NZDF General discussion thread

[t68]

The more modern avionic suite in the rebuild (I's) is an attractive proposition, thats why they bought them as a NZ$240m package of 10 airframes (8 birds + 2 Spares), plus support. systems and spares for literally many 100's of millions less than than what they would have needed to stump up for to replace the current NZ's, which were going to require avionic and other system upgrades.

The NZDF did 12 months due diligence on the I's and from what I understand scoped a number of options including new builds and used rebuilds from a range of parties and manufacturers. They also looked at rebuilding the NZ G's - not a goer, plus not enough airframes and the opportunity cost was deemed poor. Spoke to everyone who was anyone. It was not rushed into and carefully negotiated.

The NZDF currently flies 3 rotary types and nobody is adding another unique platform. Some extra Mako's to provide fire support / recon capability for a deployed NZ Force in a LIC to MIC Chp7 scenario would reduce not magnify any problems planners at JTFNZ would have. Having two rotary types to support a battalion group is not usual in the least if you want a sembalance of contributing even partial spectrum support for the diggers.

It’s all good talking points and learning a lot here, but unless the NZDF increases their sealift capacity it is most unlikely that RNZAF could embark the armed LOH within a JATF.

The most likely NZ JAFT would comprise of,
1x Anzac class
1x MRV (Canterbury)
1x AOR (or JSS)
1x OPV?

The RNZAF contribution would most likely be 2x Seasprite and 4x NH-90 or 6 spots over 3 ships. So the LOH would most likely be airlifted in at a later date once a secured site is established, if an ARH was required id imagine Australian tigers would be on the scene using one of the Canberra.

But I guess this is one of the areas where the NZDF can bring things the ADF does not have. I am not totally sure that RNZAF has modernized its pilot training capability (PTC) to replace the B200 King airs, one of the aircraft under consideration is the T-6C Texan II which also has variant called the AT-6B Texan II IMHO it would be more practical if so desired a training aircraft combined with light attack /Light Observation aircraft which can perform a number of roles within the greater NZDF.

AT-6B Light Attack Aircraft / Trainer - Airforce Technology

 

[ADMk2]

Surely instead of buying more helicopters it would be more practical using the equipment you already have those 5 current sprites would not be more prudent to modernize these and bring it up to standard which is similar to Kaman H2 Tomahawk.

Integrating Hellfire, Hydra 70 and twin M134 Minigun should not be out of the realms of doable if the MH-6 little bird can I would imagine Sea Sprite having little difficulty.

Kaman H-2 "Tomahawk" helicopter - development history, photos, technical data
File:SAS 2010 AH-6.JPG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I suppose that could happen, but then the NZDF would have to maintain 4 separate helo types, the SH-2F being significantly different to the new SH-2G (i) helos it is acquiring. I would think consolidating on the 3 existing (or planned) types would be the better option in the longer term, plus the up-arming / sensor equipping of the AW109 fleet, offers little in the way of developmental risk, given the appropriate equipment (FLIR / targetting sensors, gun / rocket pods and missile systems) has largely already been integrated onto the aircraft by Agusta Westland and other existing users of the capability.

The AW109 is of course already operational within RNZAF service, expanding the fleet has already been successfully done once (moving from 5 to 8 in-service I believe) and it would be a straightforward acquisition adding X number of additional aircraft to this fleet, with a long term support and training base for this aircraft clearly already established.

 

[t68]

I suppose that could happen, but then the NZDF would have to maintain 4 separate helo types, the SH-2F being significantly different to the new SH-2G (i) helos it is acquiring. I would think consolidating on the 3 existing (or planned) types would be the better option in the longer term, plus the up-arming / sensor equipping of the AW109 fleet, offers little in the way of developmental risk, given the appropriate equipment (FLIR / targetting sensors, gun / rocket pods and missile systems) has largely already been integrated onto the aircraft by Agusta Westland and other existing users of the capability.

The AW109 is of course already operational within RNZAF service, expanding the fleet has already been successfully done once (moving from 5 to 8 in-service I believe) and it would be a straightforward acquisition adding X number of additional aircraft to this fleet, with a long term support and training base for this aircraft clearly already established.

In the longer term yes AW-109 would tick all the boxes for a MOTS system but that’s still leaves 3 types with the AW-109 of 2 distinct variants same can be said for the SH-2G, with the JATF having only 6 spots which aircraft do you leave at home.

