NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
Govt is already looking into the frigate replacement. Looking to buy four.
Just haggling over courier fees. Ironically theyll be made in China.
Just haggling over courier fees. Ironically theyll be made in China.
Too big and the numbers like the ANZACs will be reduced from four to two.
Cheers S
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I recognise that and presumably if there was any real interest by defence they would need to undertake very careful due diligence. It could indeed end up not being viable.
It was raised though as an option should NZ require additional naval combat capabilities in the short term. Otherwise what other options are there?
The ANZAC FSU (and follow on work to replace its engine and hull survey etc) will reportedly only extend its life for another 10 years.
If Montrose/Monmouth (or another younger vessel) was acquired and depending of the scope of any refit work sure it may only have another few more years life left as well.
But that then links in with the longer term (2030's) project to replace the two ANZAC's, and potentially now with four fit for purpose vessels.
My other concern with current project planning is that personnel shortages are effecting new projects getting off the ground. The MoD has released the SOPV deferment Cabinet papers so new projects seem to be stalling as personnel are reprioitised onto other project work. At least though with a potential acquisition of the surplus RN T23's (current or future "younger" vessels) the required project team may end up "outsourcing" some of the more technical work to others that specialise in scrutinising such warships for re-activation (i.e. helping to free up the MoD's scarce human resources)? And seeing that LM has already done the work on T23 upgrades that align with some of NZ's ANZAC upgrades in terms of commonality (eg CMS), potentially a lot of time, project personnel and costs could also be saved making the opportunity to acquire used T23's (as an interim measure) a unique solution to the problem of NZ lacking effective combat capabilities as well as strengthen the important ASW domain?
Last edited:
Which camp was that? Papakura?? are you saying they literally moved @50 new townhouses away from the fenceline of arguably NZs most secure camp??
At this point it has nothing to do with what the govt wants and more to do with what the govt has left to work with. They literally cannot make people join the forces just as much as they can force them to stay. They have constantly been recruiting, even before Covid, the funding has always been there to do so with the paralines waiting to be filled, they just could not fill them and this has always been A problem just currently it is THE problem. The whole reason they have the funding to pay the trades $3-$10k bonuses to entice them to stay is actually from the saved wages that would have of otherwise paid the recruited, trained and working numbers.
Not sure I agree with you on the whole ACF, extra frigates, more equipment in general being the answer to our current woes (in fact quite the opposite) for example its not pilots that the RNZAF are short of but the technical trades required to keep them operating and yes while I agree there are some that would relish working on/supporting a fast jet I suspect for the majority are not as fussed which aircraft they maintain more so the conditions their trade in general operates under, overall engines and avionics are engines and avionics. Same could be said for marine engineers, doubt they are leaving because there are not enough frigate engineering positions vs say OPV or tanker slots. I would say the move of 5 sqn from WH to OH would have lost a few numbers in itself nevermind the current economic/social situation, have seen it before. For some reason (and I personally cannot understand why) "Aucklanders" love Auckland and everyone else doesn't, I for one clearly stated my intentions if I was to ever be posted there and it involved 3 months and a release form. People get comfortable with their surroundings, and I get it, so with any outright change there will obviously be flow on effects good and bad.
Again we can have all the bells and whistles in the world but without people to blow those whistles and hit those bells they are actually all rather useless and token at best. Any govt would actually be stupid to purchase more without first solving the underlying problem first, and fully, otherwise you are simply compounding the problem and throwing good money after bad ideas and either way I think at the moment we are all outta parking space...
There are significant personnel retention problems as @RegR points out. However in the short - medium term they can be addressed by increasing pay & allowances benchmarking them with the current public service pay rates and ensuring that the parity is retained. Next, conditions have to be significantly improved and one of those is provision of service housing, at reasonable NOT market rates, at all bases and camps. Something like the married quarters provision that existed in the 1970s. IIRC I paid $18.00 / fortnight for mine at Hobsonville. NZGs have been historically quite stingy in service personnel pay and conditions with three mutinies specifically about that during the late 1940s. That attitude has to be changed. TBH when our people are deployed their allowances for those are quite meagre and generally fully taxed.
