NZDF has invited tenders for its satellite services. I got the lead from another forum I lurk in. Defence Force invites tenders for satellite comms | Computerworld New Zealand
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
NZG has announced NZSAS ending mission in Afghan after their completion of training and mentoring the Afghan Crisis Response Unit and will be bought home in March 2012. PM Says SAS Troops Will Leave Afghanistan in March... | Stuff.co.nz
Right NZDF put a feature article on their media fetaures page yesterday. NZDF - The NZ Joint Amphibious Task Force Originally I was going to query how long it would take the media to pick it up but in reality the answer would be if.
I wish MoD (I presume) would refrain from forcing the NZDF to publish such dribble. It's just embarrassing. The Defence Capability Plan was bad enough (laughable really), no need to keep promoting it. I think they must be starting to believe their own press if they believe they have a credible amphibious capability.
If this was the goal, why do we have:
a. A sealift ship that can only unload it's cargo & operate it's embarked helicopters in a nice calm harbour (if there is one), isn't considered particularly seaworthy, and hopefully isn't in refit when needed.
b. Armoured vehicles that aren't in the least bit amphibious and only suited for deployment to countries with a decent road network. Not much use in the South Pacific. At the moment we would struggle to cross a river.
c. A light operational vehicle fleet that can't go on operations. The Pinzgauer is only suitable for training & humanitarian relief jobs. It's a liability in a COIN op (such as Afghanistan) let alone a proper war.
The reality is that the 2020s are going to make the early 2000s look like a picnic. Twenty years of chronic under-investment, confused policy, poor equipment purchases & a tendency to keep deferring major projects is going to bite.
This whole focus on amphibious capability reminds me of the hoopla that surrounded the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) ten years ago - with the championing of medium wheeled armour - which is how we ended up with all those LAVs. I wonder how long the amphibious capability craze will last.
There are some positives from the new plan:
a. 1st RNZIR are going back to the light infantry role & QAMR are giving up the cavalry squadron (what was that trying to achieve, other than using up excess LAVs?). We should look at something like the Bronco all-terrain vehicle as a second transport option. Maybe they should rebrand the army as the Royal NZ Marine Corps
b. Hopefully we won't try to follow the Australians with the ANZAC frigate upgrade - it's a light patrol frigate, not an air warfare destroyer. A second fire contol director (to give 360deg coverage), ESSM & torpedo upgrades, and a refresh of the combat management system will do. In the nice to have bracket would be some anti-ship missiles, a towed sonar & a helicopter ASW ability, to at least practice with.
Since the government has decided not to recapitalise the NZDF, what suggestions do people have for possible austerity measures?
Chis73
Last edited:
Damm and I thought we already were in austerity mode
. I think CDF is right if future governments keep the Amphip task force then NZDF will slowly reshape and correct some of the short sighted decisions made under the Clark government. You need to keep the ANZAC upgrade, though I'm leaning towards scrapping the upgrade and buying new ships (especially if the cost at the upper limit of 800million now before the RNZAF needs to replace the P3 and C130).
Where to start with this post so many inaccuracies its not funny,
Lets be honest Goverment has been totally transparent with Defence & given us alot of room to manoeuver only because NZDF finally explained to Tresury and the Finance Minister how all NZDF asserts fitted into each other its been many years since CDF & his Chiefs have had the intellectual power to foot it against treasury & the Finance Minister.
Last but not least you can thank the Christchurch earthquake for proving the worth to Government the usefulness of a amphibious ship for the Pacific & NZ and thats the other reason we are heading along this path.
This is no better than the dribble trotted by our current newspapers (Defence Journalists) are delivering do a bit of research read all the documents in order then ask pertinent question and you may get decent answers from those of us inside the NZDF who understand the direction our chiefs are pursuing and totally agree with it.
CD
This is a strategic plan as outlined by the CDF & his Service Chiefs MoD cannot and does not force NZDF to release anything stop reading the documents as individual papers and start seeing them for what they are a strategic road map for the future. The devil is in the detail and that is what NZDF are doing now in consultaion with our closest Defence partners.
Again the only person who has not comprehended that the DWP/DCP and now this are all tied together is you who is our closest defence partner and what amphibious capabilities are they aquiring this is the reason we are heading down this direction.
HMNZS Canterbury is an interim ship she was purchased before the DWP was even thought of she gives us (NZDF) the ability to learn TTP/SOP you cant do that on a mock up on shore plus she lets us work with both the RAN & French Navies in the Pacific who have amphibious ships.
Last time I looked the road systems in the Pacific were state highways compared to what we are travelling in Afghanistan, NZ Army has the ability to bridge any water (river) gap in the pacific with its current MGB that HMNZS Canterbury will be able to transport & off load.
Again where are you getting your infomation from the Hearld or Dom Post yes NZ is conducting true COIN ops in Afghanistan, East Timor & Sollomon Islands with the Pinz deployed to two of those Ops, and yes our Pinz are not suited to Afghanistan but so is the M1151A1 FRAG 7 upgrade. Do you really understand the three block war concept because thats exactly what we are doing in Astan only our allies in the south are conducting true Kinetic operations even there vehicles in some cases are a liability.
