Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[ngatimozart]

No doubt, but is the RNZN and NZG seriously thinking about a 7000+ tonne frigate with high-end threat systems (I would assume not including the Land Attack Cruise Missile capability)?


Similarly the MH-60R conversation is very interesting and raises quite a few issues. The MH-60R is a very expensive piece of kit, I think something in the order of $40-45m each. It may not suit the RNZAF to operate such a type, nor the RNZN to utilise it.

If we are going to go down the commonality road again, perhaps there should be a look at how the RAN/RNZN operates. To make the most of it, the RAN/RNZN has to remain in lock-step regarding upgrades and capability.

We might find that the RNZN may specialise in some areas that the RAN may wish not too so that there are no overlaps of capability. That is what I am reading. For example the RNZN may specialise in hydrographic surveying and some other skills whilst the RAN does the high end big navy stuff like area denial etc. The RNZN would still retain frigate capability (preferably 3) but at the lower end of the scale and maybe concentrate on ASW so that it fits into the larger RAN / ANZAC ASW component.

With regard to the helo, I think that the Romeo is the only way forward because the RAN has just signed up for 24 and they aren't going to want to change helos in five or ten years. The only other real option we have is the Wildcat and the Augusta-Westland is trying to talk Denmark into being their export launch customer, so that is not an option for the RNZN, which brings us back to the Romeo. True the RAN is the export launch customer for it but the USN has been flying it and no big problems. Yes the Romeo might cost a bit more to fly but the term of life servicing will be less and whats five or six more helos on top of the RAN deal. We only need the number of Romeos for the Frigate, Canterbury and the Endeavour replacement flight decks. For the OPV decks maybe 3 - 4 marinised A109s. We need to keep the RNZAF / RNZN helo fleet down to minimum types and three types is what we have now; A109, UH1H / NH90, Seapsprite. Unless the powers that be decide to go with the maritime version of the NH90 (shudder).

 

[MrConservative]

That sounds high, but to decide whether replacing them with another type would save money, you have to do a lot of analysis. You'd need to know -
The fixed costs for both types.
The marginal cost per hour for both types.
The capital cost of the new type, including new infrastructure & other set-up costs.
Any money that could be recouped from selling the SH-2Gs or parts thereof.

If that hourly rate includes fixed costs, then increasing the hours flown wouldn't increase the total cost by anywhere near NZ$31000 per hour.

It is very high Swerve but the NZ$31000 per flight hour is the current 2011/12 operational cost plus the fixed costs of operating 6 Squadron against the budgeted 1300 flight hours to met tasking. The current depreciation and capital charge accounts for a further 40% on top of that. It is the tyranny of operating what is practically a very small orphan fleet.

 

[Lucasnz]

We might find that the RNZN may specialise in some areas that the RAN may wish not too so that there are no overlaps of capability. That is what I am reading. For example the RNZN may specialise in hydrographic surveying and some other skills whilst the RAN does the high end big navy stuff like area denial etc. The RNZN would still retain frigate capability (preferably 3) but at the lower end of the scale and maybe concentrate on ASW so that it fits into the larger RAN / ANZAC ASW component.

.

I don't think the RNZN will be that keen with a specialist role like ASW. That sort of so called specialist focus on ASW in the 1980's gave the peace niks some serious ammunition in objecting to the ANZAC Frigate project.

The other issue is that a specialist ASW / AA ship wouldn't fit in with the RNZN's wider regional role in the South Pacific. I would suggest a General Purpose ship would be the best solution.

 

[MrConservative]

No doubt, but is the RNZN and NZG seriously thinking about a 7000+ tonne frigate with high-end threat systems (I would assume not including the Land Attack Cruise Missile capability)?

I only ask because from the upgrades Te Kaha and Te Mana have had so far since introduction to service I would suggest not, and operations in high-threat environments do not seem to be a priority.
Only last year did an upgrade to ESSM from SS and a limited upgrade to sensors go to RFI, some eight years after the RAN began to put ESSM into service. A cynic might think that the ESSM upgrade might have more to do with the expense of sustaining a legacy Sea Sparrow capability.

