NZDF General discussion thread

[Aluminium Hail]

Is this a proposed ANZAC upgrade? I thought they were both getting long in the tooth, & a bit full (though not as much as the Aussie ones), though I've read there's provision for a towed sonar. CAPTAS-2 is fairly compact, I think.

No I have no knowledge about any upgrades (I'm just a random pleb on the internet).

I am making the assumption that the NZ ANZAC's will be in service until well into the 2030's even if a new ship procurement started tomorrow, regardless of if they are getting long in the tooth. As for weight I don't know, but they are supposedly lighter than that aussie ones so hopefully there is capacity for a bit more stuff.

I'm assuming fitting NSM should be pretty simple after AUS has done it, albeit with a different CMS, 12 Exls should fit since there was space for 16 mk41, and yes I thought CAPTAS 2 would be a good addition if the towed array space has not been taken for something else. That ship would at least be able go near the action and do something useful, not be a drain on other nations resources.

 

[recce.k1]

The RNZN ANZAC's may well be starting to get long in the tooth but they are being well maintained until they can be replaced. Te Kaha completed a major refit a couple of years ago which saw a full survey of its hull carried out, its main diesel engines replaced (the third set to be fitted over its lifetime) and other engineering works. Frigate #2 Te Mana is now in dry dock undertaking the same refit and should be back at sea later this year. I guess as a generalisation the Germans design their warships rather well! These refits are meant to see the vessels through until they are replaced in around 10 years time but I would hope that replacements are sought sooner than those projection dates as no doubt they may really will be worn out by then and newer technologies would be advantageous.

In terms of replacement options, who knows at the moment (the forthcoming DCP is expected to provide clarity), but IIRC the Rosyth facility should be completing the fifth RN Type 31 around 2031(?). Just mentioning T31 because Babcock have been quite seriously marketing the AH140 to NZ (interestingly a really rough but "don't quote me" back-of-an-envelope calculation suggests the more capable Polish Miecznik-class (or is it Wicher-class?) variant (with the likes of hull mounted sonar and other useful capabilities that presumably the RNZN would also favor) is only somewhat slightly cheaper than the UK T26 Batch II). OTOH NZ could be swayed to align with the RAN Tier 2 choice (which IMO would be another really good option with some very useful capabilities however being an Australian project first and foremost, which is fully understandable (as it should be), the issue for NZ may be that it may have next to zero input into the project itself, for better or worse. Let's hope Defence's advice is supported rather than potentially political expediency. If the money was to be flowing (although as we say here ... yeah/nah) then IMO the 2030's RNZN would ideally be configured similar to the post-war model which would be at least 2 larger vessels (aka Tier 1 T26 etc, or "1.5" i.e. AH140) for global coalition support duties and ASW supremacy, with 3-4 Tier 2 types (RAN copies) for Pacific regional presence/escort/ASW etc).

The other interesting consideration is that every new vessel built for the RNZN since the 2000's (including the recent AOR) has been designed with ice protection for use in the deep Southern Ocean. For that reason it could be that if future warships designs are not practical (which they don't appear to be) for deep southern ocean ops then it could be that a purpose designed OPV (with some Corvette "light" features i.e. ASW arrays etc) may also be useful (i.e. in addition to any primary combatant). In WW2 NZ operated in the Southern Ocean and if it is said nowadays that so do "non-friendly" subs then perhaps NZ having ability to operate well in this "southern flank" could be a useful for the wider effort.

Finally the other consideration to contemplate is the potential (and probable) use of unmanned surface or underwater vessels to supplement the realistically, limited numbers of manned/combatants. As it happens the replacement of most of the RNZN fleet is under active consideration as part of the forthcoming DCP but the reality is of course opportunity-cost for the rest of the NZDF. Interesting times ahead.

 

[Gooey]

The reason that initially I think that the F35 is not appropriate is that any AFC is going to take a long time to get up to speed.

