NZDF General discussion thread

[ngatimozart]

Absolutely, it is to bad he doesn't use stronger language, folly, lunacy, idiotic short sightless or outright negligent.

The salient paragraph seems to be nearly typed in capital letters in the form a diplomatic government vetted public document.

(Emphasis added by me. )

Yes I read that para when I skimmed through this arvo and as I commented on I think the RAN page, it makes me wonder what's for the chop or if there is a funding increase, it will be minuscule. The paragraph is a very polite way of making an obvious valid and sharp point.

 

[RegR]

Doesn't really matter because Canterbury can take six fling wings and they are only taking four. If they really needed a fling wing in a hurry up there, they could've chucked an A109 in the back of a C130 or maybe even a Sprite. Hmm don't know if they fit or don't.

I was thinking more space utilisation on Wellington. TBH maybe 6 sprites at a squeeze but I think 2 sprites and 2 90s will be filling the hangers on CY with little usable space left unless the air force are tetris masters.

Yes I have also not seen a sprite transported by C130? I think I recall a sprite swapping out on a deployed frigate but unsure how they ultimately did it? would be interested to know.

 

[RubiconNZ]

I was thinking more space utilisation on Wellington. TBH maybe 6 sprites at a squeeze but I think 2 sprites and 2 90s will be filling the hangers on CY with little usable space left unless the air force are tetris masters.

Yes I have also not seen a sprite transported by C130? I think I recall a sprite swapping out on a deployed frigate but unsure how they ultimately did it? would be interested to know.

I was wondering if the NH90's would be stowed in the vehicle bay for the duration? Then rolled out on arrival?

On the other hand it is a very short trip, so potentially the Sprites might just be secured on the deck.

Heck they could start flying from just past half way.

 

[RegR]

I was wondering if the NH90's would be stowed in the vehicle bay for the duration? Then rolled out on arrival?

On the other hand it is a very short trip, so potentially the Sprites might just be secured on the deck.

Heck they could start flying from just past half way.

Not sure if that's practical as the 90 with its low clearance would struggle to negotiate the ramp angle depending on port facilities.

4 helos is still quite a considerable contribution from little old NZ anyway along with MRV and an OPV. Will be interesting to see what level of logistical capability they give future Endeavour as another possible option to use.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Listenening to a discussion of Australias DWP on ABC radio National this AM (cue cries of Commie/Green bias) someone states that China is building 80 submarines. Iam too lazy to try and verify this myself. Regardless of what you thing about the quality of Chinese product, this combined with the increased militarization of the spratleys has massive implications for freedom of navigation in the South China Seas and the wider pacific. The first and best response to this should be diplomatic, but even if NZ massivly increased spending, the shear scale of Chinas growing militaryis probably going to massivly overmatch anything we could offer if the SHTF, even with Australia and US involvement. Over the coming decades our technological advantage will shrink too

 

[ngatimozart]

Listenening to a discussion of Australias DWP on ABC radio National this AM (cue cries of Commie/Green bias) someone states that China is building 80 submarines. Iam too lazy to try and verify this myself. Regardless of what you thing about the quality of Chinese product, this combined with the increased militarization of the spratleys has massive implications for freedom of navigation in the South China Seas and the wider pacific. The first and best response to this should be diplomatic, but even if NZ massivly increased spending, the shear scale of Chinas growing militaryis probably going to massivly overmatch anything we could offer if the SHTF, even with Australia and US involvement. Over the coming decades our technological advantage will shrink too

Yes Chinese submarines are procreating at an increased rate and will do so for the foreseeable future. This is along with their surface and air fleets. The Americans have a saying that if you can see it you can kill it, which of course works both ways. However the quality of US, Australian and NZ armed forces would be greater than the PLA because we have been battle tested and we have an unbroken line of institutional memory and traditions that go back decades and centuries. Whereas the PLA, PLAN & PLAAF don't, plus they are highly politicised forces with the added layers of political commissars to ensure political purity in every command decision. That in itself is more hampering than us having lawyers checking and approving target lists.

The issue from the Kiwi perspective is that in its basic form, whether we like it or not, any threats that Australia faces are, also by extension, threats to us. For all intents and purposes we have the same strategic security issues. We both are island nations, heavily dependent upon seaborne trade for our economic survival. Most of our SLOC transit Asia and the Pacific ocean. The big difference is that Australia recognises and responds to that, whereas the NZG refuse to, plus a large section of the population remain ignorant of it - aka sea blindness. Until that changes, or the pollies get a humongous fright, NZDF is going to be hamstrung.

