Good on you for doing that!
![Smile :) :)]()
Yes I understand where you are coming from. And them, they have said an increase to 2% will be over time and we can deduct from that an ACF is therefore lower on the priority list (as in unlikely in the short/medium term). [Well unless ACT promoting >2% has a strong say (as that will fund it) but I think we shouldn't rely on that (well unless they start making some noises on the subject, which they haven't so far I think). And I don't think Labour have committed to a 2% figure anyway and as Alberto says with Clark in Hipkin's ear (reportedly she rang him up last week to be more "assertive" in the political debates) she won't be wanting her legacies touched (so the key here is to bring her around with evidence)].
So yes the reports next year will be the mostly likely way forward (or not). Short/medium term I think we can safely deduct that the defence assessment priorities (in terms of major capex) for existing capabilities will be the RNZN fleet renewal, which will cost $billions. And rightly so as technology and capability wise pushing the Frigates beyond 2030 seems to be stretching it (granted they are having their engines replaced again and hulls re-plated so they last into the mid-2030's but ideally they would need further expenditure on technology and longer range munitions - will the vessels be able to accommodate this and is it worth it for the time it takes and any remaining life?
A better option perhaps would be to fast track the replacement vessel planning with an increase in numbers in mind, so that at least two new replacement vessels could be ordered as soon as practically possible to supplement the ANZAC's in the early 2030's or earlier if it were practical eg A140 perhaps (so a combined fleet of 4 by the early 2030's i.e. yes of two different classes initially - which has been the norm in past times when renewing the fleet), with the vessels 3 and 4 replacing the ANZAC's in the mid-2030's (and perhaps they could be a "batch 2" with improvements, that can be retrofitted to vessels 1 and 2 etc).
There is some interest in the AH140 but the current T31 variants lacks a hull mounted sonar. Presumably RNZN will want a HMS judging by their need on the ANZAC's and previous Leander's. But it should be feasible (and presumably the RAN will want HMS if they select the A140 as their Tier 2 combatant) but it also means design considerations (and potential design compromises) and extra costs to be factored in.
I still favor a specialist ASW design (such as a T26/variant or other) as it will be designed fit for purpose (and that has been one of the RNZN's primary taskings over the last several decades, if not more so critical nowadays with the increased proliferation of subs in the asia-pacific). $6b+ would get us 2-3 such vessels and fit into a coalition naval task group. Leaving the A140 to prioritise on sea-lane patrolling, escorting and as a maritime presence in the wider Pacific region, Tasman Sea and Southern Ocean (up to a point). Ngati-Mozart has also floated the idea of the A120 design replacing the OPV's, which will give the commonality the RNZN fleet review is seeking, this could also be explored. But of course what I'm saying may just be too ambitious but I'm basing it on the lessons learnt from WW2 when the RNZN did suggest 3 Destroyers in lieu of (reluctantly) one of the Light Cruisers (not supported by the Admiralty - reference
RNZN official history by S.D Waters), instead other minor warfighting vessels and Merchant Cruisers were pressed into service some of which were fit for their primary (limited, specialist) purpose and some were ad-hoc in nature. So howabout the RNZN gets the fleet it actually needs for the 2030's/40's and beyond? Finally for better context of the role of the RNZN in wartime, its duties from the Mediterranean, Southern Ocean, Pacific, to South and Central America, to the challenges it faces today and int the future I can't recommend enough reading that S.D. Waters official history. It just shows the Navy does need to be much better resourced.
Fully agree. But the challenge for RNZAF is the high cost to re-establish an ACF when there are much more other pressing existing capabilities and needs that require replacement or upgrading across all 3 Services. So Defence needs to think outside the box (and who am I to suggest this when they probably are already several steps ahead of us here commentating) but here goes.
As you say high expenditure is not needed for 10-15 years (well unless it was deemed a high priority - realistically unlikely to be the highest priority though) when there are cheaper options such as second hand for training purposes.
So some other ideas:
* Acquire (purchase/lease) current generation LIFT training aircraft, in order to build the air and ground crew skillsets, and use the capability as part of the advanced flying training syllabus (i.e. from T-6 to "T-xx") so all pilots receive fast jet flying training (like it was done in previous times with the Strikemaster and MB339). Select a few of the best pilots to receive additional advanced training in the areas of basic air-to-ground and air-to-air techniques and tactics. (Obviously will need to recruit or second some experienced flight instructors eg ex-RAF or RAAF etc). For those that have the right temperament, partner with say the RAF and send these pilots to their training schools to learn to fight and for those that pass they go onto an operational squadron for a few years. (Those that don't pass return to NZ for other non-combat squadron tasking or perhaps even do so in the RAF)? Then return to NZ in time to instruct or become part of a future combat operational squadron. Suggest RAF because it has the mass to absorb a few new pilots (and don't they have recruiting issues too so may welcome additional high achievers?) plus because of traditional and historical linkages between the two nations going back to WW1/WW2 etc. Sure could be another nation if there is a pathway.
*Use NZ's closeness (and historcial ties) with the UK and generate a squadron based in the UK with costs, resourcing and personnel shared between the two nations (the model I'm thinking of is the WW2 Article XV Squadrons of the RAF eg call it no. 485 Squadron of the RAF with mixed Brits and Kiwis). This way NZers get to learn advanced skillsets in an environment that cannot be replicated in NZ. Then bring back some of those experienced staff (whilst continuing to replace them) to become part of a future combat operational squadron(s) if the Govt supports the establishment of a fully operational ACF in the 2030's because of the strategic situation requiring it, and at least we can hit the ground running. This might sound like fantasy but again there is a historical precedent in suggesting this. At the start of WW2 whilst NZ was primarily training personnel for air campaigns and had very limited offensive aircraft (they were essentially obsolete and ex-RAF cast offs). But Britain asked NZ for form a fighter squadron that was sent to Singapore to fight the Japanese invasion. NZ pilots found themselves operating much more modern aircraft (Buffalos! and Hurricanes) than what it was used to back home and had to learn in a complex combat situation (and of course some pilots excelled). Like the conclusion of the RNZN commentary above, we need to have in place what we will deploy or fight with, as history shows we get caught out and we must prevent these situations from occurring ...