NZDF General discussion thread

Thank god, politics is so boring :lul

Would be interested to know if a "new" government would look at implementing in full the recommendations of the 2002 Maritime Forces review, ie a 3rd OPV, a 5th IPV and putting a larger main weapon on the OPV's in the 40-76mm range. Others have mentioned that a lack of below decks space may rule out the 76mm option which would make a 57mm Bofors a logical choice. I would imagine it would be easy enough to "knock together" a 3rd OPV, and by the time it is delivered there might be enough personnel to man it.

Additionally it would be good to see some of the LUH (A109 variant) equiped with a 360 search radar and Flir system to both supplement the Seasprites in the maritime role as well as provide a better lead-in training platform, not sure it would make sense to purchase additional Seasprites when a well equipped A109 would do a more than adequate job.
 
KH-12 said:
Thank god, politics is so boring :lul
Click to expand...


Yes indeed, I was starting to think arguing was all you Kiwi's were good for. :p:

I have suggested before that NZ could do with a UAV surveillance platform such as Global Hawk or similar. With a networked force of Global Hawk, Orions, Anzacs, OPV and a Joint OPS HQ you could extend your eyes over a massive area and save your assets patrolling time as they could steam/fly straight to suspicous contacts. All your data is real time and your HQ has situational awareness of all assets and contacts. Is the NZDF investigating setting up such a network? Would even be usefull chasing fishermen in the Southern Ocean.

As for Seasprites the RAN has a few they might love to be rid of, low km's, previous owner only drove it to church on a Sunday!! :D Yes that is another fine mess that the ALP got us into.

Hooroo
 
barra said:
Yes indeed, I was starting to think arguing was all you Kiwi's were good for. :p:

I have suggested before that NZ could do with a UAV surveillance platform such as Global Hawk or similar. ...
Hooroo
Click to expand...

Global Hawk is very expensive. Costs more than most fighters. You could buy several (8-10?) MQ-9 or the Israeli equivalent for the price of one, IIRC. You have to really, really want that extreme range & endurance, & be prepared to pay for it, to buy the Global Hawk
 
swerve said:
Global Hawk is very expensive. Costs more than most fighters. You could buy several (8-10?) MQ-9 or the Israeli equivalent for the price of one, IIRC. You have to really, really want that extreme range & endurance, & be prepared to pay for it, to buy the Global Hawk
Click to expand...

If Australia decides to make a BAMS purchase or similar, perhaps NZ could make a joint purchase with them. That could reduce the per unit acquisition cost. What I am not sure of, is the operating cost per annum for a UAV force of Global Hawks or similar. IIRC the cost p.a. for an ACF of ~24 fighters was $200 mil. While a Global Hawk (and ground/control station, etc.) might very well cost in a range akin to that of a fighter, is the operating cost similar? Personally I doubt that since I think otherwise manned aircraft would be preferred, but I could be wrong.

I think NZ does need additional ISR assets in some form or another. Given the vast sea approachs as well as the limited assets available to respond, anything that can improve the quality and quantity of information the NZDF has should be welcome. As I have mentioned before in a different thread, a radar system similar to SECAR in nature could allow for better patrol performance from available aircraft and vessels.

-Cheers
 
Today National released its Defence, Trade and Foreign Policy Discussion Document. There is nothing new in it for us as most of it has found itself on to this thread over the last two months. I suppose the 50% of Foreign Aid to the Pacific Islands is the only thing new. I believe that this a particularly good policy point. What the discussion document does not discuss – not that I would expect it to - is a full regional strategic projection of defence issues and potential events over the next 20 years that will have some bearing on NZ Defence and Foreign Policy over that time frame. I thought I would briefly collate a few of these potential security issues that aren’t contained within the discussion document (Or given much detail by MFAT/NZDF for that matter) so as to put perspective into our Defence and Security Planning and provide some food for thought. At the end of the day it is these points that really are the fundamental projections that security and strategic analysts make in their forward assessments so as to plan defence capability and expenditure. If/When National puts up its Defence White Paper it will need to address fully and frankly its options, contingencies and responsibilities. It is also our responsibility to make them aware that the next decade will be very different to the current one and that they wont be able to get away with a one dimensional approach to defence and security as is the case at present.

Potential Threats, Scenarios and Security Issues in Asia Pacific Region Post 2010.

1) The possible rise of an ambitious, nationalist, resource hungry China into a "full" Superpower within a decade and accordingly the growing arms race in Asia to counter China’s growing power and influence. New Zealand and Australia will need to watch the development of China’s blue water navy capability based around a CSG and it’s significance in altering the Western and Southern Pacific balance of power. The question of when not if China starts to project her power towards Taiwan.

