Poser or Player?

Is New Zealand a 'poser or player' on global security? British naval historian Professor Geoffrey Till suggests that

"New Zealand has gone much further in pushing toward the softer end and more localised security than most countries have, and the consequence of that - especially on very low rates of defence spending - is a much more limited capability to join with others in broader defence....if New Zealand wants to go on playing an international role it will probably need more than two frigates to do that."

I suspect this is a polite way of saying that with our tiny navy New Zealand is a poser. It's hard to disagree when you look at the size of the navy and its roles.

The fleet principally comprises two frigates and a tanker, along with an amphibious support ship, two offshore patrol vessels and four inshore patrol vessels. These ships are part of "Project Protector", a naval acquisition programme designed to boost the navy's sealift, coastal and offshore patrol capacity.

The navy's primary roles are to "ensure the sovereignty" of New Zealand's EEZ and territorial waters, and protect New Zealand's interests in the Southern Ocean and Antarctica. It is also tasked to protect the waters of associated South Pacific countries, provide civil defence and humanitarian aid, and counter terrorist threats.

For a small navy this is a tall order. It leave little scope to contribute to global security without compromising primary objectives. Put another way, New Zealand faces a security dilemma: dispatch our navy to safeguard shipping in the Persian Gulf, and allow poachers, drug smugglers and illegal foreign fishers free rein in our home waters.

Unlike great powers, a small country has to concentrate on one or two defence imperatives. New Zealand's priority has to be controlling our waters, safeguarding our oceanic interests, and supporting the army on regional deployments. Only when we get local security right can we think about global security.

The priority then is not to increase the number of frigates to be deployed to distant places. Instead, New Zealand must invest in capabilities that allow us to control our immediate region. Project Protector is a good start, but we need more ocean patrol vessels, long-range reconnaissance aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and a maritime intelligence apparatus.

New Zealand could also consider a satellite capability, perhaps like Polar Epsilon, which provides Canadian forces with wide area, all weather, 24 hour surveillance of Canada's Arctic region and ocean approaches.

Comments

[ramjet]

I agree, some more patrol vessel and plane, maybe a little more armed. I would add again a little but efficent air force to control also the sky approaches. Just one multirole squadron in a main operating base, able to split and deploy to some forward base around the country. I remember the days when the navy needed private jets warbirds for antiaircraft training. This, of couse has a cost but I think New Zealand is worth the money.

[Richard]

I think Till's comments about the 'kit' are in many ways as important as the number of hulls.

Looking at what the ships are armed to do is the most clear illustration that NZ's decided to opt for local patrol and comparatively benign work away from home.
The light defensive armament on NZ's ANZACs (relative to other MEKO 200s) and virtually no offensive systems in fleet (only Mavericks on the Seasprites).

In saying that, for a non-hotwar navy serving a small country, I think the RNZN is very well equipped. We've sufficent hulls, they're quite young and there is a good spread of capabilities.

[Tom S]

Would it not be better to deploy these protector OPV/IPV vessels as part of a newly established Coastguard or a coastguard division of MAF? There function is primarily Coastguard in nature - SAR, Fisheries protection, and possibly a bit of shroud waving within sight of Japanese whaling fleets. A coastguard would allow far more coast effective maritime surface surveillance aircraft (like an extended range ATR-72 for example) than a P-3K with eighteen crew to be purchased and deployed as well. It seems to me far less provocative to arrest foreign flagged fishing vessels with a white and orange coastguard vessel than a menacing warship, and would not a civilian crew organised like, say, the Police or Fire Service be easier & cheaper to recruit, train and retain? Given the spasmodic and fragmentary nature of the enforcement response to inshore fisheries poaching and heavy reliance on an unevenly resourced civilian volunteer force for Coastguard work in our coastal waters, I am of the view a coastguard's time has come.

[Glamdring]

Hi Strat,

I think your ideas regarding UAVs and Polar Epsilon are on the money. These would be leap ahead tools that would provide straight forward technical solutions. I note that the NZ Army’s Future Land Operating Concept already includes the use of satellites (i.e. U.S. GIG). However, I expect they intend to ride on the coat tails of other nations.

Project Protector is a reasonable idea, but seriously flawed in execution. The newly acquired vessels have numerous shortcomings in regards to both size and capability.

New Zealand has an enormous sea zone to control (e.g. coastline alone at 15,000 km’s plus, not counting the Ross Dependency) much of it treacherous. With limited assets, an effective and efficient patrolling capability of such an area requires vessels that have both excellent endurance and sea keeping. This means ships of frigate* size.

