Maybe. But the Australian Boxers will be Australianised and built here, the UK ones liable to be differently optioned and built <where?> There may be less benefit than anticipated were they coming off a single production line
oldsig
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
oldsig
My personal view is that you don't buy equipment that you need day to day but rather you should get what you need to have when the crap hits the fan and adapt it for your day to day opp's. To buy equipment that forfills your normal functions, that falls short of ability when needed in a crisis is not very smart, but then pollies do this all the time.
Last edited:
I hope the NZ Gov't is reading the Pentagon reports on China and taking them seriously.
Chinese bombers likely training for US strikes: PentagonDefenceTalk.com | at DefenceTalk
Considering where China was 20 years ago, their military capability expansion is incredible (and frighting). NZ needs to wake up and smell the cordite. We need to get our defence budget up to 2% of GDP, improve NZDF pay and working conditions to solve the retention/recruitment problem, expand the navy's combat force, start the painful process of re-creating an air combat force, and just generally stand up and be counted among our pacific allies instead of half arsing our defence responsibilities.
Chinese bombers likely training for US strikes: PentagonDefenceTalk.com | at DefenceTalk
Considering where China was 20 years ago, their military capability expansion is incredible (and frighting). NZ needs to wake up and smell the cordite. We need to get our defence budget up to 2% of GDP, improve NZDF pay and working conditions to solve the retention/recruitment problem, expand the navy's combat force, start the painful process of re-creating an air combat force, and just generally stand up and be counted among our pacific allies instead of half arsing our defence responsibilities.
But what makes you think the Chinese have any interest in NZ?
I don't disagree with you that we need to spend more, but for the life of me I don't see the Chinese as a military threat to NZ.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Well the Chinese certainly were quick to complain recently when our Govt mentioned them regards to defence White paper and 'pacific reset' ie investments in the Pacific! China has a lot of Business investments in NZ.
We're just lucky we haven't invested heavily into one of their many belt road infrastructure projects thats proven so problematic overseas and load up ourselves with debt to China as well. Any potential crisis in the South China seas will affect our trade routes, and if one of Anzac allies was involved in a skirmish, surely under that agreement we would be involved too?
It's not about China having any interest in NZ. I'm not talking about an invasion. China's rapid expansion into the SCS and pacific threatens our allies, our sea lanes and the stability of our region.
But why shouldn't China have influence in our part of the world, it's there back yard after all.
Because being 10000 kms away is not in there backyard. It is like saying that the SCS is in ours. Countries are welcome to have a positive and assisting role in the South Pacific but not an overbearing and problematic one.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Engineering centre at forefront of military communications systems opened
Looks as if this is a multi-service facility, so probably best posted here. The article outlines a new engineering centre at Trentham to test communication systems and networks. The opposite of shiny new toys for the boys, but probably a very sound invesment.
Looks as if this is a multi-service facility, so probably best posted here. The article outlines a new engineering centre at Trentham to test communication systems and networks. The opposite of shiny new toys for the boys, but probably a very sound invesment.
I don't see the Chinese as anymore of a threat than the US. The way many are reacting to the Chinese it's like the Russian scare of 1885 all over again.
So are you suggesting that it is all a hoax just like in 1885 to boost Newspaper sales? That there is no truth to it?
I am so happy now that the SCS militarised islands are as fake as fake news, no PRC military assets regularly entering into Japanese EZZ and ADIZ on a daily basis as well as frequent excursions in South Korea, Vietnamese et al, no ramming of non chinese vessels, no launching major cyber attacks on every single liberal democracy, no ten fold increase in foreign espionage over the last 15 years, no strings attached brown paper bag diplomacy in venerable 3rd world states. All all honky dory. Great to know. What a relief I feel so liberated now I will go out and buy a kaftan, grow my hair long, buy a bong and listen to folk music.
Indeed I am. And so is practically every serious commentator within East Asia except for you Rob.
The other side being the majority of other nations who have increasingly been concerned by PRC behaviour. None of which have even contemplated actions anywhere near as provocative as the PRC have done over the last decade within the South China Sea and East Sea.
Neither are productive options, both are ridiculous.
I've bought this discussion over from the NZ Army thread because it's starting to cover all three services. The bolded hyper links are back to the original posts.
KiwiRob: I've always thought the MAN fleet was a little on the small side, 194 vehicles to replace a fleet which once had 622 MOG's and 228 2228/41's. Was this another case of quality over quantity? Like the 8 NH90 replacing 13 Huey's?
Cadredave: Nothing of the sort we had a budget and had to remain within it, didnt matter if it was MAN or new Unimogs or any other brand Army would not of got a one for one replacement without tagging onto another Countries purchase.
