NZDF General discussion thread

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Hi Mr C

Well it’s nearly they end of the silly season, I have been eagerly awaiting your rebuttal to get another point of view. I hope your fully recharged till the next silly season
Indeed, I have as well since I have been wondering whether it was/is a matter of a different perspective, assumptions made based off a different set of information, or whether or not the perspectives are actually much closer to each other than they might at first appear.

One of the things which I have been wondering about is whether some of the different ideas stem from my thoughts on what the 'normal' capacity of a Kiwi amphibious vessel should reasonably be. This is also why I suggested an amphibious vessel discussion thread and I have been trying to nail down definitions for different types of amphibious vessel. Unfortunately so far it seems to be not unlike who escorts are sometimes labelled a corvette, frigate, destroyer or cruiser, without there being a clear delineation of the differences are between the types.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Indeed, I have as well since I have been wondering whether it was/is a matter of a different perspective, assumptions made based off a different set of information, or whether or not the perspectives are actually much closer to each other than they might at first appear.

One of the things which I have been wondering about is whether some of the different ideas stem from my thoughts on what the 'normal' capacity of a Kiwi amphibious vessel should reasonably be. This is also why I suggested an amphibious vessel discussion thread and I have been trying to nail down definitions for different types of amphibious vessel. Unfortunately so far it seems to be not unlike who escorts are sometimes labelled a corvette, frigate, destroyer or cruiser, without there being a clear delineation of the differences are between the types.
The definitions of what constitutes a corvette, frigate, destroyer or cruiser nowadays appears to be changing from size back to mission, similar to what it was in the days of sail, and it also varies form navy to navy, but that is just my POV. Also the nomenclature of amphib vessels varies between navies as well. Maybe standardisation of nomenclature, similar to a NATO standard, might be something that could be worthwhile.

Regarding a "normal" capacity for a Kiwi amphib ship, this is a relatively new capability for NZDF, being introduced and sustained during a time of NZDF capability cutbacks, so define what is NZDF normal capacity?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
The definitions of what constitutes a corvette, frigate, destroyer or cruiser nowadays appears to be changing from size back to mission, similar to what it was in the days of sail, and it also varies form navy to navy, but that is just my POV. Also the nomenclature of amphib vessels varies between navies as well. Maybe standardisation of nomenclature, similar to a NATO standard, might be something that could be worthwhile.

Regarding a "normal" capacity for a Kiwi amphib ship, this is a relatively new capability for NZDF, being introduced and sustained during a time of NZDF capability cutbacks, so define what is NZDF normal capacity?
By 'normal capacity' I meant how if one looks at the lift capabilities of various amphibious vessels in service with different navies they often have two different capacities listed for troop lift. Using the USN's Wasp-class LHD fact sheet as an example, a USMC detachment of 1,687 troops is mentioned, plus another 184 surge. Similarly, the RN's Albion-class LPD has a listed capacity of 256 troops plus their vehicles and combat supplies, which can be swollen to 405 troops.

Having looked through some of the other classes in service, it does indeed seem that at least for short periods, many of these vessels can have more troops embarked than they usually would hold. I seem to recall something similar being said about the RAN's Canberra-class LHD, which would make sense if part of the reason that design was selected was because it was supposed to be able to have an embarked force aboard for something like 50 days with on board stores.

I would imagine any future Kiwi amphibious vessel would have a similar sort of capability where the 'normal' embarked force might be 256 like an Albion-class, but more could be embarked for short periods during an emergency or for a surge deployment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: t68

40 deg south

Well-Known Member
New Zealand Defence Force's estate crumbling and in dire need of updating

Good to see this issue getting some attention. The previous government announced a billion-dollar plan (albeit over about 15 years) to bring facilities up to scratch. The currnt DefMin appears to be largely following the script, despite having to claim his plan is far superior to the previous (very similar) one.

In what may be a historic first for modern NZ, two parties are squabbling over who will spend more on defence rather than less. However, the comments underneath are liberally sprinkled with eye-watering stupidity, so we apparently haven't fallen into some mysterious parallel universe.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
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.
It would not be better served and would be entirely undesirable unless it was an evolved and slightly enlarged Fincantieri BDSL with an adequate deck lift, thus an LPD with better aviation capability (i.e at least 3 deck spots) than the present CY and many of the other LPD’s that were once built.

The notion of having an future amphibious vessel design in the context of the post 2030 NZDF and its principal SouPac AOO that has design limited HVL (helicopter vertical lift) capacity with deck two deck spots at best, such as the traditional LPD designs would significantly limit the capability of the NZDF to do its long term future role in both combat support and HADR. Any future amphibious asset will be the cornerstone of NZDF operations in its primary area of interest (the South Pacific) in the decades to come.

