NZDF General discussion thread

[Gibbo]

Line of Defence Magazine - DEFSEC Media

Latest Line of Defence magazine now available.
Apologies is someone has already posted a link.

Good to see Ron Mark, Minister of Defence, including key, relevant other party MP's on his trip to the Middle East (pg 12):

"...I also had an opportunity to take Hon Andrew Little and the Chair of the Foreign Affairs, Trade and Defence select committee [Simon O’Connor] Minister: Building cross-party support and gaining reassurance in procurement Hon Ron Mark, Minister of Defence, writes that re-examining the Defence procurement programme is about avoiding rash purchases and making the right calls – and it will not affect P3 replacement. with me. One of my priorities as Minister of Defence is to build cross party support for Defence. I wanted them to be there for all my meetings and the events I attended so they could see what was going on and report back their findings to their respective caucuses".

 

[Gibbo]

It's not so much that, but she must be on the electric puha (dope) if she believes that there are no Russian illegals in the country.

Taking the easy way out by sitting on the fence with head buried in the sand... a far cry from the lead NZ took against French Nuclear testing in the 1970's by sending a Frigate towards Mururoa atoll!

 

[MrConservative]

“We have done a check in New Zealand. We don’t have Russian undeclared intelligence officers here,” New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern

Does anyone else have issues with the NZ PM discussing intelligence matters publicly?

I do. And to double down on this today in the House today was disgraceful.

Dr Paul Buchannan was particularly savage on Morning Report this morning.

 

[MrConservative]

It's not so much that, but she must be on the electric puha (dope) if she believes that there are no Russian illegals in the country.

Maybe she needs to be more careful when in the kitchen at home and check that it is icing sugar she is sprinkling on her muffins.....

Maybe "Boris" the nickname of the oppositions shadow Foreign Affairs spokesman Todd McLay is not the only Boris who Winston knows and with Winston the maxim is follow the money.

 

[Todjaeger]

It's not so much that, but she must be on the electric puha (dope) if she believes that there are no Russian illegals in the country.

People do not necessarily have to be present illegally to be a foreign agent or asset. What I wonder about is whether the Kiwi PM is naive enough to believe that Russia is "nice enough" or NZ is too remote and/or unimportant enough for Russia to not bother having agents and assets aside from the defacto intel officers from the embassy. Or whether the Kiwi gov't and security apparatus is in fact aware of who Russia has in NZ, and is officially playing dumb to possibly lull them into a false sense of security.

Unfortunately I lack enough knowledge and understanding of those involved to come to any conclusions on which way it is.

For the RNZAF, and in fact the broader NZDF as a whole, decisions need to be made about NZ policies regarding international cooperation and coordination of efforts. The US is working hard on developing CEC, which as I understand it would involve data exchange between assets on a level beyond what Link 16 is capable of, so that sea, air, and eventually land forces can have a common operating picture. Australia is also interested in this system, so that Australian assets can seamlessly slot into and operate alongside US task forces. NZ needs to consider whether the NZDF wants or needs to be able to cooperate and coordinate to this degree. IMO though, if NZ does not opt to pursue opportunities to slot in, then NZ forces will likely lose opportunities to operate alongside US and Oz forces in the future. OTOH if NZ does decide that such a capability would be good to have, then that would almost certainly impact procurement decisions, since the US is developing CEC for and on their systems, and would likely limit outside access to develop a CEC plug-in, plus the cost to develop the plug-in.

As a sort of follow-on to something I brought up in the RNZAF thread regarding potential replacements for the P-3K2 Orions, NZ needs to start looking at who the NZDF will want to deploy alongside, and what capabilities will be needed for interoperability.

I say that because aside from the US which is further expanding an already formidable sensor footprint, NZ's traditional ally Australia is also expanding their sensor footprint, and both nations seem to be working to also expand their ability seamlessly share sensor data to increase the distribution and accuracy of the common battlespace operating picture.

From my POV, NZ has four different potential paths available in the near to medium-term, which will in turn impact long-term capabilities (and likely international relationships). These are:

1. Advanced sensing capabilities & advanced comms/datalinks
2. Advanced sensing capabilities & regular/existing (or lower, and/or not leaving paths for future upgrades) comms/datalinks
3. Existing/MOTS (or lower) sensing capabilities & advanced comms/datalinks
4. Existing/MOTS (or lower) sensing capabilities & regular/existing (or lower, and/or not leaving paths for future upgrades) comms/datalinks

Now if key drivers for the NZDF are cost and suitability for civil missions, then option 4 would likely be 'best', and this seems to have been the path the NZDF has largely taken for the last 15 years or so. This would likely be low cost (in financial terms) however continuing to follow this path could very well leave NZ with assets that are unsuitable to deploy alongside US and/or Oz assets with the Kiwi forces being considered liabilities in the event of hostile action, with sensors unable to capture the information needed about the battlespace, and comms/datalink systems unable to send or receive needed battlespace information.

