NZDF General discussion thread

[Rob c]

f NZ is looking at combat fighters, then logically the place they would be located is Butterworth, not Auckland. It would be in a forward defence posture. Not a fortress NZ posture. If the force has rolled over Japan, Korea, the US, Singapore, Indonesia and Australia, I would propose that NZ would struggle to resist against such an overwhelming force on its own.

It would cost more to base outside of NZ and not needed as the ability to deploy has always been high on the list of capabilities and home defence is your first priority. If a force was large and strong enough to role over the countries you mentioned no one is going to resist it, we would be looking at the end of life on earth.

 

[Lolcake]

If you want 24/7/365 independent fighter capability you will need more than a squadron of fighters. More like 3 squadrons, particularly with modern 5th gen aircraft and their availability rates.. Particularly if you are talking about longer range patrols, beyond sight of NZ mainland. You will need ~6 refuelling aircraft. You will need E7's. This requires the establishment of many new capabilities NZ just doesn't have. One squadron would pretty much just beable to offer capabilities as Todj indicated, OpFor, training, etc.

Even Australia has to forward base their aircraft, 4000km north east of Tindal, at Butterworth to be even remotely "near the fight" in regards to China. With Indonesia it was different, Darwin was front line, and F-111's had the range to buzz airbases in Indonesia and did so. If NZ is looking at combat fighters, then logically the place they would be located is Butterworth, not Auckland. It would be in a forward defence posture. Not a fortress NZ posture. If the force has rolled over Japan, Korea, the US, Singapore, Indonesia and Australia, I would propose that NZ would struggle to resist against such an overwhelming force on its own.

EEZ is best patrolled with P8's and other long ranged aircraft, and ships, presence is everything.

Part of the P8 is that it is detectable. It gives presence. Being stealthy doesn't particularly help its mission. It is being used for freedom of navigation flights, because literally, everyone can see it on radar doing its job. Its a big, twin engine aircraft, designed for high flight hours.

While unlikely to engage fighter aircraft, there really isn't anything stopping the US integrating SM-6 and having P8 carry it to deter long range bombers. Normally such aircraft would operate well outside the range of fighter aircraft in a hot environment. However, if you are doing freedom of navigation exercises during peace time, they are good aircraft for that mission. Capturing a 737 is not likely to give the Chinese many secrets. Before a P8 lands in China, all the software will be zero'd and most of the hardware trashed. Wearing out China's air force with their fighters and refuellers having to intercept good old 737's works in Australia's favor. Do not assume because China is firing chaff into the P8, doesn't make the P8 a worthless aircraft. Its about rubbing shoulders.

If Australia wanted to escort its P8 patrols. It can.
View attachment 49962


That is the obvious and quickest option for NZ. NZ used to operate 6 P3's. Ideally, operating 5-6 P8's will given NZ a powerful deterrent and capability that could come online within 2-3 years, and before the production line winds down. It would make NZ globally relevant in a conflict and enable NZ to assert itself across its EEZ and friendly region where NZ presence is invited. Which may be hypercritical, because US or AU presence may be seen as a country choosing polarity or aggressive. An NZ P8 can be an NZ P8, and AU P8 can't be an NZ P8. This allows a fleet that can still provide capability while undergoing upgrade or maintenance. Australia is clumsy at Pacific diplomacy at the best of time. A pacific nation leader is unlikely to feel like he can express their wants and needs, concerns when Australia is lock step with the US throwing JASSM at China. NZ is more accessible and has a similar strategic stance to those smaller pacific nations.


4 frigates would be an excellent goal. 5 gives sustainable deployment of multiple frigates. 2 currently gives you nothing sustainable, and as you have found with the upgrade, zero capability for extended periods while upgrading and refitting. NZ can afford and historical has operated 4-5 Frigates. Similar sized nations (Norway, Singapore etc) also have operated 4-5 frigates. The enemy will apply pressure when you are at your weakest, which for NZ means when you have no ships available at all.

Modern frigates could even be armed with LRASM or TLAM, giving NZ a ~1500 km+ stand off range for antishipping. The air defence of a frigate will be significant for NZ. Type 31, F110, Mogami, italian PPA, all offer low crew options where NZ could split its existing crew across four ships. I understand the RNZN has a staffing problem, well smaller crewed ships helps solve that. A ship can go to sea much easier if you just need to put a crew of ~80 together instead of a crew of ~200. There is more chance at promotion, more opportunity, more flexibility.

