NZDF General discussion thread

[Nighthawk.NZ]

Chief of Defence Force Kevin Short has warned the government that making any more cut backs including trying to meet current cut targets affect capability ...

New Zealand Defence Force top brass warns Government spending cuts target could ground aircraft | Newshub

 

[Hawkeye69]

That’s now 3x naval ships tied up which includes both OPV’s, Frigate Te Mana out of action for 12 months for refit and 2x C-130H grounded to save on further maintenance , plus 2x already retired and now only 1x flyable.
And there are whispers even grounding the Seasprites would not be enough to reach the Govts 6.5% savings expected.

If we ground the Seasprites then why would we ever need to replace them or have frigates, if for the next 12 months we only have 1x frigate and no OPV’s the general public would not blink if we lost the NZDF altogether and moved to more of a coastguard fisheries patrol, search and rescue and natural disaster focused organisation.

If you think any Govt now or in the future will change things you are dreaming.

 

[Hawkeye69]

I am just going to add to this and the Governments cost cutting, when they told Kiwi Rail to cancel the Cook Straight ferry they did so without even looking at possible second hand options and when they looked there are no suitable second hand options and if they decided to now go with the new ferry the cost would be 40% more. What is frustrating is the cost was the infrastructure due to earthquake risk but they cancelled and in doing so signalled saving money is more important that the public’s safety so I cannot see how Defence would be taken seriously.

We went 6months without a maritime patrol aircraft, along time with frigates, and now 1x Hercules, sorry but defence is not not a priority.

 

[Rob c]

When a government gets into power by bribing the population wth tax cut's, there is always going to be losers. Defence because of its low public profile has for the last 3 to 4 decades been a favorite for cuts by by successive governments. As we are one of the lower taxed countries in the OECD, why do people continue to fall for this? Tax cuts mean budget cuts and when they cut defence, they never, in real terms increase defences budget when times are good and they have a surplus.

 

[Hawkeye69]

When a government gets into power by bribing the population wth tax cut's, there is always going to be losers. Defence because of its low public profile has for the last 3 to 4 decades been a favorite for cuts by by successive governments. As we are one of the lower taxed countries in the OECD, why do people continue to fall for this? Tax cuts mean budget cuts and when they cut defence, they never, in real terms increase defences budget when times are good and they have a surplus.

Totally agree, this is not the time for tax cuts, they promised something they could not really deliver and now cutting everything to keep their promise.

 

[recce.k1]

Guys! Firstly 3x C-130H are operational (not 1). The two supposedly "grounded" then are in fact the same two that have been retired!

The CDF confirmed only two C-130H have been retired a few days ago at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee meeting on 14 Feb 2024. See video link below at 1:09:55.

For a more detailed explanation for the early retirement of the first C-130H (NZ7003) see ADM 6 Feb 2023.

40 Squadron will receive a fleet of five new C-130J-30 transport aircraft from 2024-25 but the reason for the early retirement of the first C-130H this year is because the aircraft was due to enter an extended ‘group servicing’ deep maintenance period.

Oldershaw explained that a group servicing is taking more than 12 months to complete therefore it made sense to just retire the aircraft: “It wont’ be for another 12 months that a reduction in aircraft availability will be noticed and by that time we will be much closer to the arrival of the C-130J,” he said.

Presumably the second C-130H to be retired (NZ7004) in November 2023 was for similar reasons. The first of the C-130J-30's arrive this year.

Now at the same FADT Committee meeting the CDF also mentioned the early retirement of the P-3K's also meant the P-8A's were able to become operational sooner. So presumably the same will apply to the C-130J-30's as C-130H crews are freed up.

In relation to budget cuts across the public sector and therefore defence (MoD and NZDF) I doubt capabilities will be impacted greatly or at all. Also not when the public service grew 33% under the previous Labour government i.e. there will be other areas ripe for cutting as Defence was not one of them!

See DefMin Collins at the same FADT Committee meeting where she says she wants defence to focus on their primary roles (not stuff like "personal well being") and later the CDF outlines the impacts on the likes of capabilities of the proposed budget cuts. I'd imagine some non-core activities will be curtailed but the cuts won't be as bad as suggested in terms of cutting capabilities.

Now of course I could be totally wrong but then again I'm not the DefMin or PM that would have to face up to say the AusGovt and say "hey you know how we talked things up biggly bigtime .... well we will be cutting them instead". Imagine that!

