NZDF General discussion thread

Xthenaki

Active Member
Giving this government's history of making announcements about announcements and lack of action on policy, I will wait until I see see something actually happen before I accept it as a change in direction and policy.
VERY Valid. - Until something is contracted to happen everything we hope will happen is supposition. A faint glimmer of hope at the moment is very uplifting giving rise to "All is not lost " (At least for the time being). I would like to see an emphasis on Defence force recruitment especially professional positions or trades making these positions to both new and existing personal attractive and commercially competitive, Overseas packages may be necessary to fill the gaps - as has happened in the past with the Police force. This would require additional Govt funding,

Last sentence deleted. - Breaches rule on politics. Don't do it again.

Ngatimozart.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Excerpts from the AUNZ FM meeting today:

The Ministers noted that the close friendship between the two nations is more essential than ever for the security and well-being of our citizens. Ministers recognised that Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia are at their best when they stand united as allies, cooperating closely while embracing the strength their diversity brings.
The Ministers acknowledged the close cooperation between Australia and New Zealand to support a stable, prosperous and resilient Indo-Pacific region amid sharper global challenges. The Ministers discussed their concerns at the growing strategic competition in the Pacific region. They noted the long traditions within the region of working collectively to meet security needs, including under the Biketawa Declaration and the Boe Declaration. They underlined the importance of consultation on security measures within the region, and looked ahead to discussions on regional security among Pacific Islands Forum members.
The Ministers reiterated the unique role of the Pacific Islands Forum and its architecture, and were optimistic that a pathway to maintain the unity of the Forum is in sight. They warmly welcomed the sustained efforts of Pacific leaders in support of the Forum, and recognised recent progress as a demonstration of the ‘Pacific Way’ of respectful dialogue and consensus.
Ministers agreed on the need to place the perspectives and priorities of Pacific island nations at the forefront of both countries’ engagement in the Pacific, and called on other development partners to adopt the same approach. ...
The Ministers noted current threats to the rules-based order, and the risks to stability and prosperity for our Pacific family and globally. Ministers acknowledged the importance of working together against these risks, and reiterated their shared commitment to international cooperation, including through effective, transparent and balanced multilateral institutions.
This afternoon, Mahuta said when asked about China's move to extend military actions in the Taiwan Strait: "We have experienced a real challenge in terms of China's influence across the Indo-Pacific region".
In her recent meeting with China's foreign minister, Mahuta laid out New Zealand's views that "we want greater stability and peace to be the priority" in the region.
As for Australia, it supported the status quo in relation to Taiwan, Wong said.
"We want a strong working relationship, a close working relationship with the government of New Zealand."
The relationship was essential to the wellbeing of the citizens of the two nations, she said.
"We see New Zealand as family and we see our partnership as indispensible."
The Pacific Island Forum was of central importance to both Australia and New Zealand and both nations would use the forum to promote peace, prosperity, stability, Wong said.
Wong also said they would advocate for rules being applicable to "all nations regardless of their size"
Mahuta said New Zealand and Australia must broaden their relationship in order to support the Pacific nations and their aspirations.
The two countries' partnership in supporting the Pacific would include joint practical action on issues such as climate change, Mahuta said.
Wong said the issue of sustainable debt financing in developing Pacific nations was of interest to both New Zealand and Australia.
Unsustainable debt financing poses a risk to sovereignty, choice, stability and potentially the security of the Pacific region, she said.

It is beginning to look like that this government is taking the PRC threat to the region seriously. But looking like and doing are two completely different stories and we'll have to wait and see.


 

Xthenaki

Active Member
VERY Valid. - Until something is contracted to happen everything we hope will happen is supposition. A faint glimmer of hope at the moment is very uplifting giving rise to "All is not lost " (At least for the time being). I would like to see an emphasis on Defence force recruitment especially professional positions or trades making these positions to both new and existing personal attractive and commercially competitive, Overseas packages may be necessary to fill the gaps - as has happened in the past with the Police force. This would require additional Govt funding,

Last sentence deleted. - Breaches rule on politics. Don't do it again.

Ngatimozart.
Point taken. My Apology.
 