With so many areas that I can see with opportunities to improve on existing skills and capabilities, fighter aircraft doesn't really get a look in. Cool, you get 6 P8's, 5 Frigates, weapons, modernise Army, triton drones, etc, well yeh, maybe some fighters could add to the combined fight, but even then, unlikely to be based in NZ proper.

Excellent post.

I recall reading somewhere during the F-16 saga that at least half the fleet would have been based in Australia. Unfortunately that was 20 years ago and am struggling to find the source.

 

[Rob c]

Excellent post.

I recall reading somewhere during the F-16 saga that at least half the fleet would have been based in Australia. Unfortunately that was 20 years ago and am struggling to find the source.

Not quite. 2sqn was as an A4 training and RAN support sqn under contract to the ADF was based in Australia with 6 aircraft with 16 aircraft with 75 at Ohakea. When re-equipped with F16's it was intended to continue with this arrangement The Australian Government paid NZ for all the flying done in support of the RAN and RAAF.
It appears that there could have been some confusion with one sqn in Australia and one in NZ, however aircraft numbers would have remained the same.

 

[StingrayOZ]

It would cost more to base outside of NZ and not needed as the ability to deploy has always been high on the list of capabilities and home defence is your first priority.

Yes, yes it does. Ask Australia about 4th squadrons based out of Butterworth and forward deployment and how much that costs. Its a pay to play situation. You want the enemy ~6000+ km away? Then you pay that money to keep them that far away. There is no point in getting fighters, if your strategic outlook has you fending off carrier groups 500NM from shore.

Airpower isn't a short cut or a cost saving measure.

If a force was large and strong enough to role over the countries you mentioned no one is going to resist it, we would be looking at the end of life on earth

Which is why countries are frantically doubling defence budgets, and Australia is going for broke.

Well the Imperial Japanese defeated:

• Russia
• China + Korea
• Vietnam/French
• The US (in Phillipines)
• British + Commonwealth forces (Malaysia/Singapore)

Then knocked out the Americans in Pearl harbor and started slapping Darwin and making small raids on Australia, mostly in remote locations. But for Australia it very much did seem like the Apocolypse. Even if the British and Americans still had fighting capability, it was needed elsewhere, even the Australian forces were wanted, elsewhere. If the Japanese had invaded Australia, and smashed us completely.

Would NZ be able to resist them? By themselves? With short range fighters? Even with 3 squadrons? NZ isn't that big, it could, be blockaded. If you had that, then the best place for them to be is in the fight up north.

If there is one thing that was learnt, is stop the enemy much further away before you start having to fight for your life and are completely strangled off. Spend the effort before they get a foot hold. Singapore needed more airpower. If there was a stronger air force, then the Japanese wouldn't have landed and gained control so easily, the would have slowed down. Singapore is far enough away from China that its not easy to primary strike at it from mainland China. But Singapore also has 40 F-15, 60 F-15 and 4-12 F-35. It would be backed up by squadrons of Australian F-35's and Super hornets, probably the UK's Eurofighters and probably American gear as well.

Isolated capabilities make little sense. Again its like Australian bomber capability, Australia really doesn't have the size of force to operate bombers, and they don't really make a bomber we need for our purposes (the F111 was a unique plane). But the Americans can and now do base B-52's here.

Singapore is a strategic spot, but it is very vulnerable and has no strategic depth. Its in AUNZ interest to maintain control over the straits of Malaysia and Indonesia. Which is basically what our air power is for. We know allies will rally to our cause, because 70% of trade goes through those straits.

In a US vs China conflict, yes, total annihilation is entirely possible. It is entirely possible the US will suffer defeats in battles and heavy losses. They could loose territory, like Guam. Or perhaps entire continental US cities. The conflict may be nuclear. It could become a world war. Millions, possibly billions could die.

The greatest likelyhood of a conflict is in the period 2027-2030, when the Chinese over take US Naval power and at least regionally, air power during Xi 4th term. But it could happen by accident any day.

So really what is the capabilities that NZ can put together within the next 5 years?

Additional P8? Yes
Drones? Triton or something? Yes
Some sort of G550 based patrol? Maybe?
EW pods on C130? Maybe?
NASAMS? Maybe

A whole fixed wing fighter capability? No. It would have to be forward deployed. Even if you were already half way there with older planes, new planes wouldn't arrive in time.
4-5 Frigates no? But long term that makes sense, either the US isn't the dominant power any more or it has had it military capability halved or both.

