NZDF General discussion thread

[Stampede]

I understand that, however there have been winds of change in the geostrategic environment, and none of it for the better. With the current DEFMIN saying that funding has to increase etc., it is starting to sink in. He's at #12 in the Cabinet order, up from #13 in January 23 which was the Cabinet ranking that Henare held in July 2022. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and increasing PRC belligerence is causing pollies in Wellington to take note, which is definitely better than what their attitude was in 2017.

We have to have a frigate navy because of our SLOC and AOMI (Area Of Maritime interest, and frigates would be the minimum requirement that our FVEY partners would find acceptable. Three frigates is the minimum number required and I believe that the pollies and bean counters have learned that, especially with the FSU upgrade leaving no NZ sovereign frigate cover for three years. With three frigates and six corvettes we can provide the minimum of cover across both combat and patrol capabilities. Corvettes are good for escorting convoys and other shipping outside of combat areas, freeing up frigates from that role. Personally I would like a somewhat larger force of frigates and corvettes but I don't make the decisions.

Looks good but it is not what we require. and not enough range. We require something with a range of about 7,000 nm and we need to get away from IPVs and OPVs to corvettes. It's why I suggested that we use something like the MEKO 200 hull and then design from the basic hull. That way we aren't bound or restricted by another navy's requirements. Also it's something that we would want to build in South Korea, not in Europe because of the cost.

Thanks Ngatimozat I can see the need.
The question really is about bang for bucks and trying to get the best value for money going forward.
The assumption is the dollars will not realistically come to fruition.

NZ needs long term political commitment to building a navy fleet of XYZ for the decades ahead.
Buying Z, dropping Y and buying a small z will not provide balance, availability and capability.
If the coin is not there, I'm suggesting dropping some offensive capability for balance and availability through vessel numbers and diversity of function.

Probably should of used the term under gunned light patrol frigate rather than Long range Corvette.
Premise being that the weapons and control systems are a significant component of the cost of a ship.

Cheers S

 

[swerve]

Montrose and most of the other T23s are older than either Te Mana or Te Kaha. Why would you want it take on 30 year old ships which have been thrashed?

Montrose has been modernised (completed 2017) & should have several years life left. Depends on the price & how long she's expected to be in use.

Monmouth is another matter: the only T23 not to have had an MLU, so no Artisan, no Sea Ceptor, etc. She was chosen for retirement ahead of some older ships because she hadn't been upgraded.

The Chilean ships have all had an upgrade at a similar level, but with CMS330 & TRS-4D as well as Sea Ceptor.

May I suggest an Italian OPV: Thaon di Revel class Offshore Patrol Vessel OPV PPA Italian Navy

"OPV" my arse. That ship's a way of sneaking a class of second tier frigates past the politicians & finance ministry. 5000 ton 30 knot OPVs with Aster 30 (optionally FFBNW), a four panel AESA radar, towed array sonar, etc.

 

[swerve]

Looks good but it is not what we require. and not enough range. We require something with a range of about 7,000 nm and we need to get away from IPVs and OPVs to corvettes. It's why I suggested that we use something like the MEKO 200 hull and then design from the basic hull. That way we aren't bound or restricted by another navy's requirements. Also it's something that we would want to build in South Korea, not in Europe because of the cost.

The Type 31 could do: all diesel, & with reduced systems & weapons it'd be relatively cheap. A bit big, but with that comes scope for very long range & endurance.

 

[Gracie1234]

We should look at the same hull for both roles, one Corvette and the other as a Frigate. The Type 31 hull might work. They can be built with similar systems where it makes sense, this would simplify operations, maintenance and training. A fleet of 8 would enable the govt to say we are not increasing numbers just buying new models. 2 Frigrates + 2 OPV+ 4 IPV= 4 Frigates + 4 Corvettes. The Corvettes can be referred to as OPV in the newspapers, which would minimise any change objections.

 

[ngatimozart]

The Type 31 could do: all diesel, & with reduced systems & weapons it'd be relatively cheap. A bit big, but with that comes scope for very long range & endurance.

