NZDF General discussion thread

[Berkut]

Wake Up NZ Govt

As a Kiwi I am most angered by the lack of funds that are desprately needed to keep this country safe and well defended *When* we are attacked and used as toilet paper by any number of agressor nations.

No IFV's
No Combat Aircraft
Ageing Frigates
No Medium/Long range combat rifles
No Modern Soldier programme
No Indigenous ammunition manufacture
No Indigenous Rifle manufacture

Wake up NZ Govt
We need your support more than ever

 

[treehuggingaj]

Well that's a relief. Part of me thought getting rid of a fixed wing ASW capability was ludicrous, but stranger things have happened! And it will be great if the RNZAF gets a total of 8 109's. If not, they may change their mind once they see the bill for re-supplying a section with an NH90!

Another question if I may. I really enjoy researching "Project Protector" and it's success (albiet some teething problems and of course a sailors death, RIP). I was wondering, can the OPV's and MRV be fitted with a Phalanx and Nulka system? I know the main focus is on EEZ patrols and South Pacific foreign policy, but it would be a shame if they were excluded from other areas due to a lack of survivability. As I re-read this, maybe I am thinking too big for these type of ships. But who knows what the future holds. Shoulda' got a 3rd or 4th ANZAC....

 

[treehuggingaj]

As a Kiwi I am most angered by the lack of funds that are desprately needed to keep this country safe and well defended *When* we are attacked and used as toilet paper by any number of agressor nations.

No IFV's
No Combat Aircraft
Ageing Frigates
No Medium/Long range combat rifles
No Modern Soldier programme
No Indigenous ammunition manufacture
No Indigenous Rifle manufacture

Wake up NZ Govt
We need your support more than ever

Hey Berkut,

I am sure you are not the only one that feels this way with regards to equipment. But I don't feel NZ is under the threat of a "direct" attack in the near or even mid term future. But like I said before...who knows what the future holds! Like I also said before, the NZDF (and ADF) strength can come from inter-operability and commonality with its neighbours.

WRT the weapon and ammo manufacturing, I feel this is covered by it's links with Australia.

Modern soldier Program? I think the Kiwis diggers have some of the best kit in the South Pacific (having seen it in East Timor). And the PRT has been kitted out pretty well with gear IIRC. Skill wise, you may be half right due to ANZUS dramas. But I think that is getting sorted with things like the ADF/NZDF working together in Astute/Anode and ex's like Hamel. I'm also pretty sure Infantry sections are getting a 7.62 marksman rifle each, correct me if I am wrong.

ACF and Frigates...yeah mate, feeling your pain. I asked before about CIWS on Project protector class ships because I am keen to find out if they can be used as "an extra set of teeth" should the need arise. I know more than a CIWS is required, but at least it's a start. I would like to see the ANZAC frigate assembly line reopened in the short term, but I know I am dreaming. Hopefully they will get 4 replacements when the time comes. I think a cheaper way of boosting naval capability is jumping on the Aussie S-70R acquisition and get an "actual" squadron (8-12) of them to replace Seasprite. Big boost in capability and can deploy more choppers while still training back home. I will now go research if S-70 can land on OPV's :unknown

Now on to the ACF, if I can flog a dead horse. Baby steps here. Get some Pilots qual'ed on Aussie hawks and purchase 6-8 of them. Just like the RAAF's if possible. In this Post 9/11 World (to dust off an old chestnut), having 2 jets on QRF at Auckland could well be justified. That should give another 2 for support to the fleet, training JTAC's and general support to the Army, aggressor air to visiting Airforces, Fighter evasion for the Helicopter force and of course PR/Recruiting! It also opens more doors for exchanges with RAAF/RAF and keeps of pool of fast jet pilots for surge training to Hornets etc should the need arise (think WW2 Empire training scheme). It would definantly be a skeleton capability, but a good foundation to build up.

 

[Kirkzzy]

As a Kiwi I am most angered by the lack of funds that are desprately needed to keep this country safe and well defended *When* we are attacked and used as toilet paper by any number of agressor nations.

