NZDF General discussion thread

[Hoffy]

No mate I didn't mean that as a back handed response. I should have worded it better. Hoffy's attitude just annoyed me. I have nothing but the greatest respect for Australia and Aussies except when it comes to sporting contests between us two.

I think you have completely missunderstood my point.
I was attempting to highlight that even though NZ is relatively isolated geographically , when things get hot - as occured during WWII the strategic relevance of NZ was highlighted. It also highlighted the importance of the contribution to the war effort at the time.
I certainly wasn't attempting to belittle the role of NZ in the past.
It shows how important it is to maintain a meaningful defence force today , hence the reference to the "predicting the future". The reference to "what a surprise" was for the peaceniks who think NZ is located in a benign strategic environment.
No need to be annoyed.

 

[Cadredave]

Actually CD, IIRC the legislation applies to any military service not just a navy & just to split hairs the USMC is part of the USN. By extension you could stretch it paramilitary services and units like the USCG and even civilian ships and aircraft. If some arse warmer in Wellington really wanted to get obnoxious they could ask the NY ANG to certify every time that one of their C17's or C130's flew in and out of ChCh that their was no nuclear weapons, power plants or materials onboard.

Correct NM but that legislation was written specifically for Naval Forces, most of the hostility has come from one US Command only COMPAC they are the ones who have been affected the most. Our working relationship with CENTCOM is second to none thats due to our operations in Astan wouldn't suprise me if the USMC unit that visits will come from CENTCOM & not COMPAC IMO. From wiki not the most reliable source but it will do If we we are going to split hairs :rolling (In the Civilian Leadership Structure of the United States Military, the Marine Corps is a component of the United States Department of the Navy, often working closely with U.S. Naval Forces for training, transportation, and logistic purposes; however, in the Military leadership structure the Marine Corps is a separate branch). there is a reason Govt choose the USMC and to lesser extent the USCG the next Army/Navy & Air Force News will release an article giving CDF new direction for the NZDF an Joint Inter Agency Deployable Amphibous Manouvre force based on the SW Pacific & Asia a major shift in thinking, training, transporting and logistics purposes for the NZDF.

 

[recce.k1]

It's somewhat awkward/intriging that, geographically NZ itself is well away from Centcom's AO but are contributing there, whereas NZ geographically is within Pacom's (I take it you meant Pacom) AO & has no training regime in place in this day and age (apart from visits to NZ from Pacom top brass). But things will get there....

My only concern is that I would not like to see a future NZDF "JIADAMF" (phew) continuing to exercise seperately with ADF and not Pacom & ADF (eg not invited to Talisman Sabre for example), that would be so effing unbelievably dysfunctional (as it is now) .... and instead be forced to packup, shift equipment and train in the MEO with ADF & US Centcom (despite at the end of the day, training is training and is to be welcomed)

In terms of cause and effect, for example any US/Pacom welcoming of RNZN to participate in exercises with them & ADF would more-than-likely speed up any NZG efforts to upgrade the RNZN's ANZAC Frigates. The need to interoperate and have systems that could contibute to the wider fleet defence and offense is paramount. (I wholeheartedly agree with Lucasnz that the RNZN suffered the most after the bust-up as the RNZN constantly trained and trained with the USN&RAN together. As an aside IMO for the RNZAF ACF the bust up sowed the seeds for their disbandment). It's in both NZ and Pacom's wider interest to come together again sooner rather than later.

* * * * * * * *

Meanwhile, further good news re NZ becoming integrated into the important US backend command systems for planning deployments etc.

Deploying without leaving the country
Jonathon Howe
Manawatu Standard 23 July

The NZ Army is hoping to save money by having command staff perform pre-deployment training online for multi-national military operations.

About 280 military staff from the ABCA Program - comprised of soldiers from NZ, Australia, Canada, Britain and the United States - completed the weeklong Allied Auroras exercise in their respective countries yesterday.

About 24 staff at the Linton Military Camp's simulation centre took part in the exercise, which was designed to simulate issues commanders and headquarters staff need to assess before deploying forces.

The technology used in the exercises allows military staff around the world to share tactics, techniques and procedures and recreate the look of battle theatres by connecting to a secure online network.

Major Michael Chivers of Linton, said command staff always went through training and rehearsals before any coalition operation, which includes the Afghanistan and East Timor deployments.

"The whole thing with a headquarters is it needs its own training before it goes into theatre".

The aim was to reduce the time and cost of sending staff overseas to help train others. "Sometimes transport can be prohibiting, sometimes we don't have time to send people. This is an effort to get better value for money. The benefits are we can actually create a training activity in a shorter time and we can simulate a lot of people on the ground."

Apart from some minor glitches, Major Chivers said the exercise, which had been planned for two years, was a success.

The exercise was held to coincide with daylight hours of the North American bases in Kansas and California in the US, and Kingston in Canada.

Most of the Linton staff were part of the 1st NZ Signals Regiment and the 1st Royal NZ Infantry Regiment, while scientists from Defence Force Technology agency and overseas military personnel also observed.

(Article has pic inside the Linton simulation centre with dozens of screens around the room as one would expect. Will link to article if/when appears online).

Hey NM - perhaps you may end up at DTA one day with your scientific skillsets!

 

[recce.k1]

Ok chappies, we may have an answer to one of the areas that can cause the NZDF to be distracted to the point that resources, effort and cost etc (eg when implementing a change in govt policy, in any form eg review, deployment opportunity, threat, engagment, foreign policy, change of govt or external relations etc, can be adversely affected); and it also involves that ongoing issue of scare funding, hopefully; but also may help cement bonds and full trust again with "close partners" & friends (as well as other emerging relationships with any host of nations as any independent nation would etc).

Could the NZDF use its "commercial" experience (gained from years of contracting to govt to supply the required services to implement the govt's foreign and defence policy etc) to that of contracting to likeminded friends and allies, for anything from logistic support services to alpine soldiering & aircraft-helo flying etc)?

The money raised would allow the NZDF to purchase modern (but proven MOTS, interoperable technology) to be credible (and perhaps a more pressing issue, than my post before, is that for other close partners such as ADF, US and perhaps for Pacom, is actually a perception of reliability of NZ's support and logistics train, naval forces etc, would have to have guaranteed reliability levels, but hence why new equipment acquisition could be sped up & capapilities beefed up (more numbers for reliability but again commonality is mantained), organisation and location etc etc.