Rob, I tend to agree for planning FOC with a regenerated a F-35 75 Sqn, RNZAF. However, these things are being flown by Allies fledgling bogies and are relatively straight forward stick and rudder aircraft. Its operating them as air power with rated pilots, leads, and flight commanders that is the trick; commanded by an experienced HQ. That's what will blow out the timeline to 15 years.

I'd, wildly, speculate that any NZ F-35 startup would begin with a basic capability like FA-50 and then be in tandem with 76SQN and 2 OCU RAAF. We would provide students who'd flow into 3, 75, 77SQN, on graduation. Then NZ 2 OCU instructors and students for the FCI course. All at a cost and also danger of kiwi's transferring to Oz.

The point I'm attempting to make is that ACF would require time, money, and RAAF cooperation. As ADF would get a fourth F-35 squadron into their ORBAT, it would also be to their advantage.

 

[spoz]

Te Kaha is 30 years old (age from launch date). That is very definitely “long in the tooth” for that class of ships as designed.

 

[Armchair]

I think armed P-8As and capable frigates are the priority systems for NZ to defend itself but the easiest way to restore an ACF would be to create integrated fast air training squadrons for the RNZAF and RAAF. Locate one of those elements (e.g. operational conversion for F-18F or F-35) in NZ and there would be a (theoretical) air policing capability on NZ soil (an intruding MPA or drone or surface vessel could be put at risk). Eventually RNZAF could acquire aircraft of whichever type was based in NZ and stand up a separate squadron.

I don’t actually think this is a good idea for either NZ or RAAF (geographically), just better for NZ than some of the options offered in the thread.

 

[Challenger]

The reason that initially I think that the F35 is not appropriate is that any AFC is going to take a long time to get up to speed. The air force quoted a time of 15 years to get up to a high standard. I personally think you could achieve a basic unit operational standard in 10 years. Having F35's during this period would be a waste and losses could occur. While we get our act together, better something cheep and cheerful.

Appreciate that it takes years and years of experience to get to the highest standard independently, but in the short term we don’t need it to be indpendent, we need ‘lethality’ and to pull our weight. Sending the signal of reversing an ideological decision might just be enough to keep Trump’s tariff hammer in check.

A joint 4th ANZAC F-35 squadron while concurrently at home starting organic OCUs and and all that stuff doesn’t feel that much of a tall order - gives a new focus for the whole service and would surely keep the ADF onside. Within 5 years the squadron would be deployable. Within 15 years it’s deployable independently and all training is inhouse.

Whether the best use of a hypothetical increase in the NZDF budget or in capabilities is spent on this is another question not am I even supporting reforming the ACF - just seems a redundant point to me that the timing setups is the issue or that we shouldn’t aim for assets of this calibre which are (let’s be honest) within our budget.

 

[Todjaeger]

Appreciate that it takes years and years of experience to get to the highest standard independently, but in the short term we don’t need it to be indpendent, we need ‘lethality’ and to pull our weight. Sending the signal of reversing an ideological decision might just be enough to keep Trump’s tariff hammer in check.

A joint 4th ANZAC F-35 squadron while concurrently at home starting organic OCUs and and all that stuff doesn’t feel that much of a tall order - gives a new focus for the whole service and would surely keep the ADF onside. Within 5 years the squadron would be deployable. Within 15 years it’s deployable independently and all training is inhouse.

Whether the best use of a hypothetical increase in the NZDF budget or in capabilities is spent on this is another question not am I even supporting reforming the ACF - just seems a redundant point to me that the timing setups is the issue or that we shouldn’t aim for assets of this calibre which are (let’s be honest) within our budget.

No offense, but this whole notion of a RNZAF ACF has been brought up here, repeatedly and gone round and round every time. Unless/until the NZ Gov't can and will commit to not only funding and reforming an ACF AND then actually sustaining it, trying to discuss an ACF is not really even hypothetical and really more fanciful. Yes, if NZ still had an ACF it would have been a good thing for a variety of reasons and covered a number of potential roles. Likewise, those same reasons and roles would be useful if an ACF was to be re-created, but unfortunately the world does seem to be getting to be a more dangerous and uncertain place, and given how the NZDF has been run down and hollowed out across all the services and capabilities, I rather doubt that re-making an ACF would be one of the first priorities as it would require significant time and resources. There are other areas which NZ also needs covered and/or augmented which could likely be accomplished faster, or at lower cost, and in a number of cases quite likely both.