2) The centuries old rivalries and increased tension between ‘embarrassed’ Japan itching to ‘normalise’ itself by breaking free of Article 9 Constitutional constraints and its other North Asian neighbours who are challenging her current Asian dominance and questioning her level of contrition over its colonial conquests and exploitation between 1895 and 1945. (Currently the Jimen Party (LDP) is in power with only just recently Fukuda being installed at the helm. Fukuda is slightly less hard-line then the previous Shinzo Abe though this will be in the interim as it is possible that Minshuto (Democrats) will take the lower house in next years elections and therefore the Government. This might mean the heat has been slightly taken out of this issue in the short term. But with Taro Aso (an ardent nationalist) waiting in the wings to take over the LDP with backing from the former Kamei and Hashimoto factions the Article 9 issue will pop up on the agenda in due course as will the LDP supremacy.)

3) The Korean Peninsula instability. A more independent and confident South and a paranoiac, armed and starving north. The repercussions of change in the North Korean dynasty? The repercussions of the US 8th Army withdrawing to the ‘outer ring’ islands such as Guam, Saipan - if popular anti-Americanism and/or nationalism rises in the South?

4) The possible flashpoint in the South China Sea due to potential oil and gas exploration fields around the Senkaku Islands which are claimed as sovereign territory by China, Japan, Taiwan, and Vietnam. Also into that mix the Spratley’s, the Sakhalin’s, Dokto, the Parasols and other disputed Islands in the Asian region in which countries have their national prestige at stake as well resource and/or geopolitical significance.

5) The continuing rise of Islamic fundamentalism throughout the whole of South Asia which could lead to a least one “islamofacist” state and the domino effect of instability in its neighbours. Of concern is the potential break up of Indonesia into a number of antagonistic states based on religious, ethnic and ideological rivalries. West Papua seems one of the most likely candidates for the first rush of trouble and again the domino effect is relevant.

6) The emergence of resource starved industrial economies looking South into the Pacific towards soft targets to environmentally plunder. In consideration of the New Zealand aspect to this we would have to proceed towards the protection and security of our EEZ + dependencies if alleged deep sea mineral deposits around the Kermadec’s and oil and gas fields in the Southern Basin and Northland Block are realised. The rapid depletion of fish stocks around the whole Asian coastline from over-fishing and the need for these nations to go further field into the Southern Ocean, Central South Pacific and NZEEZ to feed their huge and ever wealthier domestic populations.

7) The question of whether long term the US, Singapore and Australia will alone be able to provide the geo-political security, maintain peace, economic stability, deterrent, and promote democratic value systems through this future period of time and change. Whether those three countries in particular will be willing to continue pro-active engagement and protection of, with, and for NZ though the reciprocation of such engagement and protection remains unbalanced.

8) The ongoing instability of Pacific Island nations and the capability of New Zealand to respond in a meaningful way. New Zealand’s loss of direct and positive influence over our nearest South Pacific Island neighbours. The loss of NZ sovereignty through repetitive and flagrant breaches by third party nations into its EZZ and Territorial Dependencies.

9) Possible Players on the fringe. India’s rapidly expansion into a nation with strategic and economic might. This is seen in its current pursuit of an expeditionary naval and air capability, which will lead to three carrier strike groups in operation by 2018. Russia re-emerging from the post Cold War era. Will we see its increased military confidence in terms of an interest in the Pacific?

10) The possible reduction and retrenchment in the involvement of the United States military in the wider region as it tires of the task of strategically and fiscally. Will the US turn politically inward after the costly and mixed success of the Bush era in Defence and Foreign Policy terms?

11) Nothing will happen. Everything will be honky dory. Everyone will behave perfectly well with love, peace, mutual understanding and respect. (Yeah Right)

The questions are - Which of the above is likely to happen? What would be the repercussions for New Zealand if/when it did? What would be the baseline defence capability to mitigate that event and protect New Zealand from that event? How would that work? What is the required transformation to get us from the present circumstances to dealing with the above potentialities.
 
MrConservative said:
Today National released its Defence, Trade and Foreign Policy Discussion Document. snip.
Click to expand...

Good post. I would recommend you email it to Mapp and Key.