While the notion of more flight deck and/or hangar space might seem appealing, how much 'more' is really useful?
Thankfully the research has answered your question. The value of helicopter vertical lift as the key enabler to success in conducting HADR support missions has been well traversed and is a good starting point as noted in Moffat (2014) as well as Elleman (2004), Clementson & Fisher (2011) and Goldman (2013), who scoped the context JMSDF amphibious capabilities.

Moffat (2014) outlined the transformative role that LHD’s in the context of HVL operations play.

In every instance that the U.S. Navy provided relief in HA/DR missions, the helicopter was the essential asset. When determining how much capability a ship has in providing support for a disaster, one must first look at how many helicopters the ship can bring, if any at all. While some ships can provide different types of support, this premier asset should be regarded as the highest priority.

This is especially so in the context of the NZDF’s principal area of operations the South Pacific, where a complex event such as HADR response requires an intense range of multi-factorial taskings. In particular with respect to any amphibious assets having to deal with responding to events in multiple inhabited islands frequently with little or no infrastructure that require a distributed response over a huge geographic area. For example from ship to shore cargo of varying sizes and amounts, ship to shore (and inverse) personnel transfer in often evac, medevac/ patient transfer, damage assessment and SAR all requiring a rapid response. With an LHD as opposed to older LPD designs these taskings are able to be done concurrently, to different locations and underpin time sensitive advantages. This directly translates to the LOE (Lines of Effort) required achieve the mission success. As the literature outlines HVL capability is the critical requirement in succeeding this HADR context.

Greenfield and Ingram (2011) in their research into HVL’s within HADR missions developed a quantitative methodology to analyze the respective capabilities of various vessels by platform type in terms of undertaking HADR operations. The LHD design received 480 capability points verses the 120 points allocated to traditional LPD designs with the key differential being the enhanced HVL capability LHD’s provide in HADR response.

Equally the same range of tasking criteria applied in a combat scenario in which the added element of force protection applies. HVL’s as you know are fundamental enablers of ground manoeuvre, allowing troops to circumvent difficult terrain and to bypass ground threats, to rapid troop movement and re-supply. When married to New Zealand’s emerging agile light infantry force structure as outlined in FLOC and the recognition of the predominant SouPac operating environment that NZ Forces are likely to deploy to as part of the JATF, whether that be across the tasking spectrum from HADR to MIC Chp VII events, a LHD is the far superior future vessel platform for the NZDF than a traditional LPD.

With the 2016 Fiji HADR deployment the CY had to forward deploy the two NH90 on shore 200kms away as there was insufficient onboard vessel capacity to handle the flight tempo whilst conducting other support activities. That created an additional strain in LOE in logistically supporting them. A CY with a well dock would not do much better as two LC’s wont provide the required multi-factorial response and completion speed of a HVL. The Fiji HADR mission exposed other capability gaps with CY – it was not big enough with the OPV Wellington also required to bring in a further 70 tonnes of Aid, plus the hydrographic and diving teams, and army engineer personnel numbering around 70. Thus taking away that vessel from its scheduled taskings and taking a week later than CY in getting the Aid into place. Unfortunately, an additional and highly useful SH-2G was not embarked as it obviously could not be supported from such a small and austere vessel and there was no capacity on the CY.

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.
Following the CY’s Get Well re-configuration the hanger space is only now only realistically usable for a Sea Sprite and 2 NH-90s with limited on ship flight support if flying operations are to be conducted off the single landing spot on the deck. You are certainly not able to conduct concurrent TOAL using two HVL assets off the CY’s flight deck with rotors running nor underway. Only under a bona fide emergency would a NH90 and Sprite be sharing the deck concurrently.

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.
That is a classic fallacy of equating a current minimum rotary capability which was set for political reasons 15 years ago and extrapolating that with what will be required post 2030 and the 3 decades following that when replacement ship to CY is likely to be in commission. It is extremam rationem to suggest that somehow we would be carrying all eight NH-90’s on any amphibious vessel. How about the capacity to at least store 4 NH90s and 2 Sprites within the hanger space that has a sufficient maintenance area and have 3 landing spots on the deck one of which could handle a visiting allied Chinook or V-22, and a deck lift?

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.
That sounds like the Dokdo and Wiki have collided into misinformation. No you can certainly not carry 720 troops and 200 vehicles at the same time. You can carry around 30 vehicles and 720 troops for a short duration with austere facilities on Dodko.

