NZDF General discussion thread

[KiwiRob]

What is the first thing pollies do when they get elected? They ditch any inconvenient promises by any means necessary. I don't expect either US presidential candidate to be any different.

Retrenching is a very easy promise to keep, it will make a lot of people in the US happy. With all those military folk coming home a lot of bases will either need to be reopened or expanded, of course some numbers will be cut but the money flowing into communities and not being spent overseas will be a boon for many communities.

 

[ngatimozart]

You say that like it's a bad thing. I'm surprised more US politicians haven't jumped on this bandwagon, why should the US taxpayer foot the bill for defending Japan, Europe and where ever else. If I was a US taxpayer I'd be questioning why my tax dollars are going towards European defence when my education, health and infrastructure is heading south. When the US retrenching starts it's going to cause a lot of govts to break out their chequebooks and start spending, it might even cause ours to do the same.

Well if you look at history, the only good thing about the Cold War was that it provided a sort of checks and balances in the international arena with the two superpowers more or less keeping their client states in line. So no major state on state wars apart from Vietnam. The Middle East was a series of brush fires over relatively quickly. The Soviets had their own Vietnam in Afghanistan.

Once the Cold War ended that system, as imperfect as it was, ended and now we've had 15 years of war in the Middle East and Afghanistan plus a significant amount of religious based extremist terrorism with no end in sight. Now we may be looking at a significant power vacuum in the global geopolitical arena, especially in the Asia Pacific region which has the possibilities of significantly increasing the tensions in the area. Although I agree that it may wake up some Kiwi pollies ideas about defence and security, I am concerned about where this may lead. I can understand how some US taxpayers may see that argument about paying for foreigners security, but on its own it is simplistic.

 

[John Fedup]

I can understand how some US taxpayers may see that argument about paying for foreigners security, but on its own it is simplistic.

It is a simplistic view but with a 18 trillion dollar debt, US taxpayers are buying into that line. Can you imagine the pressure in favour of isolation if interest rates were to increase to more historical levels? Most of the budget would be taken up with interest payments leaving damn little for anything else including defence. The situation is the same in most of the Western world.

 

[t68]

. IMHO the big change for NZ will be significant increase in defence expenditure and resourcing, possibly to 3% GDP initially, in order to bring NZDF back up to speed and scale.

cant see you ever go this high, unless China totally goes rogue.

But historically in the 80's NZG spent more on defence AU. A high of 2.4% in 1988 compared to AU of 2%

We no longer have the pommy empire to cling to.

wont just be an Asia/Oceania problem it will the poms just as much

 

[ngatimozart]

NZDF News

A 40 Sqn C130H(NZ) Hercules is off to the Middle East to spend six months with the Australian Defence Force Joint Task Force there. Also 40 troops are on their way to Taji Camp in Iraq. NZDF news release.

Nine NZDF personnel are aboard the USN USNS Mercy for four months for the 2016 Pacific Partnership. This year they will visit Timor-Leste, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia. The NZDF contingent join over 600 military and civilian personnel from Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Republic of Korea, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States on board USNS Mercy. As part of the mission, Japan will also visit Palau.

The NZDF Contingent to the upcoming RIMPAC consists of RNZN frigate HMNZS Te Kaha, Littoral Warfare Unit (shallow water operations), Air Surveillance and Reconnaissance Force (Royal New Zealand Air Force P-3K2 Orion and supporting elements), Command Task Force 176 (command staff onboard USS America), New Zealand National Support Element, and the New Zealand Army Light Rifle Platoon. RIMPAC runs from 30 June to 4 August.

Our illustrious leader, well Minister, is at the Shangri La dialogue at present. A quote from the press release:

“As a trade-dependent island nation, our economic prosperity and development is underpinned by a stable and secure Asia-Pacific region.”

My emphasis but the Minister, pollies and Treasury are still sea blind despite what he just said.

