NZDF - Now and the Future.

[mug]

I see Murray McCully is quoted in this morning's NZ Herald as raising the issue of reconstituting the strike wing:

National returns to fight over strike wing

Do you think there's any substance to this or is it just a 'feeler' being put out?

 

[KH-12]

I see Murray McCully is quoted in this morning's NZ Herald as raising the issue of reconstituting the strike wing:

National returns to fight over strike wing

Do you think there's any substance to this or is it just a 'feeler' being put out?

I would say definately a "feeler" , I don't think you would get a sqn of JSF for a Billion dollars

Interesting that they (Nat) have brought the issue up, not sure you would get much political mileage out of it.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I see Murray McCully is quoted in this morning's NZ Herald as raising the issue of reconstituting the strike wing:

National returns to fight over strike wing

Do you think there's any substance to this or is it just a 'feeler' being put out?

He is talking a joint purchase/option with Australia, to my thinking if NZ were to contribute to say 16 (12 for a squadron and the others for contribution to OCU and attrition) F-35s, we are talking around NZ$2.5b Capital and running costs from there on in. That does not include training A/C.

Of course that is a worst case scenario, another option may be 10 F-35s based in Australia, using RNZAF personnel, which would be cheaper.

To my mind National is seeing what political capital it can make out of defence.

IMO this is where NZ falls down in Defence and the public, there is no real media knowledge of Defence, costs, capabilities...etc. they just get a press release which if considered news worthy (and most aren’t) the print it with a quote from someone who opposes it.

 

[Sea Toby]

And the press always considers the most expensive option instead of a cheaper option. I have mentioned before the possibility of either the Golden Eagle or Hawk option. I don't think New Zealand can afford the Lightning II option. New Zealand should be able to save considerable funds if they acquired an aircraft suitable for light fighter and training duties with the same airframe. Buying two different aircraft for the fighter and training roles will cost much much more.

Currently the Hawk runs around $30 million each and the Golden Eagle around $40 million each in New Zealand dollars. Both can be used as trainers, and as a light fighter. Buying these will cost 30-40 percent of a Lightning II, with spares and operational costs cheaper too. The Golden Eagle and the Hawk are supposed to have half the operational costs of the current USAF trainer, the T-38s.

Of course any air combat force will require additional spending.

 

[Whiskyjack]

And the press always considers the most expensive option instead of a cheaper option. I have mentioned before the possibility of either the Golden Eagle or Hawk option. I don't think New Zealand can afford the Lightning II option. New Zealand should be able to save considerable funds if they acquired an aircraft suitable for light fighter and training duties with the same airframe. Buying two different aircraft for the fighter and training roles will cost much much more.

Currently the Hawk runs around $30 million each and the Golden Eagle around $40 million each in New Zealand dollars. Both can be used as trainers, and as a light fighter. Buying these will cost 30-40 percent less than a Lightning II, with spares and operational costs cheaper too. The Golden Eagle and the Hawk are supposed to have half the operational costs of the current USAF trainer, the T-38s.

Of course any air combat force will require additional spending.

I think we have been over the 'fighter debate' enough already.

The Media don't have any expertise because the public don't care. No threat no traction, no knowledge.

 

[Sea Toby]

That's really the root of the problem with New Zealand defence spending. Kiwis do not see any credible military threat to their nation, being surrounded by friendly unarmed island nations.

Unfortuntely, Kiwis have noticed the instability of the island states nearby, and have been affected by terrorist attacks in Indonesia. Kiwis have also noticed the number of tsummais, earthquakes, and tyhoons. While New Zealand does not wish to invade anyone, the vast majority do want a military capable of peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. Therefore, the elimination of its air combat force.

While New Zealand may be fortunate in allocating so few resources to its defence forces, other nations don't have that luxury. However, any defence review should raise the issue of whether to have an air combat force again. If one is needed for any reason, its up to any government to provide the resources to fund it. The question of affordability changes when the need is required.