Xthenaki

Active Member
I enjoy this forum so conforming to rules is par for the course and totally acceptable. At times have vented my frustration with politics but need to show a bit more patience.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Actions of course speak louder than words so I wait in eager anticipation of NZs response to what they themselves admit is an increasingly uncertain and risky geostrategic environment.

I would suggest extra P8s would be a good start. Also start moving on the Anzac frigate replacement. Something decent too, not just OPVs. Really they should consider joining the Hunter program.

UCAVs as well. Perhaps something based around the Ghost Bat.

Not holding my breath on any of this by the way.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I rather think this may be aimed at the Kiwis, amongst others:

 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
Actions of course speak louder than words so I wait in eager anticipation of NZs response to what they themselves admit is an increasingly uncertain and risky geostrategic environment.

I would suggest extra P8s would be a good start. Also start moving on the Anzac frigate replacement. Something decent too, not just OPVs. Really they should consider joining the Hunter program.

UCAVs as well. Perhaps something based around the Ghost Bat.

Not holding my breath on any of this by the way.
I wonder what opportunities may be had with NH90’s. We seem capable of operating them at an acceptable level I wonder if we can scoop up some returned airframes much like the last Seasprite deal. 4-6 at a attractive rate would not go amiss. 8 surely can’t and shouldn’t cut it.
 

Gooey

Well-Known Member
The good old money pit, zero combat capability, NH90. Bin the lot and get 20 new UH-60Ms and MH-60M gun ship escorts.

At least 4 Hunters FFGs because everything else is 2nd line and RAN are our buddies according to Ministers Mahuta and Wong.

And most obviously, more P-8A and C-130J, with KC-30A to replace the 757.
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
The good old money pit, zero combat capability, NH90. Bin the lot and get 20 new UH-60Ms and MH-60M gun ship escorts.

At least 4 Hunters FFGs because everything else is 2nd line and RAN are our buddies according to Ministers Mahuta and Wong.

And most obviously, more P-8A and C-130J, with KC-30A to replace the 757.
Cost per capability I think the Constellation Class provides more “bang for buck.” Due to total project costs Hunter is around $3 billion NZD a unit and the Constellation 1.4 Billion NZD, the Type 26 2.4 billion NZD. All things being equal I wonder where the RNZN could fit in in each build cycle listed above.
 

Gracie1234

Active Member
A great interview from our Minister.
12 minutes and managed to evade any straight answers or provide clarity on anything. In short, he spoke to some people about some things but can not provide specific details. Also, it is good to know that no one asked the question about the level of resources we put into defending our nation.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Probably not a problem for Constellation; and less so if the arrangement probably preferred by Congress, a two yard build, gets up. But even if not their present drumbeat looks to have a number of spare spaces.
 

Shanesworld

Active Member
Probably not a problem for Constellation; and less so if the arrangement probably preferred by Congress, a two yard build, gets up. But even if not their present drumbeat looks to have a number of spare spaces.
How would that compare to type31e?
Also constellation is near enough a 200 person crew isnt it?
 
Last edited:

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
How would that compare to type31e?
Also constellation is near enough a 200 person crew isnt it?
Should they come in on budget $250 million GP around $500 million NZD.
half the crew yes, compared to Constellation or Hunters. Though that doesn’t include a flight crew in the 100 as I understand.

I’d argue that come the circa 2030 strategic environment in the Pacific, the Type 31e would be insufficiently armed or capable for the threat environment, base armament for price is 55mm main gun no CIWS, 24 cell Sea Ceptor, light canons and machine guns. The Constellation is AEGIS 10, SPY 6, CEC, 32 cell Mk41 VLS with ESSM II and most likely Standard missiles. 55mm Main Gun, RAM, and 4x4 ASM and towed sonar…

I couldn’t tell you what the reduction of crewing would entail with a conversion from USN to RN crewing but it wouldn’t be insignificant. The first 12 will be based at Everett, and I would expect a few more to make it to Hawaii and Japan in the next batch, point being there would would be a maintenance pipeline that could be effectively plugged into.

