NZDF General discussion thread

[Nighthawk.NZ]

See, I dont get this. My country is much poorer than yours and we can maintain a jet wing, and our gdp spent on defense is lower than 1.5%. There are countries pooer than mine who have jetwings.

For a start Bangladesh's GDP is nearly twice the amount of NZ's GDP... poorer in GDP per capita yes. However not in a actual over all cash reserve (depending how it is spent). Also 1.5% defence budget is much higher than our 1%... over all giving you way more money to play with on defence.

Other things to consider is power of said dollar (or in your case BDT) or exchange rate and what you can buy with said dollar.

I wrote an article on this a while back called Budget vs Budget which also takes in other considerations as well.

 

[Hone C]

For a start Bangladesh's GDP is nearly twice the amount of NZ's GDP... poorer in GDP per capita yes. However not in a actual over all cash reserve (depending how it is spent). Also 1.5% defence budget is much higher than our 1%... over all giving you way more money to play with on defence.

Other things to consider is power of said dollar (or in your case BDT) or exchange rate and what you can buy with said dollar.

I wrote an article on this a while back called Budget vs Budget which also takes in other considerations as well.

Comparing budgets is difficult for the reasons you mention, but the fact remains that there are countries with similar populations, nominal GDP, etc., that do maintain balanced force structures.

Allocating 1% of GDP to defence is our choice, and reflects our priorities and values as a nation, not our inability to afford a better resourced defence force.

 

[Rob c]

Remind me again, what sort of Chinese are these?

Jokes aside, if RNZAF wanted to restart their jet wing, realistically how many years would it take? What would be the best most cost effective option?

First order of business wouldbe to get some advanced trainers. Would it make more sense for New Zealand to go to a Korean fa-50, and Kf-21 route? Or a European trainer into Typhoon/Gripen route? Or a more traditional American route with eventual F-16/F-15Ex direction?

To get a fully combat capable ACF will take between 10 to 15 years, due to the need to build up the expertise and command structure as like any profession getting to be at the top of your game takes time. As an example you don't become a top surgeon straight out of medical school.
The way forward would be to start some training in other air forces strike training programs and then transition to service in that air force's aircraft for a limited period. Cheap second hand strike aircraft with contract instructors would follow and when you have sufficient experience you can then start your own training program.
When you have sufficient trained strike instructors, whether your own or contracted. you can then start your own training program'

As for fighters - I have no idea. NZ is a small nation without huge buckets of cash. I'd suggest sticking to maritime patrol/strike with the P-8s personally, as have others.

My problem with the P 8 being the primary maritime strike aircraft is that, we will never have enough of them to take the risk. also they are a high altitude aircraft with a very powerful radar, so any target will know for a long time that missiles are inbound and can organise ECM countermeasures, decoys and anti missile weapon systems in plenty of time.
A strike by strike aircraft is done from below the radar horizon, from multipool directions at the same time giving the target very little warning and a lot of threats to deal with at the same time. this significantly increases the chance of success.

 

[T.C.P]

My problem with the P 8 being the primary maritime strike aircraft is that, we will never have enough of them to take the risk. also they are a high altitude aircraft with a very powerful radar, so any target will know for a long time that missiles are inbound and can organise ECM countermeasures, decoys and anti missile weapon systems in plenty of time.
A strike by strike aircraft is done from below the radar horizon, from multipool directions at the same time giving the target very little warning and a lot of threats to deal with at the same time. this significantly increases the chance of success.

Strike aircraft can also dodge missiles. We have proper proof of Ukrainian fighters maneuvering away from R-37s and Russian fighters dodging Patriots, after being locked on.

Granted that the strike aircrat require sufficient warning to be able to pull this off, but they can pull it off. I cant see how a P-8 is evergoing to be able to dodge a PL-15 even when they have enough warning and time.

 

[T.C.P]

For a start Bangladesh's GDP is nearly twice the amount of NZ's GDP... poorer in GDP per capita yes. However not in a actual over all cash reserve (depending how it is spent). Also 1.5% defence budget is much higher than our 1%... over all giving you way more money to play with on defence.

Other things to consider is power of said dollar (or in your case BDT) or exchange rate and what you can buy with said dollar.

I wrote an article on this a while back called Budget vs Budget which also takes in other considerations as well.

Myamnamar has one fourth of NZ's nominal GDP and has over 50 jet airframes...

Granted that no sane nation should ever cannibalize their budgets for defense like Myanmar does but being able to affford fighters should not be that difficult for NZ.

