NZDF General discussion thread

[steve33]

Israel has nothing to do with the creation of Al Qaeda i mean what has Bin laden done for the Palistinians,Somali Afgans?,the answer is nothing the movement is a force of Islam facists who want to dominate.

Comments that spring to mind that i have heard from Al Qaeda like there wont be peace until the west agrees to be ruled by islam,the black flag of Islam will be flying over Downing street,where going to break into your houses and smash your crosses and your riches and decendents will be bounty for the Mujadeen and the list goes on.

Al Qaeda are openly telling us what they want to do but we in the west are not listening because it is far eaiser to tell ourselves that if only America would change it,s foreign policy Bin laden and the boys would all go and get 9 to 5 jobs and we would all live happily ever after, it is a lot harder to admit to yourself that there is no easy answer and this is going to be a long hard fight lasting decades.

I agree with a comment Stuart Mackey made about countries like China and others and what they are up to, China is building up there military power and are developing the ability to project that power beyond there backyard and they are taking more interest in the Pacific region i also read an article where it was stated the chinese wanted 15 percent of there military to be high tech and able to take the fight to the enemy,doesn,t really fit in with the peaceful rise of China talk that we are always having fed to us.

The worlds resources are going to be put under increasing strain through this century with the population of the world predicted to go from 6 billion to 9 billion by 2050 and countries like China whose population is not going to get smaller are going to face an ever increasing demand for resources.

The Chinese communist partys survival is resting on them continuing to provide wealth for the Chinese people they have given the Chinese people a taste now they have to continue to deliver if they don,t they will face massive unrest and people don,t kid yourselves about this if China needs resources they will ask nicely but if that doesn,t work they will take what they need.

The Chinese communist party will do whatever they feel they have to to maintain control and ensure there survival.

New Zealand along with the rest of the countries in our region need to have crediable defence forces we need as a country the ability to detect and engage Submarines and surface craft keeping our trade routes open,the latest diesel electric submarines are super quite and a lot of countries are buying them,we are an Island nation and we need a strong navy.

I believe we also need a to set up a Ranger school and have a Ranger company attached to each of our two full time Battalions it would gave us another Special ops asset apart from the SAS and would also enhance the standards of our infantry battalions giving the soldiers another standard to aspire to not higher than the SAS but a good base from which they could aim for the SAS.

We should have a strike wing i belive it is better to have the tools and not need to use them than to need the tools and not have them,even if we have 10-12 aircraft we need a high speed jet that we can put into the air it wasn,t lost on me when i saw a guy steal a plane and was flying around the Skytower and no one could do anything they just had to stand around and watch.

And we can afford it we have been running billion doller surpluses for years.

Helen Clarke was made to look foolish saying that we live in a benign strategic enviroment then the Bali bombing happened and we also have China and the U.S showing more interest in the region.

We are heading into a world of shrinking resources and our world is run on greed and self interest we need as a country to face this fact and stop deluding ourselves that our isolation and fact the fact that we are a peace loving nation will protect us.

 

[Chino]

The problem is not that we need to keep up with anyone per se, just that NZ forces cannot operate at all anywhere without assistance, and thats not goodenough for an independent nation that can do it if it wants to with out bankrupting the economy. Those formidable infantry you talk of, we cannot send them anywhere, nor supply them, nor are they well equipped for medium to high intensity warfare.

Its also needs to be noted that our standard of living, indeed our way of life is bound up with geographic area's far beyond ours, which is why we invested so heavily in Singapore before WW2, had a battalion stationed there for so long,plus fighting in Europe and Africa in two World Wars.
As for Antartica, NZ is a dagger pointed at its heart, and the Pengiun's know it.

Yeah man that's why the Penguins are playing it cool. But you gotta watch out for the sheep. Just saw this NZ horror movie called Black Sheep. Also liked the Cube series.

...

NZ doesn't have colonies or far flung properties that need to be defended.

So why would NZ need to send troops on her own?

That's a major undertaking that would bankrupt economies larger than NZ's. It is wise of your government not to even try. Better use the money for something else more productive.

If war somewhere happens and threatens your oil supply etc, I'm sure it will also affect other people and they would want to do something about it too. So you won't have to act alone.

Depending on your allies is not unreasonable especially when threat to NZ itself is not imminent. You infantry may not be well-armed but to defend NZ they are quite adequate deterrent, I think. And a threat to NZ is a direct threat to Aust so they won't stand idly by. But you know that, of course.

As for medium to high intensity wars, I don't think those will be NZ's wars. (e.g. WW1 & 2, Gulf War etc)

And if you are fighting someone else's wars, again it is not unreasonable to expect support.

...