RAN/RNZN platform commonality is great, but it hasn't done much good for the Anzac-class because there have been very different upgrade needs and resources. The two navies have been on different upgrade paths, and at the end of the RAN ASMD upgrade there will be even less commonality than now.

Reading the NZ DWP 2010, it didn't seem to me that there was an intent to purchase a common platform or indeed necessarily in a high-end frigate capability.
Mentions of frigates was confined to Anzac-class upgrades in order to maintain a "credible combat capability" and indistinct references to a future replacement about 2030. Has there been credible talk about the replacement?
Paragraphs 3.13 and 3.38 (among others) say to me that NZ thinks it is going to find it difficult to keep up with the high-end capabilities, and NZ is going to focus on maintaining the capability to project their own forces independently in a regional way while also having the ability to operate as a part of a coalition.

At the end of the Anzac-class replacement capability analysis, the RNZN might decide that the needs and interests of the RAN are not the same as theirs, and might fork instead to a different design better suited to the needs and resources of the RNZN.
What if a more modest 4500-5000 tonne design meant the RNZN could have three hulls, or even four at the expense of commonality and higher-end defence systems? It depends on how/where the government of the day believes the vessels will be operated.

If we are going to go down the commonality road again, perhaps there should be a look at how the RAN/RNZN operates. To make the most of it, the RAN/RNZN has to remain in lock-step regarding upgrades and capability.

We are now looking at how the both forces operate to achieve commonality. The meeting this weekend between Coleman and Smith was kicking that off even further.

The DWP, supporting documents and DefMin media post the release (and also the pre-release speeches) are pretty explicit about a frigate capability being required. (As explicit as NO Air Combat Force in fact).

The White paper itself does talk in generalities and not specifics as it is a political document, however the context is that the current Anzac's are to be replaced. About 6 months ago I personally questioned the last DefMin Dr Mapp and his advisor Mr Boag exactly what you are implying per the NZ involvement in a future ANZAC II project.

Their reply (truncated of course) was:

a) It is strategically essential that in respect of the maritime focused environment we exist in that we have a 1st tier frigate capability that is inter-operable with the RAN and regional allies. There maybe specific aspects that are different (your example of the LACM) but generally will be very close in generic systems.

b) The current Anzac upgrades were defined, planned and allocated under the the previous Labour minister. The current NZG recognises that this is credible for the next 10 years but a repeated similar capability is not credible following that. (Credible capability is evolutionary and not static obviously)

c) The NZG wants a pro-rata slice of the industrial pie for NZ Inc if we go down the ANZAC II route. We will not get that OTS.

d) A higher end frigate capability is required for the RNZN to work both independently and as part of a coalition in medium intensity environments. Likewise in the same vein they mentioned the necessity of the P-8.

e) There are some things that we need to be comparable with what the ADF operates and they noted - Special Forces, again the P-3 replacement and again the Anzac Replacement.

I hope that clears it up for you

PS: Boag said that 7000 tonnes was a bit more than what he was hearing BTW. Also this was 6 months ago and there is a new Minister - however conclusions are pretty much drawn.

 

[MrConservative]

Similarly the MH-60R conversation is very interesting and raises quite a few issues. The MH-60R is a very expensive piece of kit, I think something in the order of $40-45m each. It may not suit the RNZAF to operate such a type, nor the RNZN to utilise it.

OK - So what are your prejudices? Is it a question of affordability? You mentioned numbers and alluded to expense. Even Helen Clark paid up on the new build NH-90's - so there is a track record of actually buying "expensive" kit.

Why do you say it might not suit the RNZAF or the RNZN? It is the government that sets policy and decides what, why and how a platform is used. With the policy aims articulated by the current government (and the not inconsiderable brain power of the current CDF who has given us the vision) and its focus post 2020 on amphibious and maritime operations both independently and with the RAN and other allies I would argue that the capability that the Romeo brings less issues for us than problems.

