NZDF General discussion thread

[40 deg south]

Ron Mark

New Minister's bio from the NZ First website - accuracy not guaranteed!

On the positive side, NZ will be getting a Minister with personal experience of, and a deep interest in, the military.

On the down side, his experience is somewhat dated, and harks back to the 'button polishing and rock painting' era for the NZ army. He is likely to be highly army-centric, and appears (like his political mentor Winston) to have a very backward-looking focus on some imagined glory days in NZ's past. More worryingly, his public pronouncements while in opposition have left the strong impression that he is not overly bright. To be fair, I've never heard him speak in person and media appearances can be deceiving, but I certainly wouldn't expect strong modernising leadership from him.

 

[Rob c]

Ron Mark

New Minister's bio from the NZ First website - accuracy not guaranteed!

On the positive side, NZ will be getting a Minister with personal experience of, and a deep interest in, the military.

On the down side, his experience is somewhat dated, and harks back to the 'button polishing and rock painting' era for the NZ army. He is likely to be highly army-centric, and appears (like his political mentor Winston) to have a very backward-looking focus on some imagined glory days in NZ's past. More worryingly, his public pronouncements while in opposition have left the strong impression that he is not overly bright. To be fair, I've never heard him speak in person and media appearances can be deceiving, but I certainly wouldn't expect strong modernising leadership from him.

I did meet him some years ago and my impression at that time and from subsequent statements was that while he is not an idiot he is not always the sharpest knife in the draw and has a tendency in regard to defence to look at the first obvious option without fully analyzing all options. He had a strong interest in both the army and air force offensive abilities, but showed little interest in the navy. He was involved in the "Save our Skyhawks" campaign in the early 2000's. But from his profile it would appear that he is not shy of work and is got a broad spectrum of abilities.

 

[ngatimozart]

Interesting discussion on China's direction and how it will impact NZ and Australia. The general gist is that because of the future that Xi Jingping has planned for the PRC, Australia and NZ will be on the front line and that will mean NZ will have to make some hard decisions, bite the bullet and expand NZDF including reestablishing the ACF and expanding naval capabilities.

The new China | The Panel | Radio New Zealand

7 things you need to know about Xi Jinping’s vision of a ‘new era’ for China | South China Morning Post

China has the world's biggest military force. Now Xi Jinping wants it to be the best | South China Morning Post

 

[Gibbo]

Ron Mark

New Minister's bio from the NZ First website - accuracy not guaranteed!

On the positive side, NZ will be getting a Minister with personal experience of, and a deep interest in, the military.

On the down side, his experience is somewhat dated, and harks back to the 'button polishing and rock painting' era for the NZ army. He is likely to be highly army-centric, and appears (like his political mentor Winston) to have a very backward-looking focus on some imagined glory days in NZ's past. More worryingly, his public pronouncements while in opposition have left the strong impression that he is not overly bright. To be fair, I've never heard him speak in person and media appearances can be deceiving, but I certainly wouldn't expect strong modernising leadership from him.

I can't say I rate the guy too highly however from a Govt policy perspective I think it might be a little early to be hitting the panic button!

In today's NZ Herald there's a piece about our relationship with Oz and Defence gets a mention... at least they appear to realise the Defence relationship is an important component of the overall relationship. NZ-Australia relationship needs serious work: Peters - NZ Herald

The key bit for this forum is the closing paragraphs:

NZ First's coalition agreement with Labour includes an agreement to "re-examine the Defence procurement programme within the context of the 2016 Defence Capability Plan budget".

New Defence Minister Ron Mark said today that his party had been concerned about the type of expenditure and agreements entered into under the previous Government.

"We will run a ruler over that, stay within the allocation that exists, but seek to get better quality decisions...I really want to see where they are up to."


Ok so the interpretation of what is meant by 'the allocation that exists' is unknown, but for the likes of the FAMC & FASC projects are almost too big & well publicised to simply downgrade so I don't think they'll change too dramatically - I'm not saying they won't make some stupid choices, but given NZ First's fairly constructive Defence statements before the election I wouldn't expect them to now do a 180, even allowing for coalition agreements!

