When i look back through my years of operating with other nations military pers , esp 5 eyes partners , its not about operating the same equipment, its about doctrine and sops , there is an argument to say having different equipment is an advantage, take ET as an example , UH 60 and UH1 , different tasks and LZs required different frames , and that worked a treat.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
Hawkeye69
Member
Reading some of the BIM sent to new Ministers the Country has a lot of pressing demands for limited funds, water and wastewater infrastructure needs $30 billion a year over 30 years to bring it up to date, health, education and housing are underfunded, one of the alarming things presented was the cost of the Hikurangi Sub fault going and the cost was $147 billion on todays dollars, then add the Alpine fault and Mt Taranaki, all due to release sometime within the next 50 years but could be tomorrow as well.
There is only so much money in the bucket, so what does a Defence need to be viable? or in reality is it just in the too hard basket?
There is only so much money in the bucket, so what does a Defence need to be viable? or in reality is it just in the too hard basket?
There could be a possible way around this but it would require considerable courage from our pollies and to a lesser degree Aussie pollies. I will reply with a separate post.
I think that the NFH90 is out of the running because of acquisition and thru life costs being quite expensive, 4 - 6 MH-60R are not enough. We flew 5 SH-2G(NZ) Seasprites and they weren't enough. The were basically overwhelmed by the taskings. They were replaced by 8 SH-2G(I) Seasprites and they are just managing. We would require 10 MH-60R minimum because we will have new ships coming from 2030 onwards. That will actually be more flight decks. 8-10 UH-60M is laughable because they ar currently struggling with 8 NH90 and the NH90 has greater lift capability than the UH-60M. We would have to go back to Iroquois numbers and IIRC there was 15 off them. Now that would be a good number because we would always have 5 UH-0M on the flight line fully serviceable, and we wouldn't be thrashing the airframes lke we are doing with the NH90.
That would work to a degree and the required mountain flying for the Hercs could be done here. We have a good mountain flying capability based out of Woodbourne. To make it even more interesting they can do low level transits down the Southern Alps. Thats about 400 - 00 miles of deep mountain flying. I actually think that the Southern Alps would make a great Mach Loop facility.
Yes a small fleet of Chinooks would be idea. Maybe 3 or 4.
We live in a very geologically active country and we have to roll with the punches, just like the Japanese and Indonesians. A defence force is a necessity, not a luxury. We live in troubling times with the geostrategic and geopolitical environments the most dangerous since WW2.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Every country has pressing demands for funds, and all funding is limited, as no country has an unlimited supply of funds and/or resources, so NZ is not unique though the specific concerns might be somewhat different than many other countries.
What NZ does need to do, is decide what the nation's various priorities are and why (and possibly have gov't explain the rationale behind some of the decisions to the public).
Finally, the questions in the last sentence really fall into same category as the question, "how long is a piece of string?"
For instance, different people in NZ likely have rather different perceptions of what constitutes a 'viable' NZDF, with the perspectives likely dependent on the individual's perception of NZ's security situation. For those Kiwis who have been paying attention events taking place around the world in the last few years, then there the prospect among such Kiwis that the world is not as safe or as peaceful as it had been recently. For those Kiwis whose interests and/or livelihoods involve or depend on int'l commerce and especially the movement of goods, then there is likely to be at least some awareness that external issues and events can negatively impact global trade, which in turn will have an impact upon trade with NZ as well as trade within NZ. Now the NZDF is not 'just' for protecting NZ trade of course, but to protect and maintain NZ's sovereignty and NZ interests. However, should something happen which negatively impacts NZ trade, especially if to a large degree, that would certainly involve NZ's interests.
It is at this point that consideration should likely be given to what the threat matrix is and then what is needed to meet the most likely and/or most impactful situations on that matrix. Consideration should likely also be given to what efforts and capabilities NZ can bring to help address potential threat issues for friendly and allied nations. It could very be desirable for NZ to have something which can slot in for/replace an Australian or US capability operating somewhere in the Indo-Pacific, so that an Australian or US capability can then be directed towards some issue or threat elsewhere.
Unfortunately, it does seem to be a time of declining world peace and stability. This is particularly unfortunate for NZ, since the NZDF has been on the receiving end of a generation of cuts which has reduced personnel as well as the number and comparative scope of platforms and capabilities.
Yep, My standard reply to those who say defence is not important is, Defence is about maintaining our freedom and sovereignty, what is more important than our freedom and sovereignty. With out it we will be doing nothing we want to do. Then there are those that then say, but there is no current threat. My answer to that is, it will take up to 15 to 20 years to restore the capabilities we had in the late 80's and that was an Absolute minimum to achieve any defence ability at all. Can they see accurately into the future for 20 years and if so could they tell me next Saturdays Loto numbers, which should be a breeze if you can see 20 years ahead.
Last edited:
I can provide more detail replying to this separately. Please bear in mind that this is hypothetical.
As I said in my initial reply to you, there could be a possible way around this, but it would require considerable courage and foresight from our pollies and to a lesser degree Aussie pollies. Also, the ambos would have to take a significant number of defibrillators to Treasury to deal with the cardiac arrests after Treasury read such a proposal.
Australia may be looking at a 2nd tier patrol frigate to supplement 1st Tier Hunter frigate. It is possible they may reduce Hunter frigate acquisition numbers from 9 to 6.
