NZDF General discussion thread

[MrConservative]

I’d dispute that.
Whilst both shouldve adressed the issue, its the utilmate responsibility of Australia as the inevitable senior(bigger) partner to embrace its smaller friends contribution.

Frozen out of any sense of relevance in the bigger picture, successive NZGs contracted their views from significant post war defence capability to a more introverted understanding of their expectations. Is it even surprising that the population & Govt subsequently lost defence focus?
Of course there was a strong argument to cut funding.

If we had (for the want of a better term) an ANZAC type regional NATO arrangement, then there would have been a more strategic mission for the NZDF, they would now look very different to what they are today.

.....anyway, im obviously passionate about this.
Thats my $10 worth.
Cheers.

Todj's right. Australia has no responsibility for what demographically elected countries do other than itself. It is fantastical that they could have done something about it or somehow influence the then Clarke government in that 1999 period onwards with out scoring an own goal. Its not America and even then many of those politicians on the left in that period had an animus toward ANZUS and believed in the worldview that we were the virtuous middle earth, the beacon of progressive enlightenment who by setting a good example to the world other nations would be inspired to lay down those petty weapons of war and destruction and work with us in shaping a world equitably filled of social justice where every woman gets to lead. Oz just had to take this puke inducing BS on the chin and modernise its combat capabilities and patiently wait with an eventual I told you so.

 

[MrConservative]

In the early 1980's I (at the time an Australian Serviceman) became much involved with the NZ armed forces through marrying one of them, who had two cousins then serving in the RNZN. I was back and forth often and it was notable even in 1981 that there was a growing anti-nuclear and isolationist feeling in the country.

The French testing in the 70s really kicked it off following on from Vietnam.

In 1985 (?) the Lange government banned nuclear armed or powered ships from NZ waters leading to the near destruction of ANZUS as a Pacific a analog of NATO. The near contemporaneous bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland hardened the opposition to things military and naval. Aside from the in-laws directly serving I found it hard to find anyone with anything other than the attitude that NZ should wash its hands of the whole business of Defence and tell everyone else to p*ss off. No doubt they existed, but were lying low.

Again the French with the RW just stuffed it up. That is why Lange caved into the anti defence hardliners such as Helen Clark and allowed no USN wriggle room for the neither confirm or deny policy over the Buchanan's visit thus destroying ANZUS.

Thirty years later and my grown nephews and nieces and their own families can't see any reason NZ needs more than fishing patrols and enough SAR to save people who deserve it (in other words, not those who "brought it on themselves" unless they pay for it. All this despite their having uncles and cousins who served, and largely independent of career choices and political leanings.

Which is a roundabout way of saying that non-aligned isolationism seems to have started a long while ago and become, if not the default public position, a very widely held one.

oldsig

It is widely held. Modern NZ History is not taught. Few today would know that at the start of both world wars our major shipping ports were mined and there was carnage around our coasts.

 

[Todjaeger]

In the early 1980's I (at the time an Australian Serviceman) became much involved with the NZ armed forces through marrying one of them, who had two cousins then serving in the RNZN. I was back and forth often and it was notable even in 1981 that there was a growing anti-nuclear and isolationist feeling in the country.

In 1985 (?) the Lange government banned nuclear armed or powered ships from NZ waters leading to the near destruction of ANZUS as a Pacific a analog of NATO. The near contemporaneous bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland hardened the opposition to things military and naval. Aside from the in-laws directly serving I found it hard to find anyone with anything other than the attitude that NZ should wash its hands of the whole business of Defence and tell everyone else to p*ss off. No doubt they existed, but were lying low.

Thirty years later and my grown nephews and nieces and their own families can't see any reason NZ needs more than fishing patrols and enough SAR to save people who deserve it (in other words, not those who "brought it on themselves" unless they pay for it. All this despite their having uncles and cousins who served, and largely independent of career choices and political leanings.

Which is a roundabout way of saying that non-aligned isolationism seems to have started a long while ago and become, if not the default public position, a very widely held one.

oldsig

The group I was referring to, include a certain former NZ PM, would have either been entering or just graduating from uni around the time that NZ had personnel deployed to Vietnam.

Me being me, I would like to see that not only is a greater appreciate for modern history taught in NZ schools, but also world geography linked with economics. I am not really in a position to throw stones though, given where I currently reside and how well the locals can locate other parts of the same country, never mind places outside of 'Merica...

