Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NZDF General discussion thread

Discussion in 'Geostrategic Issues' started by NZLAV, Apr 14, 2007.

Share This Page

  1. Todjaeger

    Todjaeger Potstirrer

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,839
    Likes Received:
    510
    Location:
    not in New England anymore...
    AND

    Honestly I think the NZDF would be better served ordering one of the existing LPD designs with suitable modifications, as opposed to ordering an LHD, either one of the existing designs or having a new one custom-designed for NZ.

    While the notion of more flight deck and/or hangar space might seem appealing, how much 'more' is really useful? Using the HMNZS Canterbury (an LHA) as an example, there is hangar space for four helicopters, and landing spots for two medium helicopters or one Chinook IIRC. Given that across the whole of the NZDF there are only eight transport helicopters in total, trying to pack more onto a single ship does not sound like a good idea to me.

    Another area of concern is what would be a reasonable troop and vehicle capacity? Having gone through the various LHD classes currently in service, the smallest (which is really more of a modified LPH) is ~19,000 tons at full load and can lift ~720 troops and ~200 vehicles, while other designs can very the numbers of troops and vehicles they are still significantly greater than NZ would be able to field.

    Given the size of the NZ Army, I would consider a troop lift requirement of a reinforced company reasonable, with perhaps some spare capacity in the event of an emergency to lift/move some extra personnel. The whole uniformed portion of the NZ Army (regular and reserves) is only ~6,400 personnel, so it would seem unwise and/or wasteful of resources to purchase a vessel to move 10%+ of the Army in one go, or get such a vessel with the expectation that the NZDF would leave it half (or more) empty virtually all the time.

    There are really only two capabilities which I think would be wise to include that NZ would not make use of but would instead be incorporated to provide options to NZ friends/allies. The first is that I would require at least one vehicle deck that is rated and capable of functioning as a heavy vehicle deck, able to handle the weight of MBT's and other large armoured vehicles. NZ has no such vehicles in the inventory at present, and the situation seems likely to remain this way for some time, but being able to land or remove MBT's could enable Kiwi forces to operate with small Australian or US force detachments without also requiring amphibious assets from them. By way of example, if NZ was the lead nation on an international peace keeping/enforcement operation in the S. Pacific or Pac Rim where a small number of heavy direct fire support vehicles were needed or advisable, then it would be less resource intensive if the Kiwi vessel was able to land the personnel, as opposed to requiring each contributing coalition partner to bring their own vessels in to land what might amount of a platoon or less of personnel.

    The second would be that the aviation facilities (landing pad and hangar) should be able to handle larger transport aircraft like Chinooks and Ospreys. Again, this would be to enable better inter-operations between NZ and friends/allies.

    Me being me, I would also like to see any Kiwi amphibious vessel kitted out with both more, and more overall capable weaponry when compared with how most other amphibious vessels are armed. All-around coverage of the approaches to the vessel by CIWS (preferably something larger and with greater range than the Mk 15 Phalanx 20 mm) as well as an aerial self-defence capability. Given that the RNZN is adopting Sea Ceptor, it would make sense that a 20+ Sea Ceptor VLS be fitted. A naval gun like is fitted aboard Singapore's Endurance-class LPD's might also be a good choice giving both an ASuW and NGS capability and perhaps even more air defence capabilities given some of the specialty munitions now available for 76 mm and 127 mm naval guns.
     
  2. beegee

    beegee Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2017
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    97
    Location:
    Colorado
    Yeah, I agree (partially). Instead of one LHD, I'd prefer two smaller LPDs. Something like a NZ version of the Peruvian BAP Pisco which was designed by DSME in SK and only cost $60m to build. With two vessels you'd still get the significant increase in capability, but with the huge benefits two vessels have over one, the biggest being not losing your capability when the vessel goes in for maintenance or refit.