So expect the Seasprites, being a core enabler of the ANZAC Frigates, will be safe .... well unless it is part of a "cunning plan" to divest ourselves of them earlier than planned (due to scarcity of parts and associated higher running costs) and maybe hire something else that is cheaper in the interim until the Maritime Helicopter replacement project delivers the fit-for-purpose replacements.

OTOH if something was to be sacrificed then ditch the "VIP" 757's ... that'll teach them!

2022/23 Annual review of the Ministry of Defence and the New Zealand Defence Force

This is "2022/23 Annual review of the Ministry of Defence and the New Zealand Defence Force" by New Zealand Parliament on Vimeo, the home for high quality…

vimeo.com

 

[John Fedup]

When a government gets into power by bribing the population wth tax cut's, there is always going to be losers. Defence because of its low public profile has for the last 3 to 4 decades been a favorite for cuts by by successive governments. As we are one of the lower taxed countries in the OECD, why do people continue to fall for this? Tax cuts mean budget cuts and when they cut defence, they never, in real terms increase defences budget when times are good and they have a surplus.

Voters are addicted to free $hit and pollies know this. They also know many voters have attention spans that can be measured in single digit nanoseconds, especially in my country.

 

[Alberto32]

Voters are addicted to free $hit and pollies know this. They also know many voters have attention spans that can be measured in single digit nanoseconds, especially in my country.

And they fall for it each damn time. They certainly play them like fiddles. If they're cutting off Ferry access for ferries that aren't available right now, then why the hell would they be interested in Defence? We need the Interislander ferry service up and running, and right now it's the wrong time to offer tax cuts.

 

[John Fedup]

What is required are pollies who can articulate why certain priorities need to be funded now which means a combination of diverting funds from other departments and additional tax revenue. Unfortunately, like the armed forces, getting exceptional people in government has the same problem, the private sector offers more with less family stress.

 

[ngatimozart]

Ahem @Hawkeye69 you quoted me and somehow your reply text has gone walkabout.

 

[Hawkeye69]

Ahem @Hawkeye69 you quoted me and somehow your reply text has gone walkabout.

No idea how that happened but was certainly not intended.

 

[kiwi in exile]

You get what you vote for. How many here voted for National?
For a long time the 'vibe'on NZ threads of DT has been rightward leaning with plenty of criticism of Labour and the Greens as extremist Socialists.
Turns out Nationals 'sensible economic management' [IE neo'lib run down the public services ideology] may be just as bad for NZDF as Labour/Green ideology.

 

[Lucasnz]

You get what you vote for. How many here voted for National?
For a long time the 'vibe'on NZ threads of DT has been rightward leaning with plenty of criticism of Labour and the Greens as extremist Socialists.
Turns out Nationals 'sensible economic management' [IE neo'lib run down the public services ideology] may be just as bad for NZDF as Labour/Green ideology.

To be fair Labour has tended to shelve out the money for Capital equipment, even if its not always fit for purpose (i.e. the OPV and Southern Ocean Patrols) over the last thirty or so years. That changed under Jacinda where the only money forked out was due to New Zealand First influence in the first term of Jacinda's time in power. The problem with the more left wing in New Zealand is that they are Sea Blind isolationists. National on the other hand has been pretty lousy when it comes to capital acquisitions HMNZS Aotearoa been the first ship they purchased new since the 1960's as an example, and I cannot remember when they last made a major purchase for the Army or Airforce.

Defence like the rest of NZ has a capital infrastructure deficit and well as a capability shortfall in equipment and personnel. I will watch with bated breath to see in the Minister of Finance / Defence will address the issues in real terms, noting its not a short time fix. The first things would be:
- Another P8 and B757 replacement - I'm flexible on that what replaces the B757 (i.e. 2 C130J and leased passenger / VIP or 2 A330MRT).
- More capable MPA capability in lieu of the King Airs - i.e. C295W or the like. I'm not sure how large UAV would operate given NZ appears to only uses secondary air surveillance for ATC (think Ireland).
- Increased Army capability in terms of Anti Tank, Air Defence, infantry and artillery etc.
- Commitment to the ANZAC replacement on a 4-ship basis with the first ship in 2029-2023 and then every 12 months. 4 Multi Role ships in the OPV / MCM would then follow.
- Separate rolling replacement plans for base infrastructure and defence housing (I have other views on defence housing, but I can't comment on that for work reasons).