Now I suspect option 1 would enable the NZDF to continue operating alongside traditional allies (at least in an EW/SA way) but I also suspect this path would have a higher cost than other options which others would balk at. Especially those more interested in the NZDF supporting civil missions.

My personal belief is that if NZ follows a path other then option 1 (not all NZDF assets would need to follow option 1 btw), in addition to NZ having a reduced platform and overall system capability, NZ's importance to allies would be diminished with a corresponding decrease in influence. I would be interested in the thoughts of others on this, both on whether these scenarios would be accurate, and if people feel such an outcome would be important or matter to NZ, and why.

 

[John Fedup]

It's not so much that, but she must be on the electric puha (dope) if she believes that there are no Russian illegals in the country.

If she is trying to win the "stupid PM" title away from junior, she has a long way to go. Can hardly wait to see my tax dollars wasted on junior's eventual foreign visit (vacation) to NZ at some point. Perhaps they can discuss defence minimization for enhanced socialist expenditures.

 

[MrConservative]

Or whether the Kiwi gov't and security apparatus is in fact aware of who Russia has in NZ, and is officially playing dumb to possibly lull them into a false sense of security.

New Zealand called an international laughing stock over lack of spies

The security and intelligence services I would say are struggling with a young PM who for her knowledge, experience and qualifications should only be employed by the state as a middle school teacher and not a Prime Minister.

I don't think many people under stand how close the 2017 election was under MMP. If the Maori Party (who were with ACT support parties in the Key-English Govt of 2008-2017) had held it party leaders seat and not lost by 1200 votes in that electorate and had managed to get another 1200 votes spread nationally on the Party vote then they would have kept 2 MP's. Under St Leger system of vote distribution National would have gained a seat and Labour or the Greens would have lost one - reversing what happened to Nicola Willis. National-ACT-Maori Party would have had enough to form a Government. The Labour-Green block would have only managed 51 out of 120 seats - even with NZ First on 9 seats it would not be enough. National would have done what they did in 1996 and offer the Speakership to a senior Labour or NZ First MP - Like Mallard or even Winston Peters.

As a sort of follow-on to something I brought up in the RNZAF thread regarding potential replacements for the P-3K2 Orions, NZ needs to start looking at who the NZDF will want to deploy alongside, and what capabilities will be needed for interoperability.

I say that because aside from the US which is further expanding an already formidable sensor footprint, NZ's traditional ally Australia is also expanding their sensor footprint, and both nations seem to be working to also expand their ability seamlessly share sensor data to increase the distribution and accuracy of the common battlespace operating picture.

From my POV, NZ has four different potential paths available in the near to medium-term, which will in turn impact long-term capabilities (and likely international relationships). These are:

1. Advanced sensing capabilities & advanced comms/datalinks
2. Advanced sensing capabilities & regular/existing (or lower, and/or not leaving paths for future upgrades) comms/datalinks
3. Existing/MOTS (or lower) sensing capabilities & advanced comms/datalinks
4. Existing/MOTS (or lower) sensing capabilities & regular/existing (or lower, and/or not leaving paths for future upgrades) comms/datalinks

Now I suspect option 1 would enable the NZDF to continue operating alongside traditional allies (at least in an EW/SA way) but I also suspect this path would have a higher cost than other options which others would balk at. Especially those more interested in the NZDF supporting civil missions.

My personal belief is that if NZ follows a path other then option 1 (not all NZDF assets would need to follow option 1 btw), in addition to NZ having a reduced platform and overall system capability, NZ's importance to allies would be diminished with a corresponding decrease in influence. I would be interested in the thoughts of others on this, both on whether these scenarios would be accurate, and if people feel such an outcome would be important or matter to NZ, and why.

I hope they are not wrong but two opposition members I am friendly with consider that the review over the P-8A is simply window dressing by the DefMin Ron Mark and is all about 'selling' the capability to the soft left within Labour. That as a government they have to be seen to revisit it and that its additional cost is worth it.

A week is a long time in politics - and I would not lock in the current government as stable and having policies that cannot be undone. Short term damage but repairable. The officials will send 'just bear with us - normal transmission will eventually resume' signals to their partners abroad.

I would also note that the majority of the top 20 positions of the current opposition are more defence traditionalists than the transactionalist-managerialist former Key-English government as the three main influencing protagonists are gone. I believe that will be reflected next time they get the opportunity to govern.

