I disagree with you on this. Our main security objectives are Maintaining our sovereignty, Keeping our trade routes open and being part of an effective coalition partner with our allies and being available to support them should that be required. We are not here " to sit at home on our bums" acting in our hopeful self-preservation,.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
milliGal
Member
So it's C130J-30's for the FAMC (as predicted by several of you). It was not my preference but it's definitely the tried and true option so can't really complain.
The Navy seems like it was the biggest winner overall, which is probably a good thing as its probably the furthest from where it needs to be. I was excited to read about immediate plans for a LPD and AOPV type vessels, but my enthusiasm waned when I saw the projected timeframe.
Was also disappointed to see nothing towards restoring an air combat capability but that was always going to be a long shot. I was pleasantly surprised to see they had plans for a HALE UAV (probably the Triton), but again was disappointed to see the projected timeframe (10+ years out).
Some pleasant surprises, and some disappointments overall. I think I would agree that the time frames on these projects is a lot longer than they need to be and they probably should have been started years ago. I think they will also burn through the rest of that $20B pretty quick with this shopping list. Hopefully it doesn't stay as a hard upper limit.
On the topic of environmental resilience etc., I agree with @opti that it plays an important role in NZ's overall security. Perhaps it is a little vague and intangible to be listed at number 2 though.
The Navy seems like it was the biggest winner overall, which is probably a good thing as its probably the furthest from where it needs to be. I was excited to read about immediate plans for a LPD and AOPV type vessels, but my enthusiasm waned when I saw the projected timeframe.
Was also disappointed to see nothing towards restoring an air combat capability but that was always going to be a long shot. I was pleasantly surprised to see they had plans for a HALE UAV (probably the Triton), but again was disappointed to see the projected timeframe (10+ years out).
Some pleasant surprises, and some disappointments overall. I think I would agree that the time frames on these projects is a lot longer than they need to be and they probably should have been started years ago. I think they will also burn through the rest of that $20B pretty quick with this shopping list. Hopefully it doesn't stay as a hard upper limit.
On the topic of environmental resilience etc., I agree with @opti that it plays an important role in NZ's overall security. Perhaps it is a little vague and intangible to be listed at number 2 though.
Let me think....
What if NZDF's role is to provide enduring presence, to prevent piracy, to proactively prevent conflict or if shooting has started (eg. between Taiwan and the Philippines), to prevent its spread to a wider area?
How easy it is to forget that all ships travelling through the Straits of Malacca had to pay a 'tax' imposed (i.e. insurance rates for every cargo went up), by Indonesian pirates. Between 2005 to 2006, Lloyd’s insurance market, the Joint War Committee (JWC), declared the Malacca Strait and 20 other areas to be at risk from “war, strikes, terrorism and related perils.” This occurred in 2005 and took a year to solve (see: CO05057 | Malacca Straits a ‘war risk zone’? Llyod’s should review its assessment | RSIS ). At the start, the Indonesian Navy refused to deal with the issue effectively without getting paid (and suggested that all countries who rely on the route pay a tax, to support their patrols). Back then, the US Navy offered to step in with patrols, which led to rethink by the Indonesian Navy. Today, the US Navy is so distracted with 'other' big picture issues that, it's not important to them. As the US does not need to trade through the Straits of Malacca.
What if we have a natural disaster or a failed state the exports armed refugees (South Vietnam) into our SLOCs and their refugee boats could affect trade? This really happened in 1975 (see: Operation Thunderstorm (1975) and Looking Back On the Vietnam War Refugee Crisis | Historical Society of Pennsylvania). We had to disarm them, as they sailed through our waters. I can tell you that the Singapore Navy was not prepared for the scale of the influx and our ships was forced to sail, at times, with only 1 working engine as there was no time for maintenance. Do you want to force NZDF to sail with this sort of risk that we imposed on the SAF?
So NZDF should not try to be more prepared, in planning for outputs? See my thinking, options and considerations in the face of change, in another thread (see: South China Sea thoughts?).
Glad to see that there is a plan to improve NZDF capability. As a fellow small state, NZ and Singapore have similar considerations for many issues.
This is a group hug thing. The various defence forces are using routine patrols to 'socialise' or group hug the PLA(N) to international norms - a role that the US has stepped away from (and wants to confront China, instead of trying to 'socialise' the PLA(N) in norms) with America First.
True but...
There is also growing concern that of violence among different religious communities in Indonesia, particularly if IS’ call for vengeance is acted on by its following (See: Avenging Christchurch Terror: Indonesian Militant Responses | RSIS and Three militants of 'wolf pack' cell nabbed - Nation | The Star Online ) and spread further to Malaysia. The three militants, wanted by Malaysian police in connection with the "wolf pack" cell, which was also busted in May 2019, have been detained. The Inspector-General of Police said the men - two Malaysians and an Indonesian - were arrested by the Counter Terrorism Division in Kedah and Selangor on Tuesday, 14 May 2019.
