New Zealand's Navy & Air Force - Where to next?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.พ. 2024
- The final installment on New Zealand's military force - now & into the future.
See related briefing:
New Zealand's Army - Where to now?: • New Zealand's Army - W...
References:
www.nzdf.mil.nz/nzdf
www.defence.govt.nz
![[4K] BABYMONSTER(베이비몬스터) “FOREVER” Band LIVE Concert “영원히” 베몬만을 사랑하게 되…💗 [it’s KPOP LIVE 잇츠라이브]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TQfC0xdpiw4/mqdefault.jpg)
As a kiwi with an interest in defence, I can tell you categorically that our current government will only pay lip service to defence spending during the next five years unless the archetypal "smoke filled backroom deals" take place. The current coalition has a garbled and fractured mandate and the voter base is split on policy, the incumbent majority faction in this coalition, the National party, has historically been moderately more interested in maintaining NZDF capability then other NZ political parties but have committed to some very expensive tax cuts which require large slashes to expenditure to implement. Given our lack of enemies and geographic isolation I could absolutely see any kind of big-ticket defence budget items taking a back seat for the foreseeable future, but I would expect them to at least spend on force retention which we are struggling massively with - anecdotally our navy doesn't even have enough personnel to man our current fleet and army is also in a bad state, wages and conditions are just not good enough to compete with the private sector and the exodus to Australia is incredibly enticing to any intelligent young person who might otherwise join.
Additionally I don't think the voting public at large is anywhere near well-informed as to the gravity of changes in our geopolitical landscape and subsequent need to start investing in NZDF capability, despite a lot of voters being somewhat right-wing economically a large proportion of them hold left-wing values when it comes to defence (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq follies - boomers who actually vote predominantly think we should not have been involved)
"lack of enemies" is an interesting way to put it. I wouldn't describe choosing to wait for a time when war is actually be upon you in order to invest in your defense force capabilities as a particularly wise way to conduct your defense policy, but each to their own i guess.
Defense is the red headed stepchild of NZ politics. The large majority of Kiwi voters couldn't care less about it, so the politicians act accordingly.
Tbh our most pressing need is the fishing zone patrols,- planes backed up by surface vessels.
Army wise- peacekeepers and SAS seem the most useful.
It seems a non political dept needs to be set up to improve and maintain our militaries. Changing plans every six years or so must be time consuming and inefficient.
@@geoffhoutman1557 Good point, New Zealand does have a rather large maritime economic zone to monitor and i would imagine their current Navy fleet is barely up to that task. Those drones do look like a pretty good investment from that perspective. still New Zealand's military could probably do with having a bit more bite to back up their bark.
Realistically huge investment is needed if the NZDF is to achieve all outputs required by gov. New ships, more aircraft, more firepower. Now that all said and done is easy. One thing a lot of people in these comments are forgetting is that the NZDF is struggling to retain people and to recruit. Until we solve that issue, any new capabilities will be delivered with no one to sign for them and will be returned to sender
Important comment re people. Take care of them and they'll take care of you.
Exactly the same problem with the Royal Navy.
The Coof mandates create this situation and those service people aint comin back.
We don't look after our veterans, I can't understand why.
I actually think new equipment can help recruitment by increasing interest. Optics are definitely a big element of that.
I know if we got an air combat wing again, there'd be a lot of interest in the roles related to it.
Navy shouldn't mess around with having so many classes of ship while it has such poor retention rates. With so little people, the last thing you want to do is make it so that everyone needs to retrain on certain systems depending on the ship. Frigates and both classes of patrol vessels should be replaced by the same type of ship...say 5-6 corvettes or modern frigates such as the Type 31s. This of course would be more expensive up front, but long run would mean that there would be lest cost associated with requiring a wide array of spare parts as well as having to spend more on training.
Type 31 is an incredible asset for new zealand. Even a full spec 'Babcock iver huitfeldt' would come in well within NZ cost bracket- not the flashy best in the world asw of a hunter or the aaw capability of a hobart- but the options to go into the mk 41/ sm market, procure anti ship missiles and of course keeping the asw cabilities of anzac with raft mounting, towed array sonar. Potentially 32 sm, 24 essm, 16 asms, two triple torpedo tubes, a mh-60, two super rapid 76mm guns, long range search radar and track radars and a 35mm gun- for a ship that will cost about 500 million dollars.
The Type 31 is a good-ish option for NZ, but the weapons fit you just specified is well beyond the capability of the Type 31. Forget SM and ESSM for a start.
@here9242 Type 31 (Arrowhead 140) offers a much wider range of weapons fits than the base british variant- and of course the Iver Huitfeldt had precisely the weapons fit I specified with Smart-L and Apar search and track radars (harpoon, recycled 76mm compact guns could be modernised) It cost 325 million us dollars per ship for a batch of 3 a decade and a half ago. The weapons deck is huge and aaw arrowhead 140 supports up to 64 mk 41 cells. NSM is half the weight of harpoon, the topweight changes to meet RN stability standards are negligible and raft mounted machinery, bow and towed array sonars are possible- matching Anzac capabilities
As an ex-RAN sailor, who worked with the RNZN navy heaps, I often feel the RAN is doing it tough with a whole bunch of crappy decisions. But then I look across the ditch and give thanks we're not NZ.
Good luck cousins. Hope you are able to keep some capability that doesn't look like shrunken to obscurity.
We've still got the Maori war canoe in the Auckland museum.
Former soldier here. The NZDF has come along so much over the recent years but really we should be engaging our allies for there knowledge and experience
There is s generation that pushes back on learning and evolving from those lessons you suggested, as this and continues to maintain the status quo, at all costs. You would know it as: 'The Singaporean Generation'. That elk has allot to answer for and has killed off or eroded a number of programs. Case study example is the 'Battalion Motorised Concept' - The NZ LAV doctrine. They truly need to go. 'Culture eats strategy for breakfast'. You only have to walk around Linton to see that generations after effects......
If, and only if, they want a meaningful air combat capability beyond the P-8s, NZ should consider becoming a partner or a buyer on the MQ-28 rather than getting back into traditional fast jets. If RAAF can get them down to their target purchase price, NZ could have half a dozen or more for the price of a single manned fighter, they'll come pre-integrated with P-8 for escort duties, and assuming theyre armed (safe bet I reckon) and AMRAAM capable, they'll have a basic anti air and potentially strike/anti-ship capability if NSM gets integrated.
An interesting thought.
I don’t think MQ-28 will have the capacity for AMRAAM or NSM, but Peregrine will be a more compact air to air missile with comparable capability, and the small diameter bomb is a possible weapon as well. The Joint Strike Missile could be launched from the P-8A Poseidon.
@@aawshaw I think the gripen would suit our Austere infrastructure environments as another option.
@@aawshaw MQ-28 was designed specifically for RAAF and announces at roughly the same time as the Peregrine. Doesn't make sense to me that Boeing and RAAF would design it to be armed, but restrict it to a weapon still in development that might never come to market or be fielded by RAAF.
Far more likely in my estimation that it's either unarmed, purely an off board sensor (which seems unlikely given its intended role escorting E-7s, tankers and the like), or it's designed to use the weapons in RAAF inventory at the time it was conceived, i.e. AMRAAM and similarly sized.
I was going to make a similar comment to you.
One distinction - the P8 has large weapons bays and the MQ28 is likely to be un/under armed.
Having the MQ28 as an offboard sensor with three P8 as a shooter could likely be NZs best bet
Great video. Interesting that there's no mention of New Zealand's recent interest in the AUKUS with an Australian delegation heading to New Zealand for this purpose. I take it that this was announced after the script was written, or due to a lack of any real information around New Zealand and AUKUS.
I think your assessment of a Corvette only Navy for NZ in the future would be a great outcome that would match the ANZAC class capability and expand the overall capability. NZ being able to have somewhere between 6 to 8 corvettes without needing to increase crew requirements to surface ship fleet would be a once in a generation step change in the RNZN capability.
Depending on what New Zealand are looking for, they may be looking to AUKUS to undertake a similar contract to the ANZAC class frigate program and spilt costs with the AUKUS partners as Australia and New Zealand may both be looking for a Corvette or "tier 2" ship capability with both nations looking at similar long range option in this realm. That would allow for local maintenance options in Australia for New Zealand.
Thank you. The review in the surface combatant fleet is due out next week. If corvettes are part of that it might be of interest to NZ.
@@Strategy_AnalysisThank you
@@ketimarsh-solomon6679 Much appreciated.
I may be mistaken, but thought I read that NZ (under Jacinta?) was generally against AU procuring nuclear subs, and would refuse docking them in NZ ports, if that was the case, how would it affect co-operation or even shared crewing between the two navies from a political standpoint?
@@iamjordandavis You are right, NZ still has a ban on nuclear power vessels entering their waters and will not host any nuclear vessel. Nuclear Submarines is only one pillar of AUKUS, with wider technology sharing and collaboration. NZ have recently been briefed on Pillar 2. What I was suggesting was similar to what occurred with the ANZAC class frigates whereby the Australian and New Zealand governments collaborated on a ship design to spreading overall cost and ongoing support, but for a corvette sized vessel in the near future.
Our government has just scrapped the new inter-island ferries. That's a worry.
TheType-31 frigate could come in at (NZD)520m each and are an improvement on the current ANZACs and they tick all the boxes for a larger vessel. We need three to four of them. We need to do our bit a bit more given what is happening.
The Poseidons need to be kept current. Long range drones would be great.
The lake class inshore patrol vessels should not be replaced. They are too small for the rough sea conditions found off the NZ coast.
Type 31 frigates replace anzacs and bae 99 corvette (khareef class) to replace the protector class opv's. Austals 60m patrol ship to replace the lake class. The FA-50 block 20 for basic air combat capability.
