Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Redlands18]

RNZAF receives first P-8A Poseidon aircraft - Defence Connect
Not to many good days for the NZDF, but today is one. Been a long time coming.

 

[RegR]

Understood Nga, Strat Air is for that specific mission down south. It tempts the question though: what is the RNZAF for? To provide national security options to the national presumably; is the south a priority or even a requirement for kiwi air?

As per the 2 clapped out frigates (copyright recognition: thank you PM Clark) there comes a point where the role may as well be ditched. If continued it’ll just end-up embarrassing the country even more.

What tasks have the frigates done that they were not able to complete and why/how are they clapped out? You could ditch any role in the military presumably then if you dont actually do it, which in all honesty I have not seen any modern warship conduct any modern combat in literally a lifetime ie no warship vs warship be it destroyer, frigate, sub etc actually coming up against another, at sea, in battle. Sure alot of escorting, some missile strikes, the odd naval bombardment but no actual use of all this offensive technical firepower against other similar offensive firepower (what they were presumably designed for..), and most definitely not 4, 6 or 8 of them as that would actually be an epic undertaking and quite a shift in the strategic situation, anywhere, by anyone. TBH for us what have 2 ANZAC frigates done that 4, 6, or 8 would have done any different bar a WWIII type scenario for NZ and some great sea battle of old protecting the realm and quashing an evil regime? Just not overly sure that no capability at all is a viable better option to a perceived lesser capability based on what? numbers?

Not saying there are not obvious shortcomings with having only 2 frigates available but that is more from an availabilty perspective not usability angle per se ie if I have not used the modern long range weapon that I have then is 2 bigger weapons with bigger mags and an arguably improved targeting system necessarily going to change that whole scenario any or literally just continue the same scenario regardless? To put it into perspective if we were to aqquire any more frigates then I would rather we get a more multi-role option like an absalon type rather than merely just more of the same, to do the same, which is?...

I also tend to agree though, we seem to place alot of military consideration on, of all places, Antarctica! if equipment suits then by all means use it if available but I'm not sure we should be gearing capability towards Antarctica specifically at cost. It should be seen as a bonus of current capability not a requirement of future as like you say, a civilian organisation can take on that burden c/w civilian designed and built equipment.

 

[recce.k1]

A quick look at putting a P-8 together.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1600611216384204805

There's a bit more info and a longer video version on the MoD website.

 

[old faithful]

What tasks have the frigates done that they were not able to complete and why/how are they clapped out? You could ditch any role in the military presumably then if you dont actually do it, which in all honesty I have not seen any modern warship conduct any modern combat in literally a lifetime ie no warship vs warship be it destroyer, frigate, sub etc actually coming up against another, at sea, in battle. Sure alot of escorting, some missile strikes, the odd naval bombardment but no actual use of all this offensive technical firepower against other similar offensive firepower (what they were presumably designed for..), and most definitely not 4, 6 or 8 of them as that would actually be an epic undertaking and quite a shift in the strategic situation, anywhere, by anyone. TBH for us what have 2 ANZAC frigates done that 4, 6, or 8 would have done any different bar a WWIII type scenario for NZ and some great sea battle of old protecting the realm and quashing an evil regime? Just not overly sure that no capability at all is a viable better option to a perceived lesser capability based on what? numbers?

Not saying there are not obvious shortcomings with having only 2 frigates available but that is more from an availabilty perspective not usability angle per se ie if I have not used the modern long range weapon that I have then is 2 bigger weapons with bigger mags and an arguably improved targeting system necessarily going to change that whole scenario any or literally just continue the same scenario regardless? To put it into perspective if we were to aqquire any more frigates then I would rather we get a more multi-role option like an absalon type rather than merely just more of the same, to do the same, which is?...

I also tend to agree though, we seem to place alot of military consideration on, of all places, Antarctica! if equipment suits then by all means use it if available but I'm not sure we should be gearing capability towards Antarctica specifically at cost. It should be seen as a bonus of current capability not a requirement of future as like you say, a civilian organisation can take on that burden c/w civilian designed and built equipment.

Guess there is no need to be part of an ANZUS or ANZAC alliance either eh?
Don't worry about patrolling NZs Economic area of responsibility, Australia will do that for you.....

 

[RegR]

Guess there is no need to be part of an ANZUS or ANZAC alliance either eh?
Don't worry about patrolling NZs Economic area of responsibility, Australia will do that for you.....