As for the idea of a joint RAAF-RNZAF squadron... There might be some advantage for NZ, but I do not really see a reason/advantage for Australia. One needs to remember that Australia and NZ have both different perspectives on where/how to use their respective armed forces, but also different priorities in terms of resource commitment. If Australia is already looking at what the ADF wants and needs are and having to make choices because the resources are not available to get everything, then why should Australia use some of it's budget when historically NZ will not necessarily sustain the effort? That question comes up before one of the other questions, namely who gets to decide when, where, how and why a joint squadron might get deployed or engage in operations? If there were concerns about a possible joint Oz-NZ airlift squadron being able to deploy because of differing policies by the Oz and Kiwi gov'ts, then there would almost certainly be even greater concerns about who has the authority to deploy a combat squadron. Lastly, if such a squadron could be formed and deployable within five years would almost certainly be because of RAAF personnel and capabilities, not those of the RNZAF.

Apart from, perhaps, RNZAF personnel that are seconded fast combat jet units of another nations' air force, or are just recently back from such a secondment, RNZAF personnel are not going to have the skills and experience to operate or maintain fast combat jets. This applies both to pilots and groundcrew/maintainers. Yes, Kiwi personnel can get the appropriate training, but it will take time before either pilots or groundcrew would be not only have the skills but also experience needed for them to be considered 'operational'. One must remember that Kiwi pilots no longer have fast jet training or trainers available, never mind a conversion path to fast combat jets. Australia does, and it still took over a year for RAAF pilots & groundcrew to get converted to the F/A-18F SHornet, which is very similar to the Classic Hornet which was in Australian service at the time. Any potential Kiwi pilots should effectively have basic flight training and navigation already covered, but the difference in operating a fast jet vs. multi-engine, or a combat aircraft and air combat manuevering, will all be new to them. I would expect that a Kiwi pilot could become rated to safely fly (i.e. from Point A to Point B) a fighter jet in less than a year, and possibly as short as a month. However, there is a vast difference between a pilot being competent enough to safely fly an aircraft between two points, and a pilot being able to actually operate an aircraft in combat.

 

[Rob c]

No offense, but this whole notion of a RNZAF ACF has been brought up here, repeatedly and gone round and round every time. Unless/until the NZ Gov't can and will commit to not only funding and reforming an ACF AND then actually sustaining it, trying to discuss an ACF is not really even hypothetical and really more fanciful.

The reason the ACF was brought up was the statement by the current Minister of Defence, when she said that NZ needed to have the ability to defend itself. As the only way here is by air or sea it is the easiest way to do it without having multiple different capabilities. However politicians word and actions are to different things.

 

[Catalina]

Thoughts on Defence on the Realm of New Zealand... MPA
We should equip our excellent P-8 Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft with the 200nm attack range AGM-158C LRASM, Long Range Anti Ship Missiles.

1. Fulfils the Government's stated objective of defending New Zealand, the South Pacific, and Antarctica.
2. Achieves the Government's policy of increasing interoperability with our only ally Australia.
3. Matches the Government's recently announced goal of increased lethality.
4. Economical as doesn't require any additional weapon platforms since we already have the Poseidons.
5. Well timed as this weapon system upgrade can piggy back on the 2027 Increment 3 Block 2 software upgrade the RAAF has arranged.
6. Leverages our existing force structure with No. 5 Squadron already operating P-8s, no expensive/impractical new ground squadrons required.
7. Reorientates the RNZAF from a delivery air service back into an Air Force able to apply kinetic solutions across our expansive maritime environment.