And thanks for the NZ battalion in Singapore during our times of need. They are very highly regarded soldiers in SIngapore and much appreciated. However when they got drunk and fought in bars, it'll take like six of our policemen to hold down one drunk and angry Kiwi. Normally they will just wait for the Kiwi MPs to arrive.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

...

NZ doesn't have colonies or far flung properties that need to be defended.

So why would NZ need to send troops on her own?

Because our standard of living and way of life are bound up with our ability to trade effectivly with the world at large.

That's a major undertaking that would bankrupt economies larger than NZ's. It is wise of your government not to even try. Better use the money for something else more productive.

That depends on size of commitment. Its worth noting that ww2 did not bankrupt us, large debts, yes, but not bankruptcy. We commited effectivly a large reinforced division to that war not including the other services on a population that was 1 1/2 million and our economy was a lot smaller.

If war somewhere happens and threatens your oil supply etc, I'm sure it will also affect other people and they would want to do something about it too. So you won't have to act alone.

No has ever suggested otherwise

Depending on your allies is not unreasonable especially when threat to NZ itself is not imminent. You infantry may not be well-armed but to defend NZ they are quite adequate deterrent, I think. And a threat to NZ is a direct threat to Aust so they won't stand idly by. But you know that, of course.

The thing is that a threat to NZ does not have to be a direct pysical threat, with our entire way of life dependent on events beyoned our immediate reagion, political independence can be threatened in other ways.

As for medium to high intensity wars, I don't think those will be NZ's wars. (e.g. WW1 & 2, Gulf War etc)

It is when its my job and home at stake if the economy goes down the toilet.

And if you are fighting someone else's wars, again it is not unreasonable to expect support.

Who has said we would be fighting someone elses war and who has said we would not have some kind of support?
...

And thanks for the NZ battalion in Singapore during our times of need. They are very highly regarded soldiers in SIngapore and much appreciated.

Perhpas you can refresh my memory of why that Battalion was there? given what you have written above and my response?

However when they got drunk and fought in bars, it'll take like six of our policemen to hold down one drunk and angry Kiwi. Normally they will just wait for the Kiwi MPs to arrive.

I had heard that, I dont know if I should laugh or be embaressed :unknown nfloorl:

 

[Chino]

Because our standard of living and way of life are bound up with our ability to trade effectivly with the world at large.

The thing is that a threat to NZ does not have to be a direct pysical threat, with our entire way of life dependent on events beyoned our immediate reagion, political independence can be threatened in other ways.

You know, there is no arguing against NZ becoming better armed.

The only question is to what degree.

I just came in here to remark how refreshing it is to feel as secure as NZ when in Asia everyone is losing their mind and stockpiling weaponry.

Everything else worth saying about the topic had already been said on this thread by people more qualified than me. So I will pass up the opportunity to dabble further on this topic.

 

[oskarm]

But the downside of the bullpup outlay is the difficulty of employing the weapon during bayonet fighting, difficulties with attachments including grenade launchers and with in-built optics you cannot employ other sighting devices such as night vision or thermal sights.

Bayonet fighting in XXI century, are you joking? I have seen only one photo from Afghanistan and Iraq where soldier had his bayonet attached to his rifle, and it was SA-80 J . And about optics you should see this http://www.steyr-arms.at/index.php?id=77&L=de

 

[Aussie Digger]

Bayonet fighting in XXI century, are you joking? I have seen only one photo from Afghanistan and Iraq where soldier had his bayonet attached to his rifle, and it was SA-80 J . And about optics you should see this http://www.steyr-arms.at/index.php?id=77&L=de

We were talking about the F-88A1 (Steyr AUG A1) with the built in 1.5x magnification sight. It is part of the receiver and cannot be changed without replacing the entire receiver. If the optics are broken or smashed in the field, it requires the entire receiver to be replaced before they can be used again, apart from the pathetic "iron" sights fitted on top of the scope, which aren't much chop...

I am aware that other versions of the Steyr exist which allow for different sighting systems to be fitted.

And yes, Bayonet fighting is still a viable close combat fighting technique.

You may have only seen one photograph, but bayonets have certainly been used in Iraq:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004223179,00.html

Is one such example...

 

[Waylander]

Honestly, it is not something I would insist on.
For sure there are a few examples of bayonets beong used in these days.
But is a very small percentage of overall combat situationes.
So if a rifle is fine except the point that it has some flaws when used with a bayonet I can live with it.
It is by no means a critical factor.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Honestly, it is not something I would insist on.
For sure there are a few examples of bayonets beong used in these days.
But is a very small percentage of overall combat situationes.
So if a rifle is fine except the point that it has some flaws when used with a bayonet I can live with it.
It is by no means a critical factor.

