NZDF General discussion thread

Nighthawk.NZ

Well-Known Member
I have read these posts and I find it sad New Zealand has sunk so low to be vassal state of China. Recently there was the ministers statement about Australia being kinder to China. Failure to ban huawei 5g equipment. Not supporting the 5 eyes statment condemning China interference of Hong Kong.
In these situations New Zealand needs to pull up its socks and work out where they want to be in this world and who its friends are.
Sorry but NZ has and I can post links to where these are but I let you actually find and look for them;
  • NZ has spoken up against the CCP about Hong Kong and the internal security law including the current foreign minister Nanaia Mahuta criticising the Hong Kong arrests. (New Zealand has suspended its extradition treaty with Hong Kong over this)
  • We have basically banned Huawei 5G. and the major networks will go with Ericsson or Nokia.
  • We spoke up and supported Australia when they said an investigation needs to be done into the handling of Covid.
  • We spoke up and supported Australia in the trade war.
  • We spoke up when China posted that photoshop image of an Aussie soldier.
  • New Zealand has also called out China's treatment of the Uighur people in the Xinjiang region. Aunty Cindy raised human rights issues with Chinese President Xi Jinping while in China in 2019.
  • We have spoken up on many other things as well, but they don't make headlines as NZ is such a small player on the world market.
if we didn't sign a joint statement... why when we have already said everything in the statement... unless action is going to be taken words and documents are meaningless. Doesn't mean we don't agree with it...

But I feel this is now getting off topic so back to defence before I get a warning...
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
I meant no offence. It was never my intent to send a trolling message. I don't know how or do a trolling message. I do try to support my message with fact. If my facts are wrong I stand corrected.
If you said your facts are wrong and you were mistaken, your apology would have been accepted and issue closed.

Learn to provide a link (to back up your facts). NZ has in fact made a 19 Nov 2020 statement on Hong Kong. They just don’t have to sign up to every statement to be made. See link to joint statement on Hong Kong with:

  • The Honourable Francois-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Canada
  • The Hon Nanaia Mahuta, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Local Government and Associate Minister of Maori Development, New Zealand
  • The Rt Honourable Dominic Raab MP, Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State, United Kingdom
  • Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, United States
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
If anyone is interested in a little light reading, the RNZN has released Vol 1. No.1 of their new 'Professional Journal of the Royal New Zealand Navy' (link). There was mention of this publication in the Navy Today magazine a month or two back, but then nothing - looks like it's finally been made public (it's dated December 2020). AIUI, it will be 2 issues a year. It's great when we can get Defence/NZDF to at least put out new ideas and fresh thinking in public once in a while - they should do it more often.

Chis73
Cool link and thanks. It's interesting reading and I am slowly working my way through it.
Very interesting. Thanks for the link. But I am concerned about the constant focus on affordability, and having quality capabilities to complete missions and keep our people alive is secondary. It's almost like they are talking themselves out of what we know we need so as to bend over double to appear reasonable.

That isn't what leaders should do.
I don't think so much, but as I say I am slowly working my way through it. I have just finished Capt Watts article on the Future Fleet. There is some that I have agreed with and some that I haven't. Having said that, there is quite a good bit of background information there. However one theme does flow through the articles that I have read is the great power rivalry, increasing strategic tensions, the maritime security threat and how it is both a RNZN and RNZAF response that is required.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I meant no offence. It was never my intent to send a trolling message. I don't know how or do a trolling message. I do try to support my message with fact. If my facts are wrong I stand corrected.
I only wrote in green because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Don't make me regret it.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Very interesting. Thanks for the link. But I am concerned about the constant focus on affordability, and having quality capabilities to complete missions and keep our people alive is secondary. It's almost like they are talking themselves out of what we know we need so as to bend over double to appear reasonable.

That isn't what leaders should do.
I think that when defence is discussed in NZ and the affordability question is raised, what is really being referred to is not what we as a country can or cannot afford but rather what is politically affordable. This can be divided into two parts, which is what the public will politically tolerate and what amount of money the government of the day don't want to spend so more is available for projects to increase their next election prospects. I think that the lack of any real strong negative comment on the 20B capital project spend would indicate that the main problem is the politicians.
 