 

[Rob c]

We should equip our P-8s with LRASM, Long Range Anti Ship Missiles...

1. Fulfils the Government's stated objective of defending New Zealand, the South Pacific, and Antarctica.
2. Achieves the Government's policy of increasing interoperability with our only ally Australia.
3. Matches the Government's recently announced goal of increased lethality.
4. Economical as doesn't require any additional weapon platforms since we already have the Poseidons.
5. Well timed as this weapon system upgrade can piggy back on the 2027 Increment 3 Block 2 software upgrade the RAAF has arranged.
6. Leverages our existing force structure with No. 5 Squadron already operating P-8s, no expensive/impractical new ground squadrons required.
7. Reorientates the RNZAF from a delivery air service back into an Air Force able to apply kinetic solutions across our expansive maritime environment.

Using our 4 P8's as our primary weapon system has problems, with only 4 putting them in harm's way is not a good idea and could quickly mean we have a rapidly reducing fleet. The problem the P8's face is that they are a high altitude platform with a strong radar signature so any military's navy will know were they are as they close. They also do not cover the air domain with a defence capability. They are too precious and few in number to be put at significant risk.

 

[Todjaeger]

Using our 4 P8's as our primary weapon system has problems, with only 4 putting them in harm's way is not a good idea and could quickly mean we have a rapidly reducing fleet. The problem the P8's face is that they are a high altitude platform with a strong radar signature so any military's navy will know were they are as they close. They also do not cover the air domain with a defence capability. They are too precious and few in number to be put at significant risk.

It really depends on what the threat is, and where.

In the above case, it would makes sense to arm the P-8 Poseidons with some sort of air-launched missile, because they would otherwise be unarmed vs. ship or surface threats. Therefore leaving the NZDF to rely upon the Penguin Mk 2 AShM from the Seasprites, or the 127 mm gun aboard the ANZAC-class frigates. At least with LRASM's ~200 n mile standoff range, that would mean very few ships would be able to threaten a Kiwi Poseidon unless it had organic fast air. Also hostile fast air is not likely to be able to get to NZ all that much, simply due to the distance. My principle issue with NZ relying so much on the P-8 is that there are only four of them...

 

[Gooey]

My 2 cents.

It also depends on what the priority is: Tying together the points above, including that the DCP may actually increase NZ 'lethality', is the issue that RNZAF air power is currently four aircraft. If the priority is to increase NZ capability then an efficient way would be to build upon our current infrastructure and increase numbers of the very capable P-8A; followed by the next priority of introducing long range sticks like LRASM's for all the good nationalist/Allied reasons as outlined by Catalina.

Todjaeger, no argument at all that any RNZAF ACF discussion can not hide from the political context. Until the bipartisan acceptance of this necessity is agreed by the majority of the NZ political classes, then the long term, stable, resourcing of a national security plan is unlikely. The immediate problem with this is that one of the mainstream traditional parties is currently making short-term hay with AUKUS Tranche 2 because of the perceived necessity to underline an independent foreign policy, whatever that is. Secondly, I question if many within NZDF or NZ MoD have the professional knowledge or gravitas and mana to adequately address the perilous state of our current situation.

So aside from that small speed bump, the ACF answer is 2035/40 FOC of F-35s within 75 Sqn RNZAF after a lot of help from RAAF.

 

[swerve]

No I have no knowledge about any upgrades (I'm just a random pleb on the internet).

I am making the assumption that the NZ ANZAC's will be in service until well into the 2030's even if a new ship procurement started tomorrow, regardless of if they are getting long in the tooth. As for weight I don't know, but they are supposedly lighter than that aussie ones so hopefully there is capacity for a bit more stuff.

I'm assuming fitting NSM should be pretty simple after AUS has done it, albeit with a different CMS, 12 Exls should fit since there was space for 16 mk41, and yes I thought CAPTAS 2 would be a good addition if the towed array space has not been taken for something else. That ship would at least be able go near the action and do something useful, not be a drain on other nations resources.

