|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 23, 2019 7:58:55 GMT 12
I'm not embarrassed, I actually don't give a monkey's about this trifling situation. The poor state of our Navy is a fact of life that has been obvious for decades so there is absolutely no surprise factor to this story.
The only thing that I could see embarrassing from the NZ perspective is the Defence Minister went public with the story. It's not something the public vitally needed to know. Is he trying to drum up some public support to buy more warships or something?
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Aug 23, 2019 8:51:45 GMT 12
I'm not embarrassed, I actually don't give a monkey's about this trifling situation. The poor state of our Navy is a fact of life that has been obvious for decades so there is absolutely no surprise factor to this story. The only thing that I could see embarrassing from the NZ perspective is the Defence Minister went public with the story. It's not something the public vitally needed to know. Is he trying to drum up some public support to buy more warships or something? Yes, the situation has been predictable ever since we went with two frigates. Basically not having the option to deploy Orions either is a consequence of other parties delaying their replacement for so long. Multiple major defence systems being refitted/replaced at similar times (so they can't cover for each other's temporary shortfalls) is a multi-decade error by the political system. And the minor party with policies that are better on defense practice is absolutely right to take the opportunity to stand out from the other parties and advance their policies. If National are silly enough to try to criticize this government for a situation that is to a large extent National's fault, they can wear the consequences. |
|
chis73
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 87
|
Post by chis73 on Aug 24, 2019 8:21:13 GMT 12
If National are silly enough to try to criticize this government for a situation that is to a large extent National's fault, they can wear the consequences. Ask, and ye shall receive: www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1908/S00220/nz-must-join-gulf-shipping-effort.htmWhat do you recommend we send Gerry? Both frigates are in refit, perhaps a 50+ year-old Orion with no missile protection systems, or an underarmed auxiliary vessel (an OPV, Canterbury or Manawanui)? To an area threatened by numerous fast boat raiders, and many land-based anti-ship missiles (both of which can present a threat with very little warning given the short ranges involved). Last time the Iranians got this uppity (late 1980's) they mined the area as well (damaging several warships if I recall, and requiring a multinational minesweeping operation for several years to clean it up). You were the Defence Minister for a while were you not Gerry? I just shake my head. |
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Aug 24, 2019 23:15:18 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by senob on Aug 25, 2019 15:35:33 GMT 12
Robert Ayson is quite astute and his article above should be read in conjucntion with this one from last year: The Price of New Zealand's Strategy-Force Mismatch. I think that the term force mismatch is appropriate and I would also add that NZDF is a hollowed out force. The rule of threes applies with frigates and the politicians and Treasury have ignored this and will continue to do so, because it suits their agendas. |
|
dgd911
Flying Officer
Posts: 56
|
Post by dgd911 on Aug 25, 2019 20:37:49 GMT 12
Robert Ayson is quite astute and his article above should be read in conjucntion with this one from last year: The Price of New Zealand's Strategy-Force Mismatch. I think that the term force mismatch is appropriate and I would also add that NZDF is a hollowed out force. The rule of threes applies with frigates and the politicians and Treasury have ignored this and will continue to do so, because it suits their agendas. NZDF is a hollowed out force? ie a force that claims capabilities on paper but in reality isn’t ready to execute. I think this is a somewhat pessimistic view, the NZDF is a small force and normally appear to be capable. The current position of having no operational frigates, mostly failed patrol and transport aircraft is a regrettable planning failure but NOT a permanent situation. The army numbers are planned to grow, a second sealift ship, hopefully LHD, 3rd OPV and the new Poseidon’s, these all are positive moves to increase the DF capability. It would be nice to see greater planned future growth, that third and fourth frigates, more helos for first and second LHD and general army equipment upgrades. I prefer to remain optimistic and confident that NZDF is improving, The minister Ron Mark has the support of the coalition govt, I doubt his DF expenditure is seriously opposed by any of the political parties or treasury. Of course a lot will depend on next election and if NZF survive. |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Aug 25, 2019 22:09:45 GMT 12