No IFV's
No Combat Aircraft
Ageing Frigates
No Medium/Long range combat rifles
No Modern Soldier programme
No Indigenous ammunition manufacture
No Indigenous Rifle manufacture

Wake up NZ Govt
We need your support more than ever

One of the reasons for federation in Australia was so that the states wouldn't have to worry about defence and foreign affairs. It also means states have to carry less of a burden, in raw regular infantry battalions per capita NZ (2 for 4 million people = 1 for every 2 million) seems to have more than Australia (Roughly 1 for every 3 million). This is because it has a much bigger responsibility then any of our states. However NZ has taken an independent stance and has much greater responsibility, 4 million people shouldn't have to have the responsibility of defending an entire nation. I think however that NZ either needs to spend a lot more on defence (good luck with that, you got the public against you) or stop spending and just fund a peacekeeping force (what the public would want anyway), with reserve battalions located around NZ to defend it.

Problem is, unlike Australia NZ will only grow by 1 million people over the course of the next half century, as opposed to around another 20 million at least for Australia (much bigger growth as a percentage anyway). NZ is also behind in GDP per capita and has 1 in 4 children in poverty atm. In all honesty, NZ has much greater concerns than ridiculous fears of "invasion".

What Geo-strategic value does NZ hold?

You would be much better off focusing on efforts to keep the country economically stable and increase GDP through population growth.

Have you ever asked yourself why NZ needs to spend more than a percent of GDP on defence? Even Australia realises there is no threat of invasion to itself.

 

[ngatimozart]

Foo a Gore boy. Me old home town Welcome to the forum mate.

As a Kiwi I am most angered by the lack of funds that are desprately needed to keep this country safe and well defended *When* we are attacked and used as toilet paper by any number of agressor nations.

Let's see, who are the aggressor nations? China, Indonesia, India, Fiji, Iran, Iraq, Afghan, to name but a few? Shall I add Israel and Libya as well? Maybe the US, Australia, South Africa, Russia, France and the Poms because we may well beat them in the Rugby World Cup . IIRC there are 194 nations in the UN and 193, in all possible worlds, could be potential aggressors. What I am getting at is realistically what are the main security risks to NZ and where will they come from? The 2010 DWP (Defence White Paper) sets out what the NZG sees as possible and reasonable threats. Personally I don't agree with all of it and think that the potential threats are understated but you have to draw a line somewhere.

No IFV's

105 NZLAVs which are new, modern and good.

No Combat Aircraft
Ageing Frigates

The ANZAC frigates aren't that old yet but they are nearing time for replacement and some of us would hope ANZAC II to the same specs as the RAN. The ACF and lack of it has been done to death on this and other links, so have a read through.

No Medium/Long range combat rifles
No Modern Soldier programme

Our soldiers in all accounts trained to a very high standard. Our SAS are very highly regarded.

No Indigenous ammunition manufacture
No Indigenous Rifle manufacture

Lets be realistic, it would not be economically feasible to build from start and maintain a small arms design, research and manufacturing facility in NZ. Even Australia don't design their own small arms. Normally NZDF and the ADF follow the same path in small arms. It makes economic sense for NZ.

Wake up NZ Govt
We need your support more than ever

Since you feel that get onto your MP and give him / her an ear ache. IIRC it's Bill English member for Clutha. He's head bean counter being the Minister of finance and all. I would suggest you have a good read through the previous comments on this thread and follow the general threads of the discussion that has taken place and is ongoing.

IMHO at present the biggest threat to NZ is the maritime security so our SLOC (Sea Lines of Communication) is our very weak link. What a lot of kiwis forget, or don't realise, is that our SLOC, hence our maritime interests, extend from the equator to the Ice.
Why is SLOC so important to NZ?
Firstly, because 95% of our trade is by sea.
Secondly IIRC all of our oil is imported.
Thirdly, we are now so interwoven into the Australian domestic market that we have become dependent upon Australia for food etc.
Fourthly, we have grown dependent upon foreign food.
But the bean counters and the polis don't necessarily recognise that with regard to defence.