That it could, and is not a silly ideal. That's why I am leaning towards adaptions of the Absalon Class because the extra deck and that large mission bay down aft offers lots of capability, especially if the SH CUBE is included. However it also comes down to optics and how a 6,000+ tonne ship looks against something that is 3,400 - 3,800 tonnes. The optics are important when dealing with both Polynesian and Melanesian nations because European, Australian & NZ colonisation is a touchy politicised subject.

We should look at the same hull for both roles, one Corvette and the other as a Frigate. The Type 31 hull might work. They can be built with similar systems where it makes sense, this would simplify operations, maintenance and training. A fleet of 8 would enable the govt to say we are not increasing numbers just buying new models. 2 Frigrates + 2 OPV+ 4 IPV= 4 Frigates + 4 Corvettes. The Corvettes can be referred to as OPV in the newspapers, which would minimise any change objections.

That would work but we really should be replacing 4 FF (Canterbury F421, Waikato, Te Kaha, Te Mana) + 2 OPV + 4 IPV = 4 Frigates + 6 Corvette.
Then there are the new capabilities = 3 AOPV (FFBNW weapons systems Antarctic Treaty compliance) + 2 LPD/LHD + 1 JSS (about L421 MRV Canterbury size). All should be built to enable operation deep in the Southern Ocean.

 

[recce.k1]

Montrose has been modernised (completed 2017) & should have several years life left. Depends on the price & how long she's expected to be in use.

Monmouth is another matter: the only T23 not to have had an MLU, so no Artisan, no Sea Ceptor, etc. She was chosen for retirement ahead of some older ships because she hadn't been upgraded.

The Chilean ships have all had an upgrade at a similar level, but with CMS330 & TRS-4D as well as Sea Ceptor.

Are the earlier "GP" variants of the T23 fitted with an ASW bow sonar?

Or just the later "ASW" variants of the T23?

I see the ASW variants were also fitted with the Sonar 2087 towed-array system.

But not the GP variants - but were they originally fitted with the earlier (2031?) towed-array system (and could they therefore be fitted with a newer system if deemed necessary to do so)? Asking if they could be re-configured (as in FFBNW ... or with), as noting that Montrose is a GP variant.

 

[recce.k1]

That would work but we really should be replacing 4 FF (Canterbury F421, Waikato, Te Kaha, Te Mana) + 2 OPV + 4 IPV = 4 Frigates + 6 Corvette.
Then there are the new capabilities = 3 AOPV (FFBNW weapons systems Antarctic Treaty compliance) + 2 LPD/LHD + 1 JSS (about L421 MRV Canterbury size). All should be built to enable operation deep in the Southern Ocean.

That sounds like the ideal RNZN (or aspirational in terms of political support and funding ... if the will was there etc).

In fact not too dissimilar to the post-war configuration of two light cruisers and six ASW Frigates (in WW2 the RNZN asked for ASW Destroyers but weren't granted them by the Admiralty, but I guess that was to be realised by the post-war Loch Class Frigates).

Translated into today's world the two light cruisers could be three (or four) high-end/heavy ASW Frigates (3 or 4 to ensure continuous operation rather than 2) plus the "light" (or medium) weight Frigate/Corvettes (even a minimum 3 or 4 would be a plus).

I do think the RN model (ASW T26's & GP T31's or similar equivalents) would be worth emulating for NZ i.e. because of the (critical) need for dedicated/purpose built ASW as well as general patrolling/escorting & all capable with long range/large AO's to cover etc.

Agree with the 2x LPD/LHD (which DCP19 endorses - so not "fanciful" etc). Sorry not clear, what role would the JSS play? Would it have AOR refueling type capabilities? Presumably a larger fleet would need redundancy (back up to the current AOR) in terms of refueling and replenishing at sea etc.

 

[RegR]

That it could, and is not a silly ideal. That's why I am leaning towards adaptions of the Absalon Class because the extra deck and that large mission bay down aft offers lots of capability, especially if the SH CUBE is included. However it also comes down to optics and how a 6,000+ tonne ship looks against something that is 3,400 - 3,800 tonnes. The optics are important when dealing with both Polynesian and Melanesian nations because European, Australian & NZ colonisation is a touchy politicised subject.