What if the civil disturbance is so strong that NZDF has to engage in non-combatant evacuation of your citizens from a country in South East Asia (eg. Malaysia or the Philippines) or from the Pacific Islands and Polynesia? For example, the SAF assisted in the evacuation from Phnom Penh on 9 July 1997 after diplomatic landing clearance was received from the Cambodian authorities - we flew in 6 C-130s with SF and medical team support for combat triage, if needed. Or a hypothetical natural disaster occurred and the NZDF has to engage in non-combatant evacuation from the Pacific Islands and Polynesia? Again Singapore had to evacuate our people from Kathmandu in April 2015 (eg. RSAF planes evacuate 89 S’poreans, PRs from Kathmandu).
Last edited:
Strongly disagree. We are a first world wealthy liberal democratic nation that relies on exports viz sea and air lines of communications and an agreed rules based international order to survive as a first world liberal democratic nation. There are a number of areas in which we could contribute meaningfully like we have done in the past and in fact we now have a far greater fiscal capacity to do so.
If we cannot even manage that then maybe we should forget the pretence of independent sovereignty and start investigating new governance arrangements and join Australia if we wish to retain liberal democratic values and lifestyles here. At least they would remove the money from our pockets to spend the money on defence and regional security contributions that we should have done all along.
There are areas that we could expand into because it is in our own interest to do so for our own close region and wider contribution to the Indo-Pacific collective security umbrella. For example there is a significant gap with respect to tactical reconnaissance and EW in the region that we are both exposed to and could at least attempt to solve ourselves with our own capabilities as a contribution to the regional security umbrella. Glaringly obvious gaps that no credible defence plan looking forward into a post 2030 world should not ignore.
Well at least there is room for a honest refresh within the next 3-4 years to address with some capability gaps urgency - it will take that long before things become blindingly obvious. The interoperable aspect is US/OZ focused but then that interoperability extends to through Singapore, India, South Korea, and Japan and a growing number of Indo-Pacific players. There are more interested parties than there was before, parties who look to us as partners either formally or informally, which is a major change that most in NZ do not really understand.
Disagree on the climate change aspect being the principal driver. It is a factor but it is not the key driver of increasing sovereignty disruption in the region.
Furthermore, the toolbox required to deal with SASO and LIC's with the region are going to take a greater sophistication that a small joint police / NZDF Chp VIII operation as per Honiara in 2002 or Tonga in 2006. Most of that kit is not present until well into the mid 2030's a decade after it should be in service.
I expect NZ to play a role and you will find that the majority of New Zealanders will as well. A role in the security partnership with fellow liberal democratic nation states who believe in and rely on a global rules based system. It seems unrealistic that New Zealanders would not overwhelmingly back that. In fact I believe the majority of "quiet" Kiwi's know this already and are quite prepared to stand up for the things that they believe in.
The effects of climate change are at best 3rd in the most pressing security needs in the region behind the rapid re-emergence of strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific and the risk of a bio-security calamity.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Over time, there is certainly potential for environment changes to destabilize a country or region. However, such circumstances are a creeping threat, not likely to even be apparent in say a five year period. There are other threats which could absolutely emerge within such a relatively short time frame. As others have noted, terrorism and/or piracy can impact NZ due to where NZ's SLOC are. It would be to NZ's benefit to have some ability to operate in areas where such threats could or have emerged, either to prevent a recurrence or mitigate an occurrence.
Absent more concrete information on just what the intention is for the NZDF in terms of climate change, I tend to agree with others that it should not be a priority of the NZDF, especially since the NZDF and MoD do not set environmental policy.
Well we got more than I expected. Ron did come through in areas that I didn't expect and I doff me cap to him.
Maritime
Two enhanced multi role sealift vessels with well docks!!! That come out of the blue but makes sense finally. If I read it correctly the indicative cost of this one vessel is >$1 billion. If so it has to be a LHD. Somewhere they mentioned armament as well. Intro into service in 2029 is a long way off and personally I think this should be bought forward by 4 or 5 years.
With an indicative cost of $300 - 600 million, I wonder if they are seriously considering at the Vard 100-7-ICE-AOPV. Still 2027 is a long wait for its intro into service. Again why can't this be brought forward to say 2024?
Two IPVs being deep sixed. I would argue transferring these to the Reserve divisions instead of gifting / selling them offshore. Put them to good use in NZ training Reserve seagoing personnel who can slot in when needed with the Regulars, just like the Army do. It's a waste of talent and people if you don't, plus you have a lot of highly trained Regulars who when they leave the Regular navy can be utilised in the Reserves and able to keep their core skills current, whilst passing on their knowledge.
Good to see that they are starting the Seasprite replacement early instead of leaving it to the last minute, which has been the practice in the past. >$1 billion isn't going to buy a lot. I think >$1.5 would be more realistic. Again don’t make the mistake of acquiring a platform that is basically obsolete, or about to be, like we did with the Seasprites. That’s why I have reservations about acquiring the MH-60R (a.k.a., Romeo) in 2027. By then the USN should have identified & prototyped a replacement for the Romeo. However they are waiting for the US Army to sort out their future rotary airlift program, so it could be next century before the US Army eventually fields a UH-60 replacement.
$600 m - $1 billion to replace the OPVs should mean more than 2 so hopefully we should get some good bang for buck there. It would be nice if they acquired a couple earlier in the piece, especially to replace the 2 IPV they are deep sixing.