But also ... this ticks all the bean counters boxes in terms of compliance (the bonus for NZDF is that the bean counters get to be the man with their allied counterparts, egos galore they'd love it and hopefully suffer an occassional whipping by the guys that sets the rules unless they see the light!). Most important of all the bean counters see a steady revenue stream come in.

I mean its happened elsewhere, education, business-partnership, contracts, TPP anyone? So why not Defence? Why not, they are run like a business. Win-Win-Win for NZDF/NZG/foreign relations)!!??

Of course NZDF/MoD need to be connected to their allied counterparts, which include the beancounters, GCSB etc (may as well make the peaceniks spend alot of time "researching" so they'd be happy in their "twisted" way? Win-win again in an odd but endearing way maybe with our 5th columnist friends ). But seriously we see as per above article further interconnectivity and interoperability options coming together, so there's the bonus of added reliability and security etc (and NZG needs to further expand in this area). This area is growing for NZDF anyway as per DWP investment in command and control development service wide etc.

But the enabler is the NZG supporting this but need to invest extra project funding to kick-start this (surely the studies have been done? Wouldn't the MoD have advocated for the NZDF and asked the Treasury to work together to study areas where there are openings to supply services or facilities eg that RSAF & LM pilot training initiative)? It must work both ways to be efficient surely?

Another reason for this is the NZG (and thus NZDF) needs to regain total trust with her closest partners and ensure it can provide reliability in all areas (as well as capabilities and services eg to also cope with maintaining even-flow foreign policy, commissioning studies into the likes of re-examining the nuclear ship port visits issue in a whole-of-govt Terrorism/NBC (thus the nuke ships etc) assessment of C21 threats (and deal with them) which as well as traditional state-state conflict the scope has widened and seems to be expanding eg internal state issues spilling over, population changes ie growth, ethnic transitions, refugees, boat people, etc, terrorism of course, now we have to contend with environmental and the effects of populations being affected by weather patterns altering (as they do) and natural disasters. (One would think it would be another good reason to give NZDF & MoD more funding, imagine being at the front end of having to contend with all that)?

So if this could be made to work there would be some extra niche capabilities that NZDF could grow and acquire, but also ensure existing systems are better supported eg from air/sea/land transport, the expansion to 3 battalions ... could we get a number of ranger coys in time as experienced soldiers, NCO's and officers of all nations partially withdraw from some parts of the middle east e c start eg alpine warfare, para again etc). What else could be possible? Or not or avoid etc?

 

[t68]

Ok chappies, we may have an answer to one of the areas that can cause the NZDF to be distracted to the point that resources, effort and cost etc (eg when implementing a change in govt policy, in any form eg review, deployment opportunity, threat, engagment, foreign policy, change of govt or external relations etc, can be adversely affected); and it also involves that ongoing issue of scare funding, hopefully; but also may help cement bonds and full trust again with "close partners" & friends (as well as other emerging relationships with any host of nations as any independent nation would etc).

Could the NZDF use its "commercial" experience (gained from years of contracting to govt to supply the required services to implement the govt's foreign and defence policy etc) to that of contracting to likeminded friends and allies, for anything from logistic support services to alpine soldiering & aircraft-helo flying etc)?

The money raised would allow the NZDF to purchase modern (but proven MOTS, interoperable technology) to be credible (and perhaps a more pressing issue, than my post before, is that for other close partners such as ADF, US and perhaps for Pacom, is actually a perception of reliability of NZ's support and logistics train, naval forces etc, would have to have guaranteed reliability levels, but hence why new equipment acquisition could be sped up & capapilities beefed up (more numbers for reliability but again commonality is mantained), organisation and location etc etc.

But also ... this ticks all the bean counters boxes in terms of compliance (the bonus for NZDF is that the bean counters get to be the man with their allied counterparts, egos galore they'd love it and hopefully suffer an occassional whipping by the guys that sets the rules unless they see the light!). Most important of all the bean counters see a steady revenue stream come in.

I mean its happened elsewhere, education, business-partnership, contracts, TPP anyone? So why not Defence? Why not, they are run like a business. Win-Win-Win for NZDF/NZG/foreign relations)!!??

Of course NZDF/MoD need to be connected to their allied counterparts, which include the beancounters, GCSB etc (may as well make the peaceniks spend alot of time "researching" so they'd be happy in their "twisted" way? Win-win again in an odd but endearing way maybe with our 5th columnist friends ). But seriously we see as per above article further interconnectivity and interoperability options coming together, so there's the bonus of added reliability and security etc (and NZG needs to further expand in this area). This area is growing for NZDF anyway as per DWP investment in command and control development service wide etc.

But the enabler is the NZG supporting this but need to invest extra project funding to kick-start this (surely the studies have been done? Wouldn't the MoD have advocated for the NZDF and asked the Treasury to work together to study areas where there are openings to supply services or facilities eg that RSAF & LM pilot training initiative)? It must work both ways to be efficient surely?

Another reason for this is the NZG (and thus NZDF) needs to regain total trust with her closest partners and ensure it can provide reliability in all areas (as well as capabilities and services eg to also cope with maintaining even-flow foreign policy, commissioning studies into the likes of re-examining the nuclear ship port visits issue in a whole-of-govt Terrorism/NBC (thus the nuke ships etc) assessment of C21 threats (and deal with them) which as well as traditional state-state conflict the scope has widened and seems to be expanding eg internal state issues spilling over, population changes ie growth, ethnic transitions, refugees, boat people, etc, terrorism of course, now we have to contend with environmental and the effects of populations being affected by weather patterns altering (as they do) and natural disasters. (One would think it would be another good reason to give NZDF & MoD more funding, imagine being at the front end of having to contend with all that)?

So if this could be made to work there would be some extra niche capabilities that NZDF could grow and acquire, but also ensure existing systems are better supported eg from air/sea/land transport, the expansion to 3 battalions ... could we get a number of ranger coys in time as experienced soldiers, NCO's and officers of all nations partially withdraw from some parts of the middle east e c start eg alpine warfare, para again etc). What else could be possible? Or not or avoid etc?