Considering the overall costs of naval vessel construction, steel is relatively cheap in comparison to the costs associated with the onboard systems. Therefore sacrificing ship size and with it sea keeping/endurance seems to be a false economy.

I never expected that Project Protector would allow the RNZN to match the PLAN or the USN in combat capability. But considering the advances in automatic cannons (e.g. Oerlikon 35mm w/ AHEAD ammunition) it’s a surprise to see that the new vessels are so poorly armed. The RNZN does not even consider that their troop carrying Multi Role Vessel requires a basic AD system. I’m guessing nobody in the Navy has ever heard of the Atlantic Conveyor?

In the end, adding a few extra and likely short crewed patrol boats is not going to address the mess of New Zealand’s maritime security structure.

* Definition of frigate differs widely across nations/roles. So displacement tonnage of approx 2500 to 4000 is my reference.

[Kotare]

I agree, it is odd that the Protector vessels are inadequately armed. That seems to be a pattern with NZ defence procurements - we always skimp in this area - false economies in my view. It reminds me of my days as an alpine climber - I always made sure I had the best gear (even though, in my teens and 20s, I struggled to afford it) because having crappy gear substantially increased the risk of dying.

I can understand the idea of a coastguard, but am wary of another bureaucratic structure which would take a lot of time to stand up. In any case, navies traditionally have been multi-purpose - the Royal Navy in the 18th and 19th centuries being the classic example, with its range of roles (battle, blockade, anti-piracy, deep sea exploration, amphibious support, troop transport and so on).

[exkiwiforces]

I can remember reading an article in stuff news website sometime back (05-06) and it was also in Janes Navy about the sametime. About Jack Welch (former ex deputy chief of NZ Navy and I believe he is a naval architect as well) saying they have gone for the cheapest option and would not fulfil most the NZ Governments policy objectives for the defence force. He went to say that L-421 (Canterbury) was to small for peacekeeping duties (it can only carry 250 troops a Coy plus), would unsuited for the southern ocean due to its draught and the way it stern is design which could see the screws come out of the water, but he went to say that begin based on a Irish sea ferry it a ramp instead of docking well so anything over sea state 1 well make things a wee bit hairy loading or unloading troops etc. OPV’s were not seen to the best option for the Navy, as it was not a multi role design and it hasn’t have in room for upgrades of any sort.

My uncle was say they are (Airforce) looking at UAV’s in the future when the replacement for the P-3’s come up. The most favourable option is mixed fleet but they are waiting to see what as Australians do.

I don’t want to see the Navy end up begin a Coastguard Navy because it well be a kick in the guts for the outstanding job they have in East Timor where they (F-421) chase a Indo sub just off Dili back into Indo waters and in the Gulf. My mate (12yr vet) was saying morale in the Navy is low and at the moment the upgrade for the 2 Anzac’s is going be half ass/ halfhearted affair.

Keep up the good work Peter.

[Kotare]

Thanks Allen.

What I find alarming is that the navy does not appear to have a guiding concept, particularly in relation to "ensuring the sovereignty" of New Zealand's waters. This is acute in terms of conventional threats - we have three of the biggest navies in the world in our neighbouhood (PLAN, India, Japan), but no idea about how we would defend ourselves in the future if, say, the PLAN starts taking an active interest in this part of the South Pacific.

I am no naval strategist, but I am attracted by the idea of 'sea denial' as I believe that even a small country can do a lot, relatively cheaply, to make aggressors think twice.

Also alarming to hear about low morale in the navy - I think that the navy (and air force) are vitally important for our maritime security, but don't get the recognition, strategic guidance and equipment to make a real go of it.

This sad state of affairs is mirrored by the almost total absence of informed public debate in this country over these matters.

[ramjet]

"I am attracted by the idea of 'sea denial' as I believe that even a small country can do a lot, relatively cheaply, to make aggressors think twice"

Think asymmetrical.
Submarine could be the answer.

An enemy can't know what damange they could do and where.

Take the U212, with his fuel cell air indipendent propulsion is a menace (by three or four of them) that even the biggest navy is better should takes into account.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/

[Kotare]

You'd think that the Germans would know a thing or two about building good submarines.

I agree - submarines would be an excellent sea denial and deterrent option. Not only for home waters, but could also be deployed at long range to attack a hostile fleet. And as you say, you don't need many to present a credible threat.