That would work but we really should be replacing 4 FF (Canterbury F421, Waikato, Te Kaha, Te Mana) + 2 OPV + 4 IPV = 4 Frigates + 6 Corvette.
Then there are the new capabilities = 3 AOPV (FFBNW weapons systems Antarctic Treaty compliance) + 2 LPD/LHD + 1 JSS (about L421 MRV Canterbury size). All should be built to enable operation deep in the Southern Ocean.

The 2 OPV replaced Waikato and MRV Canterbury replaced FF Canterbury so any more frigates won't be replacements as such but added. The 2 lost IPV were to be replaced by the 3rd (S)OPV (the justified compromise) but then as we all know that did not quite go to plan, so in reality bar the "missing" OPV the fleet is technically complete and I would say adding 2 more frigates and 2 LPDs would essentially be increasing the fleet by half.

In terms of manpower I highly doubt we can "afford" that all things considered. It's abit like the plan to raise the army with another battalion+ group, I just can't see it happening, an extra company per battalion at this point would be an ask and a half. Now, we can all say things can only get better but then you have to understand this has been going on for at least the last 2 decades at least and I would say getting worse not any better so tbh I can't see any vast improvements, stabilisation maybe but improvements hardly.

The best I think we could/should hope for is replacing what we currently have (and are supposed to currently have) with an improved like for like at the higher end ie frigates, OPVs and CY but trying to add to the fleet will only see dumbed down versions of a lesser quality that we most likely would not be able to put to sea anyway. Yes quantity is a thing but if all we can guarantee is quality then I would rather we just get that right instead.

 

[swerve]

Are the earlier "GP" variants of the T23 fitted with an ASW bow sonar?

Or just the later "ASW" variants of the T23?

I see the ASW variants were also fitted with the Sonar 2087 towed-array system.

But not the GP variants - but were they originally fitted with the earlier (2031?) towed-array system (and could they therefore be fitted with a newer system if deemed necessary to do so)? Asking if they could be re-configured (as in FFBNW ... or with), as noting that Montrose is a GP variant.

AFAIK all Type 23 were built with the 2050 bow sonar. Ah yes! Thales said so - Thales secures new support contract for Sonar 2050 system

Reports from when 2087 was ordered said it was a replacement for 2031.

Aha! Seek & ye shall find.
Navy News - Ships of the Royal Navy - HMS Norfolk
There we go! When Chile bought Norfolk, she had 2031, & reports of the upgrades to the 3 Chilean Type 23s state that Chile bought a 2087 set for each of 'em. Looks as if all 16 Type 23s originally had a full ASW kit, but only 8 got the upgrade to 2087 (I think I vaguely remember something about it, but I wouldn't swear to it), & after that 2031 was retired from the RN, leaving 5 T23s with only the bow sonar & classed as GP.

Chile's tracked some of the RN upgrades (2087, CAMM), but gone its own way on others (radar, CMS). The Chilean navy site says nothing about sensors, unfortunately, except that the radar was replaced in the recent upgrade (& the CMS - "sistema de gestión de combate"), but does say "lanzador de misiles de defensa puntual SEACEPTOR".

RN T23s are receiving 2150 to replace 2050 (first one fitted to Portland in 2020 - Ultra installs first S2150 Hull Mount Sonar on HMS Portland | Ultra), & according to Janes in 2017 (quoted at Chile Armed Forces - UK Defence Forum) the Chileans also chose 2150.

Not exactly RNZN, I'm afraid, but at least it derived from an RNZN discussion.

 

[FoxtrotRomeo999]

This is a general strategic question .thay applies equally to both NZ and Aus... if we are worried about a deteriorating strategic future outlook, is there anything wrong in getting kit hat cannot currently be manned (and likewise hanging onto older kit in addtion to getting uptodate ki)? In my view, absolutely not.... better than having to quickly grow your forces and find no kit is available for them. The Bob Semple tank is not just a funny story but a real example of not having adequate kit.

