I think NZ should just abandon its army all together LOL.
By the time any opposing force landed on NZ it would be all over already. It should instead convert the army personnels into navy and airforce.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
By the time any opposing force landed on NZ it would be all over already. It should instead convert the army personnels into navy and airforce.
LOL pretty well sums up this suggestion. :lol3I think NZ should just abandon its army all together LOL.
The NZ army is actively deployed on operations. If anything it needs to be increased in size and better equipped, along the lines many have suggested in earlier posts.
Cheers
I agree that a capable navy, and combat capable airforce are essential for keeping any potential threat away from NZs shores. However, in order to be a regional power in the Pacific and maintain international commitments we still need a well equipped and manned army. A frigate or a fighter may project force, but they cannot hold ground, ie Tonga's international airport, nor can they provide visible security patrols such as in Tonga, Dili or Bamiyan.
A well rounded armed forces needs all three services. NZs main problem is small equipment levels, problems maintaining personnel, and a lack of political will to fund these.
If NZ ever returns to operating fighters, or even a combat capable trainer such as the T-50, we would have difficulty using them in the Pacific region, even if we also acquired tankers. A forward operating base would be needed. Maybe establish a barebones base in Nuie, similar to some RAAF bases up the Top End. A basic security and maintainance force normally, but able to be brought up to opertional standard at short notice. Apart from pure military uses, would be useful for assisting in disaster relief in the Pacific, or even for occassional P-3 deployments.
NZ does have the money, just not the will. If southern SI and sea around Stewart Island become an oil production area may need to improve airforce and navy, just to keep the Bushes hands off
A well rounded armed forces needs all three services. NZs main problem is small equipment levels, problems maintaining personnel, and a lack of political will to fund these.
If NZ ever returns to operating fighters, or even a combat capable trainer such as the T-50, we would have difficulty using them in the Pacific region, even if we also acquired tankers. A forward operating base would be needed. Maybe establish a barebones base in Nuie, similar to some RAAF bases up the Top End. A basic security and maintainance force normally, but able to be brought up to opertional standard at short notice. Apart from pure military uses, would be useful for assisting in disaster relief in the Pacific, or even for occassional P-3 deployments.
NZ does have the money, just not the will. If southern SI and sea around Stewart Island become an oil production area may need to improve airforce and navy, just to keep the Bushes hands off
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Some sort of a combat air arm is the first requirement for NZ on its road to becoming a regional power. Just enogh airframes to keep a squadron up and running would be more than sufficient, say 24 + 6 for training and intergration, so 30.
You wouldn't need 5th or 4.5 gen platforms either. The cost in buying the F35, SH or any of the eurocanards could not be justified at all. And new rather than second hand platforms would be allways be prefered due to airframe deteriation and increasing maintinance time and costs, however this could be a prroblem when talking about 4th gen platforms, as most of them will be out of production soon.
For a "cheap as chaps" option that would fill allmost all of your needs, you could allways go with the BAE Hawk 200. Brand spanking new, comonality with 13 other airforces and ubundant spare parts. APG66H multimode radar thats an evolved version of the F16's. Weapons such as the AIM 9 (maybe if you wanna pay for it the X), Maverick and bumb iron. Its quite capable of having the AMRAAM intergrated, not to mention penguin and other small ASM's, allthough you'd be struggling to intergrate harpoon, and i dont see why JDAM is not a possibilty. In flight refueling (handy if you desided to buy a tanker) and quite nimble. Subsonic and a bit short on range though, however its pretty good bang for your buck. Have a look at the bottom of this post.
A squadron of desent fighters will elevate NZ's regional standing by itself. But ability to project power throughout oceania will truely make you boys a regional power. You've got 2 ANZAC class frigate right??? thats fine considering the state of the region. What you really need is the ability to deploy and support a battalion somewhere in the region. You've pretty much got enough formations to achieve long deployments through rotation, but what you really need the logistical assets. A small LPD perhaps.
You wouldn't need 5th or 4.5 gen platforms either. The cost in buying the F35, SH or any of the eurocanards could not be justified at all. And new rather than second hand platforms would be allways be prefered due to airframe deteriation and increasing maintinance time and costs, however this could be a prroblem when talking about 4th gen platforms, as most of them will be out of production soon.