In the 1990s the Aussie govt RAN plan was for:
• 4 DDG.
• 6 Adelaide Class FFG
• 8 Anzac Class Patrol Frigates
@Volkodav can you please correct me on this force structure if I am mistaken.
They may be looking at returning to a similar force structure of:
• 4 DDG (currently operate 3 Hobart Class DDG)
• 6 Hunter Class FFG.
• 6 - 8 Patrol Frigates.
(This is entirely conjecture on my part).
NZ requires replacement frigates for current Anzac Class. We require a minimum of 3, with 4 being optimal. That would give a patrol frigate class build of between 9 - 12 ships. Furthermore, NZ requires replacements for its OPV and IPV fleet of 6 ships. NZ has to replace every RNZN ship, except Aotearoa, between 2029 and 2033.
The RN are building a derivative of the AH140 which is a modified Iver Huitfeldt design. The Iver Huitfeldt Class is currently in service with the RDN. The AH140 is also being licence built by Poland and Indonesia.
An AUNZ variant of the AH140 (140m waterline length; approx 6,600 tonnes full displacement) could be built for both the RAN & RNZN.
Secondly, Babcocks has the AH120 design, which is a smaller variant of the AH140 which is 120m waterline length and approx 3,600 - 3,900 tonnes full displacement. This design would be an ideal replacement for the OPV and IPV fleet because it has greater flexibility and hull volume. Unlike the AH140 which is powered by 4 MTU diesel engines, it can be powered by 2 MTU diesel engines.
Australian shipyards don't have the capacity to undertake a new class build because of the ongoing shipbuilding projects. Therefore, a shipyard could be constructed in NZ using the vehicle of a joint venture of Babcocks, Commonwealth of Australia, and NZ government that could build and operate the shipyard as well as design and build of the ships. There could also be export potential outside of Australasia for these ships. It would be quite feasible to undertake a continuous build program negating the boom bust cycle, keeping the yard in continuous work. the agreement for this vehicle would have to contain some very harsh and strict penalty clauses to prevent future Kiwi pollies from backsliding on the original agreement. There is no longer a bipartisan defence and foreign policy consensus between the two major Kiwi political parties.
The design and fitout for both the RAN & RNZN would be identical (without exception) with the only difference being the hull markings. The RNZN would have to adopt the RAN SAAB 9LV CMS. This means that sailors from either navy can board any of the ships and be capable of sailing them. Unlike the current Anzac frigates where there are marked differences between the RAN and RNZN ships, such as CMS, weapons, sensors, systems. NZ would also divest itself of the Sea Ceptor missile.
The Anzac frigate build project came in under budget and under time, one of the few shipbuilds to do so. Also, shipbuilds are expensive up until after the fourth ship when individual ship construction costs reduce because of economies of scale. If NZ had acquired a third Anzac frigate, the cost to the nation would have been minimal compared to the cost of Te Kaha (ship 2) and later Te Mana (ship 5) which cost less to build than Te Kaha.
If the new patrol frigate build was being undertaken in NZ, the NZ govt could claw back costs because of the economic activity generated by such a large project. It would also give us a sovereign shipbuilding capability which is important from a national security perspective. There would be other ongoing benefits with a new and sustainable industry being developed here. Personnel costs within NZ are also cheaper than in Australia and that equates to cheaper build costs. Shipbuilding labour costs create significant cost inputs.
The steel required for the ships could be manufactured here. We already have the steel mill at Glenbrook. Australian expertise could be utilised because they are at present developing the steel for the Hunter Class build. The radars would be from CAEFAR of Australia and are Australian developed radars. A CAEFAR AESA radar is already being developed for the Hunter Class. Apparently, this radar is scalable which means that it can be fitted to smaller ships.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Note the bolded text. Such a claim is false and either demonstrates that the claimant is ignorant of world affairs and how things interact and effect global trade, or else they are aware and are being dishonest. The whole security situation in the Red Sea is a prime example since that impacts a primary SLOC between the Med/Europe and everything in the larger Indo-Pacific. If the situation were to worse and/or widen in scope so that the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Gulf of Aden and/or Arabian Sea were to also be involved (which is a very real possibility) then the impact would be even worse as it would likely impact the sources for roughly a third of the world's petroleum production which would almost certainly cause some rather expensive and damaging ripples throughout the world energy markets. For potential impacts upon NZ, such disruptions in the petroleum market and supply chain could easily lead to petrol shortages and/or rationing as well as drastic increases in price. It could also trigger issues within the NZ electrical grid by requiring reductions in electricity usage, rolling blackouts, or an increase in the costs to generate/distribute power, or a combination thereof. Realistically, if there are disruptions in the energy supply (i.e. petroleum production and distribution) that will have negative flow-on effects which impact basically everything else.Yep, My standard reply to those who say defence is not important is, Defence is about maintaining our freedom and sovereignty, what is more important than our freedom and sovereignty. With out it we will be doing nothing we want to do. Then there are those that then say, but there is no current threat. My answer to that is, it will take up to 15 to 20 years to restore the capabilities we had in the late 80's and that was an Absolute minimum to achieve any defence ability at all. Can they see accurately into the future for 29 years and if so could they tell me next Saturdays Loto numbers, which should be a breeze if you can see 20 years ahead.
