NZDF - Now and the Future.

[Stuart Mackey]

I actually dont want your opinion over this.

You are posting on a board that is open to the public, so I think you will just have to deal with it. If you dont want your unsubstantiated opinion challenged, then dont post.

Im quite well informed over the political and military structure of the NZ and Fijian armed forces.

Yet you think 250 troops, not all of whom can be landed at once with their limited gear, can defeat in combat one of the best light infantry armies out there. You posted nothing more than a potted history of Fiji {without references, {oh, what a surprise:roll2} } which is nothing more than a strawman argument

Yeah right, your educated.

Im just trying to educate you. Obviously you are a little unititiated as i previously mentioned.

Dont patronise me. You still have not given any any substansive evidence of how 250 soldiers can beat the Fijian army and you talk to me of education?.

The 87 coup for your information came very close to NZ becoming involved.

And we didnt because Lange was told that we couldnt do it, by the defence forces, but hey, what does the opinion of CDF count?

I would suggest the reason we didnt was because we didnt have the capability like we do now.

We didnt then and we still dont. Now show me evidence of how 250 soldiers can defeat the entire Fijian army or conceed.

 

[gf0012-aust]

It might be time for some deep breathing folks....

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Actually the Fijian Military is about to take a reduction in military army numbers to about half of the 3500 regulars. As well as cutting back on their Navy personel. So the ratio will be well down on this estimate.

snip

Last I heard {in the Christchurch Press} that reduction was not going ahead, has that changed and do you have a link?

 

[Stuart Mackey]

It might be time for some deep breathing folks....

I do sometimes forget that this is not Stardestroyer.net {a rough environment}, my apologies if I seem over eager, but somethings need to be challanged.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Last I heard {in the Christchurch Press} that reduction was not going ahead, has that changed and do you have a link?

They lost a stack of blokes when they decided to stop providing the UN with troops last year. A lot of them went over to PMC's - usually the UK and Sth African based companies.

I was under the impression that they were keen to at least maintain numbers after the post UN slippage. They were worried about losing historical and corporate knowledge. They're very much in demand - esp in SecDet work.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

snippage

I was under the impression that they were keen to at least maintain numbers after the post UN slippage. They were worried about losing historical and corporate knowledge. They're very much in demand - esp in SecDet work.

That explains what I had read in the The Press. Commodore Bainimarama had voiced his opinion that reductions would have an adverse effect on their army and the PM had said that there were no plans to reduce the army. I cannot find a link to back that however.

 

[gf0012-aust]

That explains what I had read in the The Press. Commodore Bainimarama had voiced his opinion that reductions would have an adverse effect on their army and the PM had said that there were no plans to reduce the army. I cannot find a link to back that however.

maybe this will help:

http://pidp.eastwestcenter.org/pireport/2006/June/06-08-02.htm

 

[Stuart Mackey]

maybe this will help:

http://pidp.eastwestcenter.org/pireport/2006/June/06-08-02.htm

Indeed! thank you . I beleive the cuts did not go ahead however.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yes, we had our Air combat element in place then, and probably did have more foot soldiers as well, but i dont agree on less maritime options with our MRV coming in late 06. We didnt have this in 87. Yes, we had the scorpions as armour, but to be honest the LAV can do a better job because it can transport troops over a wider area. A scorpion cant. Besides it does have a 25mm gun as fire suppression.

I do believe the option of having an Island to start deploying resources and equipment is the way to go, and to jump from this starting point to the target area. With deploying with the element of surprise and location, i still believe that this type of operation could be carried out. Its a pity we lost our air strike element isnt it?

He meant "we" as Australia. AUSTRALIA didn't have the capability in 87. NZ certainly didn't and still doesn't.

Remember we had a little vessel known as HMAS Tobruk back then which IS (still) far more capable than your MRV will be, in terms of it's ability to lift numbers of troops, vehicles and LCM-8's etc.

The fact is that 250 troops are virtually nothing. You are talking about a single infantry company and a few supporting elements. You talk about 4x NH-90's being deployed. How many personnel do you think it's going to take to support said helo's?

By way of referrence, Australia has 2 Chinooks in Afghanistan and has 150 people supporting them...

A simple fact is that a single rifle Coy is not likely to defeat a 3500 strong military force. Particularly one recognised as being at least reasonably militarily capable.

