NZDF General discussion thread

[Catalina]

our economy hangs on 800 merchant ships and 6000 port visits on an average year for that 97% ocean going trade dependence

Good morning shanes_world_05,

Thank you for the information above. Could you direct me to where it was sourced thank you. Am very interested in our sea lanes of communication and maritime traffic and any sources of such thank you.

Yours Faithfully
Catalina

 

[shanes_world_05]

Sorry the 97% was from here but pretty sure I have read this on the MBIE website also. The 800 ships and 6000 visits was from someone who was a logistics director for Maersk over a couple of beers. However I just checked Maritime NZ and here it is - https://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/about/documents/Maritime-New-Zealand-profile.pdf

 

[Rob c]

The reality is that we simply don't spend enough on defence, the pollies need to wake up to the drastically changed security environment in the world and stop the attitude when it comes to defence of "taking from peter to pay paul" when they have to change the focus of our defence policy due to a change in the security outlook. they have done this for to long and all they have achieved is to errode the defence forces overall capabilities over a period of time. Due to the ever increasing world population I think that we will see an increasingly fragile security situation due to increased demand for increasingly scarce resources, especially food and water.

 

[ngatimozart]

Sorry the 97% was from here but pretty sure I have read this on the MBIE website also. The 800 ships and 6000 visits was from someone who was a logistics director for Maersk over a couple of beers. However I just checked Maritime NZ and here it is - https://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/about/documents/Maritime-New-Zealand-profile.pdf

The actual figure is 99.5% of our trade by volume is transported by sea and this is the reference:
Overseas cargo Statistics: Year Ended June 2007

This is a map of our SLOC.

Source: Oughton, J. (2011). New Zealand Trade

 

[ngatimozart]

Sorry bad memory, Old timers disease setting in. However the total of, remain the same and increase the spend was in the high 60's to 70% mark. I think I over stated the reduce figure by 10%.

Jankers for you. Report to she who must be obeyed for instruction

This probably won't be popular but as a thought experiment - should the navy do away with frigates? I am looking at the still myopic public opinion, politician need for PR points at every turn and our ocean going trade reliance and the lack of escorts and wonder if there is a smarter way. I'm thinking that our economy hangs on 800 merchant ships and 6000 port visits on an average year for that 97% ocean going trade dependence. So even for a limited war in a sea lane we rely on we would need more than 2 escorts to keep even a fraction of that protected. So say if we ditched the frigates and went with something like the Absalons but 6-8x to replace Canterbury, the OPV's, frigates and scale them ala the Italian PPA project but via stanflex and millennium guns. But on the face of it to joe public and the rapid dissenters in the Astro turf party it appears to appease the no combat capability desire but if prepared properly could lead to an overall increase in capability across a range of roles. Better HADR response, more escorts, larger number of VLS, more helicopter hangars, simplified training and spares pool, easier logistics. If the 24knot top speed is a turnoff adopt the Jim Dorschner concept and add a hull plug of 14m and add another row of MTU's. Contract OMT and a korean yard and there's the concept.

It is one option, but to much multi-role can lead to not enough specialisation in critical areas, so there is quite a risk there. However replacing Canterbury with such vessels would not be viable because it would result in the significant loss of capability that Canterbury brings. Canterbury would be better replaced with a LHD such as the ST E-170 or South Korean Dokdo class. Singapore is building a new Multi-Role Combat Vessel that look like it may meet many of NZ's requirements. However such ships do not replace OPVs and would be expensive to operate in the OPV role.

 

[shanes_world_05]

Understood. I'll have a little think on what you have said. I did understand the loss of capability that moving away from Canterbury would bring and have no real answer for it unless you do add a hull plug, bay and crane for a 55 ton LCV. However I strongly believe we need enough escorts to cover a small convoy with two escorts and still allow for rule of threes. Really our number of escorts should be held proportional to the number of vessels per rotation required to feed and relieve NZ at an accepted level.

I am against the OPV's to be honest. I think they are a dilution of naval purpose and fail to provide anything in a war time setting which is the long term risk. They are in my view a short term view acquisition and economy of operation should not be the driving motivation for a nation with an economy based on sea going trade. But as mentioned above it is a result of lack of budget. Long range capable escorts should trump OPV's everytime as a frigate can slum it as a overpriced OPV but not the other way round.

