NZDF General discussion thread

[OPSSG]

In view of the recent doom and gloom, this thread could do with some positive news.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1453657768942993413

Thank you NZ for your country’s continued presence. I hope our two countries will continue to find ways to collaborate.

 

[Rob c]

I agree Rob, but we have to have a strategy before we can start looking at force structures and TO&E. We also have to look to the future as well with future proofing in mind, something that will be a new experience for NZ governments. Up until now there has been no real coherent national strategy and that needs to change.

The necessary strategy to defend NZ was worked out in the 1980s and was accelerated when we dropped out of ANZUS. This is what lead to the upgrading and increase in numbers of strike wing, the increase and upgrade of the P3's and the ANZAC's (meant to have been 4)etc. The core of it was as previously stated is to have knowledge of what is happening in our area and the ability to counter it. This is of coarse only the basic defence of NZ itself and there is a lot that has to be added to this including our response to regional defence, do we for instance defend certain islands or simply evacuate the population. There are many questions to be answered, but if we cannot defend our selves then they become irrelevant.
I personally think that it would be likely that any attack on Australia would put us in danger as we represent an open door for help to be funneled to the east coast of Australia. this open door would need to be shut by any aggressor. With our current armed forces any aggressor simply needs to fly in or sail in (or both), unannounced, into an available port or airport and continue to build up their forces and there nothing we can do about it. As I have said, first and foremost we must be able to defend our selves before we look further afield and until we can achieve this we are seriously lacking in ability to achieve any meaningful contribution to regional defence as this could simply be bypassed. Until we get the basic's up and running I would be of the opinion that we don't need to reinvent the wheel as is the beloved practice of most politicians so they can claim all the credit.

 

[ngatimozart]

@LucyCraymer I would support what Todjaeger has written about the issues around rotary lift. As noted in my comments my observations indicate that overseas countries provided around 33% of the Kaikoura earthquake military rotary lift, plus civilian helicopters. An OIA to the NZDF would I think provide a more accurate insight.

I would comment on three more areas:

1. The first is the RNZNVR. Prior to the lost of IPC, HMNZS Kiwi and Moa were often the sole naval presence in the South Island. Moa responded to both the Aramoana by acting as guard ship and keeping recreational fishers out of harms way and provided the survey capability using the MCM equipment fitted for the Foveaux straight aircraft crash; crewed by part time sailors. I know Kiwi intercepted one Foreign Fishing Vessel in NZ waters. The loss of these vessels means that there are no naval vessels permanently based in the South Island to support wider government operations. To give further context the police make trips out of Wellington to Marlborough Sounds and MAF have some RHIB's they can use, but nothing significant to support wider government requirements.
   
   That said trials of the RNZNVR on the IPV found that while the seaman branch were able to operate the vessels the engineering branch needed further training (which was one of the reasons that the IPC had a engineer assigned permanently to them to ensure maintenance and training was up to date). Since the loss of two of the 4 IPV the only naval presence that appears in the South Island seems to be for transit to the Southern Ocean and the odd training trip. Even one vessel located in the South Island permanently would provide a significant uplift in capability, especially if it was able to multi-task between mine countermeasures, EEZ patrol etc. Internationally the general trend is away from divisional / port specific assigned vessels (as they do cost money, and a ship in port isn't earning its way - to use a merchant navy maxim) to having the volunteer reserves support wider maritime operation. Again an OIA would be of benefit to see days at sea and what percentage was in the South Island.
   
   
2. Maritime Mine Countermeasures technology is at a point where unmanned vessels with remote teams are now able to go into the danger zone etc. Deployable teams are a viable option to a point. But if the core data for shipping lanes is not up to date and maintained, the deployment becomes more problematic. That was one of the advantages of the IPV. Consequently from the perspective of keeping the ports open in New Zealand to ensure we continue to trade, having all our MCM assets located in Auckland seems just a little odd, especially given our historical vulnerability to mines and the fact that the South Island have some ports that need to remain open at all times in order to receive fuel etc. Fuel is one of New Zealand's strategic vulnerabilities, given no significant reserves are held in New Zealand.
   
   
3. It is easy to think about keeping our sea lanes open from a New Zealand Coastal / Tasman sea perspective. However most of our trade routes though South East Asia. Were a conflict to break out in South East Asia: New Zealand - even it remained neutral - would need to contribute some form of naval vessel to escort neutral ships to assist in keeping our trade moving. New Zealand is completely dependent on overseas shipping companies to move our produce. Typically the ship of choice for escort duty is a frigate, though the lines between a frigate and destroyer are getting a little blurry these days, depending on country of manufacturer, but the Type 31 is probably closer to the original concept. The Iran - Iraq war showed how vulnerable neutral shipping is to random attack in a wider conflict.