They have stated they thought National was gold-plating the NZDF, well actually we know they were simply trying to keep the NZDF relevant, but I do have a gut-feel NZFirst is giving themselves the wriggle room to allow agreement with National's decisions where it suits!

 

[40 deg south]

This is almost certainly correct where a contract has been negotiated and signed. The only major example of this I am aware of is the replacement tanker.

As far as the surveillance and airlift replacement programmes go, there hasn't even been a Request for Proposals yet (i.e. a tender), let alone a winner being chosen. The same applies to the proposed Southern OPV and (I'm less certain) the LOSC.

Delaying or cancelling them would mightily piss off the would-be suppliers, but it is highly unlikely they would have any grounds to claim compensation from the NZ government

Addendum
The Frigate Systems Upgrade in Canada is also locked in, so would presumably incur penalties if cancelled. The first vessel must be bound for Vancouver very soon.

 

[40 deg south]

I can't say I rate the guy too highly however from a Govt policy perspective I think it might be a little early to be hitting the panic button!

In today's NZ Herald there's a piece about our relationship with Oz and Defence gets a mention... at least they appear to realise the Defence relationship is an important component of the overall relationship. NZ-Australia relationship needs serious work: Peters - NZ Herald

The key bit for this forum is the closing paragraphs:

NZ First's coalition agreement with Labour includes an agreement to "re-examine the Defence procurement programme within the context of the 2016 Defence Capability Plan budget".

New Defence Minister Ron Mark said today that his party had been concerned about the type of expenditure and agreements entered into under the previous Government.

"We will run a ruler over that, stay within the allocation that exists, but seek to get better quality decisions...I really want to see where they are up to."


Ok so the interpretation of what is meant by 'the allocation that exists' is unknown, but for the likes of the FAMC & FASC projects are almost too big & well publicised to simply downgrade so I don't think they'll change too dramatically - I'm not saying they won't make some stupid choices, but given NZ First's fairly constructive Defence statements before the election I wouldn't expect them to now do a 180, even allowing for coalition agreements!

They have stated they thought National was gold-plating the NZDF, well actually we know they were simply trying to keep the NZDF relevant, but I do have a gut-feel NZFirst is giving themselves the wriggle room to allow agreement with National's decisions where it suits!

I'm less optimistic than you, but certainly hope you are right.

I'm a little puzzled as to where this 'gold-plating' has occurred under the previous government. The main examples Ron Mark has cited in the past are the number of LAVs bought and the immature NH90 helicopter. Both of these were decisions made by the party he is now in coalition with, so I'm not expecting they will be closely scrutinised!

I think Lockheed Martin can pretty much count on winning the FAMC contract now, given how critical Mark has been in the past of proposals to buy the C-17 and A400m. It also fits with what I see as his backwards-looking orientation towards the 'good old days' of NZ defence.

 

[Gibbo]

I'm less optimistic than you, but certainly hope you are right.

I'm a little puzzled as to where this 'gold-plating' has occurred under the previous government. The main examples Ron Mark has cited in the past are the number of LAVs bought and the immature NH90 helicopter. Both of these were decisions made by the party he is now in coalition with, so I'm not expecting they will be closely scrutinised!

I think Lockheed Martin can pretty much count on winning the FAMC contract now, given how critical Mark has been in the past of proposals to buy the C-17 and A400m. It also fits with what I see as his backwards-looking orientation towards the 'good old days' of NZ defence.

Yeah I am worried about some of what comes out of is mouth, but then again he doesnt go choosing what the RNZAF gets - I appreciate he gets a finger in the pie & will approve or otherwise but the the procurement process I suspect is actually a little more robust than only buying what toy the Minister of Defence decides he wants to play with today.

C130J always has been a very real possibility from the get-go, as the tactical FAMC component. It's in the strategic space we might get more dissapointed as they go for another civvy airliner like type rather than a purpose built military lifter.

 

[Rob c]

It could be some time before we see the full extent of any change in direction caused by the new minister. His remarks in opposition should not be taken seriously as I think that they would be just for political point scoring, directed at an audience that has little or no knowledge or interest in the subject. There is little doubt that he is more passionate on the subject and will be a lot more dedicated to defence than many predecessors. He definitely is in the more Bang for your buck category. I would expect a greater focus on combat capability than in the past two governments and I would not be surprise if we don't see the start of a return to some form of ACF. He did favour the C130J in previous statements but I for one would be disappointed if we went down this track. It is still a 65+ year old design with new engines and avionics in it, a bit like buying a Morris Minor with a modern engine and stereo as your next new family car, a very small improvement.

