Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[alexsa]

Look we can all agree on that. Of course it would be great if we could magic up a couple of new Frigates. But this is not going to happen Naki for all that we wish for.

But a lease of say for example Arunta or Warramunga (or whatever the first OZ Anzac ships crew becomes the commissioning crew of the Hunter were assigned to ) which we take over, operate and crew for a further 5 years until the first of our Anzac replacements happen is the only other solution unless 1. We can find another 2nd hand Frigate like a Type 23 or a mothballed and tarted up OHP or 2. We want to go through the period of 2025-2032 with still just two Frigates in commission.

Yep, and the reality is that if the desire is for a new build you have to have a yard to build them that is familair with the design before you start construction. Look at the fun and games with the Hobart Class where the designer and yard were pushed together. In this context I suggest running off to Korea with a design and saying 'build this' is not practical in the time frame being mooted. It is going to require time to assess the design and integrate that into the build programme of the yard (the need for comprehensive scheduling of the build programme connot be underestimated).

At this stage the NZ DoD have not even agreed the requirements for the next class of major fleet unit and it is almost 2019. A 2022-3 build start is really not practical unless someone stands up and makes a decision now and even then it is almost impossible as the the contractural arrangements will chew up a year and I doubt long lead items will be purchased until that is done. Lets face it .... you cannot walk up and ask for a combat system or sensors off the shelf ...same goes with GT's, DA's and gearboxes and a myriad of other gear.

So there are a few options:
1. Piggy back off someone elses build ... which means living with someone elses decisions
2. Develop your requirements and then go out with an RFT ........... and this is going to take a while and I suspect you are not going to see a new hull in a hurry and 2025 would be a real stretch.
3. Look at an interim solution.... if considered necessary

If the political environment changes and there is an urgent need for another ship then an ANZAC (assuming one is available) is a good option as the ship design and a number of the systems are the same or similar and training can be done on an in service ANZAC with joint manning by RAN and RNZN service personnel (noting this has been done in the past).

However ..... this is all semantics unless there is a change in the political and regional environment. If that happens and things going pear shaped the Hunter Class or the T26 may be their best option... who knows. The critical issue is NZ need to determine what they require first.

 

[John Fedup]

Yep, false economies. The problem with politicians is they can only see as far as the next election and have a very limited understanding of defence procurement and strategic planning. If something is too difficult or politically sensitive their first instinct is to kick it down the road and make it somebody else's problem.

You have just described the Canadian situation perfectly. The NZ threads suggests the situation in NZ is almost as bad.

 

[Xthenaki]

This is all rather moot as TBH as nice as it would be to have a 3 or better yet 4 frigate navy again our manning levels will need a serious injection and overhaul first otherwise we will just be parking more ships up and the park is pretty full atm.

We cannot seem to crew our small (and getting smaller) navy as it is nevermind essentially doubling our requirements as it's not just numbers but essential numbers that seem to be driving our current focus more than even our actual military requirement.

Unless we can support and sustain the recruitment and more importantly retention of key staff than adding more ships, especially major fleet units that are manpower intensive, is literally just fuelling the fire but adding no heat so pretty much a waste of time, effort and funding probably better spent of maximising effort and at least achieving designated sea days in our current fleet and building extra capacity from there first with some double crewing and then when we have the experienced numbers built up then add a ship or two otherwise all for naught and we're back to where we seem to be now, only bigger.

Manning the vessels is another problem as you state. With trades - apprenticeships form the basic core from which development occurs. If there are no inhouse facilities available (private subcontractors being employed) then incentives and opportunities have to be offered to entice new entrants from existing shore jobs to join the Navy. For entry into a marine engineering starting position the minimum requirement used to be a fitter and turners trade cert. It is establishing that continuing source of human supply by creating opportunities for young people to progress and achieve. To keep staff to a senior level requires competitive wage packages and incentives. Overall its a hard call in finding a solution to an ongoing problem.

 

[Xthenaki]

nd

Look we can all agree on that. Of course it would be great if we could magic up a couple of new Frigates. But this is not going to happen Naki for all that we wish for.

But a lease of say for example Arunta or Warramunga (or whatever the first OZ Anzac ships crew becomes the commissioning crew of the Hunter were assigned to ) which we take over, operate and crew for a further 5 years until the first of our Anzac replacements happen is the only other solution unless 1. We can find another 2nd hand Frigate like a Type 23 or a mothballed and tarted up OHP or 2. We want to go through the period of 2025-2032 with still just two Frigates in commission.

