New Zealand Army Vehicles

[Aussie Digger]

Further to my last:

I just ducked over to the NZ Ministry of Defence website. NZ has NZ$400-$561mil to spend on their Iroquois and Souix replacement helo's. NH-90 has already been decided upon as the Iroquois replacement, however the Souix training/light utility has not yet been chosen.

However, a submission has been made in July 2005, from NH Industry's in relation to a package to cover ALL NZ's helo needs. The NZ Government is still considering this, with the decision to come out later this year.

However given that the EC-120 is being assembled in Brisbane (as will the NH-90's) I'd say there's a fair chance the EC-120, will get the gig. Other options could include the EC-135 or EC-635 (armed version), if NZ decides to go with the entire EADS package. The EC-135/EC-635 offer 7-8 person passenger carry along with greater performance characteristics.

This version can also be equipped as an "armed recon helicopter" as well, which would be a nice option if NZ wanted to travel down this path at some point in the future. It would also provide a nice supplement to the NH-90's lift capacity, and be suitable for operations where a "light, nimble" helo could be required...

 

[Sea Toby]

If National ever wins an election and another Defence White Paper, I suspect they may order two more frigates, but not Anzacs. While they may still be MEKOS, and built via Tenix in Williamstown, they would be of a newer design. Its my opinion the reason why New Zealand got into such a perdictament of block obsolescence in the first place was purchasing used Leanders in the early 1980s. Tenix would be in a postion to deliver the goods as they are not building Australia's AWDs. Buying in twos 10-15 years apart, is a great route to take to avoid block obsolescence in the long term.

But since New Zealand would have to recruite a larger Navy to man new frigates, and with the priority of National to reinstate the air combat force, I suspect the air combat force would be first priority for any funding. The second priority would be more frigates to beef up the striking force of New Zealand's armed forces. Labour is doing a great job with the army upgrade, so far. Any reinstatement of the air combat force would of course add to defence spending, increasing the percentage of GDP upwards.

The number of NH-90 helicopters will be important. 8 will be the fewest, 10 would be very nice, 11 or 12 would be very great as far as numbers. For some reason I'm not expecting more than 10. Eventually New Zealand will have to purchase new C-130s and P-3s to replace their old fleet of aircraft. After their current updates are completed, I would expect new aircraft to appear on the Long Term Development List before new frigates appear if Labour's still in power.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I'm all for numbers believe me, however NZ has a few other problems than that. What's the point of 14 NH-90's if they're stuck at home all the time? NH-90 is NOT air-transportable inside C-130 Hercules, and the chances of NZ getting C-17's or A400M's, are about as great as me winning Lotto, last night... MRV will only be capable of transporting 4.

I would suggest that perhaps a better solution, might be a smaller fleet of NH-90's and a light utility/training helo, with a greater transport capability such as A109LUH Power or similar, if the Fennecs have been ruled out. A helo of this sort offers decent airlift capability, is air-transportable inside C-130's and is bound to be cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate than the large NH-90's...

Using a NH-90 sized helo on civilian emergency ops should also be the last resort in my opinion. They are heinously expensive the big helo's. They have big logistics chains, again are expensive to operate, though admittedly offer greater capability and are usually more capable than what is really required...

Hi AD, according to the RNZAF website, the NH-90 can be transported by a C-130 with 'some disassembly', what ever that means.

As for numbers, I have not heard any advance on 8, some reports as low as 6. I guess with 8, you would have 2 in maintenance, 2 for training and 4 deployable, which fits the MRV specs for transport of 4 NH-90s. Completely agree that the LUH needs to be able to carry 6-8 passengers and be used for civil SAR where needed, with a number of no less than 12.

 

[Lucasnz]

If National ever wins an election and another Defence White Paper, I suspect they may order two more frigates, .... Its my opinion the reason why New Zealand got into such a perdictament of block obsolescence in the first place was purchasing used Leanders in the early 1980s.

But since New Zealand would have to recruite a larger Navy to man new frigates, and with the priority of National to reinstate the air combat force, I suspect the air combat force would be first priority for any funding. The second priority would be more frigates to beef up the striking force of New Zealand's armed forces. Labour is doing a great job with the army upgrade, so far. Any reinstatement of the air combat force would of course add to defence spending, increasing the percentage of GDP upwards.

The number of NH-90 helicopters will be important. 8 will be the fewest, 10 would be very nice, 11 or 12 would be very great as far as numbers. .