For a "cheap as chaps" option that would fill allmost all of your needs, you could allways go with the BAE Hawk 200. Brand spanking new, comonality with 13 other airforces and ubundant spare parts. APG66H multimode radar thats an evolved version of the F16's. Weapons such as the AIM 9 (maybe if you wanna pay for it the X), Maverick and bumb iron. Its quite capable of having the AMRAAM intergrated, not to mention penguin and other small ASM's, allthough you'd be struggling to intergrate harpoon, and i dont see why JDAM is not a possibilty. In flight refueling (handy if you desided to buy a tanker) and quite nimble. Subsonic and a bit short on range though, however its pretty good bang for your buck. Have a look at the bottom of this post.
A squadron of desent fighters will elevate NZ's regional standing by itself. But ability to project power throughout oceania will truely make you boys a regional power. You've got 2 ANZAC class frigate right??? thats fine considering the state of the region. What you really need is the ability to deploy and support a battalion somewhere in the region. You've pretty much got enough formations to achieve long deployments through rotation, but what you really need the logistical assets. A small LPD perhaps.
Tactical fighters even of a souped up trainer will not elevate NZ's hard power in the South Pacific region. Because quite simply how will they deploy them into the region and what threat would require the combat power of fast moving tactical air support? Maybe it might impress a few locals without access to an atlas but even then the soft power benefit would be minimal.
24-30 NZ tactical fighters is typical Air Power Australia “outer edge of the crystal ball” strategic thinking and typically doesn’t take into account the cost, especially the Total Lifecycle Cost, of such an acquisition which makes it prohibitive. Is there an Air Power New Zealand? Maybe they could set up a branch, or even better migrate…
The NZDF’s current force structure plans (Project Protector) will make them pre-eminent outside of Australia within the South Pacific region. The ability to move and land a reinforced company force with 14 NZLAVs is the regional equivalent of a panzer division.
However some more aggressive deployable air support would be good and if they go down an earlier Seasprite replacement path acquiring something with a mix of attack helicopter and maritime helicopter capabilities would be ideal. Something like Future Lynx with its M299 smart launchers for Hellfire missiles would give them a huge boost in deployable regional combat power.
Now the flipside to all this is how much hard power NZ wants to contribute to wider regional and global alliances and coalitions. The thing about such efforts is you don’t have to provide a completely balanced combat force slice 1/6 to 1/3 of your total force. If you don’t have NBC decontainmation assets then the Czechs might have them, etc. So does NZ need tactical fighters for coaltions? Nope.
Stay the course Kiwi brothers, maybe enhance what you’ve got: some more armour and sealift and some multi-purpose combat helicopters, but stay the course.
Fire Mission AGRA!
AGRA: Army Group Royal Artillery
Frontage: 750m x 750m
Objective: Inform the Swarm
24-30 NZ tactical fighters is typical Air Power Australia “outer edge of the crystal ball” strategic thinking and typically doesn’t take into account the cost, especially the Total Lifecycle Cost, of such an acquisition which makes it prohibitive. Is there an Air Power New Zealand? Maybe they could set up a branch, or even better migrate…
The NZDF’s current force structure plans (Project Protector) will make them pre-eminent outside of Australia within the South Pacific region. The ability to move and land a reinforced company force with 14 NZLAVs is the regional equivalent of a panzer division.
However some more aggressive deployable air support would be good and if they go down an earlier Seasprite replacement path acquiring something with a mix of attack helicopter and maritime helicopter capabilities would be ideal. Something like Future Lynx with its M299 smart launchers for Hellfire missiles would give them a huge boost in deployable regional combat power.
Now the flipside to all this is how much hard power NZ wants to contribute to wider regional and global alliances and coalitions. The thing about such efforts is you don’t have to provide a completely balanced combat force slice 1/6 to 1/3 of your total force. If you don’t have NBC decontainmation assets then the Czechs might have them, etc. So does NZ need tactical fighters for coaltions? Nope.
Stay the course Kiwi brothers, maybe enhance what you’ve got: some more armour and sealift and some multi-purpose combat helicopters, but stay the course.
Fire Mission AGRA!
AGRA: Army Group Royal Artillery
Frontage: 750m x 750m
Objective: Inform the Swarm
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Ahhh, we've got an anti-APA crusader huh? here to clense the world of all heathens hey AGRA? Funny how a thread on NZ's deficencies in capability somehow has something to do with APA. If you want, we can start a thread on APA, and you can whine all you want and tell the world how APA are such bad people and say such silly things, i'm sure someone will be interested, but i'm afraid if you plan to follow me arround preaching then i wont be.
