NZDF - Now and the Future.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #681
Markus40 said:
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.
Agree something like the Gripen would suit NZ, and it is possible if the political willpower is out there.

The problem being we are talking a Govt changing in 2008, 1-2 year review, order in 2010-2011, delivery 2012-2013. IOC 2015, fully operational for deployment 2016-2017. So how capable and interoperable will it be?

If the money is there I say go for it, but not over other capabilities such as ISTAR, Deployment assets etc...
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #682
My ideal defence force has around 12,000 people, with 3-4 figates, 24-28 strike platforms etc etc.

But realisticly it ain't going to happen short of a major regional strategic shift. Similar to 1937-1938 where the West suddenly woke up to the threat.

Like it or not NZ is not going to spend billions on defence, when the headlines talk of health, social issues, infrastructure etc etc. it is political suicide.

That does not mean that more can't be spent, just not enough to make up a force that is ideal.
 

Markus40

New Member
An independant think tank option on our defence issues are best evaluated within our force structure as we have the expertise here so we might as well use them.



Whiskyjack said:
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.
 

Markus40

New Member
Hmmmm, you cant predict a tiger on its movements Whiskyjack. National have already stated that they are going to sink more money into Defence, and we need a Defence force thats MORE than ideal than it is now, so as to keep our planning and infrastructure and equipment operational and effective.



Whiskyjack said:
My ideal defence force has around 12,000 people, with 3-4 figates, 24-28 strike platforms etc etc.

But realisticly it ain't going to happen short of a major regional strategic shift. Similar to 1937-1938 where the West suddenly woke up to the threat.

Like it or not NZ is not going to spend billions on defence, when the headlines talk of health, social issues, infrastructure etc etc. it is political suicide.

That does not mean that more can't be spent, just not enough to make up a force that is ideal.
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #685
Markus40 said:
An independant think tank option on our defence issues are best evaluated within our force structure as we have the expertise here so we might as well use them.
If it is done within the existing force structure then at that point they are not independant!!!

I think the structure is there at Victoria with the CSS, it just needs to start being a bit more prolific, but balanced at the same time.
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #686
Markus40 said:
Hmmmm, you cant predict a tiger on its movements Whiskyjack. National have already stated that they are going to sink more money into Defence, and we need a Defence force thats MORE than ideal than it is now, so as to keep our planning and infrastructure and equipment operational and effective.
Actually, they have stated more money, but not how much, what, where, and how.

I agree we need more money. The money is there and is coming to keep the current infrastructure and equipment. Just nothing to enhance the structure.
 

Markus40

New Member
I think the implementation of this would be a lot sooner than the dates you have given. If National are looking at a NZ option for Fighters in NZ and with training in Australia this could be stepped up well in advance. I think the government can turn around the fighter issue with Australia but i would wait for Nationals defence portfolio to come to make any judgments on that.


Whiskyjack said:
Agree something like the Gripen would suit NZ, and it is possible if the political willpower is out there.

The problem being we are talking a Govt changing in 2008, 1-2 year review, order in 2010-2011, delivery 2012-2013. IOC 2015, fully operational for deployment 2016-2017. So how capable and interoperable will it be?

If the money is there I say go for it, but not over other capabilities such as ISTAR, Deployment assets etc...
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #688
Markus40 said:
I think the implementation of this would be a lot sooner than the dates you have given. If National are looking at a NZ option for Fighters in NZ and with training in Australia this could be stepped up well in advance. I think the government can turn around the fighter issue with Australia but i would wait for Nationals defence portfolio to come to make any judgments on that.
Interesting, have National committed to a detailed defence portfolio? It is what they need to do.
 

mug

New Member
At risk of indulging in politics, here is National's defence policy. You may note the lack of specifics or detail of any kind.

Call me a pessimist, but I ain't holding my breath for any increase in funding or capabilities.
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #690
mug said:
At risk of indulging in politics, here is National's defence policy. You may note the lack of specifics or detail of any kind.

Call me a pessimist, but I ain't holding my breath for any increase in funding or capabilities.
Yes I have just looked at it as well, uses all the right language, but no details and covers itself by hanging all the promises off a 'comprehensive defence review', which will give it 1 - 2 years breathing space. All in all not encouraging, but it is a year old, so maybe something more detailed is coming.
 

