NZDF General discussion thread

[MrConservative]

I personally cannot see us getting a single whitetail or even a few 'spare' second handers. A single frame is problematic at best, as we have found with other assets and our policy of getting 2 of others does'nt actually fare much better for high usage equipment (which supposedly C17 would be) and the most beneficial 3 seems a long shot bar the US giving us some of their storage frames.

A single airframe is certainly not what anyone is after. I appreciate the concerns you raise - but I would not categorically rule it out nor in - nor would I rule in or out the A400M as the designated alternative. Which still carries considerable risks.

Buying the last whitetail then saying we can just tag it onto the Australian squadron and then borrow one of theirs when needed is abit of a ask even for them, we're not talking about a unimog here (and we barely do it for them).

I understand that there is resistance to that on both sides anyway. That got knocked off the table even before Wayne Mapp took office who originally raised it.

Expecting surplus USAF versions to be another fix is again not without issue as no doubt they would be the oldest high mileage frames and who's to say they even want to 'rent' them out anyway as they may indeed want to mothball them to save what life they have left for their use and rotation as well as save funds, there are no more C17s being built not a case of them building too many. In both cases what is the benefit to them in either of these scenarios and would we be the only country in line for consideration?

There has been prior information posted on this topic earlier so I do not need to repeat it. Suffice to say that more C-17s were built iirc (25) due to politics than were required by the USAF of which 16 will be stored. There are a number of mutual benefits that are apparent. 1. US Pivot into the Pacific 2. Mutual interest in Antarctic operations. 3 A genuine requirement from a fellow ASIC member. 4. Flow on sales of other complementary assets from US manufacturers that would colour future acquistitions - per C-130 / C-27/ B350. Yes there are also a number of drawbacks but these are not insurmountable. One risk though is any dramatic foreign policy and defence departure in engagement and posture following the US Presidential election.

I would think one of the current operators like UK or canada would realise as Aus has done and see the benefit of expanding their fleets as a last chance at gaining numbers for the remainig new build, Aus could still purchase it themselves, maybe just negotiating a favourable last time price. They have the experience, support and infrastructure, we do not, it would need to spend an unproportional amount of time in training just to keep crews current that along with regular maintainence would make operational time sporadic at best without heavy (over) usage. Aus struggled with 5 and we are considering 1, still not a wise move IMO in terms of logistics, operation and impact on the rest of the fleet(s) regardless of the perceived benefits.

The final airframe in San Antonio at the end of the day may find itself in the Middle East possibly with Kuwait showing interest.

The C-17 operates on a global sustainment model quite different to our current practices - no one manages it without the US partnership. From Kuwait through to the RAF.

I would not be to quick to pour cold water on this.

 

[swerve]

A quibble: the C-27 has only ever been built in Italy, where it was designed (it's the G.222), so you won't be able to buy it from any US manufacturer.

 

[MrConservative]

A quibble: the C-27 has only ever been built in Italy, where it was designed (it's the G.222), so you won't be able to buy it from any US manufacturer.

That is correct but the C-27J has kit which is subject to ITAR provisions of section 22 U.S.C. 2778 of the Arms Export Control Act.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Having spent some time aboard a variety of offshore supply and construction vessels the new Damen design at 3600 tons seems to offer a lot of flexibility for a navy the size of New Zealand's. As the basis for the proposed littoral support ship could not this type of vessel be more valuable if there were more than one hull as replacements for the underutilized IPV's?

Given the governments desire to have multi purpose platforms with an all of government approach I can see three hulls being ideal to support operations. One to be dedicated as the planned dive / MCM / hydrography platform while the second and third hulls could support all other naval / military operations plus supporting government demands for non military taskings. The hull design is optimized for severe sea states and the carrying capacity of these vessels is truly impressive.

The small crew requirements and economical speed of these vessels will keep the opex low. I agree with comments about the alcoves for the RHIBs being low but a simple design change may allow a rear ramp to allow underway deployment and recovery without hindering the "A" frame.

There is strength in numbers and only one of anything means that during maintenance and planned refits the capability is lost. Even two hills with modular mission packages allows for continuous ops.

Has there been a timeline announced for tenders for the LOSC?