If only aye? :)
The FA-50 [Block 20] with an AESA radar would be an amazing procurement option for the RNZAF, I wonder if South Korea would also supply a new LPD/Amphibious Assault Ship or a new frigate as well as this.
Yep, the British Type 31 frigate is the way to go, they are excellent for capability to price ratio. Australia is most likely going to get Type 31 as well, and with the UK also producing Type 31s, then the economy of so many built will bring prices down for all. Poland and Indonesia have also ordered the Type 31.
It will mean, that for the first time since Empire days, the UK, Australia and NZ would have the same warship assets (Type 31, Type 26 and the future British/Aus nuclear sub).
@@FriendlyFreeSounds we won't be shopping for ANZAC class replacements for some time, so the Type 31's may not be such a good option by then. Not sure if having the same boats as the UK and the Aussies counts for much. What we want is bang for buck plus compatibility.
Looks a bit light on anti submarine capability. Both hull mounted, towed sonar systems, the asw capability of air anti submarine ie MAD, sonar bouy, lofar and cedar on long range maritime patrol aircraft. We need air combat capabilities. Lets not forget up to date training facilities. (Good luck)
Great preso. As a kiwi I am pretty embarrassed in the degradation of the NZDF over the previous decades. In my view I think there are two very important omissions left out of the presentaiton which have a massive bearing on hardware purchases, NZDF staff retention and thus capability. Those are the general mood of the public around defence capability/spending and then the subsequent govt inaction based on public sentiment. Firstly, the majority of the NZ public by-an-large have a pacifist or apathetic view of defence and most are incredibly ignorant to the future challenges in our region. In my view they will continue to hold that view until it's too late. Secondly, this has led to successive Governments over the last 40 years strip funding and capability out of the NZDF without any public resistance whatsoever. Thirdly, given NZ's "Independent Foreign Policy" (which is code for piss weak spineless inaction) it means the NZDF is tasked by the Govt for mainly disaster relief or humanitarian assistance. I don't think many people join the army, navy or air force to be a uniformed incarnation of a quasi UN agency or humanitarian charity. So sadly without a change of mood and direction from both the public and Government, the NZDF will continue to slide in it's capability both in hardware and personnel relative to it's allies (along with an increased expectation of reliance on said allies for security.) To the point that the NZDF becomes nothing more than a glorified Coast Guard.
The ADF is also in a sorry state not capable of defending Australia
Thank you. Yes I didn't mention the personnel challenges in the briefing, yet as you and others have said this is critical to overall capability. I have provided some replies in the comments section. Something Australia, U.S., and other countries are also facing.
The navy should be focused on being coast guard IMO, including a strong focus on effective monitoring based on very many UAVs controllers from land.
Thanks for an enlightening overview, especially to an American! People get caught up in sexy, exciting front-line combat capabilities, but maintaining security in the vast areas away from active combat zones is as vital as being prepared to engage directly with adversaries. This is where NZ can make its greatest contribution, and is wisely looking to that role.
NZ isn’t looking to this role, it’s what the RNZN and RNZAF do.
The NZDF has actively been in this role for decades. Patrolling the Southern Ocean and it’s fisheries as well as the Pacific in general. We might be small but we definitely do our part for regional response and security
@@Crashryding Thanks! NZ forces might be small, but you do indeed carry your weight!
As an ex kiwi soldier living in Aussie I have always felt that the NZ defence force especially in today's form couldn't fight it's way out of a wet paper bag. As much as it saddeneds me to say we need to give up on having a defence force per say and integrate into the Australian military and get more bang for our buck. Perhaps we should help perchance more frigate hulls and of course crewed with part kiwi's as both Aussie and kiwi navies and army's are having a hard time keeping up personal numbers. And instead of an air attack wing we should take over and maybe supply an rotor attack wing for both Aussie and NZ thus freeing up Aussie dollars for more fighter jet's and so on. As always when it comes to Australia and NZ United we stand divided we fall but of course kiwi's on top 😂.
In terms of the recent manpower issues that the RNZN has been having recently, there is possibly some luck recently with the lower crew requirements that many new vessels need, for example, the Type 31 class is a great example. Low cost, low crew, needs less maintenance personnel than the Anzacs and use similar weapons such as Sea-Ceptor, and possibly the Phalanx sets in place of the BAE Systems 40mm Guns.
It's mostly down to the NZ Government to decide on this however, I personally feel like, especially, recently the NZ Government has moved away from the British as a major defence supplier in exchange for smaller suppliers, such as Australia.
The Anzacs could and should be replaced with Type 31 frigate with equipment taken from the current two ships to reduce costs. Given their low crew numbers possibly three vessels could be acquired in lieu of the third OPV. Canterbury’s replacement could be a South Korean design given the low cost unless NZ joins the RAN sealift / replenishment hybrid vessel program. The RNZAF should acquire the South Korean KF-21 jet fighter to restore their combat capability.
Isn’t Singapore contemplating small LHD type vessels of 12-16,000 tons each.
@@lindsaybaker9480 yes the Joint multi mission ship. my country's planned ship looks like a smaller mistral class but the final outcome will be up to MINDEF
Why the KF21?
@@ketimarsh-solomon6679 cheaper than F-35.
@@lindsaybaker9480Still a bit more expensive than the f16 but okay.
Interesting, Seahawks to replace Seasprite n NH90, like Anzacs NZ should share Tier 2 option build maybe 5 corvettes? As for LHD i would go with RAN JSS future offer this could be joint nation crew with 6 ships this would mean 2 at sea, 2 refit, 2 station seen both countries have done a lot humanitarian relief work for pacific islands. NZ needs operates with RAN, piggybacking builds, supply n support in parts to cut down cost n keep up with future requirements.
The RNZN in future combat capabilities will look more like the RN. With both Frigates and Helicopters. Take of that what you will.
They are likely to be selecting the Wildcat I've been told.
@@theaviatorexperience4886 Not surprised as RAN options at the time of design/purchasing OPC it was either Seasprite or Lynx. The advantages of Seahawk is weapons availability from allied warships, flight deck certification which if RNZN did go Lynx they would have go flight deck certification on all Australian, American warship.
Lots of love NZ love Perth, Scotland 🇬🇧
A good summary - NZ also has Manawanui (Dive and Hydrographic) and Aotearoa (Support Tanker), both very capable ships.
Aotearoa is a very capable ship and huge boon for the RNZN, but Manawanui is a curse and massive strategic burden as a result of its civilian origins, rushed procurement and completely different set up to the rest of the fleet.
Any serious attempt to reform the fleet towards the new strategic environment would involve scrapping the ship.
I did mention Aotearoa, but left out Manawamui.
Due to their limited industrial output and budget, they should focus on 2 things: cyber and drones. Not only they are cheap and don't need any major industrial overhaul, it is easier to "sell" to the public.
For sure. The NZ public is very anti military. We’ve only sent 6 people to aid in the houthi anti-piracy operations, yet there’s lots of opposition to it
@kereama5085 yeah, and that sucks! We, as a country, need to get our heads out of our collective asses!
To do what exactly? Drones that are cheap lack range and fulfil none of NZs core requirements. And cyber like drones are useful in a supporting role but aren’t a stand alone solution. NZ needs to upgrade core capabilities to be able to even maintain their own EEZ constabulary duties in peace time or HADR/ peacekeeping regionally. Without modification NZ is banking on Australia fulfilling roles previously done by NZ in anything but the most benign environments.
Fantastic video. Gained yourself a sub here, I'm excited to see more of your work.
Thanks very much. Please check out the ones I've done so far. Also, as a subscriber happy to take suggestions for future briefings.
From The Strategist, Australia is watching to see how the NZ Government will respond..."Australia’s ‘tier-2’ naval expansion opens the door for the Anzac frigate redux" This week’s unveiling of the expansionary blueprint for Australia’s future naval surface fleet brings with it a golden opportunity to revive defence cooperation between Australia and its occasionally ambivalent ally, New Zealand. Specifically, the announcement that Australia will acquire up to 11 general purpose frigates opens the door for New Zealand to join the acquisition process for its own Anzac frigate replacement.
When New Zealand defence minister, Judith Collins visited Melbourne recently to attend the inaugural ANZMIN joint ministerial conclave, she invoked the ‘Anzac model‘, in the context of seeking greater inter-operability between Australia and New Zealand’s defence capabilities. In recent times, the Anzac model is most associated with the Anzac frigate programme, which saw Australia and New Zealand acquire eight and two hulls, respectively, from a common German MEKO-design in the 1990s. The Anzacs have proved to be durable workhorses, on both sides of the Tasman, but they are now in the twilight of their operational lives. HMAS Anzac will shortly become the first ship in that class to be decommissioned.
Only last week, the possibility of New Zealand buying into a common hull design with Australia for the replacement to its two, aging Anzac frigates appeared remote. Australia’s Hunter frigate programme, frequently castigated in the media for being overweight, overdue and overbudget, but now backed in by the surface fleet review, remains well beyond Wellington’s more limited means and naval ambitions. Now, Canberra’s commitment to buy an off-the-shelf frigate, of a more modest design has changed the calculus overnight, bringing the Anzac model of a synchronised warship acquisition back into play, after a long recess.
For New Zealand, the economies of scale involved in a joint acquisition with Australia point to one inescapable advantage, lower unit costs. But Wellington would need to come in quickly to have any say over the decision. New Zealand’s next defence capability plan, the first under its new coalition government, will surface in June. That could provide a helpful forcing function for Christopher Luxon’s cabinet to reach internal agreement on whether to join forces with Australia. With contradictory signals on defence spending emerging from the new government so far, it helps to have an eye on the prize.
