Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Given the recent meeting between the Australian and New Zealand Cabinets on Friday the 21st and the mention of possibly creating a Joint HQ and/or joint force, what do various members think of this?
I personally am of two minds about this.
From a historical perspective, Australia and New Zealand do have a long and proud history of serving alongside one another as well as sharing a common heritage and similar values.
Also, by the two countries working in concert, they can achieve more than either working separately, the sum of the parts being less than the sum of the whole.
On the other hand though, I can also forsee where in some situations, trying to have a joint or common force, could cause one (or both) nations to have a force less capable than it would otherwise if it was acting independently.
From an ADF perspective it would seem that the inclusion of NZDF personnel and equipment would boost the numbers available for deployment and operations. Also it could mean that ADF personnel could be posted to, or able to operate from, NZDF bases. However, given the smaller size of the NZDF (~20% that of ADF) the inclusion in terms of numbers might not be very significant.
From an NZDF perspective, the inclusion of ADF personnel could allow a far more capable (and sustainable) force to formed than the NZDF is currently capable of doing on its own. Additionally, due to the larger size and greater budget, the ADF could also include special capabilities that are either very limited, or just outright unavailable within the NZDF.
As I mentioned above, I can also forsee several problems with trying to form and/or use a Joint ADF/NZDF force, which then makes me question whether trying to do so is a good idea. Below I will try and explain some of my concerns.
In trying to for some sort of joint force to boost effectiveness or prevent a duplication of efforts by Australia and New Zealand, it could end up that one side or the other begins to occupy some 'niches' within the joint force. There is actually historical precedent for this both happening, and being a cause for concern.
Prior to the disbandment of the ACF within the RNZAF, the A-4 Skyhawks fufilled two roles within the A-NZ portion of the ANZUS pact. These roles were a training role as an OpFor for the ADF as well as a highly capable maritime strike role. When the Skyhawks were decommissioned without replacement, it left a 'hole' as it were within the RAAF/ADF OrBat because Australia had come to rely on New Zealand to provide the equipment and personnel for those roles. The capability shortfall has since been made up within the RAAF but as I understand it there was (and perhaps still is to a degree) some unhappiness how the NZ decision to cut the ACF impacted Australia.
A second area of concern is the impact differences in foreign policy will have on any joint force in terms of availability for operations. If both countries do not agree regarding a mission or involvement in an an area or conflict, would the joint force not be available? Or, would just the forces belonging to one nation or another be available for use? Similarly, would the absence of the other nations' joint force detachment cause the mission to fail, or suffer in terms of efficiency and/or casualties? This question arises because of the ballyhoo that occurred within New Zealand when it was revealed that Air New Zealand was doing charter work for the ADF to Iraq. As I recall, there were comments made by various members of the government of the time to the effect that Air New Zealand should not have been doing charter work there without permission of the NZ government, etc.
Again as I recall, this then led to statements by the ADF that it would not in the future use Air New Zealand for charter work since the ADF felt it could no longer rely on Air New Zealand being able to continue providing the charter flights.
The third area of concern I have is with regards to the disparities between the ADF and NZDF in terms of funding and equipment. Given the differences in size between the two countries populations and economies, it is not at all surprising that the NZDF budget and assets are smaller than that of the ADF. Of greater concern though is the difference in budgetary allocation relative to size, and the effect this difference has on the kit available for deployment. Take for instance the RAN and RNZN surface combatants. The RAN has roughly a dozen frigates total, of two different classes. RAN frigates are capable of self-protection, with some having the ability to provide escort services and limited air defence, while others are able to provide shore bombardment. Additional there are comprehensive programmes in place to add on or expand capabilities to the vessels, like AShM, if the do not already possess it. RNZN frigates on the other hand, are not (IMO) capable of self-escort in high threat environments even though they are of the same class as one of the RAN frigate classes. This is due to the fact that certain capability upgrades have not been done on RNZN frigates as of yet. While there is a set of upgrades expected for the RNZN frigates, it has yet to be announced whether or not there will also be an expansion of RNZN frigate capabilites. Until that upgrade has been done, it would not be reasonable (again, IMO) to have a RNZN vessel replace a RAN vessel in threat environment.
These concerns listed and others make me question whether or not forming a joint force is a good idea, for either Australia or New Zealand. While the details of just such a force have not been revealed, or how it would be used or deployed, I can foresee situations where the joint force is disbanded by one nation or the other as the two historically close nations are driven apart by differences in viewpoint of usage of just such a force.
I welcome the thoughts of others on this matter.
-Cheers
I personally am of two minds about this.
