NZDF General discussion thread

[recce.k1]

Thanks again CD, and now have read the Army News 425 which also explains the new structure (although for some reason it seems the explanation on page 15 ("Future structures and indicative locations for January 2012 are as follows") seems to end short, unless they were referring to the diagram?

Reading between the lines of your last comment (if I understand correctly what you might be implying?), I guess can be read (in terms of the defmin comment) that for the timebeing Linton isn't closing (i.e. any plan hasn't been signed off yet to do so), so I guess the defmin is "correct" (as any politician could be, of course).

But anyway when more is known (assuming this can be made public) can you advise what is meant by "turning the Waiouru camp into a training ground"? What's the difference being proposed compared to as it is now with set-aside training areas? Or might that mean rather than having specfic training areas as now, would for example the entire 'encampment' there including exisiting buildings (that once held the Schools etc), that are no longer required become, say, part of an urban training environment? If so, sounds exciting. (Sorry if this sounds like a stupid question but as per the news article reference just before to a layman like me it doesn't make sense)!

 

[Cadredave]

Thanks again CD, and now have read the Army News 425 which also explains the new structure (although for some reason it seems the explanation on page 15 ("Future structures and indicative locations for January 2012 are as follows") seems to end short, unless they were referring to the diagram?

Reading between the lines of your last comment (if I understand correctly what you might be implying?), I guess can be read (in terms of the defmin comment) that for the timebeing Linton isn't closing (i.e. any plan hasn't been signed off yet to do so), so I guess the defmin is "correct" (as any politician could be, of course).

But anyway when more is known (assuming this can be made public) can you advise what is meant by "turning the Waiouru camp into a training ground"? What's the difference being proposed compared to as it is now with set-aside training areas? Or might that mean rather than having specfic training areas as now, would for example the entire 'encampment' there including exisiting buildings (that once held the Schools etc), that are no longer required become, say, part of an urban training environment? If so, sounds exciting. (Sorry if this sounds like a stupid question but as per the news article reference just before to a layman like me it doesn't make sense)!

Well Recce politians are what they are, as for Waiouru when OCS & TAD leave all WW2 building will be sold off the other 1960 - 1980 built barracks will remain to let Units stay in them as accomodation, Waiouru camp will become one large FOB based on Tekapo Camp down south.

 

[recce.k1]

...1960-1980 built barracks will remain to let Units stay in them as accomodation, Waiouru camp will become one large FOB based on Tekapo Camp down south.

Thanks CD, the "good news" I seem to see here is that whilst the Value for Money review requires Defence to re-assess its bases and land etc, at least in this case (Army) whilst Waiouru and Trentham units are being/have been consolidated, at least their consolidation is resulting in an expanded presence at the likes of the "sharper end" like Linton etc.

Sure, no doubt like any change, the changes can be unsettling (for personnel and their families alike) but I wonder whether these changes will be beneficial in other ways such as greater employment opportunities for spouses (moving away from the likes of "isolated" Waiouru etc)?

And at least Waiouru is being retained as a FOB for training as you say.

But what about the other "sharp end" bases (camps) like Burnham - as they seem to have lost units eg QAMR? What's happening with Papakura (apart from expanded SAS training areas)?

In other "news", something we were discussing here some 3-4 years ago from memory, an interesting update on the NZDF's "satellite communication" plans. Seeing NZDF is working more with "international partners" nowadays, this seems more of a better proposal (than the earlier one) including NZ's ability to inter-operate easier & securely. (Let's hope the bean counters don't wreck it seeing Defence also has to look at alternatives)!

US Satcom considered by Defence
TOM PULLAR-STRECKER
Last updated 05:00 14/11/2011
The New Zealand Defence Force is considering buying into the United States military's US$3.5 billion (NZ$4.45b) Wideband Global Satcom (WGS) system, a satellite communications network for "US warfighters, allies and coalition partners during all levels of conflict, short of nuclear war".

That would be an alternative to its current practice of buying capacity from allies and commercial providers on an ad hoc basis.

Wellington's Science Media Centre said Australia had paid US$800 million to put up a satellite and become part of the scheme while Canada was considering contributing C$477m and the Dutch government 50 million euros to use the network.