 

[chis73]

Figured a Middle-East Herc deployment might be on the cards when Operation Teal (presumably a reference to T.E.A.L. - a forerunner of Air NZ) popped up again (I think in the budget documents), along with increased operational funding. I wonder what this means for the 2-year commitment promised for the Iraq deployment. I seem to recall the PM saying that it probably wouldn't be extended.

The white paper release is now confirmed for 11am NZST Wednesday 8 June.

Brownlee used the same "trade dependent island nation" phrase in his speech to the Shangri La conference last year. Video here (Brownlee begins about 35min in).

Also, Treasury's latest (Feb 2016) major projects report is out (link). Defence on pages 19-23. Some delays (ie. MSC & LOSC projects), and the frigate upgrade budget has blown out some (leading to a contract change proposal, and another 8-month postponement).
LOSC appears to go to tender next month. Interesting that the grade for the Defence Capability Portfolio (ie the capital expenditure fund) has been redacted. Overall, grades have worsened.

I'm a bit worried that it says that the MSC is under budget. Perhaps that means just an AO rather than a proper AOR.

One also wonders how the NZDF can send such a large contingent to RIMPAC when they can't seem to do the god-damn bread & butter fisheries patrols. To quote Pink Floyd: "how can you have any pudding if you won't eat your meat?"

 

[MrConservative]

One also wonders how the NZDF can send such a large contingent to RIMPAC when they can't seem to do the god-damn bread & butter fisheries patrols. To quote Pink Floyd: "how can you have any pudding if you won't eat your meat?"

My personal view is that a military focus should be always first. That is the meat and potatoes. Hopefully this is a swing back to normalcy in that the NZDF is a military organisation first and foremost and away from the MAOT stuff other when specialised skills and equipment it has are useful. That is where its focus should be from now on as the region becomes more unstable.

Customs, Fisheries and other inshore maritime constabulary roles in the inner EEZ should be done by Customs and Fisheries as a joint multi-agency Border Protection Service. They can look after the pudding....

 

[chis73]

Customs, Fisheries and other inshore maritime constabulary roles in the inner EEZ should be done by Customs and Fisheries as a joint multi-agency Border Protection Service. They can look after the pudding....

If NZ was a larger nation I would agree with you, but it just isn't. Major & medium powers can afford the duplication of effort of a navy and a coastguard, small nations like NZ can't. It's better to just have one agency do both military & constabulary roles. In a small force like the NZDF, still operating in a low threat environment regionally, an increased constabulary role is a fact of life. It's a question of balance, not focus*. Our own white papers highlight the 'concentric circles' approach of local NZ roles being the highest priority**. If our navy doesn't do constabulary work, it will become even more irrelevant. Perhaps constabulary work could become a separate command (as is the case in Norway), but it should remain part of one organisation.

In my ideal world, a sensible balance would be 3 frigates, with the budgetary equivalent of a 4th frigate spent on OPVs / IPVs for the constabulary roles. At least one OPV would be ice-strengthened and frigate-sized.

Some of the contributions being sent to RIMPAC this year seem fairly useless and wasteful: a light infantry platoon? A P-3 that isn't able to do anti-sub or anti-surface warfare, and doesn't even have a self protection suite? If the P-3 actually had those capabilities, then sending it to do a practice war-shot using US facilities would make some sense, but what can our P-3 add to the exercise except an ISR role. Sending all of the elements Ngati listed to one RIMPAC exercise seems luxurious. One or two elements would be enough.

* A young lieutenant asked former RAN Chief of Navy Rear Admiral James Goldrick about this at the 2015 Seapower conference in Sydney. I think Admiral Goldrick answered the question as well as anyone could. (Video here, from 47-50 minute mark. It's actually worth starting a minute or two earlier though to hear the previous speaker relate the logistic nightmare of the RHIB, Christmas Island and the C-17).

** Something we appear to have borrowed from the Australian 2000 Defence White Paper. Undoubtedly, the Aussies borrowed it from someone else too.

