NZDF General discussion thread

kiwi in exile

Active Member
New Zealand needs to purchase 2x P-8s ASAP to bring the fleet up to 6, then alongside 6 x Sea Guardians, also LRASMs ,12 x MH-60Rs, 2 x OPVs that are fitted out with a decent weapons/sensor systems eg VLS, MH-60R etc then 4 x Frigates again with VLS including antiship missiles, anti air eg SM series etc etc.
Which gives the navy some offensive punch and more Mass/force when needed!!!
The RNZAF needs 3 x C-130J, 16 x T6's some for training x 4, most used for light strike, COIN Sqn which at least gives an option we don't have!! also replace the plastic NH-90s with 18-20 of the latest MH-60s able to then do more tasks than currently!! 9 x AW109x as training/light rotary transport for a total of 14 airframes.
The army needs a 3rd RF batt, replace light 105 arty with the Archer system far more mobile, longer ranged, then Anti Air/drone systems ASAP, More anti armour kit, then look at replacing the LAV III's with what Oz has bought!!
Update comms gear, increase Support units size add 2000 pers to the army give it some actual mass!! to be able fight well!!
Sort out thehousing/wages ASAP
This would be a very good start in the next 2-5 years.
If new equipment such as the above was purchased they may find recruitment might be a bit easier due to modern gear/not looking like run down broken force(with an actual lack of force!!)
You forgot the kiwis shooting anti air lasers from their eyes. The could be developed locally for a boost to the economy and tech industry. They could tie in with. a DoC breeding program- NZDF is always touting its ability to work with other govt agencies.
And it would be a PR win and hit with the kids that may boost recruitment in the long run. ;)
 

kiwi in exile

Active Member
TBH I am rather skeptical that the Penguin Mk 2 provides an OTH capability, at least from the launching platform. IIRC the range of a Mk 2 is ~34 km though I cannot recall at what altitude the launching platform is, to be able to reach out 30+ km. It is distinctly possible that a launching helicopter, flying below the radar horizon of a potential target ship, might need to get much closer than 34 km in order to hit it with a Penguin.

It is also my understanding that the Penguin has been integrated for launch from various models of the S-70/SH-60 Seahawk. Of potentially greater value is a helicopter-launched version of the NSM which would certainly be considered a standoff, OTH AShM.
https://defence-blog.com/raytheon-a...mh-60-romeo-armed-with-naval-strike-missiles/
This was from 2019, not sure how far it got. I'm guessing if it was a goer we would have seen more by now.

NZDF video of penguin launch. Short and limited detail.
 
Last edited:

kiwi in exile

Active Member
To what end? In what skies are you envisaging NZ combat aircraft will engage in air to air combat and with whom?

As an aircraft owning pilot with many thousands of hours in a wide variety of aircraft, including aerobatics and air shows, the emotive gung-ho appeal of fighters is attractive, but then so was my ex-wife, and look at what a wasted effort that was.
I have long thought that this was a huge unacknowledged part of the argument for restating the ACF on this blog.
If we were going down a fast air route I would go loyal wingman paitred with P8s. More economic and expendable. But sadly no Topgun fantasy
 

Hawkeye69

Member
The World changed again yesterday with the train wreck gathering in the Oval Office in the White House.
Two sides to that event, one Trump and Vance are bullies, not at all statesman like, Zelenskyy played the wrong card, he took the bait and bit back, he should have pumped up Trumps ego instead but that’s all history now, I still see some deal getting done as the US are desperate for those minerals.
To be clear it was President George W Bush who want Ukraine to become a member state of NATO and that’s a few Presidents ago now, it cannot be blamed on any Democratic President.

European Countries have now clearly seen the US position and its unstable at best, Europe needs its own defence alliance in this very different World, one without the US.

What is likely to happen is defence spending in Europe will increase and European countries will strive to be in a better position to be able to defend Europe from any aggressio.