Yes Kiwi based at Lyttelton used to undertake winter fisheries patrols off the West Coast during the hoki season. Also did summer patrols through the Marlborough Sounds from Boxing Day until the third week of January. It undertook some annual DOC work around Banks Peninsula undertaking endangered penguin population census and checking of craypots. There was also some Army cooperation work with the TF on weekend exercises doing insertions and extractions and on occasion participation in major exercises. The white ensign was seen quite often around the upper South Island. The Wakakura from Wellington also used to frequent the Marlborough Sounds as well and did some of the West Coast hoki patrols. The Moa class weren't the best sea boats because they rolled on wet grass, and they weren't the quickest on the water, but they got the job done at 12 knots - faster downhill with a following wind.

The reason for a Naval Reserve is to ensure that there is a trained back up for the Regular Navy in time of war. In order for a Naval Reserve to fulfil its function properly it requires ships in order for the Division personnel to be trained and retain their seagoing skills in their respective branches. It's not something that can be done once a year, but needs to be done regularly through the year even if it's a two hour trip out of the Lyttelton Heads on a Monday night. Simulators are great teaching tools but they can't replicate emergency evolutions training at sea in the dark, or finding your way around the ship blindfolded with a DCBA mask on breathing through a long hose having to trust your shipmates to ensure your air supply. Or having to move a patient in a Robinson stretcher through the ship for a MEDEVAC, manoeuvring them up and down ladders, some vertical, all of this whilst the ship is pitching and / rolling.

All of that and more was training that was done by the Reserve Divisions using their IPCs until they were divested of the IPCs. We had people in the Reserves who were fully qualified tradespeople in their civilian life, mechanics, fitters, electricians etc., who the Navy didn't have to train from scratch but were able to operate the technical sides of the ships. Being able to do things the Navy way meant that when required Reserves would have been able to slot into the Regular Navy crews where and when required with ease. Now they don't have that capability because the seagoing branches in the Reserves are beached branches and branch personnel are only able to obtain limited seagoing experience. This isn't a good situation.

 

[Xthenaki]

I looked at contributing from my perspective and became overwhelmed by the in depth responses and experiences by the Mods and service personal (both current and past) that for me the direction changed into an eye opening learning curve. I fully support and agree with all that has been said including the overseas responses that reiterate our problems Finally I have been waiting to see the opportunity arise in bringing these issues to the NZ public - for a long time. I wish you the very best with your endeavours

 

[Shanesworld]

I looked at contributing from my perspective and became overwhelmed by the in depth responses and experiences by the Mods and service personal (both current and past) that for me the direction changed into an eye opening learning curve. I fully support and agree with all that has been said including the overseas responses that reiterate our problems Finally I have been waiting to see the opportunity arise in bringing these issues to the NZ public - for a long time. I wish you the very best with your endeavours

Very much agree.
Only thing I would add is nz is reliant on ocean going trade to the tune of
97%ish percent by value 98-99% ish by volume.
800 ships making 6000 port visits to i think 8 major ports (pre covid).
Shipping insurance is circa 1-3% of hull value pa. Navigating contested waters it increases 100x that for the days in those waters and if combatants target merchant vessels no insurance till you are out of the hot zone.
To protect this we have 2 low end frigates, 4 umderarmed planes and both battalions are struggling to maintain a quarter of their strength and our armoured formation is occasional only.

 

[ngatimozart]

Very much agree.
Only thing I would add is nz is reliant on ocean going trade to the tune of
97%ish percent by value 98-99% ish by volume.
800 ships making 6000 port visits to i think 8 major ports (pre covid).
Shipping insurance is circa 1-3% of hull value pa. Navigating contested waters it increases 100x that for the days in those waters and if combatants target merchant vessels no insurance till you are out of the hot zone.
To protect this we have 2 low end frigates, 4 umderarmed planes and both battalions are struggling to maintain a quarter of their strength and our armoured formation is occasional only.

Add to that no blue water merchant fleet of our own.

 

[Gracie1234]

I would add that we also need to strengthen our Cyber capabilities as part of a National Security Strategy, recent 'attacks' have demonstrated how vulnerable we are. This capability needs to cross traditional defence and public areas. For example, the recent cyber attack against Waikato DHB resulted in a major disruption of services that would have taken a bomb to achieve 40 years ago. Space is going to be another new area that we will need to get to grips with.

