NZDF General discussion thread

[Stuart Mackey]

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.

Quite right. There are still German mines of Lyttleton. Its also worth pointing out that direct, pysical threats are not the only concern to nations, so while NZ itself may not face much more of a challange than mines or raiders, any major warfare in Asia would have a direct and immediate impact on the quality/way of life in NZ simply because of how our nation's economy works. And besides, who directly threatened us in WW1? but we still went off to war in 1914.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

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.

Given that we were spending 1.8% GDP on defence in 1984, ie back when Lange had hair and Douglas had the mo and the country was bankrupt, and we are now running six billion dollar surplusses, I think you will find that defence spending is a case of what is politically expediant to spend, not what is affordable.

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…

Evidence for funding for Endevours replacement and type of ship?
I would also advert your attention to my statement above on political expediency regarding spending. Moreover I would also point out that NZ still cannot deploy a self sustaining land combat force by itself, even when Canterbury is commissioned, and there are no plans to enable that to happen in any political party.

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.

No, pure garbage is what your have witten above: A self contained minimum is a battalion group, this information is contained in the defence forces advise to the incoming government umpteen times in a row.

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.

nfloorl: Oh I see, another "Cold War force structure" type. And what is wrong with the artilley that the capability needs replacement (other than age) with something else?

 

[Aussie Digger]

No, pure garbage is what your have witten above: A self contained minimum is a battalion group, this information is contained in the defence forces advise to the incoming government umpteen times in a row.

NZ has deployed "self contained" units of company level size to the Solomans on peace keeping operations AND to Afghanistan...

nfloorl: Oh I see, another "Cold War force structure" type. And what is wrong with the artilley that the capability needs replacement (other than age) with something else?

NZDF ITSELF recognises that it's current 81mm mortars and L118/9 105mm towed guns need upgrading or replacement in the next few years. It IS part of the LTDP...

Given the firepower, terminal effects (similar to 155mm projectiles) , extended range nature of modern 120mm mortar ammunition and the ease of deployment compared to a towed artillery piece, such a capability may be very useful for NZ in replacing it's "ancient" 105mm guns AND 81mm mortars with one system...

 

[Stuart Mackey]

NZ has deployed "self contained" units of company level size to the Solomans on peace keeping operations AND to Afghanistan...

With respect to Afghanistan they are effectivly reliant on the NATO organisation for their logistics and higher level protection and support. This support was required by NZ for that company to remain in Afghanistan when the US handed over to NATO, as such they are not self contained.
The same is effectily the same for the Solomons and Timor, our forces are part of an overall structure whithout which the overall mission could not be accomplished.

NZDF ITSELF recognises that it's current 81mm mortars and L118/9 105mm towed guns need upgrading or replacement in the next few years. It IS part of the LTDP...

And I never suggested otherwise.

Given the firepower, terminal effects (similar to 155mm projectiles) , extended range nature of modern 120mm mortar ammunition and the ease of deployment compared to a towed artillery piece, such a capability may be very useful for NZ in replacing it's "ancient" 105mm guns AND 81mm mortars with one system...

My point was essentially that arguing for somethings replacement on the grounds that it is from a 'Cold War' structure is a logical fallacy. Just because something happens to predate 1990 does not mean that it must be replaced for that reason alone, which is why I had in brackets "other than age".
You have presented an appropriate argument, he did not.

 

[AGRA]

My point was essentially that arguing for somethings replacement on the grounds that it is from a 'Cold War' structure is a logical fallacy. Just because something happens to predate 1990 does not mean that it must be replaced for that reason alone, which is why I had in brackets "other than age".
You have presented an appropriate argument, he did not.

And who the hell said that? If you want to be a Scion of Logic please at least try and get what you're talking about correct.

To recap for the thread reading challenged it was questioned as to why NZ had artillery considering the regional PSO type policy that has evolved. I responded that the arty in question was acquired in the 1980s when NZ had a Cold War orientated policy of maintaining a brigade group for overseas deployments as part of the grand anti-Soviet alliance. When they are due for replacement (steel like flesh wearies and Australia is replacing the very same guns in the next 5ish years) then I suggested perhaps they should be replaced by a more lightweight 120mm mortar system like the USMC's EFSS.

Nothing worse than someone arguing on construct when they have their interpretation so completely wrong.

 

[Rich]

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...

Our combat power is on the decline? Really? As to "assist" I think we would sink or swim together.

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...

This is an interesting statement because its true most people just dont know how isolated, and far away from everything NZ actually is. Take a look on a globe one day and you'll see its best defense is the fact that its in the middle of bloody nowhere.

