NZDF General discussion thread

[40 deg south]

They've made Oz look silly in a number of areas...

While I always like to wind up our cousins in the East Island, in truth there is enough silliness to go around!

In some cases, NZ made a better call than Aust. For example, replacing the M113 with the LAVIII, and opting for new-build Seasprites instead of old airframes with new electronics.

On the other hand, spending NZD$260 million to upgrade five 40-year-old C130s, and taking a decade to deliver them, makes the Aussie C130J purchase decision look like the work of Einstein. The P3C upgrade is more defensible given the lack of alternative airframes, but I have trouble believing it also needed to take a decade. And that's not to mention Project Protector...

NZ's besetting sin is cheapness. Even when sensible decisions are made on a platform (e.g Seasprite) we bought too few, meaning the units they had would be flogged to death, and wouldn't get time out for heavy maintenance. Even Protector (the IPV+OPV+sealift) project wasn't conceptually flawed - they just tried to buy too many ships with too little money. Inevitably, corners were cut and compromises made.

In contrast, I think part of Australia's problem has been lack of budget discipline at both Cabinet level and within the defence establishment. Plus wanting to use defence spending to buy votes in sensitive states/electorates. Where that path leads to can be seen in Canada, where they are currently planning to locally-build two Berlin-class replenishment ships, each one of which will cost more than the combined cost of the four (larger) British MARS tankers from South Korea. In this context, NZ's lack of a real defence industrial base (and associated lobbyists) can be seen as an advantage.

 

[Waylander]

It's a universal problem. Have a look around and one sees that most countries struggle with getting enough bang for their bucks.

Even I as a rather conservative and well informed man when it comes to defense have a hard time arguing for a decent defense budget. The colossal waste in many armed forces (due to political and internal reasons) beggars believe and makes it very hard to compare it favourable to investing into infrastructure, education or just plain old tax reductions.

Just have a look at the US, France, Germany and the UK for numerous examples of billions of dollars and euros drowned for nothing.

I can't see NZ being exceptional bad at this compared to the rest of the crowd.

 

[40 deg south]

It's a universal problem. Have a look around and one sees that most countries struggle with getting enough bang for their bucks.

Even I as a rather conservative and well informed man when it comes to defense have a hard time arguing for a decent defense budget. The colossal waste in many armed forces (due to political and internal reasons) beggars believe and makes it very hard to compare it favourable to investing into infrastructure, education or just plain old tax reductions.

Just have a look at the US, France, Germany and the UK for numerous examples of billions of dollars and euros drowned for nothing.

I can't see NZ being exceptional bad at this compared to the rest of the crowd.

Very well said, sir.

NZ certainly hasn't wasted as much money as some countries. That doesn't make it any less frustrating when it does happen. Particularly when it was entirely foreseeable, and could have been prevented with only a little more money. For example, buying a single extra Seasprite airframe, or spreading an extra NZD$100 million over the 7 Protector vessels could have given much better outcomes for modest extra cost.

 

[Volkodav]

From memory NZ actually selected the Lynx over the Seasprite but then put the decision on hold pending the Australian choice. The cheaper, but still perfectly capable and suitable Lynx could have been bought in greater numbers than the Sprogs and would likely have had a better level of manufacturer support being a far more exported platform. The stupid thing is Australia opted for Seasprite because we wanted Penguin, this was not a factor for NZ. Following the ending of the corvette project the RAN had no platform driven need for a smaller helo so should have just ordered additional Seahawks and modified the entire fleet to carry Penguin.

Had a look over the LAV at Wanaka a few years back, being an ex CAV trooper I was impressed, left the M-113 I used to crew for dead. The entire M-113 upgrade really p******s me off big time, I know people who worked on it, good people but the whole thing was just a waste of resources that borders on criminal. Got to see one of the losing tenders as well, simple MOTS power train swap, MOTS applique armour and a MOTS (Rafael I believe) RWS instead of a turret. Simpler, cheaper could have been delivered in a fraction of the time so of course a different tender got up.

 

[ngatimozart]

Very well said, sir.

NZ certainly hasn't wasted as much money as some countries. That doesn't make it any less frustrating when it does happen. Particularly when it was entirely foreseeable, and could have been prevented with only a little more money. For example, buying a single extra Seasprite airframe, or spreading an extra NZD$100 million over the 7 Protector vessels could have given much better outcomes for modest extra cost.

