LOL, asking nuclear free NZ to help pay for US nuclear submarines would be like asking Greenpeace to help pay for Japan's new Whaling fleet.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
A great initiative has been made public on the Navy news sight.
Sailors serving 7 years or more are now eligible for low interest loans from the RAN Relief Trust Fund. This is a good for retention and good for giving sailors an avenue for funds which can be used for any purpose.
These loans may increase in quantum in the future.
BZ RAN
New loans announced for long term sailors
Sailors serving 7 years or more are now eligible for low interest loans from the RAN Relief Trust Fund. This is a good for retention and good for giving sailors an avenue for funds which can be used for any purpose.
These loans may increase in quantum in the future.
BZ RAN
New loans announced for long term sailors
Joe Black
Active Member
Why not simply gift the Kiwis a couple of Collins when they are withdrawn from RAN service?
SpazSinbad
Active Member
Heheh. They'd only be BEACHED AS - Beached As Bro - or as some may be Beached As CUZ.
And have a CHUP.
Not in our CONOPS and never have been. Was suggested back in the early 80s, from memory, but that idea deep sixed pretty quickly because didn't meet our requirements, then or now.
LOL, but we are the ones who speak the Queens English properly, not you lot on the West IslandHeheh. They'd only be BEACHED AS - Beached As Bro - or as some may be Beached As CUZ.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
And ignoring all the potential IP, ITARS and FMS issues with such a transfer, just what would the RNZN do with one or more diesel-electric subs?
The RNZN has no experience operating subs, at all. There are no Kiwi naval personnel who would be in a position to train others to operate a sub or even establish such a training programme, never mind actually being able to crew a submarine.
There would be more utility in the RAN transferring Collins-class SSG's to the RCN when they decommission, assuming there is any useful life remaining in the hulls and onboard mission systems at that time.
ITARS and FMS issues wouldn't be so much of an issue from the US POV, but the rest of it most definitely would and like I said definitely not in NZ CONOPS.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Given that the combat system currently in use aboard the Collins-class is a version of the Raytheon AN/BYG-1 used aboard the USN's Virginia-class SSN, I would imagine that there would indeed be a few FMS and ITARS issues which would have to be resolved before a hypothetical transfer could be done. That or the combat system could be just ripped out, but a sub without a combat system installed would not be very useful.
Of course NZ's current CONOPS for using/operating submarines (i.e. none) would be a greater stumbling block...
Joe Black
Active Member
In terms of sub qualified personnel, RNZN could recruit them from the RN, RCN, etc just like what RAN is doing today. Naturally they will have to establish everything from nothing, not impossible. Singapore did just that in 1995 with a couple of old retired Swedish A12 Sjöormen. Why can RNZN do likewise? If there is a will, there is a way.
I see the ITARS, IP, FMS, and RNZN CONOPS are more of an issue. Once again, unless RNZN see that having a couple of subs to patrol the seas surround the waters is vital to their national security, coupled with the interests of the South Pacific region recently shown by a large country up north, I've got the gut feeling that it won't be too long we suddenly hear about foreign subs parking inside the Hauraki gulf, or close to Fitzroy Bay, etc.
Why not simply gift the Kiwis a couple of Hunters when the production line is up and running?
t68
Well-Known Member
Why not simply gift the Kiwis a couple of Hunters when the production line is up and running?
More likely a few Anzacs, Kiwis are running a surplus as far as I know they can afford it
All re-transfers of miltech are governed by s3 of the US Arms Export Control Act AECA (AECA). The documentation is submitted to PM/RSAT for approval undergoes a legal review to ensure it meets the requirements outlined in Act, however in the case of FVEY's nations ala UK, Aus, Can and NZ the protocols of AUSCANNZUKUS are applied.
In local dollar terms New Zealand is running a $5.5B surplus and has had surpluses for since FY15 and GDP debt is now under 20% of GDP. Australia is running an $18.2B deficit and is in its 12th year of deficits with GDP debt up to $42.5%.
NZ has a $305B GDP yet we only spend $2.6B (nett) on the NZDF defence which is only 0.87% of GDP. Even with the $20B top up over 15 years for CapEx. We will still be spending under 1.0% of GDP.
So thanks and Merry Christmas the Aussie taxpayer. You are doing a great job of keeping the wider region safe so we don't have to bother and of course help us feel morally cleansed and spend more time virtue signalling from our high snowy mountains of sanctimony.
Thanks Joe Black for the lovely offer to gift us some free Hunters Class Frigates (I am assuming you are an Aussie taxpayer). We need more generous Aussie taxpayers like you because as you can see by the numbers above we are really really poor, like live in shoe box in middle of road poor, cannot afford to spend tuppence on defence. Special thanks to the gullible Aussie politicians. Thank god you guys cannot read a balance sheet thus have not being able to workout what really going on for the last couple of decades.
I am continually amazed by NZs lack of concern about security issues in its region. They would be pretty much the only regional power not currently beefing up its military.
To me it just seems like a massive gamble on NZs part. It's like cancelling your home insurance during bushfire season.
To me it just seems like a massive gamble on NZs part. It's like cancelling your home insurance during bushfire season.
Well,
IMHO, they see themselves as being at the end of the line.
Whilst there's implicit acceptance that they will 'respond' if they or Australia are challenged, they are not subject to any binding co-operative capability, such as a regional 'NATO' style defence agreement.
So they field whatever they please, as they please.
It will continue that random way until someone someday realises that our destinies are intrinsically linked.
In the interim I'm grateful they do what they have independently decided to do.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
NZ is hardly unique. NATO has lots of deadbeats as well. The worse of all is Canada. We are a deadbeat in both NATO and NORAD. Our percentage GDP spending on defence is a little more than half that of Australia’s and we still run larger deficits. Our GDP to debt ratio is worse as well.
Well at least you have a plausible albeit weak excuse in larger debt and deficits. Wombat is absolutely right our (Aust/NZ) destinies are intrinsically linked as much as they were in the past.
There has been discussion about a 3rd LHD for the RAN, which is not at all a given and forward funding for the ADF has numerous other critical capabilities requiring attention. My estimation is that the two current RAN LHD's will likely be it. Well guess who could provide that capability, a capability that it actually itself needs and would alleviate the burden and build greater capacity in a joint sense? It does not necessarily have to be another Juan Carlos but a 18000 tonner like the Endurance 170. After all we are building right now a 24000t ice capable RAS vessel which as part of its remit is to support not just the Kiwi Anzacs but the RAN surface combatants as well along with Supply and Stalwart.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The Canadian excuse is indeed weak as it is junior’s BS expenditures that have made a bad financial situation even worse. It is the reason why our defence recapitalization will never be as large as has been promised because there will be insufficient money after he leaves office.
Certainly NZ’s financial situation makes a JC or something a little smaller very doable and it would definitely be appreciated by your closest defence partner. In many ways, Australia has the same problem as the US, limiting defence support to your closest neighbour imperils your security. Canadian and NZ pollies assume this limitation will always ensure they can skimp on defence. Both countries may be unpleasantly surprised in the future.
Certainly NZ’s financial situation makes a JC or something a little smaller very doable and it would definitely be appreciated by your closest defence partner. In many ways, Australia has the same problem as the US, limiting defence support to your closest neighbour imperils your security. Canadian and NZ pollies assume this limitation will always ensure they can skimp on defence. Both countries may be unpleasantly surprised in the future.
- Status