 

[RegR]

This is a general strategic question .thay applies equally to both NZ and Aus... if we are worried about a deteriorating strategic future outlook, is there anything wrong in getting kit hat cannot currently be manned (and likewise hanging onto older kit in addtion to getting uptodate ki)? In my view, absolutely not.... better than having to quickly grow your forces and find no kit is available for them. The Bob Semple tank is not just a funny story but a real example of not having adequate kit.

There's a big difference between having spare kit and buying extra kit. These are not just a few more trucks or weapons sytems we"ll tag onto an order for contingency sake these are frigates, quite a big deal, literally. No govt in their right mind is going to buy an extra 2 frigates and immediately mothball them on a what if maybe scenario, what navy would? Potentially hold on to the ANZACs for a period after the transition but then as the skyhawk debacle showed even storing a fleet costs $millions, not to mention maintainence and eventual re-activation. If 2 IPVs cost $26m to render seaworthy just imagine how much time, effort and millions 2 frigates would cost! If the govt was willing to throw that kind of money around in the first place then chances are we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with.

The frigate replacement is still some time away so they have time to at least get the current fleet sorted before any notions of fleet expansion could/would be entertained anyway but if that were the case (future expansion without current manning) then what's stopping them from buying extra ships now and getting ahead of the game? No difference if they sit around now or in 2030 right? Somehow I feel that options not even on this (or any) govts agenda in all honesty.

 

[Rob c]

In fact not too dissimilar to the post-war configuration of two light cruisers and six ASW Frigates (in WW2 the RNZN asked for ASW Destroyers but weren't granted them by the Admiralty, but I guess that was to be realised by the post-war Loch Class Frigates).

What must be remembered here is that they only operated 1 of the light cruisers at any one time with the other in reserve and after the Korean war two of the frigates went into permanent reserve and only 4 were available for operations though it was usual that one of these was in refit.
The big problem with NZ defence is that it has been run down so much in the last 30 odd years that it is difficult to know were to start to fix things. Terms and conditions of service would have to be the first one off the block just to ensure we have the numbers of experienced personnel to be available to man any improvements that can be achieved.

 

[jbc388]

I have been following and reading with interest the comments made about the state of the NZDF and while I agree with what has been discussed.
The countries defence force needs
1. Much better conditions for personal this is must have! This includes housing as well!
2. A better equiped Air Force with more transport aircraft, more rotary aircraft, patrol aircraft with supporting weapon systems and also training craft as well, with the possibility of Jet Attack aircraft in the future.
3. An increase in the numbers and types of Ships Frigates, Patrol ships, replenishment ships, etc etc and with the ships a new naval helicopter in sufficient numbers
4. An increase in all 3 services personal numbers, at least 2000 and 2500 for the army pers per service a 3rd/4th battlion for the army with supporting personal and equipment. Also a revamp of reserve forces to increase numbers, pay and conditions etc
5. A much improved offensive capability for the army eg arty, air defence, drones, AFV's replacement, more GP transport etc This would also include navy and airfoce was well!!
6. A domain awareness is also much needed! we are lacking in this at present.
7. Also a new defence approach from any new and successive NZ Govts that any major item being sourced is actually fitted with all suitable weapon /surveillance/defensive systems "not the usual fitted for but not with!!" and actually the weapon systems are purchased!!
8. A National Security Policy that is fit for what is actually happening in the world!! and is combined with defence and othe Govt agencies.

Also more that I have forgotten to mention.

But the major stumbling blocks with this current and successive Govt's are going to be the Finance Ministers and Political will to actually undo the damage that has occured over the past 30 odd years.
If you look at the track history of both the major political parties at best is very below average! when it comes to defence related matters eg currant Labour Govt!!
The thing is that I can see only a fraction of anything actually being done and what little that will be done will be spread out over ten's of years!!
When it looking like the sitituation in the Pacific will heat up in 5 or so years!!