Robert Ayson is quite astute and his article above should be read in conjucntion with this one from last year: The Price of New Zealand's Strategy-Force Mismatch. I think that the term force mismatch is appropriate and I would also add that NZDF is a hollowed out force. The rule of threes applies with frigates and the politicians and Treasury have ignored this and will continue to do so, because it suits their agendas. NZDF is a hollowed out force? ie a force that claims capabilities on paper but in reality isn’t ready to execute. I think this is a somewhat pessimistic view, the NZDF is a small force and normally appear to be capable. The current position of having no operational frigates, mostly failed patrol and transport aircraft is a regrettable planning failure but NOT a permanent situation. The army numbers are planned to grow, a second sealift ship, hopefully LHD, 3rd OPV and the new Poseidon’s, these all are positive moves to increase the DF capability. It would be nice to see greater planned future growth, that third and fourth frigates, more helos for first and second LHD and general army equipment upgrades. I prefer to remain optimistic and confident that NZDF is improving, The minister Ron Mark has the support of the coalition govt, I doubt his DF expenditure is seriously opposed by any of the political parties or treasury. Of course a lot will depend on next election and if NZF survive. I use the term hollowed out in exactly that manner because govts have claimed that NZDF have the capbilities to execute govt policy, when it clearly doesn't. My view may be a pessimistic one but it is an accurate realistic one held not just by myself but by others familiar with the gradual reduction and hollowing out of NZDF capabilities since 1991. The reasons why this has happened are also quite callous. Treasury has for decades opposed expensive equipment purchases for defence, such as the proposed F-4 Phantoms, the acquired A-4 Skyhawks, F-16s, frigates, etc. In 2001 they agreed to funding the NZLAV acquisition because it was less expensive than F-16s and frigates. That is why they are agreeing to the expansion of the army. Read Timing is Everything: The Politics and Processes of New Zealand Defence Acquisition Decision Making by Peter Greener, the Inquiry Into Defence Beyond 2000 - Report Of The Foreign Affairs And Trade Committee, otherwise known as the Quigley Report, and the The Shape of New Zealand's Defence: A White Paper, 1997. You will notice that the Quigley Report overturned the combat capabilities of the DWP, although it was Winston Peters who refused to support the acquisition of the third frigate in 1997 / 98. The other reason is purely political dogma from both major parties, but for different political philiosophical reasons. The Green Party will have opposed Ron's expenditure because any military expenditure is against their core party policy. Just go and read their defence policy. Ron did get James Shaw's support for the Hercules and SOPV by negotiating the Defence climate change protocols with him, however Shaws rank and file Green Party members are not happy about swallowing that dead rat. The left of the Labour Party who are in the ascendancy over its centrist and right wings at the moment, are not happy with the defence expenditure at the moment, and like the Greens its a dead rat that they're having to swallow.
The $20 billion acquisitions aren't improving anything except marking time and that's a positive viewpoint. IF the timetable alluded to in the 2019 DCP is adhered to we will acquire 1 enhanced sealift vessel in 9 years time, the Canterbury replacement isn't due for 15 years, 4 Poseidons to replace 6 Orions - quantity has a quality of its own when numbers are so low. We are a maritime island nation with the 7th largest EEZ and 4th largest maritime SAR region in the world. What use is an expanded army in a maritime environment on an island with a 900 nautical mile moat trying to protect its EEZ and sea lanes of communication? It's vehicles can't float or fly, it's soldiers aren't sailors or airmen. 99% of our exports and imports by volume are shipped by sea. Although Ron Mark is doing good, unfortunately he thinks army and defaults to that and that isn't his fault, but a product of his training and experience. NZ politicians like to state that they / "we" are doing their bit defence wise and pulling their "our" weight. We've grown close to NATO, but even though we have an agreement with NATO, we are not part of it. However all NATO members are required to spend 2% GDP on their defence - not all do. Here we spend 1.0% - 1.2% GDP on defence. Food for thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Aug 26, 2019 13:07:23 GMT 12
I think this is a somewhat pessimistic view, the NZDF is a small force and normally appear to be capable. The current position of having no operational frigates, mostly failed patrol and transport aircraft is a regrettable planning failure but NOT a permanent situation. The army numbers are planned to grow, a second sealift ship, hopefully LHD, 3rd OPV and the new Poseidon’s, these all are positive moves to increase the DF capability. It would be nice to see greater planned future growth, that third and fourth frigates, more helos for first and second LHD and general army equipment upgrades. I prefer to remain optimistic and confident that NZDF is improving, The minister Ron Mark has the support of the coalition govt, I doubt his DF expenditure is seriously opposed by any of the political parties or treasury. Of course a lot will depend on next election and if NZF survive. You make one critical assumption that we get the gear before the music stops, the conduct of the CCP over the last couple of years would indicate they believe their position is somewhat in peril with regarding to staying control of the PRC. Their stability looks to be in rapid decline, if they decide to deflect from internal stability issues with external conflict we might not even get the frigates back in time (one wonders if we may become serious user of containerized weapon systems). |
|
dgd911
Flying Officer
Posts: 56
|
Post by dgd911 on Aug 27, 2019 13:22:07 GMT 12