Going to bite where this is the first time where the CDF & Service Chiefs have been united this is the first time where our policy is clear whats poor about our eqiupment ? finally we have a direction for NZDF where all our capabiliteis are tied together.
Again you have missed the point totally what class of ship is Australia bringing into service let me give you a hint they are LHD and should serve that country for the next 40 - 50 years delievering a amphibious capability to that nation this aint the RMA some how you have put one & one together and come up with eleven.
You got the first part right but totally misconstrued the second QAMR are forming a totally CAV Unit where all LAV will come under there control in other words giving the vehicles to the experts.
Not going to happen with the ANZAC upgrade, P3K2 replacement & a few other capabilities that need replacing.We should look at something like the Bronco all-terrain vehicle as a second transport option. Maybe they should rebrand the army as the Royal NZ Marine Corps
We will follow the RAN for a number of reasons of all of which you have described in detail exactly what the ANZAC upgrade provides unless you want us to have a orphan class of ANZAC which we wont be able to tie in with any other Nation that owns a MEKO 200 for logistic support?. The ANZACs have to have the ability to seemlessly tie into any Coalition Task Force for as you put real war what you are propossing is no better than what our OPV provide.
What do you think all the pain that NZDF went thru last year and this year is all about its about releasing funds from our current budget to us for the next lot of upgrades & purchases either NZDF does it or treasury does which department would you choose?.
Lets be honest Goverment has been totally transparent with Defence & given us alot of room to manoeuver only because NZDF finally explained to Tresury and the Finance Minister how all NZDF asserts fitted into each other its been many years since CDF & his Chiefs have had the intellectual power to foot it against treasury & the Finance Minister.
Last but not least you can thank the Christchurch earthquake for proving the worth to Government the usefulness of a amphibious ship for the Pacific & NZ and thats the other reason we are heading along this path.
This is no better than the dribble trotted by our current newspapers (Defence Journalists) are delivering do a bit of research read all the documents in order then ask pertinent question and you may get decent answers from those of us inside the NZDF who understand the direction our chiefs are pursuing and totally agree with it.
CD
And the Key governments with regard to budgets. I'm not sure about the ANZAC replacement over upgrade. Methinks the Minister, half the cabenit and tresury would all have a collective siezure at the thought of replacing the ANZACs in say an 8 year time frame. What would you replace them with and how many?Damm and I thought we already were in austerity mode
You need to keep the ANZAC upgrade, though I'm leaning towards scrapping the upgrade and buying new ships (especially if the cost at the upper limit of 800million now before the RNZAF needs to replace the P3 and C130).
The key issue for me with regards to the Task Force is sustainability. One frigate can protect two or three ships. However with only two frigates we lack any form of reserve if ones in refit and the other already deployed.
That suggests we need three surface combatants.
If I had the choice and New Zealand had the money I'd probably go for both 2 Danish Frigates and 1 Absalom class as the reserve. The key issue with the Absalom is that I believe that troop carrying ability will impact how it operates during operations.
In the alternative 2 new MEKO's and upgrade the Littoral Warfare Vessel to a Corvette or two. Corvettes would be better suited to the majority of low level operations NZ is likely to face. In addition a 76mm would give scalability in Naval Gunfire Support, rather than blasting everything with a 127mm. The key issue with any corvette is the RNZN need for range and endurance which would impact on hull size. Consequently you might wind up with a 3,000 tonne corvette, however I think you would still save given the smaller crew and reduced electronic outfit.
Your 100% correct with that assessment NM Govt has already benchmarked the upgrade now lets hope our Aussie cousins can deliever the capability IMO i damm well hope so or come 20115 timeframe we better have something that can provide cover.
CD
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
Any idea if NZG thinking about rectify the shortcoming of Canterbury with a LPD/LHD such as RSN Endurance class or mini Dokdo LHD or an improved version of the Italian San Giorgio.
Can’t see defence getting rid of Canterbury in the Sealift/Amphibious Support Role as she is now, Endurance class doesn’t give that much more capability, but she does have a well dock for improved ship to shore movements something Canterbury can do also albeit just a bit more time consuming.. I think Dokdo LHD is just the right size (to upgrade to) for NZ if the can get the crewing requirements down to more manageable level plus treasury releasing about 3Billion NZD.
3x mini Dokdo with a full displacement of 13/14000t with spots for 4 aircraft would be the next logical step for RNZN, wonder what the South Koreans could do a bare bones ship for?
3 mini Dokto’s? – I will settle for one good fit for purpose true amphibious support ship with dock and one good fit for purpose logistics support ship with RAS capability. I am pretty sure that Daewoo or Hyundai could knock something suitable up of merchantable quality for reasonable amounts without requiring gold plating or NZ$3Billion lobs of cash from Treasury.
The Endeavour replacement is now due for 2019 instead of the earlier date of 2015 and hopefully this will allow the mid-high pathway acquisition mode to predominate rather than the low pathway - as it will give the NZDF a huge leap in capability and enhance the whole Joint Amphibious concept that General Jones envisions. As for the Canterbury – it is due for rectification work later this year and into the first half of 2013. This to sort out the issues raised post Coles Review and the Mediation process. I gather that the Canterbury will require a mid-life refit and upgrade early next decade so as to achieve the projected 2032-2035 lifespan of the vessel and provide useful and sustainable service until decommissioning.