Leasing two of the first OZ ANZAC vessels would be my choice over the other two options given. We end up with replacing four frigates of the same vintage - an even bigger decision because of deferment.

 

[Kiwigov]

This is all rather moot as TBH as nice as it would be to have a 3 or better yet 4 frigate navy again our manning levels will need a serious injection and overhaul first otherwise we will just be parking more ships up and the park is pretty full atm.

We cannot seem to crew our small (and getting smaller) navy as it is nevermind essentially doubling our requirements as it's not just numbers but essential numbers that seem to be driving our current focus more than even our actual military requirement. .

Yes, skills shortfalls issue are a major problem for NZInc, let alone the relative competitiveness of military/RNZN careers. Currently unemployment is under 4.5% and industry sectors are crying out for skilled people (or even any sober bodies at all). In this environment you have to give kudos to NZDF for doing as well in recruitment and retention as they have, just to maintain their existing limited capabilities. From my limited understanding you'd have to at least double RNZN recruitment to eventually get the skilled crews you'd need for two more frigates.

 

[Todjaeger]

Manning the vessels is another problem as you state. With trades - apprenticeships form the basic core from which development occurs. If there are no inhouse facilities available (private subcontractors being employed) then incentives and opportunities have to be offered to entice new entrants from existing shore jobs to join the Navy. For entry into a marine engineering starting position the minimum requirement used to be a fitter and turners trade cert. It is establishing that continuing source of human supply by creating opportunities for young people to progress and achieve. To keep staff to a senior level requires competitive wage packages and incentives. Overall its a hard call in finding a solution to an ongoing problem.

The other part of the crewing equation is when the additional personnel would be required. Unless gov't decided that a third and/or fourth frigate was required and purchased them second hand between 2025 and 2030 the future surface combatants would not start coming online for over a decade. This in turn would mean that the RNZN would have 11+ years to raise and train sufficient personnel to crew a third frigate, unless gov't decided to let the third frigate wait until ~2035 before joining the fleet.

IMO this long a lead time before personnel would be required should afford the RNZN plenty of opportunities to raise and train the numbers required.

 

[RegR]

The other part of the crewing equation is when the additional personnel would be required. Unless gov't decided that a third and/or fourth frigate was required and purchased them second hand between 2025 and 2030 the future surface combatants would not start coming online for over a decade. This in turn would mean that the RNZN would have 11+ years to raise and train sufficient personnel to crew a third frigate, unless gov't decided to let the third frigate wait until ~2035 before joining the fleet.

IMO this long a lead time before personnel would be required should afford the RNZN plenty of opportunities to raise and train the numbers required.

Then seems to beg the question if we can soldier on for another 11+ years with 1-2 frigates then will govt even see any benefit in frigates 3-4? Time only consolidates, confirms and validates what I'm sure they already know anyway ref our 2 frigate navy, good and bad, so who knows in another decade or so?

 

[oldsig127]

This in turn would mean that the RNZN would have 11+ years to raise and train sufficient personnel to crew a third frigate, unless gov't decided to let the third frigate wait until ~2035 before joining the fleet.

IMO this long a lead time before personnel would be required should afford the RNZN plenty of opportunities to raise and train the numbers required.

It's actually not so simple as that. The most difficult crew to provide will be the senior ratings and officers - people who will need to have 12+ years of experience already before being trained for the new ships. In effect, you either need to start increasing numbers now, or figure out how to retain twice as many people (from the same pool) rising to take those positions while there aren't yet any ships for them to crew. And retention of the better people (and these will HAVE to be the better people to fill senior roles) is an absolute bugger

oldsig

 

[MrConservative]

Then seems to beg the question if we can soldier on for another 11+ years with 1-2 frigates then will govt even see any benefit in frigates 3-4? Time only consolidates, confirms and validates what I'm sure they already know anyway ref our 2 frigate navy, good and bad, so who knows in another decade or so?

Which would signal a strategic mis-calculation that may end up in tears. I would say that the alarm maybe set and the clock is ticking.