I think if the average voter had it explained that they would not be able to take advantage of cheap overseas goods like cellphones and shoes and they link to secure sealanes I think the navy budget would see alot more support. Explain the vulnerability of the Internet cables you might get a QE class.

 

[old faithful]

Understood. I'll have a little think on what you have said. I did understand the loss of capability that moving away from Canterbury would bring and have no real answer for it unless you do add a hull plug, bay and crane for a 55 ton LCV. However I strongly believe we need enough escorts to cover a small convoy with two escorts and still allow for rule of threes. Really our number of escorts should be held proportional to the number of vessels per rotation required to feed and relieve NZ at an accepted level.

I am against the OPV's to be honest. I think they are a dilution of naval purpose and fail to provide anything in a war time setting which is the long term risk. They are in my view a short term view acquisition and economy of operation should not be the driving motivation for a nation with an economy based on sea going trade. But as mentioned above it is a result of lack of budget. Long range capable escorts should trump OPV's everytime as a frigate can slum it as a overpriced OPV but not the other way round.

I think if the average voter had it explained that they would not be able to take advantage of cheap overseas goods like cellphones and shoes and they link to secure sealanes I think the navy budget would see alot more support. Explain the vulnerability of the Internet cables you might get a QE class.

To me, the OPV's are one dimensional ship. They can really only patrol peaceful waters. They can have a limited disaster relief role, but as small navy like NZ has, they are would be better off with a Corvette, that could at least provide some defence role if the frigates were deployed.
Even if the OPVs were fitted for but not with some combat systems, they would be more useful. Perhaps a fitted for SAM at least

 

[MrConservative]

To me, the OPV's are one dimensional ship. They can really only patrol peaceful waters. They can have a limited disaster relief role, but as small navy like NZ has, they are would be better off with a Corvette, that could at least provide some defence role if the frigates were deployed.
Even if the OPVs were fitted for but not with some combat systems, they would be more useful. Perhaps a fitted for SAM at least

The RNZN had 4 Australian built Bathhurst Class Corvettes in the RNZN that served through the 50's, 60's with the last 3 leaving service in the late 1970's. Their role was essentially like OPV's including trips up the Pacific.

Back in the mid-late 1970's the RNZN had 4 Frigates, 3 Corvettes, 4 Inshore Patrol Craft, a T-AGOR, an Antarctic support vessel, a Dive Vessel, and a Survey and Supply Ship. That is 15 vessels as well still having 8 small HMDL's in service in a variety of roles such as training, survey, inshore fisheries protection and volunteer reserves that were replaced by 7 Moa Class IPC's.

In 1977 NZ created its EEZ and one would think that they would have been replaced with vessels that could handle the conditions and range required of our outer EEZ and our "dependencies" up in the Pacific and southern ocean. In fact in the 1980's the 75m 1400 ton Castle Class was once considered as an early replacement for the Lake Class IPC's which were not well regarded within the Navy.

 

[John Fedup]

In 1977 NZ created its EEZ and one would think that they would have been replaced with vessels that could handle the conditions and range required of our outer EEZ and our "dependencies" up in the Pacific and southern ocean.

Do more with less, reads right out of a Canadian government playbook for defence.

 

[ngatimozart]

Three announcements from todays Cabinet meeting regarding Defence:

OP Gallant Phoenix is a Coalition intel OP based in Jordan targeting Daesh operating in Syria & Iraq. NZ became involved when Daesh took a Kiwi hostage in 2014 and the belief is that she is still alive. This became public knowledge earlier this year after the ICRC went public about her.
New Zealand confirms ongoing participation in Operation Gallant Phoenix

NZ will withdraw from the non-combat Building Partner Capacity (BPC) mission at Taji Military Complex in Iraq in June 2020. This is a phased withdrawal with the Iraqi military taking full responsibility for is own training. Between now and then NZ is transitioning to a train the trainers role.
New Zealand to withdraw from Iraq in June 2020

NZ is to reduce it's involvement in the Afghan Army Officers Academy and refocus on an UN Women, Peace and Security and reconciliation and reintegration program. NZ's participation will involve senior female NZDF officers, if NZ's bid is successful.
New Zealand to refocus deployment to Afghanistan

Tomorrow is the reported date for the DCP release.