NZ could do many things to exercise military power against Fiji, but launch a light infantry ground force is not one of them, with it's current troop numbers and planned deployable assets.

 

[usakiwi]

Further thoughts on the pacific bare base idea

In short Niue is a very attractive candidate for a rudimentary bare base to support humanitarian/military operations in the South Pacific region of most interest to New Zealand.

Location – Niue is very centrally located. ~600km to the north is Samoa, ~1000km to the east is the cook islands, 600 km south is Tonga and ~1200km west is Fiji. Rarotonga being some further 1000km to the east is much less centrally located

Facilities – The airport was recently extended as part of a NZ aid project and is capable of 737/767 sized operations. The major short fall is that there is no port, however a Pacific Forum study noted that an upgraded port facility with land-based docking and cargo loading/unloading could be constructed for $5M.

Economics/Politics – Suffice to say with less than 2000 people in Niue (20,000 in NZ) Niue is mostly a subsistence economy. The government is largely funded via NZ aid grants. Niue is in “free association” with NZ which means they are nominally independent and ask NZ to cover foreign affairs and defence on their behalf. Creating a bare base would have to be approved by the Niue legislature but given the economic benefits this is probably of little concern.

Bare base facilities– I would envisage a facility largely based around the airport with the construction of additional hard stands, large fuel bunker and storage facilities for propositioned containerized stores. Mostly traditional post hurricane relief type items prepackaged for C-130 sized transport. This would be supported from an upgraded port. Total capex maybe $10M with ~$1M in annual operating costs depending on number of resupply trips necessary (These numbers are real guesses btw, but I think in the ball park.

Bare base operations – The bare base primary role would be to enable quick response to regional contingencies. In some situations it would act as a land based tanker, increasing RNZAF aircraft range/payload capability, in others it would enable fast support to regional crisis. In the, albeit far fetched, notion of NZ being involved in armed conflict in the region the bare base also offers the advantage of the option of being able to build up forces in region and then deploy them straight to an area of interest and support them along shorter supply lanes.

All in all probably quite a cost effective use of limited NZDF funds and a strong sign of commitment to, for want of a better term, “policing” the South Pacific region.

(BTW first post, apols if I inadvertently break protocol)

 

[Whiskyjack]

I dont like to keep repeating myself, but the NZDF can, if operating fast aircraft use an forward operating base IE Niue to set up MASH style operations and move equipment, IE Ro/Ro vessels with sustained supplies and have them flown into Suva once the MRV has secured the Airport and Port facilities. Its totally possible. Even if we just used our Helos on our ships, it is.

The force structure is already in place to carry out this type of operation less a fast attack craft.

Markus, we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. I just can't see it. Niue is still 1200 km from Fiji, as GF has said NZ just does not have the capability to land in Fiji in a strength to make such an operation successful.

If the NZDF actually goes down the path of buying proper LPDs as opposed to the MRV and trains and equips the army to operate off them then it would be better prepared to mount such an operation in conjunction with the Australians.

As for light fighter operation in the Pacific the logistics and operational requirement make it to expensive for NZ. Really! It can be done, with great difficulty, for strikes against fixed targets such as Infrastructure etc… but to support ground forces, no way!

 

[Whiskyjack]

In short Niue is a very attractive candidate for a rudimentary bare base to support humanitarian/military operations in the South Pacific region of most interest to New Zealand.

Location – Niue is very centrally located. ~600km to the north is Samoa, ~1000km to the east is the cook islands, 600 km south is Tonga and ~1200km west is Fiji. Rarotonga being some further 1000km to the east is much less centrally located

Facilities – The airport was recently extended as part of a NZ aid project and is capable of 737/767 sized operations. The major short fall is that there is no port, however a Pacific Forum study noted that an upgraded port facility with land-based docking and cargo loading/unloading could be constructed for $5M.

Economics/Politics – Suffice to say with less than 2000 people in Niue (20,000 in NZ) Niue is mostly a subsistence economy. The government is largely funded via NZ aid grants. Niue is in “free association” with NZ which means they are nominally independent and ask NZ to cover foreign affairs and defence on their behalf. Creating a bare base would have to be approved by the Niue legislature but given the economic benefits this is probably of little concern.

Bare base facilities– I would envisage a facility largely based around the airport with the construction of additional hard stands, large fuel bunker and storage facilities for propositioned containerized stores. Mostly traditional post hurricane relief type items prepackaged for C-130 sized transport. This would be supported from an upgraded port. Total capex maybe $10M with ~$1M in annual operating costs depending on number of resupply trips necessary (These numbers are real guesses btw, but I think in the ball park.