I thought they had one 8-cell Mk41. ExLS comes in 3-cell packs, & I don't know their exact dimensions. Without checking I don't know how many 3-cell packs could fit, but probably only 2 (each holding up to 12 CAMM) entirely within the space previously occupied by the Mk41. That'd leave with space to spare, but not enough for another 3-cell pack. 3 or 4 packs would need more space than one 8-cell Mk41 did.

 

[koxinga]

Using our 4 P8's as our primary weapon system has problems, with only 4 putting them in harm's way is not a good idea and could quickly mean we have a rapidly reducing fleet. The problem the P8's face is that they are a high altitude platform with a strong radar signature so any military's navy will know were they are as they close. They also do not cover the air domain with a defence capability. They are too precious and few in number to be put at significant risk.

Arming them, as suggested is useful as a deterrence measure. As you mentioned, there are only 4, and if NZ gets into a "hot" situation, those birds will priority targets anyway to blind NZ. Having the option for them to be armed lends a certain level of deterrence in peace time and an additional level of complication during war time.

 

[Aluminium Hail]

I thought they had one 8-cell Mk41. ExLS comes in 3-cell packs, & I don't know their exact dimensions. Without checking I don't know how many 3-cell packs could fit, but probably only 2 (each holding up to 12 CAMM) entirely within the space previously occupied by the Mk41. That'd leave with space to spare, but not enough for another 3-cell pack. 3 or 4 packs would need more space than one 8-cell Mk41 did.

Yes the ANZAC's were only fitted with the one 8 cell mk41 but my understanding was there was space for an additional one but top weight ruled that out. Others will know much more than I. The 20 tube mushroom farm CAMM cells now on the ships do however seem to be taking that whole space.

Source:

Mark 41 Vertical Launching System

Share this: Forward Mk-41 VLS (29 cells) aboard USS Laboon (DDG 58) The Mark 41 Vertical Launching System (Mk 41 VLS) is a shipborne missile canister launching system which provides a rapid-fire launch capability against hostile threats. The Vertical Launch System (VLS) concept was derived from...

smartencyclopedia.org

Source:

Anzac class Frigate Royal New Zealand Navy RNZN

anzac class frigate new zealand navy rnzn te kaha mana sea ceptor

www.seaforces.org

 

[Hone C]

It really depends on what the threat is, and where.

In the above case, it would makes sense to arm the P-8 Poseidons with some sort of air-launched missile, because they would otherwise be unarmed vs. ship or surface threats. Therefore leaving the NZDF to rely upon the Penguin Mk 2 AShM from the Seasprites, or the 127 mm gun aboard the ANZAC-class frigates. At least with LRASM's ~200 n mile standoff range, that would mean very few ships would be able to threaten a Kiwi Poseidon unless it had organic fast air. Also hostile fast air is not likely to be able to get to NZ all that much, simply due to the distance. My principle issue with NZ relying so much on the P-8 is that there are only four of them...

Agreed. The obvious solution is to order more P-8 aircraft, although whether the funds/political will exists is another question.

As LRASM can be launched from Mk 41 and, as far as I'm aware, HIMARS integration is also being explored, the missiles may have utility in future RNZN and RNZA acquisitions, depending on platforms/systems selected. Having common munitions across NZDF would be logical from a financial as well as an operational perspective.

 

[jbc388]

Agreed. The obvious solution is to order more P-8 aircraft, although whether the funds/political will exists is another question.

As LRASM can be launched from Mk 41 and, as far as I'm aware, HIMARS integration is also being explored, the missiles may have utility in future RNZN and RNZA acquisitions, depending on platforms/systems selected. Having common munitions across NZDF would be logical from a financial as well as an operational perspective.

This is a good solution, but it's far too logical for NZ pollies they don't/won't have the will and an excuse will be we can't afford any large expensive platform/weapons!!
So will just "kick the can yet again!!!"