Markus40

New Member
Having spoken to John Carter the Defense spokesman late last year he told me that National was yet to put one out and was waiting till they were in power.




Whiskyjack said:
Interesting, have National committed to a detailed defence portfolio? It is what they need to do.
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #692
Markus40 said:
Having spoken to John Carter the Defense spokesman late last year he told me that National was yet to put one out and was waiting till they were in power.
Well I think we will be waiting a while, as they will want to do the review first and hat will be anything from 12-24 months going by previous experience.

But I agree with the review, needs to have public input as well as academic.
 

Markus40

New Member
I found National Defense Review for 2005. Its worth having a read.


05 August 2005 - 16:11 - John Carter


View National's
other 2005 Policy

A primary duty of government is to protect the state; to keep our country, its infrastructure and its citizens safe. In recent years, the threat of global war has been replaced by threats from terrorism, and from rogue and failing states. These are threats to the freedom and prosperity of all nations and peoples. The National Party believes New Zealand must, as we have in the past, be prepared to play our part in defending the values of freedom and democracy. It is self-evident that this requires New Zealand to act in concert with other countries and/or the United Nations.

National believes we must be prepared and able to work effectively with countries committed to freedom and democracy, as well as to make specialist contributions to operations to defeat terrorism and ensure global security. In doing so it is essential that the men and women in our armed forces are well equipped: constant equipment failures are placing our dedicated servicemen and women in unnecessary danger. This is the result of Labour’s questionable equipment purchases and its delay of the planned upgrade of the Hercules and Orion aircraft planned in the late 1990s.

Our ability to make a meaningful contribution by way of peace enforcement and peacekeeping has unravelled. National will rebuild our armed forces so we contribute our fair share to the defence of free countries and to international security through effective relationships with other countries.

National will:
* Rebuild credible combat capability.
* Maintain recent increases in spending levels, and look to adjust spending as identified in the Defence Review (see Defence Force Review below).
* Enhance our relationship with traditional allies based on mutual interest in a safer world.
* Not change nuclear-powered ships policy.
* Review the pay and conditions of personnel to ensure they get the recognition they deserve in the service of this country.
* Address issues affecting the serious attrition rate in our forces, part of which involves the families of defence personnel.
* Support our reservists as an invaluable part of our defence force structure.


To ensure that this is achieved, National will:
* Undertake a comprehensive Defence Force Review.


Rebuild credible combat capability.
The Defence Force Annual Report shows that our combat forces are inadequately prepared and inadequately resourced for high-level contingencies and larger-scale operations. This situation needs to be addressed, and National will rebuild credible combat capability, consistent with our size and wealth.

Maintain recent increases in spending levels, and look to adjust spending as identified in the Defence Review (see Defence Force Review below).
Defence spending, as a percentage of GDP, is low - we spent less than 1% of GDP on defence in 2002 and 2003 (Australia spent 1.9% in 2003). This leads to justifiable criticism that New Zealand is not pulling its weight in the contribution to international security. National will maintain recently announced spending levels and look to increase defence spending in light of the newly identified requirements.

Enhance our relationship with traditional allies based on mutual interest in a safer world.
In the event of any crisis - whether it be international military conflict, a need for peacekeeping operations, or a natural disaster - it is clear that New Zealand will be acting together with like-minded countries. National believes New Zealand should make an effective contribution to peace enforcement operations, peacekeeping and security, which is consistent with New Zealand’s treaty obligations such as the Five-Power Defence Agreement with Australia, Britain, Malaysia and Singapore.

Not change nuclear-powered ships policy.
Under National, any change to the legislative ban on nuclear-powered warships entering New Zealand waters will require a clear public mandate by way of a public referendum.

Review the pay and conditions of personnel to ensure they get the recognition they deserve in the service of this country.
Our advice is that the serious manpower crisis in the armed forces, resulting from the loss of specialist staff, needs to be addressed ahead of any major equipment decisions. National will act to remedy this situation.

Address issues affecting the serious attrition rate in our forces, part of which involves the families of defence personnel.
We will look at means to better support the families of defence personnel, who frequently experience sub-grade housing.