A Defence Force spokeswoman would not comment on the likely cost as that was "commercially sensitive", but the Defence Force was putting together a full business case that would also weigh up alternatives.

The 2010 Defence White Paper had identified the improvement of overseas communications as a priority and the US government had invited New Zealand to participate in the network, she said.

It was impossible to say what might happen to the network in a nuclear war, she said "as it assumes an understanding of a potential adversary's targeting priorities and capabilities".

The Defence Force had considered paying $100m to support the launch of a satellite by New Zealand company NZLSAT for its communications needs, but decided against that in 2007.

NZLSAT was awarded the right by the Economic Development Ministry in 2005 to put a satellite in a space reserved for New Zealand by the United Nations, but was put into liquidation in September.
US Satcom considered by Defence - technology | Stuff.co.nz

 

[Cadredave]

Sure, no doubt like any change, the changes can be unsettling (for personnel and their families alike) but I wonder whether these changes will be beneficial in other ways such as greater employment opportunities for spouses (moving away from the likes of "isolated" Waiouru etc)?

A example of Waiouru when I was posted there was out of 65 Living WO & SNCO 61 of us were Married Unaccompanied meaning our spouses were living either in Palmerston or Wellington with a couple in Christchurch., Waiouru is a awesome place if you have a young family but a nightmare if you have teenages.

But what about the other "sharp end" bases (camps) like Burnham - as they seem to have lost units eg QAMR? What's happening with Papakura (apart from expanded SAS training areas)?

Burnham Camp: Will lose only QAMR it will retain 2/1 RNZIR, 3CSSB & a troop from 2 ER, the YDU or LSV will move to Woodburn to make room for OCS to relocate. NZDF has returned / sold most of Papakura with a very small part retained for SOF use the housing area has now become a part of a treaty settlement deal.

In other "news", something we were discussing here some 3-4 years ago from memory, an interesting update on the NZDF's "satellite communication" plans. Seeing NZDF is working more with "international partners" nowadays, this seems more of a better proposal (than the earlier one) including NZ's ability to inter-operate easier & securely. (Let's hope the bean counters don't wreck it seeing Defence also has to look at alternatives)!

Haven't heard alot about this capability last rumour was that NZDF is trying to work a deal with other Governtment departments to assist with the funding of this satellite for our use (Whole of Govt). Currently we must book a time slot with the ADF to use there satellite for training which degrades when the ADF use it.

 

[mug]

From Stuff:

Army, navy, air force growing together
HANK SCHOUTEN
Last updated 13:48 15/11/2011

The army, navy and air force are being reconfigured into a joint amphibious task force says Defence Minister Wayne Mapp.

By 2020 the task force will be at the core of the New Zealand Defence Force he told the defence industry forum in Wellington today.

He said the integrated force would change the way the defence force evolved and change the way it planned and carried out operations

Rather than developing independently the army, navy and air force would mesh together.

It would also be more flexible to meet the full range of tasks required of it, said Dr Mapp.

This would range from combat operations through to disaster relief and support for Pacific neighbours.

He said the joint amphibious task force would incorporate the huge intelligence and surveillance capabilities of the upgraded P-3 Orion patrol aircraft and the capability of HMNZS Canterbury to provide transport and support for the army and air force.

''The next 10 years will see existing defence force units and assets becoming oriented around the joint amphibious task force and enhance existing capabilities,'' said Dr Mapp.

The changes follow last year's Defence White Paper and have been spelt out in the latest defence capability plan which details where Government is going to spend money on upgrading defence equipment over the next decade.

A key component of this will be a big investment in modern intelligence and communication systems to improve coordination and integration of forces.

Dr Mapp said the goal was to have an expeditionary joint amphibious task force that was capable of working independently in the South Pacific or as part of a larger coalition further afield.


- The Dominion Post

I'm still not crystal on what this means - are the three services maintaining their identities and structures, or are there some significant changes in the pipeline?

 

[lopez]

Is NZ going to go down the Canadian path or is NZ taking this concept further?

 

[Gibbo]

From Stuff:



I'm still not crystal on what this means - are the three services maintaining their identities and structures, or are there some significant changes in the pipeline?

