Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

contedicavour

New Member
Stuart Mackey said:
Now this is more like it, thank you.
What contedicavour was not doing is providing a sound argument, which was what I was annoyed about, you have done this.

Its one of those things that hacks me off with a lot of those who support better equipment and capabilities for NZ, is that they do not support their argument. Instead of doing the research, getting the evidence and providing reasoned arguments to sustain their case, defence supporters seem to assume some sort of connection to the cosmos to provide the public with the information to make a judgement one way or another.
This has given the initiative to those who oppose stronger defences, because their opposition simply hasnt done the work, and the public goes with the perceived stronger case.
It is this failure that has left NZ's armed forces in the condition they are.
You want more sound arguments ?
A country is supposed to be able to run its foreign affairs independently, and not on relying systematically on big brothers (be they the US or Australia or NATO) to fix whatever issue comes up. Yes, the NZ can patrol its huge EEZ against anything local small island states can come up with. But if you look a bit beyond your (even if large) courtyard, you'll realize that NZ ships would risk being outgunned anywhere else in the South/West Pacific.
For me it's a matter of (i) being a responsible "citizen" of the world (ii) a minimum of national pride (iii) investing in security for a country relying on international trade for its own existence.
I've heard this sort of arguments in Europe hundreds of times : the USSR isn't there anymore, just profit on the peace dividend. Yes, there are terrorist threats or even ballistic missile threats. So what, the US and NATO are always there. We want to be respected in the UN but we happen to disinvest in defence. We want to show off in overseas peacekeeping missions but then all of a sudden we realize the armed forces are short of plenty of indispensable assets.
The definition I would put of your "connection with the cosmos" is eyes-shut isolationism. Lock your door and throw away the key, hoping nobody comes to knock on it...
Btw this is not meant as an attack on you, rather more on your politicians. Just as when they had the brilliant idea to erase the whole air force. No decently-sized country has ever taken such a decision :eek:
 

Sea Toby

New Member
And right in your own back yard, the European Union, there is a nation without any fighters whatsoever, Ireland. A small nation with a small population, not unlike New Zealand, Irealand does not have any P-3 Orions ocean patrol planes, C-130 Hercules transport cargo planes, or any fighters. There are no frigates in its navy, no submarines, and no multi-role sea lift vessel for its army. Of its eight OPVs, only one carries a helicopter.

In comparison to Ireland, New Zealand is an armed fortress! New Zealand has two frigates, will soon have 5 of its naval ships capable of carrying a helicopter, has Orions and Hercules aircraft in its fleet, and will soon have one multi-role sealift vessel to transport a company and its equipment, and sustain it for a month.

While its closest neighbor has a large military complex, except for its EEZ and fisheries, Ireland does not consider the United Kingdom a threat. The only nation that could pose a threat to Australia and New Zealand, if it ever gets its act together, would be Indonesia. Currently Indonesia is too busy keeping its nation unified, much less posing a threat to any other nation in the region.

And yes, its true, only 3 of New Zealand's Seasprite helicopters maybe available at any given time. Fortunately, that the same amount of naval ships that will be deployed at any given time.
 
Last edited:

contedicavour

New Member
Sea Toby said:
And right in your own back yard, the European Union, there is a nation without any fighters whatsoever, Ireland. A small nation with a small population, not unlike New Zealand, Irealand does not have any P-3 Orions ocean patrol planes, C-130 Hercules transport cargo planes, or any fighters. There are no frigates in its navy, no submarines, and no multi-role sea lift vessel for its army. Of its eight OPVs, only one carries a helicopter.

In comparison to Ireland, New Zealand is an armed fortress! New Zealand has two frigates, will soon have 5 of its naval ships capable of carrying a helicopter, has Orions and Hercules aircraft in its fleet, and will soon have one multi-role sealift vessel to transport a company and its equipment, and sustain it for a month.

While its closest neighbor has a large military complex, except for its EEZ and fisheries, Ireland does not consider the United Kingdom a threat. The only nation that could pose a threat to Australia and New Zealand, if it ever gets its act together, would be Indonesia. Currently Indonesia is too busy keeping its nation unified, much less posing a threat to any other nation in the region.

And yes, its true, only 3 of New Zealand's Seasprite helicopters maybe available at any given time. Fortunately, that the same amount of naval ships that will be deployed at any given time.
Actually Ireland never had an air force nor a FFG-equipped Navy. NZ had both and has abandoned its air force (only country ever to do this) and is reducing its number of FFGs and underequipping its ships.

Besides, Ireland is making a lot of efforts to be a "global responsible citizen", by sending hundreds of troops in UN service (in Lebanon for example), and is building up its navy/coast guard considerably with its latest big OPV acquisitions.

cheers
 

Sea Toby

New Member
While New Zealand has abandoned its air combat force, it still maintain Orions and Hercules and will soon have 8 new NH90s on hand. Ireland won't have any of the above, although they have bought some AB 139 helicopters recently. The A-4 Skyhawks weren't the best fighters either.