To refit/upgrade the Canterbury circa 2023 and hang on for it for another 10 years until its completely poked - OR - sell it, bank the cash, pocket the refit dosh, wrangle the difference, and actually build a proper purpose built Amphibious Support Ship that complements the new Endeavour (Logistics Support Ship) as the focus capability of the Joint Amphibious Force post 2020-2025 is the question for a future Cabinet to get their little heads around in the next few years.
I have been watching the evolution of this alternative NZ defence website for a year or two.
https://sites.google.com/site/defenceallmedia/home
Considering that the above website dubs those of us here at Defence Talk “hairy chested military types” following the author’s run-ins with us a few years back (which actually made the guy have a slightly more realistic assessment of his own defence grand plan) – I thought it was worth us having a close read of his second attempt.
The author also has his own blog Defence NZ. I don’t think he allows comments – sadly. There are quite a few technical and conceptual errors which, is unfortunate really as it is one of only a handful of amateur Kiwi defence sites. One has to take ones hat off to him even though it is … well do I need to spell it out what I think of it.:laugh
https://sites.google.com/site/defenceallmedia/home
Considering that the above website dubs those of us here at Defence Talk “hairy chested military types” following the author’s run-ins with us a few years back (which actually made the guy have a slightly more realistic assessment of his own defence grand plan) – I thought it was worth us having a close read of his second attempt.
The author also has his own blog Defence NZ. I don’t think he allows comments – sadly. There are quite a few technical and conceptual errors which, is unfortunate really as it is one of only a handful of amateur Kiwi defence sites. One has to take ones hat off to him even though it is … well do I need to spell it out what I think of it.:laugh
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I will check and see if there is a way to contact the author of the site. It prove worthwhile to educate the author since he at least seems interesting in thinking about what is appropriate for NZ.
It is also IMO worth noting that the author seems to fall into what I think of as a 'classic NZ defence thinking' pitfall, in that NZ's defence interests end at the edge of the EEZ and some S. Pacific islands.
Little thought seems to have been given to the impact of cuts or disruptions to the SLOC. This IMO makes little sense give the recent threats Iran has made about passage through the Straits of Hormuz, or the problems of piracy around the Horn of Africa...
-Cheers
I have had a read and yes he has done well in that he has taken an interest and tried, but IMHO he has largely ignored the geopolitical situation and the relationship between NZ and Australia, apart from some acerbic comments. I agree with Tod that he doesn't seem to grasp that NZs security interests actually extend from the Equator to the Ice and that our SLOC are of extreme importance. Also like the Chinese, the Straits of Malacca are a potential choke point for us too, because a fairly large percentage of our petrol, deisel, and, IIRC all of our aviation turbine kerosene comes from the refineries in Singapore.
There is quite a bit else I have problems with like the involvement of EQC but that could just be my prejudices, me coming from Christchurch an all. Plus disbanding the RNZAF. But some of his eqipment suggestions have been gone into even though I don't agree with them. Heaven forbid doing a 7 hour blue water patrol in a single engined PAC XP 750 Cresco. Blow that. And the RNZAF flying Il76s!
Another well meaning but totally naive blog, just read his blog reference doctrine I know he has no idea what doctrine is. Have to agree with Tod on this one not a great fan of any NZ defence blogs. His equipment choices for Navy & Army just dont make sense.
CD
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
NZDF invests in WGS System
Well this is big news for NZ, the NZDF will have access to the WGS system with its investment in conjunction with 4-5 NATO members. USAF released this article.
Space News had the Def Min defending the purchase on efficiency grounds.
Has anyone else have any more information on this? What capability boost will this provide the NZDF?
Well this is big news for NZ, the NZDF will have access to the WGS system with its investment in conjunction with 4-5 NATO members. USAF released this article.
Space News had the Def Min defending the purchase on efficiency grounds.
Has anyone else have any more information on this? What capability boost will this provide the NZDF?
Last edited:
Wonder if this will herald a change to USPACCOMs attitude to NZ. Be good if it did.
Admiral Details Challenges, Opportunities of Pacific Fleet | Navy & Maritime Security News at DefenceTalk
Admiral Details Challenges, Opportunities of Pacific Fleet | Navy & Maritime Security News at DefenceTalk
The initial change in attitude with the US political and military establishment began in 2007 with Admiral Fallon's visit and things have steadily being arc'ed upwards since then. Prior to Fallons visit we had since 85 incrementally got to the point of just being 'friends' with the US - 'friends' spelt with a small 'f' and we have moved through to being "Friends" spelt with a capital to been 'Very Good Friends". Shortly New Zealanders will get the sense that we may well be "allies" with a small 'a' as 2012 will be a big year in taking the relationship forward. The principals certainly are of that mind as can be demonstrated by the various alphabet soup groups we have been allowed into as full members. May take awhile- if ever - to get back to being real Allies like we were pre 85 - however the shared interests and pragmatic approach to solving realities are whats essential.