If NZ does buy two more frigates, it will to be avoid having an Orphan in the fleet, which increases logisitical costs significantly. Absolutely agree that buying Wellington and Southland was a bad idea that contributed to reduction of the frigate force. The key question is not that New Zealand needs more surface combatants, thats a given, but what type of surface combatant. I'm increasingly leaning towards 3-4 Blue Water corvettes (76-114mm gun, 2x25mm, RAM, Full Helicopter capability, ASW), with the ANZAC's (Longer range airsearch, Superior Comms etc) acting as a Lead ship (1 ANZAC, 2 Corvette) for a task force. In arguing for this the modern frigate is increasingly capable of launching a vast array of weapons (In theory a fully armed ANZAC could carry 32 ESSM, 16 SM2 or Tomohawk, 8 Harpoon - depending on where you park it), which seems an overkill for NZ.

The purchase of an aircombat capability is a must - ideally a Sqn of 14 + an OCU of say 6-8 aircraft. National however stated that the reinstatment of an air combat capability was not a given, and dependent on the outcome of a defence review. Internationally NZ defence spending is low, so increasing it to 1.8% of GDP (After Capital Charge and GST) should be the aim. With regards to the NH-90, I think the min capability NZ must have should be a company lift, as part of a brigade structure (so min of 5+ replacements). The LAV company is 125 Strong, with 14 LAV's (42 LAV Crew & 83 Combat personnel)Developing Doctrine NZ Army 19 Dec 2001. The LUH should have transport capability and ideally light attack capability. The army is still far to short on Artillery, Anti Tank Capability - only 24 Javelin purchased, compared to the 18 in an RM Battalion and 56 in an US ICBT Battalion. Regardless of the outcome of the current internal army review of its structure I think the army is holding on to dated structures (i.e maintaining 6 TF Battalions at partial strength instead of 3 TF Infantry battalions closer to full strength)

 

[Whiskyjack]

If NZ does buy two more frigates, it will to be avoid having an Orphan in the fleet, which increases logisitical costs significantly. Absolutely agree that buying Wellington and Southland was a bad idea that contributed to reduction of the frigate force. The key question is not that New Zealand needs more surface combatants, thats a given, but what type of surface combatant. I'm increasingly leaning towards 3-4 Blue Water corvettes (76-114mm gun, 2x25mm, RAM, Full Helicopter capability, ASW), with the ANZAC's (Longer range airsearch, Superior Comms etc) acting as a Lead ship (1 ANZAC, 2 Corvette) for a task force. In arguing for this the modern frigate is increasingly capable of launching a vast array of weapons (In theory a fully armed ANZAC could carry 32 ESSM, 16 SM2 or Tomohawk, 8 Harpoon - depending on where you park it), which seems an overkill for NZ.

The purchase of an aircombat capability is a must - ideally a Sqn of 14 + an OCU of say 6-8 aircraft. National however stated that the reinstatment of an air combat capability was not a given, and dependent on the outcome of a defence review. Internationally NZ defence spending is low, so increasing it to 1.8% of GDP (After Capital Charge and GST) should be the aim. With regards to the NH-90, I think the min capability NZ must have should be a company lift, as part of a brigade structure (so min of 5+ replacements). The LAV company is 125 Strong, with 14 LAV's (42 LAV Crew & 83 Combat personnel)Developing Doctrine NZ Army 19 Dec 2001. The LUH should have transport capability and ideally light attack capability. The army is still far to short on Artillery, Anti Tank Capability - only 24 Javelin purchased, compared to the 18 in an RM Battalion and 56 in an US ICBT Battalion. Regardless of the outcome of the current internal army review of its structure I think the army is holding on to dated structures (i.e maintaining 6 TF Battalions at partial strength instead of 3 TF Infantry battalions closer to full strength)

I think that three- four blue water corvettes is an overkill here, NZ does not require 5-6 surface combatants, nor can it pay for them or man them at the moment. A corvette that carries a helo, and the armament you are talking about, but also able to operate in the NZ environment, like the Southern Ocean, but is also deployable to the Gulf etc, is basically the size of a frigate.

One possible take on a 3rd frigate and I stress possible here, is that the RAN may look at 2-3 LCS hulls over the next decade, to be based North and operate in the littoral waters of South East Asia, this may have the effect of freeing up one of their ANZACs early. This is pure speculation here, but not with out history. There are strong rumours that NZ was offered an RAN ANZAC around 1998 and it was not taken up due to ‘political’ considerations. As for armament, the RNZN should follow the RAN upgrade programme, which is budgeted for in NZ, ESSM will follow. Harpoon and SM-2 are all possible but unlikely.