I agree, but it's one more negative. For certain the F-88 Steyr has more positives than negatives and is an excellent weapon, but personal preferrences are subjective afterall and the original point was that bullpup designs are less suited to bayonet fighting...

 

[Waylander]

I agree with you on that. I just wanted to say that IMHO this is a minor point and should not play a vital role in considering a new rifle.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I agree with you on that. I just wanted to say that IMHO this is a minor point and should not play a vital role in considering a new rifle.

Agreed. Now how about NZ being a regional power eh? I reckon maybe if they got F-16's and Tomahawk cruise missiles for their ANZAC class frigates they'd be a regional power.

What does everyone else reckon....

 

[Waylander]

Ok, sorry for jumping onto the off-topic train...

How about training some Penguins to carry WMDs? They are fast, they are stealthy and they are numerous. What else do you need?

Serious, NZ is maybe the less threatened country on this planet.

It should be able to patrol its surrounding sea with sea and air assets as well as being able to add some manpower to multinational peacekeeping missions.

That's it.
So maybe go with a third FFGs, get some nice new helicopters as well as some long range UAVs to support the Orions.
Beef up the Infantry bns to full manpower and give them the assets needed to be able to do what light infantry units are normally used for...

Does one here really thinks that the money spent on some fighters is really worth the effort? Whoever comes to threaten NZ in the not so near future is defenitely not going to be impressed by a handfull of Gripens or F-16s.

And it is defenitely not as much needed in multinational oversea missions like boots on the ground aka a well euqipped light infantry force ready for deployment.

 

[barra]

Agreed. Now how about NZ being a regional power eh? I reckon maybe if they got F-16's and Tomahawk cruise missiles for their ANZAC class frigates they'd be a regional power.

What does everyone else reckon....

I reckon Tomahawk cruise missiles are way to aggresive for Helen to even consider, hell someone may get hurt!!!! Ha Ha nfloorl: On the other hand I reckon the sooner the RAN installs them on the Collins class subs the better. Nothing like having a big stick and knowing how to use it.

Hooroo

 

[Tasman]

I reckon Tomahawk cruise missiles are way to aggresive for Helen to even consider, hell someone may get hurt!!!! Ha Ha nfloorl: On the other hand I reckon the sooner the RAN installs them on the Collins class subs the better. Nothing like having a big stick and knowing how to use it.

Hooroo

I agree with both comments. For the RNZN the addition of Harpoon to the Anzacs and P-3's would be a useful step, IMO, but not at the expense of any of the existing upgrade plans (i.e. ESSM, upgraded Phalanx CIWS, etc).

Tas

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Ok, sorry for jumping onto the off-topic train...

How about training some Penguins to carry WMDs? They are fast, they are stealthy and they are numerous. What else do you need?

Serious, NZ is maybe the less threatened country on this planet.

It should be able to patrol its surrounding sea with sea and air assets as well as being able to add some manpower to multinational peacekeeping missions.

That's it.
So maybe go with a third FFGs, get some nice new helicopters as well as some long range UAVs to support the Orions.
Beef up the Infantry bns to full manpower and give them the assets needed to be able to do what light infantry units are normally used for...

Does one here really thinks that the money spent on some fighters is really worth the effort? Whoever comes to threaten NZ in the not so near future is defenitely not going to be impressed by a handfull of Gripens or F-16s.

And it is defenitely not as much needed in multinational oversea missions like boots on the ground aka a well euqipped light infantry force ready for deployment.

I agree, but I would consider that NZ should be able to cover the full spectrum of capabilities from within it's own resources, up to, but NOT including expensive higher end warfighting capabilities such as fighter jets, AEW&C and submarines.

All it's other capabilities should be more or less on par with any other military and they should be able to deploy overseas without significant assistance, given OS operations are going to be their biggest task.

Accordingly I think RNZAF's air lift capabilities need to go beyond an upgrade to the existing 5x C-130H Hercules. I think an acquisition of additional second hand airframes to build the fleet up to at least 8 should be a short term priority with an acquisition of A400M a longer term priority.

I also think if A400M is going to be the primary airlifter than a small "intra-theatre" airlifter should be pursued as well say 3-5 C-295 or C-27J's.

The Orions should be upgraded to perform it's traditional anti-submarine duties and not just surface surveillance roles, or else it should be replaced by a cheaper aircraft capable of the surface surveillance role. It seems to be an expensive way to get a capability that can be obtained from a much cheaper aircraft to operate...

The Orion should also be equipped with an anti-ship missile capable of providing a standoff level of capability.