Yes that would be the logical and prudent thing to do. However neoliberal economic theory pervades treasury and the main political parties like a miasma that sucks the life out of a living organism and the NZ variant is very extreme and virulent. Even though the theories have been shown to be extremely flawed it is still clung to like a drunk clings to a bottle empty except for one drop and the fumes of the booze.

Then there are the public service experts who are experts in their own fields, but not in defence procurement, nor how defence equipment is utilised, maintained and the rule of 3s. The Lynx would've have been the ideal purchase both for the RNZN and probably the RAN. Is 20 /20 hindsight a wonderful thing. We could've got another 10 years out of the Lynx and then gone straight to the Wildcat. The other thing is, as we realised we needed more helos e could've easily acquired extra Lynxs.

 

[Volkodav]

Yes that would be the logical and prudent thing to do. However neoliberal economic theory pervades treasury and the main political parties like a miasma that sucks the life out of a living organism and the NZ variant is very extreme and virulent. Even though the theories have been shown to be extremely flawed it is still clung to like a drunk clings to a bottle empty except for one drop and the fumes of the booze.

Then there are the public service experts who are experts in their own fields, but not in defence procurement, nor how defence equipment is utilised, maintained and the rule of 3s. The Lynx would've have been the ideal purchase both for the RNZN and probably the RAN. Is 20 /20 hindsight a wonderful thing. We could've got another 10 years out of the Lynx and then gone straight to the Wildcat. The other thing is, as we realised we needed more helos e could've easily acquired extra Lynxs.

Totally agreed.

Australia too has suffered from both economic theory and ideological stances. One side says we can't afford a,b,c,d , less is more, need to out source and move resources from the teeth to the from the tail blah, blah, blah. The other side says capability x or y is too warlike and a modern peaceful democracy doesn't need.... end result is the right and the left, neo liberal and neo con as well as loonie left rat bags are all taking chunks out of defence capability, setting lower goals than ever before and then failing to meet them. Every now and then we get a centrist elements carrying sway which is when common sense has its best chance of breaking out. Never lasts long before it is beaten to death by an unholy alliance of economic rationalists, social conservatives, (rabid) environmental crusaders and left wing social engineers. They all hate each other but see common sense, measured compromise and reasoned governance as a threat to all they hold dear.

The Lynx is an interesting case. It was first, as far as I am aware, proposed for the RAN in the 1970s to operate from the subsequently cancelled DDL, it then lost out to the Seahawk in a competition to find a helicopter to operate from the FFGs ordered in place of the DDLs. Interestingly when originally considered it would have served in conjunction with the RAN FAAs existing Sea King (ASW) and Wessex (rerolled as utility) helicopters.

Basically had Australia replaced the carrier, or ensured future surface combatants could operate Sea King sized helicopters (i.e. Type 22, Type 23 Halifax class etc. instead of additional FFG / ANZAC) the Lynx would have done just fine for the RAN. Not saying the Seahawk is a bad helicopter, it is actually a very good one, its just that with ASW Sea Kings as well as Wessex already in service and the fact the first three FFGs needed extensive and expensive modifications to operate the very expensive Seahawk it likely would have been better value for money to get the very capable Sea Kings back to sea on suitable platforms and buy Lynx for the FFGs.

 

[kiwipatriot]

You better start supplying reputable sources for this claim. Refer to the forum rules with which you should have acquainted yourself by now. Unless there has been a major change in current NZG policy the number is not 35, but closer to 20. You have been advised to read through the NZ threads, well do so and you'll learn something.

Well then, less than 20, got my quote from channel 3 news report so thought it reliable, FEB 2013 So I guess I have learned something, still haven't learned why though.

 

[kiwipatriot]

Did the M113AS4 even kept the amphibious capapabilty* of the orignal M113?

*As in being able to cross a small and slow river with a freeboard that could lead to several brown pants moments...

too heavy now, 18 tons too much for the original design evidently, and near the C130 load limit too, brown pants indeed,

 

[ngatimozart]

Well then, less than 20, got my quote from channel 3 news report so thought it reliable, FEB 2013 So I guess I have learned something, still haven't learned why though.

The media & Kiwi media in particular, as a general rule are very poor in defence reporting ability. They don't know their subject and don't even bother to check basic facts. I appreciate that it is confusing and I was in your shoes when I first came on here. If you watch and learn on here you will soon be able to figure out who are the good posters and who aren't. Don't be scared to ask questions no matter how silly you may think it is, it just may be a really good question. If you have any issues PM me and I'll try to help where I can.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

The media & Kiwi media in particular, as a general rule are very poor in defence reporting ability. They don't know their subject and don't even bother to check basic facts. I appreciate that it is confusing and I was in your shoes when I first came on here. If you watch and learn on here you will soon be able to figure out who are the good posters and who aren't. Don't be scared to ask questions no matter how silly you may think it is, it just may be a really good question. If you have any issues PM me and I'll try to help where I can.