 

[MrConservative]

NZ First's "Current" Defence Policies 2017

They have $18.7 billion for Cap Ex and $1.7 billion for Defence Infrastructure. Some quick thoughts on it.

Develop a full-spectrum defence force capable of expeditionary warfare and Humanitarian and Disaster Relief (HADR) within New Zealand’s vast Maritime Area of Responsibility (one of the largest on earth).

The interesting part here is "full spectrum" - the rest of the phrase is pretty much what we are doing with the Future 35 plan outlined when Coleman was DefMin.

Work within the fiscal parameters of the Defence Capability Plan to return offensive capabilities to the Royal New Zealand Air Force and enhance offensive capabilities of the Army and Navy.

The return of offensive capabilities. The P-8 can do this and was the argument under National that with its capabilities we can return an air combat capability in another form. Enhance means in Naval and Land Force terms improve what we have. One thing about Ron Mark is that he personally believes we should have an air combat capability and has been consistent about this over the years. Within the fiscal parametres either that is a BLOC / Training contingency that can be regenerated into a when / if required or the P-8 analogy. Within the fiscal parametres a new full spectrum ACC is is not possible.

Establish as a minimum the 1:1 replacement of major defence materiel.
Reverse falling numbers and increase budgets for recruitment, pay, operations, training and live-fire.

The P-8A catch 22 is in play because to find another two they will have to find another $500m to own and operate them over time. However easily solved when it is explained to Ron that four P-8's and two further suitably equipped leased KingAirs is better than six of anything else if one wants to be numeric centric.

Prioritise combat-trained forces as best able to contribute to national and regional security, United Nations and other peacemaking initiatives.

No change from the current policy.

Ensure the regular forces have all the necessary capabilities to support and assist other agencies.

Essentially when in comes to Land Forces this is happening.

Establish a tri-service Cyberwarfare Special Operations Unit.

This capability is already evolving and has emphasis under the DWP but taking it further into a properly funded operational unit is sound policy.

Re-equip the Royal New Zealand Naval Reserve with its own vessels for inshore patrol, maritime SAR, pollution control and anti-mine warfare.

This really is a wander down memory lane ...

Re-establish and expand the Territorial Force of the NZ Army and return it to its regional roots to, among other things, provide bodies of trained personnel to support Civil Defence, Police and other agencies throughout the country.

Again this is a wander down memory lane with the name change and going back to the six territories. The Army Reserve model as it is now is an improvement because the old Territorial structure was out dated.

Legislate for a Defence Force Covenant outlining the States’ obligations to those who served and the rights of those who have served and their families, including the ending of discrimination on matters such as life insurance.

Fair enough too! There is no NZDF union so at least this enshrines statutory protections.

Establish an independent Armed Forces Remuneration Board to set pay and conditions.

If it is good enough for senior civil servants and politicians to have their own HSC then why not Defence.

Replace the five-yearly Defence White Paper with a four-yearly Strategic Defence and Security Review to take into account geopolitical factors.

DWP with mid point rebalancing papers does the same thing.

Provide improved resourcing to return and expand the Limited Service

Darroch Ball and Ron Mark are big on this. This is bread and butter NZ First policy. Not just for at risk youth but to make it attractive to more youth in general and not have such tight funding and numerical parametres.

Volunteer scheme to each of the main centres.

But do not have it based there. LSV schemes work best when the individual is removed from their environment.

Actively encourage and assist the Cadet Forces including its expansion.

Best youth organisation in the country!

Some of these things will get over the line and are easy to do. However, I don't think that Reserve Forces plans and the DWP schedule are going to change. The LSV improvements is somewhere National in opposition may support as it is there baby back in the 1990s - but the Greens will not. NZ First and National will get it over the line if legislation is required.