I mean its "out there" and no doubt this geographical reality has played a big part in its Govt.'s defense plans. And its why I said earlier the best thing it can do is get some fast movers on-line for basic air defense just to control its own airspace.

Because for a mythical power to go all this distance with an amphibious assault force and attack the Island??? Well, who is going to do that? China is like over 5,000 miles from the place and they cant even take an island a few miles off their shores.

So if they reconstituted their air force fighter wings to go along with their Protector project they would actually be in pretty good shape. They can trade quantity for the quality they've have always had, and they can do so because they are so far from everything.

 

[Tasman]

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.

1. Ongoing cost of operations would be ~$200 mil/year (not including initial startup costs)
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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

Good post Todjaeger.

I suggest that we need to remember that this is a "what if?' thread. I think it needs to be approached with the idea that a new government wants to improve NZ's status as a regional power and is prepared to find the dollars to do it. On that basis I think arguments should be based on how best to spend additional defence money in a way that would enable NZ to exert greater influence within the region.

Some of us have interpreted the region as the SW Pacific area whilst others have extended it to include the ability to contribute to coalition operations alongside other regional powers like Australia. If we include this capability it certainly changes the way we need to look at the areas where the NZDF needs to be enhanced.

Cheers

 

[Gibbo]

Best way for NZ to become a serious regional player is to firstly go & talk to Aussie & other regional partners to determine how they can best contribute to regional joint op's, given that the NZDF will never deploy independently.

Having said that the LTDP pretty much spells out the future direction, no air-combat force & limited combat capability. I do not expect the change of Govt to have a significant impact on this - possibly a little more teeth.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Australian study applauds NZ defence strategy

Interesting report on how NZ is going.

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=29120

Interesting rather same ol same ol but 'is as capable today as has been in the past 30 years and is as capable as it needs to be' any comments on that statement?

 

[Tasman]

Interesting report on how NZ is going.

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=29120

Interesting rather same ol same ol but 'is as capable today as has been in the past 30 years and is as capable as it needs to be' any comments on that statement?

Interesting that Professor Rolfe of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute notes that the ANZUS treaty is no longer "relevant to either party in the post cold war, and especially post 11 September strategic environment". I wonder if the ASPI regards the ANZUS Treaty as relevant to the Australia/USA relationship?

Cheers

 

[AGRA]

Interesting that Professor Rolfe of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute notes that the ANZUS treaty is no longer "relevant to either party in the post cold war, and especially post 11 September strategic environment". I wonder if the ASPI regards the ANZUS Treaty as relevant to the Australia/USA relationship?

Typical academic pontificating. The reasons why Australia, NZ and the USA chose to ally with each other have not gone if the original threat (Soviet Union) has. The same reasons we needed to band together because the Soviets didn’t like us (predominately European ethnicity, English speaking, liberal democracies, fundamentally capitalist, resource rich, colonial foundations) applies to many others. Those very same similarities make our alliance a natural fit.

The threat is no longer Soviet domination but threats to free and unhindered international trade of which we are all reliant on. Fortunately the threats are far smaller and while nasty and radical less capable of mega-damage like the Soviet Union was.

 

[swerve]

...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
....
-Cheers

Not quite true. Thailands mini-carrier may not be capable of doing anything, but Spain & Italy could send theirs to New Zealand, though with some difficulty. I see no reason why Viraat couldn't get there, Illustrious & Ark Royal could certainly make it.

To argue that some of these countries don't have the support ships needed is to forget that additional refuelling & resupplying at sea capacity is something that can be rigged up very quickly (weeks, rather than months, if urgently wanted) by the shipbuilding & engineering industries of these countries.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Our combat power is on the decline? Really? As to "assist" I think we would sink or swim together.

This was NOT a dig at the USA or it's combat power, but rather a dig at those who propound strategies whilst IGNORING US combat power, ie: everyone who promotes loudly (though hardly effectively) for more Australian air combat power because of the dire situation we'd be in fighting SU-30 Flanker equipped air arms on our own... nfloorl:

This is an interesting statement because its true most people just dont know how isolated, and far away from everything NZ actually is. Take a look on a globe one day and you'll see its best defense is the fact that its in the middle of bloody nowhere.

I mean its "out there" and no doubt this geographical reality has played a big part in its Govt.'s defense plans. And its why I said earlier the best thing it can do is get some fast movers on-line for basic air defense just to control its own airspace.

Because for a mythical power to go all this distance with an amphibious assault force and attack the Island??? Well, who is going to do that? China is like over 5,000 miles from the place and they cant even take an island a few miles off their shores.

So if they reconstituted their air force fighter wings to go along with their Protector project they would actually be in pretty good shape. They can trade quantity for the quality they've have always had, and they can do so because they are so far from everything.