It is not nice, it is not pretty, but the potential threat is quite real. For those who persist in either not seeing the threat, or being dismissive of it, I can only conclude that they are either too ignorant to understand the potential threats, or too invested in whatever their POV is to admit that such threats are real.
Hawkeye69
Member
Just a question as there was an article in which Babcock did a sales pitch for the Arrowhead 140 in which it’s modular design could allow it to be modified as frontline frigate or scaled down as OPV for fisheries patrol to disaster relief work and could replace both ANZAC frigates and OPV’s and from memory the article stated 5 Arrowhead 140 would be ideal, would this work?
Next the US Marines are looking to off load some UH-1Y Venoms, would these be worth looking at to replace the A109?
And lastly would a Chinook or C-27J Spartan suit NZ, just the limited availability and numbers of NH90 seems to be concerning, just think Australia could not sell theirs those stripped them down and will burry in a desert.
Next the US Marines are looking to off load some UH-1Y Venoms, would these be worth looking at to replace the A109?
And lastly would a Chinook or C-27J Spartan suit NZ, just the limited availability and numbers of NH90 seems to be concerning, just think Australia could not sell theirs those stripped them down and will burry in a desert.
Babcocks have the AH120 which is a derivative of the AH140. It's length at the waterline is 120m and I think that its displacement is around the 3,500 - 3,900 tonne mark, with IIRC 3,800 being the RNZN Anzac frigate displacement. I think that the AH120, outfitted as a corvette, would make a perfect replacement for both the OPV & IPV fleet. It offers greater size and more room for capabilities beyond pure fisheries patrolling. Ice strengthen them to Polar Class 5 and they would work well in Antarctica. The trick would be to design and build them in such a way that they can handle the big seas and weather conditions of the Southern Ocean. We already know that the wave climate is different too, and the significant wave height higher than that of the North Atlantic which has customarily been used as the pattern for the Southern Ocean. That is why both the Anzac frigates and OPVs have really struggled in the Southern Ocean.
The AH120 could work as a mothership for UAV/USV/UUV. Fitted with SH Cube and it can multirole quite effectively limited only by the availability of Cube modules. It can be used for HADR, mine warfare (both mine laying and mine hunting), convoy escort etc. I would think 7 -8 would be sufficient. On two of them move the hangar and flight deck further forward, make the quarter deck a wooden work deck with both a 25 and 100 tonne SWL crane, and install a moon pool.
With both the AH140 and AH120 I would suggest DE (Diesel Electric powered) using either traditional propeller shafts or using azipods. DE propulsion has the advantages of higher torque being delivered and the diesel engines can be located anywhere within in the hull because they are not mechanically connected to the propeller shafts and don't require gearboxes thus removing some complexity. Gearboxes have always been a mechanical weakness. The RNZN already has experience of DE and azipods because it's the propulsion system on HMNZS Manawanui (IV).
The UH-1Y Venoms are not a training capability. The AW109 is good at that. CH-47F Chinooks would be a good acquisition for NZ especially if we get rid of our NH90s. The UH-1Y Venom doesn't really have a place in a NZDF ORBAT since we are closely aligning with the ADF. Now we could find a home for some AH-1Z Vipers and they would be an asset to both the NZDF and the ADF because they could fill a niche roll between the AH-1E Apache and other ADF & NZDF helicopters.
A twin engined turbo prop tactical airlifter is not suitable for NZDF. We found that out with the Andovers. you can't deploy them where we go with a reasonable payload. They just don't have the range. Our nearest neighbour is 1,000 nautical miles away and we deploy quite often up to the Pacific Islands which are 1,500 - 2,000+ nautical miles away. That is why our C-130H(NZ) & C-130J-30 Hercules are our tactical airlifters. The B757 is our strategic airlifter. WRT the C-27J we don't want a bar of it. The RAAF have removed them from their battlefield airlift fleet because they can't do the mission.
Part one of two.
The new NZ govt has signalled major defence changes that recognise the current geopolitical and geostrategic climate. It has already admitted that NZDF is in dire straits and needs reconstitution and greater financial resources. In the last two weeks much has been made in the media about this situation. The ANZMIN 2+2 has bought into the light what some of these changes will be and how the government sees the geostrategic situation. This along with other documentation released in recent days is beginning to shine some light on future government intentions.
On the same day the BIM (Briefing to Incoming Ministers) was released. The defence BIM was very sober reading because it clearly describes the sorry state of NZDF and discusses the future threats to NZ security and democracy.
www.defence.govt.nz
The Foreign Affairs BIM should also be read alongside the Defence BIM. It discusses the facts of the deteriorating strategic situation and includes a graphic displaying this calling it the Three Big Shifts.
Source: MFAT BIM 23 p15.
ANZMIN 2+2, Melbourne, 1/2/2024
The NZ & Australian Govts held the first ANZMIN 2+2 between the two countries. ANZMIN 2+2 involves the Foreign and Defence Ministers of both countries, held annually with this being an Australian practice. It already has such arrangements, in the same format, with the US (AUSMIN) & the UK (AUKMIN).
The important points (taken from the Joint Ministerial Statement) that directly impact NZDF are:
To this end there will be closer seamless interoperability between the NZDF & ADF. Both Australian & NZ officials are to work on achieving such close interoperability. This means that there will be closer liaison and integration between the two countries regarding defence acquisitions with NZDF becoming more closely aligned to ADF platforms.