It is sophistic to equate that because a certain vessel design in current operation might possibly be a larger than what is required for the NZDF. There are a number of scalable LHD designs that are smaller than 19000 ton (whatever tonnage calculation you are using). The Athlas 13000 LHD based on the Enforcer family. The 14000 ton Mistral 140 is another and so is the HDW’s MRD-10000 design. And significantly for NZ because the Koreans loom large in RNZN maritime relationships, HHI has the scalable MSRV series of 10000 to 16000 ton designs, which are both available in LPD and large deck LHD designs. Like the in the case of the coming 24000 ton Aotearoa, we can order exactly what we require in the size and timeframe we require it, a vessel that was built with future proofed capacity and capability in mind, no doubt a lesson learnt by the RNZN with respect to the capacity limitations of the 9200 DWT of the current CY as noted in the Coles Report and born out with Wellington having to be re-tasked at short notice to make up the difference.

There is the Fincantieri BDSL for the Algerian Navy mentioned earlier, which is in effect an LPD for its modest size at around 9000 DWT offers similar sealift to the CY but with a well-dock and a slightly increased HVL capability providing 2 main flight spots and storage for 4. However it does not have a deck lift.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
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.
I would not. A rehash of what amounts to the CY is completely underwhelming. For a start such a vague analysis asks the obvious questions. Is this LTG sized element for SASO, HADR, a Chp VI event or a Chp VII event, which may translate across a spectrum from LIC to HIC? Each different mission requires an entirely different resourcing and personnel response and thus load-out configuration of the vessel. Seems then that the most versatile platform would be the winner, if we look to future vignettes and not formulate requirements based on forced capability/cost constraints from a 15 years ago viz CY and attempt to project that into a post 2030 world.

In 1978 the original concept guidelines for a NZDF Logistic Support Ship was that it would be required to sealift up to 50% of the initial Battalion Group deployment of around 800. That was reiterated in 1987 following the Fiji coup and then refined further in terms of specifications prior to the Charles Upham procurement in 1992 which stipulated a LSS of at least 1000 lane metres for vehicles including M113’s and Unimogs, dozers, trailers and recovery vehicles, vehicle decks having adequate strength for 20 t axle loads, 5 m deck height, and vehicle lifts of 40 t capacity to all decks. Space for 30 TEU (10 refrigerated) of general stores and a further 10 TEU for explosives, and the ability to autonomously embark and disembark the above dry cargo. Facilities to operate and hangar two medium helicopters, with main and emergency landing spots and the ability to land a Chinook, with a suitable vertrep point. Specific bunkerage capacities and transfer facilities for dieso, avcat, water and lubricants. Light jackstay rigs for underway replenishment, and ability to replenish liquids to a vessel berthed alongside. It also specified a quarter or stern slewing ramp with working load of 60 tons for a access to unimproved wharf. That early LSS conceptual guideline required a ship capable of operating in Sea State 5, with restricted flying operations in Sea State 4. The Sealift 2000 study in the late 1990’s following the Upham debacle again reiterated the 1992 capability with the added perspective that a well dock would be ideal and also noted that this would be a vessel which would contribute to wider NZDF use as well as enable follow on deployment and support of other countries contingents including Australia. Forty years on in the timeframe of that study and over 50 when the CY replacement would be required we would want that and more (The CY due to low ball project cost framing delivered basically half that originating LLSS requirement) with respect to the overwhelming evidence that HVL assets are transformative in amphibious operations whether it be for HADR, combat or a number of other roles – especially in the operational context of the SouPac with its dispersed small island low infrastructure geography.

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.
This suggestion of moving 10% of the Army nor the misapprehension that such a vessel being for the exclusive use of the NZ Army is ignoring its whole of force operational rationale as an NZDF cornerstone asset. No doubt based on the original fallacy that because at present LHD builds have been ordered around the 200m / 19000 ton mark. Also predisposing that it would sail around virtually empty after dumping 600 or 700 hundred personnel and have no other purpose misses all the other roles and potential roles that even an LPD let alone the more multi-role LHD can conduct in the mid in the 21st century context that applies to the CY's replacement.

The CY L421 was also originally envisaged to replace the CY F421 in its long range patrolling role, something which the Algerians are using their Fincantieri BDSL in the Med for as its principal non tactical sealift roles. HMNZS Matataua (formerly the littoral warfare unit) is now platform agnostic so small dive tender and survey SMB operations from a LHD have future tasking efficacy alongside UUV remotes. Furthermore a LHD platform with its enhanced HVL capability could also translate into HMNZS Matataua one day moving into airborne MCM operations using payload modules from the NH90 or indeed embark a pair of ASW helicopters. They are already training in using the NH90 as a dive platform. The point is that a post 2030 RNZN amphibious vessel should have the potential to offer a range of role utilization and not be straitjackets into simply the rinse and repeat of a another CY with a well dock.