I am I little lost here,
Are trying to say that you want to contract out the NZDF to other countries at a price determined by the government for service and equipment that they already have?
If that’s the case I believe Australia is all ready doing that to a degree with Canterbury till the LHD/Largs bay come on line, we actually pay for time on it when required.

I think NZ is exploring this option with the RAAF for time on C17.

 

[dave_kiwi]

Correct NM but that legislation was written specifically for Naval Forces, most of the hostility has come from one US Command only COMPAC they are the ones who have been affected the most.

Well, it must be getting better, the RNZN got an invite to go and "play" at the next RIMPAC, and I believe that's a PACOM / COMPAC run exercise.

 

[Cadredave]

Well, it must be getting better, the RNZN got an invite to go and "play" at the next RIMPAC, and I believe that's a PACOM / COMPAC run exercise.

Good on RNZN hopefully COMPAC Commander Pacific got orders from higher to sort it out as his last brief while in NZ he made it quite clear that unless we change our Legislation then exchanges were not going to happen on his watch.

 

[recce.k1]

Well that still seems a little odd in that a commander is commenting on essentially a matter (ie the leglislation) that is normally the domain of his civilian political masters. Mind you he may likely have been repeating the view from the top, in which case would make better sense in this context. (And on the other hand if the view from the top was to allow an exchange then the commander would need to comply .... ).

As an aside, following the PM's trip to the US over the weekend, it has been interesting (and good, as in terms of clearing up any misconceptions) to read that US officials are somewhat weary of NZ overly interpreting any US intentions that relations are back to what they were pre-bustup. (OTOH hopefully the USG realise the NZG's hands are tied at the moment pre-election, so any olive branch should be recognised as such).

I'm also thinking (unlike the commander commenting that the legislation needs to change) that previous indications from the USG appear to be more along the lines that relations could be improved a lot faster if NZ simply reviewed the legislation. As briefly touched on prior, perhaps NZG could do this in a review of ALL hazards to NZ's ports, (and coastal infrastructure, environment, economy etc), as an across the board review of the likely threats NZ can face in the 21st Century via people & goods transiting ports and airports etc. Back in the 80's the fear was an all-out nuclear war or accident in port, now that threat has diminished the real threats today could still be NBC/terrorism, oil spill (think Horizons deepwater etc), bird flu, natural disaster affecting infrastructure (burst dams & clean water supply) and so on. It could also provide the opportunity to review the relevance of the more contentious parts of the legislation (that the likes of Margaret Wilson inserted to raise the ire of the US - essentially to remove US influence in NZ's foreign policy by withdrawing/winding down the relationship. Why? Because the vision of these people was to see a non-aligned NZ much like India was etc (and well-known dinosaur anti-US activist Ms Leadbeater confirmed that on RNZ Morning Report this morning). Apart from being unrealistic in the first place, this is even more so dangerous for NZ's well-being in this modern changing world).

* * * * * * *

@ t68 - to answer what was I thinking, I was suggesting or asking whether there was an opportunity for NZDF to indeed contract for certain opportunities (there's sh*tloads of money out there in terms of defence contracting) & certainly NZDF has some experience "contracting" for NZG "work". As to exactly what, well I was outlining a framework, and there are others here better qualified to make suggestions than me but I offered some simple ideas such as helo mountain flying training (something that Australia may find useful due to its flatter typography) or alpine soldiering. My thought was that it wouldn't be a panacea for NZDF's funding shortfalls, but a bit of a niche area which might have excited the bean counters. My other thought was that, the NZDF being busy as it is with "soldiering" should partner up with the MOD and the MOD should take the lead with Treasury and make Treasury work for NZDF for a change (and supply some seed money) rather than being the brickwall that they are. Anyway let's forget it, too hard and not our brief here!

PS - In my defence of this "crazy" idea, I must say I was "inspired" by this post that I had just read prior and couldn't stop laughing (as I wrote the above - blame it on posting too late at night, especially on a Sat night):
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/s...eat-aliens-who-invade-earth-11302/#post224412
I thought, man, if this person can write something "crazy" then maybe my "crazy" post would appear a lot less so! (PS nice reply by GF, I think he should keep that there to draw to anyone else's attention wishing to raise space aliens, that this is an example of what will happen to the one posting prompt smart)

 

[Todjaeger]

@ t68 - to answer what was I thinking, I was suggesting or asking whether there was an opportunity for NZDF to indeed contract for certain opportunities (there's sh*tloads of money out there in terms of defence contracting) & certainly NZDF has some experience "contracting" for NZG "work". As to exactly what, well I was outlining a framework, and there are others here better qualified to make suggestions than me but I offered some simple ideas such as helo mountain flying training (something that Australia may find useful due to its flatter typography) or alpine soldiering. My thought was that it wouldn't be a panacea for NZDF's funding shortfalls, but a bit of a niche area which might have excited the bean counters. My other thought was that, the NZDF being busy as it is with "soldiering" should partner up with the MOD and the MOD should take the lead with Treasury and make Treasury work for NZDF for a change (and supply some seed money) rather than being the brickwall that they are. Anyway let's forget it, too hard and not our brief here!

PS - In my defence of this "crazy" idea, I must say I was "inspired" by this post that I had just read prior and couldn't stop laughing (as I wrote the above - blame it on posting too late at night, especially on a Sat night):
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/s...eat-aliens-who-invade-earth-11302/#post224412
I thought, man, if this person can write something "crazy" then maybe my "crazy" post would appear a lot less so! (PS nice reply by GF, I think he should keep that there to draw to anyone else's attention wishing to raise space aliens, that this is an example of what will happen to the one posting prompt smart)

Not to steal your thunder Recce, but I had actually made a suggestion some time ago, either here in the NZDF thread or perhaps in the RNZN or RNZAF threads about potential capabilities that the NZDF could develop and utilize for friendl/allied nations and get 'paid' for providing such capabilities.

The areas where I had made some specific suggestions about potential capabilities were all within areas of logistical support. More specifically MRTT and/or RAS capabilities. While such capabilities are not as sexy as 'pointy' capabilities, they are the sort of capabilities which get used in war and peace time.