NewZealand is rich, has great infrastructure and a quality of life that most of the world can only dream of. It would be pathetic if you were not willing to shell out some cash to protect all of that.

No one is suggesting that NZ should spend 50% of it budget on defense. But having 4 modern frigates, a couple more smaller missile ships, one squadron of strike aircraft and maybe 1 or 2 more P-8s is not an unreasonable ask. Espceially for a country as isolated and far away from any other friednly nation like NZ. With the US surrendering its hegemony and proving to be an unreliable partner when certain politcal parties are in charge, NZ electorate should learn from Europe. Otherwise by the time you realize the need for defense it willbe too late.

 

[Xthenaki]

TO MOVE FORWARD - Where do we start?
Countries with defence forces that we can aspire to and have similar sized populations are Denmark, Finland and Norway (Europe) and Singapore (Asia).
Where do we invest first. PERSONNEL - Wages and benefits still need a massive lift to become competitive. We need to bring back experienced ex staff members and train new recruits (its gonna cost). ACCOMODATION upgrades need to continue. EQUIPMENT - We should look at supplying new equipment in batches. We need to order 2 frigates with Aus now. IF the Mogami is chosen they are likely to upgrade as newer versions are released by Japan so the following 2 to be ordered would be upgraded versions or a newer type of vessel. We should join the Aus GP3000 frigate continuous shipbuild program if that evolves. It would provide structure for our future NAVY. Yes it will be expensive but our kit is identical and maintenance is just across "the ditch". More pressing is a min of 5 MH60 MR's to replace the Seasprites. AIR FORCE - 2 more P8;s and LRASM's. a new mid range of GP helos (5 min) between the NH90's and AW109's and finally the B757 replacement. I have not assessed the ARMY although it is as CRITICAL.

When I brought this view up for discussion I was looking at "shoreing up" what we already have and adding SOME of what we need with the ultimate need - the return of the air force strike wing left out pending funding and change of political will. One of the main points here (above) is that our equipment purchases are staggered so that we upgrade continuously rather than one bulk or complete purchase. This costs more up front but reduces the problems that arise when in the case of our present frigates none were available through mid life refit, In other cases air frame upgrades to our P3 and CH130 aircraft cost enormous amounts and I suggest that we should have moved forward to our present aircraft a lot earlier. By purchasing new equipment continuously our defence force is constantly receiving the latest rather than having all of one item kept to achieve its original potential even though its at that stage obsolete.

 

[Gooey]

Prof Anne-Marie is a good kiwi, CCP dissing, chick:

Expert says China's military exercise in Tasman Sea serves as 'serious threat'

Canterbury University's Anne-Marie Brady said New Zealand must boost defence spending to protect the region.

www.rnz.co.nz

Not too sure about her UAV priority, over FFGs and more P-8s, but you can't fault her comments:

She warned New Zealand had to do more to defend itself and the Pacific.

Funneling more money into defence should be top priority after successive governments had "depleted" the force, meaning New Zealand could "barely respond" to China's challenge, Brady said.

 

[recce.k1]

Prof Anne-Marie is a good kiwi, CCP dissing, chick:

Expert says China's military exercise in Tasman Sea serves as 'serious threat'

Canterbury University's Anne-Marie Brady said New Zealand must boost defence spending to protect the region.

www.rnz.co.nz

Not too sure about her UAV priority, over FFGs and more P-8s, but you can't fault her comments:

She warned New Zealand had to do more to defend itself and the Pacific.

Funneling more money into defence should be top priority after successive governments had "depleted" the force, meaning New Zealand could "barely respond" to China's challenge, Brady said.

Yeah she may be a leftie but she is rather hawkish on CCP and puts righties to shame (and for good reason too i.e. personal experiences including CCP interference and intrusions) and yes I also agree with much of what she says.

Particularly putting a Defence presence in the friendly SW Pac islands. It doesn't necessarily need to be large presence for starters (what, a troop or two(?), per location) but add in a couple of helos per location too (maybe something simple/cheap/off the shelf like the AW139 that Hawkeye suggests) to move personnel about the surroundings and to safeguard critical infrastructure (comms, energy, etc) plus fulfilling civilian SAR (fantastic hearts and minds stuff).

Perhaps NZG could also acquire additional Guardian-class patrol boats from Aus and have RNZN operate them side by side with their PI counterparts thus providing enhanced joint support and training?