I am disappointed in seeing the frigate replacement being deferred until the mid 2030’s which means that any project won’t start until the late 2020s. What I and others would like to see is a third new build frigate acquired and entered into service between now and 2030. This would achieve three important things: it would mean that we would have a 3 frigate NCF and take the pressure off the two older ANZAC FFH frigates; it would send a strong signal to Australia that we are serious about defence and remove a burr in the Australian saddle; in the future it would mean that we move away from block obsolescence with our frigates having a 10 or so year gap comprising of a 1 then 2 replacement cycle.
Air
The FAMC tactical capability decision has been released and all that needs to be made known now is numbers. The cost is given as >$1 billion so could be 6 x C-130J-30 or only 5. No numbers have been given. My own preference is for 6 although in all honesty 8 would be better.
Enhanced Maritime Awareness Capability
177. The Enhanced Maritime Awareness Capability project will support the Government’s civil maritime security strategy, providing air surveillance capabilities that enhance all-of-Government maritime domain awareness in New Zealand and the Southern Ocean. The capabilities delivered through this investment will be dedicated to civil surveillance requirements, with Defence support for their delivery and operation. This will free up the new
P-8A maritime patrol aircraft fleet to fly more missions in the South Pacific and further afield. Investment in a range of capabilities will be considered, including satellite surveillance, unmanned aerial vehicles and traditional fixed-wing surveillance.
Indicative dates:
Industry engagement commences – Currently underway
Request for tender – 2020
Introduction into Service – 2023
Indicative capital cost: From $300m–$600m
The budget for this would cover 2 MQ-4C Triton at the most, and whilst that would be the best platform to operate with P-8A because the 2 were designed to operate together and it would be great interoperability with Australia and the US, I can’t see NZ acquiring them based on cost alone. So I think it will be a far cheaper HALE or MALE and crewed fixed wing aircraft like the KA350. A dedicated surveillance satellite would be expensive unless they have something like the cube sats or similar launched from Mahia Peninsula in mind. IIRC the Rutherford rockets can lift about 180 kg.
Although I didn’t expect it, the addition of a couple of NH-90 helicopters wouldn’t go amiss as well as marinising the rest of the fleet. NHI recently showcased a Maritime Tactical Transport variant of the NH-90 and that’s what we should be converting ours too plus acquiring some more of.
Land
The armoured Pinzgauer replacement is going ahead with an introduction into service of 2024. The indicative capital cost is $300 – 600 million. Garrison and support vehicle replacement is underway with the RFT in 202 and intro into service in 2022. The NEA is progressing each year with the final intro into service being 2024.
The NZLAV RFT is planned to be issued in 2025 with the intro into service for 2033 and an indicative capital cost of $300 – 600 million.
The FGM-148 Javelin is also being either upgraded or replaced, but no details of when.
Information
They are intending to have an EW capability solution on primary defence platforms with the projects starting this year. The current HF network is also being replaced. They intend to procure spaceborne maritime surveillance from existing satellite systems operators, so that partially answers my query above. They are also concentrating more on cyber security. A project is underway to deliver small scale UAV for direct tactical or operational level ISR either on land or aboard ship, with an intro into service of 2025.
The WGS comms system used by NZDF will have to be replaced after 2030 when the current satellite constellation reaches its use by date, so that is something that they, and others, will have to plan for.
Summary
Overall, like I said at the start more than I expected. It does look to the future post 2030 indicating what will be required to be budgeted for, however I am of the belief that it is about $10 – 15 billion short in funding and NZDF some things as I’ve alluded to could be bought forward. I am disappointed in some aspects of it, with important capabilities being ignored, but considering the composition of the current govt, there are some good acquisitions in the DCP. The two enhanced multi role sealift vessels with well docks really surprised me and it was a very pleasant surprise, because I just couldn’t see a NZG being so practical. The DCP is still short on some detail but it does show a clear path, and although short on money, it’s clear on what it’s doing. For that Ron Mark gets a thumbs up from me and a well done for getting this through Cabinet.
Maritime
Two enhanced multi role sealift vessels with well docks!!! That come out of the blue but makes sense finally. If I read it correctly the indicative cost of this one vessel is >$1 billion. If so it has to be a LHD. Somewhere they mentioned armament as well. Intro into service in 2029 is a long way off and personally I think this should be bought forward by 4 or 5 years.
With an indicative cost of $300 - 600 million, I wonder if they are seriously considering at the Vard 100-7-ICE-AOPV. Still 2027 is a long wait for its intro into service. Again why can't this be brought forward to say 2024?
Two IPVs being deep sixed. I would argue transferring these to the Reserve divisions instead of gifting / selling them offshore. Put them to good use in NZ training Reserve seagoing personnel who can slot in when needed with the Regulars, just like the Army do. It's a waste of talent and people if you don't, plus you have a lot of highly trained Regulars who when they leave the Regular navy can be utilised in the Reserves and able to keep their core skills current, whilst passing on their knowledge.