Whilst it's not been explicitly clarified, it sounds like it's simply operational expediency - not a merging of the services. 'Joint task-force', not a 'joint force'.

 

[Cadredave]

Is NZ going to go down the Canadian path or is NZ taking this concept further?

Joint Task Force, not a Joint Force like Canada, Three Separate Services One Force. Each will maintain there Identity & separate cultures but will come together where we need too.

CD

 

[lopez]

Good to hear and makes sense... so I am guessing the article was intentionally vague,
Is this seriously the first time New Zealand has thought to organise it's self into a force construct (permanently?) to undertake joint operations? or is it just the first time press has picked up on it?

 

[Dgc204]

The article mentions 2020 as a target date and intelligence capability being built around the P3. Won't the airframes be nearing the end of their useful lives around then? I believe here in Canada ours are being rebuilt to last until 2025 or so.

 

[ngatimozart]

The article mentions 2020 as a target date and intelligence capability being built around the P3. Won't the airframes be nearing the end of their useful lives around then? I believe here in Canada ours are being rebuilt to last until 2025 or so.

IIRC the P3 is expected to go until 2025. I would also think some intelligence capability may be built into the Beech 350 if that's what we are getting for MEPT and EEZ MP. The aircraft already has that capability and it would make sense. Then again its pollies and bureaucrats making the decision so I won't hold my breath.

 

[Gibbo]

The article mentions 2020 as a target date and intelligence capability being built around the P3. Won't the airframes be nearing the end of their useful lives around then? I believe here in Canada ours are being rebuilt to last until 2025 or so.

And if it is actually to be effective in an amphibious task-force support role the P3 needs a ASW suite upgrade; missile counter-measures suite; and some form of modern air-surface weapons delivery capability! Damn - don't see mention of those capabilities anymore - the 2nd & 3rd were on the LTDP but the Defence Capability Plan (CDP) has replaced that and is a lot more vague on future P3 capability (ie: bugger all chance!).

The P3 will turn-up overhead & use it's amazing surveillance & intelligence capability to find risks - only to be unable to do much about them! Yeah okay - so we're really talking low-intensity South Pacific deployments here I guess - as HMNZS Canterbury can't go 'dirty' either!

 

[recce.k1]

And if it is actually to be effective in an amphibious task-force support role the P3 needs a ASW suite upgrade; missile counter-measures suite; and some form of modern air-surface weapons delivery capability! Damn - don't see mention of those capabilities anymore - the 2nd & 3rd were on the LTDP but the Defence Capability Plan (CDP) has replaced that and is a lot more vague on future P3 capability (ie: bugger all chance!).

I think to be fair (and judging by comments elsewhere), the above options are still under consideration as "seperate projects" eg a throw-away mention is made here of arming them.

Also earlier in the year in a report on the first upgraded P-3K2 made mention of them having new ASW "sophisticated acoustic detectors". I queried this at the time (but was none the wiser eg was the media referring to the P-3K2 or simply P-3 sensor trends in general of which the RNZAF is aspiring to)?

But first, the upgraded P-3K2 is/was undergoing Operational Testing and Evaluation and is yet to enter active service. Presumably when that happens and any bugs are ironed out, we may eventually start to hear more about these other "seperate projects" in time (eg self-defence suite upgrade and arming? With the new P-3K2 overland ISR role perhaps defence planners are looking at the likes of SLAM-ER nowadays)?
RNZAF - P-3K2 Orion Progress Report
RNZAF - Air Force Media Release

 

[Cadredave]

Is this seriously the first time New Zealand has thought to organise it's self into a force construct (permanently?) to undertake joint operations? or is it just the first time press has picked up on it?

NZDF has been conducting Joint Operations for the last ten years, this is normal NZ Defence reporting at its best reporting to little to late & way off the mark. This is however the first time that NZDF is basing its capabilities around a deployable Joint Amphib task force to conduct opeartions in the SW Pacific.

CD

 

[Lucasnz]

NZDF has been conducting Joint Operations for the last ten years, this is normal NZ Defence reporting at its best reporting to little to late & way off the mark. This is however the first time that NZDF is basing its capabilities around a deployable Joint Amphib task force to conduct opeartions in the SW Pacific.