That prize is a gifted opportunity to recapitalise New Zealand’s surface force at an affordable price tag, with the potential for a modest expansion from 2 to 3 frigates, ensuring that the Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) has at least one surface combatant available at any one time-a minimal requirement given New Zealand’s scale of maritime responsibilities.
New frontline frigates, with far more combat capability than New Zealand’s current Anzacs, would bring further strategic dividends, giving New Zealand greater leverage-not only in the alliance relationship with Australia, but enabling a more regular and credible naval presence, from the Pacific to Southeast Asia, where Wellington remains a founding party to the Five Power Defence Arrangements. Three modern frigates, displacing between 3,500-5,000 tons and equipped with vertically launched air defence and anti-ship missiles, would give the RNZN a combat capability that is currently scant not just within the navy, but across all three services.
For Australia, a more capable New Zealand surface force would be an obvious plus, shoring up more aggregate Anzac heft, including in the increasingly contested expanses of Oceania and the neglected Southern Ocean. And while Wellington and Canberra’s threat perceptions do not always align, their interests do broadly coincide. The overlap is big enough to make an interchangeable capability an objective worth aiming for.
Joint crewing of Australia’s Anzac replacements with sailors from New Zealand could be a trickier proposition than joint acquisition and sustainment. But it’s also worth consideration with imagination. Both parties could gain out of an arrangement that enables New Zealand crew to obtain operational experience on Australia’s new frigates before their own enter into service, while potentially helping Australia’s navy to weather recruitment shortfalls as it undergoes a challenging expansion of both its surface and submarine fleets over the next 15 years. Euan Graham (Author)
Thanks for the comment. I do mention this in an abbreviated way in my new briefing. Up in about 2 hours.
@@Strategy_Analysis Looking forward to it...
I think Drones are key, we don't have the budget for fancy stuff. But Drones have proven pretty effective in all sorts of fields. I think we're better off focusing on more smaller ships. Corvettes and offshore patrol craft. We should have at least 8 I reckon.
Awesome video! Real in depth! I look at our Airforce and I'm pretty impressed with what we have and what's coming especially with the Super Hercs and the Orions. Let's be honest getting aircraft is always going to be easier than a navy ship. The Seasprites need to go they aren't big enough to carry troops from a navy vessel and the seahawk would be awesome!
Thank you. Agree the RNZAF is moving in a positive direction.
It would be a massive spend to get a fighter wing with the total loss of knowing and infrastructures .Drone tech spend would be a must
We need to use our IT sector more. We have drones being built for fishing and all kinds of commerical reasons here in NZ. We have an amazing range of patriots who have not moved away from NZ and continue to invest their time and energy here. I think we need more drones (and anti drone tech) and to find a ways to support as well as leverage our home grown tech. This can be for long range, but I'm also talking about defending NZ and when we are supporting our allies out there in the world when the enemy is at the gates. At least we still make ammo in NZ, Belmont.
I think a focus on support with significant, i.e. focused, ASW capabilities. Any air assets to be rotor for transport and ASW e.g Seahawk. And long range remotely operated jet sensor platforms with a couple of teeth. Ideally we setup to be able to slot into a larger offensive force for screening and logistical security. This way we can look after our maritime EEZ, project presence and support pacific civil defence with the amphibs.
It better be that the Kiwis and Aussies unite in a stronger local deterrent than rely on the USA to show up. We've seen that 'what ever is happening domestically is more important to Americans than what is happening with allies. We need drones. Navy Drones, Air force Drones, Air Defense Systems, and personnel. You name it, we need it, fast. We should pool our stuff.
I have always had this view with regards to defence. If you want to be a member of the club (in this case alliance with Australia and the USA) then you have to pay your dues. No club membership without payment.
Perhaps you can comment on this point - I have heard that the NZ navy doesn't have the personnel to even man the vessels it already has.
Getting more or bigger ships won't work without solving that problem first.
Correct
Yes, the NZDF has personnel challenges. Replacing the ANZACs with appropriate corvettes might help.
@@Strategy_Analysis
... personnel challenges...
That's one way of putting it.
@@Strategy_AnalysisYes, giving potential members some nice new ships could help recruitment.
After seeing the Aussie announcement, I can only guess we will end up with only a 6 ship fleet navy if NZ go after 3 arrowhead type frigates to be built in AUS. That will leave a budget to buy one LPD and one polar type OPV for the southern ocean. Buying some autonomous drones the Aotearoa is currently testing would actually be a good navy for NZ coupled with the Airforce acquiring some UAVs to supplement the P8s. This could fix the crewing issues?. Less assets but more capability IMO.
A great briefing mate. Given that NZ has a large maritime area to look after, I think their choices are mostly correct. Having said that, not sure why they would to two amphibious support ships, considering the don’t have heavy armour.
As for joining an American carrier group or an Australian force, they could use a fleet of corvette’s to help protect our turf while most of our navy is off else where. Because they would already be contributing a motorised infantry plus battalion to 7 brigade.
Just a thought cheers
Thanks. Some corvettes are heavily armed (Saár 6 for eg.) and they can have the range of the ANZACs. As an example, 4 corvettes of the same class would in my mind be better than 2 frigates and 2 offshore patrol vessels.
Because i suppose, that the idea is to be able to send aid to various places in the pacific, in case of disasters etc.
@@anthonysherry2628 agree in terms of the amphibs. Generally I feel any plans we have need to be based around slotting into aN AUKUS force. Focusing on sensor platforms, ASW and longer range detection systems e.g low radar obs sensor drones.
Always need a minimum of two of anything significant in the military, because at any one time, one might be inoperable, and it's very embarrassing at the very least to say "Sorry we can't do that at all right now".
Great video. Got a giggle out of the pronunciation of tonne as well 😂 So it was win win haha.
Thanks. Very informative.
Much appreciated.
NZ Should join in on the RAN's tier 2 general purpose frigate program - economy of scale would have a lot of benefits for NZ.
Aircraft wise the RNZAF has to invest in fighter aircraft as a matter of some priority.
I feel for the good people serving NZ - successive governments have failed them badly.
I hope sanity prevails as NZ needs to only be able to defend itself but to join in and contribute to multinational operations in the future.
I'll cover NZ's possible interest in Australia's Tier 2 ships in my next briefing.
Depending on budget and investment the multi or dual role navy including at least 1 WASP (short deck) class surface ship.
The Air Force is a sticky question with potential pilots a must, which are just as unique and highly valued as the purposeful aircraft in any Air Force with NZ pilots as reserves.
Could never understand why a remote country has a land centric military outlook. The scraping of the maritime strike wing was short sighted, yet New Zealand retained the Artillery regiment which is of little to no use short actually hostile invasion. If rational thought was applied, SAS, engineers and cadar staff for territorial training should be retained. But the rest of the regular Army reformed 2/3 going under navel command as marines and 1/3 under Air Force as quick deployment Air cavalry, monies relocated to this effect. This wiping the need for many Army admin, logistic and support staff.
I'll give it some thought.
Unsure if previously covered, an interesting talking point for video could be the introduction of compulsory military service in AU/NZ, the pros & cons, existing high school programs, perhaps even shared between ADF/NZDF?
Doesn't sound like a vote winner to me. And also I don't think either defence force want to depend on undertrained reluctant national service personnel who are only there for the 1-2 years they have to serve. Both countries abandoned compulsory service after Vietnam and even while Vietnam was on NZ only sent full-time professional soldiers. Compulsory service was very unpopular.
You highlighted a point in the OPV that Australia has never taken steps for the Southern Ocean. I suspect NZ will take a Northern European OPV for Southern Ocean patrol and recuse. As for the coastal patrol it is tough do you go with bigger or about the same for island operation like Arafura with helipad. Frigates maybe the could get 2 Hunter discount if we build 9.
Why is NZ still spending only 1.4% of GDP on defence? Havnt they noticed the neighbourhood isnt so friendly anymore? About time they started investing some more serious money into this.
Even if it was higher, it still would not go to frontline uniformed staff but spent by the civilian defence bureaucracy on anything but defence itself. A case study example is infrastructure within defence camps and the sub par accommodation for service personnel.
The reason, your not going to get a warrant officer or senior mid tier officer on a 3 year return of service contract standing in front of a barracks getting their picture taken in front of a new sewer pipe for social media as a KPI for outputs. Most likely that money will be spent on some sort of carving outside a head quarters....
The P-8 is an excellent investment and can do many of the things a surface warship can do, including land attack.
P-8 is such an underloved platform given its capabilities. If I have one criticism of the RAAF, which I think generally does acquisition and force planning fairly well, it's that they increase the P-8 fleet to double it's current strength, or even more (if I have two I'd get them to buy 3-5 more E-7s, but that's more of a geopolitical thing).
They're fantastic, relatively low cost deliver systems for anti-ship missiles, especially LRASM, and they're only going to get better and more survivable as future generations of that missile extend the range. They're basically 737s, so there's a massive pool of potential pilots and maintainers in the civilian sector who could theoretically be mobilised or simply contracted in under wartime conditions. They have pretty serious ASW chips while being effectively immune from submarine attack, and they cost substantially less than any naval asset that could do even a quarter of what they can, with a fraction of the people required to operate them.
Fantastic platform, and probably Australia's best bet if we want to spool up capability quickly.
Totally agree with you mate on P8 effectiveness and numbers in the RAAF. Double their numbers to 24-28, at least. They are such a game-changer in the pending threat scenario for Australia that for such a comparatively small investment of cash and personnel for manning them. Are they are effective as the future Hunter Class for engaging an enemy sub or surface vessel? I am not an expert, but I would say they are pretty damn close. For pennies on the dollar (compared to the Hunter program), with an intercept response time of mere hours - not days - it seems so obvious to some of us.... If we buy enough, we can forward deploy in PNG, New Caledonia and/or Fiji for example, thereby massively increasing ADF effectiveness while conceivably meeting defence and diplomatic obligations. With regards to our Kiwi cousins, they too should look to buying more P8's (forget a fighter force, NZ airspace would never likely be threatened). Again, they could deploy from Cook Islands, or join ADF in PNG etc. Likewise with Wedgetails, more. For a country as large as Australia, I don't see how six airframes is adequate. More of those and also forward deployed. Such an obvious and cost-effective solution with real teeth!