Support our reservists as an invaluable part of our defence force structure.
National acknowledges that properly trained and equipped reserve forces can enhance force structures. National will support our reservists in their mission to serve their country.

To ensure that this is achieved, National will:

Undertake a comprehensive Defence Force Review.
Since Labour's policy framework was established in 2000, the world's security environment has changed substantially - but policy has not. The post-September 11 world has changed. National will comprehensively review the structure of our armed forces and intelligence agency capability in light of the changed security environment, to ensure New Zealand has suitably trained and equipped forces that can contribute to military operations, peace enforcement and peacekeeping requirements.




Whiskyjack said:
Well I think we will be waiting a while, as they will want to do the review first and hat will be anything from 12-24 months going by previous experience.

But I agree with the review, needs to have public input as well as academic.
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #694
Markus40 said:
I found National Defense Review for 2005. Its worth having a read.


05 August 2005 - 16:11 - John Carter


View National's
other 2005 Policy
Yes that is the link Mug has provided above and what we have been talking about. Lots of talk no substance.
 

Stuart Mackey

New Member
ren0312 said:
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. snip.
The issue is that a large amount of New Zealanders are simply ignorant of defence matters and almost always have been. Most here do not seem to realise that our overall prosperity, the cheap cars our teenagers soup up, the PS2 the kids want for christmas, our jobs, even the very roofs over our heads are dependent on the peace and prosperity of the world outside the South Pacific. This attitude should have died a natural death in the late 19th century when the first shipload of frozen sheep meat went to Britain, but we cannot shake the one dimentional veiw of defence matters, that of immediate territorial defence.
It does not help that those who support a credible defence force have not exactly been articulate in defending their ideas, but that is a debate for another thread methinks.
 

ren0312

Member
robsta83 said:
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.
Well I really do not think New Zealands needs to spend 3 per cent of its GDP on the military, 2 to 2.5 per cent will be fine to me already.
 

Stuart Mackey

New Member
ren0312 said:
Well I really do not think New Zealands needs to spend 3 per cent of its GDP on the military, 2 to 2.5 per cent will be fine to me already.
I would think 1.8 to 2% GDP is the most you will ever get in peacetime.
Its worth pointing out that spending as a percentage of GDP can be misleading; New Zealands dollar {which floats} is at about 61cents to the US dollar and something like 45 to the Euro, so while 2% percent might look impressive it might not actually buy much gear, especially the way the price of gear seems to go up on a yearly basis. For an example look at how much extra we are paying on NH-90.
 

ren0312

Member
Markus40 said:
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.
Why did they not consider a mass resignation in order to get their point across when the air combat forces was decided to be disbanded, I mean if everyone in the New Zealand armed forces from the rank of colonel up just resigned in protest of the Labour government's policies, then that should perhaps raise enough eyebrows to get the top brass what they want, or how about a mass resignation of say 80 to 90 per cent of the officers.
 

ren0312

Member
Stuart Mackey said:
I would think 1.8 to 2% GDP is the most you will ever get in peacetime.
Its worth pointing out that spending as a percentage of GDP can be misleading; New Zealands dollar {which floats} is at about 61cents to the US dollar and something like 45 to the Euro, so while 2% percent might look impressive it might not actually buy much gear, especially the way the price of gear seems to go up on a yearly basis. For an example look at how much extra we are paying on NH-90.
I do not know about that because that range would give you about a 2.2 billion dollar budget for 2005, which is quite alot, for example, Sweden which has double New Zealand's budget at that level of 2.2 billion currently maintains 100 Gripen Cs and Ds, so having that amount of 2.2 would enable the RNZAF to buy 20 F-16 Block 52s I think, or to maintain a force of 35 to 40 F-16 Block 52s if it had that level of defence spending as a percentage of GDP ever since say the 1950s. I think New Zealand's allies will understand it if it does not have a very impressive military since the size of its economy is quite small, what people like me are complaining about is that New Zealand refuses to punch at its weight, rather than it not ordering 100 F-35 Lightning IIs.
 

ren0312

Member
Markus40 said:
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.
Or if you are very lucky, then you might have somebody like Susan Sarandon or the head of Greenpeace as your next prime minister.:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top