 

[recce.k1]

You get what you vote for. How many here voted for National?
For a long time the 'vibe'on NZ threads of DT has been rightward leaning with plenty of criticism of Labour and the Greens as extremist Socialists.
Turns out Nationals 'sensible economic management' [IE neo'lib run down the public services ideology] may be just as bad for NZDF as Labour/Green ideology.

It might just be me but I'm a bit more relaxed on the new Govt handling defence going forward. On the political dimension it has two coalition partners that are advocating for a better defence force; a fairly formidable DefMin (and former leader) who I would imagine would be able to garner PM & Cabinet support when required; a coalition Foreign Minister who has undertaken the role twice before, stands with our allies and is respected by the Polynesian Pacific Island nations (important for cohesion); an Associate DefMin (ex-RNZN/RAN) that some in the beltway speculate could be a future National leader; other Govt MP's that have served in NZDF. So perhaps one of NZ's more pro defence/pro ally Govt's for a while.

Yes the "neo-lib" aspect is a bit worrying and the potential for political expediency in some situations (but this is merely speculation on my part and realistically this has been the case for any govt eg National's 1990-1996 years and Labour's 1999-2005 years were particulary bad and both set the rot with ideology over realpolitik and just simply dumb decision making that still has rammifications to this day).

But the "positive news" here for Defence, say unlike KiwiRail of late, is that (since the National Govt of John Key's tenure) they now have robust project planning processes in place, forecasting both capital and operational expediture requirements many years ahead meaning Treasury and Govt's are now better informed when signing off on projects particulary if they are "off the shelf".

(IMO KiwiRail failed because their project costs blewout from the original $1.4b to almost $3b and, like the Ministry of Education's infrastucture programme in the news this week (and the previous MinEd admitting this morning) they seemed to expect the previous Govt's magic money tree would keep supplying whatever they wanted no matter how much. Suggest KiwiRail could learn from Defence on how to take a more holistic approach to long term strategic project planning and hopefully twist the Govt's arm to fund 3 new build vessels, albiet smaller (rather than 2 large - 2 were never going to work in terms of maintenance periods) and other upgrades to port-side infrastructure but scaled back and/or defer costs such as highway integration to the other appropriate agencies etc. Let's not forget those vital ocean going tugs too)!

 

[recce.k1]

- Commitment to the ANZAC replacement on a 4-ship basis with the first ship in 2029-2023 and then every 12 months. 4 Multi Role ships in the OPV / MCM would then follow.

Fully agree with #1. For #2 be curious what you have in mind nowadays?

Also hypothetically, in terms of OPV's (and presuming they are not multi-role as you suggest eg assume a future govt wants to retain a "basic" constabulary vessel/role), rather than direct replacements for the Vard 7 085's (Protector-class) with a similar new type .... how feasible would a replacement by a SOPV type only, be for both Southern Ocean and South Pacific operations (such as the Vard 7 100 / HDW which is usually discussed here as a potential contender), perhaps 2 (or maybe 3) of them?

The reasons for suggesting this. Firstly it means instead of operating OPV's and SOPV's (both possibly of different designs and therefore with different crewing and support requirements) if only one type is acquired (eg SOPV), then the replacement OPV funding could be put towards those extra combatants being suggested or another capability the Navy desires etc.

Secondly for the proposed Southern Naval Base (for the proposed SOPV project) one of the issues appears to be as the SOPV will only be operated in the Antarctic summer season then either the base will get little operational use for the rest of the year or the base is generally unmanned and personnel is brought in during the summer season then return back to presumably Devonport Naval Base for the rest of the year. Which may (or may not) be somewhat disruptive for crews/families (well accepting that's what deployments are for)?

OTOH if the Southern Naval Base's SOPV's could also operate in the Pacific then they could also deploy there during the winter season making a SNB viable 365 day-a-year operation and therefore govt investment. Giving certainty to crews and their families in terms of settling down as well as perhaps assisting with recruitment in the South Island (assuming the SNB is located there rather than say Wellington or Napier etc).

So in terms of SOPV options what would this mean for a vessel optimised for Southern Ocean use if it were also be capable of operating in tropical climates?