NZDF is in the same predicament as Ireland and the Philippines, what should you procure, quantity or quality because that determines the capability of your force in part. Buying newer products limits the number of that product, whereas investing in legacy systems and modernizing them gives you the numbers at the expense of using proven older equipment or can there be a balance of both taking legacy equipment and refurbish them using newer technology and equipment? Also i wonder if those three can participate in joint procurement projects in one way or another especially on capital projects like lhds frigates or corvettes, fighters etcetera
I see the Cheon Wang Bong class being an unlikely candidate, Canterbury's 2nd major problem (first being the lack of well deck) is that she must come to a stop to launch and recover her landing craft which the CWB class will also have to do, I see something like Singapore's Endurance class being better choice, as has the LCMs are housed internally, with lighter landing craft launched from davits.
It is worth noting that our Defense Strategic review did note the ADF was sometimes too risk adverse when it came to acquisitions. I wonder if the NZDF is the same.
Another point related to the DSR was the observation that our global position was becoming less reliable as a defensive barrier. I imagine the same point counts for New Zealand.
Replacing the old C-130's with J models like Australia did seems to be the best option, the transition will be cheaper and easier than other options.
However, much like with the RAAF's decision I can't help but feel there is a missed opportunity to go with something like a C-2 or C-390 as a much longer range and more capable platform.
Replacing the OPVs including the In-shores entirely with Corvettes might be an option to gain the best capability for dollar value even if they'd be overkill for most of those operations. Not sure what option would be the best to go with there though the EPC projected to be coming in 2030 looks to have impressive ability..
Alongside a few new Frigates, Either the Type-23 similar to Australia, Of the FREMM like the Americans might be options to provide that heavier capability.
You mean the Type 26 for Australia. Way, way too expensive. If the RNZN wants to replace like for like, it should go with the Type 31, though IMO this is still "too much ship" for what New Zealand has in mind. I would say 6 corvettes along the lines of the Israeli Saar 6 or the EPC. I suppose in a perfect world you might get 3 Type 31s (it was originally planned to purchase 3 ANZACs instead of 2) and 6 corvettes. Those ships plus some OPVs would be a small but legitimate RNZN but there isn't sufficient budget for this.
Some good points. However I don't think NZ can afford both corvettes and larger frigates. I think it'll be one or the other.
I imagine maritime surveillance is extremely important given the absurd levels of illegal fishing from Chinese vessels. It's important to deter them; we can't just let China continue to get away with these types of illegal activities
Surely UAV is a very smart way to go with maritime patrol/ASW/SAR in the future in support of manned platforms especially "risky" helicopters
Seems self-evident to me, too.
@gy_Analysis I have no real practical experience in military or the technology, I don't want to over sell myself, just a guy with an interest in miltech.
There's some interesting defensive and offensive technologies that I think may be applicable to New Zealand. Particularly drone swarms, a mesh cluster of multiple drone types; wild weasels, empty decoys that may be at 100:1 or even 1000:1, then you have the suicide drones and potentially more exotic types such as a drone that deploys a swarm of tiny helicopter drones (palm of the hand), these use visual tracking to identify key targets, such as an enemy deck crew member's head. This could potentially give us the ability to first strike and cripple a carrier, if only through crew attrition as the helicopter drones are perfectly capable of performing their lethal task inside the vessel.
You may also want to look into the US Rapid Dragon system which would instantly grant some of our air cargo fleet cruise missile launch capability. Rapid Dragon has all of its capabilities self-contained on its disposable drop pallet, allowing a C-130 to launch 12 JASSM cruise missiles from a safe distance of 620 to 1,180 mi (1,000 to 1,900 km) from target with the use of two Rapid Dragon pallets.
You may have heard this but the US fleet appears to be rearming for long rang combat in the pacific theatre.
Edit: A couple of links.
th-cam.com/video/Ltud5zvBYg0/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/GMJShyEh7lA/w-d-xo.html
For tier 2 ships maybe the Tasman Class Corvette would be a great fit.
For Air Combat Capability we (NZ) could use Lockheed Martin's Rapid Dragon system (drop cruise missiles out the back of C-13O's) as it uses the C-130 platform that is already in service
In response to comments below.....1) Corvettes have long been dismissed by the MOD. NZ has rough sea states and varying wave frequency. The minimum length of platform required is 300ft (frigate class or higher) for the Tasman and Pacific. Any shorter then the flight deck heaves and rolls too much. Corvettes also don't have the multi role capability or ability to remain at sea for the desired periods and are unsuited for meeting obligations further afield. Shorter hulls are better kept to one purpose, not multi role. A prime example is the Visby class, patrol and combat. It doesn't attempt to be anything else keeping space and systems dedicated to its purpose. 2) The NH helicopter has been disappointing with heavy vibration a major issue needing over NZD30M in repairs outside normal maintenance to keep them operational. Australia, Belgium and Sweden have grounded or are replacing their fleets. Most likely the replacement for consideration will be the MH-60R. 3) The 2 Meko's are planned for replacement in 2033 but most likely will be pressed for longer service given the recent ASW suite and NZD 1Billion refurbishment. Heavy pressure will come from Australia to go with the new Hunter Class, a tweaked/up gunned BAE Type 26 which, with the removal of the 5-inch gun for more VLS cells, would surpass the USA Ticonderoga Class Cruisers. NZ would likely balk at the cost of over AUS2 bill each. (expected to rise). The USA has had to retire 26 frigates circa 2023/2024 and is replacing them with 20 Constellation class (a tweaked FREMMS class with added workshops hence the lengthened hull of some 6m). At a reported cost of USD900 M (NZD1.170 Bill) each, New Zealand would be smart to place its orders now and lock in a cheap price for a very good design. Looking around and crunching a deal in another decade will be very expensive. Opening up the lucrative oil fields off the east coast may be controversial but would provide the funds for new infrastructure, clearing covid debt and purchasing new vessels, armaments, aircraft etc not to mention retaining defense personnel. 4) For those wanting fast jets, the UK is selling 30 Typhoons but they're expensive to maintain and sensitive to infield conditions. For a small nation like NZ, South Korea's KAI TA 50 block 20 is the nod. Fast, multi role you can pick up a dozen for US420 mil. Poland brought 50 of them to replace its Mig29 fleet.
-New Zealand did not ask Australia if it could transfer any of the TTH-90s that the Army is decommissioning in favor of the BlackHawk, on the other hand, since China is stirring up the waters, the RNZAF would not have to reactivate its squadron. combat For this, the USNavy could be asked to rent the Super Hornets that it is decommissioning in favor of the F-35s, or the USAF could be asked to rent F-16C/Ds from Block 30/32 that are being sent to the AMARG.
Great video, thank you.
You touched upon many of the ways that New Zealand could take advantage of existing logistics which support current platforms in use by both the US and (especially) Australia. Here is my ideal scenario for the New Zealand military. This won't happen, of course, not all of it. But I'll bet NZ could get most of it.
NAVY
Replace the current ANZAC class with 6 multirole corvettes. 8 is really what is needed (if not more than that), but alright, we'll go with 6. Let's say they are a bit smaller than the ANZACs but with a more modern and better designed weapons and sensors fit, etc. Depending on what AUS picks for its "light frigate - Tier 2 combatant" ship, you might be able to get in on this at a significant discount by piggy-backing your purchase on top of whatever the RAN does.
Go forward with the planned pair of sealift vessels, and keep the current multirole ship for as long as possible. Would love to add another one of these, but let's not get greedy.
If AUS is unhappy with the Arafuras, offer to take some of them off their hands. These become your new offshore patrol vessels. Again 8 or more are truly needed, but I'll settle for 6. Refit them according to RNZN specs and you're ready to go. These would be mostly surveillance and patrol vessels, but could operate helos and UAVS (both of which can be armed). You might even be able to put antisubmarine UUVs aboard. EDIT: Apparently AUS is going to drastically cut their acquisition of the Arafuras. NZ could offer to buy a handful of these at the end of the current build in order to keep the production line open. If that is not an option, there are any number of comparable (or better) designs being offered by any number of shipyards around the world.
For your inshore PBs, whatever you want to do would probably work alright. You could build them yourself. Or, AUS has some spare hulls. The USCG is currently rebuilding its entire fleet and has a number of smaller vessel designs that would work fine. Keep in mind that these are built by smaller shipyards in the US and so you would avoid the jam-up that is currently causing no end of angst with the AUKUS nuclear submarine program.
AIR FORCE
Air combat capability could be easily and cheaply reconstituted from older but still pretty good F/A-18 Super Hornets. There are a bazillion of them and the US will all but give them to you. In addition, Boeing will gladly support and upgrade them even further, and you have maintenance commonality with AUS. I say get 24 of them and go with it. Not great, no, but respectable, particularly as maritime strike platforms for keeping Chinese warships from coming any closer. In this regard you could, like AUS, equip them with the new LRASM. These along with your P-8s (I think you should have 8, but 5 is nothing to sneeze at) and UAVs would be enough to provide a legitimate deterrent and combat force if it came to that.
ARMY
Sorry, but it's much too small. IMO the standing army should be around 20,000, with the same number of reservists. Right now there are about 11,000 soldiers in the NZ army. Let's split the difference and make the Army 15,000 with the same number as an active reserve. Meanwhile I would build out a significant special forces capability. This might number around 1,200 "commandos" and would be divided about equally between SAS and SBS type operational specialties.