LCS may also be an option for NZ in 5-10 years I guess, depending on what happens with the programme and how NZ views it’s international situation at the time.

I am sorry but while I did not agree with the disbandment of Air Combat capability I do not see it as a must for NZ’s strategic situation. If NZ troops are deployed in a coalition where NZ’s 8-10 deployable fighters are the difference between victory and defeat then something has gone horribly wrong. As long as NZ can contribute meaningfully NZ’s allies will all be understanding and happy with a lack of air combat capability. I would like to see 12 or so Hawk like aircraft as a base for future capability, and training with Army and Navy. But it is not essential for NZ at the moment.

To provide a Company of lift from an NH-90 would mean a minimum of 14 airframes, more likely 16. To lift approx 120 troops needs 6-7, with a 80-90% availability on operations means an ability to deploy 8-9. Which means 3-4 will be in longer term maintenance in NZ and another 3 needed to keep training up. It also means that there must be an Infantry Battalion kept light to operate with the NH-90s.

Fully agree that the TF needs to be reorganised to provide more realistic support to the regular army and many nations are doing this now.

How the Infantry is equipped is more an intention of how they are to be used. Major armour attacks are not usual in Peace Keeping operations. And that is where NZ’s army is orientated, I don’t agree with it but it is hard to see this changing in the foreseeable future. I would like to see the NZ army set up similar to the RMs, with the LAV integrated into this structure.


No major political party in NZ is what I would call military friendly, you would be lucky to find a politician that is current on military affairs, trust me I have talked to a few.

 

[Sea Dog]

As for armament, the RNZN should follow the RAN upgrade programme, which is budgeted for in NZ, ESSM will follow. Harpoon and SM-2 are all possible but unlikely. [/FONT]

Just a few points.

-SM-2 is too expensive and a waste of time without the appropriate search/designators.
-ESSM quad-packs, not the single-shot cheap Canadian option, is a better.
-Add a single RAM spot, or a SADRAL, fwd of the bridge (never been a big fan of the CIWS after my ship was hit by debris from a drone that had been hit by the CIWS at the last moment).
-First chance: Dump the H2's and get Navy NH90's.

and most important

-INCREASE PAY SO AS TO RETAIN THE MEN!!!

 

[Whiskyjack]

Just a few points.


and most important

-INCREASE PAY SO AS TO RETAIN THE MEN!!!

Already doing so, but I don't know to many western militaries that aren’t struggling with retention.

 

[Sea Dog]

Already doing so, but I don't know to many western militaries that aren’t struggling with retention.

USN doing awright!!:wave

 

[Lucasnz]

I think that three- four blue water corvettes is an overkill here, NZ does not require 5-6 surface combatants, nor can it pay for them or man them at the moment. A corvette that carries a helo, and the armament you are talking about, but also able to operate in the NZ environment, like the Southern Ocean, but is also deployable to the Gulf etc, is basically the size of a frigate.

I agree a frigate sized vessel is needed for the Oceans around NZ. However what makes the difference between a frigate and corvette are its weapons and sensors. Today's frigate is vastly superior in Electronics, Weapons to that of 20 years ago. Its probably more akin to a WWII cruiser. Do we need that sort of technology for low level military operations either around NZ, in the South Pacific or when enforcing sanctions like in the Persian Gulf? A corvette has a crew of around 80, compared to a frigates 160. I will concede operating costs would probably limit us to two. It was a pity that the OPV didn't turn out to be more capable, an opportunity lost.

One possible take on a 3rd frigate and I stress possible here, is that the RAN may look at 2-3 LCS hulls over the next decade, to be based North and operate in the littoral waters of South East Asia, this may have the effect of freeing up one of their ANZACs early. This is pure speculation here, but not with out history. There are strong rumours that NZ was offered an RAN ANZAC around 1998 and it was not taken up due to ‘political’ considerations. As for armament, the RNZN should follow the RAN upgrade programme, which is budgeted for in NZ, ESSM will follow. Harpoon and SM-2 are all possible but unlikely.