There has been no major physical threat to NZ since 1942 - 45 and people have forgotten that. In 1940 the SS Niagara was sunk by mines in the Hauraki Gulf. There are still Kreigsmarine mines at the entrance to Lyttelton Harbour. But as I alluded to above, our actual area of interest is literally half a world. If you read the DWP the second article states that an attack on Australia is regarded as an attack on NZ, so that places our front line is not 200 nautical miles off the coast of Wellington but rather a lot further north, say a few hundred nautical miles off the Australian coast.

Yes I agree that NZDF is totally under resourced but until either a major military / security crisis occurs or the people give the polis the message nothing is going to happen to change the current mindset amongst the politicians, bean counters and Nigels.

 

[ngatimozart]

One of the reasons for federation in Australia was so that the states wouldn't have to worry about defence and foreign affairs. It also means states have to carry less of a burden, in raw regular infantry battalions per capita NZ (2 for 4 million people = 1 for every 2 million) seems to have more than Australia (Roughly 1 for every 3 million). This is because it has a much bigger responsibility then any of our states. However NZ has taken an independent stance and has much greater responsibility, 4 million people shouldn't have to have the responsibility of defending an entire nation. I think however that NZ either needs to spend a lot more on defence (good luck with that, you got the public against you) or stop spending and just fund a peacekeeping force (what the public would want anyway), with reserve battalions located around NZ to defend it.

Problem is, unlike Australia NZ will only grow by 1 million people over the course of the next half century, as opposed to around another 20 million at least for Australia (much bigger growth as a percentage anyway). NZ is also behind in GDP per capita and has 1 in 4 children in poverty atm. In all honesty, NZ has much greater concerns than ridiculous fears of "invasion".

What Geo-strategic value does NZ hold?

You would be much better off focusing on efforts to keep the country economically stable and increase GDP through population growth.

Have you ever asked yourself why NZ needs to spend more than a percent of GDP on defence? Even Australia realises there is no threat of invasion to itself.

The Australian constitution allows for NZ to join the Federation something that our PM noted in his address to the Parliament in Canberra that has never been asked nor sought. The reason why NZ didn't join in 1901 was that it was very well off economically then and didn't want to be saddled with the debts of the Australian states at the time. 100 years later the tables have turned economically.

I agree that there is no credible threat of invasion to either country at the moment and the poverty issue in NZ actually has been self inflicted. When from 1985 - 2000 the successive NZG's enthusiastically embraced globalisation they also embraced poverty. One thing about the exportation of globalisation is that its co-export of poverty and marginalisation. The neoliberal new right economic theory of trickle down benefit effects doesn't happen unfortunately.

A problem with the NZG is that there are to many Nigels. To many managers and every time there is a problem 3 managers are hired to study it and sort it out which in the end creates more problems. The public service is not as bloated and bad as pre 1985 but the red tape appears to have an exponential breeding rate. IMHO the Vote Defence should be 2% GDP plus inflation. NZDF has to have some capability and all the short sighted penny pinching just creates a long term financial cost, excessive financial loss and greater loss of capability.

 

[Kirkzzy]

I feel my comment was a little too lefty (not militaristic) enough for this forum, I apologise. Obviously NZ needs some capability, however I feel that with current budget and pop NZ needs to set her goals and specialities accordingly. For example when NZ was offered 4 Anzacs, Australia was only getting 8, this would have meant that a nation a quarter to 1/5 of the size is getting half the amount of ships (albeit not total amount of surface warships Australia has, but close enough). Anzac IIs would be out of the question seeing as they will be 7000 ton BMD capable (possibly tomahawks as well).

NZ probably needs something along the lines of 3 light ASW frigate/corvette and a much better sea lift capability.