 

[Simon Ewing Jarvie]

The recent announcement of a trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America has highlighted New Zealand’s long-standing, wicked national security problem. It is tied, in security terms, to protection from larger nations without the ability to influence them or even be invited to participate at all levels. Economically, New Zealand is deeply engaged with China as its major trading partner. My (long read) article published today at the UK's Wavell Room traverses New Zealand’s three alignment eras, its lack of self-reliance and political inconsistency regarding national security. Alternate strategic posture options and means of national security governance are suggested as possible pathways to resolving the country’s strategic identity conundrum. New Zealand's Struggle for Strategic Identity

 

[Xthenaki]

Hi - I am a reporter with Stuff covering National Security. I've been trying to do a series of the systemic lack of funding of NZ's military and the problems this is causing and what is needed to turn it around. If anyone is keen to chat (on background -- meaning I won't quote you!) please reach out on my work email (it's [email protected]) or here. Thanks

When you publish your views on NZs defence force do you intend to use Social media eg Facebook to promote and engender response from the public at large. Seeking public support for a petition to parliament to change the current Status Quo may be an option for discussion.

 

[KiwiRob]

Add to that no blue water merchant fleet of our own.

We're never going to have a blue water merchant fleet, those days are long gone. No NZ company would be able to compete against shipping giants like Mærsk, MSC, COSCO unless they were govt owned and heavily subsidised. Coastal shipping might be a go, with the big box ships limiting port visits to Auckland and Tauranga, offloading then transshipping to feeders to travel to other ports around the country. The same could also be done with the rail network.

 

[STURM]

Off topic.

Back in the 1980's I remember seeing a convoy comprising several lorries of NZ troops crossing into Malaysia from Singapore. I'm pretty sure they were Dieppe Barracks based troops on their way to the Malaysian army jungle school.

Up until the early 1990's the Kiwi army had a pernanent presense at the school, comprising several instructors. I met one of them, a Sergeant Major who had his wings.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

When you publish your views on NZs defence force do you intend to use Social media eg Facebook to promote and engender response from the public at large. Seeking public support for a petition to parliament to change the current Status Quo may be an option for discussion.

The only way to convince the glubberment to change to take more defence seriously is to get the public to have defence of their nation in the forefront, to get the public to want them to take it seriousily. We have to convince the public first there is an issue of an under funded, under equipped, under manned, problematic strategic strategy ie; non existent, of the NZDF as a whole. Once they take it seriously and see the issue, Gooberment will have start ... as that is the power of voting in and out gubberments.

If the public are don't care about defence, the gloverment won't either... as they will see it as a waste of votes, if the public see the issue and want more on defence, gerverment will see that is what people want, and see the votes there to say in or get in to power...

One of the main issue's is still not having a security strategic strategy/mandate/plan... and the little that is there keeps changing from gutterment to gooberment... If you don't have this in place first then, buying all the fancy toys is a bit of a waste as is no point spending $600 Million on a SOPV when you should have spent and extra $600 Million on an extra air frame... (Not saying this is what should be done we desperately need the SOPV but it is just an example)

 

[John Fedup]

The only way to convince the glubberment to change to take more defence seriously is to get the public to have defence of their nation in the forefront, to get the public to want them to take it seriousily. We have to convince the public first there is an issue of an under funded, under equipped, under manned, problematic strategic strategy ie; non existent, of the NZDF as a whole. Once they take it seriously and see the issue, Gooberment will have start ... as that is the power of voting in and out gubberments.

If the public are don't care about defence, the gloverment won't either... as they will see it as a waste of votes, if the public see the issue and want more on defence, gerverment will see that is what people want, and see the votes there to say in or get in to power...

One of the main issue's is still not having a security strategic strategy/mandate/plan... and the little that is there keeps changing from gutterment to gooberment... If you don't have this in place first then, buying all the fancy toys is a bit of a waste as is no point spending $600 Million on a SOPV when you should have spent and extra $600 Million on an extra air frame... (Not saying this is what should be done we desperately need the SOPV but it is just an example)

Absolutely some kind of effort needed to educate the NZ electorate wrt defence or pollies simply won’t GAF. Canada has a similar problem. The only saving grace Canada has is being geographically attached to the USA, something NZ doesn’t have when $hit hits the fan.

 

[ASSAIL]

The only way to convince the glubberment to change to take more defence seriously is to get the public to have defence of their nation in the forefront, to get the public to want them to take it seriousily. We have to convince the public first there is an issue of an under funded, under equipped, under manned, problematic strategic strategy ie; non existent, of the NZDF as a whole. Once they take it seriously and see the issue, Gooberment will have start ... as that is the power of voting in and out gubberments.

If the public are don't care about defence, the gloverment won't either... as they will see it as a waste of votes, if the public see the issue and want more on defence, gerverment will see that is what people want, and see the votes there to say in or get in to power...

One of the main issue's is still not having a security strategic strategy/mandate/plan... and the little that is there keeps changing from gutterment to gooberment... If you don't have this in place first then, buying all the fancy toys is a bit of a waste as is no point spending $600 Million on a SOPV when you should have spent and extra $600 Million on an extra air frame... (Not saying this is what should be done we desperately need the SOPV but it is just an example)

You can’t convince the public if your govt. is promoting that NZ and China are besties.
Until the leaders begin to accept that the Indo Pacific has become the main arena for strategic competition with China and then advocate that reality, nothing will change.