 

[ASSAIL]

I believe that the opportunity cost of returning to an ACF is enormous.
The one capability that the RNZF does not need is this. NZ is not about to be subjected to incursions by foreign air forces, there is no sea/air gap to defend. That considerable funding for a marginally effective force can be put to better use by applying it to both transport and surveillance aircraft within the Air Force and to ancreasing the capability of the maritime force without.
This is how it has been for some time, this is how NZ has contributed value to her allies and I see no reason to change apart from increased funding for defence, naturally.

 

[Gibbo]

I believe that the opportunity cost of returning to an ACF is enormous.
The one capability that the RNZF does not need is this. NZ is not about to be subjected to incursions by foreign air forces, there is no sea/air gap to defend. That considerable funding for a marginally effective force can be put to better use by applying it to both transport and surveillance aircraft within the Air Force and to ancreasing the capability of the maritime force without.
This is how it has been for some time, this is how NZ has contributed value to her allies and I see no reason to change apart from increased funding for defence, naturally.

I agree generally speaking with your comments, there are more important and effective gains to be had in the transport and surveillance fleets before we should look to the rebirth of an ACF - a well equipped P8 based offensive capability would be of huge regional, or wider, significance for NZ.

I do however disagree with the simplistic notion of we don't need and ACF (or any other specific platform) because we won't get invaded - the thing is in this day & age defence forces will not always be based on home soil - look at coalition ACF a/c (Incl. RAAF) in the middle east. Or a more relevant example where the RNZAF A4's were almost deployed to the top of Oz for the East Timor operation.

My point is, and in media comments you see a complete lack of understanding that a countries defence forces aren't there just to prevent invasion - they are a component of a collective defence obligation which is most often, but not always, is regionally based. An ACF, like the P8 for example, can be deployed overseas to protect NZ's interests without there being any hint of an invasion.

I think you do get that concept Assail, it's just that I get really wound-up about this 'we won't get invaded' attitude that gets bandied about when opposed to defence spending. A small niche ACF could be of value to our region if it filled an identified gap - think fast jet ESM & Recon capability, or for JATF ops an Apache type fleet - we'd only need 6-8 but if kept updated they would be very valuable.

But as I said I do agree this shouldn't be a current priority but it's certainly something NZ should look to longer term.

 

[Rob c]

I believe that the opportunity cost of returning to an ACF is enormous.
The one capability that the RNZF does not need is this. NZ is not about to be subjected to incursions by foreign air forces, there is no sea/air gap to defend. That considerable funding for a marginally effective force can be put to better use by applying it to both transport and surveillance aircraft within the Air Force and to ancreasing the capability of the maritime force without.
This is how it has been for some time, this is how NZ has contributed value to her allies and I see no reason to change apart from increased funding for defence, naturally.

I disagree with the notion that a ACF is only marginally effective. What makes it very effective is the fact that any possible threat will not have air cover unless they have large aircraft carriers, meaning that we are guarantied air superiority over any potential aggressor that should want to head in this direction. This makes an ACF a huge deterrent against aggression. As JFK once said " the best defence dollars that you can spend are the ones you don't have to use". Meaning of course that deterrence is far more preferable to fighting. Due to the tyranny of distance an ACF in NZ only needs to be relatively modest in both size and aircraft type as unless the aggressor has large aircraft carriers there will be little airborne opposition. The primary role of any defence force is to maintain their countries sovereignty, all the other tasks that the defence force carries out, while important are secondary to that for the simple reason that if you lose you sovereignty you can no longer carry out any of the other tasks or obligations.
The notion that we will never be a target needs to be put to bed as this will change in the coming years as the world population head up to 15b by 2070 the demand for arable land, fresh drinking water and space to live will outstrip the supply. We would be viewed to have a surplus. As the London Universities Strategic studies unit said some years ago, the basic needs for life , food water and room to live will become more strategically important than oil, mineral and other resources.
An AFC would be an almost insurmountable problem to any rogue country or organization as it can react quickly to any threat in conjunction with a good surveillance ability before they reach our shores. The other point is that an ACF can react aggressively while putting the minimum number of lives ar risk and is more rapidly deployable than any other element.