 

[Todjaeger]

I feel my comment was a little too lefty (not militaristic) enough for this forum, I apologise. Obviously NZ needs some capability, however I feel that with current budget and pop NZ needs to set her goals and specialities accordingly. For example when NZ was offered 4 Anzacs, Australia was only getting 8, this would have meant that a nation a quarter to 1/5 of the size is getting half the amount of ships (albeit not total amount of surface warships Australia has, but close enough). Anzac IIs would be out of the question seeing as they will be 7000 ton BMD capable (possibly tomahawks as well).

NZ probably needs something along the lines of 3 light ASW frigate/corvette and a much better sea lift capability.

You might feel the opinion was too 'lefty', but IMO it was not. Nor should the opinons (IMO at least) be militaristic. Rather, people should try and make realistic determinations of service needs, potential threats, and the impact of said threats.

With respect to the ANZAC order, yes the RAN was 'only' getting 8, while the RNZN had ordered two, with options for two more. On the very surface, it might look like the Kiwi order was greater as a % than the RAN order due to the significant differences in population. This is inaccurate because the RAN ANZACs were to only comprise an element of the RAN surface combatant fleet. At the time, the RAN also was operating a trio of Perth-class DDG's and six Adelaide-class FFG's. The RAN ANZAC's were to replace the RAN River-class DE's in service.
In effect, the RAN was essentially replacing about half of the surface combatants, and there was also the minor little matter of the RAN subsurface fleet as well...

Between those factors, and that a certain minimum number of assets is required to provide as-needed availability, deployment, maintenance and training, a four frigate order from NZ was not 'overly large'.

Now, as has been discussed here repeatedly... There is realistically no direct, immediate threat of invasion that NZ. However, that is not at all the same as NZ being 'safe'. As ngatimozart mentioned recently, and I most likely mentioned a time or two further back in the history of this thread and others, 95% of NZ trade is by sea, and that NZ is dependent on a number of products (like some foodstuffs, fuel, finished and high tech goods, etc) being imported. In order for that trade to actually reach NZ, the SLOC needed to be kept open between NZ and NZ's trading partners.

Also, if there is a major threat of disruption to one of NZ's major trading partners, that disruption would also have an impact on NZ. Without the NZDF having the range of capabilities and resources to involve themselves, Kiwis could find themselves negatively impacted by events occurring away from NZ, and there is nothing which the NZG could do about it.

-Cheers

 

[treehuggingaj]

You might feel the opinion was too 'lefty', but IMO it was not. Nor should the opinons (IMO at least) be militaristic. Rather, people should try and make realistic determinations of service needs, potential threats, and the impact of said threats.

With respect to the ANZAC order, yes the RAN was 'only' getting 8, while the RNZN had ordered two, with options for two more. On the very surface, it might look like the Kiwi order was greater as a % than the RAN order due to the significant differences in population. This is inaccurate because the RAN ANZACs were to only comprise an element of the RAN surface combatant fleet. At the time, the RAN also was operating a trio of Perth-class DDG's and six Adelaide-class FFG's. The RAN ANZAC's were to replace the RAN River-class DE's in service.
In effect, the RAN was essentially replacing about half of the surface combatants, and there was also the minor little matter of the RAN subsurface fleet as well...

Between those factors, and that a certain minimum number of assets is required to provide as-needed availability, deployment, maintenance and training, a four frigate order from NZ was not 'overly large'.

Now, as has been discussed here repeatedly... There is realistically no direct, immediate threat of invasion that NZ. However, that is not at all the same as NZ being 'safe'. As ngatimozart mentioned recently, and I most likely mentioned a time or two further back in the history of this thread and others, 95% of NZ trade is by sea, and that NZ is dependent on a number of products (like some foodstuffs, fuel, finished and high tech goods, etc) being imported. In order for that trade to actually reach NZ, the SLOC needed to be kept open between NZ and NZ's trading partners.

Also, if there is a major threat of disruption to one of NZ's major trading partners, that disruption would also have an impact on NZ. Without the NZDF having the range of capabilities and resources to involve themselves, Kiwis could find themselves negatively impacted by events occurring away from NZ, and there is nothing which the NZG could do about it.