As for the navy, two frigates are better than none again. Its Leander class frigates before weren't as heavily armed as Lupo class frigates.

New Zealand is also contributing to UN peacekeeping operations, having committed over a period of time a large chunk of their army in East Timor, other units in the Solomon Islands, and Bouganville, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Other smaller units have been committed to the Middle East and African states.

New Zealand is an island fortress compared to Ireland. Considering that Ireland is a neutral nation, and not a member of NATO, I'm sure they are doing the best they can. I salute their UN contributions.

However, both nations have very similar populations. Comparisons can be made appropriately.

The United States has a population of 300 million. Germany has a population of 80 million. The United Kingdom, France, and Italy have a population of over 50 million. And you are telling me its unfair to compare New Zealand to Ireland, both with populations of less than 4 million.

New Zealand has made the investment to acquire a MRV which will be able to do tactical landings over a beach, Ireland hasn't yet, although they may acquire a MRV too this year. Last year they used a rat infested lift on lift off rusty merchant vessel to move their army's equipment to Liberia. Once it got there they had to reload and offload their equipment again on the Dutch Rotterdam LPD to reach their peacekeeping area of operations.
 
Last edited:

contedicavour

New Member
Sea Toby said:
While New Zealand has abandoned its air combat force, it still maintain Orions and Hercules and will soon have 8 new NH90s on hand. Ireland won't have any of the above, although they have bought some AB 139 helicopters recently. The A-4 Skyhawks weren't the best fighters either.

As for the navy, two frigates are better than none again. Its Leander class frigates before weren't as heavily armed as Lupo class frigates.

New Zealand is also contributing to UN peacekeeping operations, having committed over a period of time a large chunk of their army in East Timor, other units in the Solomon Islands, and Bouganville, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Other smaller units have been committed to the Middle East and African states.

New Zealand is an island fortress compared to Ireland. Considering that Ireland is a neutral nation, and not a member of NATO, I'm sure they are doing the best they can. I salute their UN contributions.

However, both nations have very similar populations. Comparisons can be made appropriately.
Again, all that you say is correct. My point is more in terms of spending/commitment trends. Ireland's up (even if from a very low base), NZ crashed down some time ago, and even if it is somewhat recovering with its latest orders (for NH-90, Canterbury, etc), its spending/commitmen trend overall is massively down vs the '80s.
One detail : the A4s may have been old, but the NZ armed forces could have preserved the MB339CD advanced trainers/light fighterbombers, for example by equipping them with Marte Mk2S anti-shipping missile, with a range of 25-30km.
Anyway, if at least the Orions are equipped with Harpoons, and if one day Harpoons are added to the 2 Anzacs, and a better main gun is installed on the OPVs, I'll stop complaining ;)

cheers
 

Stuart Mackey

New Member
contedicavour said:
You want more sound arguments ?
Yes, and you didnt provide one. Appeals to authority are not sound arguments, nor is vague references to dependency and even more vague reference to some unknown threat in another part of the globe.


The definition I would put of your "connection with the cosmos" is eyes-shut isolationism. Lock your door and throw away the key, hoping nobody comes to knock on it...
Is that what you call having your army to the point where it cannot sustain any more overseas commitments? because that is where the NZ army is at, at this point in time.

Btw this is not meant as an attack on you, rather more on your politicians. Just as when they had the brilliant idea to erase the whole air force. No decently-sized country has ever taken such a decision :eek:
If you want to make that kind of statement, perhaps you might try some research first? I would suggest the RNZAF website as a place to start.

No offence, but you have proven my point for me. I have no doubt that the current government of NZ would love to hear your 'argument's, because it plays right into their hands, those who support defence in NZ cannot see the wood for the tree's, and look at what has happned as a result.

Project Protector, as it happens, is a case in point: NZ was not properly providing for patrol of its EEZ, those who were more defence minded were so obssesed by the need for a third ANZAC frigate that they forgot about such basic things as fishery protection! Labour went to the public and asked why are we buying a frigate when we cannot do the basics right? and the pro defence lobby could not answer that question, and they still cannot answer it because they have no coherant, detailed concept of what the defence forces are for, as you have just shown. You cannot talk about equipment untill you know what the job is.
 

mug

New Member
mug said:
An interesting post. I was wondering earlier (possibly on the NZDF thread) how one would go about 'educating' the general public about defence related issues.

Your suggestion would seem to be a good way to go (in relation to content perhaps, not in relation to delivery) - keep it simple and provide reasons/facts/figures/etc.
Replying to my own post I know, but this article in today's NZ Herald would seem to be a good example of the above:

Clear and present danger for NZ troops in Afghanistan

Saturday August 5, 2006
By David Fisher

On the road from Kabul airport to to Bagram Air Field, four Taleban cruise the dusty highway in an explosives-laden car. We must have passed them, the New Zealand support group and I. They were delivering me to the massive United States base for a flight into the Hindu Kush mountain range.

A report I saw later said the roving car bombers were looking for a target on the same road we took during the 90-minute drive.

These are the risks of Afghanistan.

