NZDF General discussion thread

kiwipatriot69 said:
I was thinking more too on how China might feel about RNZN, RNZAF patrols we normally do in the area if/when that occurs. They could effectively kick us out, leaving fiji free riegn to do as they will against rival lesser equiped nations like tonga,samoa ect.
Click to expand...

KP Fiji are a sovereign nation they are free to choose relationships with whoever they wish, this is more a failure of NZ foreign policy towards Fiji than anything else, China is not going to expend its Military hardware in Fiji knowing full well that it can be fully isolated and cut off by the USN. Finally you have not taken into account that Fiji & Tonga share the same Royal Bloodlines might not mean alot to you or anyone else but it means the World to those two Countries. Soft power has and always will be the greatest tool MFAT as part of NZ Govt must use more wisely than blindly following the lead of Australia DFA&T hard line stance.
 
A Chinese base in Fiji could potentially put us in a very difficult spot.

Right now AU/NZ/FR are the only major players in the South Pacific, this works well for us.

If the Chinese participated in NZ/AU/FR humanitarian and please keeping missions in the Pacific, while keeping Fiji on a tight leash then I don't think there would be any issues.

But if the Chinese took a tact like they are taking in the SCS, encouraging Fijian expansionism and island disputes, while forcing other pacific nations to choose between 'us or them', NZ would be in a very difficult spot.

New Zealand's trade relationship with China makes us vulnerable, they have the power to cut off trade with us, which would have a much worse affect for us than it would for them.

Right now the lack of ability to defend our airspace is largely irrelevant, the only way for a non-friendly nation to get aircraft combat radius in range of New Zealand would be with a large air to air refueling operation or an aircraft carrier, both of which we would have plenty of warning for. However with a Chinese base in Fiji they could fly to Auckland in three hours. To the best of my knowledge we have no effective way to intercept or shoot down an aircraft that can out run the NH90's. They could fly jets over Auckland and return without a scratch.

All I can conclude from this is that if the Chinese started basing aircraft in Fiji we would need to take a serious look at our air defense resources.

I guess that the only cost effective method for covering all of NZ's airspace is jets rather than a ground based system?

From what I can tell some parts of the coast are not even covered by primary radar, I'm not saying that China will invade, but we would be very vulnerable in this situation.
 
Fiji is an interesting case. History of coups, military govt vs more civil society orientated actors, ethnic Fijians vs Fijian Indian population, Fiji now officially being 'democratic' while jailing opposition figures for discussing the constitution. Resort for wealthy Western tourists.

I aggree with CD, Fijis recent 'look North' focus is a result of diplomatic failure on NZ/Aus part.

Fiji has a history of sending lots of its soldiers on overseas peacekeeping missions
Fiji’s Military Regime Deploys More Personnel To UN Ops Than Australia, Canada, New Zealand Combined « 36th Parallel Assessments Ltd (NZ)
As well as the Russian arms shipment (and any further arms shipments) we may see Fijian forces being trained by Chinese/Russian forces.

Sam Ws scenarios are worst case scenarios and a few years away if they happen. But given Fijis record on human rights etc, we should be prepared to intervene if something dire happened. Not talking of disaster relief. The JATF should not merely be for HADR.
 
Agreed, i dont believe China would attack Nz directly, just effectively block us from going anywhere near a potential base near fiji for 'security reasons' disrupt our peacekeeping with other island nations,and additional tensions in the SCS isnt helping us either.As we know for some time China and Russia has been giving military aid, and Fiji HAS been guilty of bullying its neighbours in the past.

I would like NZ army at least to get Camm L ,Sea ceptor version for land as air defence screen to replace mistral, would be easier and cheaper than jets, and common to Navy systems and trucks we have or are getting. And yes, either a Lpd of a similar size in addition to what we have with Canterbury now, or a bigger Lhd type even, maybe enough to ship a battalion or so.
 
I should have read these latest posts before responding to the NZ Air Force thread concerning AT6's as these relations may change the need for additional and better resources. I agree that there is no direct aerial threat at this time but even the remote chance of SU 35 type aircraft forward deployed to Fiji will change the balance of peer in the South Pacific.

An LHD to replace Canterbury is a great idea. I doubt that NZ would support a vessel of such size as Canberra but maybe something like the new Algerian LHD with Sea Ceptor would provide a flexible option. Even better would be two of them.
 