But realistically how long can NZ sustain what is virtual orphan fleet, will they continue to evolve the aircraft which in turn means upgrading the avionics and sensors ,if that’s the case having 2 variants of the same helicopter which is currently compatible with the current and future fleet would be the way to go as you will only deploy and maintain 2 types of aircraft not 3.

 

[ADMk2]

In the longer term yes AW-109 would tick all the boxes for a MOTS system but that’s still leaves 3 types with the AW-109 of 2 distinct variants same can be said for the SH-2G, with the JATF having only 6 spots which aircraft do you leave at home.

But realistically how long can NZ sustain what is virtual orphan fleet, will they continue to evolve the aircraft which in turn means upgrading the avionics and sensors ,if that’s the case having 2 variants of the same helicopter which is currently compatible with the current and future fleet would be the way to go as you will only deploy and maintain 2 types of aircraft not 3.

Any armed AW109 would be completely the same standard as RNZAF's existing AW109's. The addition of kits for arming them and equipping them with sensor systems, doesn't make the aircraft itself any different or of a different standard...

I suspect the existing AW109's have a range of bolt-on equipment that changes their operational role. Does that mean there is yet another standard for these aircraft?

Operating the existing SH-2G means you have a completely different avionics fit to the rest of the SH-2G fleet. Different support and training requirements and so on.

With an armed AW109 and non-armed AW109 fleet you only have to support and train on one type of helicopter, though maintainers and ordnance loaders would obviously be required to train for the additional armed role, as they would for any aircraft tasked in such a manner.

 

[Interested]

123456

 

[Todjaeger]

I was pleased to see an increase in this budget for the NZDF.

The Stuff NZ website's "tax-o-meter" was interesting. A person on NZ$70,100 income pays $1.16 per day tax for Defence spending (note: this is not flame bait for Tod to talk about capital charges and depreciation etc.). When the figures are that stark, I can personally say I'm willing to give up one bottle of Vodka per month (not two bottles mind you) to double our expenditure on the military. There are always much needed hardware getting to the end of the useful life that need to be replaced that could be covered by more spending in the next decade.

I'm not a "let's spend unlimited amounts on the military" sort of person. I do realise that we have a big hurdle to jump to get heavy lift and surveillance aircraft sorted, plus the Endeavour replacement, so that requires decisions now, and NZ DF budget increases between now and 2020 to do it. After these necessary additions we can have an adult discussion on what level of expenditure do we need to maintain our capability.

Took a look at the expenditure meter. Honestly not quite sure how accurate it is, in part due to some of the accounting being potentially thrown off. It is worth noting though that the average adult Kiwi likely spends more for coffee during a week than they pay for Defence.

With discussions on Kiwi defence spending, IMO the discussion has for too long revolved around how much to spend, then getting capabilities to match the expenditure.

What I think needs to occur is for honest discussions need to be held on what capabilities the NZDF needs to have and of what degree, then figure out what sort of funding is required to obtain/maintain those capabilities properly.

One of the other things which IMO should be examined is the impact of the limited expenditures forcing the NZDF to accept upgrades and SLEP's which really should not have been.

The RNZAF P-3K2 upgrade programme is one example which comes to mind. Under part of the programme (and part from Project Kestrel) the P-3K Orions were re-winged and re-wired. However when this was done, the wiring that was put in was not the latest standard of wiring. The end result being that the P-3K2's cannot operate any of the newer ordnance like Harpoon Block II, SLAM-ER, JDAM, etc, without another upgrade programme which would require the P-3K's to be re-winged again. Granted such ordnance is not currently in Kiwi service AFAIK, but if some sort of crisis were to arise where it would be useful/good for the NZDF to have such a capability, the wiring issue would keep that from happening for several years. I suspect the decision to not install the upgraded wiring was due to either a failure in terms of forward thinking, or cost, or perhaps both. Unfortunately that seems to be a trend which keeps repeating itself with regards to the NZDF.

-Cheers

 

[MrConservative]

It’s all good talking points and learning a lot here, but unless the NZDF increases their sealift capacity it is most unlikely that RNZAF could embark the armed LOH within a JATF.

The most likely NZ JAFT would comprise of,
1x Anzac class
1x MRV (Canterbury)
1x AOR (or JSS)
1x OPV?