Depot Dog

Active Member
Again I apologise. It is being 58 i call it as I see it. I come from the era when men were men and sheep were scared. If I need to I will try being a snowflake. I will be more careful.

My sources for my post were newspapers and opinion pieces. This post it was mostly Murdoch papers. My source material comes from a variety of sources I do try and be informed before I post and obviously I was looking in the wrong place. Most of my posts contain links. I feel part of penalty is because I looked in the wrong places.

I have written about 20 posts so far. Two topics Ive regretted this one and the one on navy planning. I welcome any private posts on constructive criticism.

Last point this is the first forum I have written posts. As a rule i dont do social media. The reason this forum has been a revelation. This is a subject i am passionate about. There are alot of knowledgeable people with their fingers on the defence pulse. I respect their thoughts and opinions. I spend most of my time reading debates. I don't contribute as I either agree or I'm learning something. I only contribute if I feel I have a contribution to make.

Reading my words i could see they could be offensive to our kiwi friends. Upon reflection I agree with ngatimozart observation i was trolling. This was never my intention and i will choose my words more carefully.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Again I apologise. It is being 58 i call it as I see it. I come from the era when men were men and sheep were scared. If I need to I will try being a snowflake. I will be more careful.

My sources for my post were newspapers and opinion pieces. This post it was mostly Murdoch papers. My source material comes from a variety of sources I do try and be informed before I post and obviously I was looking in the wrong place. Most of my posts contain links. I feel part of penalty is because I looked in the wrong places.

I have written about 20 posts so far. Two topics Ive regretted this one and the one on navy planning. I welcome any private posts on constructive criticism.

Last point this is the first forum I have written posts. As a rule i dont do social media. The reason this forum has been a revelation. This is a subject i am passionate about. There are alot of knowledgeable people with their fingers on the defence pulse. I respect their thoughts and opinions. I spend most of my time reading debates. I don't contribute as I either agree or I'm learning something. I only contribute if I feel I have a contribution to make.

Reading my words i could see they could be offensive to our kiwi friends. I didn't intend this.
One of the rules is that you post your sources. That's what you should have done. Next point we don't tolerate politics unless they are directly related to defence and / or security. We especially do not tolerate partisan politics. Be advised next time you break the rules the Moderators won't be lenient

Ok Murdoch media are quite partisan and have never let the truth stand in the way in of a good story, much like most MSM. They all have particular agendas that want to push. It's a matter of reading widely and critically. Not critically like the left wing would have it, but critically as in is it what the author's saying factual, accurate, and able to be backed up by reputable reliable, verifiable sources.
 

Gracie1234

Well-Known Member
Thank you for sharing the link, i have just read the first few pages. It seems quite clearly stated that the current funding level will not be enough to achieve the current policy objectives. If funding is not increased then NZ will have to give up control of our current maritime territory and our ability to influence outcomes. It looks to me like a request for additional funding is being developed if we wish to protect what is currently ours.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I think that when defence is discussed in NZ and the affordability question is raised, what is really being referred to is not what we as a country can or cannot afford but rather what is politically affordable. This can be divided into two parts, which is what the public will politically tolerate and what amount of money the government of the day don't want to spend so more is available for projects to increase their next election prospects. I think that the lack of any real strong negative comment on the 20B capital project spend would indicate that the main problem is the politicians.
Politically affordable, not unique to NZ as recent defence issues in the UK and Canada illustrate.
 

Depot Dog

Active Member
This maybe my last post. I read Murdoch and Fairfax media (now 9 news) for a balanced view. Where I get my sources from shouldn't matter. If the source or myself are wrong I'll take it on the chin. I'll be educated.
Attached is one of the many Murdoch comments on the Hong Kong declaration. My advise is don't read the comments as they don't reflect well on NZ. BTW I don't agree. If this is a wrong or banned source tell what sources I am allowed to quote from.