 

[ASSAIL]

Rob C and Gibbo, dollars are not available, NZ does not have the resources to stand up an effective air defence capability. To be effective afighter force needs more than just the aircraft. The training and sustainment costs are huge and leak cash from an already tight defence budget.
Are a dozen (serviceable and flying) or so aircraft able to pose an effective defence? Do they need to be supplemented by tankers? These are the questions that have been addressed and answered by NZ planners who have made the correct choice IMHO. It's a simple geographic reality, you're lucky.
In any case, my suggestion was not about "invasion" but about incursions by foreign air assets most likely carrier launched. Don't you believe that if a new PLA N Carrier task group was in the S. Pacific that they would not be closely shadowed by your allies? They would and to do that NZs contribution would be in ISR.

 

[MrConservative]

A small niche ACF could be of value to our region if it filled an identified gap - think fast jet ESM & Recon capability, or for JATF ops an Apache type fleet - we'd only need 6-8 but if kept updated they would be very valuable.

But as I said I do agree this shouldn't be a current priority but it's certainly something NZ should look to longer term.

The electromagnetic cyber realm is where the gap is and where it will be exploited against us. Any notion of a regenerated air combat capability has to emphasise disruption, denial and delivery with the EW/EMCy space within principally our wider operational maritime context. It is no longer just about bullets and bombs but the non kinectics.

To use as an example FA-50's with ALQ-231 Intrepid Tiger pods would be a useful start down that long road.

 

[MrConservative]

Rob C and Gibbo, dollars are not available, NZ does not have the resources to stand up an effective air defence capability. To be effective afighter force needs more than just the aircraft. The training and sustainment costs are huge and leak cash from an already tight defence budget.
Are a dozen (serviceable and flying) or so aircraft able to pose an effective defence? Do they need to be supplemented by tankers? These are the questions that have been addressed and answered by NZ planners who have made the correct choice IMHO. It's a simple geographic reality, you're lucky.
In any case, my suggestion was not about "invasion" but about incursions by foreign air assets most likely carrier launched. Don't you believe that if a new PLA N Carrier task group was in the S. Pacific that they would not be closely shadowed by your allies? They would and to do that NZs contribution would be in ISR.

The advantage of distance geographically as a strategic wall is fast dissolving.

As for lack of resources I disagree. One look at the macro-economic fundamentals of NZ in 2017 versus other OECD countries disputes that. Low government GDP- Debt ratios, robust economic growth and sizable surpluses - which Australia for example cannot seem to manage as well, let alone our Northern Hemisphere / EU allies. There is a lot of cash thrown around in this country that non-citizens are likely not aware of in any case.

It is not about resources - but about priorities and these are changing. As are NZ's strategic interests as it transitions from its geo-strategic culture of dependence to inter-dependence. The axing of the ACF was an ideological choice not an operational one. RNZAF / NZDF planners had no say.

 

[Gibbo]

...
Are a dozen (serviceable and flying) or so aircraft able to pose an effective defence?....

Yes I actually totally agree with what you say about lack of funding; likelihood of incursion; massive backroom training & support costs; and there being higher priorities - and nor do I foresee a fast-jet ACF returning any time soon.

But I disagree on the potential value of a dozen or so a/c - as a component of a bigger coalition fleet they could be extremely effective if they fulfilled a desired / required niche within that coalition force. And we could be looking at a regional conflict of relatively low level where a dozen a/c does actually make a difference.

So I say yes let's not go anywhere near an ACF for now, but let's not write it off as 'never go there again' capability for NZ.

 

[ngatimozart]

Whilst in my heart a reconstituted ACF, in the traditional mould would be good, my brain is of the opinion that probably, that particular Norwegian Blue budgie has flown the coop. I'm not completely closing the door on it, but unless there is a major scare, the pollies may not willingly agree to reconstituting an ACF.

However there are more than one way of doing things so we could build upon capabilities that we already have and institute new ones that are force multipliers. In that vein I would suggest acquiring two extra P-8s and arming the P-8 with good AGMs, such as the JASSM-ER and LRSAM, plus utilising the P-8's EW capabilities. That would be less expensive than an ACF and would be a better force multiplier than a pure ACF. The King Airs would still undertake EEZ monitoring and the other taskings they undertake now. I would prefer four of the King Airs with ISR sensors and associated consoles, rather than two.