    [​IMG]
     
    kiwipatriot69 likes this.
  3. MrConservative

    MrConservative Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,587
    Likes Received:
    716
    Location:
    Behind a Desk
    There is so much wrong with this post that I cannot wait to take it apart. But, It is Christmas day and tomorrow I will be off on holiday until the 7th of Jan, but I so much want to get into this total nonsense that fails to completely understand NZ Conops and SPAO HADR requirements and simplistically focuses only amphibious combat operations.
     
    tongan_yam likes this.
  4. Todjaeger

    Todjaeger Potstirrer

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,839
    Likes Received:
    510
    Location:
    not in New England anymore...
    I look forward to your response, particularly the areas where you think I am wrong. I am also interested in finding out what size amphibious (any type, combat, HADR, etc.) deployment NZ could realistically manage, as well as what size sustainable deployment NZ could conduct.
     
  5. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,603
    Likes Received:
    1,251
    Location:
    In the rum store
    The advantages of a LHD over a LPD is the LHD having a through deck flight deck enables great versatility of the flight deck and removes significant airflow problems from the superstructure that a LPD can present.
    Whilst the Canterbury, which in reality is a goat boat not fit for purpose (I do not mean any disrespect to Canterbury's crew past or present), was designed to carry a reinforced rifle company, it appears that many people think that, for ever and a day, NZDF will only ever deploy a reinforced rifle company by amphibious ship., which is muddy thinking with little logic, because history has shown that in geopolitics, situations can and will change quickly and not always for the better. So pollies do get a wake up call which causes them great consternation with the last one of such magnitude being in the second half of 1941, resulting in significant grinding of teeth and tearing of hair, in Wellington and Canberra. The end result in late 1945 was that Canberra took the lesson to heart and Wellington didn't, reverting to the prewar 1930s attitude which still prevails today.

    There are LHD that will lift < 500 troops, ~ 100 - 150 vehicles, hangar 6 - 8 helos with spots for 4 - 5 helos on the flight deck.

    RNZN ST Endurance E-170 LHD2.jpg

    This is an illustration of a ST E170 Endurance Class LHD that I have done.

    You will find that some LHDs designs are scalable and fresh air is free and steel is cheap, so it is good to future proof as well. We don't need to take 8 x NH 90s on a deployment, but 3 - 4 NH90s plus 2 A109s and 2 - 3 SH-2G(A) Seasprites is very doable and that's just us. We'd have no problems filling up a vehicle deck either be it for combat or HADR. By the time you get 30 - 40 NZLAV, trucks, artillery, trailers, engineering vehicles etc., loaded it will start to look crowded.
    Historically we have always been an expeditionary force (apart from the NZ Wars), and we are not going to field an armoured division with MBTs again, however we will field a combat force with helos, armoured vehicles, artillery, and support vehicles. However having vehicle decks rated for MBTs is a no brainer and it would be part of the interoperability that is required. This would also mean the the flight deck should have a couple of spots rated for Chooks and Ospreys as well.
    I am a strong adherent of the distributed lethality strategum and I agree that Canterbury, Aotearoa and any future LHD should have better armament for defence. I would like to see them fitted with at least 2 x 35 mm Millennium guns each and 6 - 9 ExLS VLS cells each which would give a total of 24 - 36 Sea Ceptor missiles. Possibly FFBNW NSM.

    Whilst the warfighting side of a defence force is always its first raison d'etre, in NZ's case HADR runs a close second and that is because of our geography, our size and our international obligations. First of all you need to understand the spatial context and where we have to respond each year multiple times for HADR, during cyclone season.

    00-143_SW_Pacific_Islands.jpg

    In that map we would respond to HADR within that red polygon, plus areas outside of that if our capabilities are requested. That is a significant part of the Pacific Ocean which has little first world infrastructure, so a LHD with significant air and surface ship to shore capability that is not dependant upon airport and port facilities is a requirement. Such operations do require effective utilisation of all assets and one of the lessons learnt from the Kaikoura quakes was that rotary wing assets are critical and they are not good parked in a hangar or ashore or waiting for flight deck spots to be freed up. That is where the through deck flight deck is better than an aft only flight deck because it allows for greater efficiency in helo flight deck movements.