Bare base operations – The bare base primary role would be to enable quick response to regional contingencies. In some situations it would act as a land based tanker, increasing RNZAF aircraft range/payload capability, in others it would enable fast support to regional crisis. In the, albeit far fetched, notion of NZ being involved in armed conflict in the region the bare base also offers the advantage of the option of being able to build up forces in region and then deploy them straight to an area of interest and support them along shorter supply lanes.

All in all probably quite a cost effective use of limited NZDF funds and a strong sign of commitment to, for want of a better term, “policing” the South Pacific region.

(BTW first post, apols if I inadvertently break protocol)

Yes good summary I agree, when the ammount of money that is spent on aid in the Pacific is taken into account the money spread over 3-5 years is not a lot. There is so many things that the base could be used for.

I am surprised this idea has not been floated before?

 

[KH-12]

Yes good summary I agree, when the ammount of money that is spent on aid in the Pacific is taken into account the money spread over 3-5 years is not a lot. There is so many things that the base could be used for.

I am surprised this idea has not been floated before?

I believe that Orions already base out of Niue for the periodic patrol covering the Tokoleau region.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I believe that Orions already base out of Niue for the periodic patrol covering the Tokoleau region.

That would make sense. I wonder what NZs official presence is up in Niue, does anyone know? Police, customs etc...

 

[cherry]

Cabinet has approved the next step in the purchase of new helicopters by the New Zealand Defence Force.

"Cabinet today authorised Ministry of Defence Officials to enter into negotiations with Nato Helicopter Industries for the purchase of up to eight NH90 helicopters for the New Zealand Defence Force.

"A further statement will be made once the outcome of those negotiations is known," said Defence Minister Phil Goff

8 is not many. Will this do the job for NZ?

 

[Whiskyjack]

8 is not many. Will this do the job for NZ?

8 would be proportional to the Australian buy. In fact 8 provides about 50% more lift than current UH-1s.

 

[KH-12]

8 is not many. Will this do the job for NZ?

Depends how those aircraft will be complemented by the LUH decision, combined with say 8 good utility/training helicopters should be reasonable, alot of the New Zealand tasked SAR/Civilian/Police duties could be addressed by the smaller aircraft (with cheaper operating costs), whereas at the moment the Sioux are only used for training and the UH-1H takes all the load, so you could end up with 16 useful aircraft instead of only 14 currently, and with a significant increase in net lift capacity.

It may even be less than 8.

 

[Markus40]

Yes, but certainly not enough.

8 would be proportional to the Australian buy. In fact 8 provides about 50% more lift than current UH-1s.

 

[Markus40]

If we were to send 4 NH90s on the MRV then the remaining 4 NH90s is not enough to cover our other operational responsibilities. IE, Humanitarian aid if needed, Antarctic duties, Search and Rescue and training. Not to mention if we had an accident on one then we are desperatly short.

Depends how those aircraft will be complemented by the LUH decision, combined with say 8 good utility/training helicopters should be reasonable, alot of the New Zealand tasked SAR/Civilian/Police duties could be addressed by the smaller aircraft (with cheaper operating costs), whereas at the moment the Sioux are only used for training and the UH-1H takes all the load, so you could end up with 16 useful aircraft instead of only 14 currently, and with a significant increase in net lift capacity.

It may even be less than 8.

 

[Markus40]

You might find my opinions hard to swallow but im sure youll get over it. Well, maybe.

You are posting on a board that is open to the public, so I think you will just have to deal with it. If you dont want your unsubstantiated opinion challenged, then dont post.



Yet you think 250 troops, not all of whom can be landed at once with their limited gear, can defeat in combat one of the best light infantry armies out there. You posted nothing more than a potted history of Fiji {without references, {oh, what a surprise:roll2} } which is nothing more than a strawman argument

Yeah right, your educated.



Dont patronise me. You still have not given any any substansive evidence of how 250 soldiers can beat the Fijian army and you talk to me of education?.



And we didnt because Lange was told that we couldnt do it, by the defence forces, but hey, what does the opinion of CDF count?



We didnt then and we still dont. Now show me evidence of how 250 soldiers can defeat the entire Fijian army or conceed.