NZDF General discussion thread

[Aerojoe]

Hypothetically of course ... if an ACF was re-established I think opposition to it would be muted in light of the recent PLA(N) deployment, because that deployment won't be the last one in our region. So it would have populist support and the Opposition can bark away but it will have little impact at the end of the day.

As for the cost ... perhaps lease the aircraft (like we intended to do with the F-16's originally). Hence why some advocate for utilising second-hand aircraft for the initial training and learning period. No CapEx, no depreciation and no capital charge! Sure the long term goal would be to buy something advanced and fit-for-purpose.

Another option could be simply leasing or purchasing a training/light combat type like the FA-50 or M-346 (something proven and in service). But again in light of the recent PLA(N) deployment it might now be regarded as not good enough (or survivable enough) ... but there would still be a need for a LIFT type anyway.

LIFT and/or leasing a combat type should be achieveable within an "up to" 2% gdp budget.

The biggest problem may be getting enough pilots in those intitial first few years, either new or existing transferring from other types, creating gaps in the other operational squadrons. But perhaps that could be alleviated by enticing experienced pilots back to fill those operational gaps?

Training could be provided by external providers and their knowledge would be invaluble.

Look I know, this could be "fantasy" and I appreciate the alternative points other people have made here recently that it could wiser to simply invest further in existing platforms (and with supplementary unmanned capabilities). I don't think there are right or wrong views, it is always good to read other people's thoughts and especially when they take the time to put a lot of thought into it.

Another area to explore, I think Aussie Digger brought it up last year or so, was whether to acquire EW/emission killing capabilities (like Growler or another type). Then perhaps let that complement the P-8's which could carry the ship-killing muntions. If so, fantasy or a practical and affordable alternative to take the fight to (i.e. deter) a powerful adversary operating in our region?

I think the statement that there would be little public opposition is rather optimistic. If you asked the people of Dunedin whether they would prefer to reestablish a ACF or have the public hospital they believe they are entitled to, I think the answer is predictable and fairly obvious. If you were to ask the general public on Queen St, which do you think is a better investment for NZ - another couple of P8 (and the modest increase in personnel) plus missiles, or a new ACF with significant increase in personnel, training and maintenance costs - I'd be happy to bet my house on the answer.

 

[Xthenaki]

I share your empathy for the people of Dunedin and the whole southern area with their need for a decent public hospital. But what is being talked about here is the need to have an effective defence force to assist in defending our sovereign nation. While both Health and Defence are absolutely in need of additional funding we have to look at the most effective way we use additional defence spending because the increase to around 2 pc of GDP that the govt is mooting will still be insufficient in the short term. Wanton waste spending by Western governments seems to be the order of the day especially has been in NZ.

 

[Aerojoe]

I share your empathy for the people of Dunedin and the whole southern area with their need for a decent public hospital. But what is being talked about here is the need to have an effective defence force to assist in defending our sovereign nation. While both Health and Defence are absolutely in need of additional funding we have to look at the most effective way we use additional defence spending because the increase to around 2 pc of GDP that the govt is mooting will still be insufficient in the short term. Wanton waste spending by Western governments seems to be the order of the day especially has been in NZ.

I'm not denying the need to lift defence spending - I spent too long in Canberra and Washington at the sharp end of criticism from our 'friends' to be so naive to think the status quo is alright. What I'm questioning is the statement that re-establishing an ACF won't face significant push back in the electorate.
As much as I may wish that the Clarke government hadn't cancelled the F16 and fantasise about an RNZAF with a modern ACF it is simply that - fantasy. The rationalist that I am accepts that even with a 2% of GDP spend (which is not a slam dunk in the electorate regardless of what this forum may think) there will still be internal trade-offs. For politicians presenting to the NZ electorate, foregoing (in the minds of most NZers it's not a sacrifice as it doesn't exist) an ACF is easy if the alternate is better conditions of service and better personnel retention, more P8's, more capable naval force (including a southern ocean capability) or any number of defence items that can be spun as improving defence and capabilities like HADR. As much as we may all hate it, ACF is likely seen in the electorate as an expensive luxury. Even between the services I imagine there is debate about the real need for ACF.

 

[Xthenaki]

Fair comment. Your alternative is a Defence priority and has to be addressed now. The ACF reinstatement will always be subject to robust debate and will only be an option when it is given majority support and adequate funding. The naval replacements will take time to evolve and hopefully that will be explained on release of the upcoming defence review.