True NZ maintained a reasonably capable "strike force" for a long time and could do so again with appropriate funding and Government support.

It is however NZ's isolation (and repeated pacifist Governments) that have allowed her to run down her air combat capability whilst simultaneously investing in a new but much broader range of capabilities.

The strategic rationale is that no-one is going to attack NZ without drawing Australia's ire too. If someone is attacking NZ and has FOUGHT their way through Australia and is STILL in a position to attack or invade, NZ isn't going to be able to do much about them anyway.

On top of this, very FEW people (myself included) can see the USA standing by whilst 2 of her allies are attacked and overrun. Even NOW, when so stretched by WoT commitments worldwide, the USA could deploy air and naval assets of such magnitude that NO-ONE in their right mind would think twice about taking them on in open warfare and could easily dwarf anything Australia or NZ could likely deploy...

I think NZ should continue along her LTDO modernisation path, but with a few additional investments in a number of key areas IMHO:

1. Tactrans capability should be enhanced as an immediate priority.

2. Her frigates upgraded to at LEAST the same level of capability as RAN's ANZAC's will be.

3. A maritime counter-mine capability should be developed,

4. A dedicated anti-ship missile system fitted to the ANZAC's and P-3K's to allow for an increased level of control over her own waters. (A standoff land attack capability would be nice to have as well, but may be too "warlike" for the NZ Government to consider)...

5. A dedicated aerial reconnaissance and surveillance capability. (An aerial fire support capacity would be "nice to have" too and would increase NZ's ability to operate in higher threat environments, as would most of these I suppose...)

Other capability enhancements NOT already in LTDP would be "nice to haves" I suppose and a fixed wing air combat capability would be too. It's hardly essential in NZ's case though...

 

[ren0312]

This was NOT a dig at the USA or it's combat power, but rather a dig at those who propound strategies whilst IGNORING US combat power, ie: everyone who promotes loudly (though hardly effectively) for more Australian air combat power because of the dire situation we'd be in fighting SU-30 Flanker equipped air arms on our own... nfloorl:




True NZ maintained a reasonably capable "strike force" for a long time and could do so again with appropriate funding and Government support.

It is however NZ's isolation (and repeated pacifist Governments) that have allowed her to run down her air combat capability whilst simultaneously investing in a new but much broader range of capabilities.

The strategic rationale is that no-one is going to attack NZ without drawing Australia's ire too. If someone is attacking NZ and has FOUGHT their way through Australia and is STILL in a position to attack or invade, NZ isn't going to be able to do much about them anyway.

On top of this, very FEW people (myself included) can see the USA standing by whilst 2 of her allies are attacked and overrun. Even NOW, when so stretched by WoT commitments worldwide, the USA could deploy air and naval assets of such magnitude that NO-ONE in their right mind would think twice about taking them on in open warfare and could easily dwarf anything Australia or NZ could likely deploy...

I think NZ should continue along her LTDO modernisation path, but with a few additional investments in a number of key areas IMHO:

1. Tactrans capability should be enhanced as an immediate priority.

2. Her frigates upgraded to at LEAST the same level of capability as RAN's ANZAC's will be.

3. A maritime counter-mine capability should be developed,

4. A dedicated anti-ship missile system fitted to the ANZAC's and P-3K's to allow for an increased level of control over her own waters. (A standoff land attack capability would be nice to have as well, but may be too "warlike" for the NZ Government to consider)...

5. A dedicated aerial reconnaissance and surveillance capability. (An aerial fire support capacity would be "nice to have" too and would increase NZ's ability to operate in higher threat environments, as would most of these I suppose...)

Other capability enhancements NOT already in LTDP would be "nice to haves" I suppose and a fixed wing air combat capability would be too. It's hardly essential in NZ's case though...

I was thinking more in terms of New Zealand also participating in conflicts that require the use of high tech conventional arms in a high intensity full blown naval conflict, such as say a conflict in the South China Sea, for example, over the Spratlys, such as in the novel "Dragonstrike", or if Australia gets involved in the Taiwan Strait, and New Zealand gets dragged in too, in this case it would need to have frigates armed with Harpoons, CIWS, and ESSMs, because the Anzacs, with their present armament, will have a very difficult time defending itself in that kind of environment, even if it will be uparmed in accrodance with the LTDP plans because of its lack of offensive armaments, in addition New Zealand can also deploy a flight of Block 52 F-16s or a squadron of Hawk 200s as part of a aerial task group.