A look at a much larger hull of similar function is the surplus CECON hulls available from Davie. At 14000 tons and 130 metres these are very large but able vessels. Check out federalfleet.ca

It's a pleasure to contribute to this discussion.

 

[40 deg south]

Has there been a timeline announced for tenders for the LOSC?

It's a pleasure to contribute to this discussion.

And a pleasure to have someone new joining the debate...

No specific date has been given for tender release that I am aware of, but there were suggestions it was being delayed until the White Paper was released. I'd be expecting to see it in the next couple of months.

Someone who has posed over the WP documents and releases may be able to provide a better estimate.

 

[40 deg south]

http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/dwp2016-summary-of-submissions.pdf

Summary of Submissions on the DWP has now appeared.

 

[chis73]

As the basis for the proposed littoral support ship could not this type of vessel be more valuable if there were more than one hull as replacements for the underutilized IPV's?

Given the governments desire to have multi purpose platforms with an all of government approach I can see three hulls being ideal to support operations. One to be dedicated as the planned dive / MCM / hydrography platform while the second and third hulls could support all other naval / military operations plus supporting government demands for non military taskings. The hull design is optimized for severe sea states and the carrying capacity of these vessels is truly impressive.

Novascotiaboy, Welcome.

Your thinking is very much aligned with mine. One thing that is causing headaches for the RNZN, other than straight-out lack of technical trades, is the training & logistics burden of having such a hodge-podge of different vessel classes in ones & twos. Which it seems is about to get worse again (or at least back to as bad as it was) with the new polar OPV & the LOSC vessel.

NZ Govt has been studying (link) recently the possibility of leasing an oceanographic survey vessel (OSV), presumably to bridge the gap between the retirement of HMNZS Resolution (2012) and the introduction of the new LOSC vessel (probably 2020-ish).

3600t is a lot of ship to push around though (and therefore perhaps too expensive for a coastal role). There is also some capacity in the current Otago-class OPVs, which can carry several containers, and one recently took a survey boat to Fiji during the response to Cyclone Winston.

Has there been a timeline announced for tenders for the LOSC?

A recent Treasury report indicates that a decision to go to tender is scheduled for next month.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Thank you for the welcome. The comments listed in the submissions document are supported by the stance of the DWP. Increased "local" presence and concern for the maritime EEZ.

In Ngati's $20 billion possible list of hardware he noted additional AW 109's. Was there not supposed to have been three addional airframes purchased specifically for training to allow the LUH's to do more utility / army support? Has this option been dropped by Gov or is it still possible from the previous DWP?

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Chris 73 if the sea conditions around the islands are similar to Nova Scotia and the Notth Atlantic then 3600 tons is on the small side. Several similar if not larger PSV's operating off Sable in support of Shell drilling ops have experienced 20 meter seas this past winter and had pretty rough ride. Ships like the Atlantic Condor and the Siem Hanne are in the 3000 ton range. Larger PSV's such as the Skandi Flora have proven the ability to perform in our sea conditions because of their superior power and displacement. As has been said before "steel is cheap and air is free". Bigger has a benefit when dealing with the nasty of a big ocean. The increased usefulness of the size I think would offset the negatives. A similar comparison could be the benefits seen by Oz, the U.K. and Canada with C-17 usage. By all commentaries the large plane has proven it's worth and dispelled its critics concern for being too large and expensive. All users are making very good use if not over use of this very valuable asset. I think the MRAV at 3600 tons could actually be larger and be of more benefit. These ships are the pickup trucks of the offshore. Extremely versatile.

 

[ngatimozart]

Thank you for the welcome. The comments listed in the submissions document are supported by the stance of the DWP. Increased "local" presence and concern for the maritime EEZ.

In Ngati's $20 billion possible list of hardware he noted additional AW 109's. Was there not supposed to have been three addional airframes purchased specifically for training to allow the LUH's to do more utility / army support? Has this option been dropped by Gov or is it still possible from the previous DWP?

Welcome aboard Novascotiaboy, back in 2009 / 10 the PM commented that the A109s were so cheap that we should get another three. However since the Christchurch earthquake, it appears to have been sidetracked and maybe, IIRC, will happen in 2018 /19.