The RNZAF contribution would most likely be 2x Seasprite and 4x NH-90 or 6 spots over 3 ships. So the LOH would most likely be airlifted in at a later date once a secured site is established, if an ARH was required id imagine Australian tigers would be on the scene using one of the Canberra.

But I guess this is one of the areas where the NZDF can bring things the ADF does not have. I am not totally sure that RNZAF has modernized its pilot training capability (PTC) to replace the B200 King airs, one of the aircraft under consideration is the T-6C Texan II which also has variant called the AT-6B Texan II IMHO it would be more practical if so desired a training aircraft combined with light attack /Light Observation aircraft which can perform a number of roles within the greater NZDF.

AT-6B Light Attack Aircraft / Trainer - Airforce Technology

The real medium term NZDF requirement is a cornerstone vessel that can tie the whole Post 2020 Defence vision into place. A bigger. stronger and more capable Canterbury. The Son of Canterbury you could call it. There are number of designs out there that have possibilities which we have discussed in the past. Endurance 160, Mistral 140, MRD 150 to name a few.

Incidently, the fleshing out of the pilot training system is quite advanced. Leased glass cockpit B200's arrived last year for MEPT, with advanced trainers competition annoucement forthcoming (eventually) and the T-6 Texan II is in that mix - it has been suggested by the MoD that a one type approach to cover the advanced and basic syllabus could happen as the CT-4 production will not be revived and rationalisation to a single type may work.

 

[40 deg south]

Incidently, the fleshing out of the pilot training system is quite advanced. Leased glass cockpit B200's arrived last year for MEPT, with advanced trainers competition annoucement forthcoming (eventually) and the T-6 Texan II is in that mix - it has been suggested by the MoD that a one type approach to cover the advanced and basic syllabus could happen as the CT-4 production will not be revived and rationalisation to a single type may work.

Mr C
Following on from your comments in the naval forum abut the geopolitical advantages of buying from Asia, has anyone noticed that Korea is actively flogging its own KAI KT-1 turboprop trainer, complete with armed version. Turkey, Indonesia and Peru appear to be takers so far.



I doubt NZDF/gov't would be that bold, but it would certainly be interesting if a surprise contender overcame the Texan.

 

[Lucasnz]

It’s all good talking points and learning a lot here, but unless the NZDF increases their sealift capacity it is most unlikely that RNZAF could embark the armed LOH within a JATF.

The most likely NZ JAFT would comprise of,
1x Anzac class
1x MRV (Canterbury)
1x AOR (or JSS)
1x OPV?

The RNZAF contribution would most likely be 2x Seasprite and 4x NH-90 or 6 spots over 3 ships.

The force structure is close to optimal however it lacks redundancy in that if the ANZAC Frigate suffers mechanical failure etc then the operation would effectively be compromised. Redundancy can be achieved through either deploying or having available to deploy a third frigate however I question whether a frigate would even be available for operations given the current rotation cycles through deployment / leave / maintenance - refit / work up.

Reading the other discussions on the Mako I'd tend to support acquiring more. In addition "armed" they would be suitable for the majority of operations we are likely to encounter in the Pacific.

Acquiring a like of like Endeavour replacement and a as Mr C put it "more capable Canterbury" as a separate project is my preferred path forward for developing the navy's logistical capability. Buying from SEA is not necessary a given (i.e ANZAC replacement and compatibility with Australia).

I would however comment that for New Zealand I'm increasingly of the view that we need to address the quality vs quantity issue. By that I mean we need some high end frigates, some form of ACF and P8 etc in order to be a good international citizen etc. However by acquiring Patrol frigates (Thetis / Floreal) / Absolom, more Mako etc would allow us to address some of the shortfalls in capability for the JATF in order to deal with situations in the Pacific. Just MHO

 

[t68]

I would however comment that for New Zealand I'm increasingly of the view that we need to address the quality vs quantity issue. By that I mean we need some high end frigates, some form of ACF and P8 etc in order to be a good international citizen etc. However by acquiring Patrol frigates (Thetis / Floreal) / Absolom, more Mako etc would allow us to address some of the shortfalls in capability for the JATF in order to deal with situations in the Pacific. Just MHO

Yes I believe NZ will consult with Australia for the future frigate, but that does not have to mean you will follow Australia's lead.

If the politicians were smart they would relise that they are in the box seat with future fleet you have the Singaporeans Koreans Spanish just to name a few who would do a good deal for not only frigates but amphibious and oilers play you cards right and you my get what you wished for. The Koreans can do the lot for you from ships to re-establishing an ACF .