What are you on about??? BTW Australia doesn't do that now and we "only" have 2 frigates, have had for well over a decade now as well.

 

[old faithful]

What are you on about??? BTW Australia doesn't do that now and we "only" have 2 frigates, have had for well over a decade now as well.

NZ can't contribute much at all militarily anymore, should another East Timor situation arise, NZ would be extremely stretched to do what it did then, and they were in a bad way then.20 years later, the NZDF has been neglected almost beyond economic repair.
So 1st the aircombat capability is gone, the 2 Inf Bns reduced in size, the helo capability reduced, the NAVY not capable of operating the 9 small vessels they have, the C130s still need replacing, the the P3s on their death bed and being replaced by a largely de fanged version of the P8 and only 4 of them, and a defence review due in 2024 to see how they can dissemble some more. ANZUS on paper only now.

 

[ngatimozart]

NZ can't contribute much at all militarily anymore, should another East Timor situation arise, NZ would be extremely stretched to do what it did then, and they were in a bad way then.20 years later, the NZDF has been neglected almost beyond economic repair.
So 1st the aircombat capability is gone, the 2 Inf Bns reduced in size, the helo capability reduced, the NAVY not capable of operating the 9 small vessels they have, the C130s still need replacing, the the P3s on their death bed and being replaced by a largely de fanged version of the P8 and only 4 of them, and a defence review due in 2024 to see how they can dissemble some more. ANZUS on paper only now.

Ok enough of that. FYI NZ was suspended from ANZUS by the Reagan Administration and we do not consider ourselves part of it any longer. It has no meaning for us anymore. The only people harping on about it are a minority of Aussies. Get over it; we have. I don't want to be mean but I will be if I have to and have no qualms in stooping to a low dirty tactic, like mentioning a certain recent sporting match.
The RNZAF P-8s aren't defanged at all. They are more modern than the RAAF ones and are stock standard. Why are they more modern than the RAAF ones? Because being the latest off the blocks they benefit from the spiral upgrades. Next the NZDF is acquiring Mk-54 LWT both for the P-8 and the RNZN frigates. NZDF platforms are acquired from the CAPEX budget and consumable weapons from the OPEX budget, so that's why in MOD info you don't normally see details regarding consumable weapons acquisitions. The P-8s are also locked into the USN upgrade program. The only thing not publicly stated is whether an AShM has been acquired and if so what type. They may be waiting until the USN fits NSM and LRASM to their P-8s because they may consider a Harpoon acquisition a waste of time and money.

You may not like what NZ does but that's a matter of domestic policy for better or for worse. You have been on here long enough to know most of the regular Kiwi posters opinions WRT NZ pollies defence policies. There are things that Australia does that we don't like and we deal with it in the appropriate forums.

 

[RegR]

NZ can't contribute much at all militarily anymore, should another East Timor situation arise, NZ would be extremely stretched to do what it did then, and they were in a bad way then.20 years later, the NZDF has been neglected almost beyond economic repair.
So 1st the aircombat capability is gone, the 2 Inf Bns reduced in size, the helo capability reduced, the NAVY not capable of operating the 9 small vessels they have, the C130s still need replacing, the the P3s on their death bed and being replaced by a largely de fanged version of the P8 and only 4 of them, and a defence review due in 2024 to see how they can dissemble some more. ANZUS on paper only now.

So what has any of that got to do with my original post? I actually queried old mates post suggesting we should get rid of the frigates all together if you'd actually taken the time to read it saying at least 2 frigates not doing much are still better than nothing doing anything so having 3 or 4 does not necessarily change that does it?

Contribute to what? We never sent 4 frigates to ET anyway and only ever had 2 there max with 1 for not even a full tour. We never sent any ACF assets at all considering a squadron was literally right there in Australia at the time as well which ironically added to their demise as if we were not even going to use them then then realistically when would we ever? The infantry bns have never been at full strength as long as I was in and I was in then, still NZ got the job done, like we always do.

Personnel shortages are nothing new, to NZ or Australia since we are not picking, now or then, Aus just doesn't notice it as much because they have a larger military to begin with, it is still very much short though and is in fact pushing a new recruitment drive as we speak out of necessity, again it's all relative.

I'd say for it's size and population the NZDF contributes as well as can be expected under the circumstances and always have with NZ being involved in almost every operation alongside Australia for as long as I can remember, obviously some like to forget?