 

[chis73]

Novascotiaboy, you make some fair points. In NZ experience, the Otago-class OPVs (1900t) seem to have proven themselves sufficient for most of the NZ EEZ & the South Pacific. It is only in the Southern Ocean that they get really hammered. One of my hopes is that the new polar OPV is seriously large (at least frigate sized, possibly up to 6000t). Your upcoming Harry Dewolf (A/OPS) class would be a realistic candidate.

For the OSV, it depends how far offshore it is expected to operate & how much cargo capacity is necessary. I can't see the need for 12 TEU (a-la Damen MRAV 3600) all that frequently. The French La Perouse class (approx 1000t) seem to get about well enough - several operate from Brest, and have been known to cross the Atlantic (albeit in stages) to conduct operations in the Caribbean, South America and even up near you in St. Pierre & Miquelon. Two of the class previously operated in the South Pacific (Noumea & Tahiti) in the 1990s. To me, that's about the smallest size I would be comfortable with.

 

[ngatimozart]

Chris 73 if the sea conditions around the islands are similar to Nova Scotia and the Notth Atlantic then 3600 tons is on the small side. Several similar if not larger PSV's operating off Sable in support of Shell drilling ops have experienced 20 meter seas this past winter and had pretty rough ride. Ships like the Atlantic Condor and the Siem Hanne are in the 3000 ton range. Larger PSV's such as the Skandi Flora have proven the ability to perform in our sea conditions because of their superior power and displacement. As has been said before "steel is cheap and air is free". Bigger has a benefit when dealing with the nasty of a big ocean. The increased usefulness of the size I think would offset the negatives. A similar comparison could be the benefits seen by Oz, the U.K. and Canada with C-17 usage. By all commentaries the large plane has proven it's worth and dispelled its critics concern for being too large and expensive. All users are making very good use if not over use of this very valuable asset. I think the MRAV at 3600 tons could actually be larger and be of more benefit. These ships are the pickup trucks of the offshore. Extremely versatile.

Sea conditions in the Southern Ocean are different to the North Atlantic in that the predominant westerly winds have no physical barrier so have a planetary wide fetch for wave generation. The mean wave height is 10m but 20m and larger waves are not uncommon.The Wellington(?) was in 20m seas last time it was down near the ice.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Thank you Ngatimozart.

I have been following the New Zealand defence discussions for quite sometime and have many questions.

Recently you planted the idea of a "new" base in Christchurch. This makes great sense considering the presence of Burnham and the reality of the cost of living in Auckland for personnel at both Whenupai and Devonport. The development of an air base at Christchurch international would provide the benefits of both naval air and transport for army. Relocating navy from Devonport to Lyttleton solves the other issues of Auckland. Christchurch offers the dependants viable opportunities for employment in a major metropolitan area. The sale of both Auckland properties would help offset the investment in new facilities.

I also agree with your suggestion of AH 1Z as these offer so much to the combined operations of the JATF. Although fast movers have their place I think their time in NZ service is truly past. A marinized armed Helo can provide far more with respect to your area of operations. Deployed from the sea is your future. Distances are to vast for benefits compared to the cost of redeveloping an ACF. Sorry folks, just my opinion.

 

[MrConservative]

Recently you planted the idea of a "new" base in Christchurch. This makes great sense considering the presence of Burnham and the reality of the cost of living in Auckland for personnel at both Whenupai and Devonport. The development of an air base at Christchurch international would provide the benefits of both naval air and transport for army. Relocating navy from Devonport to Lyttleton solves the other issues of Auckland. Christchurch offers the dependants viable opportunities for employment in a major metropolitan area. The sale of both Auckland properties would help offset the investment in new facilities.

Firstly, the Auckland bases will not be sold. PM and DefMin have ruled it out.

RNZAF Air Movements already have a footprint at Christchurch International so it would not be too hard to increase that facility. Not into a full base but growth with respect to jointly meet the future demands of RNZAF Air Movements and the US Deep Freeze and SOFIA that are based there.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

I guess it would be the same here if it was suggested to sell the navy yard at Halifax. Although a previous government did begin the process of divesting in Shearwater the air base that supports the current Sea King and Cyclone helicopter base.