 

[Todjaeger]

Not quite true. Thailands mini-carrier may not be capable of doing anything, but Spain & Italy could send theirs to New Zealand, though with some difficulty. I see no reason why Viraat couldn't get there, Illustrious & Ark Royal could certainly make it.

To argue that some of these countries don't have the support ships needed is to forget that additional refuelling & resupplying at sea capacity is something that can be rigged up very quickly (weeks, rather than months, if urgently wanted) by the shipbuilding & engineering industries of these countries.

Sorry, I should have been more clear when I posted. I was referring to the ability to carry out an airstrike from land-based aircraft. Yes, a few nations could, theoretically, manage to get a strike/bomber aircraft close enough to launch attacks on NZ with multiple AARs.

If a nation were to send a CBG-type formation to NZ, it would likely be detected a fair distance away. Far enough away so that there would be less chance of a "surprise" attack.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

I was thinking more in terms of New Zealand also participating in conflicts that require the use of high tech conventional arms in a high intensity full blown naval conflict, such as say a conflict in the South China Sea, for example, over the Spratlys, such as in the novel "Dragonstrike", or if Australia gets involved in the Taiwan Strait, and New Zealand gets dragged in too, in this case it would need to have frigates armed with Harpoons, CIWS, and ESSMs, because the Anzacs, with their present armament, will have a very difficult time defending itself in that kind of environment, even if it will be uparmed in accrodance with the LTDP plans because of its lack of offensive armaments, in addition New Zealand can also deploy a flight of Block 52 F-16s or a squadron of Hawk 200s as part of a aerial task group.

Well I'm not sure how survivable a flight of Hawk 200's would be in such a war, but you really should be asking a) whether such a scenario is plausible,: what political, financial or otherwise benefit would there be if Australia and NZ just "sat it out"?

Australia I know and probably NZ have a great relationship with Taiwan AND China, as well as obviously the US. Why on Earth would we want to "upset the apple cart" by joining one side or the other?

And where does this idea come from that unless a Country deploys a tactical fighter component it can't make a useful contribution?

Ask an American what they thought about Australia and New Zealands contribution to Vietnam..

 

[stray_kiwi]

...in addition New Zealand can also deploy a flight of Block 52 F-16s or a squadron of Hawk 200s as part of a aerial task group.

I'm not sure where New Zealand would get the money, personnel or training to quickly be able to deploy operational squadrons of Vipers or Hawks. The Labour government won't be spending any more money on defense than they absolutely need to, and the little they do spend has already been allocated to other much needed projects.

 

[Mr Brown]

I read Dragonstrike and as I recall NZ was involved, with old Canterbury as part of a joint RN-RAN-RNZN task group centered around Ark Royal and NZSAS involved in joint ops with Brits and Aussies.

The main thing is that NZ was working with others, not alone. This will always be the path that a small country like NZ will need to follow, for no matter how wealthy we are we are still too small population wise to provide fully for our own defence. Brunei is one of the wealthiest countries in the world yet has only a small defence force, with no air combat capability outside a few PC-9s. And it faces a direct threat to its portion of the Spratly Islands. But it relies heavily on defence agreements with the UK, Australia and even NZ.

NZ is a member of the FPDA that would enable us to count on the support of Australia, UK, Singapore and Malaysia if NZ were threatened. In fact I would think anyone who made aggressive moves towards NZ would have to face the RAAF and RAN as well unless they took them out first. If the could do that then NZ wouldn't have to much of a hope, even with a squadron of F-16s.

I agree that NZ needs to develop its armed forces, especially with regards to equipment levels,my wish list (I know, dream on!) would be more Javelins (about another 50) and Mistrals (50 again) would be good , 155mm arty system to replace Hamel, plus 120mm mortars either towed by LOV or self propelled in an LAV variant, an upgunned LAV similar to Stryker MGS,

An extra frigate, with all 3 frigates to have Harpoon, ESSM, RAM and new torps, about 2-3 missile and gun armed corvettes to provide a level between OPV and frigate. An extra MRV and new replinshment vessel.

Extra 3-4 C-130s, preferable stretched ones, 2-3 extra P-3s all to be armed with Harpoon would be nice.

A couple of extra large transports preferably 767s to complement current 757s on long range transport.

In the medium term an air combat force would be good, would cost a lot to set up and I think it was mentioned around 200m a year to run, but NZ is currently running huge surpluses, and as our dollar is at a record high against the US, a couple of dozen F-16s, even some upgraded block 30s, would be cheaper than ever! Though it would take some time to retrain pilots, so maybe a good trainer would the best bet, LIFT version of T-50 is a kind of a mini F-16.

Could convert some of the C-130s to dual tanker capability, and redevelop Nuie international as a potential foward operating base. The later would be useful even if just to operate P-3s, or even Mariner UAVs.