For little NZ at the bottom of the South Pacific what it will mean is defence equipment which is notoriously expensive will only get more expensive with the pressures on supply and demand chains, and platform deliveries will get pushed out further.
In terms of defence spending 2% of GDP will really be like the current 1% of GDP, to get ahead of the game a minimum of 3% of GDP would be more realistic but highly unlikely in the current economic climate.

The next pressure points are the NZDF personnel and recruitment issues, every military in the World are struggling to retain and recruit personnel so you can have the platforms and equipment but without the people to operate them nothing happens. How do we overcome the critical part to personnel struggles, is compulsory military service needed or some form of drafting, unfortunately most young people don’t see the military no matter what the pay or benefits been their career of choice.

In this World right now any defence acquisitions are going to take considerable time to get and highly likely costing substantially more, I would like to see the Government get the navy to the point they have both frigates available and both OPV’s back in service and to explore a 3rd frigate second hand as a stop gap measure so we can have at least 2x frigates available at any one time.

A small fleet of Sea Guardian drones would be an acquisition that should be a priority to support the work of the P-8’s.

Time will tell how things play out but the World is without doubt extremely unstable at present.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Tying in critical minerals within NZ's realm; with great power competiition to dominate the supply of strategic resources for civilian and military development; with security challenges to our part of the world; with uncertainty in the global order; isolation or alliances; NZ deepening its defence and space ties with the US; the need to be interoperable with Australia; focusing on growing security ties with other like-minded friends in Asia (new agreements with Japan and the Philippines, as well as building on existing defence ties with Singapore, Malaysia, and South Korea) ...

DefMin Collins is quoted as saying "more defence spending on hardware and personnel, and not just drones, but the naval fleet" and the need for "rebuilding our own Defence Force, so we've got more to add into our alliance".

Will the rhetoric stack up? Defence Capability Plan to be released at the end of March.


 

Catalina

Active Member
Except Kiwi P-8s are not fully armed we don't have any anti ship missles at all!! (well only the penguin, but that is too stort ranged!!) that should be one of the first items procured ASAP!! to give the RNZAF some offensive capability!!
Yes, we hear and agree with you JBC388 :)
 

Catalina

Active Member
I would not envisage air to air combat if it could be avoided except for against long range aircraft such as military transports which could initiate an airborne invasion of NZ if we don't have an air combat ability.

Not in our case as the aircraft simply become ways of delivering the weapons, you will note that the F15 and F16 are still in production having entered service in the 1970's the weapons themselves are what do not stand the test of time.

As a small nation we will never have the capacity to cover this hole region, what is this fixation on air to air combat?

That is the very point, as first of all you need to defend NZ as your first priority and if you can deny access locally this is achievable.

The limited number of naval units we could ever deploy will never have a great influence over such a vast area as the abilities are very localised in a small area around the ship it self and the ship can only change its area of operation in a relatively slow pace, meaning that it will inevitably be at the wrong place at the wrong time to provide effective area defence for NZ.

How $ frigates is going to achieve all this and have any chance of surviving is beyond me, Maybe a full size US carrier strike group would be capable. For instance protecting Ohakea which is a significant distance from the coast and the frigate would have to stand a significant distance of shore, plus the need to rotate the frigates for reprovisioning, maintenance and resting the crew would take up all 4 frigates and probably be ineffective due to distance. this would leave none for any other tasks. Modern frigates can be very capable and I think 4 is a good idea however they are a small bubble of capability in a vast ocean.
As I have said before our first priority is to defend NZ, this is what any countries first priority is for their defence force.
In a time of conflict any strike force we had should be dispersed out of Ohakea as the Sweden does with its air force as Ohakea is an an obvious target. they even use straight roads etc to achieve this leaving the enemy with to many possible targets to attack all. Unfortunately this is not possible with the P8 as the only runways suitable for it are Auckland and Christchurch international and to a lesser extent Ohakea which due to the cancelled runway extension is not long enough for max weigh operations this would make them very vulnerable to being taken out in the absence of a ACF.
If you leave a weakness for your enemy to exploit, they will do so, and leaving the country open to airborne invasion is doing just that as all they need to do is take over an airfield and they can fly in what they want in numbers that we could not stand against.
Hi Rob. Thank you for your interest in this subject. Let me go through your points one by one.