 

[t68]

No. Three hulls and not the RN/RC built T26, just because of the cost. The Babcock Type 31e or similar would be better, especially if built in South Korea.

The hypothetical is Ron Marks 2%,
I think it would be a backward step going for as yet signed off design with perhaps no ASW capability except for helicopters and questionable future growth potential. Rule of 3's means one available at all times but a 4th would give 1x operational overseas, 1x working up 1x dock for crew leave land based training and 1x extended maintenance.

Would building in SK give any extra saving since they have to set up to build a foreign design when there may be a line open all ready?

One yes but two maybe a stretch to far.

I was actually going to use the rule of 3's
They look like a good ship on paper,wonder what's stopping the RSN from getting them

What MCS ship? We don't have one and by the looks of it won't have a dedicated MCS ship.

Maritime Sustainment Capability (MSC) HMNZS AOTEAROA

"This project will replace the Navy's replenishment tanker HMNZS ENDEAVOUR with a Maritime Sustainment Capability to maintain an afloat replenishment capability for the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF)."

RNZN - New Capability

We have no requirement or need for a LST.

its a regional sealift capability that goes to place when either the 170 is not available or needed. no such thing as not enough sealift

You dreamin' mate? Definitely four and maybe five at the very long stretch.

Ron got his four by the sounds of it, its a capability that will be in constant demand. RAAF found out the hard way with only 4 C17's once the new car smell has vanished

Why oh why? Not in a million years. If we go down that route, then maybe a couple of KC-767 0r KC-46. Actually Airbus might offer a good deal on KC-30 MRTT to go with the A400. Trouble is the A330 is a tad too large for our needs.

long term sustainment cost with a compatible fleet, but I understand the why you would want the boom

No. What is needed is 3 A400 or C2 and 4 C-130J or similar. If the A400 is acquired then we wouldn't need any KC-130s.

I think there's too many unanswered questions with A400 and reliability

I think that the NH90 will do well in NZ service. The problem I have with it, is that they are about 3 shy and all of the NH90 fleet should be marinised. The SH-2G(I) are due for replacement in about 12 years.

yep the bug's are being ironed out, but how are the spare parts replacements going those 2 extra airframes would most likely be used up I reckon. And with the other side of the coin if the A400 doesn't get up least least you could have a rapid deployment capability with the Hawks and C130-J

Personally I would like to see the RNZAF operate 4 marinised Chooks. 6 chooks is 2 to many. IIRC the ADF only have 7

ADF has 10, 3 extra ordered, and I believe they want more if government would give them, also 6 would give you 2 playing with the 170 and 2 training/HADR in the home land at any one time

Let's be somewhat realistic shall we. We don't have an unlimited pot of gold. The leprechaun that is in charge of that pot has gone AWOL since St Paddy's day 1990.

Its what I would like to see with Ron 2% at the moment you are burning the candle at both ends, there has to be enough to sustain deployments long term 1 of everything doesn't leave much time to "reset/reading/ready" but agree 2 brigades is a big ask for NZ

 

[Massive]

For their Navy, unless they commit to more defence dollars long term, then large fleet units may not be realistic. I therefore do not see meaningful numbers of large frigates replacing the two ANZAC.
I'll shoot myself in the foot at this stage and acknowledge they are currently acquiring a new supply ship. For the life of me I just do not comprehend in any way shape or form this ship and it's capabilities for the New Zealand navy both for now or the future. It's a bizarre purchase.
Regards S

Generally the issue is that there has been no reallocation of budget resources to match stated ambitions.

My sense is that in the absence of a significant budget increase the RNZN (and NZDF more generally) may have to get out of the frigate and AOR game.

Given the stated strategic objectives the navy may need to focus on OPVs and Sealift for constabulary, peace keeping & HADR operations in the Pacific & Southern Ocean.

Sea denial/ Sea control would then need to be managed by the P-8 fleet.

For engagement in international operations this would probably now be limited to the army - which is too weak at the moment but with resources transferred from the Navy could perhaps move to a structure able to sustainably generate a infantry battalion-centred battle group.

Probably need an army of:

1 Cav regiment (3 squadrons)
3 Infantry battalions (with PMV)
1 Artillery regiment (3 batteries)

Engineering etc support

This is a fair bit bigger than the current army and probably more represents the size of the problem than a true solution.

