NZDF General discussion thread

[40 deg south]

More DWP analysis / opinion:

ASPI:New Zealand’s Defence White Paper: look south | The Strategist

Robert Ayson: A Defence Force for New Zealand conditions? | Stuff.co.nz

Dom Post: Editorial: Questions remain about $20 billion defence spend-up | Stuff.co.nz

Thank heavens for Peter Jennings. Guess it takes an Australian to be blunt enough to say what really needs to be said. One only has to remember the unfortunate case of David Dickens to realise the dangers of sticking your head above the parapet in NZ.

Lowy Institute in Australia ( a think tank I have heard of, but have never read their stuff) chimes in with a much milder view than ASPI.

NZ Defence White Paper: A maritime focus with a difference

 

[40 deg south]

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.

Nova
My impression is that the Canadian government is far more inclined to support local industry than the NZ equivalent, both in military and civilian spheres. Generally, NZ companies are expected to compete with international suppliers, and there is limited willingness to pay above the market rate just to support local industry. The sort of generosity shown to the Canadian shipyards involved in building your supply ships is simply inconceivable in NZ.

As a non-military example, NZ gov't needed to buy a small passenger ferry to support the remote Pacific territory of Tokelau. A tender was released, and various NZ and international boatbuilders put in bids. The contract was eventually awarded to Bangladesh, and complaints from NZ industry received scant sympathy.
Editorial: Criticisms of Tokelau ferry contract misguided - National - NZ Herald News

Regarding the PAC-750, I'm aware that a proposal made it as far as Cabinet 5+ years ago to purchase two (I think) PAC-750s equipped with surveillance equipment. They were to be based in the Pacific Islands - the proposal was unclear on whether they would be flown by civilian or seconded military personnel.

The NZ AID agency opposed the bid, as it would have been funded from their budget and they hadn't been involved in project design. Nor did the paper provide much evidence that any Pacific nation had actually requested the aircraft. The paper was put up (again, from memory) by the Ministry of Economic Development rather than Foreign Affairs or AID, and was all too transparently aimed at supporting Pacific Aerospace using NZ's international aid budget. The proposal was rejected, and as far as I am aware has not been re-submitted.

Postscript
An additional concern was the suitability of using a single-engine aircraft for maritime surveillance in a very large ocean. I have never heard whether NZDF was asked to comment on the proposal or not, but I think this would have been an issue for them.

 

[40 deg south]

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?

Nova

The 2014 Defence Capability Plan lists a 'refresh' of the AW 109s around 2018. No one has any idea what that means, or whether it involves additional airframes. The DWP, as far as I saw, was silent on the matter.

Defence Capability Plan (June 2014) - Contents [Ministry of Defence NZ]

It will be interesting to see what the promised 2016 plan says (which, if the White Paper is a guide, won't actually be released until 2017!).

I suspect a key issue will be whether RNZAF has the personnel to actually fly/maintain extra airframes.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Unfortunately Defence expenditure here is looked upon as economic development and jobs instead of a sound defence policy. It's not just Seaspan that's getting outrageous support to build supply ships but Irving has rebuilt it's Halifax yard at provincial taxpayers expense to build AOPS and replacement frigates and destroyers at $360 million. Bombardier and its predecessors Dehaviland and Canadair were heavily subsidized to construct Cold War era fighter fleets. We can see today how Bombardier is struggling in the global market.

In the global mixed trade world we are in today it's cheap labour that rules unfortunately. Two PSV's that were built in China that have been operating off Nova Scotia were built to last no more than ten years. Compared to the Norwegian ships that will last for 25 years there is no comparison in quality. You get what you pay for.

Am I correct that Calliope graving dock is the largest in NZ? Are there other graving or floating submersible docks for ship repair in NZ that can take on large vessel repair or shipbuilding?

In order to repair END or CANT can they be taken out of the water in NZ or must they go to OZ or Singapore?

Does Babcock have a monopoly on RNZN vessel repair?