So back to the point.
For one thing they have NO maritime strike capability at the moment, apart from the P3's which is pitifull. A squadron sized marritime strike capability would give the kiwi's a lot more ability to defend their waters, and acts as alot of deturrent against larger players who might have interests in the area.
If the cost of a squadron sized purchase is prohibative then how has the RNZAF operated a combat air arm sinse WW2???
Also all that knowlage, experiance and expertise that the RNZAF had accumulated over the last 60yrs was lost in a single stroke. All its capable personell that were part of the air combat arm are now over here or in the UK. That sort of thing cant just be bought back when the need arises like new platforms.
A battalion sized deployment is whats really needed. i cant see what the impact of 3 platoons of infantry and a squadron of NZLAV's would have on a nation the size of Fiji or Vanatu. there is simply not enough boots on the ground to provide security to even a limited area, let alone enforce peace in any of the major oceanic nations.
I agree with you as far as deployable air power is concerned, it would give a deployed task force significant fire support and is much more acurate and flexable then deploying artillary, especially when working in built up areas.
You probably dont need NZLAVs, Artie or Javelin either, since someone else will have similar capabilities, so i suppose they can save more money and just scrap those too eh?
Woah there boy. Check the post histories this was my first post only later did I discover your obvious pro-APA bias… However the obvious similarities between the strategic nonsense presented by APA for the ADF force structure and Ozzy Blizzard for the NZDF are worthy of comment.Ahhh, we've got an anti-APA crusader huh? here to clense the world of all heathens hey AGRA? Funny how a thread on NZ's deficencies in capability somehow has something to do with APA. If you want, we can start a thread on APA, and you can whine all you want and tell the world how APA are such bad people and say such silly things, i'm sure someone will be interested, but i'm afraid if you plan to follow me arround preaching then i wont be.
Like Japanese 'scientific' whalers? Come on there is no potential maritime threat to NZ needing of some kind of ASM equipped tactical fighter force. The Seasprites and Orions with Mavericks/Mk82s can take out anyone with air defence up to MANPADS level. Last time I checked the Fiji Navy was not acquiring Kub systems for their patrol boats…
Well the cost then wasn’t prohibitive and there was this little thing called the Cold War… I’m sure you remember it, frankly you appear to think its still going on.
Sure they need a battalion for independent or coaltion leading opportunities. Which is why the NZ Govt has forward budgeted around NZ$400m to replace the HMNZ Endeavour. This is money for a much more capable ship or ships and should double (at least) their sealift capability. Of course they could spend this money on some kind of fast jet force but then they would be back where they were in 1995 – no deployable land force but great airshows…
Pure garbage. You need to deploy a minimal self-contained military force which is a sub-unit, company in infantry terms, flight/det in air terms. The NZLAV, Javelin are required to make up minimal Army sub-unit. The same if you were providing a C-130 det you want them to have EWSP and some ballistic protection. The arty is a legacy capability acquired in the 1980s as part of the Cold War force structure. Certainly when they come up for replacement the NZDF should look at some more lightweight and deployable fire support platforms like the new generation of 120mm mortars.
$400m to replace Endeavour, eh? I wonder how much Canada is looking to spend on its new generation replenishment vessels? Does anyone know? I like the requirement specs I have seen, normal fuel, JP, ammo, stores replenishment, plus helicopter workshop, medical facilities, command capability, with a secondary amphib role via LCVP.
Would almost need to by a couple of escort vessels though, as would almost be another capital ship for RNZN, along with Canterbury. I often wonder why NZ hasn't bought at least a couple of K130s or similar in order to provide some protection for Canterbury when (if?) she goes in harms way. Should at least provide her and OPVs with 57mm and mini-Typhoons.
Would almost need to by a couple of escort vessels though, as would almost be another capital ship for RNZN, along with Canterbury. I often wonder why NZ hasn't bought at least a couple of K130s or similar in order to provide some protection for Canterbury when (if?) she goes in harms way. Should at least provide her and OPVs with 57mm and mini-Typhoons.
Actually No - France is the next major power in the South Pacific, after Australia and has the ability to exceed Australia, with the deployment of additional assets by sea and air. Project Protector simply deals with force structure deficencies that defence have known about since the 1970's in the case of the OPV's and IPV's and the mid 1980's for the MRV. As evidence of that you should look to the conversion of HMNZS Taranaki to a resource protection vessel, the substandard capability of the previous lake class patrol vessels and the deployment of HMNZS Monawai to Fiji with addtional forces in 1987.