 

[ngatimozart]

The force structure is close to optimal however it lacks redundancy in that if the ANZAC Frigate suffers mechanical failure etc then the operation would effectively be compromised. Redundancy can be achieved through either deploying or having available to deploy a third frigate however I question whether a frigate would even be available for operations given the current rotation cycles through deployment / leave / maintenance - refit / work up.

I agree three frigates is really a necessity rather than an optional extra as pollies & bean counters seem to think. After reading comments on the RAN thread I think that we may need to move towards a GP frigate and a multirole vessel. That's why I am thinking more of an Absalom type vessel in that it gives an extra amphib capability and we can mix and match capabilities such as ASW, ASuW, AA etc., through modular weapons systems. Although I think it should have a permanent torpedo capability. One could be bought in say five years time and the other two close to when ANZACS due for replacing.

Reading the other discussions on the Mako I'd tend to support acquiring more. In addition "armed" they would be suitable for the majority of operations we are likely to encounter in the Pacific.

Whilst the Mako is cheap, would be easy and I agree with some of what is suggested, I do have my concerns about its ability to withstand shipboard life. So it would have to be marinised and the undercart strengthened. If that is cost effective and technically feasible then I'm all for it ,because then we could operate them off the OPVs, which would free up Sprites for frigate deployments etc., especially if we got a third frigate.

Acquiring a like of like Endeavour replacement and a as Mr C put it "more capable Canterbury" as a separate project is my preferred path forward for developing the navy's logistical capability. Buying from SEA is not necessary a given (i.e ANZAC replacement and compatibility with Australia).

I remember a comment on one DT thread that Canterbury is good for basic Amphib Op learning, but it is by all accounts not suited for purpose. IMHO what would be needed before Canterbury's MLU, is a dedicated LPD around the 14,000 - 17,000 tonne laden displacement, with landing craft capable of taking a NZLAV to the beach. Alongside the Endeavour replacement with the criteria listed in the RFI, it would give NZDF a very good capability that would be highly compatible with the ADF.

I would however comment that for New Zealand I'm increasingly of the view that we need to address the quality vs quantity issue. By that I mean we need some high end frigates, some form of ACF and P8 etc in order to be a good international citizen etc. However by acquiring Patrol frigates (Thetis / Floreal) / Absolom, more Mako etc would allow us to address some of the shortfalls in capability for the JATF in order to deal with situations in the Pacific. Just MHO

I agree and I think the armed navilised Mako could be something that can be actioned and inducted over say a four year period, IF the political will existed to do so. With regard to an ACF, when Clark killed the ACF there were around 21 A4s and IIRC about 16 Macchis. So working on those numbers we would be wasting our time buying F16s, because the production thereof is stopping in 2014. We need something that will last us 40 odd years so something like the SAAB Gripen NG and as a fast air trainer the KAI TA50. If we go with the 1998 F16 acquistion, that was 24 aircraft, then 24 Gripen NGs and 12 TA50s, that's NZ$4 - 4.5 billion. Given that cost I can't see an ACF happening anytime soon, unless the PLA base a detachment of Xian H6s in Fiji as elint and recce birds similar to the Russian Bears (Tu95). That would give the pollies a case of the loose sphincter muscle. Fiji turns to Russia, China amid strained regional ties | Defense & Security News at DefenceTalk I also think we could run three OPVs of around the 2,500 tonne displacement using some of the weapons modules for the suggested frigates as well as 57mm or 76mm guns capable of firing enhanced rounds and enhanced range rounds, plus a couple of 25mm or 30mm auto cannon. That also would mean increasing RNZN numbers.

 

[MrConservative]

Lets not get ahead of ourselves, because we are still alongway behind where we should be.

We effectively have lost a decade of capbility development and it is going to take another 10 years of long term planning to get ourselves back in order. There are a number of fundamental major projects that need to be wisely considered and bedded down before we even think about a pathway to fast air. We need to put these capbility gaps or shortfalls in order. P-8+SLAM-ER?, A400M?, new tanker, new frigates x 2 or 3, replacement for CY LHD?, LWSV, more Mako's?, UAV? plus MEPT/CMPA and APT, and a whole range of Land Warfare requirements, plus SAT and other Comms we are still requiring.