 

[MARKMILES77]

Peter Jennings of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has an article in the Australian newspaper Today titled:

Leninists with nukes pose new risks to global peace


It discusses the rise of old style dictatorships in China, Russia, North Korea etc and also what Western countries should do about it.
Of relevance to this New Zealand thread Peter proposes a number of steps to counter this rise.
Step 2 is of particular relevance to New Zealand:

 

[Ocean1Curse]

Peter Jennings of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has an article in the Australian newspaper Today titled:

Leninists with nukes pose new risks to global peace


It discusses the rise of old style dictatorships in China, Russia, North Korea etc and also what Western countries should do about it.
Of relevance to this New Zealand thread Peter proposes a number of steps to counter this rise.
Step 2 is of particular relevance to New Zealand:
View attachment 45768

Being a true believer is not a very good attitude to have. True believers can definitely make out creepy and convincing plot armour. When Skriples, his daughter and officer Bailey make what appears to be full recoveries from what is claimed by Theresa May and the Wonderful Boris Johnson claiming military grade neuro toxins was used on UK soil and the victims make full recoveries. You have to ask what have y'all been smoking. What was this supposed chemical weapon any way? Garlic? because y'all truly believe in the strength of Boris Johnson's claims y'all must think there's a fate worse than a Russian nuclear counter strike, it's both tragic and amazing.

 

[Todjaeger]

Being a true believer is not a very good attitude to have. True believers can definitely make out creepy and convincing plot armour. When Skriples, his daughter and officer Bailey make what appears to be full recoveries from what is claimed by Theresa May and the Wonderful Boris Johnson claiming military grade neuro toxins was used on UK soil and the victims make full recoveries. You have to ask what have y'all been smoking. What was this supposed chemical weapon any way? Garlic? because y'all truly believe in the strength of Boris Johnson's claims y'all must think there's a fate worse than a Russian nuclear counter strike, it's both tragic and amazing.

You might want to carefully re-think what you have posted, as there appears to be little to no basis for it at the present time.

So far, it appears Yulia Skripal's condition was upgraded to stable condition, but was still under 24 hour care as of yesterday. That is well short of having recovered sufficiently to be released from hospital, never mind a "full recovery". I have not come across anything else which indicates that Sergei Skripal's condition has improved. Similarly, while Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey has been discharged from hospital, he has been quoted by the BBC as saying;

"normal life for me will probably never be the same"

Which is not too surprising, given that survivors of exposure to nerve agents often suffer from develop neurological deficits as a result.

Similarly, articles are stating that the source was a nerve agent, which is very different from a neurotoxin. Sarin is an example of a nerve agent, while lead is an example of a neurotoxin. Given that it has been over three weeks since the incident, and the fact that at least two police officers were sickened after contact exposure (Nick Bailey being the worst effected) as well as the different types of impact nerve agents have vs. neurotoxins and how tests can tell the difference, you might want to reconsider both you position and approach. Nothing has come out stating that any of the four patients have made a full recovery, never mind all four making a full recovery.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

You might want to carefully re-think what you have posted, as there appears to be little to no basis for it at the present time.

So far, it appears Yulia Skripal's condition was upgraded to stable condition, but was still under 24 hour care as of yesterday. That is well short of having recovered sufficiently to be released from hospital, never mind a "full recovery". I have not come across anything else which indicates that Sergei Skripal's condition has improved. Similarly, while Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey has been discharged from hospital, he has been quoted by the BBC as saying;



Which is not too surprising, given that survivors of exposure to nerve agents often suffer from develop neurological deficits as a result.

Similarly, articles are stating that the source was a nerve agent, which is very different from a neurotoxin. Sarin is an example of a nerve agent, while lead is an example of a neurotoxin. Given that it has been over three weeks since the incident, and the fact that at least two police officers were sickened after contact exposure (Nick Bailey being the worst effected) as well as the different types of impact nerve agents have vs. neurotoxins and how tests can tell the difference, you might want to reconsider both you position and approach. Nothing has come out stating that any of the four patients have made a full recovery, never mind all four making a full recovery.

When it's believed that the point of inffection was Skriples front door. Who would have then gone on to dinner with his daughter for the next hour or two. And then goes on a leisurely 1/2hr walk after dinner. Well I'm not taking your word for any of this. I'm I'm sure as hell not going to believe the UK found evidence of WMDs community. Period. Like I said. Being a true believer is a bad attitude to have.

 

[Todjaeger]

When it's believed that the point of inffection was Skriples front door. Who would have then gone on to dinner with his daughter for the next hour or two. And then goes on a leisurely 1/2hr walk after dinner.

I am assuming you meant infection when you typed inffection. If that is the case, please put the effort in to learn what different terms mean, and use them correctly.

An infection would be from a bacterial or viral source, which is something completely different from exposure to a nerve agent or as you previously described, a neurotoxin.

