t68
Well-Known Member
Different kettle of fish, comparing the Japanese aerospace industry to light and heavy vehicle manufacturing is no comparison
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
Different kettle of fish, comparing the Japanese aerospace industry to light and heavy vehicle manufacturing is no comparison
Government policy
With the recent change of government in New Zealand, has there been any talk of a revised or new Defence White Paper to reflect the views of the incoming
government?
This quite often happens here in Australia when a new government is elected. eg the 4th AWD wasn't ordered when the Rudd Labor government was elected in 2007; and the Wedgetail procurement was delayed when the Howard government was elected in 1996. Both new governments commissioned new DWPs before proceeding with major defence acquisitions.
With the recent change of government in New Zealand, has there been any talk of a revised or new Defence White Paper to reflect the views of the incoming
government?
This quite often happens here in Australia when a new government is elected. eg the 4th AWD wasn't ordered when the Rudd Labor government was elected in 2007; and the Wedgetail procurement was delayed when the Howard government was elected in 1996. Both new governments commissioned new DWPs before proceeding with major defence acquisitions.
Last edited:
Ocean1Curse
Member
Short answer: yes
"Replace the five-yearly Defence White Paper with a four-yearly Strategic Defence and Security Review to take into account geopolitical factors." Defence & Veterans' Affairs
Just on a fundamental level it is only natural that the recently elected coalition government will perceive New Zealand's interest differently from the previous government. One difference is the level of spending which is set to increase under the incoming government mainly around social investment and infrastructure. That has some fringe benefits with regards to Veterans affairs and your basic defence work life, recruitment, wages and training.
But unlike past performance. Current funding structures are largely locked in. We may argue about the detail. Perhaps a C2 aircraft vs the A400M vs the C292 and so on. The real main difference in future performance. May actually be funding boost to other things defence related.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Well govt appointing former army captain Ron Mark as defence minister I think is a step in the right direction, given his strong views for defence.As for him wanting to restore a light tactical air strike capability,
I wonder what could be done, within the confines of the 20 billion earmarked? I wouldn't like that happening if we had less Maritime patrol aircraft, airlift or even downgraded patrol ships.At least govt is leaving the earmarked money alone,some consolation.
Shorter answer: no
NZ First would have to convince Cabinet that a SDSR by 2019 and subsequent reviews every 4 years, will achieve better policy results than the current DWP every 5 years. Personally I don't have an issue with 4 yearly reviews but I look at SDSR as utilised by the UK and it causes me concern if a NZ SDSR is utilised to reduce defence funding and resources.
The $20 billion at todays rate and value would give NZDF a very good set of capabilities. However it is capital expenditure (CAPEX) only and for such new capabilities to be introduced and utilised is dependant upon the operational funding being markedly increased as well via Vote: NZDF. It would necessitate a return to NZDF being voted funding annually that is no less than 2% of GDP and the CAPEX being funded as a separate govt injection of funds.
I disagree there's a huge difference in being a captain in the army to being Defence Minister, whatever his military experience is it's simply not valid for his role as Minister of Defence.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Well I think a former captain for defence minister makes more sense than a failed drama teacher for prime minister.
t68
Well-Known Member
Is he really failed as a drama teacher, me thinks he's got the beast job out of all the job vacancy for a drama teacher, he's certantly using all his skills in creating drama for Canada!Well I think a former captain for defence minister makes more sense than a failed drama teacher for prime minister.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
I did a quick search of RNZAF deployments over the past 30 plus years and what I found shows the deployment of the Andovers to support UN operations along with the Hercules. Given that its happened before i still think there is a role for the 10 ton capacity STOL aircraft to support intra theatre operations. The very fact that for the last 20 years this class type has not been available has forced the governments hand by contributing what was left. That being the venerable Hercules. By having medium twins availabe it would allow contributions to operations without stripping the high end capability of whatever gets acquired.
The fact that the RNZAF has been reduced to bare bones levels has more to do with twins being unsuitable than the distance NZ is from anywhere. These aircraft have the legs to get to an area of operation and contribute to the effectiveness of those involved. This then allows the tactical and strategic aircraft to load into the central drop off air base or air port facilities.
The fact that the RNZAF has been reduced to bare bones levels has more to do with twins being unsuitable than the distance NZ is from anywhere. These aircraft have the legs to get to an area of operation and contribute to the effectiveness of those involved. This then allows the tactical and strategic aircraft to load into the central drop off air base or air port facilities.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Could the RNZAF/NZDF utilize a light/medium twin-engined transport in the weight class of a CN-235, C-295, or C-27J? IMO the answer would be, "yes." However, that capability at this point would fall into the want, rather than need category.
The NZDF of today is not what it was even 20 years ago, with many capabilities having been reduced, and some lost altogether. Further, funding is limited in terms of both acquiring new pieces of kit/major systems upgrades, and especially for the operations and sustainment of new and existing kit.