"New Zealand has an unusual combination of supply vulnerabilities. It faces the same broad range of possible external supply disruptions as do all IEA members but these are exacerbated by such things as its current level of import dependency, remote geographical location at the furthest extent of the international supply chain and relative isolation from other countries from whom relief could be expected in some situations." Hale and Twomey (2005)

An international political disruption to oil imports can cause chaos. The oil shocks of the 1970s, reduced imports to New Zealand by around 7%-10% and plunged New Zealand twice into a deep recession. NZ has even a worse oil security issue than Australia and at least over there Jim Molan is banging on about it and getting attention and the role of Defence in the security of Oil Security. In NZ nada. In fact going forward, the current GOTD by killing off the local oil and gas industry the future oil security situation is worse. Our strategic supplies which total around 20-30 days depending on the product (JP1 is way less BTW) are not just in NZ - but in South Australia and Japan.

There are two main strategic lanes for NZ bound Oil for refining into diesels, jet fuel, petrol, industrial oil at Marsden Point - down through the Indian Ocean and the other from Asia of which 97% of our domestic needs are supplied. That does not count the other 35% of oil fuels that come into the country as finished products. A significant aspect of SLOC security is in fact the policing of those oil sea lanes. With only two frigates NZ will be hard pressed to offer the shipping and oil industry any satisfaction that it is capable of protecting their products in their ships under transit nor will other nations whose first instincts and obligations would be requiring their own sea lanes security needs be particularly amenable to helping out the NZ GOTD out of a bind it placed itself in. Will Japan be happy to offer the JMSDF to secure for our strategic oil reserve based there and guide it through to us (an estimated 30 day timeframe and well after all the domestic supply has run out). It might be a case of if you cannot come and get it - we will use it and by the way thanks and good luck ... you mugs.

If there is a significant disruption event to our oil security (take your pick - military, environmental, economic, geo-political) the economic carnage to the country will be politically unsurvivable. I hope currently serving politicians understand that the public witch hunt if it does go evenly mildly pear shaped from a disruption event, are prepared for a level of blame and opprobrium that will surpass the guys who engineered the CTV building in CHC, ran Air NZ during the Erebus disaster or managed the Pike River Mine. The public are only ever political fair weather friends and are very unforgiving.

In some respects a short sharp geo-politcal shock in the next couple of years may in fact be the best thing to ever happen and save us from ourselves long term though I am aware of the terrible consequences for a recession event that may eventuate. A couple of weeks where flights, shipping (imports and exports) and oil tankers are drastically curtailed - a kick up the backside for the political elites and a penny drop moment for the great unwashed. It would be pretty ugly in terms of economic aftermath - but a lesson well learnt.

 

[John Fedup]

NZ has to worry about pollies ensuring SLOC for oil delivery. That is likely easier than having Canadian pollies figuring out how to build pipelines across provincial borders!

 

[Novascotiaboy]

We live in a world where people think there is no threat. History repeats itself and we have had 73 years of realitive peace albeit the various flare ups that haven’t affected North America, Europe or OZ / NZ populations directly.

Even a four frigate navy could not provide protection to the flow of fuel needed. Globalization has made us all dependent upon others for our wellbeing.

The purchase of the P8 is the best defence to patrol SLOC with wide area surveillance and the ability to reach out and touch someone if needed. The frigates combined with allied ships will provide the “convoy” escorts when needed.

With the latest upgrades to the frigates likely to give 15 years of service to NZ a decision on design is needed by 2028 to have a competition to build a series of ships for entry into service around 2035 at the latest.

 

[RegR]

Which would signal a strategic mis-calculation that may end up in tears. I would say that the alarm maybe set and the clock is ticking.

"New Zealand has an unusual combination of supply vulnerabilities. It faces the same broad range of possible external supply disruptions as do all IEA members but these are exacerbated by such things as its current level of import dependency, remote geographical location at the furthest extent of the international supply chain and relative isolation from other countries from whom relief could be expected in some situations." Hale and Twomey (2005)

An international political disruption to oil imports can cause chaos. The oil shocks of the 1970s, reduced imports to New Zealand by around 7%-10% and plunged New Zealand twice into a deep recession. NZ has even a worse oil security issue than Australia and at least over there Jim Molan is banging on about it and getting attention and the role of Defence in the security of Oil Security. In NZ nada. In fact going forward, the current GOTD by killing off the local oil and gas industry the future oil security situation is worse. Our strategic supplies which total around 20-30 days depending on the product (JP1 is way less BTW) are not just in NZ - but in South Australia and Japan.

