forces for SIGINT/ENLINT purposes. There is no reason why a civilian designed and spec hulls could not be built and utilised for this purpose. I think that they would have to sail under the white ensign and with naval crews maybe with light armament for self defence, eg., 25mm Bushmaster, .50 cal LAWS, etc. It could be a joint RAN / RNZN op IMHO it would actually work better as a RAN / RNZN op. Also maybe possibility of operating future maritime UAV of it as well.
t68
Well-Known Member
Agree about RNZN not converting the current ship, just a thought out loud of striping any combat gear feasible to hopefully the next gen frigate, that with reduced demand on the ANZAC hulls might be viable in converting to intelligence gathering ship, I was aware about the Russian fishing trawlers in eavesdropping operations and have read about some of their antics to see what would happen and the outcome, more than once a diplomatic signal was sent about the way Russian ships operated.
I don’t know if you have read the book it came out last year by the look of it. The review of the book gives it the thumbs up, I’ll be going up to Angus&Roberston soon to order a copy, sounds very interesting.
Red Star over the Pacific: China's Rise and the Challenge to U.S. Maritime Strategy by Toshi Yoshihara and James R. Holmes.
http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2010/10/book-review-red-star-over-pacific.html
Last edited:
I agree any inteligence ship option would be a civilian based conversion and that it would need a close in defence option as this type of ship has been atacked in the past when the are in a position that is inconveniant to the the country they are listening too. Even frends can have fallings out over them. However aircraft may be a better option and the conversion of civil airliners can give a very long ranged option with the flexablity to be at a location quickly. the conversion of a combat frigate would not even be considered by Australia.
t68
Well-Known Member
That’s why the RAN has submarines, and has a go at blind man’s bluff.
They are more covert asset than an overt asset which would be the domain of RNZN intelligence gathering ship if acquired.
The submarines are still the the best covert ship available and tend to dictate the tatics and thinking of any opposing naval force.there was a move in the late 1980's by the navy to tie into the Collins program and have a navy of submarines and off shore patrol ships. The goverment at the time did not like it, some say because a submarine does not look as good to the tax payer. Would we be better of with this possiblity given the stelth ability of the sub and outright fear that they can induce in a surface fleet comander
t68
Well-Known Member
I do not doubt the RNZN is capable of operating a submarine; it’s just very bloody expensive.
Sure it will give RNZN a level of strategic capability never seen before, but in the light of a 2 frigate navy it’s somewhat of a defence budget eater.
From start of the project in the 1980’s till the delivery in 2003 of the last boat cost the Ausgov in excess of 6 billion dollars. With an estimated cost for the next 12 boats an estimate of 25 billons is doing the rounds. With NZgov unable to provide the funding of a third frigate i am sure they won’t cough up the 4 billion(6 billion for 3 next gen sub) for the 3 boats.3 would be the minimum on such a complex boat 1 operational 1 training 1 refit.
Gf would be the one to ask if ASC is capable of a new build Collins class.
No the RNZN would have to do the overt intel side with surface vessels. NZ$6 Billion is 6 x the current NZDF annual budget let alone AU$6 Billion for one platform. Aircraft are alright for SIGINT / ELINT work but only for short time periods measured in hours. Surface and sub surface vessels give you days, weeks and months on station. Big difference cost wise. With regard to airborne SIGINT / ELINT capabilities I am sure such could be built as standard for RNZAF / RAAF P8 Poseidon and as modules in RNZAF C295 / HC144 MRAP. Basically IMHO it would be silly to exclude such capabilities especially in the P8.
Vote Defence is actually now at NZ$2.85b, but you are right future subs at the Son of Collins level are some distance from our fiscal and operational capabilities not just now but for probably a very long time. We dont have the critical mass for it.
Dont forget that the DWP has pencilled in a future UAV capability as part of its optimal package post 2020 alongside the P-8. The scope is there for a solid INT collection and contribution.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Part of the reason why the Collins-class is so large, has to do with range, time on station, and Area of Operations. That is also why several of the Japanese subs are of similar size. A smaller Euro sub, designed for more littoral ops in places like the Baltic, North Sea, or the Med would IMO be the wrong type of designs to go with. The conops for such subs would different from the conops the subs were designed for. Not to mention the RNZN would still need to pay (and sustain) the whole support train for training, rescue, maintenance, etc.
While it would be nice if the RNZN could initiate a sub programme, that IMO is not going to happen, or at least not before an ACF is re-established...
-Cheers
My apologies. I stand corrected. For some reason I had NZ$1 Billion stuck in my mind as Vote Defence.
I don't see any point in NZ having a sub program. Even if we could afford it plus the 4 Frigates that we should have we couldn't crew them. In fact if we had 4 ANZACs at the moment we couldn't crew them. Not enough people in the RNZN. That's a issue that has to be addressed as well. Recruitment and the retainment of personnel in all three services. The ACF is far more important than any sub program. In fact I think more important than bringing the ANZAC hulls up from 2 to 4.
I have an idea of how we might be able to obtain Shornets for an ACF. It would involve us convincing the US that it would be of tremendous advantage to them that the RNZAF ACF be reactivated. However we have the issue of funding and since they have helped other nations to modernise their armed forces capabilities so there might be a US Foreign Military Aid Program where they would be able to help us acquire say 18 of the latest Shornets.
We can remind the US that we fought alongside them in Italy and the Pacific, Korea & Vietnam. Also we supported and helped them in the Sinai right from the start and are still there now and we are in Afghanistan. We have have sorted out our differences over the nuclear issue and that has been formalised in the Wellington Declaration off 2010. We also note that during the ANZUS breakup and subsequent cool political relationship between NZ and the US, much was achieved by both nations together in other fields despite the the cool relationship that existed at the time.
We don't need the Shornets right away because we need to train crews and reacquire skills that we lost. This we could do with the RAAF. Supply of the Shornets could be in blocks so that they are in line with the crew training. I've picked the Shornets because of compatibility with RAAF although I think the Typhoon a better aircraft, but the EU wouldn't give us a deal like we might be able to get from the US. All we need to do now is find someone with the suitable amount of cunning to pull it off.
Last edited:
The vote may be $2.85m but by the time you take out depeciation and the Government charge (This what the Government charge the forces for the use of government owned property, which use to be 11% of capital value ) You lose between 40 to 45% of of that. the real figure that the Armed Forces actually get their hands on is about $1.8b or about 20 days of the social security budget.
Yes the Collin's are huge, even larger than the Upholder and Kilo. Doubt however if any Euro made sub can be considered cheap unless it's acquired 2nd hand.