The infantry battalions should be boosted with a recruiting drive and supported with an appropriate range of direct and indirect fire support assets. I believe the L118 105mm guns and 81mm mortars should be upgraded or replaced as a priority.

I believe the QMAR Regiment should be re-roled as a Cavalry / Recon Regiment, even if equipped with a vehicle such as the Eagle IV or similar, rather than the more capable (an expensive) LAV-III.

I believe an aerial surveillance system for the protection of NZ's land forces should be acquired as a priority. This should be a UAV based system and I think NZ's LUH replacement project should include a capability to operate the aircraft as an armed recon helicopter, similar in operation (if not exact capability) as the Kiowa Warrior. Perhaps an armed version of the EC-635 or similar.

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I could not have said it myself it better myself AD. I have nothing to disagree with. Additional transport aircraft which have added to our capability is reasonable. AD (that I have dispared of) in the past has got it right. Let's hope the military planners follow his view. Let us support the military we have and give some reasonable upgrades rather than the farytale possibilities.

This is an example of "sensible" AD.

The Tactom idea was an example of "feeling slightly ridiculous" AD...

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[steve33]

Stuart, my buddy,

Let me post the evidence, we have Labour overnments since 2000 and you have zero of your favoured National governments. Live in la la land if you want, but don't call it New Zealand. Don't try to re-write NZ history. You can only continue to lose!

Sure. Call anything you disagree with a strawman argument. It saves time making any statement that which can be proven. Remember you keep losing elections! I'm sure it must hurt being in the minority for 10 years but like a stopped clock you will eventually be right. No evidence yet but may be in another 10 years.

Sure it is fun to whinge that the Govt. should spend the money so long as YOU don't pay any more tax. I suspect you are the first in line to say that Brash / National was right. We (YOU) should pay more tax. Tax cuts for all so long as you personaly don't pay any more tax! Am I the only one here who is advocating increasis in NZ taxation to pay for all the increases in NZ military expenditure? Am I for military expenditure and you just one handed typing?

Can I re state the argument that if you "fearful" psuedo NZers had your way we would have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars, rather than spending it on heath expenditure for 20 years. Would you rather have killed thousands of NZers in under funding health expenditure? Are you a communist? I support your right to be.

So you want evidence that National will provide an increase in NZ expenditure. My evidence is the last two losing elections. When did they ever have concrete plans that they wouild spend more? Please provide rather than misrepresenting your pro-bush views. You may say you don't support him but the evidence says you are in the 20 or 30 % who does (in NZ or the US)! If you want to be a bush supporter please make that clear. It would save us a lot of time discussing your southern views.

Now you are using the term Ad hominum. Let us add that to strawman it means nothing to the majority of English speakers but makes one suggest you have a university education. I went to Waikato in 2001, where did you go to?

You want the evidence that we should have been invaded in the last twenty years since the anti nuclear law? Here it is. We speak English! Do you speak Russian or Chinese? I suspect not. (I suspect you have not learnt any language other than English in your life). Your information?

Evidence that (actual) NZers support this policy, We have a Labour led governement. Hey, vote National in 2008. Eventually you must win! Maybe.

Thanks Stuart for adding nothing to the discussion. Evidence please, evidence please, evidence please! Why even waste tapping onto your computer. My evidence is you keep losing. Try living once,

So someone is a psuedo New Zealander who should leave and never return if they don,t agree with the deluded policy of having New Zealand a defenceless nation who thinks that if we build a reputation as a peace loving nation that will ensure our security in a world that runs on greed self interest and might.

If you want to have a crediable defence force for New Zealand you are a communist?.

You keep going on about people missing out on health care if we had spent more on the military well have you not noticed the billion plus doller surpluses that we have been running for years and people don,t miss out on health care because of military spending they miss out because of all the suits working in the health system who take the money for sitting on there arses doing nothing and as a result bugger all gets to the operating threates.

You should take a closer look at the world we are heading into a world of shrinking resources water,oil,fisheries the list goes on and when push comes to shove countries are going to take care of number one and do what they have to to maintain there position in the world that it not a world that you want to be in with no means of defending yourself the last 65 years since
WW2 have been a picnic for New Zealand it will not continue through this century America and China are taking closer interest in the pacific which makes a mockery of the talk that we live in a benign strategic enviroment.

Populations are projected to rise from 6 billion to 9 billion by 2050 and resources at the same time a shrinking as i stated earlier the picnic is going to come to an end.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Agreed. Now how about NZ being a regional power eh? I reckon maybe if they got F-16's and Tomahawk cruise missiles for their ANZAC class frigates they'd be a regional power.

What does everyone else reckon....

Well I am aware of the NZ defence forces close combat/H2H programme and I think this includes the bayonet. There you go, one up on the enemy already!