-Cheers

Agreed. Worst case, we go full old school and NZ declares war on another country in response to aggression against an ally, even though it would extremely difficult for NZ to be attacked by land or air, an enemy sub could still wreak havoc "behind the lines". Hence, in one of my past posts, I expressed my concern over reading about the P-3CK2 having the guts of the MAD removed.

IIRC the DWP mentions a Medium range MPA. What do you think that should be? In Air forces monthly they had a piece on Malta getting King Air's. All the gear plus a little bomb bay. I think that would be OK for NZ, but they should be assigned to 42 Sqn. You need Multi role aircraft these days for "bang for buck", so if there was some way that the MPA could still be used for Duel engine pilot training and still have a few VIP types minus the sensors (Which Maritime patrol pilots could fly without needing an extra currency), I think that's the way to go.

If that is no good, if the RAAF goes with C-27 or CN-235 for the Bou replacement, the RNZAF could get the Maritime version of that, and work closley with the RAAF to bring down Supply chain costs/ buying in bulk etc.

Just a few thoughts. Feel free to school me. I also posted yesterday but It only popped up today. I would be interested to read what people think of my "Romeo" idea and ACF idea, because even though it has been done to death, I don't think it gets old and a lot of people still love dreaming about it

 

[ngatimozart]

Agreed. Worst case, we go full old school and NZ declares war on another country in response to aggression against an ally, even though it would extremely difficult for NZ to be attacked by land or air, an enemy sub could still wreak havoc "behind the lines". Hence, in one of my past posts, I expressed my concern over reading about the P-3CK2 having the guts of the MAD removed.

IIRC the DWP mentions a Medium range MPA. What do you think that should be? In Air forces monthly they had a piece on Malta getting King Air's. All the gear plus a little bomb bay. I think that would be OK for NZ, but they should be assigned to 42 Sqn. You need Multi role aircraft these days for "bang for buck", so if there was some way that the MPA could still be used for Duel engine pilot training and still have a few VIP types minus the sensors (Which Maritime patrol pilots could fly without needing an extra currency), I think that's the way to go.

If that is no good, if the RAAF goes with C-27 or CN-235 for the Bou replacement, the RNZAF could get the Maritime version of that, and work closley with the RAAF to bring down Supply chain costs/ buying in bulk etc.

Just a few thoughts. Feel free to school me. I also posted yesterday but It only popped up today. I would be interested to read what people think of my "Romeo" idea and ACF idea, because even though it has been done to death, I don't think it gets old and a lot of people still love dreaming about it

We've hammered the aircraft out on the RNZAF thread and consensus is CJ27 / CN235 if RAAF goes for it. We think polis see King Air option as cheap option and have some concerns about it i.e restricting versatility and range. If you read the RNZAF thread you will see that consensus would be CN235 with permanent sensors mounted and maritime mission modules, plus other mission modules; e.g., VIP fit, medical etc., therefore increasing versatility. My own preference is C295 with mission modules.

 

[RegR]

Agreed. Worst case, we go full old school and NZ declares war on another country in response to aggression against an ally, even though it would extremely difficult for NZ to be attacked by land or air, an enemy sub could still wreak havoc "behind the lines". Hence, in one of my past posts, I expressed my concern over reading about the P-3CK2 having the guts of the MAD removed.

IIRC the DWP mentions a Medium range MPA. What do you think that should be? In Air forces monthly they had a piece on Malta getting King Air's. All the gear plus a little bomb bay. I think that would be OK for NZ, but they should be assigned to 42 Sqn. You need Multi role aircraft these days for "bang for buck", so if there was some way that the MPA could still be used for Duel engine pilot training and still have a few VIP types minus the sensors (Which Maritime patrol pilots could fly without needing an extra currency), I think that's the way to go.