NZ has also stated its intention to participate in AUKUS Pillar II, which is not AUKUS Pillar I RAN nuclear powered submarines. Pillar II is more about technologies such as space, IT, hypersonic, laser technologies etc., that NZ can participate in. NZ already has a viable and burgeoning space industry that would be applicable to Pillar II. We design and launch our own satellites with a successful Rocket Lab launch complex on the Mahia Peninsula. Australia hasn’t had a successful satellite launch yet. Both countries have advantageous geographic areas for space launch facilities with NZ positioned to undertake good polar and mid latitude launches. Meanwhile Australia would be able to undertake equatorial launches using the earth’s equatorial spin help accelerate rockets into orbit.
Live Press Conference LIVE: New Zealand and Australian foreign and defense ministers press conference | REUTERS
Ministerial Statement JOINT STATEMENT ON AUSTRALIA-NEW ZEALAND MINISTERIAL CONSULTATIONS (ANZMIN) 2024
This is from an article published by the NZ Herald today. It's paywalled but I have copied some of the salient paragraphs.
Fran O'Sullivan raises some great points. It's not only former PMs who have been whinging, but also academic commentators. They are dead against us becoming involved in AUKUS Pillar II because they claim that we lose our independent foreign policy, but the much vaunted and heralded great kiwi independent foreign policy has always been a spurious mist of smoke and mirrors. We cannot cut ourselves off from others and our foreign policy has always been affected by what others around us do, especially the great powers.
Right on cue the PRC Ambassador in Wellington fired a broadside:
"The Chinese Embassy in Wellington has issued a scathing rebuke of a statement made by New Zealand and Australian ministers this week, saying they “strongly deplore and firmly oppose it”.
The remarks are in response to a joint statement by New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Defence Minister Judith Collins, nicknamed “Crusher Collins” from her policy when Minister of Police to crush the cars of speeding drivers, and their Australian counterparts Penny Wong and Richard Marles.
The four met in the inaugural ANZMIN, a new meeting format scheduled to be repeated annually.
The four ministers released a joint statement on Thursday, criticising China for the erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong, and the repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. The statement also indicated New Zealand was supportive of Australia’s Aukus deal with the United States and the United Kingdom to procure nuclear-powered submarines.
The scathing response to the statement, issued this afternoon by the Chinese Government made clear China’s displeasure and carried an implicit threat that the strong relations New Zealand currently enjoys with China might not continue if the Government continues its security and foreign affairs pivot towards Australia and the United States."
www.nzherald.co.nz
The full PRC Embassy release is here Remarks by the Spokesperson of the Chinese Embassy in New Zealand on the Joint Statement on ANZMIN 2024_The Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in New Zealand（Cook Islands, Niue) (china-embassy.gov.cn). They definitely don't have a sense of humour about it.
The new NZ govt has signalled major defence changes that recognise the current geopolitical and geostrategic climate. It has already admitted that NZDF is in dire straits and needs reconstitution and greater financial resources. In the last two weeks much has been made in the media about this situation. The ANZMIN 2+2 has bought into the light what some of these changes will be and how the government sees the geostrategic situation. This along with other documentation released in recent days is beginning to shine some light on future government intentions.
On the same day the BIM (Briefing to Incoming Ministers) was released. The defence BIM was very sober reading because it clearly describes the sorry state of NZDF and discusses the future threats to NZ security and democracy.
Briefing to the Incoming Minister of Defence 2023 | Ministry of Defence website
www.defence.govt.nz
The Foreign Affairs BIM should also be read alongside the Defence BIM. It discusses the facts of the deteriorating strategic situation and includes a graphic displaying this calling it the Three Big Shifts.
Source: MFAT BIM 23 p15.
ANZMIN 2+2, Melbourne, 1/2/2024
The NZ & Australian Govts held the first ANZMIN 2+2 between the two countries. ANZMIN 2+2 involves the Foreign and Defence Ministers of both countries, held annually with this being an Australian practice. It already has such arrangements, in the same format, with the US (AUSMIN) & the UK (AUKMIN).
The important points (taken from the Joint Ministerial Statement) that directly impact NZDF are:
“5. Ministers affirmed their shared commitment to strengthen the Australia-New Zealand alliance to address evolving geostrategic challenges. They recognised a reinforced security alliance is crucial for safeguarding our national interests and contributing to the peace and prosperity of the IndoPacific.
7. Building on our Anzac history, Ministers committed to increasing integration between our military forces, including through common capability, exchanges of senior military officers and increased participation in warfighting exercises. Recognising the importance of the Pacific to both countries, Ministers agreed to continue efforts, in conjunction with Pacific countries, to strengthen regional cooperation and interoperability. Ministers also committed to enhancing joint deterrence efforts, including through joint exercises and training.
10. Beyond the bilateral links, Ministers reaffirmed the value of the Five Eyes partnership as a crucial enabler of intelligence sharing and security co-operation among trusted partners and expressed shared interest for a Five Eyes Defence Ministers’ Meeting later this year.”
To this end there will be closer seamless interoperability between the NZDF & ADF. Both Australian & NZ officials are to work on achieving such close interoperability. This means that there will be closer liaison and integration between the two countries regarding defence acquisitions with NZDF becoming more closely aligned to ADF platforms.