 

[Norm]

plus a large section of the population remain ignorant of it - aka sea blindness.Agree Ngatimozart.

I rocked up the Auckland Defence White Paper presentation.City of 1.4m+ there were 7 yes seven of us there from the public for what was an informative presentation June 2015.

 

[40 deg south]

Absolutely, it is to bad he doesn't use stronger language, folly, lunacy, idiotic short sightless or outright negligent.

The salient paragraph seems to be nearly typed in capital letters in the form a diplomatic government vetted public document.

(Emphasis added by me. )

I've been pondering that para too. I think there are three plausible explanations:

1) It doesn't mean anything in particular. In a major policy document, some sections will be drafted, redrafted, previewed, reviewed and cross-checked to within an inch of their lives. See, for instance, the paras on China. Less contentious sections can be slapped together with a good deal less care. I speak from experience on this!

2) The para might refer to the historic differences between Australia and NZ, including the ANZUS circus, NZ not taking up the two additional options on ANZAC frigates, and also not taking up the options on C-130Js in the late 90s. So a reference to recent past history.

3) Alternatively, the Aust government has been trying to sign NZ up to some future joint procurement projects, and NZ isn't playing ball. The ANZAC replacement project would be the obvious one, but there are many other possible contenders. The proposed Aussie OPVs, the replenishment ships that both countries are in the process of ordering, P8s, even the different choices on infantry rifles.

NZ's soon-to-be-released DWP might add some clarity. Or not.

Personally, if NZ can get commonality with Australian equipment, I think it is worth paying a modest premium for. But if requirements differ, or Australian-built equipment is substantially more expensive than what is available elsewhere, I'm perfectly happy for NZ to go its own way. Australian politicians may be willing to buy votes using their defence budget for industrial welfare, but I'd prefer their NZ counterparts didn't do the same.

 

[ngatimozart]

I've been pondering that para too. I think there are three plausible explanations:

1) It doesn't mean anything in particular. In a major policy document, some sections will be drafted, redrafted, previewed, reviewed and cross-checked to within an inch of their lives. See, for instance, the paras on China. Less contentious sections can be slapped together with a good deal less care. I speak from experience on this!

2) The para might refer to the historic differences between Australia and NZ, including the ANZUS circus, NZ not taking up the two additional options on ANZAC frigates, and also not taking up the options on C-130Js in the late 90s. So a reference to recent past history.

3) Alternatively, the Aust government has been trying to sign NZ up to some future joint procurement projects, and NZ isn't playing ball. The ANZAC replacement project would be the obvious one, but there are many other possible contenders. The proposed Aussie OPVs, the replenishment ships that both countries are in the process of ordering, P8s, even the different choices on infantry rifles.

NZ's soon-to-be-released DWP might add some clarity. Or not.

Personally, if NZ can get commonality with Australian equipment, I think it is worth paying a modest premium for. But if requirements differ, or Australian-built equipment is substantially more expensive than what is available elsewhere, I'm perfectly happy for NZ to go its own way. Australian politicians may be willing to buy votes using their defence budget for industrial welfare, but I'd prefer their NZ counterparts didn't do the same.

Great post. That's definitely another way of looking at it. I hadn't thought of that angle. Whilst I agree with you that commonality with Australian equipment would be ideal and joint builds of frigates, OPVs etc., would be ideal, it was pointed out to me the other day that NZGs don't have a good history with the Australians over joint builds. One just has to have a look at the ANZAC frigate build for that and Peter Greeners book, Timing Is Everything, explains it. Thoroughly recommend it because it is a good informative read on NZ defence procurement up to around 2008. I have had my own copy for about three years.

It will be interesting to see what the Australians choose for their OPVs. If it is a design that meets most if not all of our requirements, then well and good. Remember we need ice strengthening for our OPVs. With the frigates the DWP stated that they will be ASW frigates, however again depending upon the design, a GP variant wouldn't be so much of an issue. The problem will be NZGs habits of penny pinching so e.g., I have some difficulty seeing them agreeing to CEAFAR, CEC, 48 cell strike length Mk41VLS and three frigates which are badly needed.

Then there is the aircraft side which is expensive as well. Yes the P8 is ideal but as I have said elsewhere, I think we need to have a close look at the biz jet options which offer greater range and more economy which is highly important in a small force such as ours. I think that if we bought, say the SAAB Swordfish G6000 platform and were able to have an excellent comms and data transfer system with the P8 then that could be a plan.