 

[ngatimozart]

An interesting comment on NZ defence policy that I have just come across: "New Zealand does not have a discrete security policy, rather it is a collection of disparate policies that constitute an overall policy". It's a footnote in the RNZAF Air Power Development Centre Bulletin Issue 33, June 2019. Maybe this explains why NZ defence is the way it is. Maybe not. I am unsure on this.

 

[milliGal]

An interesting comment on NZ defence policy that I have just come across: "New Zealand does not have a discrete security policy, rather it is a collection of disparate policies that constitute an overall policy". It's a footnote in the RNZAF Air Power Development Centre Bulletin Issue 33, June 2019. Maybe this explains why NZ defence is the way it is. Maybe not. I am unsure on this.

I recall last years strategic defence policy statement claimed to have laid out a clear set of principles underlying the Government's expectations of the Defence Force for the first time. This appears to support the above statement that defence policy was previously/is currently(?) somewhat muddled.

The principles roles laid out in that document are as follows:

1. Defend New Zealand’s sovereignty and territory, and contribute to protecting New Zealand’s critical lines of communication.
2. Contribute to national, community and environmental wellbeing and resilience, and whole-of-government security objectives.
3. Meet New Zealand’s commitments to its allies and partners.
4. Support New Zealand’s civilian presence in the Ross Dependency of Antarctica, and work with other agencies to monitor and respond to activity in the Southern Ocean.
5. Conduct a broad range of operations in the South Pacific, including leading operations when necessary, to protect and promote regional peace, security and resilience.
6. Make a credible contribution in support of peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region, including in support of regional security arrangements.
7. Protect New Zealand’s wider interests by contributing to international peace and security and the international rules-based order.
8. Contribute to advancing New Zealand’s international relationships.
9. Work with other agencies to monitor and understand New Zealand’s strategic environment.
10. Be prepared to respond to sudden shifts in the strategic environment.

This is a sound foundation in my opinion, and seems to support an expansion of capabilities in some areas (i.e. an AOPV for the Southern Ocean, though this was also flagged as part of the previous capability review).

Ron Mark seems to have gone some way in laying out a clearer set of expectations of the NZDF, and the significant additional funding he secured for his department in the latest budget is likely a result of this. I am looking forward to seeing what the DCP has to say tomorrow. Hopefully it builds on his previous successes.

 

[MrConservative]

Publications | Ministry of Defence Website

https://defence.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Defence-Capability-Plan-2019.pdf

Here is the long awaited Defence Capability plan.

 

[ASSAIL]

I recall last years strategic defence policy statement claimed to have laid out a clear set of principles underlying the Government's expectations of the Defence Force for the first time. This appears to support the above statement that defence policy was previously/is currently(?) somewhat muddled.

The principles roles laid out in that document are as follows:

1. Defend New Zealand’s sovereignty and territory, and contribute to protecting New Zealand’s critical lines of communication.
2. Contribute to national, community and environmental wellbeing and resilience, and whole-of-government security objectives.
3. Meet New Zealand’s commitments to its allies and partners.
4. Support New Zealand’s civilian presence in the Ross Dependency of Antarctica, and work with other agencies to monitor and respond to activity in the Southern Ocean.
5. Conduct a broad range of operations in the South Pacific, including leading operations when necessary, to protect and promote regional peace, security and resilience.
6. Make a credible contribution in support of peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region, including in support of regional security arrangements.
7. Protect New Zealand’s wider interests by contributing to international peace and security and the international rules-based order.
8. Contribute to advancing New Zealand’s international relationships.
9. Work with other agencies to monitor and understand New Zealand’s strategic environment.
10. Be prepared to respond to sudden shifts in the strategic environment.

This is a sound foundation in my opinion, and seems to support an expansion of capabilities in some areas (i.e. an AOPV for the Southern Ocean, though this was also flagged as part of the previous capability review).

Ron Mark seems to have gone some way in laying out a clearer set of expectations of the NZDF, and the significant additional funding he secured for his department in the latest budget is likely a result of this. I am looking forward to seeing what the DCP has to say tomorrow. Hopefully it builds on his previous successes.