Yes NZ maybe able to move a reinforced company, but landing it is another issue. In a Fiji type situation the LCM's may have to deal with Mortars, HMG fire. Currently NZ has no effective means of counter fire, except in the form of two frigates in need of a refits.
Which completely ignores the whole issue of short notice military threats to New Zealand. Just because there are no threats now, does not mean there won't be even in the near future. People seem to forget that NZ is only 3 weeks sailing from most South East Asian Ports. If things were to get nasty an Orion or Sea Sprite may have to come within SAM range with a Maverick. Even using Harpoon may not necessarily protect a P-3 crew. Also as a bit of history I can recall during the Rainbow Warrior crisis that there was some concern over the location of the French forces, that may have required a response.
New Zealand had and developed an Air Combat Force long before the Cold War or even WWII. No one has yet explained how a government running some of the largest surpluses in NZ history can say the cost can be prohibitive. Nor can anyone explain why in 1989,effectively after the end of the cold war the then Labour government purchased 17 MB339 only to change their mind less than 10 year later, despite the Quigley report. Its interesting that in the Post Cold War conflicts going on that Fast Jets are providing signifcant firepower in support of ground forces, for fewer losses than lower flying Helicopters.
Also I don't think we should forget the lessons of Crete, where NZ forces land forces were operating with first limited, and then no air cover. Relying on allies, sometimes is not a good thing (no offence meant).
Could you please quote where there is 400million budgeted for a tanker. The last time I read anything was that the government was examining the need for a tanker at all. The amount of 400million, for 1 tanker seems absurb given that the bugdet for the MRV was 250million NZ and the whole project protector bugdet was $NZ500million for 7 vessels built to civilian standards.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
What is this discussion about?
I have to wonder, what is this discussion about? Is it about ways to improve the NZDF or ways to make NZ a regional power (whatever that is...)?
If the discussion is really about NZ becoming a regional power, I would have to assume that means the ability to engage in power projection. If one were to assume NZ's region is Oceania/the South Pacific, then NZ is already a regional power. Given the potential opposing local forces, only Australia has a stronger projection capability. I'm not including Malaysia, Singapore or Indonesia in the region because they are more properly ASEAN, not South Pacific.
If, instead the idea is to find ways to improve upon the NZDF, I would think areas to concentrate on first would be improvement of existing capabilities (Anzac & P-3K upgrades come to mind) replacement of equipment reaching end-of-service-life, and then acquisition of dual or multi-use equipment and capabilities. After that, would be addition (or reactivation) of capabilities based upon their potential use.
To that end, while having the RNZAF have an air combat component again would IMV be very good, it should only be done after other, more critical areas have been seen to. Points to consider about having an air combat arm.
Now, if NZ could make more efficient use of current aircraft assets (like the MB-339CBs) while keeping costs reasonable, I think that would be a good thing. Otherwise, I'd just as soon see money spent on capabilities NZ is already using and/or struggling to fufil.
-Cheers
I have to wonder, what is this discussion about? Is it about ways to improve the NZDF or ways to make NZ a regional power (whatever that is...)?
If the discussion is really about NZ becoming a regional power, I would have to assume that means the ability to engage in power projection. If one were to assume NZ's region is Oceania/the South Pacific, then NZ is already a regional power. Given the potential opposing local forces, only Australia has a stronger projection capability. I'm not including Malaysia, Singapore or Indonesia in the region because they are more properly ASEAN, not South Pacific.
If, instead the idea is to find ways to improve upon the NZDF, I would think areas to concentrate on first would be improvement of existing capabilities (Anzac & P-3K upgrades come to mind) replacement of equipment reaching end-of-service-life, and then acquisition of dual or multi-use equipment and capabilities. After that, would be addition (or reactivation) of capabilities based upon their potential use.
To that end, while having the RNZAF have an air combat component again would IMV be very good, it should only be done after other, more critical areas have been seen to. Points to consider about having an air combat arm.
- Ongoing cost of operations would be ~$200 mil/year (not including initial startup costs)
- Only three countries currently could bomb NZ, these are Australia, France or the US. This list isn't likely to change any time soon either.
- In terms of maritime strike, it more efficient to arm the sensing platforms (P-3Ks) to carry out a strike, instead of requiring a sensing platform relay that to another aircraft to carry out the strike.