I would of thought thought so too, we would never see a ship the size of Canberra in service, mind you the size of the new Navy tanker we are purchasing is 24,000 tonnes to Canberras 27,000, and a similar length.

So i dont see why not a LHD even say half that troop capacity say 500 with a similar lift and helo capability to what we have now, but better armed. I agree, i do think we need airstrike capability with ISR capability in addition to P8, and Texan AT6 in light attack configuration certainly would be affordable and easier to integrate with our current ones.
 
kiwipatriot69 said:
So i dont see why not a LHD even say half that troop capacity say 500 with a similar lift and helo capability to what we have now, but better armed. I agree, i do think we need airstrike capability with ISR capability in addition to P8, and Texan AT6 in light attack configuration certainly would be affordable and easier to integrate with our current ones.
Click to expand...
So are you suggesting a Lockheed jump jet to fly off our new LHD? :D
 
That would be a fantasy, wouldnt it? Even the aussie ones cant deploy F35,anyway. Wouldnt want our budget eaten away on fast jets, let alone 100 odd million usd ones! Nor am i entertaining invading Fiji without at least aussie helping, and only if the situation deems it absolutley needed.

Just saying a JATF like we are supposed to have by 2020 according to RNZN ,well we lack enough available frigates to provide protection for such as is, HMNZS Canterbury carrys too few soldiers and armour to significantly contribute, and soon we wont even have Endeavour, once she is decomissioned.

Such a 'invasion' mission would need RAAF tigers , on thier LHDs, and Frankly i have my doubts we will get a third frigate, let alone 4, and with the kermadecs being declared a protected reserve well we will have to have more than a third opv to cover our patrols, arent we?
 
kiwipatriot69 said:
That would be a fantasy, wouldnt it? Even the aussie ones cant deploy F35,anyway. Wouldnt want our budget eaten away on fast jets, let alone 100 odd million usd ones! Nor am i entertaining invading Fiji without at least aussie helping, and only if the situation deems it absolutley needed.

Just saying a JATF like we are supposed to have by 2020 according to RNZN ,well we lack enough available frigates to provide protection for such as is, HMNZS Canterbury carrys too few soldiers and armour to significantly contribute, and soon we wont even have Endeavour, once she is decomissioned.

Such a 'invasion' mission would need RAAF tigers , on thier LHDs, and Frankly i have my doubts we will get a third frigate, let alone 4, and with the kermadecs being declared a protected reserve well we will have to have more than a third opv to cover our patrols, arent we?
Click to expand...
The RAAF don't operate the Tiger ARH - they are Australian Army owned and operated. The Tigers days in Australian colours are numbered and we really don't want them either for precisely the same reasons the Australians are deep sixing them. Expensive to operate and don't operate as advertised.
 
Novascotiaboy said:
I agree that there is no direct aerial threat at this time but even the remote chance of SU 35 type aircraft forward deployed to Fiji will change the balance of peer in the South Pacific.
Click to expand...

^^ This scenario might be the wakeup call the NZG needs to boost defence funding. Given Chinas activity in SCS I could see this happening if we question their steel quality/human rights record again (oh wait, Key doesnt do that, the Chinese are great) or side with any of their SCS rivals/the US in any dispute. Or at the invitation of Fiji if we question their democracy.
 
kiwi in exile said:
^^ This scenario might be the wakeup call the NZG needs to boost defence funding. Given Chinas activity in SCS I could see this happening if we question their steel quality/human rights record again (oh wait, Key doesnt do that, the Chinese are great) or side with any of their SCS rivals/the US in any dispute. Or at the invitation of Fiji if we question their democracy.
Click to expand...
Keep the politics out of the discussion please. :) Yes I appreciate that it's a fine line.
 
You never know , if China uses the same shoddy materials and production values in their military planes and vessels, it might work in our favour :]
 
kiwi in exile said:
^^ This scenario might be the wakeup call the NZG needs to boost defence funding. Given Chinas activity in SCS I could see this happening if we question their steel quality/human rights record again (oh wait, Key doesnt do that, the Chinese are great) or side with any of their SCS rivals/the US in any dispute. Or at the invitation of Fiji if we question their democracy.
Click to expand...

Kiwi take a look at a map of the Pacific now factor in the SLOC from Fiji to China what do you see? in between are US islands and major bases that can easily cut that SLOC by Naval Blockade dont forget America Samoa is east of Fiji that could very easily become a forward base of the USN mate Transnational Crime & Terrorism are a higher area of concern to NZ than China potentially building a base in Fiji.
 