There are two main strategic lanes for NZ bound Oil for refining into diesels, jet fuel, petrol, industrial oil at Marsden Point - down through the Indian Ocean and the other from Asia of which 97% of our domestic needs are supplied. That does not count the other 35% of oil fuels that come into the country as finished products. A significant aspect of SLOC security is in fact the policing of those oil sea lanes. With only two frigates NZ will be hard pressed to offer the shipping and oil industry any satisfaction that it is capable of protecting their products in their ships under transit nor will other nations whose first instincts and obligations would be requiring their own sea lanes security needs be particularly amenable to helping out the NZ GOTD out of a bind it placed itself in. Will Japan be happy to offer the JMSDF to secure for our strategic oil reserve based there and guide it through to us (an estimated 30 day timeframe and well after all the domestic supply has run out). It might be a case of if you cannot come and get it - we will use it and by the way thanks and good luck ... you mugs.

If there is a significant disruption event to our oil security (take your pick - military, environmental, economic, geo-political) the economic carnage to the country will be politically unsurvivable. I hope currently serving politicians understand that the public witch hunt if it does go evenly mildly pear shaped from a disruption event, are prepared for a level of blame and opprobrium that will surpass the guys who engineered the CTV building in CHC, ran Air NZ during the Erebus disaster or managed the Pike River Mine. The public are only ever political fair weather friends and are very unforgiving.

In some respects a short sharp geo-politcal shock in the next couple of years may in fact be the best thing to ever happen and save us from ourselves long term though I am aware of the terrible consequences for a recession event that may eventuate. A couple of weeks where flights, shipping (imports and exports) and oil tankers are drastically curtailed - a kick up the backside for the political elites and a penny drop moment for the great unwashed. It would be pretty ugly in terms of economic aftermath - but a lesson well learnt.

Yes agreed and this is what I'm saying with our govt and it's thought process as all these considerations are known and not new (which is shown by our commitment to anti piracy contributions amongst others) and yet they have not so far not seen the need for an expanded frigate force, which yes could very well be to our detriment if/when the ship hits the fan.

This is why I think if we were serious on this issue then we need to actually start the process in the near term due to the long lead in and requirements (exp crew, build/source etc) and add the frigate(s) prior to the ANZAC replacements rather than near/after as I feel the longer we delay then the more likely the same old thinking we have maintained since de-comming F Canterbury and the current structure we have now will merely continue on into the future as per. Yes, as bad as it may sound I think we may need a swift kick up the brass to shift the current complacent stance but would rather something like that is not needed as that will inevitably come with dire consequences of some description and by then could very well be too late.

 

[beegee]

Even a four frigate navy could not provide protection to the flow of fuel needed.

NZ wouldn't be doing it on her own. A threat to NZ's SLOC would also be a threat to Australia's SLOC, and the other nations in the region. It would be a joint, coordinated effort.
The difference between a two frigate navy and four frigate navy is the size of the contribution NZ could make.

 

[Massive]

The difference between a two frigate navy and four frigate navy is the size of the contribution NZ could make.

There would only be a need for a 4th frigate if the requirement was for a sustained contribution of 1 frigate to an international coalition AND a frigate available to respond temporarily to an event independently locally.

Given that the types of events requiring a local response are unlikely to require a frigate, my sense is that 3 frigates would be enough.

Regards,

Massive

 

[MrConservative]

There would only be a need for a 4th frigate if the requirement was for a sustained contribution of 1 frigate to an international coalition AND a frigate available to respond temporarily to an event independently locally.

Given that the types of events requiring a local response are unlikely to require a frigate, my sense is that 3 frigates would be enough.

Regards,

Massive

INTERFET, a low-mid intensity Chp VII event required two RNZN Frigates CY and Te Kaha, which both were worked heavily. Te Mana would have been sent as well - if she were ready. It was soon established that TNI T209's were lurking and this cause great consternation in INTERFET leadership circles and the NZ GOTD. We got away with it because we were simply lucky - and Gen Cosgrove and senior staff in command were brilliant leaders and able to manage things. The Te Kaha played a vital role in protecting Endeavour and Canterbury F421 escorting logistics vessels.

East Timor illustrates that the RNZN requires a four frigate navy to maintain two frigates tasked simultaneously. At the time of East Timor Te Mana was not ready, Wellington was starting its decommissioning. Te Kaha was under a lengthy international contribution to the Multinational Interception Forces in the Gulf. Only F421 was available. Te Kaha abandoned its MIF tasking early to be the necessary second frigate. Shame it had to do that - not enough Frigates unfortunately.