From where we are now and all jesting aside, the only way back into an fast mover air combat capbility is through developing a contribution based relationship with the USN and ADF. That all comes down to the willingness for us to pay our way and their willingness to hold our hand while we find our wings. That finding our wings will take years of effort and money. It also has to be a win-win. In my view there really is only one option that could be or will be digestible fiscally and politically. I have mentioned it before in passing. We would first need to begin to sent select RNZAF pilots to either Miramar or OZ for training, then have them join RAAF Shornet Squadrons on secondment (with the political visbility of them also exercsing and forward based here regularly with Kiwi pilots in the mix - political symbolism "qualifying the public" in Political Commspeak), with a medium term view of buying/leasing our own short Squadron of Shornets, and this would have to be inconjunction with having USN and RAAF instructors/advisors seconded across to us. (note the USN seconded senior instructors to 75 Sqd in the early 70s when the first bought the A-4K so there is a precident). We operate this Ohakea based short Squadron which will be initially tasked with wider defence force training for the Army and Navy on a client basis - as well as developing the full gambit of modern fast mover skills. Eventually transition across to broder joint or integrated training with the RAAF Shornets (it may even be that we had taken over some former RAAF Shornets or ex USN examples - but that is speculation). Following through this pathway we might end up with the eventual establishment of an operationally deployable Anzac Squadron and then longer term possibly our own stand alone Squadron.

That from where I stand that is a 15 years timeframe and committment. Us going off and doing it alone is expotentially more difficult and much more expensive and fraught with failure and would not likely to be that more capable or useful to the regional security umbrella if it was to work. Even the pathway that I have outlined above is conditional on numerous factors anyway. I think it is possible yet not probable.

 

[40 deg south]

Lets not get ahead of ourselves, because we are still alongway behind where we should be. ...

There are a number of fundamental major projects that need to be wisely considered and bedded down before we even think about a pathway to fast air. We need to put these capbility gaps or shortfalls in order. P-8+SLAM-ER?, A400M?, new tanker, new frigates x 2 or 3, replacement for CY LHD?, LWSV, more Mako's?, UAV? plus MEPT/CMPA and APT, and a whole range of Land Warfare requirements, plus SAT and other Comms we are still requiring.

The Defence Capability Plan 2011 on the MinDef website gives some fairly clear guidance, articularly the section headed 'Capability Priorities'. On a quick browse, the government seems to be sticking fairly closely to this plan. Assuming this continues, the things that stand out (to me) are:
Navy
Replacement tanker with sealift capability - in-service 2019
Littoral Warfare Support Capability - delivered 2018
Air Force
New pilot training capability - delivered 2014/15
Air Mobility study completed 2015, to guide acquisitions 2018-2025
Short-range maritime surveillance aircraft - 'to be investigated'
The three extra AW109's aren't scheduled until 2017-2019
Army
Enhanced mobility - I think that has just been sorted
LAV upgrade - 2016-2019
Misc smaller items - body armour, night vision etc.

Not much room for playing fantasy fleets here, I'm afraid. And nil prospect of getting back into fast jets, unless there is a major geopolitical crisis.

 

[t68]

Not much room for playing fantasy fleets here, I'm afraid. And nil prospect of getting back into fast jets, unless there is a major geopolitical crisis.

And by the time they relise they need it it's far to late to do anything about it anyway.
Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. You just have to look at the position of the defence prior to WWII and how long it took to get up to speed equipment wise only problem with the complexities of modern equipment to kit up in a short time frame is just not going to happen.

 

[kiwi in exile]

That also would mean increasing RNZN numbers.

Isn't this the first thing we need to do. last I heard half the IPV's weren't sailing.
Plus the headlines about morale being so low across NZDF. Retention issues first.

I agree with 40 deg south. Fast air will only happen if the geopolitics require it.
Otherwise it's not really neccessary.
Think of the roles jets would serve/the roles the A4's served: naval strike, CAS and air-to-air.
MPAs should be able to fulfil naval deterrent role (Our P3s can't). Close air support- i think there are cheaper options (this is another gap in NZDF capability/JATF plan). As for air-to-air- where are the threats?
If we need to contribute to a coalition operation, we can pull our weight in other ways.

 

[ngatimozart]

Lets not get ahead of ourselves, because we are still alongway behind where we should be.