We would require about ten years to train and retain new personnel, especially in the technical branches / trades. Five years would be about the time it takes to acquire new capabilities, enter them into service, and achieve FOC, By that time we would have a cadre of people who are SLT / LT /FO / AB / LCPL / LAC senior tradespeople and looking to be promoted to LH / CPL. At the same time those who are currently at that stage will be close to LT / CPT / FLT LT / SNCO level and will have the time and experience to take on these roles. However for it all to work we need to significantly improve the pay and conditions starting from the 2023 budget and significantly increase the recruitment. In the case of the RNZN & RNZAF I would like to see the personnel numbers in both doubled.
WRT the EMAC I think all that is required for a crewed aircraft is surveillance capabilities and something like the MQ-9B SeaGuardian MALE for persistence over larger areas. I don't see the necessity to acquire the C295M at all because the B350i King Air has range and endurance but if more range / endurance is required then the B350ER will provide that. If for some reason something larger is required then maybe the CN235 would be the better aircraft.
As far as the Naval Combat Force is concerned, we would do quite well with the AH140 but maybe we should go with the Absalon design making some modifications. We don't require the vehicle capability of the design, with that large mission bay down aft being put to great use for UUV, USV, towed sonar, boat / RHIB etc. The number of diesels would have to be doubled to four but if we go to a DE propulsion capability, the placement of the diesels in two separate engine rooms isn't so critical because of them not being direct drive, means that we don't have to worry about gearboxes and long shafts.The Absalon design has an extra deck compared to the AH140 / Iver Huitfeld and I am sure that uses would be found for the extra deck; mission bays etc. In the original Absalon design there is hangarage for two helos, so that would be ideal for one helo plus UAVs. The sensors et.,c could the SPY-7 for AEGIS, and other sensors used by the RCN CSC. In fact a similar sensors and weapons fitout to the CSC would be ideal. I am of the opinion that replacing the OPV / IPV fleet with OPVs would be a mistake and that we would be better going with corvettes. These could be based on the MEKO 200 hull and have the same machinery as the frigates, but with two diesels instead of four. It would require nothing greater than a 57mm gun, 16 Cell Mk-41 VLS at most and a max of eight NSM. There would be sufficient hull space for bunkerage to extend the range to say 8,000 nm and endurance for 1 month, and for mission bays. A light helo similar in size to the AW159 Wildcat and UAVs could also be carried.
WRT aviation we need to increase the capacity and capabilities of our rotary wing fleet. Acquiring some of the ADF NH90s would work and some could go to the RNZN for utility helo role. That would free up the ASW / ASuW helos for their primary role. I also believe that we require a helo in between the A109M and NH90 capability sets. This could be used on the aforementioned corvettes as well as freeing up the NH90 fleet from taskings that are to big for the A109 fleet but somewhat small for the NH90 fleet. I would also like to see an ARH such as the AH-1Z acquired as well. Three more C-130-J30 and two more P-8A should be acquired. For the B757-200 replacement I would like to see a dedicated military airlifter acquired; either the KHI C-2 or the A400M. We could also acquire the A321-XLR that is the closest thing to the B757-200 and would fill the PAX / VIP / MEDEVAC role.
However all this hinges on personnel and that is what I have addressed in the first two paragraphs.
We would require about ten years to train and retain new personnel, especially in the technical branches / trades. Five years would be about the time it takes to acquire new capabilities, enter them into service, and achieve FOC, By that time we would have a cadre of people who are SLT / LT /FO / AB / LCPL / LAC senior tradespeople and looking to be promoted to LH / CPL. At the same time those who are currently at that stage will be close to LT / CPT / FLT LT / SNCO level and will have the time and experience to take on these roles. However for it all to work we need to significantly improve the pay and conditions starting from the 2023 budget and significantly increase the recruitment. In the case of the RNZN & RNZAF I would like to see the personnel numbers in both doubled.
WRT the EMAC I think all that is required for a crewed aircraft is surveillance capabilities and something like the MQ-9B SeaGuardian MALE for persistence over larger areas. I don't see the necessity to acquire the C295M at all because the B350i King Air has range and endurance but if more range / endurance is required then the B350ER will provide that. If for some reason something larger is required then maybe the CN235 would be the better aircraft.