Good to see that they are starting the Seasprite replacement early instead of leaving it to the last minute, which has been the practice in the past. >$1 billion isn't going to buy a lot. I think >$1.5 would be more realistic. Again don’t make the mistake of acquiring a platform that is basically obsolete, or about to be, like we did with the Seasprites. That’s why I have reservations about acquiring the MH-60R (a.k.a., Romeo) in 2027. By then the USN should have identified & prototyped a replacement for the Romeo. However they are waiting for the US Army to sort out their future rotary airlift program, so it could be next century before the US Army eventually fields a UH-60 replacement.
$600 m - $1 billion to replace the OPVs should mean more than 2 so hopefully we should get some good bang for buck there. It would be nice if they acquired a couple earlier in the piece, especially to replace the 2 IPV they are deep sixing.
I am disappointed in seeing the frigate replacement being deferred until the mid 2030’s which means that any project won’t start until the late 2020s. What I and others would like to see is a third new build frigate acquired and entered into service between now and 2030. This would achieve three important things: it would mean that we would have a 3 frigate NCF and take the pressure off the two older ANZAC FFH frigates; it would send a strong signal to Australia that we are serious about defence and remove a burr in the Australian saddle; in the future it would mean that we move away from block obsolescence with our frigates having a 10 or so year gap comprising of a 1 then 2 replacement cycle.
Air
The FAMC tactical capability decision has been released and all that needs to be made known now is numbers. The cost is given as >$1 billion so could be 6 x C-130J-30 or only 5. No numbers have been given. My own preference is for 6 although in all honesty 8 would be better.
Enhanced Maritime Awareness Capability
177. The Enhanced Maritime Awareness Capability project will support the Government’s civil maritime security strategy, providing air surveillance capabilities that enhance all-of-Government maritime domain awareness in New Zealand and the Southern Ocean. The capabilities delivered through this investment will be dedicated to civil surveillance requirements, with Defence support for their delivery and operation. This will free up the new
P-8A maritime patrol aircraft fleet to fly more missions in the South Pacific and further afield. Investment in a range of capabilities will be considered, including satellite surveillance, unmanned aerial vehicles and traditional fixed-wing surveillance.
Indicative dates:
Industry engagement commences – Currently underway
Request for tender – 2020
Introduction into Service – 2023
Indicative capital cost: From $300m–$600m
The budget for this would cover 2 MQ-4C Triton at the most, and whilst that would be the best platform to operate with P-8A because the 2 were designed to operate together and it would be great interoperability with Australia and the US, I can’t see NZ acquiring them based on cost alone. So I think it will be a far cheaper HALE or MALE and crewed fixed wing aircraft like the KA350. A dedicated surveillance satellite would be expensive unless they have something like the cube sats or similar launched from Mahia Peninsula in mind. IIRC the Rutherford rockets can lift about 180 kg.
Although I didn’t expect it, the addition of a couple of NH-90 helicopters wouldn’t go amiss as well as marinising the rest of the fleet. NHI recently showcased a Maritime Tactical Transport variant of the NH-90 and that’s what we should be converting ours too plus acquiring some more of.
Land
The armoured Pinzgauer replacement is going ahead with an introduction into service of 2024. The indicative capital cost is $300 – 600 million. Garrison and support vehicle replacement is underway with the RFT in 202 and intro into service in 2022. The NEA is progressing each year with the final intro into service being 2024.
The NZLAV RFT is planned to be issued in 2025 with the intro into service for 2033 and an indicative capital cost of $300 – 600 million.
The FGM-148 Javelin is also being either upgraded or replaced, but no details of when.
Information
They are intending to have an EW capability solution on primary defence platforms with the projects starting this year. The current HF network is also being replaced. They intend to procure spaceborne maritime surveillance from existing satellite systems operators, so that partially answers my query above. They are also concentrating more on cyber security. A project is underway to deliver small scale UAV for direct tactical or operational level ISR either on land or aboard ship, with an intro into service of 2025.
The WGS comms system used by NZDF will have to be replaced after 2030 when the current satellite constellation reaches its use by date, so that is something that they, and others, will have to plan for.
Summary
Overall, like I said at the start more than I expected. It does look to the future post 2030 indicating what will be required to be budgeted for, however I am of the belief that it is about $10 – 15 billion short in funding and NZDF some things as I’ve alluded to could be bought forward. I am disappointed in some aspects of it, with important capabilities being ignored, but considering the composition of the current govt, there are some good acquisitions in the DCP. The two enhanced multi role sealift vessels with well docks really surprised me and it was a very pleasant surprise, because I just couldn’t see a NZG being so practical. The DCP is still short on some detail but it does show a clear path, and although short on money, it’s clear on what it’s doing. For that Ron Mark gets a thumbs up from me and a well done for getting this through Cabinet.
To me the big missing items are anything to do with the airspace around us and the ability to control the air and sea. I did not expect it but one day it may come to bite us and our lack of ACF will prove our undoing should our forces be required to defend our sovereignty. As for the rest i think they are heading in the right direction, but as pointed out by others it would be nice for a little more 'hurry up' and an increase in numbers in some areas.
A little disappointed in the selection of the C130J but I did expect this and as I have said all along I think it is a good short term solution , but a poor long term one.
A little disappointed in the selection of the C130J but I did expect this and as I have said all along I think it is a good short term solution , but a poor long term one.
Thanks for the comments!
