Another 3 P8's would substantiate the maritime wing. Considering the likely time it will take to commission new frigates for our navy we would bolster our maritime defence in that period.. There is no need to refine or develop a new build naval vessel.. With P8:s Its just another three of the same please and "Pollies" for f... sake dont forget to requisition and eventually order the frigates.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
..... 4 of the same..... Then 3 of the same c130's. Then MALD, decent Lrasm or nsm integration, Sniper ATP, sign on to a offensive tactical laser pod program and a satellite.
Then dessert. Or frigates.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
I have recently heard a rumor... (take with a great a salt lake as I don't know personally) and he says it is from "GOOD sources" that the RNZN will be leasing some Wildcats before the end of the year as the SH-2G(i)'s can't be safely maintained in service beyond the end of this year... (because no OEM support) I heard this a while back and thought nothing of it but seen it also now pop up on a couple of other websites by different members etc.
If true... personally I don't know how true the rumor is... but probably worse that SH-2G(NZ) fissco. Would they sell them to some place like Peru for spare parts?
That makes two of us then , i have heard the same and that a RN team have visited NZ.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Rumors ... I recall the rumors of the early 1980's that Sea Lynx was to be acquired to replace the Wasp and look how that panned out!
Anyway hopefully this time around these rumors pan out if it can be made to work (for both Navies)?
I do wonder though would an interim solution be what the RNZN actually wants for the longer term solution (when the FFG's and OPV's are replaced?
Let alone training and operational interoperability with allies operating in this region at present (and into the future)?
But the fact is Seasprite is becoming a liability so a decision needs to be made, let's hope what Defence puts forward is fully supported by the NZG.
Anyway hopefully this time around these rumors pan out if it can be made to work (for both Navies)?
I do wonder though would an interim solution be what the RNZN actually wants for the longer term solution (when the FFG's and OPV's are replaced?
Let alone training and operational interoperability with allies operating in this region at present (and into the future)?
But the fact is Seasprite is becoming a liability so a decision needs to be made, let's hope what Defence puts forward is fully supported by the NZG.
I was working down Def HQ in the late 70's when the Navy was putting together the proposal along with a proposal to get a new frigate (Dutch) at the same time. Piggy squashed both of those, but then OK'd the B727's so that he could arrive at overseas destinations in style. This came about due to him being embarrassed into having to accept a ride home with the Australian PM when his travel arrangements became unstuck. The RNZAF spotting an opportunity proposed the 727 buy which was rushed through in record time. Keeping Piggies ego in shape was far more important than having good helicopters for our frigates or spending money on new one's. At the same time there was a proposal to get F16's to replace the A4's, but the money that Piggy would allow would only get about 8.
Last edited:
LOL... and he (Piggy) was ex-military WW2 (Army) so just goes to show you past experience doesn't always count. Actually I see he was supposedly NZ's first qualified cost-accountant... therein lay the problem I suspect!I was working down Def HQ in the late 70's when the Navy was putting together the proposal along with a proposal to get a new frigate (Dutch at the same time. Piggy squashed both of those, but then OK'd the B727's so that he could arrive at overseas destinations in style. This came about due to him being embarrassed into having to accept a ride home with the Australian PM when his travel arrangements became unstuck. The RNZAF spotting an opportunity proposed the 727 buy which was rushed through in record time. Keeping Piggies ego in shape was far more important than having good helicopters for our frigates or spending money on new one's. At the same time there was a proposal to get F16's to replace the A4's, but the money that Piggy would allow would only get about 8.
Yep, he also though he was the countries best economist, but was a total failure in that field, never understood the economy at all. He though he could control inflation with wage and price freezes while having massive budget blowouts to buy the next election.LOL... and he (Piggy) was ex-military WW2 (Army) so just goes to show you past experience doesn't always count. Actually I see he was supposedly NZ's first qualified cost-accountant... therein lay the problem I suspect!
He was a Corporal in the Army Pay Corp. He's a good example of why you never ever let Cpls near the reigns of political power.LOL... and he (Piggy) was ex-military WW2 (Army) so just goes to show you past experience doesn't always count. Actually I see he was supposedly NZ's first qualified cost-accountant... therein lay the problem I suspect!
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
She's a lamb compared to Piggy and Hitler.
The rumor at the time was that when piggy appointed a minister he required a signed but undated resignation letter from the said minister. absolutely no disagreement with piggy was allowed
Not quite that simple. The thing with the P8s, and the P3s prior, is that they are not like the other aircraft that "just" need 2 pilots, and maybe 1 or 2 crew and away they go, they actually need a highly specialised crew of 9 to operate the individual aircraft PLUS all the operational support staff required to execute any given mission in its entirety, no small task.