From a historical perspective, Australia and New Zealand do have a long and proud history of serving alongside one another as well as sharing a common heritage and similar values.
Also, by the two countries working in concert, they can achieve more than either working separately, the sum of the parts being less than the sum of the whole.
On the other hand though, I can also forsee where in some situations, trying to have a joint or common force, could cause one (or both) nations to have a force less capable than it would otherwise if it was acting independently.
From an ADF perspective it would seem that the inclusion of NZDF personnel and equipment would boost the numbers available for deployment and operations. Also it could mean that ADF personnel could be posted to, or able to operate from, NZDF bases. However, given the smaller size of the NZDF (~20% that of ADF) the inclusion in terms of numbers might not be very significant.
From an NZDF perspective, the inclusion of ADF personnel could allow a far more capable (and sustainable) force to formed than the NZDF is currently capable of doing on its own. Additionally, due to the larger size and greater budget, the ADF could also include special capabilities that are either very limited, or just outright unavailable within the NZDF.
As I mentioned above, I can also forsee several problems with trying to form and/or use a Joint ADF/NZDF force, which then makes me question whether trying to do so is a good idea. Below I will try and explain some of my concerns.
In trying to for some sort of joint force to boost effectiveness or prevent a duplication of efforts by Australia and New Zealand, it could end up that one side or the other begins to occupy some 'niches' within the joint force. There is actually historical precedent for this both happening, and being a cause for concern.
Prior to the disbandment of the ACF within the RNZAF, the A-4 Skyhawks fufilled two roles within the A-NZ portion of the ANZUS pact. These roles were a training role as an OpFor for the ADF as well as a highly capable maritime strike role. When the Skyhawks were decommissioned without replacement, it left a 'hole' as it were within the RAAF/ADF OrBat because Australia had come to rely on New Zealand to provide the equipment and personnel for those roles. The capability shortfall has since been made up within the RAAF but as I understand it there was (and perhaps still is to a degree) some unhappiness how the NZ decision to cut the ACF impacted Australia.
A second area of concern is the impact differences in foreign policy will have on any joint force in terms of availability for operations. If both countries do not agree regarding a mission or involvement in an an area or conflict, would the joint force not be available? Or, would just the forces belonging to one nation or another be available for use? Similarly, would the absence of the other nations' joint force detachment cause the mission to fail, or suffer in terms of efficiency and/or casualties? This question arises because of the ballyhoo that occurred within New Zealand when it was revealed that Air New Zealand was doing charter work for the ADF to Iraq. As I recall, there were comments made by various members of the government of the time to the effect that Air New Zealand should not have been doing charter work there without permission of the NZ government, etc.
Again as I recall, this then led to statements by the ADF that it would not in the future use Air New Zealand for charter work since the ADF felt it could no longer rely on Air New Zealand being able to continue providing the charter flights.
The third area of concern I have is with regards to the disparities between the ADF and NZDF in terms of funding and equipment. Given the differences in size between the two countries populations and economies, it is not at all surprising that the NZDF budget and assets are smaller than that of the ADF. Of greater concern though is the difference in budgetary allocation relative to size, and the effect this difference has on the kit available for deployment. Take for instance the RAN and RNZN surface combatants. The RAN has roughly a dozen frigates total, of two different classes. RAN frigates are capable of self-protection, with some having the ability to provide escort services and limited air defence, while others are able to provide shore bombardment. Additional there are comprehensive programmes in place to add on or expand capabilities to the vessels, like AShM, if the do not already possess it. RNZN frigates on the other hand, are not (IMO) capable of self-escort in high threat environments even though they are of the same class as one of the RAN frigate classes. This is due to the fact that certain capability upgrades have not been done on RNZN frigates as of yet. While there is a set of upgrades expected for the RNZN frigates, it has yet to be announced whether or not there will also be an expansion of RNZN frigate capabilites. Until that upgrade has been done, it would not be reasonable (again, IMO) to have a RNZN vessel replace a RAN vessel in threat environment.
These concerns listed and others make me question whether or not forming a joint force is a good idea, for either Australia or New Zealand. While the details of just such a force have not been revealed, or how it would be used or deployed, I can foresee situations where the joint force is disbanded by one nation or the other as the two historically close nations are driven apart by differences in viewpoint of usage of just such a force.
I welcome the thoughts of others on this matter.
-Cheers
To my way of thinking, a common ship design capable of RAS would need to be selected, that way regardless of which vessel was used, the ship could resupply RAN or RNZN vessels with food, fuel, munitions, etc. Does this sound viable to others?