 

[Novascotiaboy]

With only five 109's and them having a primary training component how many are available for operational support of army? Have they been deployed with Canterbury or the Opv's or is this still wishful thinking. Such a capable aircraft in so many respects yet numbers are insignificant.

 

[MrConservative]

Regarding the PAC-750, I'm aware that a proposal made it as far as Cabinet 5+ years ago to purchase two (I think) PAC-750s equipped with surveillance equipment. They were to be based in the Pacific Islands - the proposal was unclear on whether they would be flown by civilian or seconded military personnel.

The NZ AID agency opposed the bid, as it would have been funded from their budget and they hadn't been involved in project design. Nor did the paper provide much evidence that any Pacific nation had actually requested the aircraft. The paper was put up (again, from memory) by the Ministry of Economic Development rather than Foreign Affairs or AID, and was all too transparently aimed at supporting Pacific Aerospace using NZ's international aid budget. The proposal was rejected, and as far as I am aware has not been re-submitted.

Postscript
An additional concern was the suitability of using a single-engine aircraft for maritime surveillance in a very large ocean. I have never heard whether NZDF was asked to comment on the proposal or not, but I think this would have been an issue for them.

Thanks for the update on that and the machinations over budget turf wars. I wondered why if all evaporated with out a trace.

I do not know where the GibbsAero GA18 is in development these days if at all, but a light utility twin would probably be a better platform in a CZ constabulary / short hop cargo role in places like Rarotonga.

 

[RegR]

With only five 109's and them having a primary training component how many are available for operational support of army? Have they been deployed with Canterbury or the Opv's or is this still wishful thinking. Such a capable aircraft in so many respects yet numbers are insignificant.

In the end we only had @3 sioux to cover basic training for @13 hueys so 5 109s + sim to provide for 8 90s should still provide similar numbers. Admittedly the 109s would conduct more training with the added role of loadmaster initial training as well but should still leave at least half 2/3 available for ops with the 3rd swinging between roles depending on tempo.

The extra 3 were mooted to be stock models specifically to cover training and free up the milspecs so assumedly this is how much they have assigned to the training side of the house or at least max contingency anyway. You would think in the scheme of things this would be a relatively easy and straight forward purchase as well as comparitively cheap and known so maybe the requirement has slipped or requirement not as urgent as if we are dropping 20bn then this could have been an easier first sell compared to say frigates for the 'war machine' as the peaceniks keep whineing about.

 

[40 deg south]

Unfortunately Defence expenditure here is looked upon as economic development and jobs instead of a sound defence policy. It's not just Seaspan that's getting outrageous support to build supply ships but Irving has rebuilt it's Halifax yard at provincial taxpayers expense to build AOPS and replacement frigates and destroyers at $360 million. Bombardier and its predecessors Dehaviland and Canadair were heavily subsidized to construct Cold War era fighter fleets. We can see today how Bombardier is struggling in the global market.

In the global mixed trade world we are in today it's cheap labour that rules unfortunately. Two PSV's that were built in China that have been operating off Nova Scotia were built to last no more than ten years. Compared to the Norwegian ships that will last for 25 years there is no comparison in quality. You get what you pay for.

Am I correct that Calliope graving dock is the largest in NZ? Are there other graving or floating submersible docks for ship repair in NZ that can take on large vessel repair or shipbuilding?

In order to repair END or CANT can they be taken out of the water in NZ or must they go to OZ or Singapore?

Does Babcock have a monopoly on RNZN vessel repair?

Nova

NZ under the current government has recently begun paying more attention to 'whole-of-life' costs rather than the previous fixation with up-front sticker price. Hopefully that will help us avoid any particularly flimsy vessels. It must be said that the current Endeavour tanker bought from Korea in about 1988 (for some ludicrously low price, certainly sub-$50 million) was initially regarded with a good deal of scepticism, but has proved a valuable and long-lasting asset. That might have played a part in Hyundai also being the preferred supplier for the replacement tanker.