As to what we do about such scenarios, I would suggest that a variation of what we have always done, or have had recommended on paper numerous time's {I'm thinking of Jellicoe's work when he came out on HMS New Zealand and his time as GG}, that is to say proper protection of our ports and strategic infrastructure from asymmetric threats and the protection of local trade from same and low level conventional threats. Given out South Pacific responsibilities that would of necessity have to be extended to the region in concert with others.
I would also add in that other element that has traditionally been our national niche, that of high quality combat troops in an expeditionary role in defence of our interests.
We must not forget that our way of life, standard of living or indeed our political independence is purchased from beyond the South Pacific and if we wish to retain it we may have to actively defend it.
 
Stuart Mackey said:
Good post. I would recommend you email it to Mapp and Key.

As to what we do about such scenarios, I would suggest that a variation of what we have always done, or have had recommended on paper numerous time's {I'm thinking of Jellicoe's work when he came out on HMS New Zealand and his time as GG}, that is to say proper protection of our ports and strategic infrastructure from asymmetric threats and the protection of local trade from same and low level conventional threats. Given out South Pacific responsibilities that would of necessity have to be extended to the region in concert with others.
I would also add in that other element that has traditionally been our national niche, that of high quality combat troops in an expeditionary role in defence of our interests.
We must not forget that our way of life, standard of living or indeed our political independence is purchased from beyond the South Pacific and if we wish to retain it we may have to actively defend it.
Click to expand...

I agree Stuart. With regards to meeting low level conventional threats, I think these need to be defined / distingished between low level threats in the Pacific and a requirement that NZ should be able to meet short notice / short term military threats to New Zealand, without outside assistance.

While I think a defence white paper is needed, I do think National could have better defined its defence policy in the lead up to the election (I know its not a vote winner). In terms of time frame, with Labour already preparing for a new defence white paper, I think the 1 year time frame is realistic. Biggest concern is that it will be like the 1997 white paper - never released.
 
Lucasnz said:
I agree Stuart. With regards to meeting low level conventional threats, I think these need to be defined / distingished between low level threats in the Pacific and a requirement that NZ should be able to meet short notice / short term military threats to New Zealand, without outside assistance.
Click to expand...

Agreed: I think the biggie is that we must stop looking at the South Pacific as the only potential source of trouble and look at what may come from without the region eg what happens if China becomes the next Wilhelmine Germany, complete with risk fleet?, and work accordingly.
It is gratifying that there has been some discussion of the role of China in the SP at ministerial level over issues such as aid and influence in borderline state's such as the Solomons.


While I think a defence white paper is needed, I do think National could have better defined its defence policy in the lead up to the election (I know its not a vote winner). In terms of time frame, with Labour already preparing for a new defence white paper, I think the 1 year time frame is realistic. Biggest concern is that it will be like the 1997 white paper - never released.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. But what are the terms of reference and who will write it?;), and we must remember that no white paper is binding.
 
Good question Stuart about who would write it. This is actually is a very difficult area - because both parties have undertaken an automonous FP stance. So the media and public expectation would be that New Zealanders would write it. Obviously there would have to be a bi-partisan element to it so some form of cross party involvement would be required. But I just dont feel that New Zealand possesses the robustness of strategic thought to produce a white paper containing the sense of realism that is required. In a way I'd like to see an open public hearing Select Committee style where members of the public and invited foreign specialists in international defence and security come and give evidence or make submissions. Obvious people of standing such as Dr Robyn Lim, Prof Alan Lee Williams, Adm William Fallon for example and locals such as Jim Rolfe, Paul Buchanan, Ron Smith etc. Maybe bring in Keith Locke just for the fun of it. Televise it, open up the debate. At least it would end all the media's dullard references to ancient history such as ANZUS. Maybe from that we could move on to the terms of reference, apply the evidence and come with a considered plan. In the final analysis I would still like to see New Zealanders write it. Hopefully with the input of an International perspective it wont be so wishy washy as tends to happen with most Kiwi policy efforts - full of late 80s management speak buzzwords such as sustainable and transformation.

Agree about one dimensionalism of purely a South Pacific focus. It doesn't put fuel in the Holden or Kiwifruit in the Nagoya housewives shopping basket. Stripped back to the absolute fundamentals this is why we have an NZDF. This is why we have a stake in what goes on further afield.
 
Stuart Mackey said:
Agreed: I think the biggie is that we must stop looking at the South Pacific as the only potential source of trouble and look at what may come from without the region eg what happens if China becomes the next Wilhelmine Germany, complete with risk fleet?, and work accordingly.
It is gratifying that there has been some discussion of the role of China in the SP at ministerial level over issues such as aid and influence in borderline state's such as the Solomons.

......

Couldn't agree more. But what are the terms of reference and who will write it?;), and we must remember that no white paper is binding.
Click to expand...