- Without AAR (not a current RNZAF capability) a light fighter force is unable to deploy away from NZ.
Now, if NZ could make more efficient use of current aircraft assets (like the MB-339CBs) while keeping costs reasonable, I think that would be a good thing. Otherwise, I'd just as soon see money spent on capabilities NZ is already using and/or struggling to fufil.
-Cheers
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Umm, looking at the posts you have put up so far your anti-APA bias is more than clear, i refer to your last (ridicules) post in the F18F for Aus thread. I forgot that my name is really Dr Carlo Kopp.
nfloorl: Currently the NZDF has virtually no deturrent against any major players in the region. A squadron sized combat air arm that is capable of maritime strike would give the kiwi's that deturrent. You do remember the rainbow warrier incident dont you? The french haven't been too respectfull of New Zealand's soverignty have they? But hey who cares right? Its somehow in line with "APA strategic thinking" so its must be wrong, even though the RNZAF was structured around it for over 60 yrs.
Also just maintaing the combat air arm retains the exellent personell and experiance that have been discarded. that sort of thing cant just be bought when there is a crisis.
As Lucanz said above the NZ govt is running lconcurrent larg surpluss. And the cost is prhibitive because its not the cold war any more???? Why is that pray tell? have the life costs of operating combat aircraft risen in real terms (i.e. accounting for inflation) since the end of the cold war enough to make them prohibative??? To be honnest i cant really understand your reasoning. perhaps is has more to do with your bias against "heathans" than a clear strategic vision.
And a desent maritime strike capability. Which is kind of important for an island nation dont you think????
However fast jets with presision strike capability can not be deployed in forward area's to provide air cover to deployed untis though, or wouldn't be usefull???? An indipendantly deployed battalion in a nation like Fiji, which has fast jet capable airfields, fixed wing air cover would not be very capable fire support????
The fact of the matter is that the NZDF is an unballanced force at the moment without a combat air wing, and is not fully capable of indipendant action in peace inforcement on a desent level or in defence of their waters against anything other than OPV's.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
What region? The SEA or the Pacific?Currently the NZDF has virtually no deturrent against any major players in the region. A squadron sized combat air arm that is capable of maritime strike would give the kiwi's that deturrent. You do remember the rainbow warrier incident dont you? The french haven't been too respectfull of New Zealand's soverignty have they? But hey who cares right? Its somehow in line with "APA strategic thinking" so its must be wrong, even though the RNZAF was structured around it for over 60 yrs.
Also just maintaing the combat air arm retains the exellent personell and experiance that have been discarded. that sort of thing cant just be bought when there is a crisis.
The French haven't launched air strikes on NZ I'm pretty sure and neither has anyone else.
Thinking that anyone would is ridiculous. ANYONE intending to do so would have to also threaten US and most likely the Americans TOO. Of course with American combat power being on the decline as it is THEY might not be able to assist us or NZ against this mythical foreign power so hell bent on annihilating NZ...
The cost is prohibitive to the persons who matter. The politicians on BOTH sides of NZ politics.
Whether NZ can finanically afford it is irrelevant, as is the topic of this thread, to be perfectly honest. NZ already IS a power within it's region... Maybe it should read what COULD NZ do to become THE power within it's region...
If there's something to strike I suppose I'd agree with you. A Harpoon or SLAM-ER equipped P-3K would make for a pretty reasonable maritime strike capacity wouldn't you think???
Afterall a H-6 Badger offers a useful strike capability for others apparently...
It probably would. It'd also be akin to cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer too. How often do Countries deploy ENTIRELY unnecessary combat capabilities to an operation?
And what threat is there within their own waters? What threat is there likely to be in 20 years, seeing as though it's crystal ball time? I'm horizon challenged I know, but I can't see a threat to NZ requiring anything more than a basic ability to strike in maritime waters when so desired. They have that now with P-3K and their Seasprites.
Can you name a peace enforcement operation where ANY country has ever operated independently?
Keep up the charade dear fellow and making sure there are typos in your posts but the post back history of "Ozzy Blizzard' is all pure Koppspeak. You've been Kopped mate, now I could ask the Moderators for your IP and do a bit of matching but they would probably think that’s an invasion of your privacy.... As I said in my original outing, I have nothing against aliases, just don’t use them to provide a fake endorsement of you own work, sickening stuff.Umm, looking at the posts you have put up so far your anti-APA bias is more than clear, i refer to your last (ridicules) post in the F18F for Aus thread. I forgot that my name is really Dr Carlo Kopp.