 

[MrConservative]

If NZ was a larger nation I would agree with you, but it just isn't. Major & medium powers can afford the duplication of effort of a navy and a coastguard, small nations like NZ can't. It's better to just have one agency do both military & constabulary roles. In a small force like the NZDF, still operating in a low threat environment regionally, an increased constabulary role is a fact of life. It's a question of balance, not focus*. Our own white papers highlight the 'concentric circles' approach of local NZ roles being the highest priority**. If our navy doesn't do constabulary work, it will become even more irrelevant. Perhaps constabulary work could become a separate command (as is the case in Norway), but it should remain part of one organisation.
.

There are also very strong legal efficacy reasons to do with UNCLOS, IHACL and territorial law enforcement that have clear distinctions between what is a military naval role and a civilian law enforcement agency operating with a nations territory. A number of countries are looking to or have established Maritime Enforcement Agencies that separate military maritime forces from law enforcement. Indonesia and Malaysia for example. The other Scando nations of a similar size also have a separate Coastguard / Maritime Enforcement agency to their Navies. They too are of similar size to NZ. So the big power analogy you are proposing is not always applicable on those grounds. It is also not a true duplication of resources because there are clear demarcations in operational rationale, law and resources.

I have not read the Norwegian Coast Guard Act of 1997 but I assume that it does have clauses that deal with issues of legal efficacy and its subsuming into the Norwegian Defence Act. Their Coastguard Act was a way of demarcing the very legal issues that we have under our present administratively convoluted arrangements. In my view their coastguard command as part of the Navy is better than what we do. Nethertheless, I am very much against the blurring of what is law enforcement and what is military. The Navy as it is - is too small for a diversity of vessels ranging from small inshore craft (0-24nm) that are needed for law enforcement through to our future globally orientated Anzac replacements and large support vessels.

There are at least six NZG civilian agencies attempting to work with the NZDF in the maritime space - most of it focused within 24nm CZ, most of law enforcement related but more will develop in the environment protection sphere.The current one NZ size fits all approach of a 'maritime law enforcement' role and a 'military' role is failing both government goals and is simply schizophrenic. Also in the one area where more needs to be done 'maritime environmental protection' there is nothing happening other than piddling around the edges even post Rena. Will that focus be added to the Navy as well?

In a jurisdictional application sense it is like combining the Army (military) with the Police (civilian law enforcement) and this was the legal difficulty surrounding nations and their role in the littorals. Our current approach does nothing but degrade both roles (military and law) enforcement operationally, legally and fiscally.

The Navy will not become irrelevant if it focuses on its traditional military role. New Zeland will come under more pressure from more than what happens in within its 24nm CZ in the decades ahead. We do not live in a benign strategic environment and we need to focus on addressing that. We can start by not diluting the NZDF with law enforcement tasks within the CZ.

I also agree with the Admiral in the link to the RAN Sea Power Conference. Particularly with respect to balance. There is a role for the RNZN within the constabulary aspect of the wider NZ EEZ and her interests but the focus should be balanced towards on the outer EEZ and not within the CZ unless bought into support the lead maritime law enforcement agency.

The concentric circles does not entirely mean the total responsibility lies in the defence of the realm with the NZDF. There are also NZSIS, GCSB and hopefully a Border Enforcement Agency established who are all part of that concentric model you noted.

 

[chis73]

TBH, when I said one agency should be responsible for constabulary roles, I was thinking more in terms of shipboard operation and training. The legal issues are more complex I agree. I think the current system of naval command and civilian attached personnel should be effective enough in theory. Going fully civilian risks having to create effectively two coastguards (one civilian, one military) - consider Canada, and to a lesser extent Australia. Possible complications include different training standards & qualifications, possibly (probably?) a unionized workforce, maybe a refusal to undertake armed roles. I wouldn't want to go there - not for a force as small as NZ's.

The navy could really use the extra command positions as well.