NZ was offered a 3rd second hand frigate, but Winston said that a decision didn't need to be made at that point at time. Obtainining a second hand frigate from Australia would only lead to the same situation as we had with the Leanders. I would prefer two new ships to come on line when the first ANZAC reaches 15 yrs. I agree we should follow the Australian model for the upgrade of the ANZAC.s

LCS may also be an option for NZ in 5-10 years I guess, depending on what happens with the programme and how NZ views it’s international situation at the time

.

I don't really know enough about LCS, but the specs I've seen put me off due to its lack of NGS capability.

I am sorry but while I did not agree with the disbandment of Air Combat capability I do not see it as a must for NZ’s strategic situation.
....As long as NZ can contribute meaningfully NZ’s allies will all be understanding and happy with a lack of air combat capability I would like to see 12 or so Hawk like aircraft as a base for future capability, and training with Army and Navy.

I disagree on this one. Without a Aircombat force, we would be forced to expose the more strategically important P-3's to fire (I'm talking short notice low level military threats here not invasion stuff). The HAWK might fufil this role, but I would perfer something like AMX, or JAS-39. I do agree the allies are happy if we can contribute meaningfully, but a small air combat force is a sign of committment to our own defence.

How the Infantry is equipped is more an intention of how they are to be used. Major armour attacks are not usual in Peace Keeping operations. And that is where NZ’s army is orientated, I don’t agree with it but it is hard to see this changing in the foreseeable future. I would like to see the NZ army set up similar to the RMs, with the LAV integrated into this structure

I forgot to factor into account the use of the 84mm, which compenstates for the lack of numbers in Javelin (to a degree), in Anti Tank and Bunker Busting. How do you see the 2 Standoff, 2 Close support company working in the NZ Army.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I agree a frigate sized vessel is needed for the Oceans around NZ. However what makes the difference between a frigate and corvette are its weapons and sensors. Today's frigate is vastly superior in Electronics, Weapons to that of 20 years ago. Its probably more akin to a WWII cruiser. Do we need that sort of technology for low level military operations either around NZ, in the South Pacific or when enforcing sanctions like in the Persian Gulf? A corvette has a crew of around 80, compared to a frigates 160. I will concede operating costs would probably limit us to two. It was a pity that the OPV didn't turn out to be more capable, an opportunity lost..

In the Persian Gulf I would say Frigate, A corvette does not solve the RNZN ability to sustain a deployment of the Frigates. One more ship with exactly the same systems & engineering solve this problem. 3 x Frigates, 2 x OPVs 4 x IPVs, 1 x MRV, 1 x Tanker. That’s what NZ needs. Not necessarily what it will get.

NZ was offered a 3rd second hand frigate, but Winston said that a decision didn't need to be made at that point at time. Obtainining a second hand frigate from Australia would only lead to the same situation as we had with the Leanders. I would prefer two new ships to come on line when the first ANZAC reaches 15 yrs. I agree we should follow the Australian model for the upgrade of the ANZAC.s..

Agree it would be ideal to get two new vessels at the 15 year gap.

I don't really know enough about LCS, but the specs I've seen put me off due to its lack of NGS capability...

NGS is just a matter of adding the appropriate gun, the LCS is longer than an ANZAC.

I disagree on this one. Without a Aircombat force, we would be forced to expose the more strategically important P-3's to fire (I'm talking short notice low level military threats here not invasion stuff). The HAWK might fufil this role, but I would perfer something like AMX, or JAS-39. I do agree the allies are happy if we can contribute meaningfully, but a small air combat force is a sign of committment to our own defence.

I don’t understand why it forces NZ to expose P-3s? An air combat force can not be used in NZ’s region without significant air refuelling support and in meaningful numbers. What is their in the South Pacific to threaten a P-3 at say 20,000 Feet? Also what are UAVs for? Once again if NZ needs to rely on 20 odd strike aircraft to defend itself then something has gone very wrong. I actually think Australia and the US (for example) would prefer a battalion to what ever small amounts of air strike NZ could send. The RNZAF never operationally deployed air strike in 35 odd years before it was disbanded. Don’t get me wrong I would love to see it back, but not at the expense of something else.

I forgot to factor into account the use of the 84mm, which compenstates for the lack of numbers in Javelin (to a degree), in Anti Tank and Bunker Busting. How do you see the 2 Standoff, 2 Close support company working in the NZ Army.

It does not have to be exactly to the RM model, but I like the way they mix and match the infantry with the support weapons, Australia is to trial something similar. With the LAV in support it allows for a modular force that can be deployed into more situation than I think the current force structure allows.