In 1975, the MoD and Defence Force staff develop the policy of what was required by NZ towards a successful contribution to a UN Chp VII event in the region. Ironically this was done following the East Timor crisis of 1975 and was indicative of what may eventually develop in the future. The recommendation was that NZ required a two frigate contribution to such a scenario, and endorsed the long standing policy (Since the late 1950's) that NZ required a 4 Frigate Navy to not only make a two frigate contribution to independently conduct our Chp VII operational contribution, but 4 frigates were required if we simultaneously wanted to make an emergency/urgency response elsewhere. In 1975 the ability to react to a Mururoa Atoll incident was the example of that envisaged simultaneous response.

 

[Todjaeger]

Then seems to beg the question if we can soldier on for another 11+ years with 1-2 frigates then will govt even see any benefit in frigates 3-4? Time only consolidates, confirms and validates what I'm sure they already know anyway ref our 2 frigate navy, good and bad, so who knows in another decade or so?

It is quite possible that NZ can get by with only a two frigate force for the next decade or longer. It depends in part of what the future GOTD will set as policy, and then require (or demand) of the RNZN at the time. The larger part IMO however will be what the conditions are in future incidents, and (again, IMO) the circumstances which lead up to future events/incidents will be outside of the control or really even influence. In short, NZ would not be acting, but reacting.

From my POV, a continuation of the RNZN's two frigate force really requires most, if not everything to go, "right" for it to work. This means that any event or incident where a Kiwi frigate should be deployed to has to only require a lower tiered frigate in terms of response as even after the FSU, the RNZN frigates are not going to be towards the top of the frigate capabilities spectrum (no AShM or LACM capability, no towed sonar array, limited # of self-defence surface to air missiles, etc.) Further, in order for a two frigate force to continue to work, whenever something happens to require a frigate response would really have to happen only when NZ has a frigate that it can deploy to the required area in time. If NZ has a frigate halfway around the world on a show the flag deployment or doing something like making port calls in US, Canadian, or UK ports in the Atlantic, while the other is docked or tied up alongside in port undergoing maintenance, repairs or upgrades...

Now, while I do not dispute that there is absolutely the chance that someone in gov't or political circles will attempt to influence policy, based upon their perception of need, and that perceived need would likely be significantly less if nothing happens over the time period requiring a combatant response. However, that IMO is rather poor contingency planning and would be akin to a homeowner letting their homeowner's or fire insurance because they have never needed it, or a business owner not renewing liability coverage because they have never been sued.

 

[40 deg south]

Some great discussion over the past few pages, without it descending into fantasy fleets and bickering.

I think everyone on this board agrees on a need for the NZ frigate fleet to expand to three or (even better) four vessels. The key question is what would influence the NZ government in this direction, short of a major outbreak of hostilities in Asia?

New Zealand, Australia sending aircraft to help implement UN North Korea sanctions

I note that NZ has just agreed to deploy a P-3C to a US airbase in Japan to carry out sanction patrols on North Korea. I think the value of this kind of work needs a higher profile. A defence force isn't just a last-resort tool to prevent foreign hordes from storming up the beaches, as many in the NZ left seem to portray it. It is a tool for advancing NZ interests, and earning respect (and future assistance) from allies. It isn't a case of Navy vessels (or other assets) lying idle until the outbreak of war - they are another diplomatic asset NZ can use to advance its interests. It is getting that message through to politicians, the senior public service bureaucracy and ultimately the public that is the real challenge.

NZDF - NZDF Inspects 23 Vessels in Multi-National Patrols

On another note, further US links with the inclusion of a US Coast Guard multi-lingual inspector on the Otago. The article reads as if they were working in international waters immediately to the north of the NZ EEZ.

 

[Todjaeger]

Some great discussion over the past few pages, without it descending into fantasy fleets and bickering.

I think everyone on this board agrees on a need for the NZ frigate fleet to expand to three or (even better) four vessels. The key question is what would influence the NZ government in this direction, short of a major outbreak of hostilities in Asia?