Yes totally agree - we do need to look globally. All argument in NZ regarding defence capability seems to inevitably come back to the argument "there's little likelihood we'll ever get invaded" - that's what most ACF opponents will state - as will politicians trying to justify buying the bare minimum equipment (ie: OPV & MRV suites - basic & fine for patrol, but capable of little more). Not that invasion can ACTUALLY be ruled out - but yes on the balance of probabilities...

There does seem to be a growing awareness that NZ has interests across the globe and that the NZDF exists for much more than just 'stopping an invasion' (which is good as it could never do that!) - but there's a way to go yet in maturing the outlook of most NZers.

The fact is we have key interests in the security of our trade routes; Sth Pacific, Aussie; S.E. Asia - and there are other key 'philosophical' interest further afield - ie: Afghanistan; Bosnia etc. But there needs to be an acceptance within NZ of the responsibility & cost that goes with meeting those interests. Currently we are VERY limited in what we can do to counter any threat to those interests - not that I'm suggesting wholesale spending on high-end forces.

I just want to see NZ stop it's 'bottom-up' approach to defence spending - whereby you try to guess the likelihood of threat (again - to any of your interests, not just invasion) and purchase the minimum of equipment (both in numbers & in capability) to meet the 'guesstimated' threat level.

We need to take a 'top-down' appraoch where we still evaluate threats - but we then purchase capability to meet those threats whilst also retaining the capability to provide meaningful assistance to any joint coalition war-fighting operation. There is massive global military modernisation occurring now & NZ is doing little to leverage off most of it.

As to the white-paper, my meeting some months back with Wayne Mapp was interesting - he talked about what a white-paper is. He basically stated that most people don't understand these are not public discussion documents. They reflect in essence what the Govt has already decided it intends to do - they are basically the Govt's public justification for policy decisions. The haggling over what goes into them is done behind closed doors, only once policy is agreed are they published. They are also considered 'internal' Govt documents.

Lets just hope if & when we get to see their white paper there's no further dumbing down of NZDF combat capability.
 
Mapp was been particularly honest that day eh! McCully told me at the 2006 Conference that he wanted an Aussie style debate with public input / discussion after the election and not the usual backroom job cause Labour would label it as a "typical tory hidden agenda" and the media would jump on it. Maybe they will do both - write the White Paper before meeting the public and then selling bigtime the public consultation process to the media. I think boys we better get our pens to paper and put in submissions with the details for the white paper now - just in case.

By the way when lobbying with Pollies/Dept lackies when you want to change their minds and/or give them complex information, particularly with Lawyers such as Mapp - Try the legal argument approach of firstly issue, material facts, application of facts and then conclusion. They take more notice of it than a letter from Joe Public with a bee in his bonnet and it tends to sink into more. Also try to take on a single issue at a time e.g third frigate, extra battalion, extra defence spending ect, rather than try to go for the overall approach.

Overall I really would like to see the White Paper opened up. A broad range of opinion considered. The public seeing whats going on and hearing whats been said. Transparent information. The public are kept in the dark about defence issiues too much basically because the media dont understand the issues well enough. Political reporters in NZ are very much generalists, with a superficial overview on defence/security issues. No wonder the public thinks that a defence force is all about just either peacekeeping or stopping an invasion.

PS: Hasn't it taken extraordinarily long to announce the purchase of a few small helicopters?
 
Last edited:
MrConservative said:
Mapp was been particularly honest that day eh! McCully told me at the 2006 Conference that he wanted an Aussie style debate with public input / discussion after the election and not the usual backroom job cause Labour would label it as a "typical tory hidden agenda" and the media would jump on it. Maybe they will do both - write the White Paper before meeting the public and then selling bigtime the public consultation process to the media. I think boys we better get our pens to paper and put in submissions with the details for the white paper now - just in case.

By the way when lobbying with Pollies/Dept lackies when you want to change their minds and/or give them complex information, particularly with Lawyers such as Mapp - Try the legal argument approach of firstly issue, material facts, application of facts and then conclusion. They take more notice of it than a letter from Joe Public with a bee in his bonnet and it tends to sink into more. Also try to take on a single issue at a time e.g third frigate, extra battalion, extra defence spending ect, rather than try to go for the overall approach.

Overall I really would like to see the White Paper opened up. A broad range of opinion considered. The public seeing whats going on and hearing whats been said. Transparent information. The public are kept in the dark about defence issiues too much basically because the media dont understand the issues well enough. Political reporters in NZ are very much generalists, with a superficial overview on defence/security issues. No wonder the public thinks that a defence force is all about just either peacekeeping or stopping an invasion.