 

[MrConservative]

TBH, when I said one agency should be responsible for constabulary roles, I was thinking more in terms of shipboard operation and training. The legal issues are more complex I agree. I think the current system of naval command and civilian attached personnel should be effective enough in theory. Going fully civilian risks having to create effectively two coastguards (one civilian, one military) - consider Canada, and to a lesser extent Australia. Possible complications include different training standards & qualifications, possibly (probably?) a unionized workforce, maybe a refusal to undertake armed roles. I wouldn't want to go there - not for a force as small as NZ's.

The navy could really use the extra command positions as well.

There would not be 2 Coastguards. The Navy would have no vessels smaller than OPV size and its jurisdictional remit would be defined in law as would be the jurisdictional remit of the Maritime Enforcement agency. The maritime protection agency would likely not have vessels larger than 30m and 100 tonne. One looks after the NZG's needs within 24nm under NZ civil, public and criminal law and the other under the laws, treaties and conventions of armed conflict, humanitarian law, and the laws of the sea beyond the 24nm CZ.

There would be no unionised workforce other than a 'association' modelled on the NZ Police. No right to strike just like the NZDF and the Police. Different standards are not an issue they are separate organisations with a separate remit. One is for the law enforcement within sovereign territorial limits, the other for for Defence.

How would separate training standards & qualifications be a concern when they are different organisations. As I noted in the previous post training and operational considerations alone are a nightmare in the Navy at present and would be even more problematic if for example the navy has 3 high end ASW/AWD frigates whilst also operating 20m inshore patrol craft like the Q-West boats that are more economical and appropriate for customs interceptions and inshore fisheries monitoring. When they (the RNZN and maritime protection agency) are working together when directed there would be obvious protocols. The Police, Fire Service, St Johns, LandSAR, Volunteer Coastguard all have different and distinct roles as well as training and quals. The point is - that they are different, they are specialised they would work together when they need to.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Retrenching is a very easy promise to keep, it will make a lot of people in the US happy. With all those military folk coming home a lot of bases will either need to be reopened or expanded, of course some numbers will be cut but the money flowing into communities and not being spent overseas will be a boon for many communities.

There would of course be a knock on effect for the Usa defence industry, jobs and profit margins wise! regards to isolationism. Dont think either party would win support from their donors doing that, corporate influence goes hand in hand with that in the USA, why Senator Bernie Sanders is running for election too, and still has a small chance of winning, to reform Govt corruption by corporations.

I agree too with Ngati, Hillary has political experiance and pedigree ,as a former Secretary of state, while not the ideal choice of mine, a close second, behind Bernie Sanders. Trump constantly changing his opinion on policy and racially divisive comments has raised the ire of many nations already, Britian,China and Latin America, his own party consider him a loose cannon.

I have my doubts about Nz Govt raising our defence spend to 2% let alone three with America adopting isolationism, we didnt over the break with Anzus over the foolish 'Nuclear free' policy, and National has done little if any to restore lost capability.

 

[ngatimozart]

There would of course be a knock on effect for the Usa defence industry, jobs and profit margins wise! regards to isolationism. Dont think either party would win support from their donors doing that, corporate influence goes hand in hand with that in the USA, why Senator Bernie Sanders is running for election too, and still has a small chance of winning, to reform Govt corruption by corporations.

I agree too with Ngati, Hillary has political experiance and pedigree ,as a former Secretary of state, while not the ideal choice of mine, a close second, behind Bernie Sanders. Trump constantly changing his opinion on policy and racially divisive comments has raised the ire of many nations already, Britian,China and Latin America, his own party consider him a loose cannon.

I have my doubts about Nz Govt raising our defence spend to 2% let alone three with America adopting isolationism, we didnt over the break with Anzus over the foolish 'Nuclear free' policy, and National has done little if any to restore lost capability.

Just be very careful of your wording please and don't stray over the line of politics. I posted Preceptors post regarding naming US candidates names for very good reason. We don't need to rehash the ANZUS debacle but remember it takes two to tango and two to lose your virginity

I don't think that US isolationism would have any major impacts upon the major defence companies. The USG will still be spending on defence and it will still have its national interests. If anything there may be more exports as other nations may have to import more weaponry.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Agreed. Just going by military and trade policy here, Hillary seems far more in our corner, regards to TPPA and the middle east, South China seas.