 

[Lucasnz]

Fully agree with #1. For #2 be curious what you have in mind nowadays?

Also hypothetically, in terms of OPV's (and presuming they are not multi-role as you suggest eg assume a future govt wants to retain a "basic" constabulary vessel/role), rather than direct replacements for the Vard 7 085's (Protector-class) with a similar new type .... how feasible would a replacement by a SOPV type only, be for both Southern Ocean and South Pacific operations (such as the Vard 7 100 / HDW which is usually discussed here as a potential contender), perhaps 2 (or maybe 3) of them?

The reasons for suggesting this. Firstly it means instead of operating OPV's and SOPV's (both possibly of different designs and therefore with different crewing and support requirements) if only one type is acquired (eg SOPV), then the replacement OPV funding could be put towards those extra combatants being suggested or another capability the Navy desires etc.

Secondly for the proposed Southern Naval Base (for the proposed SOPV project) one of the issues appears to be as the SOPV will only be operated in the Antarctic summer season then either the base will get little operational use for the rest of the year or the base is generally unmanned and personnel is brought in during the summer season then return back to presumably Devonport Naval Base for the rest of the year. Which may (or may not) be somewhat disruptive for crews/families (well accepting that's what deployments are for)?

OTOH if the Southern Naval Base's SOPV's could also operate in the Pacific then they could also deploy there during the winter season making a SNB viable 365 day-a-year operation and therefore govt investment. Giving certainty to crews and their families in terms of settling down as well as perhaps assisting with recruitment in the South Island (assuming the SNB is located there rather than say Wellington or Napier etc).

So in terms of SOPV options what would this mean for a vessel optimised for Southern Ocean use if it were also be capable of operating in tropical climates?

The key issue in determining the future fleet is reducing the number of different classes of vessels operated in a constrained recruiting environment (it's amazing the navy could take 200 in one intake in the 70's and one of the more recent ones only had around 47). It is debatable whether recruitment will improve given the increasing worker shortage, that seems to be appearing in the West.

• Fleet Size: Limited to 10 vessels (ignoring the issues around whether IPV are suitable for NZ except for Harbour / Port Defence). This also caps the number of personnel required. To that end I see Manawanui and the OPV's been replaced by a single class of vessel. While I understand the need for the SOPV, I don't consider it a first-class priority. I would use the lost of the SOPV to provide depth of capability.
• Choice of vessel - Right now I see of alot of advantages in acquiring the Damen Crossover SF123. I'm not closed to the idea of a different type of vessel but the cross over seem to fit a lot of niches we are currently trying to cover with multiple classes, plus enhances amphibious capability, within a small crew of 65-84. There is a downside with regards loss of salvage / deep diving with regards Manawanui, but it is a capability that many larger navies don't have. Some of that lost capability can be replaced by UUV and semi submersibles.

 

[recce.k1]

• Choice of vessel - Right now I see of alot of advantages in acquiring the Damen Crossover SF123. I'm not closed to the idea of a different type of vessel but the cross over seem to fit a lot of niches we are currently trying to cover with multiple classes, plus enhances amphibious capability, within a small crew of 65-84. There is a downside with regards loss of salvage / deep diving with regards Manawanui, but it is a capability that many larger navies don't have. Some of that lost capability can be replaced by UUV and semi submersibles.

Damen have unveiled a new Multi-Purpose Support Ship (MPSS) design of 7,000 tons and 9,000 tons. From a Defence Connect article:

The MPV is expected to feature a 94-metre by 11-metre flight deck and hangars for unmanned aerial vehicle deployment, helicopter deployment, oceanic research, search and rescue, emergency relief, maritime safety and naval support operations.

It will also feature laboratories and accommodation for scientific staff, a stern ramp for UUVs and USVs, a 650-square metre cargo deck, and space for 12 20-foot containers.

Additional modular systems could reportedly involve containerised hospital facilities, hyperbaric chambers or remotely operated vehicle equipment, as required.

Any thoughts as to potential suitability, particularly for UUV/USV/UAV technology development/deployment? Could be a useful asset for undersea data cable security etc? Even surely it's HADR capabilities would garner political support!