When looking at the NZDF as a whole and considering the amount of coin needing to be spent to either upgrade or replace existing kit just to retain the current level of relative capabilities... The cost to acquire and IMO even more important and problematic, the cost to operate and sustain, either a new capability or regain an old one, there just too little coin to spread around it seems to get everything that is needed in the quantities required, never mind what is wanted.
From my POV, something like a CN-235 or better still a C-295, kitted out with sensor suites, wired and plumbed for hardpoints and equipped with FITS could provide very useful service. As needed, such an aircraft could provide short/medium ranged light/medium cargo and/or personnel airlift. As needed, palletized modular workstations could be installed and the aircraft could be re-tasked to provide a short/medium range aeronautical SAR presence, or a Tier II MPA or MPS capability. The inclusion of dropable wing tanks could permit either longer ranged operations or greater time on station. The potential for an AAR could also be explored. Any of these capabilities would be of use to the NZDF, the question which has to be asked though, is whether the value of such use would be sufficient to justify the costs to not only acquire, but at least as important the cost to sustain such a capability.
From my POV, if the NZDF had a choice between getting a 3rd or 4th FFH, or acquiring an ACF and/or a 3rd type of airlifter in addition to the existing tactical and strategic airlift requirements, I would go with more frigates.
I agree for the Japanese not to be able to provide long term logistical support would be to lose face, Japanese industry has a pretty good track record of building indigenous military aircraft and maintaining them in service despite relatively small build volumes, the C-1 is an example and the various Shin Meiwa amphibious aircraft, I would sooner rely on Japanese logistics than European
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Part of the reason why Japan builds indigenous military aircraft is to maintain that capability, which successive gov'ts have been willing to subsidize even if it would be more economical for Japan to import some weapons or systems.
Due to how the Japanese defence industry is currently structured to function, the system works for Japan. However, with Japan lacking any sort of defence exports the production, logistics, and support systems which exist in other Japanese industries with large scale exports just do not exist. To assume that a Japanese defence product in NZ will be supported to the degree that NZ wants or needs because Japan will not wish to lose 'face' is not something I would rely on. Rather, any contracts to purchase such products should have detailed requirements for the type and level of support to be provided, how it is to be provided, and with strict and enforceable penalty clauses. As a side note, such requirements should exist will all defence contracts but it would be a mistake IMO to assume that civilian/commercial industrial capabilities automatically mean defence industries have a similar capability.
Agree with most of what you say but would disagree on the priority of the frigate, I would go for the ACF as from a purely defensive point of view the AFC can cover a far larger area far more quickly than a frigate, it can be used in both a maritime environment as well as air and land based environments, can be deployed to another location more quickly and puts far less people at risk in a combat situation. However I would like to see an increase in numbers of frigates as IMO two is not a useful number.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
There are several reasons why I would choose a 3rd (and 4th is possible) frigate before an ACF. A few of the (IMO) more important reasons for going with additional frigates before reconstituting an ACF are as follows.
- The amount of time before useful outputs are available
- Asset persistance
- Range of roles asset can cover
Right now with the RNZN having just a pair of frigates, that can cause an availability crunch between planned operations, training cycles and maintenance periods. With the pending upgrades to replace the Sea Sparrow with Sea Ceptor and the associated electronics and other systems, the RNZN will have even greater issues with frigate availability for the next few years. If nothing bad happens in the world, the NZ might squeak by without suffering problems. OTOH there is plenty of potential for something to go wrong some where, where NZ would want or need to deploy warships to protect Kiwi citizens, assets, or interests.
In many of the potential scenarios, even if the NZDF did have an ACF available, it would provide SFA capability. An ACF, even one composed of something like the F-35, would not have the range or especially the persistence to escort shipping on a voyage. Even forward deploying an ACF to cover a single high threat hotspot would likely be problematic in terms of range and persistence. A single frigate could easily spend a week or two underway between Yemen and Madagascar on anti-piracy patrols, with the added ability to be able to conduct boardings and search suspect vessels. Even if the RNZNAF could setup a forward base to operate from in a place like the Seychelles or perhaps coastal Kenya, an ACF would be hard pressed to cover the same patrol area. To manage the same amount of time on station, would likely require a significantly larger ACF than could be gotten for the cost of one or two frigates, and would also likely require additional assets and capabilities which the NZDF currently lacks, like AAR.
Another potential scenario where an ACF would be of little use when compared to something like a frigate would be in areas where there could be undersea threats.
One also has to keep in mind that in order to raise an ACF, not only would aircraft have to be acquired, but changes, upgrades, or additions would be required at RNZAF air bases to hangar the ACF as well as house the personnel and store the parts and tools. An initial uptake of personnel would also need to be raised and trained to operate and support the new ACF, as well a training stream to provide an ongoing supply of personnel for the future.
I am not saying that raising an ACF cannot or should not be done, but I do not consider it either reasonable or feasible in NZ's current political climate. If politicians and the public in NZ were more open to the NZDF getting pointy-edged kit, and were also willing to provide more funding to acquire and then operate/sustain said kit, then the situation would be different.