Also I would increase the size of the Territorial force as a well trained back up to a slightly expanded regular force.

This may be an expensive wish list, but NZ is a wealthy country, with one of the highest surpluses in the world and our dollar is currently strong against the US, so we need to act now.

 

[Todjaeger]

I was thinking more in terms of New Zealand also participating in conflicts that require the use of high tech conventional arms in a high intensity full blown naval conflict, such as say a conflict in the South China Sea, for example, over the Spratlys, such as in the novel "Dragonstrike", or if Australia gets involved in the Taiwan Strait, and New Zealand gets dragged in too, in this case it would need to have frigates armed with Harpoons, CIWS, and ESSMs, because the Anzacs, with their present armament, will have a very difficult time defending itself in that kind of environment, even if it will be uparmed in accrodance with the LTDP plans because of its lack of offensive armaments, in addition New Zealand can also deploy a flight of Block 52 F-16s or a squadron of Hawk 200s as part of a aerial task group.

I do agree that the Anzacs need to be updated with ESSM & quad packs at a minimum, more would of course be better.

Regarding an air combat group, I believe that it can take around 5 years to rebuild the corporate knowledge needed to have a quality air combat element. I don't think there is the political will to ensure this could be could be maintained.

About contributing a flight of Block 52 F-16s or Hawk 200s...
A more valueable contribution of air assets would likely be lift and transport assets. One of the reasons why the US is involved in, or can have an effect on, so many different international operations is the amount of support assets from the US. I believe part of the impetus behind the A400M project was so that European members of NATO wouldn't be so reliant on the USAF to move troops, equipment and supplies around. Having a few more transports, and or AAR assets available would ease potential supply burdens and provide better logistical support.

-Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

I read Dragonstrike and as I recall NZ was involved, with old Canterbury as part of a joint RN-RAN-RNZN task group centered around Ark Royal and NZSAS involved in joint ops with Brits and Aussies.

The main thing is that NZ was working with others, not alone. This will always be the path that a small country like NZ will need to follow, for no matter how wealthy we are we are still too small population wise to provide fully for our own defence. Brunei is one of the wealthiest countries in the world yet has only a small defence force, with no air combat capability outside a few PC-9s. And it faces a direct threat to its portion of the Spratly Islands. But it relies heavily on defence agreements with the UK, Australia and even NZ.

NZ is a member of the FPDA that would enable us to count on the support of Australia, UK, Singapore and Malaysia if NZ were threatened. In fact I would think anyone who made aggressive moves towards NZ would have to face the RAAF and RAN as well unless they took them out first. If the could do that then NZ wouldn't have to much of a hope, even with a squadron of F-16s.

AND

In the medium term an air combat force would be good, would cost a lot to set up and I think it was mentioned around 200m a year to run, but NZ is currently running huge surpluses, and as our dollar is at a record high against the US, a couple of dozen F-16s, even some upgraded block 30s, would be cheaper than ever! Though it would take some time to retrain pilots, so maybe a good trainer would the best bet, LIFT version of T-50 is a kind of a mini F-16.

Could convert some of the C-130s to dual tanker capability, and redevelop Nuie international as a potential foward operating base. The later would be useful even if just to operate P-3s, or even Mariner UAVs.

Also I would increase the size of the Territorial force as a well trained back up to a slightly expanded regular force.

This may be an expensive wish list, but NZ is a wealthy country, with one of the highest surpluses in the world and our dollar is currently strong against the US, so we need to act now.

I could be mistaken, but from what I recall, the FPDA had the UK, Australia and NZ guaranteeing the sovereignty of Malaysia and Singapore in the event of hostilities. I don't believe there is a requirement for the member nations to come to the aid of the UK, NZ or Australia if they are attacked. There had been another treaty, ANZUK between Australia, NZ and the UK, but that was ended in 1974. Replacing it was ANZUS, which "switched" the UK for the US. The NZ-US obligations were suspended in the early 80's regarding porting of US nuclear vessels and/or weapons. The Australia-NZ portion remains in effect. I admit I don't know if there are other defence treaties that NZ is currently signatory to that where other nations would come to NZ's defence aside from common values and heritage.

Regarding the air combat arm, the $200 mil/year figure (I'm still looking for the original source of that number) was the estimated ongoing yearly operating cost, once the air combat element had been reconstituted, not the initial startup costs. I would expect that the initial costs would be somewhat higher, not including the cost of purchasing the new fighter aircraft. As I mentioned in the previous post, it can take something like 5 years to get NZ back to where it had been prior to the disbandment of the Skyhawks.

-Cheers