NZDF General discussion thread

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Good afternoon All. I saw this come up in my news feed today and got me thinking again of a post I made last year (#7297) on this thread. I know one could easily fob this single news item off as a folly, but it’s the concept that worries me and the impact for New Zealand (NZDF) in the years to come. Whilst we (rightly so) focus on our Pacific brothers we must also have the ability to conduct continuous Ops in the Southern Ocean/Antarctica. The NZDF, all threes services, must have the kit going forward and pers to be able to operate on the ice and ocean/sky’s adjoining. I know 2048 seems a long way off, but as seen here, things can and will change very quickly. We must be prepared. I can only hope (not counting chickens) the DSR will consider this.

They may have fun and games sailing in the Southern Ocean because it's not like any they will have encountered before.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

At lakes

Well-Known Member
NZ has signed a military agreement with Japan. About time.

New Zealand signs military agreement with Japan | Stuff.co.nz

The National Security Long Term Insights Briefing has been released by the DPMC and after reading it, I am somewhat disappointed in it. Any National Security Strategy that excludes NZDF and resilience across the board, is severely flawed.

with regard to the agreement with Japan I said it the previous time that they advised they had signed a Defence Coop paper with the Japanese and I will repeat it here again "good buy some KHI2 transport aircraft to show you are serious"
with regard to the National Security Paper I saw the words NZ Defence mentioned twice in the endnotes after the annex, as you say very disappointing
 

Nighthawk.NZ

Well-Known Member
I
with regard to the agreement with Japan I said it the previous time that they advised they had signed a Defence Coop paper with the Japanese and I will repeat it here again "good buy some KHI2 transport aircraft to show you are serious"
with regard to the National Security Paper I saw the words NZ Defence mentioned twice in the endnotes after the annex, as you say very disappointing
found it interesting that China has asked NZ for Joint military exercises...? luckily we declined... but

 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
with regard to the agreement with Japan I said it the previous time that they advised they had signed a Defence Coop paper with the Japanese and I will repeat it here again "good buy some KHI2 transport aircraft to show you are serious"
with regard to the National Security Paper I saw the words NZ Defence mentioned twice in the endnotes after the annex, as you say very disappointing
Definitely agree on the KHI C-2.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
In my wistful thinking mode, how about 5. I remember back a couple of decades ago there was a report the the air force needed 8 C130's to do what was required, so we replace the extra 3 with KHI C2s and add in 2 for the 757's and we have 5. Just dreaming:p
I would go with 3 KHI C-2 and 3 A321 XLR. The A321XLR has approx the same capacity and range of the B757. The A321 could cover all the pax flights, such as VIP. troop transport, and MEDEVAC. We have found that two B757 doesn't work, especially if they fall over at the same time.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I would go with 3 KHI C-2 and 3 A321 XLR. The A321XLR has approx the same capacity and range of the B757. The A321 could cover all the pax flights, such as VIP. troop transport, and MEDEVAC. We have found that two B757 doesn't work, especially if they fall over at the same time.
Both are great aircraft and the KHI C-2 sends a message to Japan that NZ will be a further opportunity for future kit.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I would go with 3 KHI C-2 and 3 A321 XLR. The A321XLR has approx the same capacity and range of the B757. The A321 could cover all the pax flights, such as VIP. troop transport, and MEDEVAC. We have found that two B757 doesn't work, especially if they fall over at the same time.
How old are the RNZAF 757s? It went out of production in 2004.
 

chis73

Active Member
Both entered commercial service with Transavia in 1993. They entered operational service with RNZAF in June-July 2003 (although they spent some time after that being modified iirc - cargo door fitted etc).
Source: NZDF-SERIALS Australian & New Zealand Military Aircraft Serials & History RNZAF Boeing 757-22QC NZ7571 to NZ7572

WRT the C-2, I'd agree with 3 minimum, and task them with the regular Antarctic flights. To my mind, the C-2 could adequately double as a strategic troop/passenger transporter provided the cargo area was fitted-out with airline-style seats. Granted, it wouldn't be as flash or as comfortable as a commercial airliner, but it would do. Compared to the A400M it at least wouldn't have the noise/vibration issues from the propellors. That would then just leave the VIP role of the 757s to be sorted out. So maybe you wouldn't need passenger airliners (such as the Airbus 321) at all, or perhaps just one?
 