As a landlubber I probably should remain silent on nautical matters , but I'm pretty sure Calliope dock is NZ's largest. It can handle the current Endeavour, I'm unsure about Canterbury. NZ would certainly have no hesitation in sending vessels offshore if it was cheaper/more efficient.

Babcock has a maintenance contract with RNZN, I don't have details of the scope but will certainly cover all planned routine maintenance. Presumably there are exclusion clauses for stuff Babcock can't handle locally.

Babcock signs $NZ300 million agreement with the New Zealand Defence Force | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter

 

[ngatimozart]

The current Chief of Defence, Lt Gen Tim Keating and Vice Chief of Defence, Air Vice Marshal Kevin Short have been reappointed to their roles until 30 June 2018 and 31 March 2019 respectively. This decision has been made "to ensure continuity of effective leadership at the present time".

 

[Rob c]

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.

I did read in some were in the info coming out with the DWP that the new OPV was to be capable of operating in a low and medium threat area. If this is the case it would have to have significantly better military qualities than the current ones. I would imagine that this would include active and or passive detection and defence systems and and enhanced damage control abilities. This combined with designed in ice protection, would in itself call for a significantly larger hull. I have not seen anything to date as to what level the the ice protection is to be taken but one would hope that it is not the bare minimum

 

[htbrst]

Following on from the whitepaper - A huge $500 million NZD methamphetamine bust has unfairly reinforced the view of a those wanting to dispand the armed forces about the dysfunction of the Navys maritime patrol performance.

The drugs were recovered - source unknown - from the sea by small boats, and there are now suggestions that an aircraft from another country may be involved.

A plane could have been used to drop 500kg of meth in New Zealand waters | Stuff.co.nz

I think its a bit of strech for a twin-turboprop to have the range to return back to the country of origin - but perhaps it could drop something off en-route if landing here.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Reg R, regards to the A109 trainers, we didnt have 10 Seasprites in service then either, arent those LUH for training the navy air crews too? Perhaps thats why an extra three helicopters might be in order, and free those Nh90 up for other roles.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

If anything. it shows the opposite to me! Thats part of the reason why we need the Navy and maritime patrol aircraft, more than ever. Now at least, we have the money to plug the gaps.

 

[Lucasnz]

I did read in some were in the info coming out with the DWP that the new OPV was to be capable of operating in a low and medium threat area. If this is the case it would have to have significantly better military qualities than the current ones. I would imagine that this would include active and or passive detection and defence systems and and enhanced damage control abilities. This combined with designed in ice protection, would in itself call for a significantly larger hull. I have not seen anything to date as to what level the the ice protection is to be taken but one would hope that it is not the bare minimum

Janes is stating that the 3rd OPV will operate in the constabulary role, which includes Peace Support Operations / Embargo operations (using the 2002 Maritime Forces Review context). That would by nature I think require an enhanced capabilities similar to the Holland, Floreal and Thetis class in order to effective. Effectively a Patrol Frigate / Sloop.

The way I see it: speed and range similar to the OPV, radar would be something like Terma Scanter 4100, ESM but no ECM, Passive Countermeasures, Medium Calibre Gun, 2 x 25 Typhoon, Maybe Modular ASW Capability / sonar (unlikely - but the RNZN has expressed interest in a Active Towed array in the past - outcome of Tui Trials). Data Link and improved communications outfit. A more capable Flight capability (Flight Deck Size, air weapons magazine), Missile Based CIWS (Mistral, Sea Ram), Greater C2 / Operations capability. Crew of around 50 - 80 (including Flight Crew).

Probably the bare min capability to operate in a medium intensity conflict (noting that the RNZN defined the Falklands as medium intensity in their 1997 Doctrine).

 

[RegR]

Reg R, regards to the A109 trainers, we didnt have 10 Seasprites in service then either, arent those LUH for training the navy air crews too? Perhaps thats why an extra three helicopters might be in order, and free those Nh90 up for other roles.