We've read the cheap wish list with the 24 grippens. But what would be the ideal set of capabilities. Never mind the budget and all that. What should the New Zealand defence force look like?.

 

[ngatimozart]

We've read the cheap wish list with the 24 grippens. But what would be the ideal set of capabilities. Never mind the budget and all that. What should the New Zealand defence force look like?.

I'm a bit busy at moment but will answer your question over the weekend with what I think would be the ideal setup.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

I'm a bit busy at moment but will answer your question over the weekend with what I think would be the ideal setup.

Thank you for considering my question because there is a lot of entropy around this issue and would be nice to have some clarity.

 

[Cadredave]

We've read the cheap wish list with the 24 grippens. But what would be the ideal set of capabilities. Never mind the budget and all that. What should the New Zealand defence force look like?.

Have a look at Force 2035 that is the vision for the NZDF released by the just retired CDF.

CD

 

[Ocean1Curse]

Have a look at Force 2035 that is the vision for the NZDF released by the just retired CDF.

CD

I'm no expert but the 2035 vision seems a little lite on the numbers. Something that I was interested in was how in a pinch would the RNZAF develop air combat and with what platform. As time goes on and platforms get thrown around it would be nice to know what kinds of numbers and capabilities defence truly requires to defend new Zealand's economic zone and in a pinch grow the defence force to meet an invading threat with in a week. One thing that's been pointed out in this thread is an invader would have to deal with Australia first before moving on to New Zealand. I'm wondering if the 2035 vision could coup with that scenario. I say no but I'm no expert.

 

[ngatimozart]

I'm no expert but the 2035 vision seems a little lite on the numbers. Something that I was interested in was how in a pinch would the RNZAF develop air combat and with what platform. As time goes on and platforms get thrown around it would be nice to know what kinds of numbers and capabilities defence truly requires to defend new Zealand's economic zone and in a pinch grow the defence force to meet an invading threat with in a week. One thing that's been pointed out in this thread is an invader would have to deal with Australia first before moving on to New Zealand. I'm wondering if the 2035 vision could coup with that scenario. I say no but I'm no expert.

Forget about the RNZAF having any air combat capability. It's not going to happen unless something happens to make the pollies well and truly mess their pants. Even then it would take around 10 years for it to be bought up to speed and cost in excess of NZ$4 billion. Read back through the RNZAF thread as this topic has been thrashed well beyond the grave.

 

[Cadredave]

I'm no expert but the 2035 vision seems a little lite on the numbers. Something that I was interested in was how in a pinch would the RNZAF develop air combat and with what platform. As time goes on and platforms get thrown around it would be nice to know what kinds of numbers and capabilities defence truly requires to defend new Zealand's economic zone and in a pinch grow the defence force to meet an invading threat with in a week. One thing that's been pointed out in this thread is an invader would have to deal with Australia first before moving on to New Zealand. I'm wondering if the 2035 vision could coup with that scenario. I say no but I'm no expert.

This is not WW2 where you can give a pilot basic flight training and then 10 hours on Spits, as Ng has stated it will take at least a decade to get the ACF to BLOC and a whole lot of money not going to happen now or in the future. Lets be realistic the only force that can invade NZ and maintain that force is the USN period so our threats will occur well outside our immediate area of concern.

 

[Todjaeger]

This is not WW2 where you can give a pilot basic flight training and then 10 hours on Spits, as Ng has stated it will take at least a decade to get the ACF to BLOC and a whole lot of money not going to happen now or in the future. Lets be realistic the only force that can invade NZ and maintain that force is the USN period so our threats will occur well outside our immediate area of concern.

Slight quibble on a couple of points. An ACF might (emphasis MIGHT) be able to be stood up in a seven or eight year timeframe. From prior estimates I have come across, it was estimated that a 'green' Kiwi ACF squadron could reach the quality of the ACF at disestablishment with ~five years of training and exercises. Depending on a few factors, it might be possible for RNZAF pilots to be transitioned into fast jet ops in as little as two or three years. Having mentioned all this thought, the ACF topic really is a dead horse that for the sake of decency should be left alone.