I'm not particularly informed enough to determine if a regional powerplay or conflict by proxy via china/us is indeed more pressing than minor instability caused by climate change so I appreciate the viewpoints.
I had always assumed that China would be unwillingly to start a major conflict in the pacific specifically because they are quite reliant on international trade for their economy as well, so I was kind of ruling that out, and in my head they (and the US) would also suppress any of the regional proxy's from entering serious open conflict precisely because it would threaten their trade and supply chains.
Is the criticism more that this is a more likely short term scenario and that climate change instability is a more long term issue that deserves a lower priority ranking? I can understand that, but I do believe climate change is a serious security risk in the pacific especially over a longer term view.
Furthermore looking back I think my comment regarding our involvement in regional conflict came off as more self deprecating to our Military than intended, I was hoping to highlight that I believe it would be more likely that we would be involved as part of a international effort anyway, and maintaining interoperability with our allies is definitely highly ranked at 3rd place as well as principles 5,6 and 7.
In fact it seems to be even more of a mentioned focus (climate change/environmentalism only getting one principle).
Perhaps we're reading too much into the specific ordering of the rankings.
With respect to the maritime surveillance, do people see that as likely that NZDF might operate a minisat swarm launched by rocket lab? Or do people think it's more likely they'll go with something more traditional and larger.
I know rocketlab offers a prebuilt satellite package with Photon Photon | Rocket Lab so could they be looking at a platform based on this with some off the shelf surveillance packages.
The document does specifically call out NZ as having space launch capability, so I wonder if that's weighing on their minds.
I'm not particularly informed enough to determine if a regional powerplay or conflict by proxy via china/us is indeed more pressing than minor instability caused by climate change so I appreciate the viewpoints.
I had always assumed that China would be unwillingly to start a major conflict in the pacific specifically because they are quite reliant on international trade for their economy as well, so I was kind of ruling that out, and in my head they (and the US) would also suppress any of the regional proxy's from entering serious open conflict precisely because it would threaten their trade and supply chains.
Is the criticism more that this is a more likely short term scenario and that climate change instability is a more long term issue that deserves a lower priority ranking? I can understand that, but I do believe climate change is a serious security risk in the pacific especially over a longer term view.
Furthermore looking back I think my comment regarding our involvement in regional conflict came off as more self deprecating to our Military than intended, I was hoping to highlight that I believe it would be more likely that we would be involved as part of a international effort anyway, and maintaining interoperability with our allies is definitely highly ranked at 3rd place as well as principles 5,6 and 7.
In fact it seems to be even more of a mentioned focus (climate change/environmentalism only getting one principle).
Perhaps we're reading too much into the specific ordering of the rankings.
With respect to the maritime surveillance, do people see that as likely that NZDF might operate a minisat swarm launched by rocket lab? Or do people think it's more likely they'll go with something more traditional and larger.
I know rocketlab offers a prebuilt satellite package with Photon Photon | Rocket Lab so could they be looking at a platform based on this with some off the shelf surveillance packages.
The document does specifically call out NZ as having space launch capability, so I wonder if that's weighing on their minds.
Kiwigov
Member
I think other members of the forum would agree that trade links - despite their appeal to 'economists' - could never outweigh militaristic and strategic interests, partly because the loss of trade exports would invariably be worth less to large parts of the national commercial sector, than the immediate benefits of rapid and high Government defence spending. I recall that some publications prior to 1914 extolled the virtues of the very high economic links between the nations of Europe as providing a sure deterrent to war...
While not stated as such, all too easy to imagine that China's Belt and Road Initiative is partly intended to provide land-based lines of supply to markets, which are not vulnerable to conventional maritime blockade
In June of 1941 one of the Soviet Unions biggest trading partners was Nazi Germany. On the morning of 22 June 1941 as the Luftwaffe was bombing Russian airfields and forward positions ahead of Wehrmacht panzers pushing forward into Russian territory, Russian trains were still crossing into German occupied Poland with Russian goods for Germany. Stalin had been warned by Richard Sorge, a NKVD agent in Tokyo and by the British, of Hitlers intent to attack the Soviet Union but he ignored them, refusing too believe them. So yes just because significant trade connections occur between nations, they don't necessarily preclude wars, especially if the wars are for ideological reasons. OP Barbarossa was purely ideologically based, because of Hitlers hatred of communism, his belief in racial purity and his claim of lebensraum. Of course history has shown Hitlers ideology to be evil and Stalin's rule to be just as evil.
In the context of the US and the PRC it too is an ideological based confrontation regardless of what many pundits and pollies claim. On the one side you have an ideology based upon freedom of expression, association etc., against an ideology that controls what people do see, hear, think, where they can go, whom they associate with etc. That is the crux of the matter and at the present point in time both ideologies are struggling against each other for domination, championed by nations armed with nuclear weapons and large economies. We are caught in the middle and yes we will have to decide what we want to be. We cannot continue to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds.
In the context of the US and the PRC it too is an ideological based confrontation regardless of what many pundits and pollies claim. On the one side you have an ideology based upon freedom of expression, association etc., against an ideology that controls what people do see, hear, think, where they can go, whom they associate with etc. That is the crux of the matter and at the present point in time both ideologies are struggling against each other for domination, championed by nations armed with nuclear weapons and large economies. We are caught in the middle and yes we will have to decide what we want to be. We cannot continue to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds.