 

[RegR]

NZ can't contribute much at all militarily anymore, should another East Timor situation arise, NZ would be extremely stretched to do what it did then, and they were in a bad way then.20 years later, the NZDF has been neglected almost beyond economic repair.
So 1st the aircombat capability is gone, the 2 Inf Bns reduced in size, the helo capability reduced, the NAVY not capable of operating the 9 small vessels they have, the C130s still need replacing, the the P3s on their death bed and being replaced by a largely de fanged version of the P8 and only 4 of them, and a defence review due in 2024 to see how they can dissemble some more. ANZUS on paper only now.

Ok enough of that. FYI NZ was suspended from ANZUS by the Reagan Administration and we do not consider ourselves part of it any longer. It has no meaning for us anymore. The only people harping on about it are a minority of Aussies. Get over it; we have. I don't want to be mean but I will be if I have to and have no qualms in stooping to a low dirty tactic, like mentioning a certain recent sporting match.
The RNZAF P-8s aren't defanged at all. They are more modern than the RAAF ones and are stock standard. Why are they more modern than the RAAF ones? Because being the latest off the blocks they benefit from the spiral upgrades. Next the NZDF is acquiring Mk-54 LWT both for the P-8 and the RNZN frigates. NZDF platforms are acquired from the CAPEX budget and consumable weapons from the OPEX budget, so that's why in MOD info you don't normally see details regarding consumable weapons acquisitions. The P-8s are also locked into the USN upgrade program. The only thing not publicly stated is whether an AShM has been acquired and if so what type. They may be waiting until the USN fits NSM and LRASM to their P-8s because they may consider a Harpoon acquisition a waste of time and money.

You may not like what NZ does but that's a matter of domestic policy for better or for worse. You have been on here long enough to know most of the regular Kiwi posters opinions WRT NZ pollies defence policies. There are things that Australia does that we don't like and we deal with it in the appropriate forums.

Yes was going to ask how were our P8s "de-fanged" compared to Australias? I'm sure old mate will come up with something. He also missed the memo about the C-130js as well, they're already on the way so pulling the "old" C-130 excuse is literally getting old itself as we can only wait for delivery not pluck them out of mid-air!

 

[Todjaeger]

Yes was going to ask how were our P8s "de-fanged" compared to Australias? I'm sure old mate will come up with something. He also missed the memo about the C-130js as well, they're already on the way so pulling the "old" C-130 excuse is literally getting old itself as we can only wait for delivery not pluck them out of mid-air!

When the P-8 Poseidons were ordered for the RNZAF, IIRC no ordnance order was placed with or alongside the Poseidon order. This leaves the RNZAF with whatever ordnance it had for the P-3K Orions which is also compatible with the P-8 Poseidon. Not quite sure what NZ might still have in inventory which is also not life of type expired, but it would be quite limited. From what I can recall, the P-3K's were able to use Mk 82, Mk 83 & Mk 84 bombs, Mk 44 & Mk 46 LWT's, and AGM-65 Maverick missiles. I do not believe the P-8 Poseidon had any of these integrated except for the Mk 46 LWT. Effectively leaving the Kiwi Poseidons with the ability to engage in ASW ops, but effectively unable to carry out anti-shipping ops. Having an asset which can carry out broad area maritime surveillance, but have no ability to do anything if a surface threat is detected is rather limiting.

I would hope that in time, the NZDF does see the wisdom in acquiring long-ranged AShM which can be carried by RNZN vessels, as well as RNZAF aircraft like the naval helicopters and Poseidons. However, I am not willing to assume that this will actually happen.

Also as a side note, the ANZUS treaty is actually still in effect, having never been formally revoked. The security obligations between the US and NZ have effectively been suspended since the mid-80's, but the obligations between the US and Australia, as well as those between Australia and NZ remain in force. In essence, if Australia is attacked, NZ has an obligation to respond and vice versa. This is where the unfortunate reality intrudes in that if NZ needed to respond, there just is not much in the cupboard which would be really useful.

 

[old faithful]

So what has any of that got to do with my original post? I actually queried old mates post suggesting we should get rid of the frigates all together if you'd actually taken the time to read it saying at least 2 frigates not doing much are still better than nothing doing anything so having 3 or 4 does not necessarily change that does it?