PS: Hasn't it taken extraordinarily long to announce the purchase of a few small helicopters?
Click to expand...


Yes open the debate, but limit public input in decision making - as MMP shows you can't afford to have every interest group expect a concession, otherwise you get bogged down & policy gets watered down.

Yes also agree that we should all be putting pen to paper (that's what got me a meeting with Mapp) - before the election because (1) National's still working on policy (2) Pollies only 'listen to the plebs' once every 3 years!

It is as you say VERY important to present a balanced, structured argument, with clear facts & figures that present a clear reason for your argument - basically don't just rant! I've been told the first 2 paragraphs will determine if they bother to read the whole letter or whether it gets left unread with just a 'standard' response to the writer.

Yeah, why the hell is the decision on the T/LUH taking soooo damn long!?!
 
Gibbo said:
Yes open the debate, but limit public input in decision making - as MMP shows you can't afford to have every interest group expect a concession, otherwise you get bogged down & policy gets watered down.
Click to expand...

True, but that would also mean that National must excersize some leadership on the issue. Key's recent statement on defence seemed to be the end result of lack of leadership, you cannot formulate policy if you constantly cede the initiative to the other party.

snip
It is as you say VERY important to present a balanced, structured argument, with clear facts & figures that present a clear reason for your argument - basically don't just rant! I've been told the first 2 paragraphs will determine if they bother to read the whole letter or whether it gets left unread with just a 'standard' response to the writer.
Click to expand...

"How does this get me more votes"

Yeah, why the hell is the decision on the T/LUH taking soooo damn long!?!
Click to expand...

The feeling I get is this from these factors:
A cost overrun on the NH90's.
NZDF departments are being expected to make savings, or so I hear.
How much money is left in the capital acquisition fund after the NH90's.

My guess is that an assessment is being made of a certain artillery regiment vs the cost/benefit ratio of the T/LUH and its part of a very public and expensive helicopter programme.
 
Stuart Mackey said:
.....

My guess is that an assessment is being made of a certain artillery regiment vs the cost/benefit ratio of the T/LUH and its part of a very public and expensive helicopter programme.
Click to expand...

Please tell us all you're purely speculating on future of artillery and that you haven't heard 'whispers'!?!
 
Stuart Mackey said:
Whispers.

But, as usual, nothing is certain yet untill the internal politics take their course.
Click to expand...

I certianly hope you're wrong!!!!! - but given that NZ hasn't used artillery in 30+ years - I'll leave the rest to you. Interesting if true given the artillery deployed to ET as infantry. I wonder whether the focus is on disposal vs transfer to the TF.

But I'd have to agree that the helicopters are taking a long long time.
 
Lucasnz said:
I certianly hope you're wrong!!!!! - but given that NZ hasn't used artillery in 30+ years - I'll leave the rest to you. Interesting if true given the artillery deployed to ET as infantry. I wonder whether the focus is on disposal vs transfer to the TF.
Click to expand...

I hope I am wrong too, but after the axeing of the ACW and the reasons for it, I don't hold out much hope for the artillery as a separate unit. As augmented support companies in the infantry battalions, perhaps with different weapons, is another question.

But I'd have to agree that the helicopters are taking a long long time.
Click to expand...

Yep, and there is always a reason, good or bad, but always a reason.
 
Stuart Mackey said:
I hope I am wrong too, but after the axeing of the ACW and the reasons for it, I don't hold out much hope for the artillery as a separate unit. As augmented support companies in the infantry battalions, perhaps with different weapons, is another question.


Yep, and there is always a reason, good or bad, but always a reason.
Click to expand...

If you go to this link (NZ Artillery Assoc), it details the state of Artillery as of July last year. Very interesting read actually. Having read it my concerns have been dampened somewhat. It would appear the regiment has been making itself very useful.
http://www.riv.co.nz/rnza/shrapnel/regt06.htm
 
Lucasnz said:
If you go to this link (NZ Artillery Assoc), it details the state of Artillery as of July last year. Very interesting read actually. Having read it my concerns have been dampened somewhat. It would appear the regiment has been making itself very useful.
http://www.riv.co.nz/rnza/shrapnel/regt06.htm
Click to expand...

Well, things look good from that perspective esp the work on UAV's, which should be invaluable to the army as a whole.
The trouble is what of funding shortfalls from the LTDP, those NH90 cost a bit more than Goff expected, when replacement time comes for the guns? then there is politics: they have not deployed as a unit since Korea nor deployed a battery since Vietnam.

I hope I am very wrong, we need that regiment if there is any hope of proper formation training.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top