CD
RegR: The MANs are not replacing the entire fleet, they are the operational portion, a lesser specced (and ultimately more cost effective) fleet will cover the remainder as milspec is not always required for our day to day tasks and in some cases actually impractical as for many tasks the "civilian" equivalent is in fact more usable at half the cost and training and cheaper to maintain and repair.
The garrison fleet will address this requirement over time and in phases much like the NMV fleet (currently mitsi tritons) augmented/replaced the landrovers/pinzgauers in non operational roles. Defence uses models such as leasing and renting on set contracts alot more now to avoid the capital outlay and shift some of the burden of ownership and inevitably as modern tech, capabilty and reliability improve the numbers required adjust accordingly.
Much like the NH90s (we were never going to replace 1 for 1) they can take twice the payload further, quicker, more easily and can re-role more readily so obviously we will not need as many also the army, along with navy and air force is not the same beast as it was in the 80s and many capabilities have either downsized, re-orged or disappeared alltogether, vehicle fleet requirements are no different.
KiwiRob: 8 HN90's can't be in all the same places at the same time as 13 Hueys, nor can 2 frigates do the same job as the 4 previous frigates.
Ngatimozart: You are right there Rob and there is a point where quantity does have a quality of it's own. My own POV is that the NH-90s are definitely 2 light and the frigates 1 light, with those numbers being minimum numbers. However until the pollies get a dose of the screaming diarrhoea caused by fear, significant increased funding for NZDF isn't going to happen.
KiwiRob: I've always thought the MAN fleet was a little on the small side, 194 vehicles to replace a fleet which once had 622 MOG's and 228 2228/41's. Was this another case of quality over quantity? Like the 8 NH90 replacing 13 Huey's?
Cadredave: Nothing of the sort we had a budget and had to remain within it, didnt matter if it was MAN or new Unimogs or any other brand Army would not of got a one for one replacement without tagging onto another Countries purchase.
CD
RegR: The MANs are not replacing the entire fleet, they are the operational portion, a lesser specced (and ultimately more cost effective) fleet will cover the remainder as milspec is not always required for our day to day tasks and in some cases actually impractical as for many tasks the "civilian" equivalent is in fact more usable at half the cost and training and cheaper to maintain and repair.
The garrison fleet will address this requirement over time and in phases much like the NMV fleet (currently mitsi tritons) augmented/replaced the landrovers/pinzgauers in non operational roles. Defence uses models such as leasing and renting on set contracts alot more now to avoid the capital outlay and shift some of the burden of ownership and inevitably as modern tech, capabilty and reliability improve the numbers required adjust accordingly.
Much like the NH90s (we were never going to replace 1 for 1) they can take twice the payload further, quicker, more easily and can re-role more readily so obviously we will not need as many also the army, along with navy and air force is not the same beast as it was in the 80s and many capabilities have either downsized, re-orged or disappeared alltogether, vehicle fleet requirements are no different.
KiwiRob: 8 HN90's can't be in all the same places at the same time as 13 Hueys, nor can 2 frigates do the same job as the 4 previous frigates.
Ngatimozart: You are right there Rob and there is a point where quantity does have a quality of it's own. My own POV is that the NH-90s are definitely 2 light and the frigates 1 light, with those numbers being minimum numbers. However until the pollies get a dose of the screaming diarrhoea caused by fear, significant increased funding for NZDF isn't going to happen.
Yep. The $20 billion is basically playing catch up and doesn't really allow for any substantive increase in capability. The only way that could happen would be for the asset surcharge to be abolished, Vote: NZDF to be doubled and the $20 billion to be a capital injection with the amount increased to $30 billion, ring fenced and inflation proofed. Like I said above, aint gonna happen unless the pollies get a fright big enough to induce a dose of the screaming Delhi belly.
I don't have a problem with the Manawanui replacement because it looks like a good buy and it is exactly what the dive team needs. However, I believe that the LOSC should still go ahead and maybe something based on a LHD / LPD mothership concept might be be an idea. HMNZS Matataua has a well developed fully deployable pack up set that is platform agnostic. The C-130 replacement is definitely having being held up considering all the work will have been done at the MOD / NZDF level, so I would suggest that the hold up is political, most likely at Cabinet level. The Minister has publicly stated that he is keen to have the replacement approved as soon as possible, but his Cabinet colleagues are a different kettle of fish and have a lot of other distractions at the moment, mostly of their own making.
Well in all honesty when has 8 NH90s ever needed to be anywhere or 13 hueys for that matter? We could have 12, 15 or 20 NH90s but then if we can't afford to fly them or just end up lessening the allocated hours per frame to keep within budget then what are we really acheiving. The 90s are ridiculously more expensive to operate than a huey (like 3-4 to 1) but still do more than twice the work and it's not just the NH90s, we also bought some A109s that we seem to forget about.