We effectively have lost a decade of capbility development and it is going to take another 10 years of long term planning to get ourselves back in order. There are a number of fundamental major projects that need to be wisely considered and bedded down before we even think about a pathway to fast air. We need to put these capbility gaps or shortfalls in order. P-8+SLAM-ER?, A400M?, new tanker, new frigates x 2 or 3, replacement for CY LHD?, LWSV, more Mako's?, UAV? plus MEPT/CMPA and APT, and a whole range of Land Warfare requirements, plus SAT and other Comms we are still requiring.

From where we are now and all jesting aside, the only way back into an fast mover air combat capbility is through developing a contribution based relationship with the USN and ADF. That all comes down to the willingness for us to pay our way and their willingness to hold our hand while we find our wings. That finding our wings will take years of effort and money. It also has to be a win-win. In my view there really is only one option that could be or will be digestible fiscally and politically. I have mentioned it before in passing. We would first need to begin to sent select RNZAF pilots to either Miramar or OZ for training, then have them join RAAF Shornet Squadrons on secondment (with the political visbility of them also exercsing and forward based here regularly with Kiwi pilots in the mix - political symbolism "qualifying the public" in Political Commspeak), with a medium term view of buying/leasing our own short Squadron of Shornets, and this would have to be inconjunction with having USN and RAAF instructors/advisors seconded across to us. (note the USN seconded senior instructors to 75 Sqd in the early 70s when the first bought the A-4K so there is a precident). We operate this Ohakea based short Squadron which will be initially tasked with wider defence force training for the Army and Navy on a client basis - as well as developing the full gambit of modern fast mover skills. Eventually transition across to broder joint or integrated training with the RAAF Shornets (it may even be that we had taken over some former RAAF Shornets or ex USN examples - but that is speculation). Following through this pathway we might end up with the eventual establishment of an operationally deployable Anzac Squadron and then longer term possibly our own stand alone Squadron.

That from where I stand that is a 15 years timeframe and committment. Us going off and doing it alone is expotentially more difficult and much more expensive and fraught with failure and would not likely to be that more capable or useful to the regional security umbrella if it was to work. Even the pathway that I have outlined above is conditional on numerous factors anyway. I think it is possible yet not probable.

I fully understand the long time frame and actually would have thought 10 years if we stand up an ACF again. I agree about embedding aircrew with RAAF & USN but I also would include the USAF, RAF and maybe RCAF. I disagree about NZ acquiring or leasing Shornets because they are to expensive to buy, lease and operate. That is one of the main reasons why I like the Gripen - it's cheaper to acquire and operate than a F16. The actual aircraft is not overly important in that aircrew can be converted onto them relatively easily. I would also take the embeding suggested and bring instructors from the suggested forces to NZ for first few years until Sqn(s) are on their feet.

Whilst I think an ACF is important I think our air and sea transport capability is more important at moment especially with the JATF concept. There was a Public Symposium on Understanding NZs Security Future at Victoria Uni in Wgtn on 23/5/2013 which seems to have attracted a lot of people and some very good speakers. This is a quote from an blog posted by Andrew Davies on the Strategist site: "The net result is a real question mark over the continuing ability of the NZDF to execute the tasks identified for it. The consensus here seems to be that the minimum capability required is air and sea lift in support of stabilisation and peacekeeping operations, and the ability to put a battalion on the ground if required (around 600 personnel). A view from across the ditch. It is a good and I think necessary read because I think Andrew has hit the nail on the head. In order to get 600 pairs of boots on the ground the question has to be asked is HMNZS Canterbury enough or the right ship? To put it another way is it value for money? I do not think so to both questions and that is why I favour an LPD. But the largest hurdle is the lack of political will and the NZ pollies sticking to 1% of GDP for defence spending. The second hurdle is public and political apathy regarding defence.

Also of equal, if not more importance, is the frigate situation and that is why I revisited the Absalom type frigate concept. Our ANZAC frigates will need replacement and it is quite feasible that what the ADF will replace their ANZAC frigates with will not meet NZs needs or budget. So we will have to look elsewhere. I think that this is indicative of the growing disconnect between the NZDF and the ADF regardless of the political agreements made. NZ and Australia have different aspirations diplomatically and as Graeme Dobell argues in his four Strategist blogs, about the ANZAC relationship, the aspirations of both nations and the reality are two different stories.

These are Graeme Dobells four articles that look at the Australian - NZ defence relationship. They are a very good read and I think a necessary read as well.