The last couple of years have seen a turn around in focus and who we work with. Was Kiwi Flag 12 possible 3 years ago? Do we now get invites to RimPac? What about RoKiwi? I think people have to stop looking at the NZDF through the lense of the previous decade and a half.

 

[ngatimozart]

OK - So what are your prejudices? Is it a question of affordability? You mentioned numbers and alluded to expense. Even Helen Clark paid up on the new build NH-90's - so there is a track record of actually buying "expensive" kit.

Why do you say it might not suit the RNZAF or the RNZN? It is the government that sets policy and decides what, why and how a platform is used. With the policy aims articulated by the current government (and the not inconsiderable brain power of the current CDF who has given us the vision) and its focus post 2020 on amphibious and maritime operations both independently and with the RAN and other allies I would argue that the capability that the Romeo brings less issues for us than problems.

The last couple of years have seen a turn around in focus and who we work with. Was Kiwi Flag 12 possible 3 years ago? Do we now get invites to RimPac? What about RoKiwi? I think people have to stop looking at the NZDF through the lense of the previous decade and a half.

Agree and it is time to build a bridge and get over it. We are now operating in a world where the foci are changing and the US is engaging more in the Pacific and Asia. The polies of the ilk and era of Uncle Helen are moving on and that philosophy is changing. We have two choices. Be a participant in the world affairs and bear responsibility for the security of the Pacific, and incidentally our own SLOC ,both in the Pacific and the IO ,or retreat into a cave in the Fiordland bush and hide. It has to be the former because it would be economic, political, diplomatic and strategic suicide to do the latter.

We need to work with Australia on this and we need to start taking a long term view on defence procurement. We need our polies to understand this. I am pleased to see that they appear to understand the need for the P8 and the frigates, however I still am extremely cautious, because kiwi polies have very short memories and it's three or four election cycles between now and the projected P3 replacement. I also know from personal experience that a senior memember of the government was somewhat economical with the truth on occasion in the past.

But we have to do something about the Seasprites and now this agreement is in place I think the way forward is the Romeo exactly same fit out as the RAN ones. I think that a MLU on the Seasprite would not be wise nor a cost effective long term option.

PS. I am aware that the RAN powers that be were somewhat adventurous with their electronics fitout specs for their Seasprites when we and the RAN first went into the project together.

 

[aussienscale]

Just curious with the talk of the Romeo's, where does NZ sit with their US relationship ? Would there be any potential issues with the FMS ? Easy enough to say back onto the Aussie buy, but not up too us ?

Also curious, a lot of talk on the Anzac replacement on here, as there is on the RAN thread. So should the RAN go the "Dumbed Down AWD" as has been touted based on the AWD hull, possibly Ceafar/Ceamount etc etc will this tie into the future RNZN ? Is it really a capability needed as opposed to the OCV style ? Just concerned on the impact (and continuing impact) of the economy of NZ considering the current global climate, and also NZ's domestic issues, Christchurch rebuild etc ?

 

[ngatimozart]

Just curious with the talk of the Romeo's, where does NZ sit with their US relationship ? Would there be any potential issues with the FMS ? Easy enough to say back onto the Aussie buy, but not up too us ?

On 4th November 2010 the Wellington declaration was signed in Wellington by US Sec State Hilary Clinton and NZ PM John Key basically normalising relations between NZ and US. Full text of the Wellington Declaration | Stuff.co.nz We are on very good terms now especially after our commitment in Afghan. The US want us to be a fully partcipating member in Pacific security so I would presume ther would be no potential issues with FMS. We don't have trusted ally status as Australia does because a certain law is still on the books and they recognise that, but they've built a bridge and gotten over it. If it suits the US interest we'll get anything we want through FMS. The RNZN operating Romeos and working with the RAN would suit the US interest, especially as its turned its attention to the Pacific and Asia.