 

[Rob c]

My personal view is what is the plan to defend NZ and then what do we need to assist in regional defence, in particular the south Pacific. What the particular weapons and equipment is required is the next step after that, but what is the plan.
The area we first need to deal with is how do we keep our personnel in the services so that we can maintain a good level of expertise and knowledge. Also by keeping personnel in service you reduce your recruitment problems and your training costs. Having the right number and quality of personnel is critical to having an effective defence force and over the last decade and more the government has failed in this area.

 

[John Fedup]

My personal view is what is the plan to defend NZ and then what do we need to assist in regional defence, in particular the south Pacific. What the particular weapons and equipment is required is the next step after that, but what is the plan.
The area we first need to deal with is how do we keep our personnel in the services so that we can maintain a good level of expertise and knowledge. Also by keeping personnel in service you reduce your recruitment problems and your training costs. Having the right number and quality of personnel is critical to having an effective defence force and over the last decade and more the government has failed in this area.

The plan, should be new kit, better pay, and way better accommodation resources. Just like in my country, this isn’t the plan.

 

[recce.k1]

Rob: in agreement with you that a nation must at the very least be able to defend its own territory (after all that's the history of mankind and civilizations) plus the rest of your commentary. The only variation I would add is I do think though that we must also have certain useful capabilities that can forward-deploy as part of the baseline. Like how we forward deployed the Services into the SW Pacific in WW2 (including maritime patrol to keep a lookout of our approaches).

Granted, it was a contribution to the allied effort (i.e. Australia and the Admiralty etc) and particularly when the US joined the Pacific war and "island-hopped" their way through Polynesia/NZ into Melanesia and Micronesia then beyond (and ditto from the Australian mainland into New Guinea and beyond, plus with the USN projecting across the oceans etc. Today (in this part of the Pacific region), although the same issues of distance and logistics are applicable, the difference is the US is well established (and resourced) at the likes of Guam and increasing its presence in Australia.

So to keep things short my point is, whilst NZ can (somewhat) contribute to these US/Aust efforts (such as FFH/AOR/SF/P-8 etc) realistically numbers wise they will be small, I wonder whether from an allied perspective NZ may be better perceived/tasked to expend reasonable efforts by forward-basing assets in "flank" but none-the-less still "important" areas for example Fiji, or New Caledonia (with the French), eastern Polynesia (and the Southern ocean) to monitor surface, underwater and potentially airborne threats (eg long range UAV, perhaps ship launched) to these (wider) allied approaches?

Particulary adversary subs and gray zone vessels. Whilst in wartime civilian/merchant vessels will head to safe ports (or for some, continue to trade carrying critical cargos eg energy, food, resources and warstocks, requiring escorting/protection where practical etc), the reality is there will potentially be hundreds and hundreds of 'adversary" "fishing/cargo" gray zone vessels, some potentially with surface launched airborne survellience (and attack) aerial craft (and how long before adversary subs are fitted out with UAV's, perhaps silo launched to eliminate the need to surface and launch them, if not already?). Allied effort will be neeed to track (and respond) to such vessels. With added complications with these potential adversaries being associated with (under the guise of "trading" with) neutral nations, like in Central/South America for example, and seeking "innocent" passage/protection in those confines.

So whilst trying to avoid "fantasy fleet" type thoughts, suggest we add certain new/refreshed capabiities to enhance the Defence of the Realm strategy. For now that could simply be adding containerised underwater ISR/UUV kit to the OPV's and perhaps forward basing them in Fiji and Raratonga etc (and this may better inform the requirements for their replacements in the 2030's)? Kind of like how the RN forward deploy their River B2's into the Indo-Pacific and with the RAN's Arafura class OPV's being commissioned perhaps it could be part of a wider allied strategy/interoperability plan etc. Or a couple more P-8's that could forward base to Nandi? Or perhaps a few new CN-295 configured for MPA/ASW & ELINT forward basing them in the sub-tropics (thus freeing up the P-8's for allied front-line contributions etc)? I think it isn't unreasonable for us to do a bit more at a practical level (if not a lot better).