Defend New Zealand’s sovereignty and territory, and contribute to protecting New Zealand’s critical lines of communication 26. New Zealand’s territory and sovereign rights extend from the heart of our nation to the boundaries of our Exclusive Economic Zone and extended continental shelf claims. Defending sovereignty across these areas ensures not only the protection of our national resources, but also that New Zealand’s national values are upheld
The above is taken out of the DCP and what I would like to see is a realistic plan to carry out the above function without an ACF as this is often quoted as the first priority.In just about every modern document on the NZDF.
To my way of thinking the deterrent effect alone justifies an AFC and deterrence is far better than fighting a war.
As JFK once said " the best defence dollars you will ever spend are those you never use " when referring to deterrence.
The above is taken out of the DCP and what I would like to see is a realistic plan to carry out the above function without an ACF as this is often quoted as the first priority.In just about every modern document on the NZDF.
To my way of thinking the deterrent effect alone justifies an AFC and deterrence is far better than fighting a war.
As JFK once said " the best defence dollars you will ever spend are those you never use " when referring to deterrence.
Last edited:
Exkiwiforces
New Member
Hi everyone and yes it’s a long time between innings as I’ve had a few personal health issues and no it wasn’t me getting married either since the last I was here. But anyway I came across a an article on scoop.co.nz coming from a Defence focus group called 42 group and I’m wondering if anyone here has heard of it or you is being it?
The actual article from scoop.
An independent assessment of New Zealand defence policy | Scoop News
The link to there PDF file I haven’t read it yet and I hope to have read tomorrow in between doing the final fit out of man cave.
http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1...ence_Policy_Assessment_for_NZ__2018__v1.0.pdf
The actual article from scoop.
An independent assessment of New Zealand defence policy | Scoop News
The link to there PDF file I haven’t read it yet and I hope to have read tomorrow in between doing the final fit out of man cave.
http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1...ence_Policy_Assessment_for_NZ__2018__v1.0.pdf
Yeah well a quick zip thru was all I really needed, or at least this was:
Recommendation #10: That New Zealand should, if possible, cancel the purchase of P-8A Poseidon aircraft and negotiate the purchase (at a fraction of the cost) of a small number of the best P-3 Orion aircraft being retired by its allies, and that it should invest the money saved in more valuable defensive capabilities.
I then didn't bother reading any more.
I do hope you are over those health issues now.
I scanned through it. Which is about all it is worth.
It recommends upgrading the P-3's for another 10 years or buying used P-3's off current users. Says that the US has not got rid of P-3's yet inferring that the P-8A's are no good.
It recommends keeping the Anzacs for a further 10 years thus until the 2040's.
It recommends NZ buying land based missiles to defend its airspace.
It recommends stored munitions dispersed around the country.
It says that it will cost $8B to replace the two Anzacs.
That New Zealand adopt a defence policy that emphasises i) Anti-Access / Area Denial (A2/AD),
ii) a layered defensive posture, iii) rapid force expansion to enable a sustained asymmetric ground defence
and iv) defence capability and sourcing innovation.
One can usually tell the credibility of any article by its source materials. There is a lot of Wiki, NZ Herald and Stuff links at the end. It throws around A2/AD and other jargon but is obviously superficial in the contextual understanding of it. No one who knows anything about defence and international relations will take this seriously.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Exkiwiforces
What a load of rubbish
What a load of rubbish
It is not ExKiwiForces who wrote this so called independent analysis of the DCP. He was only making us aware of it by providing the link.
Hope the health issues are in the past now.
I've read it and the quality of sources speak for themselves. They looked at a lot of Russian gear as well. They take a big swipe at the US & UK but don't offer solutions on how we can protect our SLOC. The seablindness and far left are strong in that group. They also don't appear to understand the concept of an IADS even though they discuss it, nor do they appear to understand the geostrategic and geopolitical concepts, let alone the costs, required for their defence of NZ strategy. Their claims for the frigate replacement costs are so wrong it's not funny. Where did they get them from? Did they look at the replacement cost of a USN CGN by mistake?
TBH it looks like a Term 1 XXXX 101 assignment. C- for effort.
shanes_world_05
Member
Your very generous.
$4 billion NZD implies a very different vessel, its whole of life cost and program cost for domestic construction. It is scary though that that is considered a serious enough commentary on defence that scoop is linking to it. But IADS?
milliGal
Member
It is certainly at the amateur end of the spectrum as far as the analysis and recommendations go (and I think I know who one of the authors may be). It made for an interesting read though, and one or two of their recommendations may have some merit (e.g. distributed weapons stores and a stronger focus on asymmetric warfare when it comes to defending an invasion).
It seems the central plank of their analysis was based on the assumption that NZ will follow Australia and Canada into purchasing fully specced type 26 frigates to replace the ANZAC's and theorising alternative spending choices against that projected cost. An odd choice to say the least considering planning for their replacement (prior to the DCP) was not even projected to begin for another ~5 years.