Again, even this proposal is still less than what is truly needed, but if these steps were implemented, AND the NZ military had sufficient stocks of fuel, ordnance, and other materiel, and if it were properly supported by robust basing and depot operations, it WOULD be a military that had some teeth considering its small size.
I don't think any of this is crazy or unaffordable, particularly if you leverage common logistics and maintenance-depot operations with AUS and the US.
The Government is looking at how to cut costs in all areas. I couldn't see them spending money to increase the size of the army by another 5000 people, assuming they could find that many to join. They'll be happy if they can maintain the current size without losing too many.
There is no such thing as easily and cheaply reconstituting of a military capability, least of all an aviation one.
Easily and cheaply brought assets *maybe*, but a capability is far more than the equipment.
Reconstituting the air strike force would be a decade long process - At Least.
@@AidestheKiwi Why would it take ten years to come up with 24 Super Hornet pilots along with around the same number in reserve?
@@williamjpellas0314 it's not the equipment that matters.
It's building up the depth of experience and technical expertise in the personnel to effectively use a brand new capability that doesn't already exist in the service.
As it is, it took the more than five years of transition from the Iroquois to the NH90 for 3SQN to become completely effective, and that was just changing from one platform to another.
It would be a far worse introducing a completely new platform. That doesn't even take into account the creation ( or recreation) of the unit structure to operate it.
@@AidestheKiwi Sorry, mate, but I think that's baloney. AUS has plenty of experience operating and maintaining the Super Hornet. Surely this would greatly lessen the learning curve for NZ.
I agree that we need a third frigate. Any new acquisitions ought to be compatible with Australian units/equipment. Ideally, the exact same.
Unfortunately, I would say your assessment regarding the ACF is correct, however it would be worth our while to consider a number of attack helicopters to provide the ground force some air support.
Where possible supplement Australian equipment IMO. Increases the overall defence capability of the region.
The NZDF is losing 270 homes near the Auckland Naval Base as part of a tribal settlement. The suggestion is the DF will have to find other staff accommodation further away from the base. The media has highlighted the state of the older DF housing throughout NZ, DF staff are restricted to renting DF housing for a limit of 6 years. There was a suggestion to move the naval base to Whangarei, but the base would be further away from the level of civi engineering resources in Auckland // Hyundai have designs for shorter lighter frigates than the Type 31. The South Korean designs could probably be adjusted to something like what the current ANZAC frigates are (118-120+metres, 3500-3800 tonnes) Have Wildcat helos (shorter rotor diameter) instead of SeaHawk due to a small landing deck. Probably stay with the NH-90s to avoid potentially training Blackhawk/ SeaHawk rnzaf pilots just for them to shift to Australia.(NZ back room thinking)
I think 2 arrowhead 140 frigates to replace and anzacs and 6 tuo chiang class corvettes from Taiwan to replace patrol vessels. And some gripen fighters from Sweden because they are the cheapest to run and maintain.
We were supposed to have had 4 ANZAC class frigates 😂😂😂 what happened to the other 2 😂 😂😂
They sunk on Lake Clark🤣
The idea of the two outdated Anzac ships engaging in ASM warfare against the PLA seems fanciful and difficult to imagine a scenario where much larger powers with far more capable ships like the USA and UK wouldn't be handling front line naval combat, with NZ relegated to a minor support role. In any situation that wasn't the case, like a crisis in the Cook Islands, a guided missile frigate isn't likely to be the most useful asset in the field vs a LHA or transport ship. The Ukraine conflict and recent Strait of Hormuz crisis has also shown the vulnerability of isolated frigate sized ships to drone and new generation ASM attacks, even from insurgent sources. For me anything going forward other than just corvette sized boats and transports/helicopter landing craft would be a big folly
NZ and Australia should really have a serious discussion about merging "officially", at least for mutual defense. Realistically, neither country would ever let anyone attack the other without mobilising to fully throw down... But it would act as better deterrence and would encourage ongoing cooperation if it were a binding mutual defense treaty. New Zealand should also, by now, remove the nuclear chip on our shoulder and accept that nuclear vessels are safe enough that we could allow them to visit - I'm sure a compromise could be reached there, whereby USA and in future Australia agree to try to minimise any visits by nuclear vessels - and particularly by any nuclear armed vessels - out of respect for our long-held views. If the ice could thaw on that, a formalised reinvigoration of ANZUS with binding mutual defense agreements could only be productive. NZ's current strategy of conveniently being geographically hidden from any potential adversaries by Australia seems, to me at least, to be a little unfair - obviously we didn't choose to be where we are, but we can still choose to support our allies anyway... And we should. Clearly a strong deterrence against China is now required, and all Pacific nations should play their part in that. Formal alliances prior to any possible conflict prepares us all, and makes any outbreak of hostilities far less likely. If Australia and New Zealand keep as much defense spending local as possible, it's a good deal - the money just goes back into our economies, it'll support larger standing forces of troops who'll have better living conditions and career opportunities, etc. As it currently stands, NZ's "air force" is going to be fancied-up 737's that are theoretically capable of firing torpedoes...... And I'm not sure I really see what the point of that is..... And for a nation with such massive amounts of ocean to control, our navy is pitifully small. There's a lot we could and should improve.
Could you do more content on either procurement programs or currently fielded systems that the singapore armed forces uses? Im curious about the equipment we use, but when i was in service i only knew enough to do my job, and there's scant detailed information online.
Yes, it's on the list. I've done some work with Singapore so happy to do it.
@@Strategy_Analysis thank you, hope to see videos on us soon!
NZ should look at the US Constellation class frigate as a replacement for the ANZAC class frigates.
It certainly will be a capable ship, but its also expensive. Might be a bit big for NZ's needs, given that they should be looking at least 3 ships.
There is indeed absolutely no chance the current National led government would spend money on fighters. The Defense force will find it hard to get the Government to commit large spending on anything beyond absolute necessities as it is. Big purchases usually come out of Labour led governments desperate to prove thier defence credentials.
To operate far from NZs waters with allies probably means helping the US which probably means interoperability which could mean the f16 (or at least some of their older models stored away) which is a standard plane for US aligned nations.
You need to join in Australia drone programmes and make it cheaper and faster to develop and bring in to service. bigger better versions of Ghost Bat. submersible drones Australia has Ghost Shark and Strix a Vtol helicopter AI drone and are a few surface veseel drone programmes.
Also hypersonic missiles and drones Australia and USA developing.
Nz could purchase a squadron of Australian developed MQ28 ghost bat drones, too. Would be a cheaper option to having stealth fast jets. Only a couple of million each in comparison to spending almost 60 to 80 million on each manned fast jets.
Early estimates are aus$8-10million for each production Ghost Bat with a 500kg max payload.
@alanb9337 might be able to load it up with LSRAM anti ship missile 200kg and a couple of meteor missiles MBDA though on each platform? Couple of squadron would protect your other aircraft and ships.
Could load 2 x 250kg bombs or 1x 500 kg bomb for ground support? If you have that on a few aircraft it would do damage? Better than nothing. They are drones so no risk to a pilot. And also they be great for reconnaissance as they have 3 different nose exchange for different missions
I wonder if our (🇦🇺) decision to go with Frigates, will effect 🇳🇿's ANZAC replacement plans. I still reckon the combat capability you get in Corvettes these days, with lower manning & costs, makes it tough for small populations to justify bigger hulls.
I think if we are serious about NZ Defense I often think of the Falkland's War where the Argentines with their dated Skyhawks probably would have defeated the Brits if all their bombs that hit British ships had actually worked.
That's actually pretty impressive for a small country like New Zealand I'd hate to say it but New Zealand has some better equipment than Canada not nearly as much it has some better equipment the PA beside Maritime aircraft even New Zealand's two Asian Anzac class frigates seem to be a little better than Canada's Halifax class in Canada for the longest time didn't even have an oil replenishment ship for its Navy New Zealand did and you guys also kind of have a land in darken ship something Canada doesn't the only thing Canada has a bob New Zealand is we have fighter jets in an Air Force but even half of those art right now combat capable McDonald Douglas cf-18 so New Zealand might not have a lot of this equipment what they do have is better than what Canada has the only things that Canada and New Zealand have in common is we both fly to c-130j Hercules at the present
I think it would be cool if the NZ airforce and Australian airforce formed a joint F35 squadron, so during a wartime situation, Australia could effectively field 4 squadrons. I heard that idea a while ago, not sure if it is the best idea but I do like the sound of it.
Also, I heard an idea about fitting Harpoons ASMs onto corvettes, not as good as a VLS, but a pair of corvettes with 4 Harpoons each could at least make it more costly for the CCP to put boots on the ground. Better yet, have those corvettes sail up to the straights where we would want to blockade and join everybody else with their fleets scattered about, threatening missile swarms from various directions if an attempt to clear the blockade is made.
Have you heard much about the Rapid Dragon idea? With C130s, the NZ airforce could deploy those and deal some good damage, or even fight off a decent number of ships.
F35.....pppppppfffftttt... the zillion dollar boondoggle. Fat Amy. Their pilots on a suicide mission!
Missing in the discussion are the importance of drones, sea drones, loitering ammunitions and reconnaissance. For NZ this means based on carriers and add precision missiles to support a gurilla war type operation.
This can be attached to any other country military operation. Guerrilla war means adaptive and long lasting based on people defending an invader. Antartica might need to be defended. Take into account the rising cost and unavailability of fossil fuel in the next 50 years.
Navy currently cannot protect merchant ships therefore in war we will not be able to import or export. Greatest weakness is that subs can almost certainly get within torpedo firing range undetected and once fired there is virtually no way to stop the torpedo reaching its target. Subs can readily sink our warships and merchant ships they purport to defend. Therefore in a war NZ would run out of diesel and petrol within months and our export income would cease. We need serious ASW capability to keep subs away from convoys and the enemy to believe that if a sub fires a torpedo then it will likely be detected and destroyed. This is the real issue; not all the bs distractions about policing, exclusive zones, humanitarian support, and SAR.