Also curious, a lot of talk on the Anzac replacement on here, as there is on the RAN thread. So should the RAN go the "Dumbed Down AWD" as has been touted based on the AWD hull, possibly Ceafar/Ceamount etc etc will this tie into the future RNZN ? Is it really a capability needed as opposed to the OCV style ? Just concerned on the impact (and continuing impact) of the economy of NZ considering the current global climate, and also NZ's domestic issues, Christchurch rebuild etc ?

Well the pundits reckon we'll ride through this economic storm fairly well even more so than Australia, because Australia didn't really suffer from the 2007 collapse, like we did and is now catching up. 80% of the damage from Christchurch will be covered by reinsurance, so NZ Inc won't get hit that bad and NZG is still forecasting a surplus for 2014 - 15, albeit a small one. The ChCh rebuild will reinvigorate the economy something chronic, when it gets going and what is holding things up is the insurers reticense to provide cover in the ChCh area. We have had between 9500 and 10,000 shakes, (depends on which web site you visit & they are both using the same data source), since 0435hrs 4th/9/2010. This continual aftershock pattern is very unusual, having never been seen before and each time there is a major shock, it further damages already weakened structures. So the insurance industry is basically treating us like we got the plague.

The NZG could raise the money it needs if it wants too. We have lower taxes than Australia, no capital gains tax, no stamp duty on property sales etc, no payroll tax and a few other taxes /duties apart from 15% GST with no exemptions. The NZG has a very radical form of neoliberal ideology, that requires devolving central government of as much regulatory responsibility as possible, and relying on the mechanism of market forces, to regulate the economy and the social structures. That this model has had some catastrophic failures in recent times does not appear to have sunk in. So it is political and ideological heresy for them to consider raising taxes, instituting new taxes and regulating. The Labour Party is the same.

 

[MrConservative]

Just curious with the talk of the Romeo's, where does NZ sit with their US relationship ? Would there be any potential issues with the FMS ? Easy enough to say back onto the Aussie buy, but not up too us ?

Also curious, a lot of talk on the Anzac replacement on here, as there is on the RAN thread. So should the RAN go the "Dumbed Down AWD" as has been touted based on the AWD hull, possibly Ceafar/Ceamount etc etc will this tie into the future RNZN ? Is it really a capability needed as opposed to the OCV style ? Just concerned on the impact (and continuing impact) of the economy of NZ considering the current global climate, and also NZ's domestic issues, Christchurch rebuild etc ?

I would expect Ceafar and Ceamount and Cooperative Engagement Capability as we are talking about 15 years out and the benign strategic environment is no more.

The NZ-US relationship is at the best level it has been since about 1985. It has matured very well in recent years. Wellington Declaration ring a bell? The alphabet soup business very nice thank you, training together - things unthinkable a decade ago.

Furthermore - the US wants to focus now on the Pacific - which I think is great - however it is abundantly clear to the US that having a favorable relationship with NZ is vital for that to been seen to work positively. We are seen throughout the region as an honest broker and a wearer of a white hat. A decade ago your point may have been valid per FMS but in the context of where we are now and where we are heading - frankly is one of welcome opportunities.

"Is it really a capability needed as opposed to the OCV style ?" Good grief are you Robert Miles or something!! :frown NZ is actually a $200Billion dollar economy, CHC aside it is in a hell of a lot better fiscal shape than most countries in respect to public debt, it is seriously trade route reliant, a huge net food exporter, and has the second highest capital resource index per capita ranking in the world and currently is serious about digging and drilling.

 

[ngatimozart]

I would expect Ceafar and Ceamount and Cooperative Engagement Capability as we are talking about 15 years out and the benign strategic environment is no more.

The NZ-US relationship is at the best level it has been since about 1985. It has matured very well in recent years. Wellington Declaration ring a bell? The alphabet soup business very nice thank you, training together - things unthinkable a decade ago.

"Is it really a capability needed as opposed to the OCV style ?" Good grief are you Robert Miles or something!! :frown NZ is actually a $200Billion dollar economy, CHC aside it is in a hell of a lot better fiscal shape than most countries in respect to public debt, it is seriously trade route reliant, a huge net food exporter, and has the second highest capital resource index per capita ranking in the world and currently is serious about digging and drilling.