I would not envisage air to air combat if it could be avoided except for against long range aircraft such as military transports which could initiate an airborne invasion of NZ if we don't have an air combat ability.

As shown in Russia's failed invasion of Ukraine, ground troops based at airports can defeat military transports attempting an airborne invasion. Likewise Combat Frigates on guard near Auckland or Wellington airport can likewise easily take out lumbering military transports. Training up an entire Air Combat Force on the off chance of having to shoot down invading air transports is a huge expense for little realistic use.

aircraft simply become ways of delivering the weapons, you will note that the F15 and F16 are still in production having entered service in the 1970's the weapons themselves are what do not stand the test of time.
I agree with you that the platform is not what is important it is the weapon system. If you are concerned about enemy transports bringing in airborne troops can our P8s be fitted with air to air weapons?

As a small nation we will never have the capacity to cover this hole region, what is this fixation on air to air combat?
That was my point before, I don't have a fixation on air to air combat, I was responding to T.C.P.'s 1st March post on Ireland building a fighter wing from scratch. My view is that a fighter wing is not needed and that money should be spent on combat frigates. I'd add that four modern combat frigates (Mogami class?), with helicopters and drones, supported by P-8s are flexible enough to cover wherever we need in the Realm of New Zealand, but a fighter wing would be so short ranged and tied to an airbase as to present a huge vulnerability and liability.

The limited number of naval units we could ever deploy will never have a great influence over such a vast area as the abilities are very localised in a small area around the ship it self and the ship can only change its area of operation in a relatively slow pace, meaning that it will inevitably be at the wrong place at the wrong time to provide effective area defence for NZ.

20 knots over 24 hours is some 500nm of flexibility. A frigate off shore of the North Island could protect Auckland, Ohakea, or Wellington as required. Enemy ships, tracked by satellite, or our P-8s, allow our navy to intercept or reposition to block as required. They are moving at the same speed as our ships, and when defensive we have the interior lanes of communication to move on, allowing for us to optimize positioning.

Modern frigates can be very capable and I think 4 is a good idea...
Yes we are in agreement here. Navy more, frigates four.

...however they are a small bubble of capability in a vast ocean.
In this I'd beg to disagree drones now provide warships with a huge ISR bubble around them. For example a drone with a hundred nm radius can provide an intelligence bubble of 31,500 square nm square bubble around the warship, a 200nm radius drone a 125,000 square nm bubble.

all they need to do is take over an airfield and they can fly in what they want in numbers that we could not stand against.
If this is the concern, its not gambling on hugely expensive fighters intercepting transports that defeats an airborne invasion, its garrisoned airfields with ground troops that as in Ukraine, slaughter arriving airborne troops...
 
Last edited:

Nighthawk.NZ

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately I do not believe that at this point Penguin will provide the RNZN with a significant capability given the missile's distinct range limitations as well as the limited number of missiles which could be launched at one time.
Neither do I. I agree we do need a long range anti ship missile of some description. whilst still keeping the penguin for lighter targets...
 

Nighthawk.NZ

Well-Known Member
I agree with you that the platform is not what is important it is the weapon system. If you are concerned about enemy transports bringing in airborne troops can our P8s be fitted with air to air weapons?
Yes our P-8a's are fitted for... and could carry all weapons that were available for the current P-8s of the USAF could carry and that was including Harpoon.
 