    It is that HADR aspect and now the climate change aspect which will now help NZDF gain support for capabilities like LHDs because they will be seen as necessary assets to help neighbours and friends in the future.

    One more point which is important in the NZ context. The Australians looked at LPDs and LHDs and decided upon the LHD. That will be an important consideration in NZG eyes.

    Finally analysing this topic in a NZ context purely from within a military amphibious conceptualisation is going to lead to fatal flaws in logic resulting in false conclusions because it ignores the HADR conceptualisation which has similar validity in the NZG priority weightings.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2018
    Xthenaki, Rob c and John Fedup like this.
  6. Novascotiaboy

    Novascotiaboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2016
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    122
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Two of anything is always better than one.

    It would be a good thing if large military assets were interoperable with allies but some capabilities would be very difficult for the pollies to accept.

    The Peruvian Pisco is an Indonesian Makasaar likely built to lessor requirements than the RNZN would prefer.

    I still like the Algerian LPH, although small, it ticks many boxes. As a war fighter it has a strong armament and radars. It can serve in numerous capacities supporting ASW operations, HADR, amphibious, training, patrol, command and general support of the fleet.

    If the design could be stretched the additional length could allow for additional aircraft and or troops. I think the Dokdo and the Izumu classes are too large.

    Two such vessels and two frigates would form a viable force able to support operations across the Pacific and around the world.

    Ngati I could not agree more about Millenium guns and the reuse of the Mk41 launchers for such a vessel.

    Merry belated Christmas all.
     
  7. t68

    t68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    86
    Location:
    NSW
    &

    I agree that a small thru flight deck is inherently more flexible, it would actually reduce the work load for deck crew despite most likely only having a small amount of airframes available leaving more time to prep any further tasks where operating space would be at a premium, as well the ability to scale up the vertical manoeuvre capability via coalition assets.

    pg28
    "The FJOC highlights the need for combat-focused joint forces that are expeditionary by design and able to project and sustain force elements (including land forces) in the Pacific and elsewhere throughout the world, and be networked and interoperable with partners"

    NZ future operating concept requires more than the basic current minimum that NZDF can put together. The future operating concept call for land manoeuvre across the spectrum of tactical capabilities of which are, dismounted, protected which makes a armoured combined arms team, it should also have the ability to host a heavy combined arms team (up-to and including M1a2 Abrams

    Below is the future operating construct as defined future land operating construct (courtesy Mr C)
    NZ Army - Future Land Operating Concept 2035

    pg28
    "The ability to win in close combat is the ultimate relevance of the NZ Army and therefore it’s primary capability determinant. The focus of the future capability programs will be to build an excellent light fighting force that is interoperable with and can leverage the capabilities of larger and heavier forces"

    Here the relevance will be the ability to host " larger and heavier forces" having the ability to integrate and work and move with the new operating concept under Plan Beersheba ACR

    " The armoured cavalry regiments will contain a unit headquarters structured to command battle-group-sized combined-arms operations, a logistic support subunit, an Land 400 cavalry squadron, an Land 400 equipped armoured personnel carrier squadron and a tank squadron"

    To meet these future concepts if feel that NZ will have to increase it mobility in not only land manoeuvre but also vertical, with light and medium PMV's and light and medium weight armoured vehicles including a mortar variant such as Dragon Fly, along with a corresponding increase to a heavy lift helicopter.
     
  8. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,603
    Likes Received:
    1,251
    Location:
    In the rum store
    The Singapore Technology Endurance E-170 LHD is slightly larger than the Algerian LPH, more capable and ticks more boxes. I would think that the displacements would be not to dissimilar with the E-170 maybe having 1,500 - 2,000 tonnes more displacement fully loaded.