Contribute to what? We never sent 4 frigates to ET anyway and only ever had 2 there max with 1 for not even a full tour. We never sent any ACF assets at all considering a squadron was literally right there in Australia at the time as well which ironically added to their demise as if we were not even going to use them then then realistically when would we ever? The infantry bns have never been at full strength as long as I was in and I was in then, still NZ got the job done, like we always do.

Personnel shortages are nothing new, to NZ or Australia since we are not picking, now or then, Aus just doesn't notice it as much because they have a larger military to begin with, it is still very much short though and is in fact pushing a new recruitment drive as we speak out of necessity, again it's all relative.

I'd say for it's size and population the NZDF contributes as well as can be expected under the circumstances and always have with NZ being involved in almost every operation alongside Australia for as long as I can remember, obviously some like to forget?

My post was not intended to be an insult to you Kiwis, rather , stating points about the NZ govt being ok to spend on anything rather than military.
The de fanged comment, is that the P8s are equipped only for anti submarine warfare with the current weapons suite.
The excellent RNZIR is way undermanned, I believe 2 rifle coys and support and admin only.
Anyway, "Ol Mate" is done with this, sorry if I hit a nerve.

 

[RegR]

When the P-8 Poseidons were ordered for the RNZAF, IIRC no ordnance order was placed with or alongside the Poseidon order. This leaves the RNZAF with whatever ordnance it had for the P-3K Orions which is also compatible with the P-8 Poseidon. Not quite sure what NZ might still have in inventory which is also not life of type expired, but it would be quite limited. From what I can recall, the P-3K's were able to use Mk 82, Mk 83 & Mk 84 bombs, Mk 44 & Mk 46 LWT's, and AGM-65 Maverick missiles. I do not believe the P-8 Poseidon had any of these integrated except for the Mk 46 LWT. Effectively leaving the Kiwi Poseidons with the ability to engage in ASW ops, but effectively unable to carry out anti-shipping ops. Having an asset which can carry out broad area maritime surveillance, but have no ability to do anything if a surface threat is detected is rather limiting.

I would hope that in time, the NZDF does see the wisdom in acquiring long-ranged AShM which can be carried by RNZN vessels, as well as RNZAF aircraft like the naval helicopters and Poseidons. However, I am not willing to assume that this will actually happen.

Also as a side note, the ANZUS treaty is actually still in effect, having never been formally revoked. The security obligations between the US and NZ have effectively been suspended since the mid-80's, but the obligations between the US and Australia, as well as those between Australia and NZ remain in force. In essence, if Australia is attacked, NZ has an obligation to respond and vice versa. This is where the unfortunate reality intrudes in that if NZ needed to respond, there just is not much in the cupboard which would be really useful.

I would like to think the pollies would be letting the dust settle on the P8 purchase before stirring the nest with any offensive add ons. Even the P8 met with the usual resistance from the peaceniks and in the scheme of things this was/is one of the easier projects to justify, and therefore get across the try line, in terms of its important SAR, maritime patrol aspect. Throwing on some missiles will undoubtedly throw fuel on the simmering fire, hopefully all things in good time. The current climate should sway the vote in caucus but no point poking the public bear just yet. I have no doubt NZ will run current stocks for all its worth.

WRT any Australian response yes of course NZ would act, I would say the force that was sent to ET would be a similar composition so say composite bn gp, air bridge transport, 1-2 frigates, tanker + the obvious sealift now. Even now I highly doubt we would have sent 3-4 frigates but NZ literally plans on any force having to transit Australia to reach us, it just geography, effort and ultimately reason that begs the question why anyone (actually capable) would bypass Australia to attack little ol NZ?

 

[Wombat000]

-deleted.

 

[RegR]

G

My post was not intended to be an insult to you Kiwis, rather , stating points about the NZ govt being ok to spend on anything rather than military.
The de fanged comment, is that the P8s are equipped only for anti submarine warfare with the current weapons suite.
The excellent RNZIR is way undermanned, I believe 2 rifle coys and support and admin only.
Anyway, "Ol Mate" is done with this, sorry if I hit a nerve.

Mate we would all love more of everything but it is literally not even possible due to the main armament required of any military, people. It's not through lack of trying, most units are understrength and below paralines, they need filling first before anything, literally. A recent win W coy is back up and running after so many years so baby steps, the problem is keeping the momentum as recruiting is barely covering attrition at the moment. We could get 5 new frigates tommorow but why? We would just end up parking them next to the others, same goes for other capabilities, last I heard RAN is in a similar boat so to speak but because you have had a rotation of frigates in drydock pretty much consistantly (up to 3 ANZACs at one stage) with upgrades it is not as noticeable, the pressure will be on once they are all out but by then you will be transitioning to the hunters so again, won't be overly noticeble.

