|
|
Post by corsair67 on Aug 12, 2012 14:51:10 GMT 12
When was the last time the RNZN was involved in actual combat? Was it in the Korean War, or was there actual combat later by NZ ships in nthe Malayan Emergency? Borneo? Vietnam? I don't just mean patrols and supply runs, but actual firing of shells back and forth. I know that the RNZN ships did have naval battles in the Korean War but I have never heard of anything since then. I have a fire extinguisher in the kitchen that I have never used. It does cost me money every few years to recharge it and have it checked out by a fire equipment service company - but it's nice to know that it's there if the day ever comes when I may need to use it for real. ;D Didn't the RNZN fire any ordinance during the Operation Desert Shield/Storm operations? |
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Aug 12, 2012 15:05:21 GMT 12
When was the last time the RNZN was involved in actual combat? Was it in the Korean War, or was there actual combat later by NZ ships in nthe Malayan Emergency? Borneo? Vietnam? I don't just mean patrols and supply runs, but actual firing of shells back and forth. I know that the RNZN ships did have naval battles in the Korean War but I have never heard of anything since then. I have a fire extinguisher in the kitchen that I have never used. It does cost me money every few years to recharge it and have it checked out by a fire equipment service company - but it's nice to know that it's there if the day ever comes when I may need to use it for real. ;D Didn't the RNZN fire any ordinance during the Operation Desert Shield/Storm operations? No. However plenty of 'live' patrols with boardings happening in the Gulf and Indian Ocean since 2002(?), which certainly got us brownie points. Also support of Timor ops. |
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Aug 12, 2012 15:43:57 GMT 12
It all comes back to our basic security and the 2010 DWP defines security to include economic as well. 95% of our trade is by sea so we need to be ableto protect our SLOC. End of story really. If we cannot protect our trade when its on the high seas then as an economy and a nation we are deep sixed and in more brown stuff than your average sewage treatment plant. Therefore it is this nations best interest to have a robust maritime capability and I include the airborne element in that definition. Frigates are a minimum seaborne combat component of that commitment and I thing we should have an absolute minimum of three that are highly compatible with the two main navies of our allies, the RAN & USN. The trouble is that the pollies don't get that and there is not an informed defence and foreign affairs debate amongst the Kiwi public. The RSA don't really say much that I have seen and I think they should be at the forefront.
|
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Aug 12, 2012 16:18:54 GMT 12
Thinks the last situation the RNZN got into shooting conflict was in 1965 1966 was the Konfrontasi with HMNZS Stanton ,Hickleton and I think Taranaki. NZDF appart from NZSAS doesn't really do seek and destroy missions more patrolling area of interest until rules of engagement apply ie shot at. RNZN frigate carries a legal officer when in operational areas to ensure that boardings etc don't breach UN Genvar convention. Frigates need basic self defence ie Point Defence Missile system, CIWS torpedo tubes etc. It's like not purchasing Body amour for troops because it would be cheaper not to.  An OPV would be bottom of Oggie in this situation with USS Stark as it not built to take damage as with a MILSPEC frigate. |
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Aug 12, 2012 16:46:39 GMT 12
And USS Stark and USS Cole are both very good examples of why it is always a good thing to buy military-standard equipment for front-line use; as they are designed from the beginning to take some punishment from military service, especially if the balloon goes up.
Buying commercially built, off-the-shelf civilian equipment and then modifying it for military front-line use is just plain nonsense in most cases. Cheap is not always cheerful!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 12, 2012 18:32:35 GMT 12
Thanks for that info meo4, I had not heard of those two minesweepers and looked them up. So both the Navy and the RNZAF were last in combat around the same time and for the same reason. All the arguments put here for why we need frigates can be applied directly as reasons for a defensive air power and strike wing. Personally I think a couple of squadrons of attack fighters are far more important than two ships in a nation's defence. But if a Government can be convinced by an argument that those aeroplanes are not worth the money because they have not been in combat then I can see the same argument being applied to ships, if the wrong government is in power at the time. Losing both would be very bad for NZ and we're halfway there already.
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Aug 12, 2012 21:12:28 GMT 12
Thanks for that info meo4, I had not heard of those two minesweepers and looked them up. So both the Navy and the RNZAF were last in combat around the same time and for the same reason. All the arguments put here for why we need frigates can be applied directly as reasons for a defensive air power and strike wing. Personally I think a couple of squadrons of attack fighters are far more important than two ships in a nation's defence. But if a Government can be convinced by an argument that those aeroplanes are not worth the money because they have not been in combat then I can see the same argument being applied to ships, if the wrong government is in power at the time. Losing both would be very bad for NZ and we're halfway there already. I would argue that two squadrons of F/A aircraft are of equal importance to having a frigate navy. They have different missions and capabilities but even though they haven't see combat since 1965 doesn't mean that they are redundant. I feel that that was a highly simplistic argument used to justify a narrow political and ignorant mindset by uncle helen and cohorts. I think that a more rotund ( ;D ), more rounded view has to be taken in that defence is a triad, having three legs; an airborne, seaborne and land. We only have two of three and that has weakened us significantly. Taking away a second leg; i.e., the frigates would be tantamount to a fatal self inflicted gunshot wound to the head. Mind you with a lot of our pollies a 1 oz lead pill would double their brain matter & IQ ;D And that is a very major concern of mine about the JATF that is supposed to be standing up in 2015. There is no combat (or close) air support element to it. To me we should have two Sqns of FA aircraft and a bare minimum of three frigates; especially of we are standing up an Amphibious Force. I am aware of a letter being written to the Minister of Defence about NZDF equipment and capability problems around the frigates, training and the axing of the NZ Army's close in air defence capability. NZ pays high price for role in war on terror Its the third paragraph from the bottom. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2012 21:42:32 GMT 12
The last time the RNZAF saw active operations for an extended amount of time would have been operation enduring Freedom back in 2003-4. A good start to get back into the close air support game would be the AT-6 or EMB-314 (A-29). They really should have got those 2 other ANZAC frigates after Te Kaha and Te Mana.