Okay I was guilty sitting in a cafe writing a post and using my memory to write my supporting products. I should of looked at it more carefully before I posted it. I believe I am not the first person to do this. Ngatimozart wrote to me in green. I reflected and sent a sincere apology. It was with sorrow and remorse which came from the heart. Nighthawk challenged my ignorance and corrected me. I didn't want to carry this discussion any further so I responded with a like. The like was a polite way acknowledge the post and show agreement without pouring petrol on the fire. Matter closed I retreat with my tail between my legs. All good.

Then "If you said your facts are wrong and you were mistaken, your apology would have been accepted. Instead, I am forced to apply a slight wrist slap with 12 warning points (for a short duration of 6 months), rather than a 2 week ban."
It looked to me I was being punished for badly written sincere apology. As I said previously I hadn't looked up my sources and I needed to recheck. If my facts are wrong I would concede. But at least let me check. BTW I concede my comments are wrong.

Then I got "
One of the rules is that you post your sources. That's what you should have done. Next point we don't tolerate politics unless they are directly related to defence and / or security. We especially do not tolerate partisan politics. Be advised next time you break the rules the Moderators won't be lenient
Ngatimozart you are one of the guys I most respect at this forum. However my last post was defending myself against the charges. You innocent before proven guilty. I have never been to court or had a military charge but I believe I have the right of defense. The comments were written with no disrespect to you or the other moderators.

In my mind I offended the NZ members. My message was poorly written but as I said in a post long ago I'm no English scholar. To the Kiwi members my sincerest apology. To the moderators if i showed any disrespect I'm sorry. I know I dared to speak out so I am expect punishment and it is probably severe.

To those who are about to die we solute you
 

Attachments

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
@Depot Dog Apology accepted and thank you. I wasn't the Moderator who called you out on the perceived quality of the original apology either. I will negotiate with the other Moderator about the naughty boy points.

Sources are important and if you don't have access to them when you are posting say so and state that you will insert them later. I have been known to do that on the odd occasion.
 

JohnJT

Active Member
Argentina are in a similar position to NZ, with a large maritime area of responsibility and needing to operate in Antarctic waters. Their solution was to purchase four Kership 90m OPVs. The first ship is the ex-French L'Adroit and the other three are new builds. The new builds are ice strengthened to operate in the southern ocean and be able to support bases in Antarctica. These are interesting vessels with a helicopter deck and hangar, small crew (40 + extra berthing for 30), long endurance (30 days and 7000nm) and two 9m RHIBS launched from rear ramps.

The total cost of the project is 318M euros (approx. NZ$533M for the four vessels).

The vessels are electronically advanced, but lightly armed. Their main armament is a Marlin 30mm gun. I think a good option for greater firepower would be the new ultra lightweight, non-deck penetrating 76mm Sovraponte (which I posted about here).



 

Depot Dog

Active Member
@Depot Dog Apology accepted and thank you. I wasn't the Moderator who called you out on the perceived quality of the original apology either. I will negotiate with the other Moderator about the naughty boy points.

Sources are important and if you don't have access to them when you are posting say so and state that you will insert them later. I have been known to do that on the odd occasion.
A very big thank you. I mean no offence as that is my nature. If my English or my thoughts offend I don't mean it. As I said before I am trying to learn the correct approach to posting on this forum. If I have to go to the naughty corner please tell me why and I will be happy to modify my response. I will be in Christchurch soon if you are close we should catch up.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
IN MANY DISCUSSION FORUMS, WE HAVE A CULTURAL PROBLEM that may not be resolvable in this present age of communication if people continue to use propaganda or present straw man arguments instead of using facts, as a currency for discussion. We have to allow members to provide facts/data to build consensus or rebut falsehoods, be these falsehoods deliberate or mistaken. In this sort of discussion system, it’s almost too easy for disinformation and deliberate distortion and resort to fantasy to take hold.

That is not easy to resolve. But we can address structural issues:

(a) by providing sources in our posts;
(b) by allowing professionals to ask questions or to provide context (that is missing in a fan boy type discussion), if the discussion seems illogical or veering towards fantasy; and
(c) by accepting that a thread needs moderation.

That way the NZ public can have a discussion space to help the public make real informed choices; instead of letting a few resort to trolling as the lowest denominator.
 