NZ has also stated its intention to participate in AUKUS Pillar II, which is not AUKUS Pillar I RAN nuclear powered submarines. Pillar II is more about technologies such as space, IT, hypersonic, laser technologies etc., that NZ can participate in. NZ already has a viable and burgeoning space industry that would be applicable to Pillar II. We design and launch our own satellites with a successful Rocket Lab launch complex on the Mahia Peninsula. Australia hasn’t had a successful satellite launch yet. Both countries have advantageous geographic areas for space launch facilities with NZ positioned to undertake good polar and mid latitude launches. Meanwhile Australia would be able to undertake equatorial launches using the earth’s equatorial spin help accelerate rockets into orbit.
Live Press Conference LIVE: New Zealand and Australian foreign and defense ministers press conference | REUTERS
Ministerial Statement JOINT STATEMENT ON AUSTRALIA-NEW ZEALAND MINISTERIAL CONSULTATIONS (ANZMIN) 2024
This is from an article published by the NZ Herald today. It's paywalled but I have copied some of the salient paragraphs.
"The major political difficulty as far as New Zealand ministers are concerned, will be balancing the demands and responsibilities of a “partnership” framework with Australia with the challenge of upholding New Zealand’s vaunted and prized foreign policy independence. In other words, not being seen as a mere poodle to Australia and ultimately, the United States. To balance that potential – which is already being talked about by foreign affairs academic commentators, the two Cabinet ministers and their advisers from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Ministry of Defence may have to share much more information on a regular basis on regional security issues and outline more openly the jeopardy New Zealand may face if it does not step up. For far too long, politicians have fenced around on just what strategic threats New Zealand faces.
In Melbourne, the four ministers vowed to create two “seamless militaries” that will co-operate more closely as New Zealand moves towards being included in part of the Aukus trilateral security partnership between the United States, United Kingdom and Australia.
This makes sense given the parlous nature of New Zealand’s run-down defence establishment. …
It’s no secret Australia has long wanted New Zealand to step up and shoulder a more significant slice of the regional defence burden. Successive prime ministers and their diplomatic representatives have cajoled New Zealand on this score - and also our relationship with China.
But the frustrations are wider. During an informal lunch session, ministers were said to be openly exasperated at the cacophony of interventions by the “formers”. Former prime ministers like Labour’s Helen Clark, who has railed against the Luxon Government’s support for the United States’ missile strikes in Yemen and has denigrated as an “orchestrated campaign” the move to join pillar two. And Labor’s Paul Keating, who has savaged the $A368b nuclear submarine plan as the “worst deal in all history”, blasting defence and foreign affairs ministers Marles and Wong as “seriously unwise. Similar frustrations spilled over at a press conference for travelling New Zealand media, where Collins and Peters took issue with their Labour predecessors’ recent apparent about turn on Aukus (sic). They have a point."
Fran O'Sullivan raises some great points. It's not only former PMs who have been whinging, but also academic commentators. They are dead against us becoming involved in AUKUS Pillar II because they claim that we lose our independent foreign policy, but the much vaunted and heralded great kiwi independent foreign policy has always been a spurious mist of smoke and mirrors. We cannot cut ourselves off from others and our foreign policy has always been affected by what others around us do, especially the great powers.
Right on cue the PRC Ambassador in Wellington fired a broadside:
"The Chinese Embassy in Wellington has issued a scathing rebuke of a statement made by New Zealand and Australian ministers this week, saying they “strongly deplore and firmly oppose it”.
The remarks are in response to a joint statement by New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Defence Minister Judith Collins, nicknamed “Crusher Collins” from her policy when Minister of Police to crush the cars of speeding drivers, and their Australian counterparts Penny Wong and Richard Marles.
The four met in the inaugural ANZMIN, a new meeting format scheduled to be repeated annually.
The four ministers released a joint statement on Thursday, criticising China for the erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong, and the repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. The statement also indicated New Zealand was supportive of Australia’s Aukus deal with the United States and the United Kingdom to procure nuclear-powered submarines.
The scathing response to the statement, issued this afternoon by the Chinese Government made clear China’s displeasure and carried an implicit threat that the strong relations New Zealand currently enjoys with China might not continue if the Government continues its security and foreign affairs pivot towards Australia and the United States."
China v Crusher Collins: Beijing lashes out over NZ position
The embassy has responded strongly to a joint NZ-Oz statement criticising China.
www.nzherald.co.nz
The full PRC Embassy release is here Remarks by the Spokesperson of the Chinese Embassy in New Zealand on the Joint Statement on ANZMIN 2024_The Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in New Zealand（Cook Islands, Niue) (china-embassy.gov.cn). They definitely don't have a sense of humour about it.
Part two of two.
Funding
In September 2023 the NZ GDP was $400 billion.
www.stats.govt.nz
This data was released by Statistics NZ, the official NZ govt statistician. Currently the budget of the MOD and NZDF is 1% GDP which is $4 billion. Prime Minister Luxon has indicated that the NZDF budget for 2024 will be increased. Of course the devil is in the detail.
www.newshub.co.nz
Both ACT & NZ First want defence spending at 2% GDP and Winston Peters has a good chance of forcing this through. Both he and the ACT Leader, David Seymour have the ability to "persuade" Luxon into increasing the expenditure to 2% GDP. In that case the MOD and NZDF budget would be $8 billion per year and this would be sufficient to make substantial changes. Although in my reckoning funding should be 2.4% GDP ($9.6 billion) or 2.5 % GDP ($10 billion) per year.