 

[ren0312]

That's really the root of the problem with New Zealand defence spending. Kiwis do not see any credible military threat to their nation, being surrounded by friendly unarmed island nations.

Unfortuntely, Kiwis have noticed the instability of the island states nearby, and have been affected by terrorist attacks in Indonesia. Kiwis have also noticed the number of tsummais, earthquakes, and tyhoons. While New Zealand does not wish to invade anyone, the vast majority do want a military capable of peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. Therefore, the elimination of its air combat force.

While New Zealand may be fortunate in allocating so few resources to its defence forces, other nations don't have that luxury. However, any defence review should raise the issue of whether to have an air combat force again. If one is needed for any reason, its up to any government to provide the resources to fund it. The question of affordability changes when the need is required.

Well we in the Phillippines sure could use your help in case China gets antsy in the Spratly Islands, I think it is very unfair for you people to be shifting the burden of dealing with China to the US alone, when it is clear by your country's finances that you can actually afford to pitch in with the Americans, and then the New Zealand government is the first to complain when the US actually does something, like in Iraq. I think New Zealand should have forces that can be able to project all the way to the South China Sea, so that means an air combat force and frigates with AMMs, SSMs, and CIWS, I think that New Zealand should play a more active role in SEA, together with the US, UK, and Australia, in order to provide a balance agianst China, and to promote geopolitical stability, sort of like the balance of power doctrine between the Napoleonic Wars and WW1, I think there is a novel called Dragonstrike wherein China launches an attack against Viet Nam and the Spratly's, and this causes the Americans, British, Australians, and New Zealanders to get involved in an effort to contain China.

 

[RubiconNZ]

True

hehe i agree with you mate,
I believe in Dragon Strike they sent the old Canterbury, not exactly what you want for high level warfare. I agree one hundred percent, I often wonder how things would be different if NZ was even jus 1000 miles north, the sense of isolation as a shield is quite strong, while the greens (cause it is) continue to be anti everything close. You are of course right as "western" nation NZ has a responsiblity in these matters, not until sepending reaches 2% GDP will a correct effort be truly made.

 

[Whiskyjack]

That's really the root of the problem with New Zealand defence spending. Kiwis do not see any credible military threat to their nation, being surrounded by friendly unarmed island nations.

Unfortuntely, Kiwis have noticed the instability of the island states nearby, and have been affected by terrorist attacks in Indonesia. Kiwis have also noticed the number of tsummais, earthquakes, and tyhoons. While New Zealand does not wish to invade anyone, the vast majority do want a military capable of peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. Therefore, the elimination of its air combat force.

While New Zealand may be fortunate in allocating so few resources to its defence forces, other nations don't have that luxury. However, any defence review should raise the issue of whether to have an air combat force again. If one is needed for any reason, its up to any government to provide the resources to fund it. The question of affordability changes when the need is required.

I agree, because the public do not feel the need for knowledge, politicians have no military analysts that can provide policy debate.

Imagine if the opposition party had access to a think tank on defence policy which could be used to give accurate and costed defence briefings, instead of ‘we need fast jets’, it could be ‘we need this capability, for this reason, for this cost’ which would then be built into there policy costings.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Not until NZ decides what it needs to be able to do, will it be able to decide how and what it needs to do it.

I consider peacekeeping as one of the benefits of a good defence force, not one of the objectives.

 

[Markus40]

Whiskyjack, peacekeeping is not what the majority of our defence force personell want when they enter the defense forces. Peacekeeping is an excuse for NZ to not pull its weight in this region of security. Australia have had this problem with this mind set, and its a dangerous one. We need to be able to at least put out credible depth and spread of our military abilities to be able to operate with our partners. I think this has finally sunk in to some extent, although it seems this government has its brain wired into the UN system of peacekeeping, and its my personal opinion for good peacekeeping you need good forces that know how to fight with adequate equipment to do so.

Not until NZ decides what it needs to be able to do, will it be able to decide how and what it needs to do it.

I consider peacekeeping as one of the benefits of a good defence force, not one of the objectives.