I seem to remember we only actually had 5 full crews for the orions at any one time so considering on going training, postings, competencies etc in reality there would probably only be 4 operational crews available anyway. Point being it's not as simple as just buying more aircraft especially something as complex and manpower intensive as a P8. TBH it's abit like trying to add 2 (even 1) more frigate to the fleet which the current climate has shown, quite drastically, is an almost impossibility at the moment regardless of any want, wish or even need by anyone, govt included.
You are right, but it is not something that cannot be fixed with time, willpower and money, A lot of time and money plus the willpower. The biggest change that has to happen is a change in attitude by the pollies, a big change in attitude.
This is a bit like when the Strike Wing went from 12 Skyhawks to 22 Skyhawks in the mid 80's and had to almost double the number of strike pilots and ground crew.
Strong will power can achieve huge things, wont power achieves nothing.
Yea problem with that comparison is different time, different capability, different attitudes and dare I say it different culture. Air force, military in general, was in its hay day back in the 70s, 80s, 90s with new equipment, clearer focus, large scale training, trips, ops etc with appropriate pay, benefits and opportunities relevant for the day. I actually look back to how much I started on paywise back then and laugh but then to me that wasn't the biggest draw for joining in the first place so wasn't an issue and in fact I was always joining the army from when I was a kid. Times have definately changed, opportunities are varied, priorities have shifted and interest in the military has definately waned, a sign of the times and not reflection on the service.
The loss of the ACF was a definite blow to air force recruiting, morale and outputs, something I feel it has never fully recovered from and now with the world situation (NZ is not unique in this regard) is actually a fulltimr uphill battle and has been going this way for more than a few years. You have to admit recruiting someone to fly a strike jet is a hell of a lot easier than recruiting for someone to sit in the back of a orion/P8 (I actually doubt most even know there is a team of specialists in the rear of a P8 making the magic happen) as everyone has seen top gun and by default assumes everyone in the air force has to be a pilot never mind the myriad of other trades that actually make the air force happen on a daily basis, I sure didn't and I came from a military background.
The same considerations, or limitations, can and are applied to the other services. We have already seen the navy almost grind to a halt and if anything has only gotten smaller over the years (we used to run 4 frigates with much larger crews only 2 decades ago) and once upon a time had grand visions of multi crewing ships to increase at sea time, now we can barely crew what little we have. Army was/is in the same boat (cough), we never actually bought too many LAVIIIs as a lot love to profess, we instead bought just enough to motorise both battalions (which would have only benefited the mooted army expansion now) but then when we couldn't crew them all anyway literally had to revert back to the old battle org (out of necessity rather than want) of essentially 1 squadron shared between them on an as required basis (ala the old M113s) so the idea, plan and will was there, just the people numbers required to implement, operate and maintain them were not. This on going problem applies to a few units within defence.
It's a sad account of the times, everyone wants to grow their militaries in these changing times but few actually can and not through lack of want, will or even funding (even the big players Aus, Canada, UK, US etc) they literally just can't despite all their best efforts.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
As an aside according to Parliamentary written questions, there isn't a shortage of applicants to join the NZDF. In fact nearly as many that are serving.
Now of course just because thousands are applying doesn't mean they are suitable.
But a couple of weeks ago talkback radio featured defence issues and several callers (parents) rang in to say their teenage/young adult children were applying but never seemed to get anywhere with the recruitment office. Of course this is all anecdotal so I can only take it with a pinch of salt (I mean "who knows" what's going on unless one can assess each case, which is not possible).
But a few days later the person in charge of NZDF recruiting was interviewed. Of course everything is mostly apparently fine and dandy. The only hint of a problem that I could potentially figure out was when she later explained that (IIRC?) particular trades aren't always recruiting (or maybe not as often as some other trades) so perhaps some youngsters interested in a [articular career may miss out timing wise so give up and go on to other things such as seeking a job or tertiary study etc?
I'm no expert on defence recruitment but perhaps a suggestion could be (and perhaps this isn't practical but hey), base (some of) the recruitment intakes on the tertiary year eg 1st intake Jan/Feb but must finish by around June, then a second intake July/Aug but must finish by around Nov/Dec. So eg if recruits don't pass or change their minds part way through the course during the first half of the year, they can leave and then eg seek tertiary study in the second half of the year, in other words they only lose half-a-year of study/working (rather than potentially lose 1 or 2 years of their life not going forward with any certainty) if a defence career isn't right for them?