Well I'm not taking your word for any of this. I'm I'm sure as hell not going to believe the UK found evidence of WMDs community. Period. Like I said. Being a true believer is a bad attitude to have.

You do not have to take my word for it. Nor have I stated what was used, I have merely stated that what has been reported was a nerve agent, not a neurotoxin, or microorganism. However, stating that you will not believe it was a WMD (as a chemical weapon or nerve agent would imply), period, would strongly suggest that you are a "true believer", just without offering any evidence to support your beliefs.

Given what has been reported so far in the press (and what has not been reported) then one would expect either evidence to be provided to support contrary claims (like everyone has made a full recovery), or at least some demonstrated knowledge or expertise which could support such contrary claims. Making a claim which disputes public information without either evidence or expertise is more in line with fringe conspiracy theories and does not belong here.

As a point of information, patients exposed to nerve agents and similar categories of chemicals have certain fairly specific symptoms, and also there a some similarly specific types of treatment. AFAIK neither the symptoms or the courses of treatment for those who were exposed have been made public, or even the route of exposure for that matter. All of these things would point what the cause of the patient's condition was, even before an OPCW team got to test samples for the presence of nerve agents, which has either already happened or is in the process of happening now.

As for the timeline, while I have not come across that specific timeline, my response would be, "so what?" Depending on the nerve agent, the route of exposure, and the quantity which the victims came into contact with, the time before onset of symptoms, and the severity of those symptoms can very. This is also something which can be checked by reading the relevant portions of current medical textbooks.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

I am assuming you meant infection when you typed inffection. If that is the case, please put the effort in to learn what different terms mean, and use them correctly.

An infection would be from a bacterial or viral source, which is something completely different from exposure to a nerve agent or as you previously described, a neurotoxin.



You do not have to take my word for it. Nor have I stated what was used, I have merely stated that what has been reported was a nerve agent, not a neurotoxin, or microorganism. However, stating that you will not believe it was a WMD (as a chemical weapon or nerve agent would imply), period, would strongly suggest that you are a "true believer", just without offering any evidence to support your beliefs.

Given what has been reported so far in the press (and what has not been reported) then one would expect either evidence to be provided to support contrary claims (like everyone has made a full recovery), or at least some demonstrated knowledge or expertise which could support such contrary claims. Making a claim which disputes public information without either evidence or expertise is more in line with fringe conspiracy theories and does not belong here.

As a point of information, patients exposed to nerve agents and similar categories of chemicals have certain fairly specific symptoms, and also there a some similarly specific types of treatment. AFAIK neither the symptoms or the courses of treatment for those who were exposed have been made public, or even the route of exposure for that matter. All of these things would point what the cause of the patient's condition was, even before an OPCW team got to test samples for the presence of nerve agents, which has either already happened or is in the process of happening now.

As for the timeline, while I have not come across that specific timeline, my response would be, "so what?" Depending on the nerve agent, the route of exposure, and the quantity which the victims came into contact with, the time before onset of symptoms, and the severity of those symptoms can very. This is also something which can be checked by reading the relevant portions of current medical textbooks.

Nah that's it. I give. You win.

What I took acception to was people saying New Zealand was acting funny to fulfil politcool agenda. Now that I'v said my peace I'll hand it over to the community to be the judge.

 

[ngatimozart]

Play nice please people. We'll leave the politics and personal invective outside.

 

[ngatimozart]

I've moved all the recent posts regarding the Pacific Islands to a dedicated thread. Just housekeeping.

 

[KiwiRob]

Nah that's it. I give. You win.

What I took acception to was people saying New Zealand was acting funny to fulfil politcool agenda. Now that I'v said my peace I'll hand it over to the community to be the judge.

I tend to agree with you, if the Russian govt wanted these people dead, they would be dead and I doubt they would have used chemical weapons to accomplish it, it doesn't wash with me that this would be how the Russians would do it.

 

[MrConservative]

Lets get this thread back on topic folks. NZDF related only.

 

[t68]

An interesting idea for NZ to get back into the strike game without all the expense of manned aircraft, predominantly they would be used for CAS/overwatch considering that the UK bought in late 2016 16x aircraft and supporting kit for a USD 1B.

 

[ngatimozart]

An interesting idea for NZ to get back into the strike game without all the expense of manned aircraft, predominantly they would be used for CAS/overwatch considering that the UK bought in late 2016 16x aircraft and supporting kit for a USD 1B.

Where be the link?

 

[Rob c]

An interesting idea for NZ to get back into the strike game without all the expense of manned aircraft, predominantly they would be used for CAS/overwatch considering that the UK bought in late 2016 16x aircraft and supporting kit for a USD 1B.

Some more information or a link would make this understandable. For example what is the interesting idea.