For factual accuracy the NZ Army muster is now closer to 6800 at the September 2018 head count as reported in evidence to the December FAD&T Select Committee with the Regulars circa the 4800 mark and Active Reserve near the 2000 mark and overall attrition down to just 8%. In fact the NZ Army has grown by nearly 500 personnel since 2012/13 and tacit goal to get the regular force to over 5000 in the short term alongside NEA and PMCP. Around 400 regulars and 400 reserves are recruited each year with around 120 officer cadets. The current DefMin is keen to see Army numbers grow back to 5400 FTE regulars of 15 years ago (in particular keen to get both 1/1 and 2/1 Battalions back to full rifle company establishment) and supports of building further personnel capacity in the Army Reserve as does the current opposition Defence spokesperson. With the heightened security challenges that are now present, and 80% of the NZ public responding to surveys that see the NZDF as a force for good (up from just 68% a few years ago and the highest in a generation) I very much doubt a return to the low ebb of a 6400 muster for the NZ Army will be at all likely or a realistic figure to base such a calculation especially over the long term. If a return to an establishment of 5400 Regulars plus 2600 in the active Reserve (there was an over 6000 muster pre Timor) in a few years, an NZ Army of 8000 which may well be a very conservative muster for the NZ Army in 15 years with 5% (even though I am loathe to use such a facile methodology) or 400 deployed by tactical sealift into a potential Chp VII battalion sized vignette is entirely feasible and would be on par with those originating LSS requirements estimating that initial theatre lift of 50% of a full combined arms taskforce drawn from all units in 1 Brigade. Especially, under the post 2030 timeframe that any CY replacement would appear.
 

Ocean1Curse

Member
Don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the stakes have gotten so high that it threatens the species. So let's go to the topic of the militarisation of Antartica, science and space which in part has issues to do with empire building and hegemony, and in other parts it has to do with New Zealand's domestic economy and society. Militarisation and science is extensively involved.

If you wana talk about the domestic economy a good place to start is which trade rules do we wish to live under. WTO or Comprehensive Trade rules, these rules have responsibility to pay for what happens in society and we can all read in bigger words what trade means in the New Zealand Herald, and other means of tax evasion and social networks of a healthy economy. Regularly in New Zealand's national paper the health of the economy is dependant on growing flexibility in the labour market which means growing worker insecurity. So if workers are insecure then they won't care about resource scarcity in places like Antartica or even in the domestic economy and to prevent measures that undermine national security and sovereignty. People may care about it but they're to frightened to do anything about it because they're to scared and freighted about losing a McJob.

The domestic economy today is very heavily reliant on government programmes, the billion dollar regional fund and other concerns of a sliding industrial economy and there is also resistant by managers to pick up new flexible management and efficiency techniques so New Zealand's industries continue to fall behind or move offshore. Thanks to weak education and business links this change keeps falling behind us.

According to Stats NZ the average income of kiwi households is about $105,000 and according to Payscale.com a Masters in Engineering will net you about $75,000 in Auckland city so there's a significant gap where education is struggling to keep pace with the falling change.

Stats NZ link: Household income and housing-cost statistics: Year ended June 2018 | Stats NZ

Payscale link: Auckland City Salary | PayScale

So how do we go about re-industrialising New Zealand? Well the usual way, with huge Government stimulus, and calling business privatisation borrowing, not stealing. That's the standard method. In this case there's no need for a pretext for a defence against anything.

So now the plan is Climate Change and HADR missions to defend ourselves from extinction and/or loss of sovereignty and that ought to be on the front page of every news paper with simple language in big print and PowerPoint displays. For all that you will need a Navy, an Airforce and an Army, and colourful pictures. But any news of the two missions is good news.

Now there's a new frontier and that's Space. So now we need space in order to protect commercial projects and investments, but how? First of all there is a background analysis called globalisation which has assured the intelligence community with technological achievements and access and intelligence decision makers would agree with military planners that globalisation is a wonderful thing. That's one aspect. What it can not lead to is a widening economic divid and leading cause of stagnation, much of it directed at immigration and internal citizens. So because of migratory friction we need better ways of controlling economic inputs that doesn't require armies and the ability to place highly effective satellites in space which controls globalisation, shipping, communications, air traffic control, the widening economic stagnation and so on. And that should be shared between every one not just the intelligence community.

So how we deal with the post Cold War paradigm which is a prescription for disaster from the point of view of our own intellectual culture, rationalised with in the frame work of ideology and doctrines we are taught from childhood to accept.