As far as the Naval Combat Force is concerned, we would do quite well with the AH140 but maybe we should go with the Absalon design making some modifications. We don't require the vehicle capability of the design, with that large mission bay down aft being put to great use for UUV, USV, towed sonar, boat / RHIB etc. The number of diesels would have to be doubled to four but if we go to a DE propulsion capability, the placement of the diesels in two separate engine rooms isn't so critical because of them not being direct drive, means that we don't have to worry about gearboxes and long shafts.The Absalon design has an extra deck compared to the AH140 / Iver Huitfeld and I am sure that uses would be found for the extra deck; mission bays etc. In the original Absalon design there is hangarage for two helos, so that would be ideal for one helo plus UAVs. The sensors et.,c could the SPY-7 for AEGIS, and other sensors used by the RCN CSC. In fact a similar sensors and weapons fitout to the CSC would be ideal. I am of the opinion that replacing the OPV / IPV fleet with OPVs would be a mistake and that we would be better going with corvettes. These could be based on the MEKO 200 hull and have the same machinery as the frigates, but with two diesels instead of four. It would require nothing greater than a 57mm gun, 16 Cell Mk-41 VLS at most and a max of eight NSM. There would be sufficient hull space for bunkerage to extend the range to say 8,000 nm and endurance for 1 month, and for mission bays. A light helo similar in size to the AW159 Wildcat and UAVs could also be carried.
WRT aviation we need to increase the capacity and capabilities of our rotary wing fleet. Acquiring some of the ADF NH90s would work and some could go to the RNZN for utility helo role. That would free up the ASW / ASuW helos for their primary role. I also believe that we require a helo in between the A109M and NH90 capability sets. This could be used on the aforementioned corvettes as well as freeing up the NH90 fleet from taskings that are to big for the A109 fleet but somewhat small for the NH90 fleet. I would also like to see an ARH such as the AH-1Z acquired as well. Three more C-130-J30 and two more P-8A should be acquired. For the B757-200 replacement I would like to see a dedicated military airlifter acquired; either the KHI C-2 or the A400M. We could also acquire the A321-XLR that is the closest thing to the B757-200 and would fill the PAX / VIP / MEDEVAC role.
However all this hinges on personnel and that is what I have addressed in the first two paragraphs.
i agree with 99 per cent of what you have written BUT the B757 replacement i have a slightly different opinion. With regard to the A321 XLR why would introduce the A321 XLR. Certainly it is about the same size as the 757 and Air NZ have one similar and you could piggy back off their supply chain, but I recently read an article the RNZAF should consider the Boeing C40B for the pax vip and medevac role. sure you cant stuff 220 grunts in it but you already have the P8 in service and the C40B is based on that airframe. Ease of training and servicing etc.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
For sure (agree), however the latest retention initiatives may be starting to have a positive impact according to this earlier report quoting the CDF, although granted too soon to know yet according to the article as well. I think all eyes will be on the new DefMin and whether he has influenced the Finance Minister to allocate enough extra funding to satisfy serving personnel and the proof will be in next month's Budget release, so perhaps that will be the make or break time for some. OTOH if the Govt doesn't "do enough" then they have failed the NZDF. Also hopefully the Govt also addresses the starting pay to make defence careers more attractive compared to other careers in the private sector etc.
Sure, I don't think it is THE answer but I do think it is AN answer (as in part of the equation). Historically people joined the armed forces, like say the air force because of the ACF even if they went into other trades i.e. the appeal of the ACF attracted them (admittedly perhaps my biases are showing due being a cadet in the ATC when younger). Anecdotally ditto the Army and Navy.
I read the NZDF Exit interviews that were posted here a few months ago but thought the questions didn't ask enough detail. For example if one left the Navy after serving on the Frigates could one of the reasons be, apart from boring covid quarantine MIQ duties, because the Frigates were laid up 2018-2021/2019-2022 undergoing the FSU upgrades and now with Te Kaha in dry dock 2022/2023 (is she out yet? Presumably Te Mana is next out for the next 12-18 months) undertaking a major engineering update, particularly if one was a specialist trade like Combat System Specialist or Cryptologic (Communications) Technician or EW Specialist i.e. trades that are presumably largely unavailable (or already filled if they exist) on the remaining fleet consisting of patrol and auxiliary vessels? Why stick around to do ... nothing, that one trained for? Hence the suggestion to improve and provide "critical mass" if the Govt was willing to investigate for example acquiring surplus T23's, granted not perfect, but gives personnel a chance to go to sea and practice their trade skillsets especially when other vessels are being worked on and thus unavailable - something that is not happening because unlike in say the 1960's (when the RNZN leased RN Frigates until new builds were ready) the GOTD in recent times isn't prepared to lease or acquire "warships" as a stop-gap measure and surely this has to another reason why personnel leave? Who knows for sure though, if the NZDF isn't asking that question. Or are they?