    "Two such vessels and two frigates would form a viable force able to support operations across the Pacific and around the world."
    If you think that then you are in dire need of reeducation because your thinking is most definitely flawed. Well beyond standing in the corner and no pudding* for tea flawed. It is so seriously flawed that Preceptor may be able to live off your puddings for quite a while and he's mean enough to make you watch him eat them too. ​

    Two LHDs and 2 FFGs are NOT a viable naval combat force even if the LHDs are armed with some SAM and SSM. They have totally different capabilities hence built with different offensive and defensive systems, both hard and soft. At a minimum, the RNZN Naval Combat Force has to be 3 x FFG and that's the bare minimum.

    Also if you read my post properly, I did not write anything reusing Mk-41 VLS. I deliberately stated ExLS VLS because it is lighter than the MK-41 VLS and is more flexible in it's location aboard ship.

    *For those of you without the proper education that is given by the British Commonwealth, pudding is dessert.
     
    tongan_yam likes this.
  9. Novascotiaboy

    Novascotiaboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2016
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    122
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Ngati my suggestion of a four vessel primary fleet is twice the current and I felt I was being realistic. I fully understand the rule of threes but I know it isn’t going to happen with the current political masters. I see the enhanced features of the Algerian LPD as an alternative to a standard typical frigate and not just as an LPD in a size similar to a T26. As much as I like Absalon I see the other features of the mini LPD as maximizing the abilities of a small navy like the RNZN.

    My four vessel fleet would hopefully make available one of each types at all times with a strong adherence to a maintenance schedule ensuring docking locally. I think in addition to the vessels listed I would add two Damen LST 120 as these would provide an option for coalition support particularly in the South Pacific.

    Can the E170 accommodate its helicopters in an enclosed hangar below deck with full maintenance? I thought that I read that the aircraft would be embarked on deck for short distance travels without the benefit of a hangar?

    Being from the east coast of Canada we are very familiar with pudding here in Nova Scotia. So much so that I am sitting here with a plate of warmed plum pudding with rum flavoured hard sauce.
     
  10. Novascotiaboy

    Novascotiaboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2016
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    122
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    FLOC 2035 references the benefit of marine transport of resources en mass to areas of operations. It also states the requirement for green and brown water operations in the littoral. This is where I see the benefit of the two LST 120s. Instead of four LCVP in davits I see the benefit of two LCVP and two CB90 assault boats. The same CB90 should be available to the mini LPDs.

    As a multi role combat vessel the mini LPD in RNZN service would be a formidable resource in actions in the South Pacific where there is little combat power amongst island nations. Just think of the ability that a sea base with four or five helicopters, a fleet of small craft, a deployable land force with vehicles and supporting arms, along with RPAS for ISR would make during interventions. All of the above supports HADR when needed.

    A change in CONOPS from Cold War thinking to joint operations makes a mini LPD ship(s) very beneficial across the whole of the NZDF and government operations.

    Built in SK yard the cost should be very reasonable and if combined with a frigate purchase could produce even more operational savings by incorporating similar systems across the vessels.
     
  11. Todjaeger

    Todjaeger Potstirrer

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,839
    Likes Received:
    510
    Location:
    not in New England anymore...
    A point of correction here, though given how fungible some of the vessel types are, this might be more semantics, but the Algerian Navy vessel Kalaat Beni Abbes is a LPD, not an LHD, and while it has a continuous flight deck, there are only a pair of landing spots, one fore and another aft. Incidentally, the vessel is based off Italy's San Giorgio-class LPD, which has since seen the first two vessels in class modified by lengthening the flight deck to accommodate two more landing spots (four total) and these modified vessels might now be considered LHD's as opposed the still being LPD's like they were originally commissioned as.

    As a side note, a good example of an LPH would be the former HMS Ocean, with one of the primary defining characteristics that are different between an LPH and either a LPD or LHD is the fact that an LPH lacks a well dock.

    At present I am debating whether or not a discussion thread of amphibious ships should be opened if one does not already exist, to discuss the differences and similarities between types of amphibious vessels, as well as how the different types would likely be utilized.