Retention and Recruitment
The biggest problem facing NZDF in the short term is retention and recruitment. This has to be addressed and the best way to do that is to address pay, allowances, and conditions. This means that defence personnel should have full parity with civilian public servants and that the determination of pay allowances, and conditions should be removed from NZDF control It should be a separate authority either under the aegis of the MOD, or preferably as an adjunct to the Higher Salaries Commission. The HSC already has considerable experience determining parity etc. Next when NZDF personnel serve offshore in a combat, dangerous, or HADR situation then their NZDF derived income should be tax free. Defence housing should be provided for all eligible personnel without a time limit. It should be charged at no more than 15% of gross salary excluding non-taxable allowances. Personnel should be encouraged to apply for overseas deployments because such enhance their service career.
NZDF Senior Leadership
I am of the opinion that the current NZDF senior leadership has been compromised by the negative political thinking of governments from 1999 onwards. Helen Clarke (1999 - 2008) certainly politicised defence the selection of senior leadership. Subsequent govts continued the process. The recent NZDF leadership certainly appears to be stuck in the "she'll be right" rut and appears loath to look at ne methodologies and technologies. They appear to be of the attitude that this is the way it done since Nelson and Wellington terrorised the French and they see no reason to change. However, the way of war, methodologies and technologies have changed significantly in the last 10 years and the current Russo - Ukrainian War clearly illustrates this. I get the impression that to many officers are far too focussed on personal career advancement and not on what is best for the service. They aren't willing to take chances in case they appear in bad light to some superior. NZDF is very definitely far to top heavy with far too many officers of one star and above rank. The organisation is bloated with managers with officers becoming managers and not leaders. What is definitely required now is leadership and innovation from all levels within NZDF. Change is upon us, and we have to embrace it, running with it.
Funding
In September 2023 the NZ GDP was $400 billion.
Gross domestic product (GDP) | Stats NZ
Find the latest data and publications about gross domestic product (GDP).
www.stats.govt.nz
This data was released by Statistics NZ, the official NZ govt statistician. Currently the budget of the MOD and NZDF is 1% GDP which is $4 billion. Prime Minister Luxon has indicated that the NZDF budget for 2024 will be increased. Of course the devil is in the detail.
Stuff
www.newshub.co.nz
Both ACT & NZ First want defence spending at 2% GDP and Winston Peters has a good chance of forcing this through. Both he and the ACT Leader, David Seymour have the ability to "persuade" Luxon into increasing the expenditure to 2% GDP. In that case the MOD and NZDF budget would be $8 billion per year and this would be sufficient to make substantial changes. Although in my reckoning funding should be 2.4% GDP ($9.6 billion) or 2.5 % GDP ($10 billion) per year.
Retention and Recruitment
The biggest problem facing NZDF in the short term is retention and recruitment. This has to be addressed and the best way to do that is to address pay, allowances, and conditions. This means that defence personnel should have full parity with civilian public servants and that the determination of pay allowances, and conditions should be removed from NZDF control It should be a separate authority either under the aegis of the MOD, or preferably as an adjunct to the Higher Salaries Commission. The HSC already has considerable experience determining parity etc. Next when NZDF personnel serve offshore in a combat, dangerous, or HADR situation then their NZDF derived income should be tax free. Defence housing should be provided for all eligible personnel without a time limit. It should be charged at no more than 15% of gross salary excluding non-taxable allowances. Personnel should be encouraged to apply for overseas deployments because such enhance their service career.
NZDF Senior Leadership
I am of the opinion that the current NZDF senior leadership has been compromised by the negative political thinking of governments from 1999 onwards. Helen Clarke (1999 - 2008) certainly politicised defence the selection of senior leadership. Subsequent govts continued the process. The recent NZDF leadership certainly appears to be stuck in the "she'll be right" rut and appears loath to look at ne methodologies and technologies. They appear to be of the attitude that this is the way it done since Nelson and Wellington terrorised the French and they see no reason to change. However, the way of war, methodologies and technologies have changed significantly in the last 10 years and the current Russo - Ukrainian War clearly illustrates this. I get the impression that to many officers are far too focussed on personal career advancement and not on what is best for the service. They aren't willing to take chances in case they appear in bad light to some superior. NZDF is very definitely far to top heavy with far too many officers of one star and above rank. The organisation is bloated with managers with officers becoming managers and not leaders. What is definitely required now is leadership and innovation from all levels within NZDF. Change is upon us, and we have to embrace it, running with it.
Would the C2 from Japan make a better option for the RNZAF? As I've heard of other users on here talk about it. Also, would you look at the C295 as a C27J alternative?
Have enjoyed reading your articles today and getting your valued perspective on the recent ANZ bilateral meeting, Coalition govt Defence and Foreign policy concerns. Defence force needs and potential replacement of equipment. Thank you for that.Part two of two.
Funding
In September 2023 the NZ GDP was $400 billion.
Gross domestic product (GDP) | Stats NZ
Find the latest data and publications about gross domestic product (GDP).