Their advocacy of Russian equipment was also a little bizarre. Especially considering one of the other arguments was that the US and UK are no longer a reliable partners in upholding the rules based order (as though Russia is). One could certainly find a lot to criticise the US for in terms of foreign policy, but their values and interests are far more closely aligned with ours than any other major power. I think our defence dollars are far better spent with them (and our other allies) than elsewhere.
If their report raises the profile of the NZDF and the potential threats NZ may face in the future, then that can be considered a good thing at least.
Last edited:
Ocean1Curse
Member
Okay not to cover to much of the same ground. So I this 42 group had posted a document titled "Independent Assessment of New Zealand's Defence Policy" to Scoop.co.nz so a decently read publication. Over all 42 group is advocating defensive capabilities over power projection. Although its obvious they're using the terms incorrectly and I'm an amateur defence enthusiasts but I think there's something not quite correct with this lot. That's obvious.
It begins pretty well IMO. Some one like me who rejects the aura of the white supremacist colonial model of empire building can get down with the analytical side of it. It mentions the rules Based Order and how our allies break those rules which puts us in bind because New Zealand relies on the maintenance of those rules.
It also talks about an over reliance on tier 2 capabilities at the expense of tier 1 capabilities. Recommendation 4 I didn't mind.
"Recommendation #4 That New Zealand amend its defence policy, strategy and doctrine to remove any explicit or implicit assumption of timely assistance by its allies, or any assumption that New Zealand’s geographical isolation will protect it from future attack." So good so far.
Then there's Recommendation #10:
"That New Zealand should, if possible, cancel the purchase of P-8A Poseidon aircraft and negotiate the purchase (at a fraction of the cost) of a small number of the best P-3 Orion aircraft being retired by its allies, and that it should invest the money saved in more valuable defensive capabilities."
This was the bit that said yeah, these guys don't know anything about defence and I'm an amateur but bullshit smells the same everywhere. They started out by claiming to want to learn from past defence failures and then go straight ahead and ignore their own advice. As if to say that the maintenance issues and inbuilt obsolescence on our current P-3k's can be cured by purchasing even more P-3 Orion's with there own maintenance issues and inbuilt obsolescence.
And then at the top of page 31 there's a diagram where they've priced a single ANZAC replacement Frigate for $4 billion dollars. I mean they must have added through life costs and life extensions on top of the purchase price. All pretty quite cute considering that their claimed alternative is another one or two ANZAC Frigate life extension so that the excess funds from the $4b can be spent on what looks like a picture of a Russian made integrated air defence system based on the S-300 / 400 with cute little pictures of other western weapons systems on the same alternate diagram. So what, we put another 8 CAMMs onto the ANZACs in a second life extension programme giving them 16 reloads. That's just ridiculous.
Their entire strategy is based on medium ranged land based anti-ship missiles and long ranged surface launched anti-air missiles with a whole bunch of tier 2 capabilities while at the same time saying NZDF should focus more on tier 1 defence assets. It doesn't make sense. So they fire all there missiles and oops we are impotent again.
So this is where the danger is where we don't yet have the rules of conduct and the rules of the professionals. What ever you or I think of NZDF, there has to be certain rules and logic. What I find terrifying is that the parallel is in an uncanny way similar to the lead up to World War One. We had one global power in Britain and a new growing power in Germany the results we know, and everybody knew for decades in the lead up that WW1 that war was coming and everybody was warning about it but at the same time no one was believing any of it until it happened. And I think this is why in the end there was a war.
Today we have American interests competing with Chinese interests. The parallels are quite shocking. Are we implicitly aware that every one is well aware of America and Chinese interests are barreling head first into a new Cold War or are we decidedly blissfully unaware. And if you read our own media almost every day there is an argument for a coming clash of major powers and almost always followed right up by some call by defence amateurs to do this or that with defence. At the same time we are presented with this new war and I think deep down no one really believes it.
So what do I mean by all this well firstly look at the media and all the examples of how we are slowly approaching a new World War which again I think the stakes are precisely similar to those leading up to WW1. There's new global powers and then a new geopolitical rearrangement and so on. The only solution that I am aware of is some sort of mobilisation of a sort of new universal project. Some sort of new deal that underwrites the wellbeing and security of New Zealanders. But if the project is not enough then the dangers is precisely this situation where the government, NZDF and everyone else must proceed in a careful way and I would argue the opposite. We must not accept impotency which is our situation where we are slowly sliding towards choosing between our largest customer China and America. Australia is our largest customer and China is Australia largest customer.
So by de facto China is New Zealand's largest customer and we should just be very, very careful to not allow these theoretical notions of how to avoid catastrophe a free pass with no response. It's not only the risk of a World War that we should accept. I would argue that we should embrace the notions of a new war as our fate. The whole global situation is pushing us towards it. So it's not enough to just be carful because if we remain in the same frame all that says is okay another World War, that's Impossible!!! ect.
I would argue instead that a New World War is our predetermined destination so we can break that frame and change the destination. NZDF has necessities but necessities always happen retroactively in the sense that NZDF must be redirected to technical proficiencies of war fighting.
So if you have the misfortune of falling in love it is always a contingent encounter. So you see a lady and she needs help getting up then you're having coffee and a baby pops out. And then retroactively you can inspect the narrative and claim it was all predestined. It all seems contingent on destiny and predetermined. But once it happens it all appears as if it was all necessary.