Edit:
Timing is Everything frigate chapters - PDF files.

The ANZACS, Part 1—The Frigate that wasn’t a Frigate

‘No, Minister….’—The ANZAC Frigates, Part II

‘I see no submarines’—Upgrading the Orions

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Whilst army centric to him could just be they are all at minimum just the other two services are worse off, I would'nt suggest we rob peter to pay paul and andy, more we find a way to get them up to peters 'level'.

Maybe we could take Aus idea and hit that magical 2% target.......wishful thinking.

Curious, what is our current Defence budget? im hearing figures of 1 to 1.5 % what is correct? would 2% of GDP give us the gear we need to restore lost capability?

 

[ngatimozart]

Curious, what is our current Defence budget? im hearing figures of 1 to 1.5 % what is correct? would 2% of GDP give us the gear we need to restore lost capability?

1.5% as of the last budget. 2% was the budget prior to the 1991 Mother Of All Budgets. To bring NZDF up to what most of us would considered an adequate equipment level would cost approximately NZ$12 billion and that's just the sail / drive / flyaway costs. That would require a significant capital expenditure injection from the govt, probably over a ten year period. You would be looking at between NZ$30 - 36 billion when you calculate and include the lifetime costs. Over a 20 year period that works out at NZ$1.5 - 1.8 billion per annum in extra CAPEX which would have to be seperate to the annual defence budget vote. That extra CAPEX is around 0.8 - 0.9% of GDP so in reality if the NZG decide to increase Vote: Defence to 2% GDP then the actual Vote would have to go to at least 3% to cover the extra CAPEX.

 

[Gibbo]

I'm not getting overly excited about the forthcoming DWP and I don't think we should read too much into the ADF expansion plans and how that might impact the NZ DWP.

I'll put money on it being pretty much 'steady as you go' rather than a fantastic shopping list like the Aussie DWP, instead mainly re-inforcing the ‘Future35’ strategies (“By 2035 we will be operating new amphibious, air transport and surveillance, and improved C4ISR capabilities. We will have a generational change in our Total Defence Workforce approach and its focus on integration“).

I'd suspect the 'consultation' referred to between NZ & Aus is largely political spin for discussions around some of the more fluffy stuff - regional strategies; Ops planning (esp. HADR); opportunities for joint exercises; looking for efficiencies (logistics commonality etc). The consultation will be far less about collaboration in major platform purchases.

Frankly Aus have moved on well ahead of us now & play with the big boys in a whole new sandpit - NZ will remain an important support partner but in a limited capacity only, especially in higher-end operations.

The DWP is unlikely to have any surprises - we have huge platform replacement costs fast approaching and these will suck up vast quantities of scarce $$$. Just off the top of my head here’s some of what the DWP has to address (& no doubt will to some degree) and all have been foretold:

Navy:
• Completion of Frigate upgrades
• Frigate replacement strategy
• New AOR
• New LWSV
• 3rd OPV !?!

AirForce:
• Transport fleet replacement
• Short-term: MPA ASW upgrades
• Long-term: MPA replacement
• Migration of AWO training back to NZ

Army:
• Network enablement etc
• LAV refresh
• Further vehicle replacement (LOV; SpecOps; Combat support; Merc’s etc)
• Small arms etc

There'll be others I haven't thought of but there’s plenty that needs doing & the DWP is likely to focus on achieving these and any increase in spending would I suspect be project specific rather than a base-line increase. It’s also important to remember that the DWP is a policy outline and not specifically a shopping list, nor is it binding, especially in the case of a change of Govt!

Nevertheless I look forward to reading it & discussing it’s content!

Afterthought: This from the latest RNZAF news:
“They (MOD acquisition team) will drive the change programme we have begun in the Ministry, in partnership with the New Zealand Defence Force, to build our capacity to deliver an acquisition programme of around $11 billion over the coming decade, including replacements for the NZDF’s air transport and air surveillance fleets and the Anzac frigates,”

 

[Gibbo]

I am wondering if they've got the REAs in the hangar. Not sure that much flying of the Sprites off the OPVs has occurred, so they may not be fully cleared yet.

Assuming the photos here (https://m.facebook.com/story.php?st...89488009:tl_objid.10154670089488009&__tn__=*s) are of Wellington leaving for Fiji then the REA is on the quarter-deck by the crane (A08 visible if you zoom in).