New Zealand’s biggest issue is manpower, we could afford better things but we don’t have the people to man them, two of our Air Force squadrons are manned my civilians and we have less infantry than Fiji
"Manned by civilians" is a strong phrase. Maintained by civilians yes, but they are both training Squadrons.
Your point still stands though.
Interestingly, I asked AI and got the following response…New Zealand Maritime Force.
A military force designed for operating exclusively in the Pacific would have a number of unique characteristics that would set it apart from more traditional militaries. These characteristics would reflect the specific challenges and opportunities of operating in the region.
Focus on littoral warfare: The Pacific Ocean is vast and diverse, but it is also surrounded by many small islands and coastlines. This means that a military operating in the Pacific would need to be particularly adept at littoral warfare, which is the art of fighting in coastal environments. This would require a focus on amphibious operations, small-boat warfare, and close-air support.
Emphasis on maritime patrol: The Pacific is a critical maritime chokepoint for trade and communication. This means that a military operating in the region would need to be able to effectively patrol the vast expanse of ocean. This would require a strong maritime patrol force, including both ships and aircraft, as well as a network of radar and other surveillance systems.
Adaptability to austere environments: Many parts of the Pacific are remote and underdeveloped, with limited infrastructure. This means that a military operating in the region would need to be able to operate in austere environments and be self-sufficient for extended periods. This would require a focus on logistics, maintenance, and survival skills.
Cooperation with regional partners: The Pacific is a region with a strong tradition of cooperation, and a military operating in the region would need to be able to work effectively with its regional partners. This would require a commitment to building strong relationships and sharing information.
Here is a more detailed breakdown of the specific capabilities that a military force designed for operating in the Pacific would need:
Land forces:
A strong amphibious capability, including landing ships, transports, and helicopters, for conducting operations on small islands and coastlines.
A focus on light infantry and reconnaissance forces, who can operate effectively in jungles, mountains, and other challenging environments.
Naval forces:
A variety of patrol boats, both small and large, for conducting coastal patrols and interdicting smuggling and illegal fishing.
A maritime reconnaissance aircraft, such as the P-8 Poseidon, for providing surveillance and reconnaissance of the vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean.
Air forces:
A variety of helicopters, for conducting amphibious operations, troop insertion, and close air support.
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), such as the RQ-4 Global Hawk, for providing surveillance and reconnaissance of the Pacific Ocean and its coastlines.
In addition to these specific capabilities, a military force designed for operating in the Pacific would also need to have a strong logistical and maintenance capability, as well as a commitment to training and education. This would ensure that the force can operate effectively in the region's challenging environments and adapt to the evolving threats and challenges of the 21st century.
Interesting.
Does that dedence budget include the one off asset purchases like the P8's, C130J, new hangars etc?
That is the current defence budget. Acquisitions are always paid off over a number of years. I can't tell you how much is needed for existing contracts, and what is for future acquisitions.
Appreciate the local coverage thanks. It is very interesting that I see our NH90s flying fine, but the Aussie built ones in the dirt. I personally think this is not a logistics issue, Aussie would sell them if that was true, but they are scrapping them. Something is wrong with those Aussie built NH90s.
Much appreciated. Another point re the NH90s is how the aircraft are flown? How many hours per air frame, and what sort of mission profiles are flown. But still, not a good look.
@@Strategy_Analysis well, I see them flying all the time on cannabis patrol out of Gisborne. Can't be that much of a problem to keep in the air. They operate a lot around Blenheim as well. The cost per hour is bad, but as I learned when I worked at Helipro NZ, Helicopters suck on hourly rate. The big thing here is Australia is not just saying the NH90 is too expensive, they are saying they are unsafe. Either someone is lying, or something is wrong with those Australian versions of the aircraft.
Another banger video. What's your opinion on Australia's commitment to continue the hunter class program despite it's flaws? 32vls in year 2031 seems woeful.
Much appreciated. I'll be doing a briefing on the surface combat fleet review in about a week. I'll answer your question then.
32x4=128 if you load nothing but ESSM
I am listening with interest the results of the Australian defense review, and the government's recent commitment to doubling the number of hulls by 2034 (with a two-year period of shrinkage to occur earlier)- which will come just 6-7 years after China is projected to launch an invasion of Taiwan. Great timing!
The West needs to fully embrace the fact that the "peace dividend" of the post Cold War era has evaporated- NATO and the Western alliances need to be recruiting men and women to fight, building ammunition and vehicle production facilities and start innovating and integrating emerging technologies into its various combat doctrines. China, Iran, North Korean and Russia are all increasingly aggressive and all are nuclear-armed.
"Oh, but building big ships and lots of missiles is expensive!". Yes. Yes it is. You know what else is expensive? Failing to deter a well-armed adversary from occupying your homeland. And while creating a reasonable defense industrial base is hard, it has a surprising amount of long-term benefits, too: improving your national economy, employing a well-educated, well compensated work force and creating the opportunity to sell your excess capacity to build arms to friendly foreign governments. Now, I don't expect NZ to be churning out 3 Arleigh Burke-style hulls per year, but focusing on capable, multi-role & missile-armed patrol craft, semi-autonomous/autonomous maritime drones, and enhancing the resilience of your defense infrastructure to cyber attacks will provide excellent ROI. NZ may be better off creating a naval expeditionary force that can integrate and support its larger Western allies, while retaining a substantial fleet of smaller hulls that carry 6-8 ASMs to protect near shore facilities. As distance is one of NZ's biggest challenges, so the armed forces will also need to invest in forward-deployed stocks, aerial tankers and fast replenishment vessels.
The time to start buying, building or leasing is now- not ten years from now. Good luck.
NZDF could really use a few fast jets. If only to enhance their credibility.
Why? It wouldn't add to any capability to us
@@David-jw7km Oh yes it would. AUS uses its F/A-18s as a bomber force, specifically as delivery platforms for the new LRASMs. This is a very effective pairing and would make any enemy think twice before violating NZ sovereignty.
@@williamjpellas0314the Super Hornet can do about 1300km fully tanked without refuelling. They're not a great solution for NZ, who would be far better off with long range armed drones
1.4 percent GDP there's it's biggest problem.
Defence should be fully integrated with Australia as one force.
All equipment should be exactly the same as Australian defence force . Budget should be 2 percent GDP . All problem solved....
very interesting.
indeed NZ have a large territory to defend, and also many responsabilities with allies and international law (for example maritime rescue missions in a large portions of the pacific ocean).
but have 2 problems:
money and people
i cant say anything about the recruitment problem, NZ have a few population, and i can imagine that have the same problem in almost any country with a decent life indicators, no young people wanna serve in the armed forces.
about the defense budget, i think the answer is in a traditional friend of NZ: Chile.
Chile is a larger country (700k kms2 and 19 million population) but with many of the responsabilities like NZ and also not a big budget.
but the armed forces reality is completly diference:
8 heavy frigates
4 modern submarines
4 opv
3 corvettes
60 f16 and f5 fighters + 2 awacs + 3 tankers, etc
etc
a large, modern, powerfull, NATO standar armed forces created to fight with their 3 neighbours at the same time.
what i think NZ need now:
3 heavy frigates (5k tons) armed with harpoon/exocet, ESSM/sea ceptor, 57mm gun and torpedoes, wit a good radar and a captas 4 sonar array. 3 to have at least 2 ready and 1 in maintenance (that is the minimum, i cant understand how NZ have only 2 anzac). here the Chilean naval policy is very interesting: chile will build at least 8 new frigates of 5k tons, like the uk t31. NZ can join this.
another option is buy at least 1 decomissed t23 from uk has a time gap solution to have 3 frigates.
2 submarines: is incredible that NZ dont have submarines, at least a pair of u209, maybe koreans. subs are the most efective deterrent weapon in sea. u209 koreans or even 2 japanese subs.
4 opv/corvette: to replace the protector and lake class. maybe something like the fassmer opv80 but with a complete asuw suite (antiship missile and a 57mm gun), maybe some short range aaw capacity, and even some sonar array. is not necesary always have all installed, but the ships must have at least some plug and play capacities. the problem with the protector is dont have gun, so need a new design build to put some big weapons just in case.
24 4th gen fighters: for god sake, is incredible that NZ dont have fighters, only a supermarine spitfire. at least some f16 MLU with amraam. i know NZ are islands and far away, but 24 fighters at least can fight a chinese carrier air wing, dont need more, but must have something. f18 super hornet, grippens or typhoon work too, but f16 are the cheapest and logical.
the problem with fighters is that you need several years to build that capacity, so wait until the geostrategic situation change is always too late, and you have a enemy carrier infront of your coast before you can do anything.
2 lpd: the canterburry need a friend and a replace. look the escotillon program from the chilean navy, a 8k tons lpd Vard marine design that look perfect to NZ.
2 e3 sentry awacs: NZ need awacs, and the americans have some to sell. too many ocean to just a few land based radars. fighters + awacs are much more deterrent than 2 frigates.
Thanks for the very detailed comment.
Ppl think that NZs remoteness is a haven, rather than being situated at the end of a long supply chain.
It’s impossible to think of a scenario that will involve either Aust or NZ without implicitly effecting the other, and yet NZ provides near zero actual capability.
Just what is ‘peer’ to NZ capability?
NZ has no anti-surface or useful ASW capability. It has a garrison supply airlift and a tiny ill equipt army.
Other than being a floating flag pole of Kiwi diplomatic wisdom and a smiley constabulary or humanitarian response, Australia can expect near-nothing from its natural defence partner, except an obligation to support it. And Australia has allowed this to occur!