 

[MrConservative]

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

A very good article from our newest member Lucy Craymer. Also I enjoyed reading our other newest member Simon Ewing Jarvie with his article from yesterday linked at post #6228. BZ to both of you. Keep up the good work!

 

[OPSSG]

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

A very good article from our newest member Lucy Craymer. Also I enjoyed reading our other newest member Simon Ewing Jarvie with his article from yesterday linked at post #6228. BZ to both of you. Keep up the good work!

@LucyCraymer, bravo. Great article — if in future you need any data on Singapore or Taiwan, based on what is shared in the Defence of Taiwan discussion, let me know via PM.

Thank you for raising geo-political awareness in NZ, which is a first step in effective communications.

(a) As disclosed by the Minister of Defence to Parliament, the SAF (by the way), determined that Singapore needed:​

​

(i) 5 Fokker 50 MPAs to enable daily flights, if needed;​

​

(ii) 12 vessels in the Maritime Security and Response Flotilla (eight 1,200 ton LMVs + four 525 ton Sentinel class vessels), for operational taskings to secure our territorial waters in daily patrols and to help reduce the incidents of pirates/fishermen from Indonesian/Batam (robbing ships in the Singapore Straits and the South China Sea); and​

​

(iii) to invest in twelve 1st Flotilla fighting vessels (six 3,200 ton Frigates & six Corvettes) and 4 submarines, to secure our SLOCs, up to 1,000km from Singapore (as a core mission).​

​

(b) The LMVs have modifications to manage future ramming incidents and to protect from small arms fire — that is anticipated to occur, should Malaysia decide to restart intrusions into our port waters (2018). Within ASEAN, ramming is the norm — Vietnam’s coast guard and Indonesian naval vessels have rammed each other (over fisheries issues), as Indonesian policy is to burn and sink Vietnamese fishing boats in their EEZ.​

​

(c) By comparison the RNZN is under resourced for its operational taskings to patrol your country’s huge EEZ.​

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

You can’t convince the public if your govt. is promoting That NZ and China re besties.
Until the leaders begin to accept that the Indo Pacific has become the main arena for strategic competition with China and then advocate that reality, nothing will change.

That is very debatable ... i have already changed 4 or 5 peoples stance or view if you will... on defence just by pointing out various issues. they simply didnt fully grasp what how bad it was... or how little we actually spend on defence...

The discussion has to be bought to the forefront else it will get worse... if the public don't get involved it will definitely not change.

 

[John Fedup]

That is very debatable ... i have already changed 4 or 5 peoples stance or view if you will... on defence just by pointing out various issues. they simply didnt fully grasp what how bad it was... or how little we actually spend on defence...

The discussion has to be bought to the forefront else it will get worse... if the public don't get involved it will definitely not change.

As with many issues, there is no substitute for an informed public (electorate) to make important stuff happen. Wish I knew an effective way to promote defence awareness amongst the Canadian electorate, possibly a bridge too far.

 

[Xthenaki]

Absolutely agree with you on this. One option is the use of social media to promote our views in conjunction with Lucys articles. Further down the track a petition to parliament - seeking support from all ex service personnel, Warbirds, Wings over Wanaka fans to name but a few

 

[ngatimozart]

We're never going to have a blue water merchant fleet, those days are long gone. No NZ company would be able to compete against shipping giants like Mærsk, MSC, COSCO unless they were govt owned and heavily subsidised. Coastal shipping might be a go, with the big box ships limiting port visits to Auckland and Tauranga, offloading then transshipping to feeders to travel to other ports around the country. The same could also be done with the rail network.

Yep I realise that, but we're already experiencing the big shipping companies bypassing NZ ports because of the current crisis. That's creating all sorts of problems. I believe that a coastal shipping service is a requirement now and also such said shipping service should have the capability of undertaking a trans Tasman run. That way we can use the main Australian ports of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane as hubs if necessary, with Port Chalmers, Lyttelton, Tauranga and Wellington as the spokes. I have purposely left Auckland out because I think a better geographic spread is required and Auckland container traffic can be railed between Tauranga and Auckland using the current inland port in South Auckland. I see no reason why regular freight trains cannot run between Tauranga and the Auckland inland port multiple times a day 24/7. It's done in the US and Europe and there is no reason why it can't be done here.

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

A very good article from our newest member Lucy Craymer. Also I enjoyed reading our other newest member Simon Ewing Jarvie with his article from yesterday linked at post #6228. BZ to both of you. Keep up the good work!

I totally agree. I read @Simon Ewing Jarvie excellent article last night and recommend it. I read @LucyCraymer article this morning and again recommend it. She wrote an excellent article and it's really refreshing to see such good journalism finally. As Mr C said BZ to both of you. Lucy, BZ is naval signal code Bravo Zulu which means well done.