We have only gained an extra 3 flying sprites (8 operational, 2 attrition) so with the loss of huey numbers vs NH90s (13 to 8) the overall requirements are still similar in terms of actual pilot numbers (naval inclusive) and with a 90 sim now also being aqquired the playing feild is even more spread in terms of overall training capability for the squadrons.

 

[Gibbo]

Janes is stating that the 3rd OPV will operate in the constabulary role, which includes Peace Support Operations / Embargo operations (using the 2002 Maritime Forces Review context). That would by nature I think require an enhanced capabilities similar to the Holland, Floreal and Thetis class in order to effective. Effectively a Patrol Frigate / Sloop.

The way I see it: speed and range similar to the OPV, radar would be something like Terma Scanter 4100, ESM but no ECM, Passive Countermeasures, Medium Calibre Gun, 2 x 25 Typhoon, Maybe Modular ASW Capability / sonar (unlikely - but the RNZN has expressed interest in a Active Towed array in the past - outcome of Tui Trials). Data Link and improved communications outfit. A more capable Flight capability (Flight Deck Size, air weapons magazine), Missile Based CIWS (Mistral, Sea Ram), Greater C2 / Operations capability. Crew of around 50 - 80 (including Flight Crew).

Probably the bare min capability to operate in a medium intensity conflict (noting that the RNZN defined the Falklands as medium intensity in their 1997 Doctrine).

It'd be fantastic if that did eventuate & we'll never know until we see the RFP/RFT which I guess will be some time away just yet.

Unfortunately I have this gut-feel that Govt will push for only marginally more capability than the current OPV fleet, making 'constabulary' just that:

My expectation:
Speed and range similar to the OPV; radar could possibly be something like Terma Scanter 4100; ESM (agreed no ECM); 2 x 25 Typhoon; Data Link and improved communications outfit; A more capable Flight capability (Flight Deck Size, possibly air weapons magazine); Greater C2 / Operations capability.

Wonder what the timeframe will be... with LOSC & MSC to be acquired first I should imagine it might be a few years before we see the OPV #3 arrive.

 

[RegR]

If anything. it shows the opposite to me! Thats part of the reason why we need the Navy and maritime patrol aircraft, more than ever. Now at least, we have the money to plug the gaps.

Agreed, not a good look coming directly after the parked vessels issue even though this would have been another agency led op. Joe public does not nesscessarily know who takes lead in this situation but still consider navy to do the "patrol" side of the buisness so would asume them regardless.

 

[Rob c]

If anything. it shows the opposite to me! Thats part of the reason why we need the Navy and maritime patrol aircraft, more than ever. Now at least, we have the money to plug the gaps.

The patrol aircraft would be more important than the navy due to the area they can cover, but the navy is required for the stop and inspection side of the deal. What is really missing is primary radar, as most of it was shut down with the ACF. Currently an aircraft can simply disappear by turning its transponder off. this makes the use of aircraft for illegal ops very attractive.

 

[chis73]

Some more follow-up on the DWP, including a nice riposte from Ayson to Jennings' criticisms. The others I've selected mainly because they contain multiple links to other opinions.

A New Zealand wolf in sheep’s clothing | The Strategist

Parsing the Parsing (So Far!) of New Zealand’s Defence White Paper - Incline

NZ POLITICS DAILY: Where to go to war next? | The National Business Review

Dunno if wolf is the right word though. Toy Poodle perhaps, maybe a wee Scottish Terrier on a good day.

P.S. Note the upcoming DWP aftermatch conference on 4th July in Wellington. Hopefully someone uploads it to Youtube this time

 

[ngatimozart]

The NZG is extending the NZDF Iraq army training deployment by 18 months. It will also commit a small number of trainers to the Besmeya military base where the Iraqi troops are trained in heavy weapons. This is to ensure a smooth handover to other coalition trainers. Cabinet has also agreed to provide training to 'stabilisation forces" including Iraqi federal police. This takes the deployment out to November 2018 and the NZG has not ruled out further extensions of the deployment. However the NZG will not authorise NZDF being involved "outside the wire".