The beauty of NZDF operating in the SW Pac is that many PI NZ'ers (that were born here and are NZDF personnel) will have an affinity with the locals (their wider families). And boost recruiting opportunities for locals. I would say on the whole most PI people would be very warm to this idea (I say this as someone who is part PI) but I would say to NZG get in sooner rather than later (don't dither).

On an actual/practical level RNZAF is now trialing operating Poseidon aircraft operating out of a second Fijian airport (Nausori International Airport) which presumably suggests NZG is wanting to enhance operations in the region. I think we can learn from the way the UK bases a minimum capability in the likes of the Falkland Islands to maintain (an affordable) presence (which can be reinforced). If I were NZG I'd be acquiring additional P-8A's and forward basing two in Fiji as the regional hub for fast response into Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia. (Oh and with a hanger too to keep them out of satellite view and as protection from drone intrusions from coastal shipping etc).

Still think basing one or two OPV's (with containerised underwater ISR etc) in Fiji would be logical (and if two, the second can forward deploy to the likes of the Cook Islands region (eastern SW Pac) for presence and to keep a watch on CCP efforts around South America (as we did in WW2 when searching for enemy shipping). NZG (and NZ in general) has a very good relationship with Chile so perhaps it is time for ehnanced military co-operation such as joint maritime patrolling etc? The French also have a military presence in both west and east Polynesia (troops, OPV's, aircraft) so also working with them in French Polynesia would be welcomed and politcally it keeps France (and EU) further engaged.

 

[Xthenaki]

I like what you have written here and think it would be a great way moving forward from NOW. It is affordable and enhances our presence and capability with our Pacific neighbours and the ability to better police our EEZ.

 

[recce.k1]

I like what you have written here and think it would be a great way moving forward from NOW. It is affordable and enhances our presence and capability with our Pacific neighbours and the ability to better police our EEZ.

Yes and the beauty is we have done this before (WW2, alongside the US and Australia etc) so there is a precedent! The US had a huge presence in SW Pac in WW2 (but also in New Caledonia, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga especially in the beginning ... whereas "we" tend to think of the island hopping campaigns eg Guadalcanal and so on). But today the US isn't there and we need to step up before non-friendly others attempt to try and fill the vacuum.

 

[seaspear]

This may have been covered previously my apologies if so but has N.Z any involvement in programs like loyal wingman that would accompany aircraft like the Poseidon or other types like the earlier unmanned MQ-9A Reaper which could be armed or Triton for surveillance ,I am aware that the navy is trialing or using surface or underwater drones is there a program to launch aerial drones from ships?

 

[recce.k1]

This may have been covered previously my apologies if so but has N.Z any involvement in programs like loyal wingman that would accompany aircraft like the Poseidon or other types like the earlier unmanned MQ-9A Reaper which could be armed or Triton for surveillance ,I am aware that the navy is trialing or using surface or underwater drones is there a program to launch aerial drones from ships?

AFAIK there hasn't been any public commentary on the likes of Loyal Wingman (although perhaps others here are better informed) and it would be disappointing if that's the trajectory, but can only assume there is some interest by Defence in this space and we can only look to the forthcoming govt defence review to find out what govt intentions are.

There were previously announced govt plans to acquire long range endurance surveillance UAV's from the early 2030's, but wonder if that might be brought forward? Can only assume that NZDF are looking at the ADF's new aquistions to guide their advice to govt etc.

RNZN have now purchased two Blue Bottle USV's from Ocius (after trialing one) for survellience work and have been experimenting with aerial drones from the IPV's from memory, but there is certainly scope to do more and suspect we'll get a clearer picture of their future intentions in the forthcoming defence review.

It's definitely an area NZ's tech sector could become more involved in (eg with govt support) and collaborate with its Australian counterparts where practical and provide a measure of resiliance.

 

[Tasman]

A good starting point, IMO, would be for the NZ government to follow the Australian model of a guaranteed annual increase in defence spending (in real terms after allowing for inflation) for a period of say 10 years. Australia for example can plan ahead knowing that the defence budget will increase each year by 3% in real terms so the ADF can have confidence in their forward planning. This annual increase is currently guaranteed until 2016. On top of that the government may provide supplementary funding for new capabilities that become necessary because of changing circumstances. Examples of this in Australia are the recent FA-18F and C-17 purchases. Following this model would enable the NZDF to plan ahead with confidence and begin a steady, rather than a rushed, expansion and re-equipment program.

Cheers

Just pointing out that this was a very old post which no longer applies in Australia. However I still like the concept.
Tas