    FYI I cannot help but giggle a wee bit, picturing the first encountering between a person raised in Britain or the Commonwealth and what is considered pudding in the US... I suspect that might go about as well as the introduction to a Kiwi/British cousin of mine to Oreo cookies, with a cookie being the American term for what would be considered a biscuit in the UK. That, in and of itself was a better (less unpleasant) reaction than I got from American and Czech friends that I introduced Vegemite to...;)
     
  12. Todjaeger

    Todjaeger Potstirrer

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,839
    Likes Received:
    510
    Location:
    not in New England anymore...
    The RNZN and NZDF as a whole have experienced a very significant change in conops from what existed during the Cold War. Just look at the current quantity and range of capabilities of the kit in service has, and then consider the quantities and comparative capability ranges NZ fielded during the Cold War.

    There are of course a number of areas where current NZDF capabilities exceed what had existed in the past, but a significant problem exists within a number of those areas, as while the capability has grown when benchmarked against what the NZDF could do before, the degree of growth when compared to how much that same type capability has grown in armed forces is often significantly less.
     
  13. t68

    t68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    86
    Location:
    NSW
    Face The Future: Concepts On Force Design,

    A follow on paper for FLOC 35 by a number of author's, I haven't read it all yet as I'm going on the annual sojourn for some quality time with the family then back to work for a rest;)


    http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/2018/face_the_future_concepts_of_force_design.pdf


    I have been looking for a similar papers for Navy -Air Force but have yet to find them expect for the strategy out to2035


    http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/corporate-documents/future35/default.htm
     
  14. 40 deg south

    40 deg south Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    116
    Gidday Kiwis
    Hhow about a bit of speculation about the year ahead? I'm going to list a few topics, and run through confirmed and possible developments for 2019. As always, I'm relying on your collective wisdom to add value to the exercise.

    Planning
    The update to the Defence Capability Plan originally promised for late 2018 should be out early/mid in 2019. The big question will be how much it has changed from the relatively recent one completed by the previous government.
    Anything else?

    Air Force
    Hopefully, a decision on replacing the C130s will be made in the first half of the year, possibly accompanying the updated capability plan release. My guess is a like-for-like replacement with C130Js, although that is not my preferred option.
    Work will continue at Ohakea on preparations to host the P-8s, as well as more general upgrades to a range of tired buildings.
    No Singapore F-15s, sadly.
    Full training services with the T-6C should resume once the problem with ejector seat cartidges is resolved.
    Will the NH90 simulator be installed this year or next year?

    Navy
    New AOR Aotearoa launched by HHI mid-year, and sea trials to begin later in the year. Delivery to NZ early in 2020, but I would assume significant Navy involvement in the sea trials work?
    New Manawanui to be delivered in second half of year, following upgrades/modifications in Norway (including engine replacement). Self-defence weapons and comms systems to be fitted at Devonport after delivery.
    Upgrade of Te Kaha at Seaspan in Vancouver to be completed? (I have struggled to keep up with the ever-receding timeline of this project). Presumably as Te Kaha comes out of refit, Te Mana will replace her dockside in Canada. Te Kaha will then return to Devonport for crew training/familiarisation, and to work any bugs out of the new systems.
    I'm not aware of a timeline for the proposed Southern OPV - it would be nice to see that go to tender this year, but have no idea if that is realistic.

    Army

    Upgrades and refurbishing of all major bases should begin/continue, as part of the modernisation plan agreed by the previous government. A fair bit of this is driven by a legal need to bring the bases up to modern standards of seismic resistance, plus general dilapidation from decades of underfunding.
    The small arms upgrade programme appears to be done and dusted.
    The 105mm field guns are being progressively overhauled by BAE in Australia - I think this is still underway.
    A recent annual report on the MOD website suggested the 81mm mortars are being replaced with a lighter-weight equivalent - no time line was given.
    There may be some progress on replacing the armoured Pinzgauers - this has been flagged but I'm not aware of a time line.
    Likewise, the LAVs are due a mid-life upgrade, but there has been no news on this in the last couple of years.
    Possible addition of 'garison duties' civilian trucks to save wear and tear on the limited MAN military fleet?.
    The strategic bearer satellite comms system rollout should continue (should really list this as a multi-service project).