Now I claim that we have the freedom to retroactively impose another fate as it were. We have freedom but it's not the freedom that says oh look what's on Scoop.co.nz, let's not answer back to much. I deny that logic as being the same logic that denies the possibility of a New World War. So the whole logic has to be debated vigorously and changed otherwise we are lost.
It begins pretty well IMO. Some one like me who rejects the aura of the white supremacist colonial model of empire building can get down with the analytical side of it. It mentions the rules Based Order and how our allies break those rules which puts us in bind because New Zealand relies on the maintenance of those rules.
It also talks about an over reliance on tier 2 capabilities at the expense of tier 1 capabilities. Recommendation 4 I didn't mind.
"Recommendation #4 That New Zealand amend its defence policy, strategy and doctrine to remove any explicit or implicit assumption of timely assistance by its allies, or any assumption that New Zealand’s geographical isolation will protect it from future attack." So good so far.
Then there's Recommendation #10:
"That New Zealand should, if possible, cancel the purchase of P-8A Poseidon aircraft and negotiate the purchase (at a fraction of the cost) of a small number of the best P-3 Orion aircraft being retired by its allies, and that it should invest the money saved in more valuable defensive capabilities."
This was the bit that said yeah, these guys don't know anything about defence and I'm an amateur but bullshit smells the same everywhere. They started out by claiming to want to learn from past defence failures and then go straight ahead and ignore their own advice. As if to say that the maintenance issues and inbuilt obsolescence on our current P-3k's can be cured by purchasing even more P-3 Orion's with there own maintenance issues and inbuilt obsolescence.
And then at the top of page 31 there's a diagram where they've priced a single ANZAC replacement Frigate for $4 billion dollars. I mean they must have added through life costs and life extensions on top of the purchase price. All pretty quite cute considering that their claimed alternative is another one or two ANZAC Frigate life extension so that the excess funds from the $4b can be spent on what looks like a picture of a Russian made integrated air defence system based on the S-300 / 400 with cute little pictures of other western weapons systems on the same alternate diagram. So what, we put another 8 CAMMs onto the ANZACs in a second life extension programme giving them 16 reloads. That's just ridiculous.
Their entire strategy is based on medium ranged land based anti-ship missiles and long ranged surface launched anti-air missiles with a whole bunch of tier 2 capabilities while at the same time saying NZDF should focus more on tier 1 defence assets. It doesn't make sense. So they fire all there missiles and oops we are impotent again.
So this is where the danger is where we don't yet have the rules of conduct and the rules of the professionals. What ever you or I think of NZDF, there has to be certain rules and logic. What I find terrifying is that the parallel is in an uncanny way similar to the lead up to World War One. We had one global power in Britain and a new growing power in Germany the results we know, and everybody knew for decades in the lead up that WW1 that war was coming and everybody was warning about it but at the same time no one was believing any of it until it happened. And I think this is why in the end there was a war.
Today we have American interests competing with Chinese interests. The parallels are quite shocking. Are we implicitly aware that every one is well aware of America and Chinese interests are barreling head first into a new Cold War or are we decidedly blissfully unaware. And if you read our own media almost every day there is an argument for a coming clash of major powers and almost always followed right up by some call by defence amateurs to do this or that with defence. At the same time we are presented with this new war and I think deep down no one really believes it.
So what do I mean by all this well firstly look at the media and all the examples of how we are slowly approaching a new World War which again I think the stakes are precisely similar to those leading up to WW1. There's new global powers and then a new geopolitical rearrangement and so on. The only solution that I am aware of is some sort of mobilisation of a sort of new universal project. Some sort of new deal that underwrites the wellbeing and security of New Zealanders. But if the project is not enough then the dangers is precisely this situation where the government, NZDF and everyone else must proceed in a careful way and I would argue the opposite. We must not accept impotency which is our situation where we are slowly sliding towards choosing between our largest customer China and America. Australia is our largest customer and China is Australia largest customer.
So by de facto China is New Zealand's largest customer and we should just be very, very careful to not allow these theoretical notions of how to avoid catastrophe a free pass with no response. It's not only the risk of a World War that we should accept. I would argue that we should embrace the notions of a new war as our fate. The whole global situation is pushing us towards it. So it's not enough to just be carful because if we remain in the same frame all that says is okay another World War, that's Impossible!!! ect.
I would argue instead that a New World War is our predetermined destination so we can break that frame and change the destination. NZDF has necessities but necessities always happen retroactively in the sense that NZDF must be redirected to technical proficiencies of war fighting.
So if you have the misfortune of falling in love it is always a contingent encounter. So you see a lady and she needs help getting up then you're having coffee and a baby pops out. And then retroactively you can inspect the narrative and claim it was all predestined. It all seems contingent on destiny and predetermined. But once it happens it all appears as if it was all necessary.
Now I claim that we have the freedom to retroactively impose another fate as it were. We have freedom but it's not the freedom that says oh look what's on Scoop.co.nz, let's not answer back to much. I deny that logic as being the same logic that denies the possibility of a New World War. So the whole logic has to be debated vigorously and changed otherwise we are lost.