In addition to providing additional range/projection capabilities to the NZDF, the ability to conduct in-flight refueling or aircraft could potentially benefit allied air forces and air arms by enabling the RAAF, USAF, USCG, USN, USMC, etc to be refueled by RNZAF while flying over the S. Pacific or wherever the RNZAF might be operating a MRTT. If NZ provided such a capability, I would expect that other militaries would be happy to 'pay' for using the capability as needed, and it would free up user-military's own tanker/transport fleets to conduct similar missions elsewhere, or engage in cargo lifts, etc. A similar situation could exist if HMNZS Endeavour were to be replaced with a full-sized fuel and dry stores AOR. Such a vessel could provide RAS for RNZN and allied vessels or task forces in the S. Pacific, or if an Kiwi vessels needed to deploy further afield, the AOR could provide a task force with replenishment.

-Cheers

 

[dave_kiwi]

Good on RNZN hopefully COMPAC Commander Pacific got orders from higher to sort it out as his last brief while in NZ he made it quite clear that unless we change our Legislation then exchanges were not going to happen on his watch.

Interesting, certainly some exchanges have been taking place between RNZN & USCG - if you look back through the RNZN News ? (the navy mag), there is an article about some USCG personal onboard the IPVs.. not sure if it was earlier this year, or last year. Also, from memory, the Commandant of the USCG paid a visit to NZ in either 2009 or 2010. So, I think really the only major out-standing issue would be a visit of some sort of vessel, be it USN or USCG.

 

[ngatimozart]

Hey NM - perhaps you may end up at DTA one day with your scientific skillsets!

Nah mate - I have the wrong skill set for them and I don't know if the job security is that good in these lean times. I did enquire earlier this year of the RNZN and I do have a skill set that would fit within the hydrographic branch but my class prejudices kicked in because I want to work for a living not live in a wardroom An interesting point arose the NZ Armed Forces do not have an upper age restriction. If you pass all the medicals and meet the physical requirements etc., and can do the job you can join up. They are not allowed to have an upper age limit because of the Human Rights Legislation which is the same legislation that lets the wahine (females) apply for and be considered for any job in the forces.

 

[ngatimozart]

Good on RNZN hopefully COMPAC Commander Pacific got orders from higher to sort it out as his last brief while in NZ he made it quite clear that unless we change our Legislation then exchanges were not going to happen on his watch.

IIRC in 1984 / 85 Schultz was Sec State or Sec Def for the US and he really went to town on the issue; had a real hissy fit, spat the dummy & threw all his toys out of the cot. The interesting thing was that the anti nuke legislation had minority support in NZ until the Schultz spat the dummy big time. His tone & threats etc., actually galvanised the population behind Lange & co because the average Kiwi saw it as NZ being bullied. If he'd just thrown one tantrum and then said a few words over a while the whole thing would have blown over with a very quiet work around being negotiated amiciably. Our issue then wasn't so much with the US but the French because of Muroroa (not sure if I spelt it right).

I think the present C-in-C PACOM might be game playing for somebody in Congress of the Pentagon, or he may have over stepped his authority because it is not PACOM who sets US Policy but President and the Sate Department.

 

[recce.k1]

Not to steal your thunder Recce, but I had actually made a suggestion some time ago, either here in the NZDF thread or perhaps in the RNZN or RNZAF threads about potential capabilities that the NZDF could develop and utilize for friendl/allied nations and get 'paid' for providing such capabilities.

The areas where I had made some specific suggestions about potential capabilities were all within areas of logistical support. More specifically MRTT and/or RAS capabilities. While such capabilities are not as sexy as 'pointy' capabilities, they are the sort of capabilities which get used in war and peace time.

In addition to providing additional range/projection capabilities to the NZDF, the ability to conduct in-flight refueling or aircraft could potentially benefit allied air forces and air arms by enabling the RAAF, USAF, USCG, USN, USMC, etc to be refueled by RNZAF while flying over the S. Pacific or wherever the RNZAF might be operating a MRTT. If NZ provided such a capability, I would expect that other militaries would be happy to 'pay' for using the capability as needed, and it would free up user-military's own tanker/transport fleets to conduct similar missions elsewhere, or engage in cargo lifts, etc. A similar situation could exist if HMNZS Endeavour were to be replaced with a full-sized fuel and dry stores AOR. Such a vessel could provide RAS for RNZN and allied vessels or task forces in the S. Pacific, or if an Kiwi vessels needed to deploy further afield, the AOR could provide a task force with replenishment.

-Cheers

All good Todjaeger, it had escaped my mind when I wrote but I do recall your post on this now (and I recall not many if any had provided you feedback).

From my perspective there's nothing wrong with enhancing logistical support capabilities (especially for a nation like NZ), and as you wisely observe "they are the sort of capabilities which get used in war and peace time", which ticks the right boxes for the NZDF's political masters (there had been, and probablly still is, a view from the pollies that defence capabilities with a dual military/civil role will be better supported).

1. I do like the MRTT idea (because having that capability high above the pacific would have its uses) but I feel there are some problems - NZ no longer has air assets that require in-flight refueling (ACF) meaning that officials would be unconvinced etc. Perhaps if future acquisitions could have air-refueling capability, such as a potential P-3 replacement (P-8 etc), then allowing a thirsty jet to be able to be tanked up to extend its patrol mission if there was a critical need would indeed be handy. Perhaps this is something for the post-2020 stage when the P-3 replacement advances.

As for allied aircraft, alas not many come to NZ than they would Australia, as an example, therefore in the meantime this MRTT role could best be taken up by the ADF. They certainly have the capability coming on-line, and more importantly the numbers of airframes (with possibly more to come) to sustain any additional tanking requirements. Also politically Australia would have less "issues" in coming to an arrangement with, for example, the US military forces than NZ would unfortunately (hence my comment prior, NZ needs to make some "political" moves itself to reduce US anxieties, rather than expect simply goodwill from suggesting USCG or USN visits, which still don't appear to be forthcoming reading the latest political tea leaves).

But (and putting the above politics aside) your MRTT idea could work to an extent if NZ decided to acquire 2-3 of the same A330 MRTT aircraft as the RAAF and pool them in the ANZAC joint-force. This way it wouldn't matter if a RNZAF or RAAF example was tasked to refuel an allied aircraft here, in OZ or elsewhere, they could at times inter-operate. Perhaps this is the most logical option. But alas there still appears to be a NZG relucantance (well at this point in time) to acquire such assets. Mind you the DWP door is slightly ajar in terms of the 757 replacement as a possibility (but personally I'd be happy if NZG bite the bullet and replaced the 757 with at least 2 A-400 or C-17's). And this is the problem, NZG invests in a capability but IMO not enough. Eg the two 757's should have been three to ensure reliability of service. But if NZ operated the same type as ADF then perhaps the NZG could remain tight with 2 or 3 examples knowing there is an inter-operable back-up available if things went pair shaped.