    Other
    OK folks, what have I missed/misunderstood/got wrong?
     
  15. htbrst

    htbrst Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    253
    Likes Received:
    39
    In the latest Air Force News:

    http://airforce.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/airforce-news/afn209.pdf
     
    40 deg south likes this.
  16. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,603
    Likes Received:
    1,251
    Location:
    In the rum store
    So you suggest a change to joint ops with a down grade in capability in CONOPS from Cold War thinking when we are in a period of increasing international tensions in the Indo - Pacific region and probably Cold War 2.0? With suggestions like that no wonder Canadian defence is FW&T'd.

    Yes CONOPS do need to change to reflect modern warfare, but there also needs to be realistic resourcing and funding from the NZG regardless of political persuasion. You also need to understand capabilities in an NZ are not just about what's required now, but have to be future proofed because they will be used for 30 - 50 years, so a mini LPD is not going to suffice. It is less than what we have now and the MRV Canterbury isn't fit for purpose. IF Canterbury had a well dock it would be fit for purpose, but it doesn't hence it's not.

    Multi role platforms are good to a point but to much multi role creates a platform that is about as useful as nipples on a bull or an electric coat hanger. You either have a FF or a LHD / LPD, not a bitsa of both, because they have completely different roles and you have been on here long enough to know that. Whilst I advocate increased sensors, gun and SAM armament on LHD / LPDs and AORs etc., it is for their defence capabilities along with AShM & SSM for distributed lethality, I certainly don't advocate using them as FF replacements and the opposite is equally valid.

    The LST-120 or similar look interesting, but I wonder what their sea-keeping abilities are like in blue water when it's quite rough, really blowing, and you are a hundreds of nautical miles from land, undertaking a transit passage. I visited Tobruk a couple of times for ales when it was alongside in NZ, so maybe @ASSAIL or one of the other RAN old salts maybe able shed some light on what she was like in the open sea.
     
  17. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,603
    Likes Received:
    1,251
    Location:
    In the rum store
    Not aimed at anyone in particular.

    One thing that really does annoy Kiwi & Aussie DEFPRO's on here are northern hemisphere posters pontificating on what Australia & NZ should be doing / not doing defence wise, when these posters have never been here and / or do not understand the areas of interest that our two countries have. They don't comprehend the distances involved nor the fact that the Australian & NZ areas of interest, both strategic and economic are the Indo Pacific, the Antarctic and all the areas in between. They also don't appear to understand the politics, cultures or histories of both of our countries. Just because you may have read an article or two doesn't mean that you necessarily understand how or why we do things, because whilst we conform to northern hemisphere western norms in many ways, we definitely don't conform in just as many ways.
     
    tongan_yam, Rob c, oldsig127 and 2 others like this.
  18. Novascotiaboy

    Novascotiaboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2016
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    122
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Not sure I am even going to make a comment to that. Enjoy
     
  19. Redlands18

    Redlands18 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    142
    Location:
    qld
    Not just the DEFPROS either,
     
    tongan_yam and oldsig127 like this.
  20. Ocean1Curse

    Ocean1Curse Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2013
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Australia
    Yeah, more of a question though with the P-8 acquisition and whether or not contingencies have been thrashed out about dealing with, going from a loiter time of 16 hours with the P-3K to 4 hours with the P-8A. Was under the belief that some sort of supplementary aircraft was going to be purchased to extend the reach of the P-8s. After a quick skim read of the 5 pages of the RNZAF thread I'm non the wiser.

    So is there any contingency plan for dealing with the difference in loiter time or is RNZAF going to work to new standards?

    Don't know how much is left in the Maritime Surveillance budget, but there's the best part of $16 billion left in the 20 billion recapitalising fund. So still some room for speculation.