Granted but also "doing nothing" or waiting another 10-15 years by sticking to the original schedule to replace the ANZAC's isn't viable either. Yes we have lost some in crucial trades but we still have personnel in critical trades and with initiatives like lateral recruiting and enticements to re-enlist could work but to work we do need to have the bells and whistles to make it worthwhile, otherwise why join now if you are a combat specialist without a ship to go to sea on?
Looks kinda like a "what came first - the chicken or the egg situation" in that "we can't have/we do need" bells and whistles i.e. no black and white answer but perhaps a slight mix of both!
Exactly, without some kind of change, be it financial, conditions or otherwise I feel the revolving doors will continue on their merry way and recruitment will not keep pace with attrition and experience will continue on its inevitable downward trend. I agree this all began to take hold with the decline in perks and benefits which, in hindsight, was a foolish move by the powers that be as in the scheme of things were comparatively easy to instigate, fund and maintain. I do wonder though if it is all about financial reward as the military of today is actually quite well paid (compared to earlier years that is) and they can never match the public sector in certain areas $ for $ so perhaps there are other less tangible reasons at play. Even the likes of Australia and Canada, some of the highest paid militaries on the planet, are currently struggling with recruitment and are making big pushes in this area, the thing saving them is there overall numbers, as in they have enough fat to weather the storm whereas we are lean to begin with so any loss is actually felt harder. I think its a generational issue as much as anything with the military not having the draw it once had and definately not the staying power, the amount of outside options, ease of change and short attention span of gen (whatever we are up to now) only makes matters worse.
The C295 is the new and improved C235, pretty sure they don't even make C235s now. A 295 has a range of 5000+ kms whereas a 350 3000+ so in the SAR game range equates to not only distance but time on station and loiter which could be just as important dependant on task, especially at sea or in the islands. The benefits of a more spacious and cavernous cabin should need no explanation and afford the required luxuries for those extended missions. The 350 is great at what it does, the 295 is just better at that, and more, such as overall transport. The king airs are good for moving a few people and their luggage around, the 295s move a lot of people and their equipment, another mission dependant consideration. TBH I think seaguardian should be an option added to not in lieu of for patrol, surveillance and even a limited strike capability not just in the EMAC realm but wider defence. The issue with something like sea guardian in the SAR role is it can conduct the S easily enough but then something needs to complete the R portion anyway so is rather limited in the complete gambit, not including the rest.
In all honesty I cannot see us getting another helo in between the 109 and NH90, those where the compromises between light and medium lift, adding another will just double up between one or the others capabilities to one degree or another. Perhaps the eventual naval replacement could slot in the "gap" and fill the void? To me A400 is just a bigger C130, and we have already made the D on that that matter WRT to the transport spectrum and much like the NH90, is our compromise, for better or worse. The 757 is a harder nut to crack as there is actually no current direct replacement like for like without either "downsizing" or "upsizing" in terms of size, range, capacity or capability and, sad but true, but I can see them going down the second hand market again for this particular capability.
Yes, I do believe it is still early days in regards to the "initiatives" but tbh they are just a plaster on gaping wound and the thing being that they are one off payments means exactly that, one off, the underlying issues still remain. The other problem was that there was no return of service or terms required for these payments so in actuality there is still nothing stopping anyone from leaving anyway.
Oh no doubt there are those that are drawn to the military by the very fact it is the military and all that that entails ie combat in nature and yes we most definately lost a few then and undoubtedly now but then again, WRT the ACF that was 20 years ago so that should not have as much of an impact on those that have joined and left since considering it was never even an option anyway throughout their careers and was a well known fact before they joined?
The thing with navy is being such a small fleet I think we already have enough options for postings and tbh the guys I have spoken to prefer the likes of the other ships anyway ie CY for it's space, MAN for it's cabins, END for the small crew etc etc, I'm sure all the ships have their plusses and minuses but tbh I think the frigates would be the more high tempo, constantly training and disciplined postings within the fleet (and rightly so), just not sure that would nesscessarily be the drawcard you think it is. The reasons they would currently be the manned ships while others are parked up will literally be because they ARE the operational navy for all intents and purposes, plus how bad would that look publicly straight out of a major refit, $millions spent, capability justified all to go straight into storage? They will be the last to park up just to save the embarrassment (for now anyway).