I would prefer a 3rd frigate definitely and soon with a 4th to follow. If the NZG will only spring for 3 frigates then, stand up the ACF afterwards. Tod makes very good points about the paucity of RNZN frigates and a 3rd one has to take priority, although I believe that it would be possible to do both within the $20 billion CAPEX. However the crunch point is the operational funding being available to pay for the day to day utilisation, which would mean that the Vote: Defence would have to be, most likely doubled. Unfortunately I don't think there is the political will to do so.
Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
Totally agree. But somethings I believe important to note. Fast jets are limited in roles but like submarines and tanks- when you need them there are few substitutes.
I would not prioritise fast air over a 4 (maybe 6x 7000 ton) frigate navy and having 2 amphibious vessels. Nor hercules replacements or mpa's. But after those and the lav mlu, and hamel gun replacement then 8-12 leased gripen d's or ta-50's have their place. That's quite a list looking at it.
But because we would as a nation would feel like idiots if a foreign power shut us down with sea mines deposited by long ranged aircraft or some converted trawler they should be in the mix. This could be as a move to force us out of alliances or to challenge our sovereignty over resources like fisheries.
And this again comes back to budgeting and priorities. But when I see my unemployed neighbours hitting the bottle store most mornings from their state house I have to ask why is defence so far down the list.
And something I would add is with North Korea possibly opening the door of other regional powers reaching for their own nuclear sabre maybe we as a nuclear free nation should look at vessels large enough for the at sea BMD mission in the future. Fit for but not with. A solution could be a common fleet of stretched absalon class built in south Korea using the stanflex concept to allow future fitting of larger more capable interceptors. That way we could swing role vessels from hadr, escort, amphibious etc. My 2 cents there.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Is terms of costings for an ACF, the hurdle I would be most concerned with would be the operational and sustainment costs. This is of course assuming that the full NZD$20 bil. CAPEX funding remains available to the NZDF to purchase new and/or replacement kit, as well as conduct major upgrades to existing kit when needed and appropriate.
Depending on just what aircraft would be selected for an ACF and in what quantities, funding could potentially be stretched to cover the acquisition. What I would really hate to see would be for contracts to be signed purchasing something like 24 F/A-18F Superhornets plus an initial stock of munitions, training sims, etc. Then, following another change in gov't have the new incoming gov't cancel the purchase or if deliveries have already commenced, immediately move to mothball the aircraft, all due to ideological issues regarding the RNZAF having an ACF.
Also when considering an ACF, one should contemplate who the ACF would be operating against, where they would be operating, as well as who they would be supporting and/or operating alongside. I would consider the answers to the above questions very important when considering what combat aircraft to select, as well as in what numbers. If the aircraft are largely intended to provide a self-defence capability in or near NZ, then a fairly basic combat aircraft would be needed for fighter duties to intercept civilian aircraft as well as provide CAS training and some maritime strike.
OTOH if the major role for the ACF would be maritime strike, then honestly I would prefer to skip an ACF and leave more coin available to purchase P-8A Poseidons and a stock of suitable munitions.
Also worth mentioning is that if likely future ACF deployment scenarios involve ACF deployments overseas to potentially hostile areas like a FPDA combat deployment, or if things go bad around Korea, the ECS or SCS, or even to provide air cover for Australia... Then it would be worth planning for such aircraft to be able to be deployed and then operate far from their 'normal' facilities in NZ. That might also mean investing in some additional support gear, as well as transports to provide an 'air bridge' between NZ and whatever the deployment area would be.
It gets to be a complex problem because nn quantity is required to provide a given level of capability and there are associated costs with that. At the same time, having nn of something require a given amount of support particularly if deployed away from the 'home' bases and associated infrastructure and support functions, and having the assets to provide that sort of support away from the bases triggers additional costs and support requirements, and so on...
My point was that for the primary defence of NZ, ( the primary role of any defence Force ) a frigate has a very limited influence due to the amount of time it takes to reach any point of threat and the limited range of its weapons. the combat aircraft can cover a very wide area very quickly and effectively It is noted that the strike aircraft are not much use against Subs,but frigates are only effective against subs in their immediate area and there are a hell of a lot of things frigates are not effective against., a frigate has a very limited area of influence and we have a very large area both on land and the sea around us to consider. I think that doubling the defence vote is a little over the top. the last figures I had on the cost of strike wing was those supplied to the parliamentary select committee in 1998, that out of a defence operational vote of $1.1 B strike wing cost $50m ,$30 m for the skyhawks and $20m for the Macchi's I know Helen Clark claimed they cost 10% of the defence budget but she included depreciation , the capital charge, proportioned charges and the strike wing share of the cost of running Ohakea, to justify her intention to close strike wing down. While these figures are very old percentage wise they would not be to far out.
Of interest the cost of running a frigate then , from memory was about $22m. and a treasury report about 2003/4 note that the actual savings for defence accrued by the scrapping of strike wing was $30m per year.