(Now as it happens the NZG has released the report into the IED attack on the NZPRT last year and there was criticism that a RNZAF 757 was re-tasked to deploy to Afghanistan to repatriate the injured servicemen and officer killed. Alas because the 757 was already on another mission thus the AME module wasn't fitted at the time, meaning that the injured servicemen had to sit on the journey home and other medical equipment was lacking. I've been pondering this over wondering whether the AME module should be left fitted in the 757 when off-line, so that they are ready to fly at a moment's notice with the necessary equipment. And when a 757 is tasked for rountine cargo or troop transport then that's when the AME module is removed. But I'm thinking perhaps the better option is to replace the 757 sooner, and with something 100% compatible with ADF be that A330MRTT or C-17 - yes NZ buy these not ask to acquire flight hours - so that if a NZDF example is on another tasking then it may be easier to ask for an ADF example to be sent instead and vice-versa etc. That is, a joint ANZAC A330MRTT or C-17 support force would have sufficient numbers to potentially allow at least one aircraft to be setup for AME emergencies 24/7. It's virtually too difficult for the NZDF to be at that state of readiness itself with only two 757 examples, and as for the ADF, I'm sure they too have their own, much greater logistics taskings to always guarantee this themselves, although at least with an ADF C-17 I presume it's much quicker to fit any AME module themselves via the ramp in an emergency than it would be for the RNZAF 757's, which are fitted thru the side cargo door)?

2. RAS/AOR capabilities. This to me is a more likely and better situation. A well equipped Endeavour replacement, ideally two for the obvious reasons that 1 doesn't provide 365 days coverage etc.

In fact there could be other sea possibilities, for example, my reading on the USCG situation last week seemed to suggest that the USCG is (or wishes to) contract out Antarctic ice-breaking to a commercial provider (non USCG example). Now if NZ acquired an ice-breaker, there could be opportunities here to contract to others (and in fact Antarctic NZ relies on the US ice-breakers to clear routes to the continent each year. So there would also be NZ whole-of-govt support. Now it's interesting that for the past few years RNZAF P-3's are conducting summer Antarctic patrols and one of the NZOPV's were deployed there last summer (and they were practicing ship-to-shore insertion and possibly ship-to-ship boardings?), reading between the lines I wondering if there are other motives for a stepped up NZ presence there than simply monitoring EEZ fisheries etc? If so, a kiwi ice-breaker on-station could have its uses as well as provide SAR for vessels in distress.

 

[recce.k1]

IIRC in 1984 / 85 Schultz was Sec State or Sec Def for the US and he really went to town on the issue; had a real hissy fit, spat the dummy & threw all his toys out of the cot. The interesting thing was that the anti nuke legislation had minority support in NZ until the Schultz spat the dummy big time. His tone & threats etc., actually galvanised the population behind Lange & co because the average Kiwi saw it as NZ being bullied. If he'd just thrown one tantrum and then said a few words over a while the whole thing would have blown over with a very quiet work around being negotiated amiciably. Our issue then wasn't so much with the US but the French because of Muroroa (not sure if I spelt it right).

I think what really pushed the NZ public's buttons was the French Govt's act-of-terrorism in 1985, with the USS Buchanan debarcle fresh in people's minds. NZ peaceniks public enemy no1 were actually the French with their Mururoa atoll testing - NZ public majority still supported ANZUS and ship visits but public opinion underwent a transformational shift overnight after the Greenpeace bombing with the pollies and peaceniks making the most of the gift that the frogs handed them on a golden plate. Like anything in life it was a matter of timing and alas for NZ-US relations this incident came at the worse possible moment (and US-UK silence added fuel to the firestorm being whipped up). Anyway one can't help what individuals do and one shouldn't dwell on individuals in a past life, so personally I don't have an issue with the French as such, the more we continue to work with them in the Pacific the better.

I think the present C-in-C PACOM might be game playing for somebody in Congress of the Pentagon, or he may have over stepped his authority because it is not PACOM who sets US Policy but President and the Sate Department.

I'd better shuddup about this fella before a cruise missile is fired at me, but I suspect, like "certain" managers one encounters in the work place, there are always some that wish to climb the corporate ladder therefore they will not put their sympathies & engeries with the local workforce they manage, but instead the managers at the top to which they aspire to. No fault of his of course, but perhaps this fella would like to assume a leadership role in the Pentagon one day therefore he doesn't want to be the one in which exchanges happen under his command, lest he get the ribbing later on in life by his Pentagon colleagues (or find certain career path doors closing). Still, that to me doesn't inspire "leadership" and "respect", but instead denotes ambitions and a "stuff anyone else who gets in the way" attitude ... Leadership is also about pragmatism and getting the best out of all your underlings/colleagues/counterparts for the common good, not groupthink (and really, in a military environment, groupthink is not really a good idea, as history demonstrates etc)

 

[ngatimozart]

All good Todjaeger, it had escaped my mind when I wrote but I do recall your post on this now (and I recall not many if any had provided you feedback).

From my perspective there's nothing wrong with enhancing logistical support capabilities (especially for a nation like NZ), and as you wisely observe "they are the sort of capabilities which get used in war and peace time", which ticks the right boxes for the NZDF's political masters (there had been, and probablly still is, a view from the pollies that defence capabilities with a dual military/civil role will be better supported).

1. I do like the MRTT idea (because having that capability high above the pacific would have its uses) but I feel there are some problems - NZ no longer has air assets that require in-flight refueling (ACF) meaning that officials would be unconvinced etc. Perhaps if future acquisitions could have air-refueling capability, such as a potential P-3 replacement (P-8 etc), then allowing a thirsty jet to be able to be tanked up to extend its patrol mission if there was a critical need would indeed be handy. Perhaps this is something for the post-2020 stage when the P-3 replacement advances.