This data was released by Statistics NZ, the official NZ govt statistician. Currently the budget of the MOD and NZDF is 1% GDP which is $4 billion. Prime Minister Luxon has indicated that the NZDF budget for 2024 will be increased. Of course the devil is in the detail.
Stuff
Both ACT & NZ First want defence spending at 2% GDP and Winston Peters has a good chance of forcing this through. Both he and the ACT Leader, David Seymour have the ability to "persuade" Luxon into increasing the expenditure to 2% GDP. In that case the MOD and NZDF budget would be $8 billion per year and this would be sufficient to make substantial changes. Although in my reckoning funding should be 2.4% GDP ($9.6 billion) or 2.5 % GDP ($10 billion) per year.
Retention and Recruitment
The biggest problem facing NZDF in the short term is retention and recruitment. This has to be addressed and the best way to do that is to address pay, allowances, and conditions. This means that defence personnel should have full parity with civilian public servants and that the determination of pay allowances, and conditions should be removed from NZDF control It should be a separate authority either under the aegis of the MOD, or preferably as an adjunct to the Higher Salaries Commission. The HSC already has considerable experience determining parity etc. Next when NZDF personnel serve offshore in a combat, dangerous, or HADR situation then their NZDF derived income should be tax free. Defence housing should be provided for all eligible personnel without a time limit. It should be charged at no more than 15% of gross salary excluding non-taxable allowances. Personnel should be encouraged to apply for overseas deployments because such enhance their service career.
NZDF Senior Leadership
I am of the opinion that the current NZDF senior leadership has been compromised by the negative political thinking of governments from 1999 onwards. Helen Clarke (1999 - 2008) certainly politicised defence the selection of senior leadership. Subsequent govts continued the process. The recent NZDF leadership certainly appears to be stuck in the "she'll be right" rut and appears loath to look at ne methodologies and technologies. They appear to be of the attitude that this is the way it done since Nelson and Wellington terrorised the French and they see no reason to change. However, the way of war, methodologies and technologies have changed significantly in the last 10 years and the current Russo - Ukrainian War clearly illustrates this. I get the impression that to many officers are far too focussed on personal career advancement and not on what is best for the service. They aren't willing to take chances in case they appear in bad light to some superior. NZDF is very definitely far to top heavy with far too many officers of one star and above rank. The organisation is bloated with managers with officers becoming managers and not leaders. What is definitely required now is leadership and innovation from all levels within NZDF. Change is upon us, and we have to embrace it, running with it.
@Xthenaki Thank you.
Ngatimozart.
Last edited by a moderator:
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
As a military strategic airlifter the C-2 would probably suit NZ, 3 alongside the 5 C-130J on order would give the RNZAF a very capable airlift wing. Not really a great VIP tpt though.
Totally agree, But there ia a lot of ignorant people out there who the pollies listen to. A fair number of people and journalists who don't recognize any threat and wont until it is knocking on their door.
Tell the VIP's to by a plane ticket, or lease an aircraft at the time.
Very much so, they use the same system as they do for senior civil servants, so that is what you get, a good senior civil servant in a uniform, not good quality senior military commanders.
.
Hawkeye69
Member
Going off the statement being more closely aligned to ADF platforms then the MH-60R Seahawk is a shoe in replacement for the Seasprite which would be very welcomed.
The NH90’s are my concern, don’t get me wrong I always thought the platform offered everything you could want, but NH Industries just have not been able to offer the support required and now we have in our part of the World at least got an orphan just like the Seasprite. In saying this in NZ military platform wise they are still relatively new and we will not be like Australia and digging a hole to dump them in so I can see a further 10-20 years of service left providing there is a spare parts supply to support this time frame and taking into account a lose of airframe due to a mishap or serious malfunction.
However is 8 NH90 enough given that at any one time the availability rate is 5-6?
The more I look at it the case for 4x Chinook gets stronger and stronger, again it aligns with ADF and Canadian platforms, we have current RNZAF pilots qualified on the type, one is currently a Black Falcons team member, the Chinook is well proven and will be well support by Boeing for the next 40 years and maybe longer so in military platform wise it’s a safe purchase, Govt’s are very risk adverse.
You add 10x MH-60R and 4x Chinook and along with the P-8A and C-130J-30 and you have the RNZAF sorted, pay and housing will be ongoing works, the General Atomics Sea Guardian would be in my view another purchase on the horizon.
The NH90’s are my concern, don’t get me wrong I always thought the platform offered everything you could want, but NH Industries just have not been able to offer the support required and now we have in our part of the World at least got an orphan just like the Seasprite. In saying this in NZ military platform wise they are still relatively new and we will not be like Australia and digging a hole to dump them in so I can see a further 10-20 years of service left providing there is a spare parts supply to support this time frame and taking into account a lose of airframe due to a mishap or serious malfunction.
However is 8 NH90 enough given that at any one time the availability rate is 5-6?
The more I look at it the case for 4x Chinook gets stronger and stronger, again it aligns with ADF and Canadian platforms, we have current RNZAF pilots qualified on the type, one is currently a Black Falcons team member, the Chinook is well proven and will be well support by Boeing for the next 40 years and maybe longer so in military platform wise it’s a safe purchase, Govt’s are very risk adverse.
You add 10x MH-60R and 4x Chinook and along with the P-8A and C-130J-30 and you have the RNZAF sorted, pay and housing will be ongoing works, the General Atomics Sea Guardian would be in my view another purchase on the horizon.