When the B757s are replaced, I would suggest a couple or three MRTTs because again they are force multipliers. Whilst the KC-46 looks good, it still has problems and it will take some time to be regarded as mature. Maybe the better option would be the KC-30 MRTT because it is already a mature and proven system and like the RAAF have with their two extra KC-30s, we could utilise ex airline aircraft as the donor aircraft and if we used A330-200s, then we'd have full commonality with the RAAF. I wonder if the ALQ-231 Intrepid Tiger pod can be mounted on Rotary wing aircraft? Or it could be mounted on King Airs as required?

Something else that could be worth looking at is acquiring some CH-47 chooks and increasing our NH-90 and A109 numbers, plus at least three C-2 / A400 types and a minimum of six C130Js. Increasing the air lift capabilities is also a good force multiplier.

 

[Rob c]

Rob C and Gibbo, dollars are not available, NZ does not have the resources to stand up an effective air defence capability. To be effective afighter force needs more than just the aircraft. The training and sustainment costs are huge and leak cash from an already tight defence budget.
Are a dozen (serviceable and flying) or so aircraft able to pose an effective defence? Do they need to be supplemented by tankers? These are the questions that have been addressed and answered by NZ planners who have made the correct choice IMHO. It's a simple geographic reality, you're lucky.
In any case, my suggestion was not about "invasion" but about incursions by foreign air assets most likely carrier launched. Don't you believe that if a new PLA N Carrier task group was in the S. Pacific that they would not be closely shadowed by your allies? They would and to do that NZs contribution would be in ISR.

If we don't have an ACF any potential rogue nation or organization don't need a carrier group to be a threat to us they could simply fly into their prefered airport using commercial type aircraft and there is nothing we could do about it. The basics of our defence should be to know what is going on in our area and have the ability to control or destroy any unwanted incursions. the rest is icing on the cake and currently we have more icing than cake.

 

[MrConservative]

NZ First slams Defence budget | Newshub

The above is an 8 minute interview on Channel 3 last year by Paul Henry with Ron Mark when the DWP came out. Listen from 1.30 on when he talks about an air combat capability in terms of "a small initial training capability by 2020."

Mr Mark is definitely going to instruct the officials to look into options within that $20B context. This is a pet project. If those guys can Pork Barrel $10B into a port for Auckland a couple of hundred kilometres away in Whangarei when for half that money a new Port and infrastructure in the Firth of Thames which can be built for half that money - then finding a few hundred million for a small initial training capability by 2020 is far from the remote possibility we have been conditioned to over the last 15 years.

The Philippines ditched their ACF about the time we ditched ours and yet now have all their 12 KAI FA-50's. They are rebuilding their capability or at the very least getting themselves in the position to rebuild it - which in itself is a strategic hedge. The Thai's are looking at 8 examples for USD$267m including the support of the Koreans to get them up and running and the deal is that they can pay it over three annual instalments. He mentions the Korean defence industry in the interview. They are very much ready to use their sharp pencils to negotiate a highly competitive price in their emerging defence export sector just like they did in motor vehicles and electronics.

With $20 billion earmarked for CapEx out to 2030 he thinks it is possible to get there. Like it or not my guess he will do it by buying 5 KC-130J's rather than the A400M as the C-130H replacement and pushing out the B757 replacement a year or two. Just by doing that it feasibly can be done. For this is in many respects is a pet legacy project for NZ First.

Botswana are looking at buying 8 FA-50's by the way.

 

[ADMk2]

If we don't have an ACF any potential rogue nation or organization don't need a carrier group to be a threat to us they could simply fly into their prefered airport using commercial type aircraft and there is nothing we could do about it. The basics of our defence should be to know what is going on in our area and have the ability to control or destroy any unwanted incursions. the rest is icing on the cake and currently we have more icing than cake.

I would imagime there is plenty your Army could do about such a scenario. Surround said airport and detain / shoot anyone getting off the plane springs to mind...

Or they could use any of their machine guns / cannon to just shoot up the plane itself if necessary...

I imagine your country maintains at the least radar and air traffic control capabilities, so you know what is going on within your airspace.

What you don’t have is an ability to intercept aircraft that enter your airspace without following the directions of your air traffic control services and that would seem to be the most pressing need in this role if an ACF is to be re-establised.

CAS, intediction, tactical recce and other capabilities could of course flow onwards after that if so desired and were affordable.