But yes, things are bad. However, NZ can choose to be part of the solution or isolate itself. Isolation does not ensure you won't be smashed or put into impossible situations later. Its an existential threat to the current global rules and order, by force.

 

[Stuart M]

.

But yes, things are bad. However, NZ can choose to be part of the solution or isolate itself. Isolation does not ensure you won't be smashed or put into impossible situations later. Its an existential threat to the current global rules and order, by force.

From what I can see is your entire argument is based on the idea that NZ should never have an ACF, and If it does it should not be more than an adjunct to the RAAF.
Then on the one hand you say that nations are rapidly increasing their defence budgets and then that if NZ should do so it must not do so according to its own strategic needs but Australia's.
That about right?

 

[Rob c]

Would NZ be able to resist them? By themselves? With short range fighters? Even with 3 squadrons? NZ isn't that big, it could, be blockaded. If you had that, then the best place for them to be is in the fight up north.

I think you are missing the point and are trying to make NZ an adjunct of Australia. Not going to happen The current NZ defence force is under funded and lacks the balance it had prior to the two girls getting involved in the 1990's (Ruth and Helen) during that time we went from 4 down to 2 frigates, 10 light/medium transports to 0 and a strike wing that in 1990 had numbered a total of 40 aircraft. Over the years significant chunks of defence and man power have gone the same way. for instance, when I was In the air force we had just under 5000 personal, now it is 2400, What is needed in my view is a returned to a balanced force that can act independently when required.
Currently NZ is very vulnerable to attack with little means of defence at all and an AFC would reduce this vulnerability and allow us time for help to arrive. We could and would deploy to other regions as and when required and back in the 75sqn days they did this regularly. The then requirement was in an emergency to be moving in 48 hours. There is little need to be based overseas if you can get there quickly. But the prime requirement is always to defend your own countries sovereignty first then help friends in your area, not the other way around if this leaves your own sovereignty in peril.
We are a small country which does have its limitations, however this does not mean that it is an automatic reason to surrender our freedom of action and become an adjunct of Australia. We would always help when required however as I have said we needed to have a basic defence ability of our own and a balanced force (which we once had) is in my view the best way to achieve this.

So really what is the capabilities that NZ can put together within the next 5 years?

Why 5 years? Trouble could start next month or not until 50 years time. We have to start some were and I am not one for quicky fixes that just paper over the cracks to make things look good. Perfection is not an option, and a properly balanced force is a long way of, but if we don't start we will never finish.
The other point I would make is that it is far easier and quicker to expand existing capabilities than to start from scratch and a limited AFC would allow for expansion were as no AFC requires in excess of a decade to re-establish.

 

[Xthenaki]

I think you are missing the point and are trying to make NZ an adjunct of Australia. Not going to happen The current NZ defence force is under funded and lacks the balance it had prior to the two girls getting involved in the 1990's (Ruth and Helen) during that time we went from 4 down to 2 frigates, 10 light/medium transports to 0 and a strike wing that in 1990 had numbered a total of 40 aircraft. Over the years significant chunks of defence and man power have gone the same way. for instance, when I was In the air force we had just under 5000 personal, now it is 2400, What is needed in my view is a returned to a balanced force that can act independently when required.
Currently NZ is very vulnerable to attack with little means of defence at all and an AFC would reduce this vulnerability and allow us time for help to arrive. We could and would deploy to other regions as and when required and back in the 75sqn days they did this regularly. The then requirement was in an emergency to be moving in 48 hours. There is little need to be based overseas if you can get there quickly. But the prime requirement is always to defend your own countries sovereignty first then help friends in your area, not the other way around if this leaves your own sovereignty in peril.
We are a small country which does have its limitations, however this does not mean that it is an automatic reason to surrender our freedom of action and become an adjunct of Australia. We would always help when required however as I have said we needed to have a basic defence ability of our own and a balanced force (which we once had) is in my view the best way to achieve this.

Why 5 years? Trouble could start next month or not until 50 years time. We have to start some were and I am not one for quicky fixes that just paper over the cracks to make things look good. Perfection is not an option, and a properly balanced force is a long way of, but if we don't start we will never finish.
The other point I would make is that it is far easier and quicker to expand existing capabilities than to start from scratch and a limited AFC would allow for expansion were as no AFC requires in excess of a decade to re-establish.