I believe the days of a lightly armed patrol frigate being suitable in the Pacific are over, and would be quite disappointed if the ANZAC replacement was allowed to be so under armed. ( Which is why I posting in the NZDF thread rather than Navy due to the broader threat environment that must be addressed.)
 
Last edited:

At lakes

Well-Known Member
No one in my mind would be silly enough to order the Type31 we even have a moderator on this forum that is very anti the type 31 But the Arrowhead 140 on which the type 31 is based that is a different kettle of fish. It has a CIWS. the Poles are installing RAM I believe and there is capability to install upwards of 32 CAMM it also has two quad packed NSM it also have the facility to pack a 127mm main gun and lots more. A very capable vessel with a crew around 100 to 120. The Indonesians have also ordered it. The American vessel is too heavy on crew, but this is starting to sound like a fantasy list for the ANZAC replacement so I will say no more

https://www.arrowhead140.com/
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Talking hypothetically about the Constellation class (and I agree it ticks many boxes), is the lack of hull mounted sonar an issue?

I know it was fitted to the original FREMM design but does anyone know if it is practical (engineering redesign and cost wise) to fit one to the Constellation class if it wasn't designed for it?
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
Talking hypothetically about the Constellation class (and I agree it ticks many boxes), is the lack of hull mounted sonar an issue?

I know it was fitted to the original FREMM design but does anyone know if it is practical (engineering redesign and cost wise) to fit one to the Constellation class if it wasn't designed for it?
Good catch I amended my post. I got confused by the now cancelled DART variable depth and the hull mounted sonar.
Indeed, I wonder if a Towed and Helicopter dipping sonar are as/more/less effective?
 

swerve

Super Moderator
How would that compare to type31e?
Also constellation is near enough a 200 person crew isnt it?
As said, the Type 31 in RN configuration would be underarmed for the RNZN's main fighting ships. But its base ship, the Arrowhead 140, is sold as configurable to a customer's specifications, & as the Polish version shows, has plenty of space & weight to fit more of everything than Type 31 has.
 

Rob c

Well-Known Member
My personal view on any equipment theories is we first must ask the question as to what we can afford that gives us the best ability to defend NZ and after that our region. The benign strategic environment which our pollies used as a cloak to excuse the direction they took in regard to defence spending and equipment buying is gone, but there is still a reluctance by some to acknowledge this. The priorities in my opinion must be firstly to defend NZ then the region (this would include working with partners)followed by all the other tasks. If you look up the taskings for the NZ forces , this is how it is mostly written. but they are not supplied or funded to achieve this.
I think we must get our priorities back in the correct order and realize that it our freedom and sovereignty that we must maintain if we are going to do anything else in our region and the question must be on how best to do this effectively within our means.
 

Shanesworld

Active Member
My personal view on any equipment theories is we first must ask the question as to what we can afford that gives us the best ability to defend NZ and after that our region. The benign strategic environment which our pollies used as a cloak to excuse the direction they took in regard to defence spending and equipment buying is gone, but there is still a reluctance by some to acknowledge this. The priorities in my opinion must be firstly to defend NZ then the region (this would include working with partners)followed by all the other tasks. If you look up the taskings for the NZ forces , this is how it is mostly written. but they are not supplied or funded to achieve this.
I think we must get our priorities back in the correct order and realize that it our freedom and sovereignty that we must maintain if we are going to do anything else in our region and the question must be on how best to do this effectively within our means.
I agree but i think it needs to be more specific than that and right upfront in how its presented.
1. Protect nz access to sea lanes and ports and the ships that rely on them (more than tokenistic 2 frigates and 4 P-8's) (given supply chain disruptions now is the easiest time to explain the significance of this)
2. Protect nz sovereign territory (P-8's to acf or frigate abm- unsure what but at least spurs the question of what)
3. Protect new zealanders living abroad - no more Thai 2008 hercules breakdowns again (larger pool of military transport aircraft)
4. Civil assistance/hadr
5. Assist allies and global order in times of crisus or war.

Something like this. As it starts to lay out redlines in terms of minimum capability rather than hiding behind vagaries that we have had before.
 
Top