@Ocean1Curse The Moderators had a meeting about whether or not to approve this post because of it's content. It is borderline at the best and some of the Moderators consider it a political rant. However it has been decided to give you the benefit of the doubt this once, but a repeat will not be tolerated at all. Consider this a warning and your posting content will be closely monitored.

Ngatimozart.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The Defence Capability Review will be released in March 2019. "While questions have been raised about how the Government will fund the capability plan, Mark said a positive review of military procurement practices last year had provided some ballast for his case. “I was hopeful it would give confidence to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Deputy Prime Minister that whatever money Cabinet appropriates to me as the Minister of Defence, and to the NZ Defence Force, will not be wasted.” " The review initiated by Mark of Defence procurement processes gave procurement processes a good and positive report which Mark was quite pleased with. Considering he was one of defence procurement's harshest critics and now has faith in that system, it does speak well of the system that has been developed over the past four years.

The recent top brass overhaul was a deliberate decision to increase diversity with the higher ranks. I am unsure what this is apart from the recent changes of the CDF, Chiefs of Services, & COMJFNZ. The other key personnel are:

"Mark has also confirmed he plans to make headway on securing a replacement for the NZ Defence Force’s Hercules C-130 transport aircraft." And "After securing four P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft worth $2.3 billion as part of last year’s Budget, Mark said top of the list for the next acquisition was a replacement for the Hercules C-130s which were nearing the end of their life." So it appears that the C-130H(NZ) replacement decision may yet be some way off.

Military brass refresh ‘chance for greater diversity’
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Kiwis will be happy to know that your PMs contribution at the Davos World Economic Forum was ...different!
She says that measurements such as GDP growth, unemployment etc are all very good but what she wants to focus on in future are three major area; Empathy, Kindness and Wellbeing, because....”happiness matters”

I was going to link the full speech but unfortunately I was in such a euphoric state knowing that the happy All Blacks are going to treat the Wallabies with Empathy, Kindness and Wellbeing that I lost it forever.

So much for Defence you lHappy” Kiwis:rolleyes:
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Kiwis will be happy to know that your PMs contribution at the Davos World Economic Forum was ...different!
She says that measurements such as GDP growth, unemployment etc are all very good but what she wants to focus on in future are three major area; Empathy, Kindness and Wellbeing, because....”happiness matters”

I was going to link the full speech but unfortunately I was in such a euphoric state knowing that the happy All Blacks are going to treat the Wallabies with Empathy, Kindness and Wellbeing that I lost it forever.

So much for Defence you lHappy” Kiwis:rolleyes:
To be fair ASSAIL she would make for a reasonable Year 9 social studies teacher at a decile 4 suburban co-educational Auckland high school. It is a real shame she was not steered into a career path that her 'intellectual' talents could be more suited for and thus benefiting the country.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
To be fair ASSAIL she would make for a reasonable Year 9 social studies teacher at a decile 4 suburban co-educational Auckland high school. It is a real shame she was not steered into a career path that her 'intellectual' talents could be more suited for and thus benefiting the country.
Would that not stunt said students education? At that level they are taught geography and she would not meet the entry requirements for the geographers union.
A perfect match for our Junior if he and Sophie ever split.
Jeez don't put ideas in their heads, unless they decide to move into the White House.
Just think how shallow their offspring would make the gene pool, beach dry.:D
Evolution does throw up some quirks, so don't bet the farm on it.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I was going to link the full speech but unfortunately I was in such a euphoric state knowing that the happy All Blacks are going to treat the Wallabies with Empathy, Kindness and Wellbeing that I lost it forever.
In your dreams ...... It'll be the business as usual so back to your nightmares. :p

P.S. The Rugby won the cricket in the Black Clash on Friday night and that was after the cricket introduced an Australian innovation to the game - 60 grit and 120 grit sandpaper to the game :D
 

Xthenaki

Active Member
In your dreams ...... It'll be the business as usual so back to your nightmares. :p

P.S. The Rugby won the cricket in the Black Clash on Friday night and that was after the cricket introduced an Australian innovation to the game - 60 grit and 120 grit sandpaper to the game :D
I wonder if thats a bit COARSE!
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
In your dreams ...... It'll be the business as usual so back to your nightmares. :p

P.S. The Rugby won the cricket in the Black Clash on Friday night and that was after the cricket introduced an Australian innovation to the game - 60 grit and 120 grit sandpaper to the game :D
That’s what the NZDF will need why the real Militaries go off to fight, some Sandpaper so they can stay at home and Paint things:)
 
Top