As for allied aircraft, alas not many come to NZ than they would Australia, as an example, therefore in the meantime this MRTT role could best be taken up by the ADF. They certainly have the capability coming on-line, and more importantly the numbers of airframes (with possibly more to come) to sustain any additional tanking requirements. Also politically Australia would have less "issues" in coming to an arrangement with, for example, the US military forces than NZ would unfortunately (hence my comment prior, NZ needs to make some "political" moves itself to reduce US anxieties, rather than expect simply goodwill from suggesting USCG or USN visits, which still don't appear to be forthcoming reading the latest political tea leaves).

But (and putting the above politics aside) your MRTT idea could work to an extent if NZ decided to acquire 2-3 of the same A330 MRTT aircraft as the RAAF and pool them in the ANZAC joint-force. This way it wouldn't matter if a RNZAF or RAAF example was tasked to refuel an allied aircraft here, in OZ or elsewhere, they could at times inter-operate. Perhaps this is the most logical option. But alas there still appears to be a NZG relucantance (well at this point in time) to acquire such assets. Mind you the DWP door is slightly ajar in terms of the 757 replacement as a possibility (but personally I'd be happy if NZG bite the bullet and replaced the 757 with at least 2 A-400 or C-17's). And this is the problem, NZG invests in a capability but IMO not enough. Eg the two 757's should have been three to ensure reliability of service. But if NZ operated the same type as ADF then perhaps the NZG could remain tight with 2 or 3 examples knowing there is an inter-operable back-up available if things went pair shaped.

(Now as it happens the NZG has released the report into the IED attack on the NZPRT last year and there was criticism that a RNZAF 757 was re-tasked to deploy to Afghanistan to repatriate the injured servicemen and officer killed. Alas because the 757 was already on another mission thus the AME module wasn't fitted at the time, meaning that the injured servicemen had to sit on the journey home and other medical equipment was lacking. I've been pondering this over wondering whether the AME module should be left fitted in the 757 when off-line, so that they are ready to fly at a moment's notice with the necessary equipment. And when a 757 is tasked for rountine cargo or troop transport then that's when the AME module is removed. But I'm thinking perhaps the better option is to replace the 757 sooner, and with something 100% compatible with ADF be that A330MRTT or C-17 - yes NZ buy these not ask to acquire flight hours - so that if a NZDF example is on another tasking then it may be easier to ask for an ADF example to be sent instead and vice-versa etc. That is, a joint ANZAC A330MRTT or C-17 support force would have sufficient numbers to potentially allow at least one aircraft to be setup for AME emergencies 24/7. It's virtually too difficult for the NZDF to be at that state of readiness itself with only two 757 examples, and as for the ADF, I'm sure they too have their own, much greater logistics taskings to always guarantee this themselves, although at least with an ADF C-17 I presume it's much quicker to fit any AME module themselves via the ramp in an emergency than it would be for the RNZAF 757's, which are fitted thru the side cargo door)?

The idea of contracting out NZDF capability does have merit and both the bean counters and polis would be quick to see a political gain from it, if it could be couched in terms that they could easily grasp (words of one syllable or less ) Your point of our tyranny of distance or spatial dislocation should only be seen as a slight hindrance rather than a major obstacle. But seriously I would suggest 3 if not 4 KC 30 MRTT to the same specs as the RAAF for exactly the same reasons you give. I would make sure that they meet the ISAF requirements for flying into Afghan. That's the B757 replacement plus the extra capability that you mention. I am sure the ADF would be highly appreciative of extra tanker assets in the South Pacific. Don't forget the French Armed Forces in French Polynesia. Then there is the USAF, USMC, USN, RSAF etc. Now that the PM has volunteered the RNZN to work with the Indian Navy, in anti piracy patrols why can't we work with the Indians or any one else who is acceptable?

The A400M. It does have some trials and tribulations at the moment and I believe the cost could be relatively high but 4 aircraft would give us good capability. There is the annual summer ops to the Ice and Congress has cut funding to the NSF for Antarctic Ops amongst other things. I also think the US Defence is going to get a big chop in funding and programs like the NY ANG C17's coming out here (to do the flights to McMurdo) and the C130's being based here might be severally cut. If the RNZAF were to have either, the A400m or C17's, to fill that gap then they would be in a position to fill the contract for that airlift, plus the mid winter fly and any medivacs from the ice. Secondly we could also seriously leverage a contract for the Italian Antarctic Program logistics which at the moment is contracted out to a civilian firm. Might as well keep it in house. Plus the MRTT's could be used for pax so freeing up the A400M / C17 for freight only. I am sure Airbus wouldn't mind strengthening the undercarriage assembly for ice landings same as the B757s have.

Again such a capacity offers extra capability to the ADF and the French. Also the RNZAF could enter the air freight business which is not as silly as it sounds. It would be a good earner especially for oversize stuff that can't go by normal air freight services. It's just a matter of thinking outside the square. If you invest in this capability then maximise the use of it by doing a bit of commercial work. I am sure there is precedent in NZ. Same with rotary wing.

2. RAS/AOR capabilities. This to me is a more likely and better situation. A well equipped Endeavour replacement, ideally two for the obvious reasons that 1 doesn't provide 365 days coverage etc.

In fact there could be other sea possibilities, for example, my reading on the USCG situation last week seemed to suggest that the USCG is (or wishes to) contract out Antarctic ice-breaking to a commercial provider (non USCG example). Now if NZ acquired an ice-breaker, there could be opportunities here to contract to others (and in fact Antarctic NZ relies on the US ice-breakers to clear routes to the continent each year. So there would also be NZ whole-of-govt support. Now it's interesting that for the past few years RNZAF P-3's are conducting summer Antarctic patrols and one of the NZOPV's were deployed there last summer (and they were practicing ship-to-shore insertion and possibly ship-to-ship boardings?), reading between the lines I wondering if there are other motives for a stepped up NZ presence there than simply monitoring EEZ fisheries etc? If so, a kiwi ice-breaker on-station could have its uses as well as provide SAR for vessels in distress.

Yes the P3K has flown from McMurdo more than once but they have to take all offensive weapons systems out in order to comply with the Antarctic Treaty
which forbids weapons on the continent. I would be unsure about the P8 operating from there because of the short undercarriage and the low intakes relative to the ground. (Hangover from the B737)

The NZOPV's have done some operational trials down there last summer. http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/well/rec-act/07032011.htm In one of the Navy Today's they had a writeup of the trip with some awesome photos. Can't remember which one unfortunately - old age and senility . Again the OPV's would be skirting the Antarctic Treaty protocols re arms, but I am sure the lawyers will have sorted that.