If there is a major war that breaks out in the Pacific, and/or significant changes in the security environment around NZ and the Pacific, and the pollies/public realize it... Then an ACF might be reconsidered.

As for nations that could invade NZ at present, the US (of course) but I would also add Australia to the list, just because of the location and ability to project assets from Oz to NZ. Realistically though, invaders from the US and Australia have another name, tourists.

What might be different in 20 years though is China. Given the recent naval exercise China held in international waters between Indonesia and the Australian territory of Christmas Island, it does suggest that China will increase its use of naval forces for power projection. Particularly if/when there are disagreements between nations.

Not something I would worry about as being a high likelihood, but certainly a possibility.

 

[Cadredave]

Slight quibble on a couple of points. An ACF might (emphasis MIGHT) be able to be stood up in a seven or eight year timeframe. From prior estimates I have come across, it was estimated that a 'green' Kiwi ACF squadron could reach the quality of the ACF at disestablishment with ~five years of training and exercises. Depending on a few factors, it might be possible for RNZAF pilots to be transitioned into fast jet ops in as little as two or three years. Having mentioned all this thought, the ACF topic really is a dead horse that for the sake of decency should be left alone.

If there is a major war that breaks out in the Pacific, and/or significant changes in the security environment around NZ and the Pacific, and the pollies/public realize it... Then an ACF might be reconsidered.

As for nations that could invade NZ at present, the US (of course) but I would also add Australia to the list, just because of the location and ability to project assets from Oz to NZ. Realistically though, invaders from the US and Australia have another name, tourists.

What might be different in 20 years though is China. Given the recent naval exercise China held in international waters between Indonesia and the Australian territory of Christmas Island, it does suggest that China will increase its use of naval forces for power projection. Particularly if/when there are disagreements between nations.

Not something I would worry about as being a high likelihood, but certainly a possibility.

Tod,
have spoke at large to what's left of the old guard of the ACF in JFNZ last of the pilots and they have said there is absolutely no chance it will take less than 10 years as the entire institutional and corporate knowledge no longer exists either in the pilots world or the groundies world.

We get invaded all the time by our ANZAC kin both summer and winter time so more like the invasion of the in-laws. Knowing how our pollies operate if it attracts votes then the ACF will be rebuilt if no votes to be won then its a dead duck.

 

[MrConservative]

Slight quibble on a couple of points. An ACF might (emphasis MIGHT) be able to be stood up in a seven or eight year timeframe. From prior estimates I have come across, it was estimated that a 'green' Kiwi ACF squadron could reach the quality of the ACF at disestablishment with ~five years of training and exercises. Depending on a few factors, it might be possible for RNZAF pilots to be transitioned into fast jet ops in as little as two or three years. Having mentioned all this thought, the ACF topic really is a dead horse that for the sake of decency should be left alone.

That was an estimate from around 10-12 years ago. The National Party opposition who were planning to bring back the ACF in 2002 were told that it would take around 3 years to get back to BLOC using the A4K and MB339s with retained staff, bringing back some who had left and working with SAFE. That going with used F-16's would be around 5 years to BLOC and 7-8 years to get to DLOC from 2002.

By 2005 then Shadow Defence Spokesperson John Carter told me that the window of opportunity of that policy had gone as the critical mass capability within NZ had evaporated viz skills set. That is why National in opposition did not have a specific ACF policy heading into the 2005 manifesto but left an opening by couching it in the terms of enhancing our overall combat capability. By 2006 it was politically dead in Caucus and the enthusiasm had gone. The reality that it is not actually do-able in the real world became entrenched and that focusing what we had left P-3/Anzac/C130/SAS/1RNZIR was better money spent in terms of a contribution to regional security. That was the message McCully took back to Caucus in 2006 after his overseas jaunt speaking to our regional neighbours and his series of meetings within NZ when he took over the shadow defence role after John Carter.

The dead horse (duck, parrot) is now completely decomposed.
.

 

[MrConservative]

Tod,
have spoke at large to what's left of the old guard of the ACF in JFNZ last of the pilots and they have said there is absolutely no chance it will take less than 10 years as the entire institutional and corporate knowledge no longer exists either in the pilots world or the groundies world.

We get invaded all the time by our ANZAC kin both summer and winter time so more like the invasion of the in-laws. Knowing how our pollies operate if it attracts votes then the ACF will be rebuilt if no votes to be won then its a dead duck.

And what compounds it is that the corporate and institutional knowledge, minute that it is, is 15 years out of date with respects to systems and modus operandi.

Dead Duck ... Dead Parrot ...