 

[Markus40]

I fully agree Seatoby. NZ as a whole doesnt see any threat, so we are isolated from any aggression or potential threats that might come along. Actually this is true, there isnt any threat, however, its not in the NZ minds that military spending does reach a lot further than having our own defence. Its about supporting and exercising our rights as a sovereign nation and to protect our sea lanes and to work in co operation with other friendly nations in our area. All triad systems need to be in place and working so as to make sure each one part of the armed forces is covered. Its no longer acceptable to let other countries to do all the work for us and to let the state of our military run into the ground. This is total irresponsibility as you will probably agree. If National is able to put the air combat force back together again in some way, im sure this is going to go along way in being able to move our capabilities up several levels than where they are now.

All military measures in equipment takes money, and security and Defence should be the Number 1 priority for any government. No questions asked. Where we are today, is where the governemnt is now having to pay the price for years of neglect and dis interest in our defence forces and we are now seeing the price on how much it costs to replace our obsolete equipment. I think a good dose of realism doesnt hurt, as long as the governments to come dont trip up again on the issues of defence.

That's really the root of the problem with New Zealand defence spending. Kiwis do not see any credible military threat to their nation, being surrounded by friendly unarmed island nations.

Unfortuntely, Kiwis have noticed the instability of the island states nearby, and have been affected by terrorist attacks in Indonesia. Kiwis have also noticed the number of tsummais, earthquakes, and tyhoons. While New Zealand does not wish to invade anyone, the vast majority do want a military capable of peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. Therefore, the elimination of its air combat force.

While New Zealand may be fortunate in allocating so few resources to its defence forces, other nations don't have that luxury. However, any defence review should raise the issue of whether to have an air combat force again. If one is needed for any reason, its up to any government to provide the resources to fund it. The question of affordability changes when the need is required.

 

[Markus40]

NZ does have analysts for military policy that they can draw on, and did so under the early Labour government when they came to power. However the Military analysts were steamrolled into getting rid of the F16s and killing our A4 fleet. Which still to this day still would have some useful parts to play in our maritime environment.

Its a known fact that the top brass, despite expressing their needs and concerns to the government over their equipment and operability in the past have been ignored and told to use what they have got. Now, the government are paying for it.

I agree, because the public do not feel the need for knowledge, politicians have no military analysts that can provide policy debate.

Imagine if the opposition party had access to a think tank on defence policy which could be used to give accurate and costed defence briefings, instead of ‘we need fast jets’, it could be ‘we need this capability, for this reason, for this cost’ which would then be built into there policy costings.

 

[Markus40]

Good on yer mate. I have been a firm believer in the purchase of at least 4 ANZACs as a minimum for our role here in the South Pacific. ANZACs can work alongside the US Navy and have their systems integrated with theirs. The Spratley Iss are a concern, because of the oppotunistic aspirations of the Chinese Navy in this area to seek out oil and such like. I cant see us having anything more than a AAW/ASW role in with the US Navy as forward air power is something that would need to come by way of the Phillipine Airforce and the US Navy. I think there are many countries that would be thinking on the same line as you that NZ should build a stronger prescence in this region with the RNZN and the RAN together . I agree with you.

Well we in the Phillippines sure could use your help in case China gets antsy in the Spratly Islands, I think it is very unfair for you people to be shifting the burden of dealing with China to the US alone, when it is clear by your country's finances that you can actually afford to pitch in with the Americans, and then the New Zealand government is the first to complain when the US actually does something, like in Iraq. I think New Zealand should have forces that can be able to project all the way to the South China Sea, so that means an air combat force and frigates with AMMs, SSMs, and CIWS, I think that New Zealand should play a more active role in SEA, together with the US, UK, and Australia, in order to provide a balance agianst China, and to promote geopolitical stability, sort of like the balance of power doctrine between the Napoleonic Wars and WW1, I think there is a novel called Dragonstrike wherein China launches an attack against Viet Nam and the Spratly's, and this causes the Americans, British, Australians, and New Zealanders to get involved in an effort to contain China.