 

[Todjaeger]

I would like to think the pollies would be letting the dust settle on the P8 purchase before stirring the nest with any offensive add ons. Even the P8 met with the usual resistance from the peaceniks and in the scheme of things this was/is one of the easier projects to justify, and therefore get across the try line, in terms of its important SAR, maritime patrol aspect. Throwing on some missiles will undoubtedly throw fuel on the simmering fire, hopefully all things in good time. The current climate should sway the vote in caucus but no point poking the public bear just yet. I have no doubt NZ will run current stocks for all its worth.

WRT any Australian response yes of course NZ would act, I would say the force that was sent to ET would be a similar composition so say composite bn gp, air bridge transport, 1-2 frigates, tanker + the obvious sealift now. Even now I highly doubt we would have sent 3-4 frigates but NZ literally plans on any force having to transit Australia to reach us, it just geography, effort and ultimately reason that begs the question why anyone (actually capable) would bypass Australia to attack little ol NZ?

Two points: The first RNZAF specific with the second covering the entirety of the NZDF.

Since the demise of the ACF in December 2001 the anti-shipping capabilities of the NZDF have consisted of ordnance delivered by P-3K Orions, SH-2 Super Seasprites, or naval gunfire from the 5"/127 mm gun on the RNZN frigates, or for a time the 4.5"/114mm guns of HMNZS Canterbury. Unfortunately for both the RNZAF and NZDF, the aircraft delivered ordnance is all short-ranged stuff, with a max range of ~34 km, well within the air defence umbrella of most modern naval combatants. What this in turn means is that the RNZAF has no experience in striking at surface warships using ordnance which could be effective from beyond a targeted ship's ability to engage, and this has been the situation for the past 20 years. A lack of experience, for such a long period of time, is not something which can be overcome quickly, should the need arise and gov't finally decide to actually arm the Poseidons. There is also the very real possibility that the need for such armaments and capability could happen before gov't decides to do anything about it.

The second, more general NZDF point has to do with reality. NZ is most likely not going to get attacked in isolation. It is far more likely that NZ would get attacked as part of a larger campaign effort involving Australia and/or other powers in the Pacific. IMO even more likely than that would be for Australia to come under attack in some Indian/Pacific oceans campaign. However, whatever impacts Australia will have an impact on NZ and it is in NZ's own best interests to aid Australia in the event of an attack. Unfortunately, NZ currently does not really have all that much which could contribute to Australia's defence if the NZDF needed to do so. I believe the same situation applies for NZ obligations under the FPDA as well as potential security situations aboard which would negatively impact NZ. Conflict in and around the Malacca Strait, and the resulting impact upon shipping through that vital SLOC comes to mind as being realistic scenarios. Unfortunately the NZDF appears to have been under-resourced enough, for a long enough period of time, that other nations need to plan accordingly.

 

[ngatimozart]

The first RNZAF P-8A Poseidon NZ4801 arrived at Fiji's Nadi International Airport this arvo after overnighting at Honolulu. I have been following it on Flight Radar.

From what I have been told, the official handover is at Ohakea on Tuesday, but I do not know what time. Nor do I know yet when it's due to arrive at Ohakea. I would presume that it will either be tomorrow or Monday in order to ensure everything is spot on and tiddly for the handover.

It has been posted on a well known NZ aviation site that a Poseidon Training Unit has been stood up at Ohakea and will train NZ based crews and groundies. 5 Sqn will continue to fly the P-3K2 Orions until they are withdrawn from service. Once that happens and the Poseidons achieve IOC, the PTU will become the new 5 Sqn. One Orion will be sent to the Air Force Museum at Wigram, Christchurch, with the remaining five being sold to be used as water bombers.

 

[Gooey]

FYI NZ was suspended from ANZUS by the Reagan Administration and we do not consider ourselves part of it any longer. It has no meaning for us anymore. The only people harping on about it are a minority of Aussies.

The RNZAF P-8s aren't defanged at all. They are more modern than the RAAF ones and are stock standard. Why are they more modern than the RAAF ones? Because being the latest off the blocks they benefit from the spiral upgrades.