 

[Rob c]

I think the statement that there would be little public opposition is rather optimistic. If you asked the people of Dunedin whether they would prefer to reestablish a ACF or have the public hospital they believe they are entitled to, I think the answer is predictable and fairly obvious.

This would not be the way, Actually most defence capital funding is done by loans or paid off incrementally. A poll conducted 3 or 4 years back ask should we have an AFC and it got a positive over 70% yes. The point in question is, do you want to defend NZ or just paper over the cracks? If it is paper over the cracks then don't go for an ACF, which I suspect is were the government will go. An ACF is the logical choice if you really want to defend NZ as it gives the necessary quick all around coverage of both sea and air and has a significant deterrent effect.

 

[jbc388]

The upcoming defence capibility review will most likely just "paper over the cracks", leaving the major issues unanswered!! I am really hoping that this government has had it's a@#$ kicked by the Chinese ships and probable sub!! in the last 2 weeks being so close to NZ. will result in some well thought out answers to the major problems/issues the NZDF have!!
2 x Frigates just can't cope having to in multiple places at once!!
4 x P-8's again too few in number!! plus not even usefull in the anti surface warfare side of things with no antiship missiles!!

 

[recce.k1]

I think the statement that there would be little public opposition is rather optimistic.

In this day and age I still stand by my belief. And you still stand by your belief. Which is great, it makes for good debate, so let's agree to disagree.

If you asked the people of Dunedin whether they would prefer to reestablish a ACF or have the public hospital they believe they are entitled to, I think the answer is predictable and fairly obvious.

You may very well be right. But it's also a red-herring, one can grab example X and compare with example Y and never the twain shall meet. At the end of the day the GOTD spent $180b during the last financial year so there are no shortage of funds for many important things that Kiwi's require. The cost of the Dunedin hospital rebuild project is currently $1.88b so it's a happening thing.

Vote Health is $30b, Vote Education is $20b, whereas Vote Defence is $5b or 10% of Health and Education. Yes everyone wants more/needs more, absolutely. But defence funding settings were designed to increase when there is a need, that's the 1980's/90's "neo-liberal" reforms in action for better or worse, it also meant when where there wasn't a need then defence funding was reduced, well it's pay back time for defence now according to the system architecture. So how best to invest, is the question. DCP will provide some answers.

If you were to ask the general public on Queen St, which do you think is a better investment for NZ - another couple of P8 (and the modest increase in personnel) plus missiles, or a new ACF with significant increase in personnel, training and maintenance costs - I'd be happy to bet my house on the answer.

I'll wager a bet that next to no-one (ok maybe one or two) would know what a P-8 was! All kidding aside I understand what you are saying and I am in agreement. The first priority is to improve what one has now, before moving on to other "nice-to-haves".

 

[recce.k1]

Fair comment. Your alternative is a Defence priority and has to be addressed now. The ACF reinstatement will always be subject to robust debate and will only be an option when it is given majority support and adequate funding. The naval replacements will take time to evolve and hopefully that will be explained on release of the upcoming defence review.

Fully agree. What little we do know (DCP wise) is that the Govt has signaled that the replacement of the RNZN Fleet (except the AOR) is being planned.

But you have noted the key point that "naval replacements will take time to evolve". Can we wait until the mid-2030's to have two combatants and non-milspec OPV's replaced? Judging by events in the Tasman Sea recently surely the answer is "no we can't" but realsitically we will have to. Presumably then we can expect to see some further improvements for the Frigates and OPV's but will they be enough and what about the issue of "mass" in the meantime? What happens when an ANZAC is deployed into the Indo-Pac region and an "unfriendly" task -force decides to make an appearance? Or two task-forces? Or three?

Wonder if there is a "Plan B" to acquire additional patrol or combat capabilities as soon as possible i.e. before 2030 (which also gives time for personnel recruitment and training)? But it is known that it will be difficult to obtain new builds before then (if next to impossible from Australia, the UK or potentially Japan). But maybe Germany or Spain? If so that would likely mean zero interoperability wih the RAN and USN.

The only vessels that are potentially available now (i.e. perhaps as an interim solution until 2030-2035) are a 3-letter obscenity to anyone else on this forum. Apparently some are available (to Greece anyway) for US$50m ea but will require additional $Xm (??) ea spent to repair existing propulsion system issues. Just what the $Xm amount is I'm not sure. But hypothetically would they make adequate additional (slightly lower tier) capability for sea-lane protection and for shadowing "unfriendlies" projecting themselves into the South Pacific? As opposed to getting into a fight I mean. And at least interoperability won't be an issue. Might not be practical or a wise investment but just a thought, because what else is?