Rainbow Warrior was sunk by a naval force or an air attack or something tactical fighters could deter? Is that what you are implying? The NZ needs fighters to maintain peaceful relations with the French in the region?Currently the NZDF has virtually no deturrent against any major players in the region. A squadron sized combat air arm that is capable of maritime strike would give the kiwi's that deturrent. You do remember the rainbow warrier incident dont you? The french haven't been too respectfull of New Zealand's soverignty have they? But hey who cares right? Its somehow in line with "APA strategic thinking" so its must be wrong, even though the RNZAF was structured around it for over 60 yrs.
Oh yes for 60 years after WW2 NZ maintained an air combat force. I guess the memory of the Japanese attacks lives long. But that strategic situation is gone and forever. There is no strategic emptiness between NZ and SE Australia from potential expansionist powers as there was in 1941/42. Singapore now actually is a fortress, etc. So where are this 'major players' and their threat going to emerge from?
It is this typical 'my point of view' in face of all other logic and a fanciful strategic scenario with bad data and analysis to support it that pervades Air Power Australia and leads to crusades to sweep it from the holy land of a responsible and thoughtful defence policy making. Intellectual cults are sickening and to be decalred an anti-cult crusader is a badge of honour.
But don’t worry OB/CK just draw up a map showing how Chinese Tu-22s operating out of Naru can threaten Peter Jackson’s studios in Wellington and I’m sure you can convince the NZDF to acquire some F-22s.
Here is a map showing an arc 1,000NM around New Zealand:
http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?RANGE=1000nm@nzwp&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy
Where's the threat?
http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?RANGE=1000nm@nzwp&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy
Where's the threat?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Don't you know the chinese are actively trying to worm their way into a position of power within Fiji? Even the leader of the recent Coup has suggested Fiji become closer to China as a hedge against Australian imperialism within the region!!! :shudder
Within 5 years you'll see a SU-30 Flanker carrying Chinese CBG and a powerful SAG operating out of there I'm certain.
Plus of course the ever present H-6/cruise missile threat, that is apparently survivable, unlike Orions and SOW's...
NZ will be sorry if it doesn't have those 24 Hawks in-service then!!!
nfloorl:Thats a very simplistic approach to defence, when you consider most modern warships have a cruising range of over 6000nm. The last time I looked a cruise missile had a range of over 1000nm.
I think you need to think to do some reading on the capability of modern warships and maybe some NZ naval history. As examples: one NZ Cruiser stopped every German merchant ship on the West Coast of South America from Sailing in the weeks leading up to the River Plate. You should also consider the damage caused, and the impact of a single armed merchant cruiser, which operated off the NZ coast in WWI & II. If one ship could cause that much damage then, why not now.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
What cruise missile has a range over 1000nm? Even Tomahawk barely has that range...
Who is operating vessels with Tomahawk class cruise missiles in the South Pacific (besides the USA) that could be a threat to NZ?
Well RNZN has 2 ANZAC frigates, that individually are more capable than ANY other vessel in the South Pacific (besides any US or Australian vessels in the area) and as has been said RNZAF possesses a maritime strike capability already (limited though it might be) thanks to it's Orions and Seasprites.
Who has the capability in the South Pacific (besides Australia and the USA) to defend against ANY form of maritime strike?
I stand corrected on the cruise missile range.
With all due respect, I wasn't focusing solely on a cruise missiles or even cruise missile capable ships. What I was trying to highlight that looking solely at the South Pacific to determine future threats etc to NZ is short sighted. Countries such as China, Japan, India etc are all capable of launching low level maritime threat against NZ. I'm not saying that will happen, but in needs to be factored into NZ defence planing.
Sure which is why maintaining at least three types of maritime warfare capabilities is a good idea. The FFHs, the Seasprites and the Orions. Does NZ need a fourth? Especially one that costs far more than the rest as in a tactical fighter force of ~20 F-16s as was planned?
NZ's strategy is quite effective. They have maintained a powerful South Pacific regional force that maintains warfighting capabilities only Australia can match (artillery, high end comms, etc). So they can pretty much defeat every other regional force. They have the means more or less to move it and they have a large maritime patrol force with a maritime combat capability.
What more do they need for their strategic circumstance? Better airlift (A400Ms) and better dual use combat helicopters (Future Lynx). That’s about it and none will require an increase in expenditure based upon what the government wants to allocate.