"Will you call us peacekeepers?" asks one Kiwi later. "It's been a long time since I've seen the Army referred to as soldiers." But there's little peace to keep near Kabul, and the Kiwis are strictly soldiers.

My introduction to Afghanistan was body armour and a helmet, followed by a quick lesson on how to use a gas mask in case the soldiers guarding me needed to use riot gas. I'm given a field dressing to put in my pocket "just in case".

Pointing to the roof-mounted machine-guns, atop the armoured Humvees the Kiwis are driving, Lieutenant Colonel Mark Blythen says: "There is a 7.62 [mm] in front and a 7.62 [mm] behind, ready to rain badness down on anyone who tries to stop us." Each soldier carries a pistol and a Steyr automatic rifle. Grenades sit in canisters at the front.

Then, the four-and-a-half ton vehicles, on loan from the United States but painted with black Kiwis on the side, hit the road. And don't stop until we reach safety.

This is New Zealand's eighth tour of duty in Afghanistan as a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT). The scheme is aimed at trying to rebuild the devastated Bamyan province, about 180km from Kabul - an eight hour-drive on rugged roads.

Most of the New Zealanders are based high in the Hindu Kush mountains, the awesome range which cuts Afghanistan in half. But 11 spend their six-month tour outside Kabul, at the Soviet-built, American-occupied Bagram Airfield.

That small band can feel like the poor cousins. The PRT have regular contact with the Afghans but the closest the support team get is working their way through the crowd of children at the gate of Bagram. "They get to hug the kids up there," says one.

Colonel Blythen: "We don't interact with them other than driving through Kabul. We're not in Bamyan. We have a significantly higher threat and we deal with it in a different way."

The National Support Element provides logistics, arranging food, ammunition, fuel and flights from the base in the hills, and supporting the few NZDF staff working in Kabul.

"That's the life of a logistician," says Blythen. "It's not the sexy side of soldiering."

But it is also the most dangerous side, particularly the weekly or more trips into Kabul.

Military are considered "high-value" targets by the insurgent remnants of the Taleban. The New Zealanders have had close calls. About a month ago they were waiting to shepherd a supply truck when a bomb went off. "This fried-up Afghani came running around the corner with his skin falling off him," says Humvee turret gunner Private William Thomsen, 22, from Auckland's North Shore. "Then a guy blew himself up at the gate just a couple of days later."

The risk is high and real.

Lance Corporal Bryce Wright, 22, is driving the Humvee. He signed up as an infantryman at age 18, "just a couple of months out of school" and coming here "is an opportunity to test yourself. And you're doing good, even if it is just getting stuff."

"We don't so much see the good stories. . You've just got to deal with it. This is our job down here."

Wright grew up watching the Army carry out exercises near his rural Hawkes Bay home. "When I was young I decided that's what I wanted to do." The Army lands responsibility on its young soldiers early; he's now a LAV III commander, in charge of a driver, gunner and the seven guys who ride in the back. He found out in November he was heading here, "I was stoked. This is what we do it for."

Trips to and from Kabul are tense. "When you hit Kabul, you're definitely on edge. You do your prep so if it does happen you're ready for it. There's not a sense it won't happen to us, because it could."

Leaving the airport, the convoy muscles through traffic. The principle is that a moving target is a harder target, and there is no stopping. At first glance, Afghanistan appears like any Third World country, but look closer and you see the pockmarks of bullets marching across walls.

Captain Sam McQuillan, second in command and co-ordinator of "missions" to Kabul, points out the "star" left by a rocket propelled grenade.

As I arrive in Kabul the head of Nato is visiting and there's a line of heavily armoured Landcruisers.

"Is that what we've got?" I ask Colonel Blythen. "Nope. We've got Barry Crump's Hilux. And he didn't have half of Afghanistan shooting at him."

Momentum in convoy is important, and so is staying close. One Humvee takes the lead and there's another at the rear. Going through a roundabout, the vehicles move to block incoming traffic and to stop any other vehicle from getting into the convoy.

"You have to be careful," says one of the team. "You don't want an upset driver today becoming an insurgent tomorrow."

This is a stretch of road that has become extremely dangerous.

The intelligence report tells of an Afghan killed about 8am that day from a homemade bomb, and of the four men and their explosive-laden vehicle looking for targets. Four coalition soldiers were killed last month when a bomb tore apart their Humvee. A photograph shows the vehicle peeled back like an orange. The Kiwi soldiers use the term "pink mist" - all that is left of a human body in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The heat is stifling, and the body armour uncomfortable. Later Blythen says: "Today we know it's hotter than 55C because that's as high as our thermometer goes." The convoy turns to roll through a small town outside Bagram Airfield, the intersection later identified as the site where the four troops were recently killed. A US marine searches under the vehicles for bombs while the Kiwi soldiers clear their weapons. Then we're into Bagram, home to 12,000 Americans and 11 Kiwis.

The main road, Disney Way, seems a bizarre importation of American culture but it is named for US Army Specialist Jason Disney, killed when heavy equipment fell on him at Bagram.