 

[Aussie Digger]

USN doing awright!!:wave

How's unemployment doing in the USA though? I'm asking for percentages. I was in LA, San Francisco and Vegas last year (first time in USA) and couldn't believe the numbers of "solicitors" around the various places...

Country's like NZ and Australia are struggling to attract new recruits and retain existing personnel, in the face of strong competition from "civvy street" given the naturally better pay and better conditions available in civilian life...

As to the NZ Javelin purchase, they like Australia (and the UK) are purchasing the weapon to supplement existing direct fire weapons like the Charlie G 84mm RCL, 7.62mm GPMG etc, not replace them. Weapons of this sort are now starting to be employed within general infantry and cavalry units in the same manner as specwarries have done for years.

Weapons of various capabilities are to be available to the troops (who are obviously qualified in their use) and used as necessary depending on the tactical scenario at hand. I think this is a brilliant idea and I can't believe it has taken so longer for our "stiff necked" commanders to come up with it.

It creates some issues with logistical support, the transport requirements to transport heavy weapons around the battlefield and also training issues, with respect to ensuring large numbers of troops are qualified on numerous weapon systems, however specwarrie units have addressed these issues, and have done so while often operating far away from any "regular" army logistics hubs. Regular army units should find the logistical issue far easier to deal with, given their greater inherent logistical capability...

This idea (I think) was partially inspired by an SASR trooper in Iraq in 2003 who "successfully" engaged enemy forces during a single contact with 3 vastly different direct fire weapon systems namely: Javelin ATGW, 0.50cal HMG and a 7.62mm sniper rifle.

His mate reloaded the Javelin whilst he was using the "fifty cal" and the sniper rifle and he got off a second Javelin round as well, before the enemy was routed...

 

[Sea Dog]

How's unemployment doing in the USA though? I'm asking for percentages. I was in LA, San Francisco and Vegas last year (first time in USA) and couldn't believe the numbers of "solicitors" around the various places......

Last figures, Dec 2005, had us at a 4.9% unemployment.

If by "solicitors" you mean lawyers.....unfortunately the lawyers, specially the personal injury type, like to advertise like drunken banshees.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Last figures, Dec 2005, had us at a 4.9% unemployment.

If by "solicitors" you mean lawyers.....unfortunately the lawyers, specially the personal injury type, like to advertise like drunken banshees.

No, at LAX they kept calling people who come and try and sell you shoddy trinkets, beg for money, etc "solicitors"... Given my low opinion of lawyers (I'm a cop now that I've finished my military service), I thought the name very appropriate...

 

[Sea Dog]

No, at LAX they kept calling people who come and try and sell you shoddy trinkets, beg for money, etc "solicitors"..

Oh man, I would've love for that to happen to me. I love being totally rude to that sort of crowd. I can't wait for the next time I go to the weird side of the country.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

]No major political party in NZ is what I would call military friendly, you would be lucky to find a politician that is current on military affairs, trust me I have talked to a few.

And Its probable that National is the worst of the serious contenders. Talking with a few Nats and looking at their veiws on defence, they still have no real policy on defence. They want to do a defence review: This to me says that they want some one to tell them what to do with defence {lord knows they had no clue in the 90's}. Its futile to talk about LAVs and frigate and tall the rest unless you have a clear idea on what you want the defence forces as a whole to do, and National does not.

 

[Lucasnz]

Talking with a few Nats and looking at their veiws on defence, they still have no real policy on defence. They want to do a defence review: This to me says that they want some one to tell them what to do with defence {lord knows they had no clue in the 90's.

I'd have to agree with you on this. If National seriously wants to influence defence, which it has let Labour do since the 1980's, it needs to get its act in order. Defence isn't a high priority for voters NZ, but having a clear defence policy that is seen to be independent of other countries is a must. Maurice Williamson supported that idea recently, in a speech, but highlighted the fact that it is not National policy.

Labour's idea of a independent defence policy is to remove the 'defence' capability of the services and focus on politically acceptable solutions, for a few interest groups. Don't get me wrong we needed the MRV, OPV and to upgrade the army, but not at the expense of an additional frigate or F-16's for an increase in funding for the Ballet. I think National could develop a viable alternative (it does have a few intelligent people in it), but it needs to think through it very carefully.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I'd have to agree with you on this. If National seriously wants to influence defence, which it has let Labour do since the 1980's, it needs to get its act in order. Defence isn't a high priority for voters NZ, but having a clear defence policy that is seen to be independent of other countries is a must. Maurice Williamson supported that idea recently, in a speech, but highlighted the fact that it is not National policy.

