John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Agree, but like Canada, perhaps to a slightly less extent, it is the electorate that is the problem IMHO, especially in the absence of a significant number of pollies expressing concerns about defence eroding policy.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Catalina
Member
Public Opinion is an influential factor in the minds of politicians.
Are there any prominent groups that advocate increased defence spending to the electorate?
While public opinion does influence politicians, it is the media and politicians that that influence public opinion and by making defence a not debated subject in NZ, the politicians here have controlled both the public and the media.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Can't speak for NZ but one would think defence companies, and we do have some viable Canadian companies in this sector. They don't promote themselves and their importance very well. American subsidiary defence companies are low-key as well, only promoting their job and economic contributions. Neither stress their essential purpose, defending the country. In Canada we have some reasonably informed journalists who report on defence but publications keep them on the back pages for the most part.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I suggest then, based on your comment, the media is failing. I guess they are like pollies, defence issues don't help their interests (electoral success and making money respectively). Pretty much the same here.
Our media is notably left wing ( a recent poll confirmed this) very PC and Woke.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The perfect description of our taxpayer funded CBC.
Catalina
Member
Rather than the media or defence companies, I was thinking more along the lines of any defence advocacy groups, such as the Environmental Defence Society, which 'advocates, litigates and brings people together for the environment.'
Is there a similar civil group that advocated for increased defence spending?
Last edited:
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
I see the finally were able to fire the Penguin anti-ship guided missile from the seasprite...
Whiplash34
Member
Very happy to see this actually in action.
I know that there will be reasons but it always mystifies me - undisclosed number of AGM-119 Penguin purchased in 2013….first launch 2025……
I’m sure it took a couple of years to receive the first stock……but 12 years until you ‘send it’
I know that there will be reasons but it always mystifies me - undisclosed number of AGM-119 Penguin purchased in 2013….first launch 2025……
I’m sure it took a couple of years to receive the first stock……but 12 years until you ‘send it’
IT will be the good old "too expensive to use"!!
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
They were suppose to do a live firing at a RimPac SinkEx a while back but some odd reason didn't...
Bluey 006
Active Member
Given the events of the last 72 hours, one would have to think that fitting NZ Navy ANZAC class frigates with anti-ship missiles (probably the NSM) would need to be a priority in the short term. Beyond that NZDF capability will need an overhaul.
Reality is though, even if both the Te Kaha and the Te Mana engaged they would likely have little chance against a Type 055 and Type 054A, let alone a larger flotilla sometime in the future. Food for thought.
Reality is though, even if both the Te Kaha and the Te Mana engaged they would likely have little chance against a Type 055 and Type 054A, let alone a larger flotilla sometime in the future. Food for thought.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Perhaps a couple of SSKs are in order.
The Kiwi ANZACs look woefully inadequate against anything the Chinese are likely to send into this region. Essentually in a proper shooting war you couldn't send these ships into harms way. Obvious thing would be to team up with Australia with the GPF. New helos, extra P-8s and a stockpile of anti-ship missiles wouldn't go astray either.
This was looked at, from memory in the 80's, but not instead of FFGs and ACF (that ship has obviously sailed!).
Catalina
Member
Yes when simulated in Command Modern Operations the Kiwi Frigates can take out the Communist Type 054A frigate with ease, but are overwhelmed by the Communist Type 055 cruiser. Interestingly though the shorter the range the better the chance for the Kiwi warships to slip a leaker and tag the 055. As shown in the Battle of the River Plate, the act of damaging an enemy raider operating at distance from the repair facilities can be thought of as a mission kill and remove the superior warship as a theater threat.
The 14th April 2022 Moskva sinking likewise shows that even a couple missiles can eliminate a flagship that has poorly trained crew and defective/non fully operational defences. Naval warfare is completely unlike land warfare and a few of seconds superior reactions, lapses in defences, or inspired command can create massively outside changed of fortune.
Last edited:
Catalina
Member
I would dispute that. One of our combat frigates, even in their current peace time set up, can easily defeat two of the three ships in Communist Task Force 107. True the Type 055 is a much harder nut to crack, just as the Achilles alone against Graf Spee would have been, but against any Communist Chinese warships of similar or lower displacement our ANZAC class combat frigates can more than hold their own. The blip enhancers of our Sea Sprite helicopters for example is a technology the Communist Chinese are not fielding and that provides our surface warfare operators tactical options our enemy lacks.
Rather than passively give up, work out the riddle, and if you can't currently crush the enemy, complicate and confuse their plans through imaginative and courageous team work - this is after all what provided our greatest naval victory in waters not too far from our current cold war conflict with the Communists.
There is a terrible defeatist spirit in the New Zealand psyche that is almost a betrayal of our grandparents generation.
Last edited:
Catalina
Member
Yes exactly.
One Collins Class submarine operating in the Tasman Sea completely swings the odds against Communist Chinese Task Group 107.
The PLAN has a glaring weakness in ASW and operating in our neighborhood at the periphery of their empire they could not bring the air assets in that are required to prosecute a New Zealand sub surface threat.
Just the existence of New Zealand submarines completely changes their required force composition and massively complicates their plans, creating shadows of doubt and concern in the minds of our Communist enemies.
The memory of the General Belgrano casts a long shadow upon the minds of surface commanders.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Not really. Australia has struggled to manage and sustain a force of six subs, with a significantly larger defence budget as well as potential pool of personnel to draw from. In order for the RNZN to manage to have a single sub either available for or on a deployment somewhere, then NZ would likely need a minimum of three and IMO more likely four subs in order to manage that. The RNZN would also likely have problems managing to sustain an adequate number of personnel to actually crew that few boats (a problem the RAN has encountered trying to sustain ops for six boats).
If essentially all the NZDF resources were directed to subs, then NZ might be able to manage it, but such a force structure distortion would play havoc with everything else that the NZDF needs or might need to do.
Subs are great ISR and anti-shipping assets and depending on design and armament configuration can also be great platforms to launch strikes. However they are useless at protecting surface shipping from aerial threats and likely would not even be aware of when merchant shipping might be threatened by many of the potential dangers to shipping. They also cannot replicate any of the capabilities provided by elements of the RNZAF or NZ Army.
If (big IF) Vote Defence does get sustained funding increases in real terms, there are a number of areas where more and sustained funding could be put to use. Unfort establishing a Kiwi sub force is not such an area because there are too many other areas which would need coverage first.