Part 1: [url="http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/kiwi-and-kangaroo/]"Kiwi and kangaroo[/url] "The Australian relationship with New Zealand is kindred, yet Kiwi. The kindred yet Kiwi line expresses the reality that the kiss and the kick are the two twinned elements of a deeply intertwined history. These are two countries so close that even in moments of embrace, a bit of elbowing and toe-stepping is inevitable. This is a good thing. Happy is the international relationship that can take a bit of bruising, where the first response is often to make a joke about the other side."

Part 2: [url="http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/new-zealand-does-some-things-better-than-australia/] "New Zealand does some things better than Australia[/url] To stray into areas that are simultaneously sacred yet deeply unsafe, look at New Zealand’s strength in important areas such as rugby, race horses and the ability to make oceans of sauvignon blanc that millions of Australians guzzle as acidic nectar. On race horses, Australia will never concede. On rugby, Oz has reached a state of resigned grace about being stomped by the All Blacks. On wine, the marvellous mixture from Marlborough—the top selling white in Oz—is driving Australian wine producers demented, moaning about the NZ blanc’s resemblance to cat’s pee, body odour and a noxious weed."

Part 3: [url="http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/kiwi-and-kangaroo-part-iii-the-anzus-resurrection/]Kiwi and kangaroo (part III): the ANZUS resurrection[/url] "To be in Canberra in 1985–86 as the ANZUS alliance was shaken until it collapsed and died was to witness the five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Of those five stages, anger was the strongest, and acceptance was a long time coming. The one thing missing from the Kubler-Ross stages of grief as displayed by Australian politicians and bureaucrats was the sense of amazement, stretching to the incredulous, that the slow-motion disaster couldn’t be averted.

Part 4: Kiwi and kangaroo (part IV): future imperfect "The Australian Army can find positive things to say about its Kiwi counterpart, usually in a sardonic tone. My favourite in this version of an Oz Army compliment: ‘The Maori Army? Better than Gurkhas! They bring their own officers and you don’t have to pay them’. In the South Pacific, we can add to those assets the fact that the Maori Army can sing while the Australian Army has a hard time just chanting. The Kiwi cultural feel for the region can matter. In East Timor, the Australian Army on foot was known for its sunglasses. The Kiwis stomped on the habit because of their awareness of the need for eye contact when out amongst the people."

 

[Todjaeger]

There was a Public Symposium on Understanding NZs Security Future at Victoria Uni in Wgtn on 23/5/2013 which seems to have attracted a lot of people and some very good speakers. This is a quote from an blog posted by Andrew Davies on the Strategist site: "The net result is a real question mark over the continuing ability of the NZDF to execute the tasks identified for it. The consensus here seems to be that the minimum capability required is air and sea lift in support of stabilisation and peacekeeping operations, and the ability to put a battalion on the ground if required (around 600 personnel). A view from across the ditch. It is a good and I think necessary read because I think Andrew has hit the nail on the head. In order to get 600 pairs of boots on the ground the question has to be asked is HMNZS Canterbury enough or the right ship? To put it another way is it value for money? I do not think so to both questions and that is why I favour an LPD. But the largest hurdle is the lack of political will and the NZ pollies sticking to 1% of GDP for defence spending. The second hurdle is public and political apathy regarding defence.

I read through the blog posts with interest. I also read through some of the other blog posts, noting with significant interest the observations about NZ's diminishing importance in Australia's various Defence White Papers. I have a few rather unpleasant thoughts as to why NZ seems to be diminishing in importance.

The next is something I noted when reading through the blog posts. The commentary is still being made that NZ's Defence Budget is sticking to 1% GDP... I am certain others will get (or are already) tired of my commenting about this, but the spending on the NZDF is more like 0.7% GDP in real terms. Unfortunately it seems the pollies have managed to sell their version. Much like those who say they earn $nn p.a. but their livestyles are more modest because that figure was before any taxes or fees, so the amount to actually live on is much reduced.

A concern brought up in the symposium is...

The net result is a real question mark over the continuing ability of the NZDF to execute the tasks identified for it

Which makes me wonder what tasks have been identified for the NZDF, who decided them, who decided what was required for said tasks, and of course who decided how much it should cost to perform said tasks. Particularly since the following also was brought up...

the ability to put a battalion on the ground if required (around 600 personnel).

Would the NZDF actually be able to field a battalion or battalion-sized TF? And how long could a deployment of that size be sustained?