Would it be practicable to get the hulls constructed at lower price off shore and fitout of weapons and sensor systems at a new yard in NZ (as per Canberra class for RAN)?
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
You raise some good points. My view of the NH90 in NZ service is that it is a good, capable transport platform. It provides excellent lift and range and has deployed to the Pacific (Fiji, Solomons) and Australia and undertaken taskings there over several years without any issues. Excellent support is provided by Airbus on base. There hasn't been any disquiet surfacing to the public (unlike a few other countries).
But ... like other operators support (and timeframes for such) must have been at times problematic. The other thing is the RNZAF hasn't had the opportunity yet to deploy the NH90 into a conflict zone with the resulting demands and high operational tempo so perhaps real life experiences in such conditions could see support becoming more of an issue?
Perhaps it is telling that NZ did not apparently want to pick up any of the ex-ADF MRH-90's (I would have thought the initial six Navy examples that were first being being preserved for sale would have been attractive proposition as it could have increased fleet numbers or at least provided reserve and attrition airframes).
I have used the word "apparently" because that's what the (Aussie) pollies were saying (and since did we ever trust pollies, no matter who and where they are)! Because I would have thought as NZ is undertaking a full defence review it is no position (at this point in time) to say "yes" to additional MRH-90's yet i.e. not until a future force structure is tabled to the NZ pollies. So who knows what the real story is.
I too wouldn't be expecting NZ to retire the NH90 early in favor of eg UH-60M's, especially when there are other priorities such as potentially the MH-60R Seahawk for the RNZN and whatever else is required as part of the defence reviews (not that I would know of course and I could be wrong).
So if NZ were to keep the NH90's for a little longer (and without additional MRH90 airframes) and knowing that eight isn't enough for future needs and concurrency perhaps it would make sense to supplement them with something else, such as the larger Chinook, seeing that would mean NZDF being interoperable with the ADF.
Particularly as the Army expands its use of new technologies (command and control and networked capabilities etc) requiring additional battlefield lift. Plus such a capability would be invaluable for HADR (particularly when that Alpine fault ruptures)!
Last edited:
My own personal view is that the KHI C2 would be an ideal platform for NZ. I and another RNZAF veteran saw it when it was here in Christchurch some years ago. Both of us are quite impressed with its capabilities. The only down side with it is its acquisition cost.
WRT the C27J & C295. No for the reasons I have already stated. We suffer from the tyranny of distance. Look at a map. The situation with other FVEY nations and twin engined turbo prop battlefield airlifters are:
- The UK don't at all. In fact, the smallest fixed wing airlift with a ramp the RAF have now is the A400M. They retired their C-130 fleet last year.
- The RCAF use theirs for SAR only. Canada has a unique geography.
- The RAAF have sidelined theirs because they can't hack the requirements. They only use them for HADR now and in both Aussie and Kiwi terms that is a waste of resources. HADR is not a core defence tasking.
- The only US service to use such platforms are the Coastguard and they use it for SAR.
The pollies can always walk and / or swim
On a serious note, if we acquired three A330MRTT and 3 say G550 that would cover VIP, MEDEVAC, & PAX. The A330MRTT would be a good force multiplier that would be well received by Canberra and Washington.
Any MH-60R acquisition is not a given. There will be serious sticker shock in both Cabinet and Treasury.
8 NH90 were never enough. Ten was the number that was recommended to Cabinet by the MOD. Both PM Clark and Finance Minister Cullen went for the absolute minimum. They would not have replaced the UH-1H Iroquois if they could have gotten away with it. They did not want to spend any money on defence and more specifically the RNZAF at the time after axing the Air Combat Force.
IF we replace the NH90 it will be with the UH-60M Blackhawk and 15 would be required. I can see the NH90 being replaced at the end of the decade because they are approaching the time of life where they will become more expensive to sustain. This happens with every platform, but the NH90 CPFH (Cost Per Flight Hour) and its spares logistics will speak against it. There's also no guarantee that it will still be manufactured towards the end of the 2030s. We certainly wouldn't want it as an orphan platform. It would be as bad as the Seasprites, if not worse. CH-47F Chinooks would be a welcome edition because we do have a dearth of rotary wing air lift capability.
We also need to acquire another 3 C-130J-30s so that we don't end up having problems there by thrashing them. Another 2 P-8A should be acquired as well because 4 are simply not enough. There also needs to be the secondary maritime surveillance capability to be selected and acquired. Nothing has been done about it since 2017.
Yes that would work but I wouldn't go near shrinking a Canberra Class LHD. The South Koreans and others have some good designs around the 15,000 tonne displacement mark which would be about the optimal size for us. We aren't going to be moving a battalion of green meanies, nor heavy armour in one hit. Fit out here would work and it would be a good learning curve.
You raise some good points and we really don't know what the thinking is. This new defence outlook has really just broken and it's difficult to tell what and how things are going to change. However, since 2014 NZ govts have become quite risk adverse in their defence acquisitions and w know that the MOD procurement team are really on top of their game. So, when they present cases to Cabinet all the relevant information is included. It speaks a lot of the MOD / NZDF procurement system when Treasury has given them its top approval rating of A. We can only make guesses at the moment. But I do think that we can have a look at possible paths, especially if we keep that risk adverseness in mind.