 

[ngatimozart]

I have been following and reading with interest the comments made about the state of the NZDF and while I agree with what has been discussed.
The countries defence force needs
1. Much better conditions for personal this is must have! This includes housing as well!
2. A better equiped Air Force with more transport aircraft, more rotary aircraft, patrol aircraft with supporting weapon systems and also training craft as well, with the possibility of Jet Attack aircraft in the future.
3. An increase in the numbers and types of Ships Frigates, Patrol ships, replenishment ships, etc etc and with the ships a new naval helicopter in sufficient numbers
4. An increase in all 3 services personal numbers, at least 2000 and 2500 for the army pers per service a 3rd/4th battlion for the army with supporting personal and equipment. Also a revamp of reserve forces to increase numbers, pay and conditions etc
5. A much improved offensive capability for the army eg arty, air defence, drones, AFV's replacement, more GP transport etc This would also include navy and airfoce was well!!
6. A domain awareness is also much needed! we are lacking in this at present.
7. Also a new defence approach from any new and successive NZ Govts that any major item being sourced is actually fitted with all suitable weapon /surveillance/defensive systems "not the usual fitted for but not with!!" and actually the weapon systems are purchased!!
8. A National Security Policy that is fit for what is actually happening in the world!! and is combined with defence and othe Govt agencies.

Also more that I have forgotten to mention.

But the major stumbling blocks with this current and successive Govt's are going to be the Finance Ministers and Political will to actually undo the damage that has occured over the past 30 odd years.
If you look at the track history of both the major political parties at best is very below average! when it comes to defence related matters eg currant Labour Govt!!
The thing is that I can see only a fraction of anything actually being done and what little that will be done will be spread out over ten's of years!!
When it looking like the situation in the Pacific will heat up in 5 or so years!!

I am against increasing the Army personnel wise by too much because we need to strengthen both the RNZN & RNZAF. NZ has for numerous decades been ary centric in its defence and that has to change because we are, as I keep reminding people, a maritime island nation stuck in the oggy with 900 - 1,000 nm between us and our nearest neighbour, the West Island a.k.a., Australia. The NZ political, govt bureaucratic, business classes, and the general public a.k.a., the great hairy unwashed, are seablind. That seablindness colours and adversely impacts upon our strategic defence and security outlooks and assessments. It is a self imposed shot in our collective feet. Treasury love the army because of all the services they are the cheapest to equip and operate. It strongly dislikes the RNZN & RNZAF because they are far to technology centred and that costs money. If I had my way I would completely restructure the NZ Army and its foci. I would do away with corps and battalions instead focussing upon all arms regiments with companies as their main component.

Agree with the 2x LPD/LHD (which DCP19 endorses - so not "fanciful" etc). Sorry not clear, what role would the JSS play? Would it have AOR refueling type capabilities? Presumably a larger fleet would need redundancy (back up to the current AOR) in terms of refueling and replenishing at sea etc.

In answer to your question the JSS would be an amphib force support ship having both liquid (fuel oil, AVFUEL etc.,) and solid store RAS capabilities. It would have a well dock and a good sized flight deck and hangar for two medium sized helos. It provides the logistical support for forces ashore and naval forces in proximately. It would also be a backup for Aotearoa and provides logistics capabilities that the LHD / LPD don't. It also can remain onsite if the LHD/LPD have other taskings etc. Note that the RAN do not have that capability either (yet).

 

[Gibbo]

I have been following and reading with interest the comments made about the state of the NZDF and while I agree with what has been discussed.
The countries defence force needs
1. Much better conditions for personal this is must have! This includes housing as well!
2. A better equiped Air Force with more transport aircraft, more rotary aircraft, patrol aircraft with supporting weapon systems and also training craft as well, with the possibility of Jet Attack aircraft in the future.
3. An increase in the numbers and types of Ships Frigates, Patrol ships, replenishment ships, etc etc and with the ships a new naval helicopter in sufficient numbers
4. An increase in all 3 services personal numbers, at least 2000 and 2500 for the army pers per service a 3rd/4th battlion for the army with supporting personal and equipment. Also a revamp of reserve forces to increase numbers, pay and conditions etc
5. A much improved offensive capability for the army eg arty, air defence, drones, AFV's replacement, more GP transport etc This would also include navy and airfoce was well!!
6. A domain awareness is also much needed! we are lacking in this at present.
7. Also a new defence approach from any new and successive NZ Govts that any major item being sourced is actually fitted with all suitable weapon /surveillance/defensive systems "not the usual fitted for but not with!!" and actually the weapon systems are purchased!!
8. A National Security Policy that is fit for what is actually happening in the world!! and is combined with defence and othe Govt agencies.