Two things seem to keep recurring. The first is the post-poning of capability replacement, sometimes via an upgrade programme v. replacement (a la C-130H SLEP) or the announcement of a study to examine replacement. The airlift study is a good example of the later. One of the reasons these sorts of delays concern me is because it can take a decade or more between the identification of the need for replacement and IOC for the replacement.

The other recurring theme seems to be that due the NZ being in a 'benign' security environment, it is not as important to keep things current, and then when bad things do not happen, it serves as justification and reinforcement for not keeping current.

IIRC under the LTDP the Mk 46 LWT replacement programme was set to go off in the 2012-2015 timeframe. AFAIK the MU90 LWT entered service in 2012. However, if memory serves the Mk 46 LWT's expired in 2008 which means that in the ~4 years until the MU90's entered service, if the NZDF had needed to engage in ASW ops, the torpedoes might have worked, and they might not have. Fortunately there have been no known incidents where the RNZAF or RNZN needed LWT's during that time frame, but if there had been the lack could have been devastating.

A time when the tendency to put things off did cause problems for the NZDF was during some of the unrest in Thailand in recent years. Due to some upgrades finally having gotten underway as well as servicability issues for the RNZAF air lifters, NZ was unable to deploy transports to Thailand to get Kiwis out.

Now the blogger did bring up a good point...

I think there’s a critical question to be asked if capability drops below the level required to reliably meet such requirements—at what stage does a defence force stop being worth having? If you can’t plan on being able to conduct even low level operations, do you end up with an expensive civil response capability which doesn’t add to your external national power base?

To be clear, New Zealand is far from that point at the moment, but it’s not a preposterous prospect given the resourcing environment and the current trend.

I am certain that some within NZ (the Green Party comes to mind) would like to see the NZDF either go away, or become a strictly domestic civil response service. What concerns me is that due to apathy and a lack of engagement, that just might happen. I do disagree with the blogger though that NZ is far from being at that point, given what has been lost so far, and what needs replacement within the next decade... The NZDF is IMO approaching a crossroads.

-Cheers

 

[40 deg south]

Asia

Just came across this strongly-worded article from late last year by the current Japanese Prime Minister. While Pearl Harbour seems safe for now, he is exceedingly frank about his desire to contain China.

He even suggests the French could beef up their naval presence in Tahiti, and that Japan wants to join the Five-Power Defence Arrangements, which include NZ.

Interesting times indeed.

 

[STURM]

The main thing to bear in mind is that none of the 5 FPDA members want to unneccesarily annoy China and if Japan [very unlikely in my opinion] joins the FPDA, that is precisely what will happen. Japan's membership into the FPDA is dependent on all the 5 FPDA countries agreeing. The official reason that led to the FPDA being formed [in 1971] was to provide Malaysia and Singapore with some reassurance [it was/is not a binding treaty like NATO which obliges members to provide military aid], in the event of another round of hostilities with Indonesia, and was also meant to serve as a platform for Malaysian/Singaporean defence cooperation. Bringing in Japan would change the raison detre for the FPDA and would radically change the whole geo-political regional enviroment. There is also the question of how non-FPDA countries would react - only 2 of 11 ASEAN countries are art of the FPDA.

The country that was invited to join the FPDA was Brunei but she never did - many were of the opinion was she didn't want to offend Indonesia. The most likely thing to happen is that Japan will increase its aid budget provided to the coast guards of several ASEAN countries, will increase its level of joint exchanges with the armed forces of ASEAN countries, improve its diplomatic and trade relationship with Cambodia and Myanmmar [both countries have very strong ties with China] and step up the deployment of its naval and coast guard vessels to the region.

 

[ngatimozart]

According to Coleman, the Minister of Defence, NZDF is setting aside $600 million over the next 20 years to acquire UAVs for various uses including maritime patrol but excluding CIA style strikes against individuals. Kiwi drones 'won't be killers' - national | Stuff.co.nz I think that if the NZG are looking at acquiring BAMS type UAV then the monies set aside will not allow for many units plus the other UAVs that the Army and Navy would be looking at and requiring.

On another matter the Minister has ordered an immediate enquiry into NZDF safety culture. Coleman orders Defence Force inquiry - Story - Politics - 3 News This is overdue and the item televised noted that the enquiry is being done in response to an apparently damning report regarding the drowning of Private Michael Ross who died whilst on an exercise. This report is due to be released soon and the journo noted that the just announced enquiry was an attempt to make the NZG look like it is doing something. I think I agree with the journo on this.