Well the digging and drilling bit is somewhat contentious and I have just learned that the NZG might have trouble with the assett sales they are so keen on. My POV is the digging and drilling is a necessary evil because we need the wealth that it will bring. The word is that the assett sales maybe held up or stopped by Section 9 of the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986 which stipulates that "says that the Crown will not act in a manner inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi" and there apparently is a lot of hui (meetings) going on amongst Māori about this at the moment, because the NZG want Māori leaders to agree to revoking that section which may not happen. Māori iwi (tribe) leaders also appear to be for the digging and drilling because they are in a business mode and can see the opportunites to amass iwi wealth, but amongst the people, especially the younger ones, there is a very vocal and organised opposition. The Rena sinking hasn't helped the digging and drilling cause any.

 

[Cadredave]

Just curious with the talk of the Romeo's, where does NZ sit with their US relationship ? Would there be any potential issues with the FMS ? Easy enough to say back onto the Aussie buy, but not up too us ?

Hey Aussiescale, FMS is old news on this side of the Tasman the Romero fits in perfectly with the time scale for the MLU or replacement of the Sprite.

Also curious, a lot of talk on the Anzac replacement on here, as there is on the RAN thread. So should the RAN go the "Dumbed Down AWD" as has been touted based on the AWD hull, possibly Ceafar/Ceamount etc etc will this tie into the future RNZN ? Is it really a capability needed as opposed to the OCV style ?

There has been alot of talk on here about NZ following the OCV or Corvette route and thats all it is CDF & his Chiefs are adament that we will replace Like with like eg a Frigate with a Frigate my bet would be the ANZAC II, now I know that the Finance Minister & his dept will have a big say but with the new signing of a closer relationship with our ANZAC brothers for training, command, logistics and joint buys these lead me to believe that what the RAN get then the RNZN will follow just MPOV.

Just concerned on the impact (and continuing impact) of the economy of NZ considering the current global climate, and also NZ's domestic issues, Christchurch rebuild etc ?

Once the rebuild starts it will seriously kick start the economy ChCh requires about 8000 tradesmen to rebuild I dont see that many in NZ, plus with the major players requesting to drill for gas & oil on mainland NZ things look good for us in the future, apparently the East Coast of the North Island is leaking the stuff time will tell.

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

I'm going to break up a reply because there was several points, not because I'm angrily bashing away at my keyboard.

OK - So what are your prejudices? Is it a question of affordability?

There is little choice other than the MH-60R. Lighter helicopters that have been marinised are few. A marinised A109 is going to be a poor second choice to a proper design.
But with the MH-60R comes higher purchase costs, high running costs (although supporting a lighter type may end up costing just as much), an additional helicopter type to support (which also would occur with smaller type) and a physically large helicopter that may not be compatible with the OPVs. I would have hoped that with the RAN operating Seahawks for the foreseeable future (that was true even before the MH-60R decision) that the OPV design can at the least land Seahawks even if they can't house them.

Why do you say it might not suit the RNZAF or the RNZN? It is the government that sets policy and decides what, why and how a platform is used.

It has recently been pointed out to me that recent history has had examples of the NZDF presenting a preferred procurement choice that had politicians reaching for their pen to cross it out and inserting a compromised (and cheaper) alternative. You'd know what examples these were, as I really don't.

I mentioned the RNZAF and RNZN because they are the ones who will have work with the result.

The concern expressed by my comments is that NZ will be pressured (whether internally or externally) to compromise requirements or resources in order to satisfy notions of commonality, economies of scale (that often don't eventuate or are one sided), industrial or economic participation, politics (internal or external), or even just good old fashioned schoolyard peer pressure. Frigates aren't just for Christmas, you know, they're for life!