I might sound old fashioned here but “principle 2 “contribute to...environmental wellbeing and resilience”?
This may be a whole of government objective but hardly the second most important consideration for national security and preparedness.
Maybe that’s the concession to the Greens?

 

[Novascotiaboy]

The Stuff and NZ Herald articles list some interesting figures regarding the acquisition of multiple southern opvs. Will be interesting to see the numbers of Js to be purchased and what model or models. Lets hope for 3 short SOF models with enhanced ISR capabilities and 3 of the J30s.

Congrats to Ron Mark and his team for being realistic. Lets hope subsequent governments keep the promises and build the DF envisioned.

 

[opti]

Environmental change directly contributes to the destabilisation of countries through loss of resources and land. A large number of pacific island based countries are directly affected by climate change and rising sea levels.

Increasing resilience to those changes now, will reduce the cost of destabilisation in the region later and improve the security posture of nz.

It makes sense the NZDF would focus on it, as they're also equipped to help in the region.

 

[MrConservative]

I might sound old fashioned here but “principle 2 “contribute to...environmental wellbeing and resilience”?
This may be a whole of government objective but hardly the second most important consideration for national security and preparedness.
Maybe that’s the concession to the Greens?

Particularly so when the most important aspect of national security and preparedness does not seem to have the urgency that it should. Am I surprised? No. I suspected this was always going to be the result.

A lot of the thinking that has gone into this document has been round for 10 years and does not even attempt to cover the basic capability gaps that will still exist within the air and maritime domain, which are serious omissions that they are either intellectually or ideologically incapable of addressing.

1. Combat capability within the air domain.
2. A "vacuum" for the next 10-15 years within the South Pacific with the lack physical presence due to only 2 vessels.

This DCP is what we should have done 10 years ago. It is progress from the destructive Beyond 2000 document of 19 years ago, but it will by 2025 be a relic of a distant era.

The biggest challenge facing an incoming PM in 2023 will not be climate change but at best the further chilling of Cold War II or at the other scale a rapidly approaching clash of major strategic rivals in the Indo - Pacific. It may be too late by then ....

 

[ASSAIL]

Environmental change directly contributes to the destabilisation of countries through loss of resources and land. A large number of pacific island based countries are directly affected by climate change and rising sea levels.

Increasing resilience to those changes now, will reduce the cost of destabilisation in the region later and improve the security posture of nz.

It makes sense the NZDF would focus on it, as they're also equipped to help in the region.

Except that it specifically talks about NZ, not other nations.
And yes, climate change is important but it’s a whole of government concern not the No2 principle for the NZDF

 

[opti]

That line makes no specific mention of New Zealand other than "national" (and if you ask me, the stability of the south pacific is entirely within our national interests), but even looking to an inwards focus on NZ, I would still expect environmental wellbeing to be a considerable part of what NZDF covers.

Both in the sense that we could see large spikes in refugees from pacific countries losing land area to the sea and also the likelihood of increased weather events requiring defence to provide assistance to civil defence agencies, especially intense flooding and sea swells. Civil Defense support in emergencies is an area where the NZDF has repeatedly demonstrated capability (helping to sell it to the general public and government)

You can easily imagine a scenario where massive sea tides/swell and flooding for example cuts wellington off from the rest of the country, requiring a multi agency response.

I don't think the focus specifically on the environment is necessarily driven by only by the coalition government or the greens, although it aligns with their messaging.

Even the US defence force has stated they expect significant climate impacts (contradicting their governments public lines) so I think it's just entering the public conciousness at this time.

 

[opti]

The biggest challenge facing an incoming PM in 2023 will not be climate change but at best the further chilling of Cold War II or at the other scale a rapidly approaching clash of major strategic rivals in the Indo - Pacific. It may be too late by then ....

Wouldn't you agree that it's unlikely we would be able to contribute meaningfully to any of these conflicts? It seems more likely that these are the concerns of the major pacific players, because we don't have any capability to contribute and we can't get anything serious in place by 2023 anyway.

I think they've covered the bases there by committing to remaining interoperable with the usual players such as the US, but it seems much more likely we'd be dealing with limited local conflicts caused by the affects of climate change than by trying to engage in conflict with any of the other major pacific players.

It seems unrealistic to expect NZ to stand toe to toe with China or anyone, so at best we'd be a minor supporting player, assuming the public was even willing to back a conflict.