NZ might be independent in its domestic policy but it’s utterly reliant on others for its actual security so it’s not independent in its responsibilities. (I note that the oiler and Poseidons are a step in a useful direction).
There's an opportunity right now for Australia and NZ to fundamentally renegotiate our partnership for the changing strategic circumstances. The Kiwis are our best friends and natural allies, and shouldn't be taken for granted, but you're right - there's no scenario where one is threatened where the other doesn't assist. So we should lean into that.
Australia could formally agree to assist NZ in its existing extraterritorial defence obligations and deepen integration in any areas where there's still room for it, especially in training.
NZ could consolidate all of its armed naval platforms into a single class of light combatant - possibly some variant of the Arafura with suitable armament and ice hardening if it's viable, so we can each make use of mutual support infrastructure and supply chains.
All other available resources should be put, as much as possible, into dual-use HA/DR assets, i.e. things which are principally for disaster relief in the South Pacific and other diplomatic operations, but which, in times of conflict, can be used to support Australian combat platforms as force multipliers/logistical assets. Things like MRTTs with the airborne refueling capability intact, or multi-role sealift vessels which can also do underway replenishment/oiler duties. We could also mutually contribute to South Pacific HA/DR missions since we both want the associated diplomatic clout, potentially principally using Kiwi assets supplemented with Australian personnel/supplies/airlift.
It would probably require the Kiwis to give up some prestige assets and capabilities, so it would be potentially politically challenging, but it's probably the most practical use of each nation's funding given their respective capabilities and priorities.
@@MattWeberWA Good post. There is already some of this in the two armies' Plan ANZAC, with NZ to contribute a Battalion Group to 7 Brigade, but it goes beyond that. Apart from the value to NZ itself, 2 MRTTs would be very useful contributions to a coalition effort. You can never have enough tankers!
I know this is a defence focused channel and conversation but the reality is, our country has been so focused on the worst excesses of deregulated capitalism and we haven't faced any significant defence threats since korea/vietnam, NZDF has been budget starved and has suffered serious brain drain in the last 30 years. The bulk of our population is incredibly short sighted and misinformed regarding the need for a capable multi-domain armed force and it will be an uphill battle to achieve anywhere near the ADF's capability level which is itself, arguably, insufficient for Australia's defence needs. To put it in simple terms, times have been too good for too long and we have become very soft and fat. Our politicians and the people who voted them in are woefully unprepared for the storm that is coming.
Utterly reliant on security for/from what?? Lemme guess, ze Chinese right?😂... fun fact, we send support to other countries they don't send support here because funnily enough, we don't go around starting anything🤷♂️ anything thing else is literally assumption. You are not providing security for NZ you are providing security for Australia, the fact we live next door doesn't change that. If "anything" went down (Apparently China's about to go on a world domination rampage anytime now🤔) then Australia would be to busy taking care of Australia, and TBH, fair enough as well. Thinking China is somehow going to bypass the resource, land and mineral rich island of Australia to sail around (ALL the way around) and instead go for sheep, grass and snow rich land of NZ instead really are living in some kind dreamland and based on what exactly??🤦♂️
*¡thinking 🤔 and pondering 🤔 about ANZAC since Max Rafael Waller is an ex N.J.R.O.T.C. cadet and ex active duty u.S. Army 11B10 infantryman!* - 6:37 pm Pacific Standard Time on Sunday, 25 February 2024
Thank you for taking the time to explore and analyse both the RNZN and the RNZAF. This is highly relevant given that NZ is currently conducting a strategic defence review amidst the changing security environment. This will be the biggest shake up since pre - World War 2. For New Zealand there are a number of challenges that the state and its people will have to navigate the complexities. So, please allow me to highlight some key areas of contention.
But, firstly, please allow me to take a position. My position would be assessed as: 'Revisionist'. This means in policy and the world view the return of 'Realism' and contends that NZ is a sovereign state with the right of self determination and therefore, like other states pursues its national interest by utilising the institutions that are charted through its legislation in an international system that is absence of international norms and conventions.
This also means NZ will need to re-establish (at great cost) it's conventional military: (i) A return to a Blue Water Navy centred around frigates (not, Corvettes) (iii) The re-establishment and regeneration of its air combat wing (iii) To, regenerate its Army to a conventional footing. This includes via Doctrine not only the development of the profession of arms but its logistic foot print.
To quote Eisenhower: 'In peace time people focus on tactics, in war time the focus is on logistics'.
I am aware my comments are a big call, but its achievable. NZ has a long standing history of maintaining, managing and sustaining its frigates, its combat aircraft and it army. and employing them to their best potential / capacity that serves the state and builds NZ standing as a: 'Good global citizen'. The reason: (i) The NZDF is a functionary and actionable component of the national interest (III) As such the NZDF is tied to Sovereignty and the protection and projection of such and, (iii) Must be conduct independently and yet, inter-pendently with other states of mutual interest.
Thus, my comments are to provide context and to a certain degree, a root cause that has lead to NZ Defence's current predicament that relates to your video and some of the comments from your subscribers.
So, where did the Issues Start for New Zealand???
1990 - to - 2000: A Change in Ideological Worldview, Inter-Service Rivalry, De-Institutionalism
Historical 'World View': In 2000, the then government announced the disbandment of NZ's air combat wing. The explanation was cost and that the world was 'Benign'. In reality, it was a juxtaposition of other events influencing the policy pivot and benefited NZ political and academic elites who in turn increased in civilian defence bureaucracy and academia published multiple articles highlighting an 'International rules based system'. It was touted by additional intellectual phrases of the 'End of World History' (Fukuyama, 1992). Hence, the loss of combat capability was a triumph of ideology in policy (McGaw, 2003).
Note: NZ Academia traditionally, dismisses NZ Defence and continues to do so.
The second point, is within the NZDF itself. In the 1990s, what had developed a toxic culture driven by the 3 defence chiefs , thus becoming a political resource war amongst the 3 services of navy, army and air force. It had gotten so bad that the 3 defence chiefs could not be in the same room and consequently, a number of plans were hatched to undermine the other services. This was compounded further by sub parr procurement acquisitions. An example the HMNZS Charles Upham a supply ship to support army operations. A debacle and embarrassing purchase, along with Australian criticisms (Australian Press referred to NZers as: 'Bludgers') brought defence to the attention of the public and became a contested issue within the Election cycle. Whats' more, the in coming government's White Paper 'Defence Beyond 2000', sometimes referred to as: 'The Quigley Report'.
The Army General Staff (AGS) set up an anonymous working group with the intent of getting the largest share of the defence pie. with a highlighted number of strategies that would undermine both the navy and air force This would collectively be known as: 'The Gordon Reports' .
The winner, was Army and to secure its position a 'Joint Forces Headquarters' was set up to ensure navy and air force towed the army line. This killed: (i) The already purchased lease to own F16 Fighters snd Support Package (ii) The Frigate, Survey ship replacement programs and various infrastructure projects (Greener, 2006-08).
Furthermore, The NZ MoD intervened and increased the civilian defence bureaucracy (in fact to this day, doubled, possibly, even higher) its numbers. By 2019, the incoming NZ Defence Chief acknowledged that the defence bureaucracy had gotten so big, it was now undermining defence capability. (NZDF CDF Report, 2019) and has considerable leverage over the NZDF, particularly in a forum known as: 'The Defence Mid Point Review' (DMPR).
Niche Speciality: Is It Feasible?
Reading some of the comments, amongst my own. Some commentators on the topic have offered suggestions (forgive me for over generalising) that the NZDF can support other nations in operations or, by purchasing platforms that denote a smaller function that contributes to the larger operation. A proportional representation, if you will with finance in mind. With respect to your viewers, I respectfully reject this notion.
Here is why - There is, at times a confusion with collaboration at the state level. For the New Zealander reader, I must stress, the NZDF is interlinked by its function to facilitate the 'pursuit of the national interest'. For the military, it does so via combined arms and scheme of manoeuvre. This facilitates 'freedom of action' and the 'scheme of manoeuvre' for the Senior NZer Theatre Commander. Thus, it is a tool of the state.
With that, I must acknowledge the inter-dependence component, with allies / friends and other actors of mutual interest. This is operationally conducted by 'Joint Task Groups' (JTGs) but in order for this to occur there is a standardised practice, via membership. Case in point, the very calibre of the weapons the NZDF uses relates to this membership. They are: (i) NATO , as a non-aligned member (iii) ABCANZ. This acts as an umbrella for Compliance in a number of skill, trade, training military institutions.
Note: 5 Eyes is an Intelligence Forum / Convention
My point is if NZ were to provide a niche, it would be limited and costly. Furthermore, each crisis requires an adapted organised group based on the above to sub points and NZ would have to follow suit in the larger nations practices that may compromises certain aspects that NZ would not do, say ethically. And, lastly, when you deploy a military force overseas (yes, in the national interest), a state tends to have a desired 'aspect' to achieve politically. By incorporating into a larger force and providing a 'niche' specialisation, compromises the very reason a state has a military in the first place.
Procurement - Force Design, Prerequisite Considerations
As mentioned in my opening comments, the procurement of platforms, equipment and of course, the training and maintenance , comes from Western Countries that align with the Compliance Practices of NATO and ABCANZ. This provides a degree of standardisation and interoperability with allied and aligned partners of mutual defence and security interests with stable supply chains or alternatively, colocated facilities within NZ. Example, Safe Air - Kahu Project, 1988.