Last edited:

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I would go with 3 KHI C-2 and 3 A321 XLR. The A321XLR has approx the same capacity and range of the B757. The A321 could cover all the pax flights, such as VIP. troop transport, and MEDEVAC. We have found that two B757 doesn't work, especially if they fall over at the same time.
I also would not bother with the A321 as I remember reading some time ago that the noise levels in the C2 are similar to a commercial airliner and using palletized seating, as we had in the c130's until we got the 727's would make them reasonably comfortable. If the pollies want a flash travel, go Air NZ.
For an air force our size and budget, dedicated passenger aircraft are a luxury we should not be burdened with.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I also would not bother with the A321 as I remember reading some time ago that the noise levels in the C2 are similar to a commercial airliner and using palletized seating, as we had in the c139's until we got the 727's would make them reasonably comfortable. If the pollies want a flash travel, go Air NZ.
For an air force our size and budget, dedicated passenger aircraft are a luxury we should not be burdened with.
I was thinking about using the A321XLR as an EW and ACN platform as well.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I was reading through this article and the following paragraph caught my attention.

"Steff also anticipates an overhaul of the NZDF and expects an increase in defense spending in New Zealand’s upcoming defense review including the potential to re-establish an air-strike capability. “As such, the days of tailoring the NZDF for peacekeeping operations appear to be ending, a fact reinforced by NZ’s acquisition of four P-8 Poseidon” anti-submarine aircraft, he said, “This shift is one that complements ADF priorities but, for the NZDF to remain interoperable with the Australian military in the future, it needs to secure access to Pillar 2 technologies.” "
Emphasis mine.​


Reuben Steff, is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Waikato and teaches courses on International Relations, Global Security and NZ Foreign Policy.

I note that the National Party opposes any Air Combat / Strike Force.
"The office of the shadow defense minister, Tim van de Molen, told Breaking Defense that its priorities were to increase pay and living conditions, improve basic equipment and oppose any re-establishment of a combat air wing — called the Air Strike Force — in the Royal New Zealand Air Force."
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
I was reading through this article and the following paragraph caught my attention.

"Steff also anticipates an overhaul of the NZDF and expects an increase in defense spending in New Zealand’s upcoming defense review including the potential to re-establish an air-strike capability. “As such, the days of tailoring the NZDF for peacekeeping operations appear to be ending, a fact reinforced by NZ’s acquisition of four P-8 Poseidon” anti-submarine aircraft, he said, “This shift is one that complements ADF priorities but, for the NZDF to remain interoperable with the Australian military in the future, it needs to secure access to Pillar 2 technologies.” "
Emphasis mine.​


Reuben Steff, is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Waikato and teaches courses on International Relations, Global Security and NZ Foreign Policy.

I note that the National Party opposes any Air Combat / Strike Force.
"The office of the shadow defense minister, Tim van de Molen, told Breaking Defense that its priorities were to increase pay and living conditions, improve basic equipment and oppose any re-establishment of a combat air wing — called the Air Strike Force — in the Royal New Zealand Air Force."
Kudos to the author for seeking a wide range of viewpoints. It's good to see what our academic analysts are thinking and their justifications (whether one agrees with them or not), with some reflecting "isolationist" thinking and those who see NZ can contribute more on the international stage ... and the "problems" (which are that of "perception" IMO) that both paths pose for NZ's relationships with both its traditional allies and neighboring states with differing viewpoints.

However what I find the most "curious" though is, particularly in the 2nd article link (Breaking Defense publish date January 26) is that the analysts (and the Opposition) appear to have a definite view of future defence outcomes (in their opinions of course). I don't see how that can be as surely no-one (particularly back then) will have any idea of what the defence review will be recommending, especially as it is still ongoing (until 2024) and will be consulting wider i.e. with allies and regional partners therefore shaping aspects of the review.