Commonality doesn't have to mean the same platform, or even the same hull. It could just mean that common systems are utilised.
Main and secondary guns, PDMS, combat system could be common, but AU design has more VLS strike-length cells.
I would hope that the next frigate would be a IEP design, so electricity generation could be more flexible regarding diesel/gas combinations.
CEAFAR (or rather its offspring AUSPAR) is modular and can scale in size, so NZ could choose a size to suit its needs. Or even another radar system if AUSPAR is inappropriate to requirements.
AU might want hanger space for two helicopters, and NZ may prefer to have the space for more capable sea-boats.

Or maybe RNZN does want a 7000t frigate, but more GP focused with greater capacity for mission modules, stores or accommodation, or perhaps it would prefer mission endurance (fuel and stores) over higher speeds.

The intent with my comment wasn't to suggest that NZ didn't want a replacement frigate, just that it may not want the same frigate.

With the policy aims articulated by the current government (and the not inconsiderable brain power of the current CDF who has given us the vision) and its focus post 2020 on amphibious and maritime operations both independently and with the RAN and other allies I would argue that the capability that the Romeo brings less issues for us than problems.

Personally I agree. The MH-60R may be more expensive but other solutions that may look cheaper to purchase and run may turn out more expensive over the life of the helicopter. There really are economies of scale.
But there is no getting around that it would be another small fleet NZ has support, but then that is true of any type selected.
Ideally you want to choose the naval version of the NH90 as the TTH version is entering NZ service. Depending on how much life the Seasprite has, NZ could wait out the NFH development for a more mature version. The RAN doesn't have that option, it needs the MH-60R soonish.

The last couple of years have seen a turn around in focus and who we work with. Was Kiwi Flag 12 possible 3 years ago? Do we now get invites to RimPac? What about RoKiwi? I think people have to stop looking at the NZDF through the lense of the previous decade and a half.

That only speaks to the outlook of the NZ government and politicians, and not so much about the requirements the RNZN has for the frigate replacement.
As I wrote in my post, a different design with 90% of the capabilities of the RAN Future Frigate may make a third hull very attractive for the NZ government, and a third hull would go a long way to make sustaining deployments and class upgrades much easier. Two was never an ideal number.

 

[MrConservative]

Seriously - I have argued for what you are talking about. I have argued for three General Purpose frigates in the past here on DT. However the DWP thinks it wants two higher end frigate platforms rather than three. They have plausible reasons for doing so.

Again I caution not to confuse the defence setting of Helen Clark with John Key's Government and make assumptions. I am finding that too many Australian around here tend to do.

 

[aussienscale]

Cheers for the reply's guy's, that's why I ask the question of people who are there. Was not playing down NZ/US relationship or its economical status, but seems you thought that from my post ?

I know relationships are much better these days, but I have worked on FMS (from a security perspective) between AUS/US and know there is a bit more to it that that, so was curious as to whether you think the relationship is on the right track for this ? it would be the next major step in the relationship, appears from the reply's that it is looking like the case.

As for the ecomony, I was not aware you are looking at a surplus so soon, great position considering the quaks etc, so here is hoping it continues through to Ancac II etc, I certainly see the value in the Romeo for you as opposed to the Seasprite.

Cheers

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

Again I caution not to confuse the defence setting of Helen Clark with John Key's Government and make assumptions. I am finding that too many Australian around here tend to do.

As many Australians that you have found that have that opinion, I've come across as many New Zealanders who are unhappy that NZ has adopted <insert equipment here> just because Australia has, and are doubly upset because the version NZ bought was made in Australia and cost <insert number> times what it would have cost buying it from <insert European or Nth Am country here>. I bet you've come across a few of them too!

These aren't your average lefty whingers either, but defence enthusiasts. One former NZ Army man I once met flew into a mouth frothing rage because NZ purchased "$1m Hamel guns" from AU when NZ could have been bought them from Royal Ordnance for "$100,000". I can't vouch for the accuracy of his facts but he wasn't happy.