Also more that I have forgotten to mention.

But the major stumbling blocks with this current and successive Govt's are going to be the Finance Ministers and Political will to actually undo the damage that has occured over the past 30 odd years.
If you look at the track history of both the major political parties at best is very below average! when it comes to defence related matters eg currant Labour Govt!!
The thing is that I can see only a fraction of anything actually being done and what little that will be done will be spread out over ten's of years!!
When it looking like the sitituation in the Pacific will heat up in 5 or so years!!

Certainly agree with much of what you suggest... but what is indeed interesting is that the current DefMin Andrew Little is making talk we haven't heard from any NZ Govt in 40 odd years.... Defence Minister Andrew Little says military 'under pressure' as Pacific becomes contested

It seems at least someone in a position of responsbility actually grasps the challenges ahead & wants to start steering the debate... that in itself is a major improvement... treasury & cabinet blockers aside! What is amazing the change from 1 DefMin to the next earlier this year illustrated 2 diametrically opposed outlooks on the Defence portfolio. I would say that what we see from Little is the first sorely needed step that needed to be taken.

 

[ngatimozart]

Article by Geoff Millar that's appeared on two NZ media platforms today. He claims that NZ is being lead by Australia in its foreign policy. I kinda dispute that and believe that the NZ pollies have finally started to grasp what is happening in the world and its not nice.

Why Hipkins is heading to Brisbane and not Beijing

Comment - This weekend's visit to Australia by Prime Minister Chris Hipkins speaks volumes about foreign policy changes underway and a slide towards military alignments, writes Geoff Miller.

www.rnz.co.nz

There is also a claim that opposition within NZ is growing against AUKUS. This opposition is being lead by the usual suspects with Helen Clark weighing in. However she already has an anti Australian and US bias.

Anti-Aukus feeling growing at home

A public debate is needed before New Zealand moves ahead with any efforts to join the controversial security deal, groups say.

www.newsroom.co.nz

 

[htbrst]

The NZ and Australian army chiefs recently signed a cooperation document dubbed “Plan ANZAC” which is a significant step forward in our cooperation together. Or perhaps more of a return to the status-quo of the past?

NZ and Australian army chiefs strengthen relationship with signing of new plan

 

[recce.k1]

Article by Geoff Millar that's appeared on two NZ media platforms today. He claims that NZ is being lead by Australia in its foreign policy. I kinda dispute that and believe that the NZ pollies have finally started to grasp what is happening in the world and its not nice.

Why Hipkins is heading to Brisbane and not Beijing

Comment - This weekend's visit to Australia by Prime Minister Chris Hipkins speaks volumes about foreign policy changes underway and a slide towards military alignments, writes Geoff Miller.

www.rnz.co.nz

Geoffrey Miller's commentary on NZ's defence/foreign affairs matters seems to be generally supportive of NZ's engagements with traditional allies and shoring up the rules based order. It's also typical of the Australian and NZ Prime Minister's to meet in the early months of the new year each year so I don't see anything unusual in the timing of the visit except to say normally it may have been a month or so earlier than now. Being later in April this time (for whatever reasons) then lends to journalists joining dots to ANZAC Day and perhaps now the recent announcement about further "Plan ANZAC" army co-operation and co-ordination announced yesterday but the agenda will be wider ranging than simply defence matters.