I worked with 3 quite abit so not sure where all these seemingly concurrent taskings come from as bar a major deployment like ET popping up then was all very manageble and indeed doable as like anything in the military priority takes precedence and anything major is main effort anyway as it's not only the actual helos that have to be in those same places but everything that goes along with supporting them as well.
We may have had 13 hueys but towards the end, much like the C130s and P3Ks, that rarely means we actually "have" 13 hueys at anyone time as with any old tech a single chip light can render a aircraft U/S until the fault was rectified. Now I'm not saying more is'nt better but we also need to work within our means be it funding, manning or operational to hit that sweet spot in balance otherwise like navy we could just end up parking expensive aircraft in a just as expensive hanger sitting there gathering expensive mothballs.
IMO 8 NH90s and 3 A109s is a more if not just as capable fleet as 13 UH1Hs could ever be in terms of just sheer usefulness overall for what we most regularly do but if we keep planning on worst worst case scenarios then yes, we could have sqns on sqns for every conceivable scenario out there.
To a degree the frigates debacle is in the same boat and while I agree 2 is below minimum for numerous reasons I also remember the troubles we had crewing what little we did have in the first place so until we sort those issues, long term soloution not short term fix, then again I fear it could all be a rather pointless excercise. Not being negative just noting the overall trend and being a realist, different times come with different challenges.
A small number of OEM remanufactured Bell UH-1's with digital cockpits would be the quick simple and cheap way of supplementing the present lack of breadth and depth within NZDF rotary lift, whilst having a low institutional footprint within the RNZAF due to their being a certified civilian M&O firm Becks who can domestically support them. The Kenyans, Ugandans, Lebanese and Argies have all in recent years have gone down this pathway buying a tranche of five Hueys, pretty much for the price of a single NH90. This is low cost - low hanging fruit in terms of efficiently achieving increased capability outputs across the fleet as a whole. There are a number of simple domestic MOAT taskings in which a NH90 is overkill and expensive (Harry & Meghan using them in the South Island must have cost a fortune) and beyond an A109's light lift capabilities which as a platform is almost entirely focused on training anyway, as well as being quickly C-130 deployable to support an HADR event in the islands.
I always like to factor in added costs involved such as extra pers, crewman, maintainers, refuellers and its adjusted use, storage, increased procedures etc as even when I left these were vastly different to merely sending a huey out on a "simple" task as complexity vs simplicity inevitably costs more just to support nevermind operate. Abit like sending a NZLAV to pick up passengers from the airport vs a van and the associated extra considerations/difficulties involved if that's all you have.
I've seen many a cost saving idea in the military intended to cut spending that merely ends up costing more in the long run so infact not as rosy as the books make out, but obviously not in their best interests to add in or is just assumed within general operation so best to add abit of GST onto the GST for a truer overall reflection in my experience. God forbid anything actually runs efficiently in the military.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Agree agree agree. And on top of the five upgraded Huey’s add three A109s for basic rotary training and assign the A109LUH to army support.
So cheap and so simple. Never will happen.
So cheap and so simple. Never will happen.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
There is a huge issue which is overlooked in the comments about kit quantities. If the NZDF had a requirement to be able to have eight NH90's deployed at once, then ~24 NH90's should have been ordered.
By way of example, when the RAN placed it's order for MH-60R 'Romeo' helicopters, the requirement was for 24, to provide sufficient helicopters to enable eight to be operational and/or available for operations. Using the Rule of Threes, a force of eight NH90's should be sufficient for two NH90's to be either available for, or already deployed on operations, and the potential for a deployment surge by postponing or cutting short scheduled training and/or routine maintenance which might permit increasing the available NH90 pool to a total of 4 helicopters.
On an individual basis, an NH90 helicopter is certainly more capable than an old UH-1 Huey, there is no question about that. What is at issue though is that a fleet of 13 helicopters (again, using the Rule of Threes) would have four helicopters available for or on deployments under normal circumstances/conditions, and that number could likely be surged to six or seven helicopters if need be. While the pair of NH90's still might have more lift capability than four old Hueys, that same pair of NH90's would prove totally inadequate if the NZDF required flying missions or deployments in more than two locations concurrently.
Having such a small fleet to draw from also exacerbates the negative impact of random chance. When one of the Kiwi NH90's was damaged by a lightning strike a few years ago and was out of service for a prolonged period of time, that single damaged NH90 was 12% of the NZDF's entire NH90 and rotary airlift fleet. It's absence from availability would have created a ripple effect in training and maintenance for the rest of the NH90 fleet, and impacted Defence personnel who work with the NH90's, or whom rely upon the NH90's to carry out parts of their missions.