You may not like what NZ does but that's a matter of domestic policy for better or for worse. You have been on here long enough to know most of the regular Kiwi posters opinions WRT NZ pollies defence policies. There are things that Australia does that we don't like and we deal with it in the appropriate forums.

Hello Ngatimozart,

I have only now caught up with this thread so please allow a late observation or two.

1. The NZ political leadership choice was to over engineer its anti nuclear policy which lead the to our nation not being able to fulfill its ANZUS obligations. This was despite an election pledge by PM Lange to massage the new policy without endangering ANZUS because the nation generally wanted to remain in. So to say US suspended NZ is a understatement and simplification of the facts. This incident remains the single worst strategic disaster for NZ foreign and defence policy since the fall of Singapore. Despite the 'mouse that roared' oratory about NZ exceptionalism this was also entirely self inflicted. The US and NZ systems were attempting a compromise and through CDF at the time (Sir Jamieson) a solution was proposed. The fact that NZ policy was subsequently surrendered by the PM to the Labour Left faction is now openly admitted and documented.

2. Although NZ politicians chose to leave the security arrangements of ANZUS for conjurations, which have had zero impact on world disarmament, this does not mean that other nations have the same desire for self immolation. Notably Australia has a very different assessment of the cost-benefits of ANZUS. As they say, go figure.

3. Although the RNZAF P-8s are the same as RAAF and USN, and the crews of 5 Sqn will be exceptional as always, this is an electric aircraft with many levels of software. From my experience I would be unsurprised if there are NONFOR, bilateral, FVEY, and the rest of the world versions of software within. However, the defanging is obvious in terms of the lack of armaments. This omission for a later date reminds me of the decades running 5 Sqn P-3/Harpoon acquisition saga which never happened. It is an exemplar of NZ defence policy.

 

[Gooey]

I'd say for it's size and population the NZDF contributes as well as can be expected under the circumstances and always have with NZ being involved in almost every operation alongside Australia for as long as I can remember, obviously some like to forget?

RegR

I'm struggling to understand your arguments. As best as I can make out, RNZN, NZ Army, and RNZAF, should be grateful for what they have because we can't man equipment anyway; has new equipment coming; or, did not use them in Timor, is your position. Simply, this sounds like the boiled frog not noticing that it is being cooked!

To suggest that the death nail for ACF being scrubbed was because it didn't contribute to Timor is intellectually lazy and simply incorrect. And that because 4 P8 and 5 C130 are arriving in a couple of years this somehow hides the gapping chasm of NZ procurement which has a few 55 year old aircraft as the front line of our air power.

If W Coy is a win, how many infantry companies does RNZIR now have? In my day it was 1.5 RF plus 6 under strength TF Battalions with the planned ability to form a light brigade. There seems to be absolutely zero prospect of NZ being able to perform another Timor type mission in a permissive environment let alone an actual war fighting deployment in defence of Australia.

As this is a RNZAF forum, do you seriously find our current force structure comparable to RAAF?

 

[Rob c]

1. The NZ political leadership choice was to over engineer its anti nuclear policy which lead the to our nation not being able to fulfill its ANZUS obligations. This was despite an election pledge by PM Lange to massage the new policy without endangering ANZUS because the nation generally wanted to remain in. So to say US suspended NZ is a understatement and simplification of the facts. This incident remains the single worst strategic disaster for NZ foreign and defence policy since the fall of Singapore. Despite the 'mouse that roared' oratory about NZ exceptionalism this was also entirely self inflicted. The US and NZ systems were attempting a compromise and through CDF at the time (Sir Jamieson) a solution was proposed. The fact that NZ policy was subsequently surrendered by the PM to the Labour Left faction is now openly admitted and documented.

Just a note to this, I did read some years ago an article that claimed that when the anti nuke legislation was passed Lange was overseas and that the loony left had managed to alter it with out him knowing. This was in the days before PC's Emails etc. possible? I don't know how true this is.

 

[Rob c]

I'd say for it's size and population the NZDF contributes as well as can be expected under the circumstances and always have with NZ being involved in almost every operation alongside Australia for as long as I can remember, obviously some like to forget?

On an overall defence basis I would disagree with this, When compared with Australia for interest, our population is about 20% of Australia our armed forces are way short of 20% of Australia's our expenditure is way short of 20% is again, even on a GDP basis we are way short.