If Williamson knows what the Nats defence policy is, then he is doing well.

Labour's idea of a independent defence policy is to remove the 'defence' capability of the services and focus on politically acceptable solutions, for a few interest groups. Don't get me wrong we needed the MRV, OPV and to upgrade the army, but not at the expense of an additional frigate or F-16's for an increase in funding for the Ballet. I think National could develop a viable alternative (it does have a few intelligent people in it), but it needs to think through it very carefully.

I think the Nats could do it, and it wouldnt be hard if they care to open a history book. For the most part what needs to happen is the political will to equip what we have properly. All Labour has done, despite the rhetoric, is to give us a modern shell of a defence force, as opposed to a obsolete shell of a defence force {granted the planning tools and structural reforms were decades overdue}. If we are to have two infantry battalions, fine, but equip them properly, same with the frigates etc. The only area that has been improved is with Navy, with the Protector ships, having those is nessasery part of a navy that we havent had in some time.

The frigates and F16's, well that was political and is history, and to be honest is something of a distraction from what the Nats need to do, which is get there act together on policy, if they can do that the equipment wish list will fall into place.

But policy is the key and its probably why we lost the strike squadrons and the ASW upgrade on the P3's: The NATs and the supporters of A4's etc were looking at the tree's not the wood, and forgot to justify what we had within the context of government policy, which is the thing that counts.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I think you are right there. National has no policy, while Labour does. In my view the current policy is about equipping the NZDF to allow it to respond to responsibilities. By this I mean the responsibility to be a good international citizen and play a part in UN peace keeping etc. There is nothing wrong with this but, it is not what defence is about, defence is about responding in the national interest.

The national interest means placing NZDF in harms way because not doing so will be detrimental to the national interest and NZ as a whole. Where is the policy on that? Protecting the world’s sea-lanes to protect NZ trade, the ability to conduct small-scale operations in, and on, the islands of the South Pacific to protect NZ and international citizens in NZ’s region. To be able to contribute to large international conflicts where NZ’s interests are seen as threatened as well as other like minder countries.

Peace Keeping is easy, good PR, the people can feel proud of making a difference in the world and it is easy to get public approval, but it not protecting NZ’s interests. How do you convince people that frigates, ASW, and air strike work by just being in existence, and the measure of success may very well be that they did not have to be used, because the very fact that they were there and ready to be used prevented the conflict in the first place? How do you convince people that multi-billion dollar platforms that may never be used are in the national interest, when health, education and infrastructure need more money as well?

I could go on and on, but what NZ requires from Govt is to be able to see beyond the local and protect NZ’s interests when most people will not be able to see any reason to.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Snipity snip

I could go on and on, but what NZ requires from Govt is to be able to see beyond the local and protect NZ’s interests when most people will not be able to see any reason to.

I couldnt agree more. Its also worth remembering, and you touched on this, and Labour and the likes of the Greens exploit it, is peoples ignorance of matters millitary. You see it in polls time and tme again, that people want effective defence forces: but they simply have no idea what it means to have effective defence forces or what they can do for a nation. I wonder if people realise that a major regional war in the Middle East could have an economic impact on NZ equel to that of a war we are directly engaged in? Same applies to any area that we derive large portions of our income. War can touch this nation irrspective of if we are involved, so I think its better to help ensure a favourable outcome.

 

[Sea Toby]

Especially so because New Zealand is a maritime nation, an island nation, where the bulk of its trade is via the sea. I have not noticed any land bridge between New Zealand and its trading partners.

It doesn't help much when the Prime Minister of a nation calls her fighter pilots jocks playing with expensive toys. When the government decides to eliminate its air combat force because it hasn't seen combat in 35 years. Nor does it help much when the government cancels a Sirius ASW upgrade to the Orion patrol aircraft because there hasn't been an enemy submarine lurking in the seas around New Zealand. I have read many Kiwis writing what's the use of their armed forces, as though New Zealand doesn't have a leg to stand on if it were being invaded.

While there may not be many enemy submarines near New Zealand, I can guarantee there will be some near the Malacca Strait, and possibly off the coasts of Australia. An air combat force can sink any minelayer quicker than a frigate, long before it reaches any of New Zealand's harbors. With a frigate force of two, the two frigates will have difficulty being in six harbors at once, especially so when only one is usually available and its in the Malacca Strait or the Tasman Sea attempting to keep it open.