[toms]

The question is though sea denial against whom? People forget we are a long way from anywhere. Amphibious warfare is EXTREMELY hazardous. To cross the English Channel and land troops at Normandy in 1944 against relatively weak oppostion, a across a sea distance of less than 100 miles, required almost 7,000 vessels, and absolute air and naval superiority.

Only one nation has the strategic force projection capability to even attempt this today - the United States - and last time I looked they were favourably disposed towards N.Z.

Even a warning period of a year would see us capable of easily repulsing any assault launched by anyone less than the USA.

Any attempt to build a force projection/amphibious assault capability to seriously threaten our home island with invasion would be telegraphed over not just over years but probably decades, especially as it would be impossible for any erstwhile aggressor to mask the obvious target of its build up of amphibious forces, given the need to acquire forward bases etc.

If anything, sea denial from someone else's submarines against our seaborne trade is a far more likely scenario in any large scale regional conflict, and to that end the RNZN needs to probably get another 1-2 additional frigates and forget about the distractions of fisheries protection and the like (hence my call for a coastguard) and concentrate of defense of trade and support of our allies.

[Kotare]

Three points in response to Tom's post:

(1) 'Sea denial' means denying an outside power the ability to operate in our waters and oceanic area without our permission, not just denying an enemy the opportunity to invade. In other words, it is about exercising effective maritime sovereignty.

(2) China, Japan and India are rapidly building power projection capabilities. They are not hostile to us at present, but we can’t assume that that state of affairs will persist.

(3) Protecting distant sea lanes is well covered by the US with regional allies like Singapore, Australia and Japan (see, for example, the recently released US maritime strategy). One to two more RNZN frigates won't add any real value to this task, whereas several submarines would go a long way to allowing NZ to exercise sovereignty over our waters.

[exkiwiforces]

Ramjet, The 1982 New Zealand Defence white paper actually looked at Submarines with surface fleet begin replace by OPV’s such the Castle class OPV’s and the 1978 White paper called for a Amphibious type support ship when the Army’s Ready Reaction Force (RRF) was stood up back then.

Peter, Going back on the my last comment on the OPV’s the best option would have gone for the Meko 140 class which is about the same size of the OPV’s coming into service and with its modular design weapon and sensor suites would have allowed the Navy chop and change to suit the any mission. New Zealand’s sea denial capability is been rundown the labour/Green government and its black and white in the Greens out of date defence policy. As for morale in the Navy you just need to look at the papers over Xmas and to see how Pil Goff (MoD) flogged it off as a non-an event. Your comment “ but don't get the recognition, strategic guidance and equipment to make a real go of it” Goes for the whole of the NZDF know's where they want to go but the Government won’t give them the funding.

In my Navy I would have 3 Anzac’s up to upgraded to the RAN Anzac’s, 6 Mako 140’s, a Rotterham class LPD, a tanker, 4 inshore patol boats based around a MCM design.

One last piece I found in a lessons learnt report by the British Army for Op Telic quoted under Coalition Interoperability Para 322, 3-12 “having now seen a pattern of ‘coalitions of the willing’, the Army might reconsider its pattern of international exchange and liaison officers, with a view to strengthening ties with those nation which future cooperation is most likely, perhaps at the cost of ties with other traditional allies”.

[ramjet]

Kotare
"whereas several submarines would go a long way to allowing NZ to exercise sovereignty over our waters."

I would add that it can retaliate in a painful manner even very distant if some national interest is threatened anywhere.

As Israel teaches:

www.nti.org/db/submarines/israel/index.html

www.spacewar.com/reports/Israel_Buys_Upgraded_Subs_To_Counter_Iran_Threat_999.html

Ok, any intention would be "telegraphed" many months before but if you have the means, you can deter it. Other than an improbable invasion you can try to imagine a situation with a future sea power, i.e. China, with its ever growing hunger, trying to esploit energy and fish resources in the waters of exclusive interest of your nation, or nearby, denyng or hindering legitmate activities. Maybe with some intimidating action. China normally acts in a more subtle way but who knows... Anyway, there are many other powers interested to take economic and resource advantages at the spent of others sovereignity.

Oh yes, I think germans knows something about submarines...

[Glamdring]

If we are to be serious about defending NZ’s maritime sovereignty then “sea denial” by submarines seems to be the most efficient means of doing so.

The major problem for the RNZN is that they have zero experience in submarines. The RNZN would have to create all the institutions and related industries from scratch. Difficult, but I’m sure we could “hydraulic” off the RAN’s experience.

IIRC, Fmr PM Jim Bolger stated that the Russians offered some old submarines, to be operated as wharf side power plants, in exchange for New Zealand writing off their debt. Turning down elderly Soviet subs was the right move, but in light of that offer, maybe we should have asked for an Ivan Rogov class LPD instead?