That earlier (Jan 26) article, which is somewhat "pessimistic" contrasts with more recent articles such as this one from Politik (May 9) and the Breaking Defense June 2 (the first article quoted), both of which seem more "optimistic" (or slightly "hawkish").


Just to add to that Politik article (as in clarify aspects of it), some recent Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee meetings (eg the two in June) have signaled that the first stage of the defence review (and future force design principles) are expected in the next "one or two months" or "5 weeks". (And IIRC without replaying them the ANZAC Frigate replacement is likely to be decided in the next Govt term)? So it looks like DefMin Andrew Little may have got his wish to have the review process sped up? If so, then this will give the defence analysts (and us here) something a bit more concrete to debate.

However as the (first link) Breaking Defense June 2 article states (particularly in relation to AUKUS Pillar 2 but otherwise the defence review as a whole), not to expect too much "clarity" or "commitment" prior to the October election on Govt priorities (which is line with the defence review's later stages which will define a new defence capability plan etc).
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
It appears that the Defence Policy Review (DPR) will be published in either July or August of this year.

NATO is going to upgrade its ties with its four Indo Pacific Partners.
NATO to upgrade ties with Australia, New Zealand, South Korea (paywalled)

This has caused one NZ commentator to claim that NZ is about to join NATO. Maybe he should read the NATO Treaty before he makes such claims. I think he's fear mongering here and whilst we have a relationship with NATO, we aren't a party to the treaty, hence its Article Five doesn't apply to us, or any other non NATO Partner. Anyone who studies the NZ defence and security landscape should be aware of this fact. He claims that the DPR will be released by the end of this month.

The PM made a speech to the NZ Institute of International Affairs today.

Said speech is interesting and he said:

"I firmly believe that in an increasingly volatile world, shoring-up and strengthening our closest relationships is key to our economic prosperity, enhancing our national security, and promoting domestic harmony. So, if you came today to hear me set out a radical departure in our foreign policy, I’m sorry to let you down. If anything, my approach in the international sphere is not that dissimilar to my priorities at home – getting back to basics and dealing with the bread and butter issues in front of us. In foreign policy terms it means making sure that we have greater economic resilience across our trade markets in a time of global uncertainty. The more that I’ve been in the role the more I’ve seen first-hand the enormous benefits of our independent foreign policy, our role as an honest broker, and the importance of our close relationships in enhancing our prosperity and security. It is important to stress at this point independent does not mean neutral."

So the NZG is sticking to its current foreign policy objectives, but he has stated that even though we have an independent foreign policy, it doesn't mean that we are neutral. It is good that he has stated that. It should also be noted that the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defence have stated the same at various times through this year.

"Russia’s invasion of Ukraine upended a long period of peace in Europe and has posed the most acute threat to the international rules-based system since World War II. So this visit not only strengthened my resolve in relation to the ongoing support we must supply to Ukraine in order to defeat Russia, but also the absolute necessity to avoid armed conflict where we can. Some of the men I met that day may now no longer be with us. Lawyers, teachers, builders. Husbands, fathers and sons. Innocents in a war not of their making. The Government has provided significant diplomatic, military and humanitarian assistance, and we will continue to play our part in supporting the people of Ukraine. We will keep making targeted contributions where they can make the greatest difference. But alongside that we must continue to fly the flag for peace, conflict resolution and disarmament."

Actually we have been rather tardy in our help for Ukraine. Much improvement is needed / required. The international rules based system benefits small countries like NZ and is the only real way we can survive in the modern world. Australia is in the same boat as well. Like Australia we will have to eventually chose a side.