Further on we pass Camp Vance, named for Sergeant Gene Vance, killed in 2002 while fighting the Taleban and al Qaeda. The current coalition death toll is 407.

Everywhere on base, soldiers are armed. One in the dinner area carried a large M60 machinegun to his table. There are racks next to diners for M16 automatic rifles.

The bizarre becomes surreal at the PX, a shopping area about 10 minutes' walk from the Kiwis. It's referred to as "the mall", and holds home comforts for the Americans, most of whom don't leave Bagram.

It has a beauty and spa salon, offering massages and haircuts. A facial costs US$7 ($11), while a full leg, arm, chest and back treatment will set a soldier back US$38.75.

There's Burger King, just across from the Green Beans Cafe, which carries commendations from US military units for its contribution for "the success of our combat mission".

In a jewellery shop, three young American men ponder the silver, rifles slung over their shoulders.

Inside the supermarket, a Hawaiian-style shirt sports Apache gunships instead of palm trees. A magazine rack offers Handguns, Guns & Ammo, Guns of the Old West and Military History.

A soldier jokes that they should have been prepared for culture shock in dealing with Americans, rather than Afghans.

Private Thomsen says, "Most of the Americans in Bagram spend a year here without going outside the wire. Our guys go out once, sometimes twice a week."

The day dawns early for the National Support Unit. An early flight of ammunition and other supplies has to leave for Bamyan about 4.30am.

The morning is still and cool. Just after 5am the sun rises and paints the hillside with gentle, soft light. It's a watercolour, framed by razor wire.

New Zealand's role in Afghanistan

* New Zealand has been taking part in military operations in Afghanistan since December 2001. Since September 2003 a provincial reconstruction team (PRT) has been deployed in Bamyan Province.

* Personnel serve for six months. This team is the eighth, having been sent in April.

* The New Zealand commitment was meant to finish next month but has been extended until September next year.

* A total of 122 New Zealand men and women are in Afghanistan, most in Bamyan, but 11 in support are based at Bagram, near Kabul. New Zealand police officers train local police and small numbers of personnel work with the Afghan National Army, with the International Security Assistance Force headquarters and with the Coalition joint taskforce.

* Up to April this year, New Zealand had spent $130 million on peacekeeping and development. The decision to extend the deployment will cost $27.08 million for the PRT and $3.91 million for Afghan Army training and other costs.

* Afghanistan is awash with weaponry and for years during the 1980s was the world's fifth-largest importer of arms.

* The focus of the PRT is developing sustainable rural livelihoods and helping to provide health and educational systems.

* One of the PRT's more unusual tasks was the destruction of 1.746 tonnes of opium resin, which took 12 hours to burn.
 

mug

New Member
Another article by the same guy in the same edition:

Armed with fresh hope in Bamyan

Saturday August 5, 2006
By David Fisher

It came from China, probably some time in the 1980s. Where the anti-tank shell has been since is impossible to guess. But on this hot day it sits on a rock slope in Afghanistan, one valley over from Kiwi Base, home to 110 New Zealand soldiers and three police officers.

A Type 65 recoilless rifle round contains about 500g of high explosive. It is a tank killer. On impact, the explosive detonates and forms a jet of plasma expelled with such force and heat it can melt through the skin of a tank.

Corporal Jim Johns gets out of the four-wheel-drive, and carefully eases down the rocky slope towards it.

"That wasn't there yesterday," says Raymond "Richie" Richards, 29, Army medic and environmental health expert. He and his escort had spotted a separate illumination round returning from the water run the day before and have returned with Johns, who is an explosive ordnance specialist with the Royal New Zealand Air Force.

"The place is loaded with this sort of thing," says Johns. "The kids must have put it there. We're trying to educate them but the message isn't getting through."

Having checked the illumination round - used and safe - he hunkers down among the rocks. On all fours, then lower, Johns checks the tail of the deadly round to see if it has been fired.

Confident it hasn't been triggered, which makes it unstable, he goes lower, looking for booby trap triggers or wires.

His face is barely a foot from the shell. It's clear, and he picks it up to take back to base, where there is half a ton of recovered weaponry.

When Richards makes the water run the next day, with petroleum technician Lance Corporal Darren Te Whata, there is a mortar shell by the roadside.

This is Bamyan. This is the reality of a country sundered by 27 years of war. You don't step off the beaten track. There are 10 million mines potentially underfoot and caches of artillery shells, rocket-propelled grenades and other weaponry.

This is also a country where men have kept explosive shells and rockets in their bedrooms for 10 years - in case they need them again. In the bazaar is a World War I Lee Enfield, for sale among rugs and pashminas.

At Kiwi Base, the daily realities of life carry the possibility of injury or death for the men and women of New Zealand's three defence services. A constant refrain echoes Fred Dagg's Kiwi anthem: "We don't know how lucky we are, mate."

The men and women of the Bamyan Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT), led by Navy Captain Ross Smith, are starting to get a pretty good idea three months into their six- month tour. Their job is to maintain security, advise the provincial governor and police, and identify projects for NZAid money.