If that is no good, if the RAAF goes with C-27 or CN-235 for the Bou replacement, the RNZAF could get the Maritime version of that, and work closley with the RAAF to bring down Supply chain costs/ buying in bulk etc.

Just a few thoughts. Feel free to school me. I also posted yesterday but It only popped up today. I would be interested to read what people think of my "Romeo" idea and ACF idea, because even though it has been done to death, I don't think it gets old and a lot of people still love dreaming about it

Agree we should adopt and adapt what Aus aqquires for caribou replacement as an AC of that size, range and capability will be a huge bonus over what we currently have in terms of the Kingairs and yet covers all roles.

Not sure about your romeo idea however as would have thought if we do replace the sprites NFH90 would seem a better fit due to commonality with its air force cousin. Would streamline logistics, training and interoperability as opposed to introducing a completely new system and all associated initial headaches.
Australia can afford to have multiple helo types as they have squadrons of each (we only have 5 seasprites) therefore a bigger pool of expertise, crews and frames to support but even they wanted to cosolidate types to lessen the burden. Probably the fact that they already had experience with the romeo base model, was proven and NFH still has teething problems swung the vote in their favour otherwise they would have gone with the naval 90s.
Since apparently the seasprites are quite costly in hours anyway I would like to see a larger more capable type aqquired but I suppose things such as hanger size, crew requirements and operating weights(on OPV and maybe ANZAC) are all determining factors.

 

[treehuggingaj]

We've hammered the aircraft out on the RNZAF thread and consensus is CJ27 / CN235 if RAAF goes for it. We think polis see King Air option as cheap option and have some concerns about it i.e restricting versatility and range. If you read the RNZAF thread you will see that consensus would be CN235 with permanent sensors mounted and maritime mission modules, plus other mission modules; e.g., VIP fit, medical etc., therefore increasing versatility. My own preference is C295 with mission modules.

Enjoyable thread to read! I especially like the idea of the medical module. Like I said before, you can't afford to have aircraft pigeon holed in 1 or 2 roles these days. And having aircraft able to DACC roles is great, and the least the NZG can do seeing as they dip into pay packets every week!

 

[treehuggingaj]

Agree we should adopt and adapt what Aus aqquires for caribou replacement as an AC of that size, range and capability will be a huge bonus over what we currently have in terms of the Kingairs and yet covers all roles.

Not sure about your romeo idea however as would have thought if we do replace the sprites NFH90 would seem a better fit due to commonality with its air force cousin. Would streamline logistics, training and interoperability as opposed to introducing a completely new system and all associated initial headaches.
Australia can afford to have multiple helo types as they have squadrons of each (we only have 5 seasprites) therefore a bigger pool of expertise, crews and frames to support but even they wanted to cosolidate types to lessen the burden. Probably the fact that they already had experience with the romeo base model, was proven and NFH still has teething problems swung the vote in their favour otherwise they would have gone with the naval 90s.
Since apparently the seasprites are quite costly in hours anyway I would like to see a larger more capable type aqquired but I suppose things such as hanger size, crew requirements and operating weights(on OPV and maybe ANZAC) are all determining factors.

You are right, it makes sense to keep the one type. I am concerned about deck space though....especially on the OPV's. Right now the NZDF is "on limits" WRT how many offensive chopper the can embark, probably 2 ships with helo's. I'd love to see at least 8 replacements and have the OPV compatable. A good Helo and a CIWS or Nulka on a OPV turns it from a "fisheries vessel" to something that can join a multinational fleet, IMHO. Not necessarily next to a carrier in the South China sea, but definently a force multiplier.

 

[ngatimozart]

You are right, it makes sense to keep the one type. I am concerned about deck space though....especially on the OPV's. Right now the NZDF is "on limits" WRT how many offensive chopper the can embark, probably 2 ships with helo's. I'd love to see at least 8 replacements and have the OPV compatable. A good Helo and a CIWS or Nulka on a OPV turns it from a "fisheries vessel" to something that can join a multinational fleet, IMHO. Not necessarily next to a carrier in the South China sea, but definently a force multiplier.