So we seem to be back in a pre-WW2 scenario in which time is running out (or actually has run out) to expand the navy (within the next 5 years anyway).

So if above was "Plan B", is there a "Plan C" i.e. additional P-8's and/or ACF? With Australia and NZ now facing being challenged in its "backyard" is it time to re-invent the solution that was used in the lead up to WW2 to provide a supplementary air/maritime presence and response? It could be possible to achieve IOC within 5 years (granted as the experts here say, we'll need at least 10 years for FOC).

We cannot forget the Army in all of this (it's the one service we discuss very little about here) and will presumably remain key in Govt planning (as boots on the ground is always needed). So there is the Army structure to consider but in terms to the issue of the PLAN of late, could there be a "Plan D" which would be to acquire air transportable land-based ASuW missile capability? Timing wise it may be the quickest solution and at least keep "unfriendlies" guessing where they could be deployed throughout the region (meaning they would have to avoid numerous chokepoints and potentially restricting their passage options). It would also mean interoperability with our Trans-Tasman neighbours. Land based anti-shipping systems can be by-passed of course (so wouldn't be "the" solution), but it would be another important tool in the toolkit.

 

[Catalina]

Sounds like someone who has never seen artillery in action nor studied it’s effect on the battlefield.

If NZ is going to have any pretence of combat forces able to even approach anything like actual conflict, removing your artillery capability, minimal though it may be, is akin to suicide.

If Ukraine the biggest drone user on the planet currently relies so heavily on artillery to offset it’s numerical disadvantage, how could it possibly be in NZ’s interest to remove it’s sole long range (ish) strike capability and no longer offer fires support to NZ’s miniscule and very light forces?

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/ukraine-crisis-artillery/

The reality is, if you are imagining (let alone preparing) NZ’s Army to actually fight someone else (even just in defence) then you are going to need all the fires you can possibly get your hands on to offset your very small combat force disadvantage.

The reality is, that unless NZ intends to drop even the current pretence their forces are designed to engage in any way at any level of intensity in combat, then you need MORE artillery, not less of it.

Thank you for your thoughts. I understand you believe artillery is useful for NZ, I believe differently and that moving from a specialised artillery unit to a specialized drone warfare unit would be a better use of resources for both peace time and war time operations, and an easier sell to our public.

To support your position, would appreciate your answers to the following questions thank you.

We have a handful of short range towed L119 105mm light artillery pieces.

1. In what battlefield and against what enemy do you envisage NZ will actually use this artillery?

2. Do you imagine this artillery would be used for home defence of the North or South Island against a Chinese invasion? If so what prevents the Chinese from simply destroying our artillery with missile or drone strikes?

3. Do you imagine we will use our artillery in island warfare in the South Pacific? How do we transport our artillery to the islands and keep it supplied and serviced and safe from enemy attacks? In any Pacific Island war scenario enemy naval bombardment, let alone missile and drone strikes, can out range our artillery.

4. Do you imagine we will use our artillery in defence of the Australian a classic land war of attrition? If so, given that these are towed artillery pieces unable to move rapidly by themselves, how do we quickly reposition them to avoid enemy counterbattery fire? The Ukraine War has shown us the critical importance of shoot and scoot.

5. Drones have an incredible dual use ability in both peace time and wartime. Specialized drone squads could be deployed the length of breadth of NZ or in the islands and used in both SAR and HADR missions in peacetime and in a wide variety of tactical situations across the Realm of New Zealand in wartime. In peace time how do light artillery pieces provide our public with any return on their cost?

6. New Zealand can built a flexible peacetime/wartime drone industry specialised to our needs. Do you likewise envisage NZ will build our artillery pieces and ammunition here? If not isn't it better to support drones and build and develop here our won drone industry ourselves.

7. Finally and the most important question, drone teams are light, flexible, and can deploy easily, with a minuscule logistics train - guys with suitcases. The ability of drone teams to jump in any cars, ships or aircraft, and reposition at will gives drone teams a massive flexibility and ability to avoid enemy attack and quickly reposition for attack. How do you envisage on any battlefield in the future our artillery and its logistical train will not be eliminated by the enemy?

Thank you in advance for your answers to these 21st century questions.