This hard, fiercely beautiful land does not forgive. The air is thin. In summer, it's so hot the temperature goes off the thermometer.

The "120 Days of Wind", which Afghanistan is experiencing now, takes the edge off the heat but makes sure the dust gets everywhere.

In winter, the temperature falls to 15 degrees below zero and snow covers the camp a metre deep. The wind still blows, and carries the chill to the bone.

Travel here is exhausting and drawn out. It can take an hour to cover 20km, or less, in the four-wheel-drives which are mainly unarmoured. Flak jackets are slung over doors as token protection. The main base sits on a hill above the town of Bamyan, home to Afghanistan's persecuted Hazara minority. From a racially separate base, the locals are also the main group of Shiites in a Sunni Muslim country.

One aid worker says Bamyan is a "sort of a bubble", which explains the relative peace.

History here is awash with blood. Genghis Khan slaughtered most of the population as a reprisal for the death of his nephew.

About 2km east of Kiwi Base, is the Hill of 1000 Screams.The Russians were repulsed here in the 1980s. Each conflict brought new atrocities.

The town was levelled by the Taleban and hundreds of men were executed because of their ethnicity.

When the Taleban were thrown back, some were captured and buried alive inside shipping containers.

The Kiwi contingent has watched over Bamyan for three years as the province has slowly discovered peace.

From the base, you can see cliffs where magnificent Buddhas were blasted to rubble, surrounded by the caves where people have sheltered from the elements and war for more than 2000 years. Now, they are starting to come out of the caves.

Jim Johns, who destroyed a half ton of recovered bombs on Thursday, tells of the local man who fought for 10 years against the Russians and kept mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades in his storeroom - insurance against future battles. Then he called in the Kiwis.

"He wanted to get rid of it because he didn't want his kids to go through the same thing."

Lieutenant Colonel Brett Rankin, second in charge, says: "It's probably the first time the Hazara people have had an even chance in their history."

The base is busy, even when 33 of the soldiers leave for three weeks at a time to staff three patrol bases; Romero, Scott Base and Chunuk Bair.

The patrols are critical to security, with most of the base's local intelligence drawn from heads of villages. Others in the base support the patrols, or work directly with the community. The kitchen provides a mountain of food and a fully equipped workshop keeps a fleet of vehicles running.

While Ross Smith describes the security situation as "stable", he emphasises the need for care.

So far, no New Zealand PRT here has had to fire a shot in anger or faced unfriendly fire.

But the provinces surrounding the Kiwis have seen an increase in the use of homemade bombs.

In February, when Smith and Rankin made a pre-deployment visit, the Norwegian PRT base to the northeast was overrun by Afghans outraged by the publication of the Danish Allah cartoons.

In Bamyan, there was also anger but quick diplomacy and the help of the governor and chief of police calmed locals. Statements by Prime Minister Helen Clark also helped.

"We've been lucky here so far," says Warrant Officer (2) Greg "Mitch" Mitchell. "Even here it only takes a couple of things to happen to set off a riot."

There is a sense the valley has been holding its collective breath.

"They've seen it all before," says Mitchell. "After the Russians left, there was a power vacuum and the mujahedin came in. Then the Taleban. You try and use future tenses with them, and talk about the future, and they don't want to talk about it. It's quite sad, really.

"In some areas, they are better off than us. The seediness in Western culture, they don't have that. The number of shops down there," he says, motioning towards the town, "with no one in attendance, and nothing gets taken."

The Kiwi Way is endorsed as one of the reasons for peace here. Aided by Bamyan's ethnic differences and geographical separation from the rest of Afghanistan, the New Zealanders have more freedom than other PRTs.

They have embraced it. While troops elsewhere dispense aid from heavily armed and armoured columns, the Kiwis stop for tea and conversation.

"We treat these people as equals," says Ross Smith.

There is a strong feeling among the troops that Bamyan can't be left alone yet. They see the need to stay beyond New Zealand's 2007 commitment.

If they leave too early, as many feel they did in Timor, anarchy could easily return.
 

contedicavour

New Member
Stuart Mackey said:
Yes, and you didnt provide one. Appeals to authority are not sound arguments, nor is vague references to dependency and even more vague reference to some unknown threat in another part of the globe.




Is that what you call having your army to the point where it cannot sustain any more overseas commitments? because that is where the NZ army is at, at this point in time.



If you want to make that kind of statement, perhaps you might try some research first? I would suggest the RNZAF website as a place to start.

No offence, but you have proven my point for me. I have no doubt that the current government of NZ would love to hear your 'argument's, because it plays right into their hands, those who support defence in NZ cannot see the wood for the tree's, and look at what has happned as a result.