Expanding existing capabilities - We now need our marine helo replacements with full complement of weapons pods, the upgrading including improving the armament of the OPV,s, Aotearoa,s defensive armaments. NH980,s and so on. We need large munitions storage capacity for our forces with large stocks of ammunition, LRASM, torpedoes, mortars etc. etc. Our defence forces need teeth and ommph.

 

[Stuart M]

Expanding existing capabilities - We now need our marine helo replacements with full complement of weapons pods, the upgrading including improving the armament of the OPV,s, Aotearoa,s defensive armaments. NH980,s and so on. We need large munitions storage capacity for our forces with large stocks of ammunition, LRASM, torpedoes, mortars etc. etc. Our defence forces need teeth and ommph.

True, but the counter point to that is the odds of a steep recession next year and the inevitable demand for both cuts and funding increases for various government ministries. So the inevitable question that will come up is, if you want this, what are you going to cut to get it?

 

[Xthenaki]

Expanding existing capabilities - We now need our marine helo replacements with full complement of weapons pods, the upgrading including improving the armament of the OPV,s, Aotearoa,s defensive armaments. NH980,s and so on. We need large munitions storage capacity for our forces with large stocks of ammunition, LRASM, torpedoes, mortars etc. etc. Our defence forces need teeth and ommph.

S/be NH90

 

[Rob c]

Expanding existing capabilities - We now need our marine helo replacements with full complement of weapons pods, the upgrading including improving the armament of the OPV,s, Aotearoa,s defensive armaments. NH980,s and so on. We need large munitions storage capacity for our forces with large stocks of ammunition, LRASM, torpedoes, mortars etc. etc. Our defence forces need teeth and ommph.

Yep, and as I have said before, based on what was spent in the 1980's ,on a GDP basis defence has been deprived of in excess of $70B probably nearer $100B so there is a lot of catching up to do in just about all fields. However I don't see the point in trying to improve the armament of the OPV's as they were built to a Lloyds speck not a military speck and they would not have the magazine space to accommodate anything extra. I was told once years ago that there was no magazine space at all for helicopter weapons. Hmmmm, Helen struck again?

 

[Gracie1234]

True, but the counterpoint to that is the odds of a steep recession next year and the inevitable demand for both cuts and funding increases for various government ministries. So the inevitable question that will come up is, if you want this, what are you going to cut to get it?

Hi Stuart, I do believe as a country we can afford a significant increase in funding of our defence. We could double it.
I do not see the need for cuts in our govt spending only reducing the growth in spending that has occurred in the last few years. I appreciate the recession is coming but that is man-made and can be managed just by the reserve bank reducing the OCR.
The reason I say this is that our debt to GDP ratio is still half of that compared to Aus and is significantly less than our other 5 eyes friends.
The growth in government income has been steady, in 2012 it was $65B and in 2020 it was $98B. Government finance statistics (general government): Year ended June 2020 – corrected | Stats NZ
If the govt wanted to they could allocate an additional $50B over ten years, this is on top of the already planned $20B.
The only reason I am saying this is that we are not the economic basket case of the 80s and 90s. We can afford it so the only reason not to, is political will.

 

[Xthenaki]

Yep, and as I have said before, based on what was spent in the 1980's ,on a GDP basis defence has been deprived of in excess of $70B probably nearer $100B so there is a lot of catching up to do in just about all fields. However I don't see the point in trying to improve the armament of the OPV's as they were built to a Lloyds speck not a military speck and they would not have the magazine space to accommodate anything extra. I was told once years ago that there was no magazine space at all for helicopter weapons. Hmmmm, Helen struck again?

Without magazine space the role is limiting. It brings up the question with refits due for Both OPVs in the short term - is the money to be spent worthwhile or would it be of better value put towards the cost of two new better specked vessels. As seen with Te Mana and Te Kaha their refits were very expensive.