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Aug 12, 2012 23:41:16 GMT 12
The last time the RNZAF saw active operations for an extended amount of time would have been operation enduring Freedom back in 2003-4. A good start to get back into the close air support game would be the AT-6 or EMB-314 (A-29). They really should have got those 2 other ANZAC frigates after Te Kaha and Te Mana. Yes they should have got the other two even if they locked two up and used two rotating them but it was a pollies decision for the good of the country. If we go with the Hawker Beechcraft AT6B that would be brownie points with the yanks. The RNZAF also have a working relationship with Hawker Beechcraft and they are now leasing their B200s directly from Hawker Beechcraft (since July). |
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Aug 13, 2012 21:16:41 GMT 12
I agree on the tri approach where each service contributes combat capabilities not just two of them. It all starts with the brass of each service every chief of Navy has commanded a warship at least once in his career, every chief of Army comes from either Infantry , Armoured or SAS background so both chiefs are well grounded in there respective warfare disciplines. This allows them to advise pollies MOD treasury on he importance of the capabilities. The chief of Air Force can come from rotary , fixed wing transport, Maritime patrol or previously strike wing . I think the CAF when the ACF was scrapped was a rotary pilot so not the best advocate for retaining ACF.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Aug 14, 2012 22:53:11 GMT 12
Perhaps we should ask the Brits?
|
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Aug 15, 2012 14:13:48 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Aug 21, 2012 0:01:15 GMT 12
The UKMOD has released design of the Type 26 Global Combat Ship. it will be 148m in length and 5,400 tonnes. In comparison the RNZN ANZAC frigates are 118m and 3,600 tonnes. The aim is for the RN IOC around 2020. They will be a multi-mission frigate with numbers undecided. Word around elsewhere is that they may fit the RAN SEA5000 program but some think that at 5,400 tonnes they'd be a bit on the light side and the SEA5000 is being designed around the AUSPAR radar, which shouldn't be a problem for BAE. Also some think that it is a bit light on ESSM capability allowing for only 16 ESSM instead of 32 - 64. Having previously said that the Type 26 would not suit the RNZN it does look quite a nice ship, and it will appear at the time ANZAC replacements will be being investigated. There appears to be a build up of problems for the RAN around the SEA5000 timeline in that the Aussie Govt is wanting to build OCVs possibly along the lines of our OPVs but to milstandards. And it also involves party politics and money. So if the SEA5000 drags out beyond our ANZAC frigates lifetime then maybe the Type 26 would be a viable option with some changes. |
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on Jun 3, 2015 15:29:22 GMT 12
When was the last time the RNZN was involved in actual combat? Was it in the Korean War, or was there actual combat later by NZ ships in nthe Malayan Emergency? Borneo? Vietnam? I don't just mean patrols and supply runs, but actual firing of shells back and forth. I know that the RNZN ships did have naval battles in the Korean War but I have never heard of anything since then. I think it was Te Kaha during the Timor conflict, made contact with one of the missing Indonesian subs forcing it to surface. Helen Clark had Skyhawks on standby in Singapore at the time too. Ironic that she knew the utility of air combat capability but just used it as an ideological football. Better questions are: "what scenarios could possibly require surface combat capabilities if the future turns out to be less rosy than we all hope?", "what defence capabilities should we not expect (ie beg) our allies to provide when we need them?", and "how much more likely do unfavourable scenarios become with reduced NZDF capabilities?" Potential flash points in our region might include Myanmar, Spratley Islands, China/Taiwan, China/Japan, South East Asian instability, and arguably Mediterranean instability causing ISIS expansion to South East Asia. I'm sure the government has all this in mind, and probably needs to put more budget into both Defence and Foreign Affairs. I think Australian dramas and budget blowouts with their AWD programme raise the likelyhood that Australian frigates may not be the best fit for NZDF. I think we should also consider the possibility that our population is increasing and our strategic environment is NOT becoming more benign, so more combat ships and even submarines may be the way to go if government was to do a full evaluation (since virtually every potential aggressor in Asia would likely use subs against our frigates). Talking about tri forces, I have to agree that land an infantry company for anything more than low-intensity peacekeeping has to involve getting capabilities we just don't have—including air combat, amour, heavy lift helos, and proper amphibious docking ships that aren't yet another adapted RORO ferry. |
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Jun 3, 2015 23:42:12 GMT 12