Project Protector, as it happens, is a case in point: NZ was not properly providing for patrol of its EEZ, those who were more defence minded were so obssesed by the need for a third ANZAC frigate that they forgot about such basic things as fishery protection! Labour went to the public and asked why are we buying a frigate when we cannot do the basics right? and the pro defence lobby could not answer that question, and they still cannot answer it because they have no coherant, detailed concept of what the defence forces are for, as you have just shown. You cannot talk about equipment untill you know what the job is.
Sorry but it wasn't the NZ Navy's fault if nobody had invested before in a proper Coast Guard to ensure fishery protection ...
Regarding the air force, I did visit the RNZAF site. What I see is an attempt to disguise the loss of A4s and MB339CDs with assets that are often elsewhere assigned to the Navy (the Orions) or to the Army (NH90) or even to civilian airlines (transport assets).
Bottomline, if the NZ govt has reduced defence spending, it is its legitimate choice. This will go hand in hand with a reduction of NZ' "share of voice" in international institutions such as the UN, which reward countries for their participation (and capabilities) to overseas peacekeeping missions. Beyond that, the inability to perform independently overseas missions of any relevance will also be felt, sooner or later. So be it.
 

Stuart Mackey

New Member
contedicavour said:
Sorry but it wasn't the NZ Navy's fault if nobody had invested before in a proper Coast Guard to ensure fishery protection ...-
I never said that was Navies fault, unless you want to show me where I did say that, cause I am quite sure I said it was the supporters of the defence forces fault for not properly justifying the purchace of a third frigate.


Regarding the air force, I did visit the RNZAF site. What I see is an attempt to disguise the loss of A4s and MB339CDs with assets that are often elsewhere assigned to the Navy (the Orions) or to the Army (NH90) or even to civilian airlines (transport assets).
Who is disguising what? You said that NZ had abolished its airforce,

contedicavour said:
Just as when they had the brilliant idea to erase the whole air force. No decently-sized country has ever taken such a decision
and I have proven that to be untrue.

Bottomline, if the NZ govt has reduced defence spending, it is its legitimate choice. This will go hand in hand with a reduction of NZ' "share of voice" in international institutions such as the UN, which reward countries for their participation (and capabilities) to overseas peacekeeping missions.
Good lord..... An appeal to popularity? So you think NZ should spend more on defence so we can, in essence, be more popular at the UN, of all places?!?!?!
Oh, yeah thats going to win votes come election time.

Beyond that, the inability to perform independently overseas missions of any relevance will also be felt, sooner or later. So be it.
So, in other words you dont have the faintest idea of what the NZ armed forces should be doing, or at what tempo, because you have an equipment fixation?.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Stuart Mackey said:
So, in other words you dont have the faintest idea of what the NZ armed forces should be doing, or at what tempo, because you have an equipment fixation?.
And what are your thoughts on the matter? What roles SHOULD the NZDF prepare for?

My problem with the LTDP and the deliberate reduction in capability for NZ forces, is that the personnel of the forces will suffer most from these decisions, not the public or politicians.

NZ infantry are currently deployed in Afghanistan on a "peace-keeping" mission, and yet the deployment is only possible due to extensive "borrowing" of equipment and capabilities from other forces.

Fact is that unrealistic policy choices have deliberately limited NZ capability to the point where it can only operate in medium to high threat environments with massive assistance from others.

NZ has furthermore done little other than reduce it's own capacity to exercise control over it's own territory and maritime jurisdictions.

The cancellation of the ASW upgrades for it's P-3K's meant NZ does not have a modern capacity to conduct this role, which is essential for "force protection" operations, in situations as limited as East Timor even was.

NZ faced a potential submarine threat by Indonesia during that operation and would have been forces to conduct ASW operations (not to mention offensive air operations), IF that conflict had turned "hot".

The fact that it was CAPABLE OF and prepared to conduct such operations (along with it's allies) in my opinion prevented it from having to do so.

Admittedly there is little threat of air attack or submarine attack "in it's own backyard" but the same is not true IF NZ wants to be able to conduct operations further afield.

NZ has also rid itself of capabilities necessary for even "peace keeping" missions, namely an aerial reconnaissance and fire support capability. The fire support capability, it could probably live without but the recon capability?

Such a capability is necessary for ANY threat level and I seriously doubt NZ's overstretched P-3K's or the upcoming NH-90's are going to be used in these roles.

The LUH may have some utility in this role (particularly if they chose EC-635 or similar as I've mentioned before, given the capabilities available for these types of helicopters) but the numbers NZ seems destined to acquire would seem to preclude this.

In addition they have shown no inclination whatsoever to include a recce capability within their LUH capability, despite the obvious benefits if they were to do so.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
That is why I support a through defence review, where the soldiers, airmen, and sailors in the field can suggest capability improvements, outside the desk warriors in the ministry and the front benches of the political parties. From the moment New Zealand decided to break from the Anzus Pact, its defence force should have become more self sustaining, but that hasn't occured. The Long Term Develoment Plan is based on replacing ageing equipment, not adding or improving military capabilities, many suggestions could be accomplished on the cheap. Since most of the expensive items on the LTDP have been purchased, I am curious whether a new LTDP will have a long list of new items, or a very shortened list of the same items as before.
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
Aussie Digger said:
And what are your thoughts on the matter? What roles SHOULD the NZDF prepare for?