 

[Stuart M]

Hi Stuart, I do believe as a country we can afford a significant increase in funding of our defence. We could double it.
I do not see the need for cuts in our govt spending only reducing the growth in spending that has occurred in the last few years. I appreciate the recession is coming but that is man-made and can be managed just by the reserve bank reducing the OCR.
The reason I say this is that our debt to GDP ratio is still half of that compared to Aus and is significantly less than our other 5 eyes friends.
The growth in government income has been steady, in 2012 it was $65B and in 2020 it was $98B. Government finance statistics (general government): Year ended June 2020 – corrected | Stats NZ
If the govt wanted to they could allocate an additional $50B over ten years, this is on top of the already planned $20B.
The only reason I am saying this is that we are not the economic basket case of the 80s and 90s. We can afford it so the only reason not to, is political will.

Indeed, I don't disagree, but the issue is communicating this in a media of all types dominated by those who instinctively dont like armed forces spending, and have very good communications teams.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think you are missing the point and are trying to make NZ an adjunct of Australia. Not going to happen The current NZ defence force is under funded and lacks the balance it had prior to the two girls getting involved in the 1990's (Ruth and Helen) during that time we went from 4 down to 2 frigates, 10 light/medium transports to 0 and a strike wing that in 1990 had numbered a total of 40 aircraft. Over the years significant chunks of defence and man power have gone the same way. for instance, when I was In the air force we had just under 5000 personal, now it is 2400, What is needed in my view is a returned to a balanced force that can act independently when required.

I am only providing a view and an Australian view at that. There is basically no indication in Australia that nz intends or is entertaining the view of becoming an independently capable air power. Lots of time, money and people. Establishing new capabilities usually done off a parent force, not just in a vacuum. I also don't understand the strategy of it.

Why 5 years? Trouble could start next month or not until 50 years time.

Because that it the time frame the Chinese are working to.

• They will exceed us military power by 2027.
• Xi will have started his 4th term and completely consolidated power.
• The Chinese population crunch is only mildly symptomati.
• The 2025 china industry program will be complete.
• By 2027 most of the US cold war equipment is obsoleted. F22, cruisers, b1, e3, flight 1 Burke's, etc these dates cannot be extended.
• There is minimal time for the US to bring new programs into service.

Most analysts see the 2027-2032 window as being when Taiwan consolidation will happen.

After that we go into a different phase, post Taiwan. A highly unpredictable period where a hot war could break at any second.

Or one were the US and China have already fought and depleted each other. Making for essentially no global law or governance period. Break down of globalism completely. The UN might be dissolved, diplomacy dies, wars are frequent.

Japan skorea, Australia, us are preparing for the 5 year.

Aukus and nuclear subs are about the post conflict situation. About where the US is perhaps more reliant on its allies.

 

[ngatimozart]

Yes, yes it does. Ask Australia about 4th squadrons based out of Butterworth and forward deployment and how much that costs. Its a pay to play situation. You want the enemy ~6000+ km away? Then you pay that money to keep them that far away. There is no point in getting fighters, if your strategic outlook has you fending off carrier groups 500NM from shore.

From memory the RAAF doesn't have a permanent basing at Butterworth. It will forward deploy for exercises etc., but that's it. That's totally different from being permanently based.

Airpower isn't a short cut or a cost saving measure.


Which is why countries are frantically doubling defence budgets, and Australia is going for broke.

Well the Imperial Japanese defeated:

• Russia
• China + Korea
• Vietnam/French
• The US (in Phillipines)
• British + Commonwealth forces (Malaysia/Singapore)

In 1905 the Imperial Japanese defeated the Russians, but not in any encounters during the 1930s and WW2. They had a border war in 1939 when the Japanese tried to take an island in the middle of a river that was the border between Russia and Japanese occupied China. A Russian General by the name of Zhukov taught the IJA a lesson in humility and to respect Russian artillery, armour and firepower. He thrashed them.

Then knocked out the Americans in Pearl harbor and started slapping Darwin and making small raids on Australia, mostly in remote locations. But for Australia it very much did seem like the Apocolypse. Even if the British and Americans still had fighting capability, it was needed elsewhere, even the Australian forces were wanted, elsewhere. If the Japanese had invaded Australia, and smashed us completely.

Would NZ be able to resist them? By themselves? With short range fighters? Even with 3 squadrons? NZ isn't that big, it could, be blockaded. If you had that, then the best place for them to be is in the fight up north.

If there is one thing that was learnt, is stop the enemy much further away before you start having to fight for your life and are completely strangled off. Spend the effort before they get a foot hold. Singapore needed more airpower. If there was a stronger air force, then the Japanese wouldn't have landed and gained control so easily, the would have slowed down. Singapore is far enough away from China that its not easy to primary strike at it from mainland China. But Singapore also has 40 F-15, 60 F-15 and 4-12 F-35. It would be backed up by squadrons of Australian F-35's and Super hornets, probably the UK's Eurofighters and probably American gear as well.