Very tough.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Wombat000]

Just wondering,
Is there scope for more feedback to the budget etc, from a bigger investment in defence?
Im thinking jobs, infrastructure development, even maybe investing in international defence projects that NZ may even participate in?
I understand that scale effects can have an impact.
Do we think defence could be handled with more creativity to allow some civilian benefits which might justify increased expenditure?

 

[ngatimozart]

Generally the issue is that there has been no reallocation of budget resources to match stated ambitions.

My sense is that in the absence of a significant budget increase the RNZN (and NZDF more generally) may have to get out of the frigate and AOR game.

Given the stated strategic objectives the navy may need to focus on OPVs and Sealift for constabulary, peace keeping & HADR operations in the Pacific & Southern Ocean.

Sea denial/ Sea control would then need to be managed by the P-8 fleet.

For engagement in international operations this would probably now be limited to the army - which is too weak at the moment but with resources transferred from the Navy could perhaps move to a structure able to sustainably generate a infantry battalion-centred battle group.

Probably need an army of:

1 Cav regiment (3 squadrons)
3 Infantry battalions (with PMV)
1 Artillery regiment (3 batteries)

Engineering etc support

This is a fair bit bigger than the current army and probably more represents the size of the problem than a true solution.

Very tough.

Regards,

Massive

If NZ were to go down this track, then we'd be better to can the army and divert it's funding to the navy and air force. What's the point of having an army if it can't get itself and its kit to where it needs to be. A significant cost saving would be made just by not having to pay the personnel costs of the army.

 

[Massive]

If NZ were to go down this track, then we'd be better to can the army and divert it's funding to the navy and air force. What's the point of having an army if it can't get itself and its kit to where it needs to be. A significant cost saving would be made just by not having to pay the personnel costs of the army.

Could be.

Pretty clear that there are some tough decisions that need to be made though.

Regards,

Massive

 

[MrConservative]

Probably need an army of:

1 Cav regiment (3 squadrons)
3 Infantry battalions (with PMV)
1 Artillery regiment (3 batteries)

Engineering etc support

This is a fair bit bigger than the current army and probably more represents the size of the problem than a true solution.

Below is the NZ Army ORBAT since 2012 incorporating the re-aligned Army Reserve.

http://www.army.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/2012/2102-new-zealand-army-order-of-battle.pdf

If they bought back Whiskey Company into 1st Battalion which may happen now that FLOC has started to shape the Army post 2020 - with the Army Reserve more coherent than in the past we will be in the position to generate a concurrent CATG (Battalion Group) rotation cycle and a LTG HADR/SASO deployment, and cope with a domestic emergency disaster response not with standing whatever NZSAS.

I am with NG - the force development emphasis should be on Air and Sea. As for the NZ Army work through the planned capability enhancements including NEA and raise Whiskey back into 1/1 and possibly look at an unbadged high readiness 'Rangers' or 'Marine' unit attached to the recently constituted Special Forces Command.

 

[ASSAIL]

I’ve stayed out of this debate, any sovereign nation deals with defence in the way their peoples choose and it’s up to their allies to deal with the realities as best they can.
Just because Oz defence is doing comparatively well we have no right to criticise. Let’s leave that to the Kiwis on the forum.
We can certainly discuss without disparaging our near neighbours.

 

[Wombat000]

I’ve stayed out of this debate, any sovereign nation deals with defence in the way their peoples choose and it’s up to their allies to deal with the realities as best they can.
Just because Oz defence is doing comparatively well we have no right to criticise. Let’s leave that to the Kiwis on the forum.
We can certainly discuss without disparaging our near neighbours.

Just simply want to clarify, as the comment is probably aimed at my recent comments.
At no time was I "disparaging our near neighbours".
I have nothing but respect for NZDF professionalism.
In fact it's the lack of their collective co-ordinated participation that is missing.
If I have a gripe, it's with the narrow vision of Australia.

I think it's important to sometimes raise conceivably difficult issues for the greater good.
Just cos things have evolved as they have doesn't mean it's the most efficient way.

In the absence of a broader mission context, NZ will no doubt continue on it's own path, and I will be grateful for whatever they decide to provide.
It's an NZ thread, but just like NZ itself, it doesn't exist in an isolated bubble limited purely to NZers.

 

[Massive]

I’ve stayed out of this debate, any sovereign nation deals with defence in the way their peoples choose and it’s up to their allies to deal with the realities as best they can.
Just because Oz defence is doing comparatively well we have no right to criticise. Let’s leave that to the Kiwis on the forum.
We can certainly discuss without disparaging our near neighbours.