My problem with the LTDP and the deliberate reduction in capability for NZ forces, is that the personnel of the forces will suffer most from these decisions, not the public or politicians.

NZ infantry are currently deployed in Afghanistan on a "peace-keeping" mission, and yet the deployment is only possible due to extensive "borrowing" of equipment and capabilities from other forces.
Sorry mate can you expand on that please, I am unsure as to what you mean when you say ‘extensive borrowing’, I know the SAS borrowed some HUMVEEs in their initial deployment a few years back, but since then have used Pinzs, which they rated better. I am also sure that some Javs were borrowed. But the current team I am not aware of anything.



Fact is that unrealistic policy choices have deliberately limited NZ capability to the point where it can only operate in medium to high threat environments with massive assistance from others.
I agree that in terms of air cover that is true, but a LAVIII battalion would actually have more fire power than a Australian Mech battalion IMO, the 105s are still usable. The ANZACs are underarmed and that does need to be addressed and is in the LTDP.


NZ has furthermore done little other than reduce it's own capacity to exercise control over it's own territory and maritime jurisdictions.
With Protector I think it has actually increased it. But in terms of SLOC I think more needs to be done, e.g. a third combatant and ASW and ASuW for the P-3s.

The cancellation of the ASW upgrades for it's P-3K's meant NZ does not have a modern capacity to conduct this role, which is essential for "force protection" operations, in situations as limited as East Timor even was.
See above

NZ faced a potential submarine threat by Indonesia during that operation and would have been forces to conduct ASW operations (not to mention offensive air operations), IF that conflict had turned "hot".

The fact that it was CAPABLE OF and prepared to conduct such operations (along with it's allies) in my opinion prevented it from having to do so.

Admittedly there is little threat of air attack or submarine attack "in it's own backyard" but the same is not true IF NZ wants to be able to conduct operations further afield.
I agree
NZ has also rid itself of capabilities necessary for even "peace keeping" missions, namely an aerial reconnaissance and fire support capability. The fire support capability, it could probably live without but the recon capability?

Such a capability is necessary for ANY threat level and I seriously doubt NZ's overstretched P-3K's or the upcoming NH-90's are going to be used in these roles.


The LUH may have some utility in this role (particularly if they chose EC-635 or similar as I've mentioned before, given the capabilities available for these types of helicopters) but the numbers NZ seems destined to acquire would seem to preclude this.

In addition they have shown no inclination whatsoever to include a recce capability within their LUH capability, despite the obvious benefits if they were to do so.
Completely agree, although I see that moving towards UAVs as opposed to Fast Jet recon. Also IMO Fast Jet is limited in the region due to force multipliers needed to make it available. I agree that the LUH needs to be bought in numbers arounf the 12 mark to allow for deployments with the NH90s

In summary I see a recon/ISTAR ability to be of great importance to NZ security in the region. Added to this is an ability for greater deployment into the region by air and sea. (I would have like to see the MRV as a stand alone lift/amphib ship of 12,000-14,000 tons. I would also like to see the air lift fleet increased, with either 6 A400s or 8 C-130s.


I would like to see the army with more indirect fire power. Either a 105mm upgrade or my preference is to follow Australia into 155mm. Looking at developments I would like to see the NLOS-LS in the NZ army and Navy.

I believe that by introducing a ISTAR approach into the region with greater lift and fire power as described above the NZDF will be able to influence its region and be available of making valuable deployments in coalition ops.

Of course this is not going to happen tomorrow it is a 10-15 year plan.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Whiskyjack said:
Sorry mate can you expand on that please, I am unsure as to what you mean when you say ‘extensive borrowing’, I know the SAS borrowed some HUMVEEs in their initial deployment a few years back, but since then have used Pinzs, which they rated better. I am also sure that some Javs were borrowed. But the current team I am not aware of anything.





I agree that in terms of air cover that is true, but a LAVIII battalion would actually have more fire power than a Australian Mech battalion IMO, the 105s are still usable. The ANZACs are underarmed and that does need to be addressed and is in the LTDP.






Completely agree, although I see that moving towards UAVs as opposed to Fast Jet recon. Also IMO Fast Jet is limited in the region due to force multipliers needed to make it available. I agree that the LUH needs to be bought in numbers arounf the 12 mark to allow for deployments with the NH90s

In summary I see a recon/ISTAR ability to be of great importance to NZ security in the region. Added to this is an ability for greater deployment into the region by air and sea. (I would have like to see the MRV as a stand alone lift/amphib ship of 12,000-14,000 tons. I would also like to see the air lift fleet increased, with either 6 A400s or 8 C-130s.


I would like to see the army with more indirect fire power. Either a 105mm upgrade or my preference is to follow Australia into 155mm. Looking at developments I would like to see the NLOS-LS in the NZ army and Navy.

I believe that by introducing a ISTAR approach into the region with greater lift and fire power as described above the NZDF will be able to influence its region and be available of making valuable deployments in coalition ops.