Isolated capabilities make little sense. Again its like Australian bomber capability, Australia really doesn't have the size of force to operate bombers, and they don't really make a bomber we need for our purposes (the F111 was a unique plane). But the Americans can and now do base B-52's here.

Singapore is a strategic spot, but it is very vulnerable and has no strategic depth. Its in AUNZ interest to maintain control over the straits of Malaysia and Indonesia. Which is basically what our air power is for. We know allies will rally to our cause, because 70% of trade goes through those straits.

In a US vs China conflict, yes, total annihilation is entirely possible. It is entirely possible the US will suffer defeats in battles and heavy losses. They could loose territory, like Guam. Or perhaps entire continental US cities. The conflict may be nuclear. It could become a world war. Millions, possibly billions could die.

The greatest likelyhood of a conflict is in the period 2027-2030, when the Chinese over take US Naval power and at least regionally, air power during Xi 4th term. But it could happen by accident any day.

So really what is the capabilities that NZ can put together within the next 5 years?

Additional P8? Yes
Drones? Triton or something? Yes
Some sort of G550 based patrol? Maybe?
EW pods on C130? Maybe?
NASAMS? Maybe

P-8A: A couple of additional Poseidons is a definite requirement.
UAVs: Definitely but more a MALE such as the MQ-9B SeaGuardian rather than the HALE MQ-4C Triton.
G550: Why? The money we would spend on those can be better used increasing current existing capabilities.
C-130 EW: Why? EW along with ACN could be integrated on to the B757 and its VIP replacement, plus EW is already on the Poseidon.
NASAMS? Why NASAMS? It's not the be all to end all and maybe we might prefer another system such as the UK Sky Sabre because it uses the land variant of the Sea Ceptor. Commonality.

A whole fixed wing fighter capability? No. It would have to be forward deployed. Even if you were already half way there with older planes, new planes wouldn't arrive in time.
4-5 Frigates no? But long term that makes sense, either the US isn't the dominant power any more or it has had it military capability halved or both.

But yes, things are bad. However, NZ can choose to be part of the solution or isolate itself. Isolation does not ensure you won't be smashed or put into impossible situations later. Its an existential threat to the current global rules and order, by force.

5 frigates won't happen, not just because of the cost but because of the lack of personnel. The current UK City Class frigate cost is UK£864 million (UK£4.2 billion for the second tranche of 5 ships) which equates currently to about NZ$1.75 billion per ship sailaway, but we'll round it up to $2 billion. Currently $4 billion has been pencilled in for the Anzac frigate replacement so just to get 3 which is the minimum we require another $2 billion. That is probably doable but $8 - 10 billion for 4 - 5 frigates is an ask to much. At the moment we badly need a third frigate and that should be the first naval priority.

As far as the ACF 2.0 goes those of us Kiwis who post on here realise that it's not an overnight gig nor something that is a short term solution. We are able to figure that out for ourselves all on our own. If / when it's up and running we may not necessarily follow the old way that we operated and may determine that maritime strike is the No 1 priority for it. That would in itself have an influence in the platform and numbers that are acquired. We just have to relearn how to fly at 50 ft at full noise.

I am only providing a view and an Australian view at that. There is basically no indication in Australia that nz intends or is entertaining the view of becoming an independently capable air power. Lots of time, money and people. Establishing new capabilities usually done off a parent force, not just in a vacuum. I also don't understand the strategy of it.

That's right you are in Australia and therefore probably not fully conversant with things political and under currents here in NZ. For one thing the current crop of politicians don't reflect the views of the average Kiwi, or are fully representative of the average Kiwi.

Because that it the time frame the Chinese are working to.

• They will exceed us military power by 2027.
• Xi will have started his 4th term and completely consolidated power.
• The Chinese population crunch is only mildly symptomati.
• The 2025 china industry program will be complete.
• By 2027 most of the US cold war equipment is obsoleted. F22, cruisers, b1, e3, flight 1 Burke's, etc these dates cannot be extended.
• There is minimal time for the US to bring new programs into service.

Most analysts see the 2027-2032 window as being when Taiwan consolidation will happen.