Last edited:

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
I want everyone to refrain from trying to relitigate Mod directions. I want everyone to think carefully about what they post, and if it is a reference please do not regard opinion pieces by political operatives as gospel as they do not represent accurate general knowledge or opinion. Check and verify.

This thread need to get back on track and be grounded in sensible discussion.


Regards, MrC
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Professional Journal of the Royal New Zealand Navy
Issue 1, Vol., 1. January 2021.

The RNZN has recently published a new publication, the Professional Journal of the Royal New Zealand Navy (PJRNZN), with the intention of:

The Navy’s aim in publishing this journal is two-fold. First, the Navy wishes to use the Journal as a means of building the professionalism of the service by providing a safe place for the development of critical and well-informed thinking. Second, the Navy looks to the Journal to engage and exchange views with all those who have an interest in naval and maritime affairs, or in security and defence matters more generally.” (Beath, P.10). This is quite admirable and long overdue.

The reason that I have posted this in the NZDF thread and not the RNZN thread is because many of the points addressed in this first issue equally apply to the RNZAF.

But first I need to address a point that the green machine is not going to like. We are a maritime nation and our focus should be upon our maritime assets, both naval and air. To this end, the focus should move from the Army and to both the RNZN and the RNZAF. The Army must be relegated to third place in the pecking order until we have our naval and air forces deficiencies have been rectified. We DO NOT require an Army centric Defence Force which has been the traditional NZ approach to defence for the previous 150 years. In fact the Army REQUIRES a complete reorientation towards a maritime focus as an amphibious force. But more about that later.

This will be a series of posts because there is a lot of ground to cover and the posts will not necessarily cover the order that the articles appear in the first issue of the PJRNZN because I want to address issues in a different order. But first the contents of the first issue:
  • A Background to the Next Round of Strategic Reviews
Assistant Chief of Navy (Strategy and Engagement) Commander Des Tiller RNZN​
The issues confronting Navy as it prepares for the forthcoming round of strategic reviews. These include fleet renewal, personnel numbers, future base location issues, sustainability, resilience, the security of supply lines, force protection and national security and combat options.​
  • Special Feature Article: Designing the Next Fleet
Captain Andrew Watts RNZNR​
With the Navy facing an unprecedented period of transition, there is an opportunity to design a coherent, affordable and sustainable fleet through the application of new technology and doctrine.​
  • Toward A New Unifying Military Concept for New Zealand
Dr Lance Beath​
In which the Editor opens up a discussion of New Zealand defence policy.​

OPINION PIECES
  • Affordability and Value: The Defence Context
Rear Admiral John Martin with Gareth Chaplin​
The challenge facing the Navy’s leadership.​
  • A Turning Point for New Zealand’s Maritime Periphery
Simon Murdoch​
A former Chief Executive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Head of the Prime Minister’s Department explores the implications of the growing competition for power and influence in New Zealand’s maritime periphery.​
  • Between Cold Wars: Old Mistakes and New Realities
Professor Rouben Azizian​
Professor Azizian is the Director of Massey’s Defence and Security Studies programme. He is a former Soviet and Russian Foreign Service officer and a classmate of Sergey Lavrov, the current long-serving Russian Foreign Minister. Rouben reflects on lessons from a life in the Soviet and Russian Foreign Services.​

RESEARCH PAPERS
  • Toward a Zero Carbon Navy
Chris Howard​
How the RNZN could become a regional leader in the development of a comprehensive response to the need to lower carbon emissions. Chris has developed his thinking in the light of the government’s commitment to achieve net zero carbon by 2050. New Zealand Defence Force Advanced Command and Staff Course (Joint) Research Essay 2019.​
  • The RNZN’s Littoral Warfare Force: Embracing Revolution
Commander Tim Garvan RNZN​
On the need for more innovative thinking in the Littoral Warfare Support community. New Zealand Defence Force Advanced Command and Staff Course (Joint) Research Essay 2018.​
  • A Maritime Security Reset for the Royal New Zealand Navy
Timothy Portland​
Constabulary Operations, Capability Investment and the Combating of Transnational Security Threats. New Zealand Defence Force Advanced Command and Staff Course (Joint) Research Essay 2018.​

There are other items in the issue that include book reviews, an editorial and a look ahead at the second issue, however the articles listed above are the important ones that are worth considering.