Damen at work on new MPSS drone warfare maritime vessel

Damen Shipyards Group have begun construction on a new Multi-Purpose Support Ship to serve an increase in drone technology in combat and ISR.

www.naval-technology.com

Multi-Purpose Support Ships (MPSS) | Damen

The Multi-Purpose Support Ship (MPSS) is a solution for the increasing use of drone technology in combat and surveillance.

www.damen.com

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

Damen have unveiled a new Multi-Purpose Support Ship (MPSS) design of 7,000 tons and 9,000 tons. From a Defence Connect article:


Any thoughts as to potential suitability, particularly for UUV/USV/UAV technology development/deployment? Could be a useful asset for undersea data cable security etc? Even surely it's HADR capabilities would garner political support!

Damen at work on new MPSS drone warfare maritime vessel

Damen Shipyards Group have begun construction on a new Multi-Purpose Support Ship to serve an increase in drone technology in combat and ISR.

www.naval-technology.com

Multi-Purpose Support Ships (MPSS) | Damen

The Multi-Purpose Support Ship (MPSS) is a solution for the increasing use of drone technology in combat and surveillance.

www.damen.com

It can carry one NH-90... and according to the DCP-2019 (yes waiting on a new one but thats all we have) and they want to carry more than Canterbury which while only have flying operations for one at a time (though technically can do two) Canterbury can carry 3 NH-90 and 1 SeaSprite.

I doubt the NZG will want that many drones...

Separate accommodation spaces for in total 90 persons embarked forces

Canterbury can carry 250 persons embarked forces and DCP says they want to carry more... as well as more equipment.

I see a few other issues with it in respect to RNZN and NZDF operations.

 

[recce.k1]

I think you are referring to a LPD? As per DCP 19:

Enhanced Sealift capability

197. Acquisition of an enhanced multi-role sealift vessel to complement HMNZS Canterbury will occur in the late-2020s. The ship will be able to carry more people, stores and equipment, and will include a docking well, allowing the ship to be able to operate in a greater range of sea states, including those typically encountered around New Zealand and in the Pacific. It will also support the same or a greater number of embarked helicopters as HMNZS Canterbury. An example of the class of vessel that could be considered under this project is a Landing Platform Dock.

198. The new sealift vessel will provide greater support and sustainment of humanitarian and disaster relief and security operations in the Pacific, and increased support to civil defence and emergency management domestically.

But what Lucas is referring to is something else, a replacement type for the OPV/MCM/diving role. Hence his suggestion of the Damen Crossover SF123. Which ticks a lot of boxes and is perhaps more resilient than a COTS OPV etc. So hypothetically it could be a nice addition to the fleet even though it's technically a non-combatant.

(Noting that other posters eg NgatiMozart have suggested the AH 120, which could compliment any hypothetical AH 140 acquisition to replace the ANZAC's, the advantage being two similar platforms in terms of support and maintenance requirements).

To me both are great options, but with Damen now building a "Multi-Purpose Support Ship" for the Portuguese Navy, I'm wondering whether a step change in thinking is required to something else purposely designed to support new generation/emerging technologies such as UUV/USV/UAV, which would increase the RNZN's Patrol and ISR warfare support capabilities across the undersea, surface and air spectrums?

That it could also be used for HADR support is an added bonus in terms of political support, particulary if it is already on station patrolling the Pacific etc. Other features include dive/MCM/support and provision to carry 16m boading "boats" eg MCM/CB90 etc.

Not saying it is the ideal vessel (and it may very well not be) but just putting it out there. Plus I think such a vessel could futher be improved for RNZN/Pacific ops use. Eg mine-laying capability, perhaps also the ability to deploy a towed array to collect/process undersea data/eavesdrop (SURTASS-E ?).

Perhaps also a longer flight deck (with an extended hanger) to accomodate two helicopters could be more practical to support concurrent helo operations (so perhaps a slightly longer vessel). Granted whether the RNZN would require so much space for UAV's could be debatable (perhaps that space could be reduced - or kept as is to allow for the stowage of additional containers to be transported to and lifted off at a remote port, or other modular capabilities eg be that SH Defence Cube systems or modular air defence if there was ever a need for such.

 

[Hawkeye69]

What about the Damen Enforcer series, available from 120 meters to 180 meters in length, fits what we require as both supplement to Canterbury and replace of.
Then add 3x Arrowhead 120 and 3x Harry de Wolfe class OPV’s and we have compact modern navy.