The Aussies have an icebreaker which they use for their Antarctic support out of Hobart. It would make good business sense for say the RNZN to own & crew an icebreaker and pick up the USCG contract for breaking the ice into McMurdo as well as seaborne logistics. In that case the Canterbury complement or replacement should be ice strengthened and use that to do the seaborne logistics. Another bite of the cherry for NZDF. If the ship was run in collaboration with Antarctic NZ during the summer & NIWA off season for research then it would pay for itself, plus would give RNZN valuable skills operating in ice environment. You most definitely have the right idea.

Trouble with these ideas is convincing the politicians and bean counters that they would be viable in te long term. NZDF does have to carve a niche for itself and does have to go commercial in order to be good at what it does and gain the ability and cash to be very good at what it does.

Addition. I forgot to add the C130 flights from McMurdo to the Pole that is done by the NY ANG. Another reason for RNZAF to acquire some C130J's & fit them with skis.

 

[Todjaeger]

All good Todjaeger, it had escaped my mind when I wrote but I do recall your post on this now (and I recall not many if any had provided you feedback).

From my perspective there's nothing wrong with enhancing logistical support capabilities (especially for a nation like NZ), and as you wisely observe "they are the sort of capabilities which get used in war and peace time", which ticks the right boxes for the NZDF's political masters (there had been, and probablly still is, a view from the pollies that defence capabilities with a dual military/civil role will be better supported).

1. I do like the MRTT idea (because having that capability high above the pacific would have its uses) but I feel there are some problems - NZ no longer has air assets that require in-flight refueling (ACF) meaning that officials would be unconvinced etc. Perhaps if future acquisitions could have air-refueling capability, such as a potential P-3 replacement (P-8 etc), then allowing a thirsty jet to be able to be tanked up to extend its patrol mission if there was a critical need would indeed be handy. Perhaps this is something for the post-2020 stage when the P-3 replacement advances.

As for allied aircraft, alas not many come to NZ than they would Australia, as an example, therefore in the meantime this MRTT role could best be taken up by the ADF. They certainly have the capability coming on-line, and more importantly the numbers of airframes (with possibly more to come) to sustain any additional tanking requirements. Also politically Australia would have less "issues" in coming to an arrangement with, for example, the US military forces than NZ would unfortunately (hence my comment prior, NZ needs to make some "political" moves itself to reduce US anxieties, rather than expect simply goodwill from suggesting USCG or USN visits, which still don't appear to be forthcoming reading the latest political tea leaves).

But (and putting the above politics aside) your MRTT idea could work to an extent if NZ decided to acquire 2-3 of the same A330 MRTT aircraft as the RAAF and pool them in the ANZAC joint-force. This way it wouldn't matter if a RNZAF or RAAF example was tasked to refuel an allied aircraft here, in OZ or elsewhere, they could at times inter-operate. Perhaps this is the most logical option. But alas there still appears to be a NZG relucantance (well at this point in time) to acquire such assets. Mind you the DWP door is slightly ajar in terms of the 757 replacement as a possibility (but personally I'd be happy if NZG bite the bullet and replaced the 757 with at least 2 A-400 or C-17's). And this is the problem, NZG invests in a capability but IMO not enough. Eg the two 757's should have been three to ensure reliability of service. But if NZ operated the same type as ADF then perhaps the NZG could remain tight with 2 or 3 examples knowing there is an inter-operable back-up available if things went pair shaped.

(Now as it happens the NZG has released the report into the IED attack on the NZPRT last year and there was criticism that a RNZAF 757 was re-tasked to deploy to Afghanistan to repatriate the injured servicemen and officer killed. Alas because the 757 was already on another mission thus the AME module wasn't fitted at the time, meaning that the injured servicemen had to sit on the journey home and other medical equipment was lacking. I've been pondering this over wondering whether the AME module should be left fitted in the 757 when off-line, so that they are ready to fly at a moment's notice with the necessary equipment. And when a 757 is tasked for rountine cargo or troop transport then that's when the AME module is removed. But I'm thinking perhaps the better option is to replace the 757 sooner, and with something 100% compatible with ADF be that A330MRTT or C-17 - yes NZ buy these not ask to acquire flight hours - so that if a NZDF example is on another tasking then it may be easier to ask for an ADF example to be sent instead and vice-versa etc. That is, a joint ANZAC A330MRTT or C-17 support force would have sufficient numbers to potentially allow at least one aircraft to be setup for AME emergencies 24/7. It's virtually too difficult for the NZDF to be at that state of readiness itself with only two 757 examples, and as for the ADF, I'm sure they too have their own, much greater logistics taskings to always guarantee this themselves, although at least with an ADF C-17 I presume it's much quicker to fit any AME module themselves via the ramp in an emergency than it would be for the RNZAF 757's, which are fitted thru the side cargo door)?

2. RAS/AOR capabilities. This to me is a more likely and better situation. A well equipped Endeavour replacement, ideally two for the obvious reasons that 1 doesn't provide 365 days coverage etc.

In fact there could be other sea possibilities, for example, my reading on the USCG situation last week seemed to suggest that the USCG is (or wishes to) contract out Antarctic ice-breaking to a commercial provider (non USCG example). Now if NZ acquired an ice-breaker, there could be opportunities here to contract to others (and in fact Antarctic NZ relies on the US ice-breakers to clear routes to the continent each year. So there would also be NZ whole-of-govt support. Now it's interesting that for the past few years RNZAF P-3's are conducting summer Antarctic patrols and one of the NZOPV's were deployed there last summer (and they were practicing ship-to-shore insertion and possibly ship-to-ship boardings?), reading between the lines I wondering if there are other motives for a stepped up NZ presence there than simply monitoring EEZ fisheries etc? If so, a kiwi ice-breaker on-station could have its uses as well as provide SAR for vessels in distress.