He spoke about our defence and security.
"That said, we can’t be passive, and we need to keep investing in our defence and security capabilities at home. To that end, the Government will be releasing an interrelated set of strategic policy documents and assessments, spanning across New Zealand’s national security, defence, and foreign policy – including New Zealand’s first National Security Strategy. Taken together, these represent an important step in how we will protect our national security and advance our national interests in a more contested and difficult world. This set of documents will also outline where the Government will be focusing its efforts. Including:
  • Investing in a combat-capable defence force and the wider national security system;
  • Tackling emerging issues like disinformation, and undertaking more concerted efforts in areas where threats are growing, like economic security;
  • Building and sustaining a public conversation on national security, by being more upfront about what we are observing as well as listening to New Zealanders, in order to grow and maintain social license for efforts to protect our security;
  • Supporting Pacific resilience, providing development assistance, and continuing work to bolster the security capacity of Pacific nations;
  • Strengthening security cooperation and ties in the broader Indo-Pacific region; and
  • Working to maintain and strengthen the global system of rules and norms that have served New Zealand so well.
Taken together, these represent an important step in how we are protecting our national security and advancing our national interests in a more contested and more difficult world. They also help us to inform our decision making around ongoing investments in a combat-capable defence force including interoperability of all our assets like people, intelligence, tech, AI, and defence hardware."

The first point "Investing in a combat-capable defence force and the wider national security system;" is interesting because, IIRC, it's the first time that a NZ has used the phrase "combat-capable defence force" in a very long time. His predecessor appeared to avoid that like the plague, as did John Key. The last time I can recall this line being used would be back during the 1990s.

"And our longstanding membership of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing partnership remains a cornerstone of New Zealand’s security Separately, because we share with those countries bonds of history and fundamental democratic values, we are strengthening our policy dialogue across a range of areas where we share common interests, with New Zealand hosting the annual Five Country Ministerial meeting here in Wellington just a few weeks ago. Like any close family, we will have slightly differing approaches from time to time. The AUKUS agreement is a topical example.
We understand the strategic drivers for AUKUS, and those partners know that New Zealand's nuclear free position is proudly long standing and it's not going to change. We will not be part of the AUKUS nuclear submarine arrangement, and the partners in the AUKUS arrangement understand and respect that. Australia, the US, and the UK all have long histories of cooperation with New Zealand when it comes to defence and security, and we will continue to work together in areas that are consistent with our strategic needs and our values."

There it is and I think he firmly states the NZG position. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and the pudding hasn't been served yet. Hopefully the DPR will be clear on what the NZG intentions are.
 

Hawkeye69

New Member
Let’s hope that pudding has some real substance.
A good start would be getting the current OPV’s back to sea fully crewed and moving forward with the SOPV.

Another good start would be fast tracking the naval helicopter replacement, there really is only one option and that option is the MH-60R, it’s the best naval helicopter in the World and we know it will not be cheap but it’s well supported and proven.

My biggest hope is the Govt of the day pursues the GA MQ-9 Sea Guardian which will supplement the P-8’s. If we had these in Cyclone Gabrielle and they were fitted with REAP Pod they could have provided the much needed communications link that was cut and first responders would have had a reliable communications link and we would have had a consistent eye in the sky.

However let’s see what the future holds.
 

Attachments

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Let’s hope that pudding has some real substance.
A good start would be getting the current OPV’s back to sea fully crewed and moving forward with the SOPV.

Another good start would be fast tracking the naval helicopter replacement, there really is only one option and that option is the MH-60R, it’s the best naval helicopter in the World and we know it will not be cheap but it’s well supported and proven.

My biggest hope is the Govt of the day pursues the GA MQ-9 Sea Guardian which will supplement the P-8’s. If we had these in Cyclone Gabrielle and they were fitted with REAP Pod they could have provided the much needed communications link that was cut and first responders would have had a reliable communications link and we would have had a consistent eye in the sky.

However let’s see what the future holds.
I think that the MQ-9B SeaGuardian is a no brainer, but then polles and bean counters may be allergic to it. An ACN (Airborne Communications Network) capability is really a must now and that could be done on the B757 and / or its VIP replacement. The argument for an ACN is supported by the Cyclone Gabrielle experience and other disasters, such as the Christchurch earthquakes. It would be a dual use system with both military and HADR usages.

On another note, in future please post the links to any imagery that you may post. This is protect both you and the Forum from claims of plagiarism / IP theft.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It looks like there is a further awakening in the government about the changing strategic situation in the Pacific, The Foreign Ministry has publish the following document stating that, "the future looks grim and there is a possibility of conflict in the region.
I wonder If this will get the pollies moving?



 
Last edited:
Top