 

[Gibbo]

Not sure if that's practical as the 90 with its low clearance would struggle to negotiate the ramp angle depending on port facilities.

4 helos is still quite a considerable contribution from little old NZ anyway along with MRV and an OPV. Will be interesting to see what level of logistical capability they give future Endeavour as another possible option to use.

Actually yes the NZ response is quite considerable (C130; P3K2; 4 choppers & 2 vessels) and I suspect what we are likely to see the new 'standard' for this type of Op in our region.

Wonder if the whole 'Fiji buys Russian weapons' story has led to a desire for a significant & visible HADR commitment to remind both Fiji & Russia that the NZ & Aus Govts place high importance on 'our patch'. Not a show of strength or at all confrontational but just a friendly reminder that Fiji does have friends!

p.s. yes even tide determines use of Canterbury's side ramp.

 

[Gibbo]

If the NH-90 can self deploy might be able to link up with the LHD and work from it

From the latest RNZAF News mag..

'The Rotary Wing Transport Force has proven the capability of the NH90 and will continue to develop new roles this year. A significant aspect of the ongoing Introduction into Service is trialling the self-deployment capability which will provide the Government with another option to rapidly respond to crisis in the South Pacific. The ability for the NH90 to be able to leapfrog from New Zealand to the Pacific Islands provides us greater flexibility when responding to Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Relief situations'.

I suspect we'll see all options used depending on the circumstances behind the deployment: (1) ride on Canterbury; (2) self-deploy; (3) grease up to the RAAF for a C17 ride.

If the need is urgent the RAAF will use C17 to get themselves into theatre before offering NZ space, therefore we are likely to only have self-deploy as a 'rapid' response option. However so as long as Canterbury is available I'd rather we used her as flogging the NH90 on a cross Pacific ferry flight is my least preferred option.

Right that's 4 posts, back to my cave now!

 

[gf0012-aust]

If the need is urgent the RAAF will use C17 to get themselves into theatre before offering NZ space, therefore we are likely to only have self-deploy as a 'rapid' response option. However so as long as Canterbury is available I'd rather we used her as flogging the NH90 on a cross Pacific ferry flight is my least preferred option.

Kiwis are embedded within Aust Joint Ops Command, so I would imagine that they wouldn't be too far off in having people joining up on any mutually identified opn of interest.

it will be the domestic politics which will be the impacter

 

[Gibbo]

Kiwis are embedded within Aust Joint Ops Command, so I would imagine that they wouldn't be too far off in having people joining up on any mutually identified opn of interest.

it will be the domestic politics which will be the impacter

Is it a permanent 'embedding'?... If so then I guess C17 or other specialised ADF assistance to NZDF would be easier to arrange. But NZ needs to crack out of this mentality that our allies will always be able to help... just hope the RNZAF transport fleet replacement somehow goes a way to resolving this!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Is it a permanent 'embedding'?...

yep. rotating 2-3 year tour I think

 

[ngatimozart]

....... NZ needs to crack out of this mentality that our allies will always be able to help... just hope the RNZAF transport fleet replacement somehow goes a way to resolving this!

Hear hear. Well said sir.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If the need is urgent the RAAF will use C17 to get themselves into theatre before offering NZ space, therefore we are likely to only have self-deploy as a 'rapid' response option. However so as long as Canterbury is available I'd rather we used her as flogging the NH90 on a cross Pacific ferry flight is my least preferred option.

gets down to issues of the nature of the event

eg in HADR contingency scenario planning means that an approp response is dragged out and assets identified to start working up in anticipation. ie they can trigger readiness levels without necessarily spooking the media that something is on

where its a joint event (such as including NZ due to a regional issue) what invariably happens is that someone makes an assessment as to what is needed - and they may well get advice from the affected country as to what they need from "us"

so Oz may be asked to bring in food, water, desal plants, rotary and construction teams, NZ may be asked to bring in cadaver teams, additional light rotary, culturally aware support teams etc...

eg East Timor was initially pair shaped as half a dozen countries were bringing in assets that didn't compliment the overall need - so there were additional logistics burdens triggered when things could have been simpler such as "only bring in diesel vehicles as local fuel is challenged and we will be bringing diesel bladders" etc...

or what medical modules are coming over so that we don't duplicate effort where there is a need for other things.... eg we bring the medical module for the C-17's, we bring the operating theatres on board the phatships, you supply the med support teams counsellors, emergency med supplies etc.....

there is a lot of co-ord that happens before any plane lifts off or any ship sets sail.