Therefore, and following xkiwiforces lead, my proposed “High Seas” fleet consists of

– 1 Rogov class LPD, 3 Formidable class Frigates, 4 U209 “Dolphin” Submarines (plus an extra hull to be used as a lake based training rig), 1 Fleet Tanker, 1 Submarine Support Tanker/Tender, and some ancillary craft (Dive Tender, Survey Ship, etc).

- Increase the order of RNZAF NH90s so to replace the Seasprites.

- All Inshore craft (MFISH, RNZN, Customs, Coast Guard, Police, etc) would be rolled into the current Coast Guard*, but operating under a new mandate. This would leave the RNZN to concentrate on sea denial and supporting NZ interests in the Pacific/Tasman/Antarctic.

More importantly, I’d look to increase and reinvigorate the Navy’s reserve force (the RNZVR) by refocusing them into two roles. These being a staff/technical officer cadre (w/ a Kippenberger style Uni cadet scheme) and a pool of boarding crews (i.e. a mini marine corps).

Of lesser importance –Invite some designers to update the ratings uniforms to help boost recruiting. A friend (serving Navy electronics tech) reckons its embarrassing dressing up in the geeky “sailor suit”.

* I’d get around the statutory responsibilities of the different agencies by having the CG skippers “switch hats” depending on the situation (e.g. becoming honorary MFISH officers when undertaking MFISH ops, etc).

[Kotare]

Wouldn't it be better to form a new professional Coastguard service, rather than try and adapt the existing one, which is small, volunteer-based, and more akin to the British lifeboat service?

I like the idea about reinvigorating the RNZVR. I'd also form some units, which I'd call a Coastwatch, which would be similar in conception to Australia's Regional Force Surveillance Units. They'd carry out covert surveillance along the coastline of drug smugglers, paua poachers etc, run intelligence networks among local iwi, communities, and work closely with the RNZN, the "New Zealand Coastguard", MFish and border control agencies.

[exkiwiforces]

Peter, the Regional Force Surveillance Units are mainly Army Reserve Units linked to the Tri Service Northern Command HQ (Norcom)in Darwin. I like the way u are thinking and the need to beef up part timers back in NZ across all 3 services. Here in Oz there two main levels of Reserves Band 1, Band 2. Band 2 is more the TF and RNZVR units. Band 1 has alot more preks but u need to do 18mths fulltime service, sign up for 5yrs but you must do a min of 60-90 days (max is 180 days) and be able to deployed at short notice.

[Kotare]

I was living in Canberra around the time the Australian government brought in the Reserves Band 1 concept. A great idea, gives depth to the regular force, and a key role for the reserves, unlike NZ where the TF has been appallingly allowed to run down.

This has been a great discussion. Over the weekend I'll write a post summarizing where we've got to. If anyone else wants to add more kit to "our fleet", or has additional thoughts, please let me know in the comments or via email by Sunday.

[Glamdring]

Peter,

On a professional Coast Guard. I should have added “professional and paramilitary” in front of “mandate”. Yes, it would be better to be a new organisation.

I think by creating a "New Zealand Coast Guard" it gives the RNZN a ready means to deflect would be policy makers/politicians who wish to bog the RNZN down with a myriad of duties that generally do not require military capabilities/naval skills. Therefore turning the RNZN into a pop gun Coast Guard that hauls freight on the side.

[Kotare]

That's a strong point in favour of a dedicated coastguard. I was amazed to see that one of the navy's roles is contributing to economic and social development! I mean, whatever happened to the - no doubt dreadfully old fashioned - idea of a navy being a fighting force first and foremost?

[exkiwiforces]

Peter,

Have you seen todays news on the stuff.co.nz "Navy wages fight to pin blame for ship's flaws". From the looks of it the Navy got another "Chuck Upham"

[Kotare]

No, thanks for the heads up. My immediate reaction was, "Can't we get anything right, defence-wise?".

[exkiwiforces]

Hi, from this side of the ditch no, but they are (Labour)are doing a little bit better than the Nat's when they ran down the forces in 90's.

[Kotare]

TV3 ran a news item several weeks back which claimed that the problems are not just confined to HMNZS Canterbury, but also there are problems with the OPVs and IPVs. Will be interesting to see where that gets to.

[exkiwiforces]

Yeah mate, i've seen it slowly unfold on the Jane's Defence website at work over the last couple of weeks/ months and its not looking good for the Navy.