A Turning Point for New Zealand’s Maritime Periphery by Simon Murdoch - A former Chief Executive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Head of the Prime Minister’s Department explores the implications of the growing competition for power and influence in New Zealand’s maritime periphery. PP. 72 – 75.

The author argues that governments of all hues have approached defence capability in minimalistic terms with incremental increases. There has been no political appetite for any change and I would argue that any change has been in the negative which he indicates by saying the biggest change was the disbandment of the ACF in 1999. Our thinking has always been the local and South Pacific first and then global commitments. Murdoch argues that this approach has, in his words, run us into a hole, and I would argue left us unprepared for developments further afield, such as currently happening in Eastern Asia and the Northern Pacific.

He raises the point that the idea that we even have a contested maritime periphery on the edges of our Sovereign Maritime Areas (SPA), is not thought about and even though we have sovereign rights over these areas which means stewardship and guardianship, we don’t have adequate means to monitor or enforce our laws within them. Then there is our Maritime Domain which are the areas adjacent to our SMA are basically our and Fiji’s SAR area. Our influence in this domain is not as extensive as it is in our SMA and there are now intrusions from outside players such as India, Russia and the PRC, with the last two presenting increasing security challenges.

NZEEZ.jpg
NZ EEZ & Extended Continental Shelf.

NZ SAR Area.jpg
NZ & Fiji SAR Regions.

The-Realm-of-New-Zealand.jpg
The Realm of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Murdoch suggests that we have reached a strategic turning point with regard to the risks to our interests that the PRC presents. He argues that the actions of the PRC in the South China and East China Seas and its attitudes towards its neighbours in those areas present a direct threat to us because of SLOC and ALOC (Air Lanes of Communication) that criss-cross the region, and will affect us economically. He states that our periphery is actually trans-Pacific in nature and that is what must be understood by policy makers, politicians, military and civil authorities. I happen to agree with him fully on this.

All in all, a well written article that provides a grounding for the maritime context to come.

Part 2 to follow.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Very interesting Ngati I await your next offering and I totally agree with what is above and that the concept of a Army centric defence force does not make any sense. I think that this concept of an Army centric defence force is mainly TREASURY driven, due to perceived saving on capital spending and our pollies accept treasury advice because it is safer for them to do so and the majority of them have no idea on defence and simply don't want to know. My take on the situation in basic terms is what the hell do treasury know about the strategic and tactical implications of their meddling and they should be told to but out. We are a maritime nation and we need a defence force that reflects this.
 
Last edited:

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Very interesting Ngati I await your next offering and I totally agree with what is above and that the concept of a Army centric defence force does not make any sense. I think that this concept of an Army centric defence force is mainly TREASURY driven, due to perceived saving on capital spending and our pollies accept treasury advice because it is safer for them to do so and the majority of them have no idea on defence and simply don't want to know. My take on the situation in basic terms is what the hell do treasury know about the strategic and tactical implications of their meddling and they should be told to but out. We are a maritime nation and we need a defence force that reflects this.
While I agree with the principle of greater emphasis on sea and air I think the cost reasons need deeper analysis.
Capital spending is only one part of the expense equation.
Personnel cost are the other and IIRC they make up over 40% of the Aus defence budget. Wages, support services and veterans care are the main contributors and given that Army is the most personnel intensive service a reduction in numbers or a growth halt can make a large difference.
In this matter, reduced crew numbers in modern ships helps Navy’s bottom line but not sure of the trend in Airforce, perhaps others can help.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
In addition to my post above;
If I was involved in force planning for a small defence force, and I stress I have never served in any such role, I would advocate for an Army heavy in mobility, technology and aviation all needing highly skilled and experienced personnel.
At the risk of offending Grunts, my force would have less emphasis on infantry just keeping a smaller force with a cohort of experienced leaders which would allow a relatively quick growth in numbers from reservists and conscripts.
 
Top