After that we go into a different phase, post Taiwan. A highly unpredictable period where a hot war could break at any second.

Or one were the US and China have already fought and depleted each other. Making for essentially no global law or governance period. Break down of globalism completely. The UN might be dissolved, diplomacy dies, wars are frequent.

Japan skorea, Australia, us are preparing for the 5 year.

Aukus and nuclear subs are about the post conflict situation. About where the US is perhaps more reliant on its allies.

Xi may not make a 4th term. A lot of things can happen in 5 years and he's really upset a lot of people. But if he's pushed into a corner he will play the nationalist card more so than he has so far and attempt a Putin, especially if he thinks that his control of the CCP and / or the CCP control of China is threatened. If the people start turning on Xi and the CCP, a disintegrating PRC will be far worse than a militaristic CCP attacking Taiwan. China’s Dangerous Decline - sorry its paywalled. Globalism may be on the way out anyway because the US is becoming more protectionist as is the EU, Canada, and other nations.

 

[Xthenaki]

True, but the counter point to that is the odds of a steep recession next year and the inevitable demand for both cuts and funding increases for various government ministries. So the inevitable question that will come up is, if you want this, what are you going to cut to get it?

There are a number of projects outside of the defence allocation that could be scrapped and reallocated - blns on Auckland light rail would be a start. Within the allocation provided in coming years budgets only selected items deemed to be significant have any chance. Its wait and see with what happens across the world and how our GOTD reacts to the changes. There is no simple fix other than altering govt policy where funds are being wasted. I support necessary changes to climate change but not at the rate and cost to the NZ taxpayer in trying to put NZ first across the line. A slower approach would still meet our responsibilities and provide surplus funding for our defence force.

 

[spoz]

Ngati, do you really think there is any chance that you will get T26? I would have thought something like a T31 is much more likely; maybe not that actual ship fit, I hope not anyway, but that sort of all up cost. I would love to see the RNZN with three T26, but just can’t see where that sort of political will is going to come from. I accept that many of your people might want an increase to defence, but your current crop of pollies doesn’t seem to (or even understand what is going on in the real world). And they are running the show. Without something to put the real frighteners on them I can’t see them changing their spots.

 

[Stuart M]

Ngati, do you really think there is any chance that you will get T26? I would have thought something like a T31 is much more likely; maybe not that actual ship fit, I hope not anyway, but that sort of all up cost. I would love to see the RNZN with three T26, but just can’t see where that sort of political will is going to come from. I accept that many of your people might want an increase to defence, but your current crop of pollies doesn’t seem to (or even understand what is going on in the real world). And they are running the show. Without something to put the real frighteners on them I can’t see them changing their spots.

Post this on their twitter time line on a regur basis? Point out that the CCP knows where Parliament and the Beehive are.

 

[StingrayOZ]

From memory the RAAF doesn't have a permanent basing at Butterworth. It will forward deploy for exercises etc., but that's it. That's totally different from being permanently based.

True. Currently. However it is becoming more permanent Which is what the 4th Squadron is about. Not just more planes for no logical reason. But planes that allow a permanent basing at Butterworth. Butterworth operations used to be very sporadic, but are now becoming more continuous.

Oz to Redevelop RMAF Butterworth - Malaysian Defence

www.malaysiandefence.com

Part of the $100m upgrade of Butterworth by Australia is to again be able to permanently base aircraft there, and increase the tempo of operations there including the 2nd runway. Lots of money, then you need planes and people and support etc.

Again, maybe I am being Australian biased here. Certainly Australia looks very lame in terms of fighter coverage based from the mainland. Maybe NZ is happier with that kind of coverage given its size. Again, I am happy to learn.

Projecting power with the F-35 (part 4): offshore bases | The Strategist

In previous pieces in this series I discussed the range limitations that are inherent in the design of tactical fighter aircraft. This includes the F-35A currently being acquired by Australia to constitute the core of ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

In 1905 the Imperial Japanese defeated the Russians, but not in any encounters during the 1930s and WW2. They had a border war in 1939 when the Japanese tried to take an island in the middle of a river that was the border between Russia and Japanese occupied China. A Russian General by the name of Zhukov taught the IJA a lesson in humility and to respect Russian artillery, armour and firepower. He thrashed them.