Hone C

Active Member
As shown in Russia's failed invasion of Ukraine, ground troops based at airports can defeat military transports attempting an airborne invasion.
The airborne invasion type scenario is extremely low probability. I personally think disruption to our sea, air, and electronic lines of communication is a far greater threat, especially given our almost complete reliance on external suppliers for everything from fuel to fertiliser. This is one of the key reasons I believe more P-8's and frigates should be the priority.

That being said, I don't think relying solely on ground troops or naval vessels to defend airfields against air assault is feasible. It would require a massive expansion of the Army, and fix valuable and limited assets and units in place, handing the initiative to the attacking force. A GBAD network or ACF would be a more logical counter to such a threat.

In the example you cite, the 4th Rapid Reaction Brigade defended Hostomel with around 200 soldiers in prepared defensive positions, with armour, artillery, AAA and MANPADS. It was still forced from the airfield by a similar number of Russian airborne forces. Ukrainian artillery and airstrikes denied the use of the airfield, before a mechanised counterattack backed by artillery and close air support recaptured it.
 

downunderblue

Active Member
She really is the Paul Keating of NZ politics. The gift that keeps gifting ... Article here.

Helen Clark said the country should focus more on diplomatic and humanitarian engagement with Pacific nations rather than putting that money towards defence capability, given New Zealand’s military forces would always be “minuscule, and not frighten off anyone".
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
20 knots over 24 hours is some 500nm of flexibility. A frigate off shore of the North Island could protect Auckland, Ohakea, or Wellington as required. Enemy ships, tracked by satellite, or our P-8s, allow our navy to intercept or reposition to block as required. They are moving at the same speed as our ships, and when defensive we have the interior lanes of communication to move on, allowing for us to optimize positioning.
The simple reality is that with 4 frigates, there will be at least 1 in maintenance or refit laving 3 using them to defend shore installations is very wasteful and something they would not be good at. Firstly Ohakea is a significant distance inland and behind low hills meaning a low level attack from the north or east by low level missiles or planes would not even be detected by a frigate.
Wellington is also a problem in that if the frigate is in the harbour an attack can come from outside and if the frigate is outside it can come down the Hutt valley always shielded by the hills, Chch is to far inland and Auckland also has a large number of hills and ranges to provide shielding.
Also the distance covered by a frigate in a day can be covered by a jet aircraft in an hour.
As shown in Russia's failed invasion of Ukraine, ground troops based at airports can defeat military transports attempting an airborne invasion. Likewise Combat Frigates on guard near Auckland or Wellington airport can likewise easily take out lumbering military transports. Training up an entire Air Combat Force on the off chance of having to shoot down invading air transports is a huge expense for little realistic use.
The Army we have is simply to small to guard all vital infrastructure. So you need to keep your enemy at a distance. This is where an AFC ticks most boxes as it can move quickly to do this with the ability to deal with both air and sea threats quickly and can switch from mode to another and deal with multi threats that come from different directions . I would point out something you may not b aware of back in the 1990's in an exercise off Singapore 75 sqd was tasked with attacking a USN nuke carrier with skyhawks and they were successful in getting into missile launch range (20km for the missiles they had at the time) They were deemed to have been shot down afterwards.
The point you miss is that an ACF provides a significant deterrent factor and can cover all the approaches to NZ in a timely manner which a frigate cannot. You don't want to have to fight around close to NZ if you don't have to, with the prospect of significant casualties. For instance in the defence of Kyiv airport Ukraine reported 200 dead, the wounded were never reported but usually this is 3 times the dead, This would destroy one of our 2 under strength infantry battalions.
In this I'd beg to disagree drones now provide warships with a huge ISR bubble around them. For example a drone with a hundred nm radius can provide an intelligence bubble of 31,500 square nm square bubble around the warship, a 200nm radius drone a 125,000 square nm bubble.
These figures do sound impressive. But drones are not very fast and the are not everywhere at the same time so the practical coverage is significantly less, if they are out in one direction then the other directions are not covered. So the realty is that the coverage is only what the drone and ship can detect and respond to at that particular time.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Neither do I. I agree we do need a long range anti ship missile of some description. whilst still keeping the penguin for lighter targets...
From my perspective, Penguin as an AShM was possibly useful back in the day, keeping in mind that this missile first entered service back in 1972, but in potential combat scenarios today, is either overkill or outranged.