Another thing, nowdays Defence is alot more "technical" (it's not like yesteryear/decades ago when one joined to be a "soldier", "fighter pilot" or "sailor"), apart from say Infantry or a maintainer (mechanic, or aircraft tech etc), one can have quite a technical career in each of the 3 services, perhaps there could be also be a more "general" intake as "NZDF Cadets" learning the basics (especially if the recruits are from military schools or youth programmes. Then later in the course one can specialise in a particular role and in one of the 3 services that they now have a better understanding of? Perhaps this is more for the people that will end up in Support types roles (rather than someone set on Infantry, Driver, Pilot roles etc)?
I might be way off with these suggestions but otherwise something seems to be going wrong if there are many (thousands) of applicants but so few are actually recruited. Time is against me to check further but there are other Parliamentary Q&A's which state the actual numbers filling trade vacancies can be below the target numbers needed. So why is this?
The following question and answer (13920 - 2023) gives some of the reasons why applicants are declined. But still the numbers don't stack up against those thousands that are applying.
Now of course just because thousands are applying doesn't mean they are suitable.
But a couple of weeks ago talkback radio featured defence issues and several callers (parents) rang in to say their teenage/young adult children were applying but never seemed to get anywhere with the recruitment office. Of course this is all anecdotal so I can only take it with a pinch of salt (I mean "who knows" what's going on unless one can assess each case, which is not possible).
But a few days later the person in charge of NZDF recruiting was interviewed. Of course everything is mostly apparently fine and dandy. The only hint of a problem that I could potentially figure out was when she later explained that (IIRC?) particular trades aren't always recruiting (or maybe not as often as some other trades) so perhaps some youngsters interested in a [articular career may miss out timing wise so give up and go on to other things such as seeking a job or tertiary study etc?
I'm no expert on defence recruitment but perhaps a suggestion could be (and perhaps this isn't practical but hey), base (some of) the recruitment intakes on the tertiary year eg 1st intake Jan/Feb but must finish by around June, then a second intake July/Aug but must finish by around Nov/Dec. So eg if recruits don't pass or change their minds part way through the course during the first half of the year, they can leave and then eg seek tertiary study in the second half of the year, in other words they only lose half-a-year of study/working (rather than potentially lose 1 or 2 years of their life not going forward with any certainty) if a defence career isn't right for them?
Another thing, nowdays Defence is alot more "technical" (it's not like yesteryear/decades ago when one joined to be a "soldier", "fighter pilot" or "sailor"), apart from say Infantry or a maintainer (mechanic, or aircraft tech etc), one can have quite a technical career in each of the 3 services, perhaps there could be also be a more "general" intake as "NZDF Cadets" learning the basics (especially if the recruits are from military schools or youth programmes. Then later in the course one can specialise in a particular role and in one of the 3 services that they now have a better understanding of? Perhaps this is more for the people that will end up in Support types roles (rather than someone set on Infantry, Driver, Pilot roles etc)?
I might be way off with these suggestions but otherwise something seems to be going wrong if there are many (thousands) of applicants but so few are actually recruited. Time is against me to check further but there are other Parliamentary Q&A's which state the actual numbers filling trade vacancies can be below the target numbers needed. So why is this?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Have to disagree about Canada. Best efforts at the political level have been minimal for several decades. Recent capital commitments are at least a decade or more away due to procrastination. Talk is cheap which is a pollie’s best tool for defence.
Oh yea I'm talking about current capabilities now leading into the future wrt manning. I read somewhere RCAF do not have enough fighter pilots which again leads to the point why then advocate for more?
The time it takes for NZ to implement projects from concept to reality is a totally different rant and woefully dismal borderline ridiculous which I have pointed out many times. In general when we retire equipment it's usually to a museum which pretty much sums up our replacement regime, or more lack of..
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Pilot shortage is a prime example of how difficult recruitment and retention can be when competing against the private sector. A drastic reduction in annual military flight hour accumulation and ancient jets doesn’t help either. Sub-standard base accommodation, especially for families, is another huge issue.
I think that you are right about the attitude, culture and time, however these things can be change with time and commitment. The change needs to start with the politicians and the bean counters, as between them they have put together a system which may work in certain business situations but just hobbles and undermines defence. The need is also there to focus on core defence (of NZ) values first and foremost as there is currently little focus on the primary role of any defence force, which is DEFENCE of a countries sovereignty.
The big change has to start with attitude from the top down.
I remember when I joined in 64 it was made very clear to us that this was not just a job, but awas a commitment to our country.