I wasn't giving a detailed historic account, yes, they had defeated the Russians a few decades earlier. Then they moved south, expanding and confirming their empire, which got dramatically bigger after territory given to them after WW1. Then they squashed everyone. Right up until a desperate attempt to stop them in PNG, on Kokoda track insight of Port Moresby.

It was that crushing downwards push. Again China doesn't have to defeat every ship and plane in the western World, just those that are located near it. The Americans are split all over the world. The Europeans underfund their own defence capabilities and can't see past the Russian threat.

Australia and NZ aren't the main aims of Chinese war planners. The military have neither the taste for Waikato beer or a war like hunger for Cheese. But cutting off the straits would be a serious concern and threat to them.

That's right you are in Australia and therefore probably not fully conversant with things political and under currents here in NZ. For one thing the current crop of politicians don't reflect the views of the average Kiwi, or are fully representative of the average Kiwi

I almost always will differ to the expertise of those in country, we all live in a bubble. This is interesting to hear, but until it turns into political action, and money into actual programs, I remain, skeptical. Please do not take this as being dis-respectful, I am trying to learn. While I can access some NZ TV and NZ webnews, I know they are unreliable. If you judged Australia by its Murdoch media, you would have an very warped view of Australia.

I am genuinely curious of what comes out of the NZ defence review. NZ has been shedding and declining capability for decades, its hard to see how things would be re-established in the short to medium term in so many areas, given how hard challenges like crewing and development and acquisition are even for large rich countries (larger and richer than Australia).

Currently $4 billion has been pencilled in for the Anzac frigate replacement so just to get 3 which is the minimum we require another $2 billion. That is probably doable but $8 - 10 billion for 4 - 5 frigates is an ask to much. At the moment we badly need a third frigate and that should be the first naval priority.

Well 4 I think may be possible, in the realm, perhaps with a lighter fitout, it could be an overbuild OPV, that could take on additional systems etc. 3 It seems very doable. Even if things are rotated through crewing during peace time like Norway does it. But there are options, depending on what type of frigate, capabilities that are considered, money and crew available.

Xi may not make a 4th term. A lot of things can happen in 5 years and he's really upset a lot of people. But if he's pushed into a corner he will play the nationalist card more so than he has so far and attempt a Putin, especially if he thinks that his control of the CCP and / or the CCP control of China is threatened. If the people start turning on Xi and the CCP, a disintegrating PRC will be far worse than a militaristic CCP attacking Taiwan. China’s Dangerous Decline - sorry its paywalled. Globalism may be on the way out anyway because the US is becoming more protectionist as is the EU, Canada, and other nations.

There are many bad possibilities in our future. Collapsing US or China would be terrible.

However, I think Xi is most likely to make his 4th term. What I have said is basically what Kevin Rudd is currently telling anyone who will listen. The time to assert against Xi has passed when he made his 3rd term. There is now no challenge to him, and he will be leader until he dies, he has re-established the cult of the personality.

Xi Jinping is China’s most audacious leader for decades, argues Kevin Rudd

He has smashed the economic and political precedents set by his predecessors, says Australia’s former prime minister

www.economist.com

Kevin Rudd is now Australia's ambassador to the US. He wrote his PhD thesis on Xi. He heads up the largest Asian think tank in the west. He lived in china for over a decade and is familiar with Xi personally. He officially represents Australian policy.

 

[Hone C]

5 frigates won't happen, not just because of the cost but because of the lack of personnel. The current UK City Class frigate cost is UK£864 million (UK£4.2 billion for the second tranche of 5 ships) which equates currently to about NZ$1.75 billion per ship sailaway, but we'll round it up to $2 billion. Currently $4 billion has been pencilled in for the Anzac frigate replacement so just to get 3 which is the minimum we require another $2 billion. That is probably doable but $8 - 10 billion for 4 - 5 frigates is an ask to much. At the moment we badly need a third frigate and that should be the first naval priority.

Depends what platform the RNZN and NZG end up settling on. Agree with regards both acquisition cost and crewing that even 3 x Type 26 will be a stretch.

If NZ opted for a highly automated platform such as the Mogami class it's conceivable that the ANZACs could be replaced on a 2 for 1 basis.

Considering the OPVs are due for replacement in 2032 ($600m - 1bn) and HMNZS Manawanui around 2035, perhaps a class of 6 could be considered. While not the gold plated solution, this approach would simplify logistics and training, delivering more capability than at present, with broadly similar crew numbers.