It's no longer listed on the Airbus Military site as a current product, but it may still be made in Indonesia. Last I heard they were developing a new version, the N-245.
I think the nearest is the A321XLR. Beats the 757 on range, but not payload.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I would add that Boeing’s 757 replacement is a long way off. Biggest NZ mistake was not getting 1-2 C-17 whitetails albeit a different primary application but they could do other stuff. Add a Bombardier Global or Gulfstream BJ for the whining pollie application.
Ngatimozart your proposing a fairly significant increase to the NZ Navy's capability.
I can see some virtue and need in much of what you propose but NZ's track record suggests it will be compromised either by fleet numbers or capability. " Fitted for but not with" and other such bastardisation.
My take is if you want a major warship capability in the AH140 / Iver Huitfeld Class you need at least three and optimally four for a realistic deployable capability.
They would in turn need at least two supply vessels to provide a modicum of replenishment capability most / some of the time.
Same for the Amphibious force. Two large vessels.
Then a constabulary force which would be in the Off Shore Patrol boat class at a minimum and again as to numbers at least three and preferably more with the ability to sail the broad range of sea states dictated by NZ's geography.
Plus other minor vessels both big and small.
Desirable - yes!
Achievable for a nation of NZ's size - Yes
Will they commit to such a force, I regretfully say No.
Denmark Yes, not NZ
Just a thought
Go for a Long range Corvette instead of an OPV and Down size from a Major warship to a again a Long range Corvette.
A single class of modest capability in decent numbers of some 7 to 8 vessels.
Maintain a significantly larger Amphibious / supply force to cover regional contingency's and I feel NZ would be well served.
Add to NZ's Army and Airforce numbers and capability.
This would be achievable and politically acceptable.
Aim too high and you will I'd speculate end up with comprise and gaps in capability.
Unfortunately S
Corvettes, being compact warships, are naturally limited in both space and weight, which means you’re also limited in both range (fuel capacity) and endurance (stores capacity).
A ‘long-range corvette’ would need to trade weapons and sensors to claw back the weight and space it needs for extra fuel and stores - resulting in what is essentially an OPV.
If you want a middle tier surface combatant with both range, endurance and a decent weapons/sensors fit, it’s going to have to be a light or GP frigate.
Same deal with Australia.
May I suggest an Italian OPV: Thaon di Revel class Offshore Patrol Vessel OPV PPA Italian Navy
I understand that, however there have been winds of change in the geostrategic environment, and none of it for the better. With the current DEFMIN saying that funding has to increase etc., it is starting to sink in. He's at #12 in the Cabinet order, up from #13 in January 23 which was the Cabinet ranking that Henare held in July 2022. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and increasing PRC belligerence is causing pollies in Wellington to take note, which is definitely better than what their attitude was in 2017.
We have to have a frigate navy because of our SLOC and AOMI (Area Of Maritime interest, and frigates would be the minimum requirement that our FVEY partners would find acceptable. Three frigates is the minimum number required and I believe that the pollies and bean counters have learned that, especially with the FSU upgrade leaving no NZ sovereign frigate cover for three years. With three frigates and six corvettes we can provide the minimum of cover across both combat and patrol capabilities. Corvettes are good for escorting convoys and other shipping outside of combat areas, freeing up frigates from that role. Personally I would like a somewhat larger force of frigates and corvettes but I don't make the decisions.
Looks good but it is not what we require. and not enough range. We require something with a range of about 7,000 nm and we need to get away from IPVs and OPVs to corvettes. It's why I suggested that we use something like the MEKO 200 hull and then design from the basic hull. That way we aren't bound or restricted by another navy's requirements. Also it's something that we would want to build in South Korea, not in Europe because of the cost.
I do wonder if they would be suited to that role in the ANZ geography.
Modern container ships travel at sustained speeds of ~18 knots, and given the distances involved in our part of the world, I don’t think corvettes would cut it?
Decent sustained speed over long distance is more important than the ability to sprint in that role. GPs like MEKO 200 and AH140 can do that.
Why do you think I suggested something based on the MEKO 200 hull. If the Danes can have the Absalon Class running around at 24 knots using only two diesel engines, a corvette based on MEKO 200 hull should easily do that with similar sized diesel engines.