CD

While I like the concept of the Joint Amphib Force I see 2 key flaws, if I understand it correctly NZ is to be capable of undertaking independent operations in a medium intensity conflict situation. IMHO a medium intensity conflict would suggest a foreign power meddling in the South Pacific. The first shortfall is the lack of surface combatants - the whole operation could fall apart because the sole escort was damaged or destroyed. The second is the lack of precision stand off weapons for the Orion's. The above to two issues have been discussed in depth before and I'm not going to rehash them. The consequence is that unless the above are resolved the concept will be extremely prone to failure.

 

[Gibbo]

While I like the concept of the Joint Amphib Force I see 2 key flaws, if I understand it correctly NZ is to be capable of undertaking independent operations in a medium intensity conflict situation. IMHO a medium intensity conflict would suggest a foreign power meddling in the South Pacific. The first shortfall is the lack of surface combatants - the whole operation could fall apart because the sole escort was damaged or destroyed. The second is the lack of precision stand off weapons for the Orion's. The above to two issues have been discussed in depth before and I'm not going to rehash them. The consequence is that unless the above are resolved the concept will be extremely prone to failure.

Yeah and if we're talking independent then we're saying HMNZS Canterbury & Endeavour would be a key component! Noooooo way can you send those into medium intensity situations without on-board CIWS and something for defence against FIAC type attack. You rely on escorts for stand-off defence, but when it gets up-close & personal and/or is in the littorals - it's up to each platform to protect it's own close-in perimeter.

 

[aussienscale]

With the impending Aussie Phatships coming and the recent announcement of a USMC MEU to be rotated through Darwin in the future, what do you guys think will be the op for the RNZN, and NZDEF, to back onto this op ? Recent years have seen a warming of the US/NZ relationship again. Do you think this could have potential to steer future RNZN/NZDEF ?

Cheers

 

[Cadredave]

While I like the concept of the Joint Amphib Force I see 2 key flaws, if I understand it correctly NZ is to be capable of undertaking independent operations in a medium intensity conflict situation.

Im at a loss trying to figure out where or who has stated that the NZDF would conduct a Mid intensity conflict by itself, no documents or briefs that CDF/CA/CN/CAF has produced has ever stated this, all have clearly articulated that we will would join or be part of a coalition of like minded nations in an Mid intensity conflict outside SW Pac. NZDF will be able to conduct independantly an operation of a low intensity nature in SW Pac or disaster relief.

IMHO a medium intensity conflict would suggest a foreign power meddling in the South Pacific.

If there is a foreign power in our neighbourhood im pretty certain that the US would of made a pretty clear move to station further asserts, now that they will base capabilities in Darwin or possibly other bases in Australia i dont see this happening.

The first shortfall is the lack of surface combatants - the whole operation could fall apart because the sole escort was damaged or destroyed. The second is the lack of precision stand off weapons for the Orion's. The above to two issues have been discussed in depth before and I'm not going to rehash them. The consequence is that unless the above are resolved the concept will be extremely prone to failure.

Been debated to death not going to happen in my remaining service time in the NZDF might be in the 2020 - 2030 time line. There is a clear list of priorities Air is transtitioning into a digital force, Navy will be next with there further upgrades to the frigates & Army has already started to reshape it self to fit the new concept.

 

[Lucasnz]

Im at a loss trying to figure out where or who has stated that the NZDF would conduct a Mid intensity conflict by itself, no documents or briefs that CDF/CA/CN/CAF has produced has ever stated this, all have clearly articulated that we will would join or be part of a coalition of like minded nations in an Mid intensity conflict outside SW Pac. NZDF will be able to conduct independantly an operation of a low intensity nature in SW Pac or disaster relief.

I'm sure I read medium intensity somewhere - I'll see if I can find it again.

 

[recce.k1]

This is however the first time that NZDF is basing its capabilities around a deployable Joint Amphib task force to conduct opeartions in the SW Pacific.

I take it this means both independently and to be inter-operable with the Aussies (in a SW Pacific context)?

Will some of the Island nations get opportunities to train in this environment?