Before you get all keen on throwing offensive weapons on the OPVs, IIRC they are built to civilian specs not naval combat specs. Even though I suggested in the RNZN thread a while back that a possible force mix could be 5 OPVs + 2 - 3 frigates, the OPVs would need to be built to milspec. Secondly the RNZN has crewing issues with problems crewing the vessels it has now, so that issue has to be addressed. Thirdly IMHO the NH90 would not be a viable option for the RNZN because it would not be consistent with RNZN operational requirements or needs.

 

[ngatimozart]

We've hammered the aircraft out on the RNZAF thread and consensus is CJ27 / CN235 if RAAF goes for it. We think polis see King Air option as cheap option and have some concerns about it i.e restricting versatility and range. If you read the RNZAF thread you will see that consensus would be CN235 with permanent sensors mounted and maritime mission modules, plus other mission modules; e.g., VIP fit, medical etc., therefore increasing versatility. My own preference is C295 with mission modules.

Well it looks like we will have a wait until the Australians make a decision about the Caribou replacement. Plans are for a decision to be made in the fiscal years 2012/13 or 2014/15. AIR 8000 | Defence Capability Plan 2011 They are looking at 10 aircraft. I asked on the RAAF thread what people thought it might be and it has been suggested the CJ27 Spartan because its us by the US. Also the cockpit of the CJ27 is the same as the C130J so commonality in the front office would be good too.

 

[ngatimozart]

How about this for a cunning plan? Russian company unveils ‘bomb in a box’ cruise missile system | Missiles & Bombs News at DefenseTalk

 

[RegR]

Before you get all keen on throwing offensive weapons on the OPVs, IIRC they are built to civilian specs not naval combat specs. Even though I suggested in the RNZN thread a while back that a possible force mix could be 5 OPVs + 2 - 3 frigates, the OPVs would need to be built to milspec. Secondly the RNZN has crewing issues with problems crewing the vessels it has now, so that issue has to be addressed. Thirdly IMHO the NH90 would not be a viable option for the RNZN because it would not be consistent with RNZN operational requirements or needs.

care to elaborate why NFH90 would not be viable? Don't quite understand your statement

 

[ngatimozart]

care to elaborate why NFH90 would not be viable? Don't quite understand your statement

I just think the capabilities and the cost of the aircraft are more than RNZN can justify to the bean counters and the Nigels. Don't get me wrong I can see a lot of sense having the same aircraft across the 2 services but I am being realistic as well. Maybe in the future the RNZN / RNZAF can put up a really good case.

Just as I do not see the RNZN getting another 3 OPVs built to milspecs with all sorts of offensive armament on them. IMHO outfitted like that with a helo onboard they would be good on anti piracy ops especially if you had a platoon of infantry on board acting as marines. Actually maybe that is something NZDF could look at. I believe the Army have a company of infantry who specialise as paras so maybe they should have a company who can specialise as marines.

 

[Hoffy]

I just think the capabilities and the cost of the aircraft are more than RNZN can justify to the bean counters and the Nigels. Don't get me wrong I can see a lot of sense having the same aircraft across the 2 services but I am being realistic as well. Maybe in the future the RNZN / RNZAF can put up a really good case.

Just as I do not see the RNZN getting another 3 OPVs built to milspecs with all sorts of offensive armament on them. IMHO outfitted like that with a helo onboard they would be good on anti piracy ops especially if you had a platoon of infantry on board acting as marines. Actually maybe that is something NZDF could look at. I believe the Army have a company of infantry who specialise as paras so maybe they should have a company who can specialise as marines.

Mate , who or what exactly are "Nigels"?
Sorry if this seems a stupid question , but us Aussies are not really familiar with the term.

 

[ngatimozart]

Mate , who or what exactly are "Nigels"?
Sorry if this seems a stupid question , but us Aussies are not really familiar with the term.

They are what some of us derogatorily call career public servants - "Yes Minister" types, who's only interest are their own backsides and little empires.