In Summary
In closing, the only solution for NZ is to re-establish it's conventional combat components in all 3 of its services. I acknowledge, this will be a great cost and often competing with other state priorities from infrastructure to health and education and so on. This is a challenge for NZ given that NZ has lost its contextual understanding and has since been dismissed and delayed in decision making. To quote a former NZ Defence Minister Ron Mark, 'kicking the can down the road'. This problem is not solely confined to defence in NZ, but an issue for a number of other topics, but a legacy from those who of a generation that made those decisions for the convenient soundbite of the short term gain at the expense of the intermediate and long term gain.
Thank you for taking the time to read and hope it provides a bit of context that surrounds the highlighted topics you and your subscribers have identified in the comments section.
References:
1997, Quigley, D , 'Defence Beyond 2000'
1996-98, Army General Staff Papers , 'The Gordon Reports'
2003-04, McGaw, D, 'Labours Defence Policy: A Triumph for Ideology'
2008, Dr P Greener , ' Timing Is Everything: The Politics of Defence Acquisition'
2019 CDF Report
2019 The Strategist ,'Strategic Apathy' - Australian Think Tank.
Really appreciate your detailed comments. Doesn't matter if people agree or disagree, this type of discussion is very valuable. Thank you.
@@Strategy_Analysis No, it *really* wasn't. It was completely incoherent. It used lots of words and *tried* ever so hard to *sound* like a reasoned post, but it was just sound bites and hand waving. It was dramatically short on facts and actual, rational - let alone logical - reasoning.
Shite like this:
>>Whats' more, the in coming government's White Paper 'Defence Beyond 2000', sometimes referred to as: 'The Quigley Report'.
Wow. That was a good read, thank you.
@@JR-ii4lqThank you.
Nz needs to increase its defence . It may need to make a basic item to sell to fund defence. 155mm ammunition comes to mind sell 3 b of that and theremay be 1b to add to the 2 % .making it 5b. Get something intense and innovative going with a pointy end to deter and assist
Good presentation, thank you. I think the NZDF should focus on martime logistics and defence of that arena. That would look like a cluster of surface vessels, including at least one helicopter carrier to give the best support in operations. In the absence of manned strike aircraft, long distance drones and shore based missiles are the next best option, after all that is why the USN never sends its carrier groups anywhere near the Iranian coastline because those Silkworms can sure reach out and touch you.
Much appreciated.
lol has nothing to do with why.. majority of US carriers and Arleigh Burke destroyers use a Australian defense invention called Nulka. doesn't say NZ has it but must if use Australian ships.
USS Mason is famous since back in 2016 of defending against Houthis missile attacks and reports it has used Nulka several times and saved it and several other ships.
To this day no navy ship has been hit by Houthis and they try so hard to.
Funny reading the stories of Nulka too. say the missile mysteriously crashed in to the sea as malfunction.. lol is what Nulka does.
@@micksmith-vt5yiNulka. Indeed ......
Good report, but you forgot Tokeleau/not a biggie!
NZ AF can go for Light combat Aircraft Like HAL Tejas.
Would be a pretty decent upgrade for the RNZN and RNZAF ......... They haven't got infinite money , as for bringing back a fast combat jet they'd be better off with this and the army the jet will cost too much
XQ-58 Valkyrie armed with Switchblade-600, Altius-600M, MQ-20 avenger would be useful for New Zealand
What about light fighters such as the Hawk or FA-50?
i suggest the Lockheed Martin F-16C/D Block 70/72 aircraft.
@@TomBear78 going to be a crawl before they start to run again. Been over 20 years since they operated fast jets, this includes ground crew being experienced let alone air crew. Not impossible, they could start on our Hawks and progress and gain experience with our Super Hornet and F35 Squadrons over time.
@@amsutherWell well firstly get a Hawk squadron and run the combat pilot course, plus train the ground crew as well, then if the cannot afford F-35, maybe the Block 70/72 Fighting Falcons are good choices, since they can be easily intergrated into the RAAF's command structure (E-7 Wedgetail and the F-35s and so on).
@@TomBear78 just slot some spaces on our Hawk courses, at least get a cadre of instructors for starters. I'm sure Australia would be accommodating if our Kiwi cousins wanted to reactivate the capability.
Tks for the comprehensive briefing!! As its often the case, NZ's military often triggers much discussion, speculation n concern among us armchair generals (me included 😂) especially since they had retired their fighters. I also share similar opinions/ideas with some comments.
The problesm with NZ are very niche n shares similar situations with 2 countries; 1st Ireland which also has no ACFs n thus relies on the U.K. to defend their airspace, n Argentina which had to fend off warships coming towards their land. Yes, I'm talking about the Falklands War.
In the past, NZ had often been a partner with Australia in their global military deployments, due to their shared legacy as being part of the British Empire in this part of the world. But NZ can ill afford to do this anymore, what with its budget n manpower problems. NZ's current strategy needs to be purely defensive n avoid purchases just to match with Australia's.
Their airforce is certainly on the right track with relying more on UAVs for long range surveillance patrols with some anti-ship capabilities. Perhaps in future, UAVs may even replace the manned n expensive P-8s altogether. Any upgrade to both SeaHawks n BlackHawks would definitely help standardise logistical n service support with Australia's inventory. On the question of ACFs if NZ were to acquire any, some already suggested either the Super Hornet or Grippen. My choice would be the Grippen because its a newer platform with a longer lifespan, starting from now. Thou it might cost more per unit, its ease of maintenance would definitely cost cheaper in the long run. Having 24 fighters would be best n enough for an interdiction role.
But if no ACFs were considered, then perhaps having foreign fighters based in NZ for training, might help defend NZ as well.
As for the navy, purchase a new class of six up-gunned OPVs that can perform the role of corvettes as well, to replace all the frigates n older OPVs. It should have at least 16 VLS missiles (MICA or SeaCeptor), a helicopter hanger, towed sonar n 1 CIWS. Anti-ship missiles optional.
As for the army? I have no thoughts on it.
Thanks for the detailed reply. New Zealand certainly faces some personnel and financial challenges. What can we realistically expect them to achieve?
@@Strategy_Analysis realistically, concentrate on quality over quantity; make what they are good at even Better. The new C-130s n LPDs are the right direction as they can help with disaster response, for within n the region. As I had suggested, having 6 smaller but long-range ships over frigates, might save on cost n manpower.
Lastly, keep deploying the NZSAS for global engagements, to keep them sharp n ready. This is the 1 international contribution that NZ should definitely keep if possible.
@@eseetohAgree on the Hercs and LPDs. Also NZ could have a specific niche of surveillance using tools such as P8s, Drones (sea and air), combat patrol ships, 5 Eyes and cyber warfare. This could potentially make NZ a valuable ally in the Pacific by concentrating on disaster relief and surveillance.
I think the acquisition of Seahawk Romeo is a certainty.
If they are smart they would replace the Seasprites with MH-60R and then replace the NH-90s with UH-60Ms and consolidate their Helo fleet on one airframe type, save a fortune in Trg and logistics.
I think it very likely.
@@Harldin That would make sense. Just comes down to $$.
Rumours are its a lease of wildcats, nunbers to be determined
@@Strategy_Analysisknowing the NZ government, commonsense has never been it's greatest strength.
You can have one of the UK's Elizabeth carriers if you want it, for free. The UK has no use for one of them, let alone two.
Will also need to look at increasing the allowances to personnel, perhaps looking at the Australian model of investment by people like you and me who have the money to invest in defence housing plans, which under say a 10 year lease sees it maintained and housing paying tenants.
A crucial part of any recruitment and retention Stratergy.
There are lots of loyal friends who will come to your aid if you need our help.
3.3 billion is all we get for our defence budget? Yet we can spend 46 billion on social welfare??? Our country has become so ridiculous.
Yeah
Proud Kiwi here.. our NZDF is small but effective 👍🇳🇿
Totally inadequate all-round., an air see gap exists between NZ and your adversaries and Helen shuts down the air side of it.....crazy!
New Zealand needs a few say 4 small/med conventional style submarines (German, Korean) to instill a bit of uncertainty and fear into any potential adversary something that a small surface fleet like an ANZAC replacement could not do, NZ could still rely on off shore patrol vessels for other contingency's.
For air combat side this could be like what the Philippines Air Force purchased with say 16 or so F/A-50 Korean jet fighter/trainers fitted out with AMRAAM D or AIM-160 & the Joint Strike Missile ( air version of the NSM II) as its anti ship capability.
Maybe the future is heading for un manned style of equipment say along the lines of unmanned long range maritime patrol ships and unmanned long range fishery patrol aircraft that both can be armed if the need a rises.
This is an area New Zealand can co-operate with Australia with as this capability is a subject of co operation and advancement with the US through AUKUS.
A New Zealand citizen was taken hostage by West Papua militants and we've done nothing about it except ask nicely for them to let him go
Even if we had a capable defence force it wouldn't mean anything because our country is neutered
We need our own satellite network so we can integrate fleets of UAVs into the surveillance of our GEZ and provide much needed protection of Australia's East or build a network and share costs/running it with our partners.
Strike capability is possible now with drone technology and we should embrace it..much more firepower per dollar spent and we could develop our own drone industry. Look what cheap but smartly designed drones are doing to the Russians in Ukraine. $1K drones are hitting $3M tanks. Sea borne drones have sunk Capital ships.
We got a huge area of water between us and an enemy, but we need the capability to 'reach out and touch somebody'. There is no way we will ever have a strike fighter capability. We'd be starting from scratch, no infrastructure, no bases even...but drones...you can launch those from almost anywhere, from any air or sea asset, even a transport like a C-130, or a lightly armed/armoured Patrol boat, without major refits.
There is no massive training pipeline for drone pilots. Just recruit all the gamers.
Need an independent LEO SATNET though, so we control the network, not reliant upon an allay or private enterprise.
Perhaps have a joint bare base opportunity in Niue and Cook Islands, as due to being under our protection. We'd definitely need to have access to facilities away from home, and ready to use if and when required.