 

[ngatimozart]

If NZ was a larger nation I would agree with you, but it just isn't. Major & medium powers can afford the duplication of effort of a navy and a coastguard, small nations like NZ can't. It's better to just have one agency do both military & constabulary roles. In a small force like the NZDF, still operating in a low threat environment regionally, an increased constabulary role is a fact of life. It's a question of balance, not focus*. Our own white papers highlight the 'concentric circles' approach of local NZ roles being the highest priority**. If our navy doesn't do constabulary work, it will become even more irrelevant. Perhaps constabulary work could become a separate command (as is the case in Norway), but it should remain part of one organisation.

In my ideal world, a sensible balance would be 3 frigates, with the budgetary equivalent of a 4th frigate spent on OPVs / IPVs for the constabulary roles. At least one OPV would be ice-strengthened and frigate-sized.

Some of the contributions being sent to RIMPAC this year seem fairly useless and wasteful: a light infantry platoon? A P-3 that isn't able to do anti-sub or anti-surface warfare, and doesn't even have a self protection suite? If the P-3 actually had those capabilities, then sending it to do a practice war-shot using US facilities would make some sense, but what can our P-3 add to the exercise except an ISR role. Sending all of the elements Ngati listed to one RIMPAC exercise seems luxurious. One or two elements would be enough.

I strongly disagree. It is how we train and work with larger forces. You need to be able to take advantage of every opportunity that you can and as R Adm Goldrick states in the video it is about balances. He defines a navy very well.

* A young lieutenant asked former RAN Chief of Navy Rear Admiral James Goldrick about this at the 2015 Seapower conference in Sydney. I think Admiral Goldrick answered the question as well as anyone could. (Video here, from 47-50 minute mark. It's actually worth starting a minute or two earlier though to hear the previous speaker relate the logistic nightmare of the RHIB, Christmas Island and the C-17).

** Something we appear to have borrowed from the Australian 2000 Defence White Paper. Undoubtedly, the Aussies borrowed it from someone else too.

The constabulary role is important for many reasons and the one of those reasons is that it keeps the navy in the national eye. It also allows for junior officers at Lt Cdr and Lt level to have command responsibilities at sea in order for better professional development for the good of the service.

I agree with Mr C that there should be a rationalisation of the Customs and MAFFish waterborne capabilities so that they take over a significant part of inshore work, but the RNZN should not loose that ability because it needs the skill sets involved in such work. It comes down to resourcing and balancing of priorities. Hence I would rather the retention of the IPVs and more resourcing for the RNZN to undertake both its warfighting and constabulary roles.

 

[ngatimozart]

Agreed. Just going by military and trade policy here, Hillary seems far more in our corner, regards to TPPA and the middle east, South China seas.

Can you take a hint or do i have to put my Mod hat on. NO CANDIDATES NAMES.

 

[Preceptor]

Agreed. Just going by military and trade policy here, Hillary seems far more in our corner, regards to TPPA and the middle east, South China seas.

My Mod hat is on. Leave the politics and specific candidates out of the discussion. Discuss the position, not the person. We don't wish to attract participation from political partisans, of any stripe.
-Preceptor

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Point taken. no worries.

 

[40 deg south]

The white paper release is now confirmed for 11am NZST Wednesday 8 June....

Chis73
Thanks for that very useful post. I'm curious where you saw the DWP release date? - I haven't seen anything on the usual sites.

Any last-minute content predictions from the defence-watchers here? (Apart from bland aspirational blather unsupported by funding commitments, which we can take as a given).

My picks would be:
- a weaker statement on South China Sea developments than Aust/US are expecting
- announcement of contract with Hyundai for Endeavour replacement.

 

[t68]

Chis73


My picks would be:
- a weaker statement on South China Sea developments than Aust/US are expecting
- announcement of contract with Hyundai for Endeavour replacement.

my left field pick is 6x C295 for delivery between 2018-19 and 3 A400M after 2023