 

[Markus40]

Mate, we may have been over this subject, but it seems it doesnt go away, does it. And as i have reiterated many times its going to be National that will institute it if that happens. I believe it can, and i hope it will.

The public dont care and thats right, but they might do when they turn up to an air show and find our spitfires on show and we have a pair of Australian F-111s doing an afterburn. They might wonder then what happened to our A4s.

The media only tell the story and they can spin any angles they like. Susan wood loves this. Yes, ignorance is bliss.

I think we have been over the 'fighter debate' enough already.

The Media don't have any expertise because the public don't care. No threat no traction, no knowledge.

 

[Markus40]

Good on yer mate. Flight training could be done in Australia. And front line Grippens or similar thats cost effective could be built into our defence force structure.

And the press always considers the most expensive option instead of a cheaper option. I have mentioned before the possibility of either the Golden Eagle or Hawk option. I don't think New Zealand can afford the Lightning II option. New Zealand should be able to save considerable funds if they acquired an aircraft suitable for light fighter and training duties with the same airframe. Buying two different aircraft for the fighter and training roles will cost much much more.

Currently the Hawk runs around $30 million each and the Golden Eagle around $40 million each in New Zealand dollars. Both can be used as trainers, and as a light fighter. Buying these will cost 30-40 percent of a Lightning II, with spares and operational costs cheaper too. The Golden Eagle and the Hawk are supposed to have half the operational costs of the current USAF trainer, the T-38s.

Of course any air combat force will require additional spending.

 

[Markus40]

I did email Murray McCully about this issue, and im glad he took me seriously.!!! Anyways, i dont find it interesting that they (Nat) have brought it up when Nationals agenda has been in the past to restablish the strike combat force. He wont get much out of it now, but he will be deadly serious about it when they get back into power. The sooner the better.

I would say definately a "feeler" , I don't think you would get a sqn of JSF for a Billion dollars

Interesting that they (Nat) have brought the issue up, not sure you would get much political mileage out of it.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Whiskyjack, peacekeeping is not what the majority of our defence force personell want when they enter the defense forces. Peacekeeping is an excuse for NZ to not pull its weight in this region of security. Australia have had this problem with this mind set, and its a dangerous one. We need to be able to at least put out credible depth and spread of our military abilities to be able to operate with our partners. I think this has finally sunk in to some extent, although it seems this government has its brain wired into the UN system of peacekeeping, and its my personal opinion for good peacekeeping you need good forces that know how to fight with adequate equipment to do so.

Markus try and keep up with the play mate.

That is what I am saying, a fully capable NZDF, will be a capable Peacekeeper, a Peacekeeper force will not be a capable combat force.

I think you will find that Australia has changed its mind on the NZDF over the last 5-8 years, where the NZDF is now considered to be configured to exactly what the Australians want. That comes from several senior ADF officers and Australian politicians.

I agree the NZDF needs to be more capable.
.

 

[Whiskyjack]

NZ does have analysts for military policy that they can draw on, and did so under the early Labour government when they came to power. However the Military analysts were steamrolled into getting rid of the F16s and killing our A4 fleet. Which still to this day still would have some useful parts to play in our maritime environment.

Its a known fact that the top brass, despite expressing their needs and concerns to the government over their equipment and operability in the past have been ignored and told to use what they have got. Now, the government are paying for it.

I think you are missing the point, I am talking independant think tank here, that makes independent reports on policy, structure, and funding. Then makes it available to the public and other interested parties.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Mate, we may have been over this subject, but it seems it doesnt go away, does it. And as i have reiterated many times its going to be National that will institute it if that happens. I believe it can, and i hope it will.

The public dont care and thats right, but they might do when they turn up to an air show and find our spitfires on show and we have a pair of Australian F-111s doing an afterburn. They might wonder then what happened to our A4s.

The media only tell the story and they can spin any angles they like. Susan wood loves this. Yes, ignorance is bliss.

Don't hold your breath, talked to several Nat MPs and they are taking the line 'it would be nice' etc etc, but will not say yes. Privately, it seems to be no.