 

[MrConservative]

As many Australians that you have found that have that opinion, I've come across as many New Zealanders who are unhappy that NZ has adopted <insert equipment here> just because Australia has, and are doubly upset because the version NZ bought was made in Australia and cost <insert number> times what it would have cost buying it from <insert European or Nth Am country here>. I bet you've come across a few of them too!

These aren't your average lefty whingers either, but defence enthusiasts. One former NZ Army man I once met flew into a mouth frothing rage because NZ purchased "$1m Hamel guns" from AU when NZ could have been bought them from Royal Ordnance for "$100,000". I can't vouch for the accuracy of his facts but he wasn't happy.

Yep - there are plenty of defence whingers right here in NZ alright who are not lefties but right wing economic rationalists - Derek Quigley for example and there is always some ex service bod who is not happy about something - your Hamel guy for instance. However that type of attitude is more and more in the past and the communications / concept management strategies of the NZ Govt around defence and wider security matters are far more sophisticated than what they were 15 years ago. There never used to be a 'why' explaining the reason for something the NZDF/MinDef required. Thus they lost control of their own narrative and ended up losing their own policy setting. There are still a few anti-defence types who are presented with more media "volume" than their numbers represent - it more than often than not has the complete opposite effect on the wider public these days.

 

[MrConservative]

Well the digging and drilling bit is somewhat contentious and I have just learned that the NZG might have trouble with the assett sales they are so keen on. My POV is the digging and drilling is a necessary evil because we need the wealth that it will bring. The word is that the assett sales maybe held up or stopped by Section 9 of the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986 which stipulates that "says that the Crown will not act in a manner inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi" and there apparently is a lot of hui (meetings) going on amongst Māori about this at the moment, because the NZG want Māori leaders to agree to revoking that section which may not happen. Māori iwi (tribe) leaders also appear to be for the digging and drilling because they are in a business mode and can see the opportunites to amass iwi wealth, but amongst the people, especially the younger ones, there is a very vocal and organised opposition. The Rena sinking hasn't helped the digging and drilling cause any.

Mining and Drilling in NZ is inevitable. If the current generations of Xer's and Boomers won't do it soonish - the generations behind them will do it or be forced to do it - either by internal or external economic forces - in fact the Boomers will be screaming to drill and mine if it looks as though their pensions are to be cut. If NZer's still want their expensive "big comfy government" approach like a Norway - then they are going to need to sensibly and carefully mine it or drill it like Norway does. The proposition is that simple.

No mining or drilling - the average Kwi punter won't have their big comfy government in about 15 years as they won't be able to pay for it. Demographics It is inevitable.

Some countries like Ireland - which in many respects is very similar to NZ is in very bad shape - they have far less known O&G/Min resources - when a country like that effectively loses its economic sovereignty pragmatism kicks in. Ireland is banking that something offshore from its west coast comes up trumps.

s9 SOE - "Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi." The Attorney General will quite rightly find that both partners to the TOW have had significant history in selling and trading assets.

 

[ADMk2]

I don't think the RNZN will be that keen with a specialist role like ASW. That sort of so called specialist focus on ASW in the 1980's gave the peace niks some serious ammunition in objecting to the ANZAC Frigate project.

The other issue is that a specialist ASW / AA ship wouldn't fit in with the RNZN's wider regional role in the South Pacific. I would suggest a General Purpose ship would be the best solution.

I agree with that, RNZN needs a ship it can operate independently and in coalition as required.

For such a vital element of national power to be capable of operating independently and contribute to a Coalition it will need capability across the spectrum of naval warfare including anti-air, anti-surface and anti-submarine capabilities as well as littoral warfare capabilities, given the nature of the South Pacific and South East Asian region, where this ship will conduct most of it's operations.

The ship will need a maritime capable helicopter, the ability to deploy multiple RHIB's and probably the capability to accomodate UAV/S and unmanned surface/sub-surface vehicles as required as a growth option throughout it's lifespan.

I suspect the upgraded ANZAC capabilities (across both nations fleets) will represent the bare minimum of the sort of capability required from their respective future frigate programs.