Mr. Conservative, why has their been no interest in the PAC 750 for liaison and utility work by the NZ government for defence? Supporting New Zealand business must have the same importance via defence as it does here in Canada. PNG just bought for their use and I would presume the capabilities of the aircraft to support ops in remote area and the small strips on the islands north of New Zealand would be of benefit particularly for SAS support.

 

[MrConservative]

Mr. Conservative, why has their been no interest in the PAC 750 for liaison and utility work by the NZ government for defence? Supporting New Zealand business must have the same importance via defence as it does here in Canada. PNG just bought for their use and I would presume the capabilities of the aircraft to support ops in remote area and the small strips on the islands north of New Zealand would be of benefit particularly for SAS support.

Former Defence Minister Wayne Mapp actually got his type rating on the PAC750 aircraft. He was quite a fan of it. There did not seem to be much interest from the NZDF though even with Mapp supportive of greater PAC involvement. Mapp was also the Minister of Science and Innovation at the time and was keen to involve local industry within Defence. An aircraft looking for a role was an expression I heard.

Sometime ago trials were done in South Africa using a Carl Ziess Leo II recon pod mounted on a PAC750 for constabulary tasks. I don't know where that went. It was mentioned to me by someone somehow somewhere that they could be used as a utility aircraft for small Pacific Island Governments again in a constabulary/support role as part of a NZ foreign aid package. There is some merit in that as many of those smaller jurisdictions like Niue, Rarotonga have virtually zero or minimal airborne constabulary capability other than the occasional P-3K2 tasking.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

PAC has stated that they are working on a Defender II derivative of the PAC 750 for use as a COIN / FAC aircraft with hard points for underwing stores. Could this not provide a locally sourced option of an air asset that is multi role to support defence training at a minimum?

With an EO belly mounted turret it could easily provide a manned ISR platform at minimal cost. Poor mans drone. Not meaning to infer New Zealand is poor.

This seems like a versatile aircraft that could support a variety of ops within the NZDF needs. Plus it supports local industry.

Thank you Mr. Conservative, Ngatimozart and Chris 73 for the conversation on my first attempts at posting.

 

[MrConservative]

One of my hopes is that the new polar OPV is seriously large (at least frigate sized, possibly up to 6000t). Your upcoming Harry Dewolf (A/OPS) class would be a realistic candidate.

That is a very good point and in some ways they do need to really work all the issues through. Would a larger southern Ocean OPV that could handle the Scott Base supply remit be of great utility than an ice strengthened AOR vessel?

The NoCVG KV Svalbard / Harry Dewolf class would mean that the proposed ice strengthening of the Endeavour replacement may not be necessary required if a Svalbard sized vessel was considered with increased bunkerage. It certainly can sealift far more stores than the current OPV's. I assume part of the next Endeavour getting ice capability as part of its remit was to supply essential fuels to Scott Base/MacTown. Speed, size and stability all need to be covered effectively this time. At least there are good options out there and the security that cash is available to get it right this time. A larger hull will have greater overall utility for the NZDF in a general context.

 

[MrConservative]

PAC has stated that they are working on a Defender II derivative of the PAC 750 for use as a COIN / FAC aircraft with hard points for underwing stores. Could this not provide a locally sourced option of an air asset that is multi role to support defence training at a minimum?

With an EO belly mounted turret it could easily provide a manned ISR platform at minimal cost. Poor mans drone. Not meaning to infer New Zealand is poor.

This seems like a versatile aircraft that could support a variety of ops within the NZDF needs. Plus it supports local industry.

Thank you Mr. Conservative, Ngatimozart and Chris 73 for the conversation on my first attempts at posting.

To be honest I really don't think the PAC750 it offers that much to the NZDF. However to 'micro-airforces' for want of a better word in small developing island nations it does have something to offer in a constabulary role. That is where I see its benefit in an industrial sense for NZ.

The Defender concept died the death it deserved many years ago. My suggestion would have been to call it the PAC750 Wairua Hua translation Devine Wind anyway.

 

[ngatimozart]

The Defender concept died the death it deserved many years ago. My suggestion would have been to call it the PAC750 Wairua Hua translation Devine Wind anyway.

Would it be wairua wau? or even mana hau? Japanese translation = kamikaze If it is wairua hau could be spirit wind I would have called it Te waka o Ranginui a wairua hau. The canoe of the sky father that has spirited wind.