Not criticising at all.

NZDF is in a tough spot.

That's all.

Regards,

Massive

 

[MrConservative]

Not criticising at all.

NZDF is in a tough spot.

That's all.

Regards,

Massive

You will find that over the many years that this thread has been going that it has been the NZers that have weighed in the most harsh against recent NZ defence policy.

I think at last that we may be turning the corner with this recent policy document. That needs to be acknowledged and frankly going over the past mistakes is easy to do discussion wise. Going forward is much harder.

This has change has come under a "Labour led" government albeit dragged into it from a popularist NZ First Party but it is under that banner and Labour in the future when no longer again in government can not back away from this revised position easily. National have had a leadership change leaving it more hawkish on defence than before and that has evolved over the four DefMins of the previous Govt from Mapp a dove to Mitchell how is more towards a hawk on the combat spectrum. Its current Defence spokesperson is an Air Force Brat being the grandson of WW2 Air Commodore and Minister of Defence and his father was boss of 5Sqd. It possibly gives National the opportunity to ramp up the current policy setting further and increase the long term spend to craw back lost capabilities that should never have been traded away so flippantly.

 

[ASSAIL]

Not criticising at all.

NZDF is in a tough spot.

That's all.

Regards,

Massive

My comments were general, not aimed at any individual so I hope no offence has been taken.
It was an explanation of why I had not contributed to a discussion which had seemed to keep rolling on unnecessarily IMHO

 

[KiwiRob]

The French testing in the 70s really kicked it off following on from Vietnam.

Again the French with the RW just stuffed it up. That is why Lange caved into the anti defence hardliners such as Helen Clark and allowed no USN wriggle room for the neither confirm or deny policy over the Buchanan's visit thus destroying ANZUS.

It is widely held. Modern NZ History is not taught. Few today would know that at the start of both world wars our major shipping ports were mined and there was carnage around our coasts.

WW2 activity is hardly carnage Mr C.

Axis naval activity in New Zealand waters - Wikipedia

 

[htbrst]

WW2 activity is hardly carnage Mr C.

The RMS Rangitane sinking was quite a shock and perhaps almost equivalent of someone sinking one of the inter-island ferries today. Maybe not carnage, but still a big deal.

 

[MrConservative]

WW2 activity is hardly carnage Mr C.

Axis naval activity in New Zealand waters - Wikipedia

The Wiki entry fails to note the Triaster, Triona, Triadic, Vinni, and the Komata phosphate vessels that drastically made an impact on the farming sector sunk between Nauru and NZ and only mentioned 4 vessels.

The Rangitane at 16630 tons was the biggest merchant vessel sunk by any German warship during the war. Sixteen died as a result of the action with the surviving 296 passengers and crew were picked up be the German ships and taken prisoner.

The Niagara, a 13415 ton ocean liner bound for Vancouver carrying a cargo, which included 590 gold bars valued at £2,500,000 to pay the United States for New Zealand’s urgent war munitions.

The minesweeper Puriri remains the only commissioned New Zealand naval vessel to be lost by enemy action within New Zealand territorial waters. Lives lost.

The Llytteton bound Holmwood a coastal steamer torpedoed by the Komet with the crew and passengers of the stricken ship and taken as prisoners.

The Sydney bound 8000 ton freighter Turakina in which 34 officers and crew were killed in the attack. The remaining twenty survivors were taken prisoner.

The cruiser the HMS Achilles managed to return home to Devonport after a training exercise in the outer gulf three hours before the Orion laid its mines from the Barrier to Bream Head. If our flagship, one of just two fighting ships in our Navy (Let that sink in folks), had even been damaged let along sunk it would have had significant repercussions to New Zealand's war effort.

Collectively the Orion and Komet sunk 20 ships during their raids into the South Western Pacific during 1940 and 1941.

What was that about carnage again?

 

[MrConservative]

It is interesting to compare a snapshot of the NZDF from the mid 1980’s prior to the ANZUS split with the middle of this decade. The Cold War was still raging and like today it was a time of strategic competition of great powers. It was a time that New Zealand consistently spent over 2% of GDP on Defence.

The Navy possessed 4 ASW Leander Class Frigates, a 3900 ton Survey and Resupply Ship, a 1400 ton Survey and Research ship, 4 Lake Class for Patrol, 2 Moa Class for Inshore Survey, a further Moa class for Dive Support, 4 more Moa Class for the RNZVR in the patrol role, a dockyard tender with a 13000 ton fleet tanker under order. There were 2800 regular force Navy personal and 450 in the RNZVNR and 800 on the Naval Fleet Reserve list.