 

[ngatimozart]

Mining and Drilling in NZ is inevitable. If the current generations of Xer's and Boomers won't do it soonish - the generations behind them will do it or be forced to do it - either by internal or external economic forces - in fact the Boomers will be screaming to drill and mine if it looks as though their pensions are to be cut. If NZer's still want their expensive "big comfy government" approach like a Norway - then they are going to need to sensibly and carefully mine it or drill it like Norway does. The proposition is that simple.

No mining or drilling - the average Kwi punter won't have their big comfy government in about 15 years as they won't be able to pay for it. Demographics It is inevitable.

Most definitely and I am one of thse baby boomers : Thats why I said that digging and drilling was an evil necessity. My real worry about it is our polies giving the rights away for sweet stuff all and NZ Inc getting SFA.

Some countries like Ireland - which in many respects is very similar to NZ is in very bad shape - they have far less known O&G/Min resources - when a country like that effectively loses its economic sovereignty pragmatism kicks in. Ireland is banking that something offshore from its west coast comes up trumps.

s9 SOE - "Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi." The Attorney General will quite rightly find that both partners to the TOW have had significant history in selling and trading assets.

Yes both parties to the ToW have a history of buying and selling things, but there are some who have problems about how this is being handled and that discussion is off topic. The reason I mentioned it was to illustrate some of the issues that NZG have. I am Māori and keep appraised of what is happening within Māoridom, around Treaty and environmental science issues, because my field is environmental science.

A comment was made (I can't remember by who - but he was a geologist in the know) a few years back, that the suspected hydrocarbon reserves in and around NZ would make the kiwi dollar a petro dollar, and we'd pay cash for all the defence systems we wanted just like the Saudis. The Southern Basin was thought to be the greatest area. That goes along with the uranium, gold and other heavy precious metals.

There appears to be a suggestion that a correlation exists between the occurrence of hydrocarbon deposits and tectonic plate boundaries. If that is indeed the case, then we would be literally sitting on the proverbial pot of gold. My argument would then run that the continental shelf should be the boundary for measuring the EEZ from, since the continent Zelandia consists of continental crust and is a continental shefl, ipso facto it is the continental shelf then we could argue for an extension of our EEZ, far further out than what it already is. The US has already set a precedent for claiming minerals rights far beyond its EEZ and continental shelf.

What has this digression into geology and international law have to do with the RNZN and NZDF. Well quite a lot because if NZG were to pursue such a course, which IMHO it should, then NZDF will be the agency which will most likely be tasked with monitoring security and any other taskings, that the NZG detail it too. Obviously NZG cannot viably do so with the quantity of kit it has now, so I would envisage an increasing of capability for RNZN and RNZAF along the lines of OPVs for RNZN, P8s and light maritime patrol aircraft for the RNZAF, plus more helos for 6 Sqn to operate off the increased number of OPVs. This would also mean increasing the number of active service personnel in both these services, plus personnel in associated ministries like Ministry for the Environment. NZG would also have to invest in at least two ocean going oil spill vessels, either crewed by naval personnel or civilian. Given the amount of money that would be gained by NZ Inc, I would suspect that the costs for the kit above would be a drop in the ocean. Please excuse the pun. Oh yes, then we could afford four good large frigates with the only problem crewing them. I think that would be the problem. Oh and one more serious piece of kit we would be able to afford a really decent Air Combat Force.

Now I am going to a certain Greenpeace activists facebook page, and upset a lot of my cuzzie bros by advocating lots of digging and drilling.

 

[MrConservative]

I agree with everything you have said and yes Royalties must be equitable and fair.

I used the example of Norway which is a country that seems to have achieved a good balance of income generation from its Oil and Gas plus retained high environmental principles.

It has also moved to protect its interests through its defence settings and again got the balance about right.

I very much appreciated Shane Jones's take on things over this issue today. Iwi when it comes down to it will do very well out of a growing NZ Oil and Gas industry - that also includes jobs. In Taranaki for every job directly employed in the O&G industry 3.7 jobs are created.