In terms of the NATO leaders' summit in Lithuania this July PM Hipkins was getting a lot of flack from the NZ commentators on his initial decision not to attend, so I'd hazard a guess that's the main reason he has changed his mind, so not really sure if it's because NZ is following Australia's lead as the article suggests but I accept the timing does fit and with Albanese's decision helping reinforce Hipkins' decision (but my skepticism is simple - NZ is the smallest of the four Asia-Pacific NATO Partners, our involvement is really side-line stuff compared to Australia, Japan and South Korea, however I am glad Hipkins has changed his mind as NZ should be there at these events when invited particularly as NATO is carefully listening to concerns from the Asia-Pacific and NZ has an opportunity to contribute to the discussion particularly as it has the ear of the South Pacific Forum island states).

NZ is yet to join AUKUS Pillar II and I'm starting to see some people (deliberately?) mixing up AUKUS with AUKUS Pillar II and suggesting that NZ take a cautious approach (which the NZG will anyway until the horizon is clearer in terms of AUKUS Pillar II). Otherwise there is no way NZ would or could afford to even be in AUKUS (spending billions on nuclear subs - lol) so what on earth are these so-called academic analysts/experts on about? At least though it is flushing out the "leftie" academics (as someone here put it recently) as I see Robert G. Patman and Alexander Gillespie are now starting to show their true colours.

There is also a claim that opposition within NZ is growing against AUKUS. This opposition is being lead by the usual suspects with Helen Clark weighing in. However she already has an anti Australian and US bias.

Anti-Aukus feeling growing at home

A public debate is needed before New Zealand moves ahead with any efforts to join the controversial security deal, groups say.

www.newsroom.co.nz

There seems to be three groups quoted. The first lot seem to not quite understand the situation fully and are making some wrong assumptions (rather then take the time to better understand instead of making uninformed comments) however I also get some of their concerns, which I feel are mostly genuine, from a indigenous perspective. Perhaps Albanese/Wong need to do a better job in explaining AUKUS to the Pacific Island Forum leaders for a few reasons, i) they weren't fully consulted (which means there is uncertainty and speculation ... not good); ii) Australia actually is a signatory and leader of some of the earlier but still relevant South Pacific declarations and accords on South Pacific nuclear matters (so again some discussion and reassurances are needed, which will be extremely beneficial for all concerned. I think that may also assist with some of the concerns of that first peace group in the article); iii) It is to Australia's (and the West's) benefit that they bring the Pacific Island Forum leaders along with them otherwise "another party" could seek to divide and rule (a la high profile but failed attempts to do so last year).

The second (small) group frankly are not just misinformed but appear to be incredibly biased, they seem more "anti-west" agenda driven and not wanting to listen to reason (unlike I think the first group are capable of). Wouldn't be surprised if they vote Green because Labour is too "right-wing" for them. I saw article author Sam Sachdeva's tweet yesterday of the photo and I wonder why give a "fringe" group coverage when the main stream media is unwilling to give for example other "fringe" groups any coverage like anti-mandate groups for example (unless denigrating them etc).

And of course the third moaner is our "illustrious" former PM who's legacy was the deliberate and calculated removal of NZ from ANZUS and cancellation of the F-16, then ACF and 3rd Frigate replacements. She has a "legacy" to protect and won't go down fighting/dissing A/NZ and A/NZ/US defence relations until the time comes for her coffin lid to be nailed down (lest she pops up again) but in case anyone thinks I am being incredibly biased I voted for her a number of times so don't dislike the person as such (in fact respect her intellect) just a tad annoyed at the damage she has done for no real tangible benefits to NZ as a nation trying to earn a living in a very complex world of self-interest where having allies is of the upmost importance for the present and future of the people that inhabit these vulnerable isles in terms of sustaining our way of life.

 

[Boardgamer88]

Q&A just did a report on replenishing the NZ Army.

Whena Owen looks into how the NZ Defence Force can replenish their ranks, with attrition rates running extremely high.

 

[Luke.C03]

Ministry of Defence sets sights on new maritime helicopters and drones

The ministry is considering spending about $1 billion on replacing the existing Seasprite chopper fleet.

www.rnz.co.nz

Short article from RNZ stating a tender for Seasprite replacements is due to be released soon as well as UAS.