I think this is a somewhat pessimistic view, the NZDF is a small force and normally appear to be capable. The current position of having no operational frigates, mostly failed patrol and transport aircraft is a regrettable planning failure but NOT a permanent situation. The army numbers are planned to grow, a second sealift ship, hopefully LHD, 3rd OPV and the new Poseidon’s, these all are positive moves to increase the DF capability. It would be nice to see greater planned future growth, that third and fourth frigates, more helos for first and second LHD and general army equipment upgrades. I prefer to remain optimistic and confident that NZDF is improving, The minister Ron Mark has the support of the coalition govt, I doubt his DF expenditure is seriously opposed by any of the political parties or treasury. Of course a lot will depend on next election and if NZF survive.yeah, Nah You make one critical assumption that we get the gear before the music stops, the conduct of the CCP over the last couple of years would indicate they believe their position is somewhat in peril with regarding to staying control of the PRC. Their stability looks to be in rapid decline, if they decide to deflect from internal stability issues with external conflict we might not even get the frigates back in time (one wonders if we may become serious user of containerized weapon systems). Yeah, Nah, if the music stops and that balloon goes up then we in NZ are ok. Even if a PLAN 055 and couple 053d head our way complete with support group then they would be in for a surprise when confronted with our two OPV heavily armed with a 25mm chain gun each and a Seasprite ready to loose off a Penguin. That would surprise them reds and delay their progress for five minutes. |
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Aug 27, 2019 17:40:59 GMT 12
Yeah, Nah, if the music stops and that balloon goes up then we in NZ are ok. Even if a PLAN 055 and couple 053d head our way complete with support group then they would be in for a surprise when confronted with our two OPV heavily armed with a 25mm chain gun each and a Seasprite ready to loose off a Penguin. That would surprise them reds and delay their progress for five minutes. And we could drop a couple od CAMM in surface mode and drop a unguided bomb from a P3... so I raise your 5 minutes to 5 and a half minutes... |
|
|
|
Post by johnnyfalcon on Aug 27, 2019 18:16:07 GMT 12
Well, I never knew the P-3s had hardpoints under the wings from which ordnance could be dropped. I was always under the assumption the bomb-bay was the only weapons facility. Great video!
|
|
|
|
Post by senob on Aug 27, 2019 19:36:46 GMT 12
Yep, but as far as I know, the hardpoints on the wings aren't wired for data transfer so we can't use them for missiles. A pity because the Penguins would've been capable of being launched from them. From memory when the wings were done in the 2000's, the then govt didn't fund rewiring the hardpoints, probably because, according to them we lived in a benign strategic environment.
|
|
dgd911
Flying Officer
Posts: 56
|
Post by dgd911 on Aug 27, 2019 22:16:19 GMT 12
Yep, but as far as I know, the hardpoints on the wings aren't wired for data transfer so we can't use them for missiles. A pity because the Penguins would've been capable of being launched from them. From memory when the wings were done in the 2000's, the then govt didn't fund rewiring the hardpoints, probably because, according to them we lived in a benign strategic environment. Long before a P3 or P5 could get within launch range of the Penguin, 35km?, a HHQ-9 from the 053d would have swatted it out of the sky. Even if it did get to launch the Penguin then it couldn’t escape speedily enough to outrun the HHQ-9 and the Penguin would likely be zapped by an HHQ-10 sam. A few Harpoons would be better for the P3/P5, maybe the Ozzie’s could lend the NZAF a few. Until the CCP/HK stouch settles. |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Aug 29, 2019 20:44:17 GMT 12
Yep, but as far as I know, the hardpoints on the wings aren't wired for data transfer so we can't use them for missiles. A pity because the Penguins would've been capable of being launched from them. From memory when the wings were done in the 2000's, the then govt didn't fund rewiring the hardpoints, probably because, according to them we lived in a benign strategic environment. Long before a P3 or P5 could get within launch range of the Penguin, 35km?, a HHQ-9 from the 053d would have swatted it out of the sky. Even if it did get to launch the Penguin then it couldn’t escape speedily enough to outrun the HHQ-9 and the Penguin would likely be zapped by an HHQ-10 sam. A few Harpoons would be better for the P3/P5, maybe the Ozzie’s could lend the NZAF a few. Until the CCP/HK stouch settles. Don't know where you're coming from. If the PLAN can shoot down a Penguin like you say then a Harpoon isn't going to survive is it, considering that both missiles are of the same technological era and have the same lack of avoidance capabilities and stealth. We didn't buy P5s, not even sure what they are, but we did acquire 4 x P-8As. If we can't launch Penguins from our Orions because of the lack of wiring, how are we going to launch Harpoons? Anyway the Harpoon is now an obsolete weapon system because it can be easily countered / defended against. Finally, there's the little matter of ITARS with regard to your suggestion about borrowing Harpoons from the Aussies. The US have the final say in the on-forwarding and disposal of US military equipment to third parties and the borrowing of Harpoons requires US approval, from the US State Department and / or the US Congress. |
|