Better questions are: "what scenarios could possibly require surface combat capabilities if the future turns out to be less rosy than we all hope?", "what defence capabilities should we not expect (ie beg) our allies to provide when we need them?", and "how much more likely do unfavourable scenarios become with reduced NZDF capabilities?" Potential flash points in our region might include Myanmar, Spratley Islands, China/Taiwan, China/Japan, South East Asian instability, and arguably Mediterranean instability causing ISIS expansion to South East Asia. I'm sure the government has all this in mind, and probably needs to put more budget into both Defence and Foreign Affairs. I think Australian dramas and budget blowouts with their AWD programme raise the likelyhood that Australian frigates may not be the best fit for NZDF. I think we should also consider the possibility that our population is increasing and our strategic environment is NOT becoming more benign, so more combat ships and even submarines may be the way to go if government was to do a full evaluation (since virtually every potential aggressor in Asia would likely use subs against our frigates). Talking about tri forces, I have to agree that land an infantry company for anything more than low-intensity peacekeeping has to involve getting capabilities we just don't have—including air combat, amour, heavy lift helos, and proper amphibious docking ships that aren't yet another adapted RORO ferry. As I have argued else where the primary mission of the NZDF should be to counter Chinese Area Denial/Area Access capabilities and not peacekeeping.I think the government would only go for Australian build frigates for political reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Jun 4, 2015 0:09:42 GMT 12
Officers shouldn't run, - it will only panic the troops.The last time I ran was 7.05pm on Saturday 7th Sept 2013. I would rather take up running again than have my taxpayer dollar getting spent on equipment to go up against that lot. I have spent much time in various countries in SE Asia and one thing I noticed, there is a lot of people there. Singapore is one of the smaller countries and they have the population of NZ living in an area the size of Lake Taupo. Indonesia alone has 3 or 4 times the population of the UK. The median age in Vietnam is something like 22 years old. Diplomacy looks like a pretty good weapon to me at this stage ! ps. I am not suggesting the video is correct either. We have 10,000 or so personnel in uniform I think. ****EDIT**** Correction on median age of VN. I have either misheard or misunderstood that previously. This website has it as 29 which is about the same as Indonesia. I have been in countries where it is 18 and Malawi is down as 16. Vietnam had that young feel about it. Perhaps people just look younger.. www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2177.html |
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Jun 4, 2015 13:23:35 GMT 12
I am all for diplomacy. But in the event diplomacy fails I think New Zealand needs a back stop. OPV's and HMZS Canterbury aren't going to form a part of the RNZN response to the sea lanes around New Zealand being threatened by Chinese military action.
|
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Jun 9, 2015 12:11:58 GMT 12
At the very least we should replace our Frigates with modern Frigates. Ideally (but regrettably not sustainable) we should have 4 Frigates or at least 3 Frigates and 3 OPVs. Aside from the capital cost of the vessels, developing the manpower to crew and sustain deployments of that kind of future fleet mix would mean accepting significant increases to our defence spending which is where the pain would be. Recently reported: Australia is currently spending AUD$87m p/day to run their current defense forces and they are forecasting by 2017/18 to need AUD$100m p/day. That assumption probably includes RAN having 1 LHD and 1 AWD in FOC by then, but there is still 1 additional LHD and 2 other AWDs still coming off their pipeline or in IOC. Cost of capital assets always grabs headlines (eg. great debate on C-17s) but real cost is in their operability and utility). 2 new frigates minimum, 3 new frigates would be prudent with how our neighborhood is shaping up. That being said we also really need to invest in upgrading our MPA assets jointly as well. Not P-8s but a combination of smaller modest MPAs i.e. Global5000 and drones to strengthen maritime surveillance and give our frigates the reconnaissance assets to optimise their reach. To be a credible player in diplomacy we need options to use, we need to project our commitments, and reliably be able to survey the scene of contention. Thats why we need these kind of naval and air assets.
|
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Jun 9, 2015 18:04:40 GMT 12
The force structure of the RNZN needs an overhaul in order to accommodate 4 frigates. It is worth noting that when INTERFET took place the RNZN still had 4 frigates and the Skyhawks were still in service.
|
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Jun 10, 2015 15:35:18 GMT 12
Yes 4 Leander-class frigates and 7 Moa-class patrol vessels. Certainly technology threat is vastly different today to then and the socio-economic demands competing also. Organizationally - the levels of seamanship to crew 4 modern frigates is a capability that will be challenging -in terms of time and money - to reconstitute in RNZN. 3 new Iver Huitfeldt designed frigates for $1.5b I'd consider money well spent but politics always skewers the procurement landscape and we will probably end up spending $1.5b on 2 Type 26 ANZAC derivatives that are delivered 3 years later than needed and half finished - lets hope not.
|
|