On Friday 23/9 I emailed the Ministry of Defence regarding the lack of updating on their website regarding acquisitions. Today they replied informing me that they are upgrading their website and that they will update all the project information pages as part of the upgrade. They expect it to go live shortly. They said that if had any information would like to know before the upgrade goes live, email them. Good ups to them for their prompt reply.
 
ngatimozart said:
On Friday 23/9 I emailed the Ministry of Defence regarding the lack of updating on their website regarding acquisitions. Today they replied informing me that they are upgrading their website and that they will update all the project information pages as part of the upgrade. They expect it to go live shortly. They said that if had any information would like to know before the upgrade goes live, email them. Good ups to them for their prompt reply.
Click to expand...

No sign of it going live yet, but that is par for the course with public sector IT projects. Good to know they are at least trying.

On the old unimproved website, they have just posted this report looking at recruitment. It (cleverly, I thought) tracked all applicants from a six-month period and looked at how many made it through. I've only skimmed it so far, but it appears the application process is rather drawn-out and repetitive, and women and ethnic minorities have higher drop-out and failure rates.

Recruitment Barriers and Opportunities for Military Candidates [Ministry of Defence NZ]
 
Last edited:
http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/reports-publications/soi-2016.pdf

Also from the website, I've been having a look at the MinDef's Statement of Intent 2016-2020.

Setting aside all the management jargon and optimism, the key fact is probably that the Ministry head count increases from 70 to 120 between now and 2020, and funding increases from $11.2 million to $19.8 million.

A lot of this additional resource is going into procurement, as a result of the 'once in a generation' procurement projects that need to be carried out. There is also an ambition to reduce the time taken to develop business cases and get them approved from 18 months to 12 months. This (and more) will certainly be needed if the ambition to have the LOSC and the third OPV delivered in 2020 has any chance of being achieved.

Not an exciting read, but interesting background. It also reminded me that an updated Defence Capability Plan has been promised for 2016 - it will be interesting to see if this deadline can be met, it whether it will go the way of the DWP and drift into the following year?
 
Last edited:
This post is NZ-themed, but could equally go in the South China Sea thread.

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/minister-attending-xiangshan-forum-beijing

Firstly, Minister Brownlee is at security talks in China.

Interference increases tensions in South China Sea, Brownlee told - Politics - NZ Herald News

Reuters apparently describes China's comments following Brownlee's speech as a 'rebuke'. The Chinese are certainly keen to deter anyone from commenting on their actions in the South China Sea.

Responding to new Asia-Pacific security challenges | Scoop News

Finally, Scoop has a Brownlee release that isn't on the Beehive website despite being dated yesterday. That's a little odd. Looking at the release, it's the text of Brownlee's speech that (supposedly) attracted Chinese criticism. No startling departure from previous NZ statements on the SCS, but he retains the criticism of construction activities in disputed territory and (sort of) endorses the validity of the Arbitration Tribunal ruling sought by the Philippines.
 
Interesting piece on The Diplomat blog this morning (link) regarding NZ - US relations. Haven't heard of the author before - presumably he's Australian. It doesn't read like it is a NZ perspective.

Re: the US Navy visit: I don't think the event carries as much significance as he implies. Most New Zealanders are probably ambivalent at best, though some will be excited at the chance to tour a US warship. The USN has suggested that at this stage it is a one-off. The danger is that every anti-establishment wacko in the country will see it as a prime opportunity to 'stick it to the man'.

Personally, I'm happy the USN is sending a ship. However, I'd be OK if they had decided not to. I think a greater snub will be if the Royal Navy fails to front up with a ship, given the historical importance of the RN to the RNZN, and the country as a whole.
 
chis73 said:
Interesting piece on The Diplomat blog this morning (link) regarding NZ - US relations. Haven't heard of the author before - presumably he's Australian. It doesn't read like it is a NZ perspective.
...

Personally, I'm happy the USN is sending a ship. However, I'd be OK if they had decided not to. I think a greater snub will be if the Royal Navy fails to front up with a ship, given the historical importance of the RN to the RNZN, and the country as a whole.
Click to expand...

Given the greatly diminished size of the RN, the question is whether they have a ship available to send. As per the Navy thread, I think the icebreaker/antarctic support ship HMS Protector is the only possible vessel in this neck of the woods.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11729230
Back to the South China Sea, the NZ Herald editorialises in support of Minister Brownlee's speech in China on the SCS dispute.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top