The RNZAF possessed 22 Skyhawks, 16 Strikemasters, 2 Boeing 727’s, 5 C-130H’s Hercules, 10 C-1 Andovers, 6 P-3 Orions, 3 Fokker F-27’s, 14 Iroquois, 8 Sioux, 7 Wasps, 19 Airtrainers and 3 Cessna 421C’s. There were 4300 personnel in the regular RNZAF and 1035 in the Territorial Air Force and Active Reserve.

The Army possessed, 2 regular force infantry battalions including 1 based in Singapore, 6 territorial force infantry battalions; a 1 light tank squadron with 26 Scorpions, 3 armoured squadrons with 72 M113 APC’s, 4 engineer squadrons and 2 field workshops; 4 signals squadrons; 3 transport squadrons; 3 supply companies; 2 medical battalions; 1 field hospital; 2 artillery regiments equipped with 54 105mm howizters, plus the NZSAS Group. There were 5700 Regular force personnel and 6300 in the territorials and reserve force.

I don't think building an exact replica of the NZDF of 1985 is what I would be after, and the force structure of that time needed some rationalisation and modernisation - but the weight of comparative strategic capability for our own benefit and what we were able to provide our regional partners as a contribution to the Asia Pacific security umbrella was much more capable then. It is the kind of strategic weight that we should be working towards getting back, in fact because of the strategic outlook we must get back to.

 

[t68]

It is interesting to compare a snapshot of the NZDF from the mid 1980’s prior to the ANZUS split with the middle of this decade. The Cold War was still raging and like today it was a time of strategic competition of great powers. It was a time that New Zealand consistently spent over 2% of GDP on Defence.

The Navy possessed 4 ASW Leander Class Frigates, a 3900 ton Survey and Resupply Ship, a 1400 ton Survey and Research ship, 4 Lake Class for Patrol, 2 Moa Class for Inshore Survey, a further Moa class for Dive Support, 4 more Moa Class for the RNZVR in the patrol role, a dockyard tender with a 13000 ton fleet tanker under order. There were 2800 regular force Navy personal and 450 in the RNZVNR and 800 on the Naval Fleet Reserve list.

The RNZAF possessed 22 Skyhawks, 16 Strikemasters, 2 Boeing 727’s, 5 C-130H’s Hercules, 10 C-1 Andovers, 6 P-3 Orions, 3 Fokker F-27’s, 14 Iroquois, 8 Sioux, 7 Wasps, 19 Airtrainers and 3 Cessna 421C’s. There were 4300 personnel in the regular RNZAF and 1035 in the Territorial Air Force and Active Reserve.

The Army possessed, 2 regular force infantry battalions including 1 based in Singapore, 6 territorial force infantry battalions; a 1 light tank squadron with 26 Scorpions, 3 armoured squadrons with 72 M113 APC’s, 4 engineer squadrons and 2 field workshops; 4 signals squadrons; 3 transport squadrons; 3 supply companies; 2 medical battalions; 1 field hospital; 2 artillery regiments equipped with 54 105mm howizters, plus the NZSAS Group. There were 5700 Regular force personnel and 6300 in the territorials and reserve force.

I don't think building an exact replica of the NZDF of 1985 is what I would be after, and the force structure of that time needed some rationalisation and modernisation - but the weight of comparative strategic capability for our own benefit and what we were able to provide our regional partners as a contribution to the Asia Pacific security umbrella was much more capable then. It is the kind of strategic weight that we should be working towards getting back, in fact because of the strategic outlook we must get back to.

The bang for $ seemed to go further then it seemed. But agree NZ can do a lot more than the 1% it is currently doing, the main problem I see is that most people see the current strength and belive that’s all NZ can contribute.

Ask how many homeowners have insurance policy and keep the premiums up to date, Defence is the governments insurance policy and the budget is the premium.

 

[ngatimozart]

The bang for $ seemed to go further then it seemed. But agree NZ can do a lot more than the 1% it is currently doing, the main problem I see is that most people see the current strength and belive that’s all NZ can contribute.

Ask how many homeowners have insurance policy and keep the premiums up to date, Defence is the governments insurance policy and the budget is the premium.

No longer a good analogy in the NZ context with premiums sky rocketing in the last few years. Some places people can't even get insurance any more.