I suspect the answer would be highly dependent on the composition of the gov't of the day when the decisions get made, alongside how tightly the contracts and/or legislation can be negotiated, written and signed which limit the ability of future gov'ts to make policy changes

As an example, I think the threat threshold required to justify three or four frigates would be much lower for a coalition gov't where NZ First had significant influence, especially if it was a coalition National/NZ First gov't. OTOH if the GOTD was one where the Greens had significant influence on policy, then given past defence policy planks like "passive non-compliance in the event of invasion" or the current advocacy of the party spokesman that the P-8A Poseidons should be left unarmed to apparently inspire other nations to disarm themselves as well, I could unfortunately picture ideologues arguing that NZ should switch to a force of minimally armed OPV's in a coast guard-type service even after the outbreak of a major war.

If the veil which causes Kiwis to have "sea blindness" can be lifted so that regular Kiwis know and understand just how dependent their lifestyles are upon global trade, and how easily trade to NZ could be disrupted, then NZ gov'ts might be more willing and able to invest more coin into the NZDF, getting both more platforms, and more overall capable platforms.

 

[MrConservative]

That is the way to deal with the IPV issue MrC .. Get some of Winstons foriegn policy budget and use it to develop NZ Government facilities in the islands to support local based IPVs and KA 350 ER MPAs to deal with EEZ and SAR issues.

The Australian govt has just gone and done what I have long advocated what NZ should have been doing. Paying for two B200 Surveillance Aircraft. Plus they are providing the 12 new replacement 39m Patrol vessels to Pacific Island Forum member states.

Leaders hail new surveillance planes

Pacific Forum Leaders have welcomed the increased air surveillance capacity of the new Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) Aerial Surveillance Program funded by Australia under the Pacific Maritime Security Program (PMSP).

Both NZ and OZ are shelling out money at the Pacific. The difference is - that OZ has deliberately added an overt security dimension. Offered new vessels and now aircraft, but also enabling infrastructure.

Winston's Pacific spend up is targeted at non security things and will be run by the New Zealand Aid Programme to:
1. Bolster our efforts to tackle priority issues for the Pacific, especially climate change and health and education.
2. Have an increased focus on sectors important for the promotion of our values – including good governance and transparency, human rights, women’s political and economic empowerment, and youth. 3. Provide increased funding to multilateral institutions to build on multilateral partnerships in the Pacific, and to raise the profile of issues relevant to the Pacific in multilateral contexts.

Maybe in goal three there is some wriggle room to get some security spend. But where the money will go will be dominated by the talkfest, buzz jargon, whiteboard gender equality mafia running their impact programmes with lots of words like inclusive, empowerment, sustainable, diversity, and inequality. As with the squishy liberal silo mentality that is dominant in the NZ Govt (and has been for 20 years) a lot of money will be spent on inputs for very little outputs - read tangible wins. Yes, lots of money will be spent by NZ but in my view are fair chunk of it will go into things which we think they need and which make us feel good. Like Sir Humphrey noted "Make us feel cleansed, purified, absolved. The public does care if it's misspent. They care it's not seen to be misspent." Australia donates two King Airs. NZ donates "education" programmes for their public servants to think and hold the values of white middle class liberals in Wadestown or Ponsonby.

These assets provide immediate aid during natural disasters and provide soverienty presence. Having a joint base if possible would reduce overall costs. Would be a nice deployment rotation with perks for family. If done where would be the likely locations that have infrastructure that can be expanded?

The additional cost to the NZDF in deploying the Hawea last year to Fiji was $1,088,000 for its 6 month tasking. It says to me that for around a further $3.5m p.a increase into Estimates Output M22-5.2 the RNZN could deployed 3 IPV's to the Pacific for up to 6 months p.a each - with at least one vessel and often two on station. (It costs $17.5 million to operate an IPV annually). A 4th IPV could remain in NZ as the dedicated sea training vessel and the remaining IPV's rotate through the through the cycle.

They could use existing facilities at Tonga, Fiji, Samoa and Rarotonga to sustain them. Or if the government invested foreign aid money into a proper wharf and breakwater at Niue, which is handily located between the other island nations, Niue could be a plausible location to set up a joint NZDF facility with local law enforcement, as the airport can also take B767 sized aircraft. A hanger could be built to house and support visiting KA-350's and the P-8A would find it useful as an overnighter.

 

[ASSAIL]

The Australian govt has just gone and done what I have long advocated what NZ should have been doing. Paying for two B200 Surveillance Aircraft. Plus they are providing the 12 new replacement 39m Patrol vessels to Pacific Island Forum member states.,

It’s 22 Guardian Class PBs for 13 countries including Timor L’Este.

Pacific Patrol Boat (Guardian Class)