An AAR capability would IMO be of limited utility for aircraft such as the P-8 Poseidon, but that is due to a limitation inherent in those aircraft. A P-8 has a maximum mission duration (once on-station at least) of between 15-18 hours, and that limitation is dictated by on-board fluid capacity. I could be mistaken, but I believe that fluid is either a lubricant or coolant for some of the mission systems. Being able to 'top up' a P-8 on station would only ever really be useful if the station was a great distance from the airport/field/base the P-8 was operating from. Now smaller MPA, like CN-235MPA or C-295MPA Persuaders might benefit greatly from AAR.

To be honest though, I disagree that the current RNZAF air fleet has little or no use for AAR following the disbandment of the ACF. Take the C-130H's for instance. In order for the C-130H's to have sufficient range to fly from locations like Auckland to Sydney, the max cargo load is only ~15,900 kg, well short of the max payload of ~19,000 kg. Now if the RNZAF had some form of AAR, if heavily laden C-130H's (or other aircraft for that matter) could be refueled to allow larger loads to be flown across the Tasman, and/or require less landing and refueling sites en route to the final destination.

As for friendly/allied opportunities to utilize a RNZAF AAR capability, a few examples sprang to mind. One which has occurred and is still sort of on-going would be the ferry-flight stops RAAF SHornets make in NZ transiting from the US to Australia. Such stops could potentially be eliminated in the SHornets were able to be tanked somewhere between NZ and Australia, or between the US and NZ. Now in peace time it might be perfectly fine to land in a friendly nation, I can foresee a crisis situation not allowing for the time a fighter (or other transiting aircraft) would lose making a landing, refueling, etc. Another consideration from my POV is that such tanking missions need not be just refueling aircraft entering or leaving Kiwi airspace. A MRTT like the A330 has fairly long 'legs' as it were, so such an aircraft could leave Auckland flying north, and loiter somewhere over the Pacific or perhaps the Solomons to refuel aircraft flying between Australia and Hawaii, or perhaps Hawaii and Guam, the Philippines or Indonesia/Malaysia/Singapore.

It all depends on the origin and destination of a flight, but the rather long distances involved in the Pacific, the ability of the RNZAF to position AAR along some regional flight routes could ease logistical burdens the USAF and RAAF encounter.

When I get a chance, I will consider Kiwi opportunities to provide service for US Antarctic efforts.

-Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

Hey Tod (and NM), just a very quick (albiet late) reply to acknowledge your responses. Actually you make some compelling reasons, that do seem very logical in the scheme of things. I'd go along with your views! (Especially as being discussed in the RAN thread at present is the need to refuel the ADF's air assets to protect the new LHD task forces etc. Some NZ AAR could be of benefit in this wider region).

Just further pondering, I'd imagine the problem for the NZDF is the limited budget, so alas perhaps, ideas like these whilst they might seem great, suffer from there being other priorities just being more important. No doubt NZDF planners have a number of capabilities bubbling under the surface should the strategic environment & Govt directives warrant them, so for me I think I'll park this idea up. Mind you the thing to watch will be the C-130/757 replacement programme & options in the near future...

In the meantime as Mr C as advised, we may have some interesting discussions very shortly on the NZG announcing the next lot of acquisitions & structural changes ....

 

[treehuggingaj]

First Post

Hey guys,

This is my first post (apart from the intro) and I am not that computer literate so I hope it work

I have a few questions but I may start with commenting on the 757 replacement and a NZ AAR capability as it is the latest topic. I feel the RNZAF should follow the RAAF and buy the KC-30's. With small Defence forces, one of their strengths should be inter-operability with other forces. I don't see the NZG going for AAR...but maybe they could purchase them "fitted for but not with" so that in the event they are needed it would not require as much modification. I think the Kiwis have the right idea with keeping things compatible with the Aussies, (they got their Sea Sprites working) so hopefully this keeps happening. Is this the right time to start talking about "Romeos" for 6 Sqn and re-acivating 75 Sqn with Hawks.......

Anyway, my question is about 5 Sqn's new toys. I read (in Aviation Australia i think) that the upgraded Orion's no longer have the MAD boom. They still have the airframe boom, but the equipment is removed. Does this mean they no longer have a ASW capability, or the MAD was just made redundant in the upgrade?

One more question. With regards to the A109's, the RNZAF purchased 5 initially, with plans for 3 more, correct? I have just read varying reports in different areas.

Cheers guys.

 

[ngatimozart]

Hey guys,

This is my first post (apart from the intro) and I am not that computer literate so I hope it work

I have a few questions but I may start with commenting on the 757 replacement and a NZ AAR capability as it is the latest topic. I feel the RNZAF should follow the RAAF and buy the KC-30's. With small Defence forces, one of their strengths should be inter-operability with other forces. I don't see the NZG going for AAR...but maybe they could purchase them "fitted for but not with" so that in the event they are needed it would not require as much modification. I think the Kiwis have the right idea with keeping things compatible with the Aussies, (they got their Sea Sprites working) so hopefully this keeps happening. Is this the right time to start talking about "Romeos" for 6 Sqn and re-acivating 75 Sqn with Hawks.......

Anyway, my question is about 5 Sqn's new toys. I read (in Aviation Australia i think) that the upgraded Orion's no longer have the MAD boom. They still have the airframe boom, but the equipment is removed. Does this mean they no longer have a ASW capability, or the MAD was just made redundant in the upgrade?

One more question. With regards to the A109's, the RNZAF purchased 5 initially, with plans for 3 more, correct? I have just read varying reports in different areas.

Cheers guys.

Welcome mate. In answer to your question about the A109s, yes 3 extra aircraft were acquired because in the PMs words they were so cheap. I am not so sure about the MAD but from what I have read the P3K2 still have ASW capability with MAD not being so much of an issue these days - the P8 Poseidon doesn't have MAD. I could be wrong in that respect and those far more knowledgeable than I will correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Gibbo]

Welcome mate. In answer to your question about the A109s, yes 3 extra aircraft were acquired because in the PMs words they were so cheap. I am not so sure about the MAD but from what I have read the P3K2 still have ASW capability with MAD not being so much of an issue these days - the P8 Poseidon doesn't have MAD. I could be wrong in that respect and those far more knowledgeable than I will correct me if I am wrong.

Fairly certain the extra 3 x A109 have not yet been ordered but are merely 'flagged as policy' in DWP - ie: a future planned acquisition. #06 is the attrition airframe, not the first of the 2nd tranche.

Can anyone confirm?

Wonder how they'll tweak the numbering when the extra 3 are accepted!?! :unknown