A 120 kg warhead aboard an AShM is really designed to damage, cripple or kill a ship. The similarly aged Harpoon AShM, with a range of ~130 km and a 221 kg warhead for instance, would primarily be used as an anti-shipping weapon, and not against smallcraft.

If one looks at some of the more recent missiles being developed for launch from naval helicopters (Sea Venom, various Hellfire variants, etc.) one should notice that these missiles are individually much smaller/lighter, with shorter ranges and smaller warheads. The 30 kg warhead of a Sea Venom, absent a lucky hit, is unlikely to inflict significant damage to a frigate or destroyer, and that is even assuming that the missile manages to hit as opposed to the engaging helicopter getting shot down first. OTOH that same 30 kg warhead, detonating on a FAC or possibly even a patrol boat, is going to have significant effect. At the same time, the launching helicopter will likely be able to carry and launch several such small missiles, and therefore be better able to engage FAC swarms.

I would therefore suggest the NZ not put too much more resources into the Penguin, but rather consider what combinations of replacement missiles/ordnance and launching platforms will or should enter Kiwi service.

We should all recognize that the Seasprites are going to need replacing, and what that selection ends up being will likely drive some of what the future munitions options will be.

At the same time, both the RNZN and RNZAF really need to start examining what options are available for air- and ship-launched AShM and/or dual-use AShM/LACM.
 
Last edited:

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Helen Clark said ... given New Zealand’s military forces would always be “minuscule, and not frighten off anyone".
She rolled out the same "mis-truths" when she cancelled the F-16 deal back in the day ... something along the lines of NZ operating F-16's won't deter the likes of China so why bother etc. She of course conveniently sweeps under the carpet something called Collective Defence ....

DefMin Collins put Ms Clark in her place yesterday regarding her Five Eyes comments:
Being a member of Five Eyes is an incredible advantage to New Zealand, particularly so in a world where cybersecurity is a part of every business, every government agency as well as critical for our own physical security and infrastructure. Cybersecurity is now one of the big issues that every business & every government agency needs to be across. 5 Eyes gives us a competitive advantage both business & defence wise.
Heard the PM on radio news dismissing her commentary as being some 20 years out of date (i.e. when she was last in Office when she declared we lived in a "benign strategic environment") and when cyber security ... might have been the likes of McAfee antivirus being installed by Joe Public via 1.44MB floppy disks or those new fangled CD-Roms!

In other news that is more relevant to the world we live in nowadays, additional suggestions to increase defence diplomacy efforts and for NZ to be generating an appropriate defence industrial base.

 

Bevan

New Member
Part of Helen Clark's legacy is her misguided and ignorant declaration of benign strategic environments without being able to consider that world politics are not static, our trade relationships were global, a sternly worded letter or frowny face has less value than a 3rd or 4th frigate and - shock horror - security situations change. All she is doing is trying to protect her legacy.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Part of Helen Clark's legacy is her misguided and ignorant declaration of benign strategic environments without being able to consider that world politics are not static, our trade relationships were global, a sternly worded letter or frowny face has less value than a 3rd or 4th frigate and - shock horror - security situations change. All she is doing is trying to protect her legacy.
TBH I remain skeptical that her past and present statements were/are misguided or ignorant. Instead, I have had the impression for years that she has actively disliked armed forces and sought political power in NZ to essentially neutralize what is now the NZDF, with past and present statements made more to convince others to go along with her goals. In essence, she did not want NZ to be able to protect itself, apart from perhaps getting involved in international policing/peacekeeping ops under the UN, and made arguments to justify changes she wanted to refashion the NZDF into something more to her liking.
 
Top