Of course this is not going to happen tomorrow it is a 10-15 year plan.
Fair enough, I agree with most of those suggestions, though I'd argue that you're basing the "greater firepower" of the LAVIII battalion vs 5/7 RAR on the weapon system of the primary vehicle used in the battalions only. 5/7 RAR for instance will field nearly as many Javelin ATGW's as the entire NZ conventional Army, as the Javelins aren't used in an anti-armour platoon, but are in fact embedded into the rifle companies...

If you look at the restructuring of Australian infantry battalions, particularly with respect to direct and indirect fire support capabilities these changes will greatly increase the firepower available within Australian Infantry battalions, I am not aware of any similar programs in NZ, besides the delayed AGL project.

Anyhoo I'm getting offtopic. Do you think UAV's are a realistic option for NZ? They are getting as expensive, if not more so than manned aircraft, yet in many cases do not provide the flexibility of an aircraft or helicopter...
 

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
mug said:
An interesting post. I was wondering earlier (possibly on the NZDF thread) how one would go about 'educating' the general public about defence related issues.
IMHO this is the crux of the entire NZ defence debate (or lack thereof!) - the incredible apathy often shown by the NZ public & media. Unfortunately in the apparent absence of any other party prepared to do so the NZDF themselves are going to have to try & work to change this.

First & foremost the NZDF have to actually be deployed and 'doing something' before anyone's going to take notice. Fortunately that is currently a no-brainer as the NZDF face their most intense operational tempo in decades. Now the NZDF need to capitalise on it!

This means getting media involved in producing documentatires, regular news reports, and most importantly - getting the media to join operations & have them report from the 'front-line'. Yes they have to 'use' the media to their advantage.

They seem to finally be getting the message & in particular we are starting to see reports direct from Afghanistan. But one danger of these reports is the 'fly-on-the-wall' - it's important the NZDF have a degree of quality control over what goes out (no, not propaganda!).

The reports need to remain focued; balanced & mature! What I'm getting at is the worst thing that could happen for example is the media present a 22 year old spotty-faced driver who comes across more like a boy-racer than a well-trained Army driver facing real-danger! Sure you get the idea...

Until the NZ public really start to appreciate what the NZDF do & the dangers they face there will never be a real-defence debate & even less chance of a trully well-balanced defence force equipment wise.

How all this ties in with Project Protector is that the new Patrol Force will visibly increase the RNZN's presence in local waters which can only be a positive. Sure the vessels have limited military application - but the IPV's & OPV's will be suitable for their primary roles & the lack of serious EEZ patrol over the last 20 years has been widely criticised within NZ.

A few high-profile rescues etc etc & we'll start hearing NZer's saying "wow the Navy's doing a great job" - which eventually becomes "hey the Navy's doing a great job, but they need better gear..." etc.

Yes I hate to admit it but the NZDF is not fully capable of any independent operations (peacekeeping or otherwise) if things get "dirty" - that concerns me - and yes the biggest concern is that the troops pay the price, not the apathetic NZ public or polititicians!

To keep this post relevant to thread ;) the MRV is a great concept & will be incredibly successful, popular, and do wonders for Navy 'PR' - but god help anyone on board if they face opposition - even withan ANZAC or two for escort! This is the sort of situation the NZDF cannot handle without help & that's what needs to be addressed!!!

Wow, I'm exhausted now, I'd better go have a lie-down!:D :D :D
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
Aussie Digger said:
Fair enough, I agree with most of those suggestions, though I'd argue that you're basing the "greater firepower" of the LAVIII battalion vs 5/7 RAR on the weapon system of the primary vehicle used in the battalions only. 5/7 RAR for instance will field nearly as many Javelin ATGW's as the entire NZ conventional Army, as the Javelins aren't used in an anti-armour platoon, but are in fact embedded into the rifle companies...

If you look at the restructuring of Australian infantry battalions, particularly with respect to direct and indirect fire support capabilities these changes will greatly increase the firepower available within Australian Infantry battalions, I am not aware of any similar programs in NZ, besides the delayed AGL project.

Anyhoo I'm getting offtopic. Do you think UAV's are a realistic option for NZ? They are getting as expensive, if not more so than manned aircraft, yet in many cases do not provide the flexibility of an aircraft or helicopter...
Agreed, I looked at the main platform only :rolleyes: .
 

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
Another point I meant to make in earlier reply - the individual NZDF websites need to be kept up to date - they carry too much 'stale' news. They get updated randomly. Army's is particlarly useless with no 'news' section - yet they produce an excellent printed 'Army News'. Man if they want to boost public knowledge (& recruitment) a stale website is the worst possible thing! Anyways - off thread!
 

mug

New Member
Good point.

The RNZN website is updated on a painfully slow basis, and the NZDF website seems to get news items posted well after the event. For example: foreign vessel can be seen over at Devonport ... check navy site, check NZDF site, nothing. Story published a week or so after it has departed.

The army site has no news content that I am aware of.

Prior to the current NH90 article (reprint of MinDef release), the RNZAF site seemed to have been forgotten about. There were plans provided for a cutout C130 though!

On a side note, the NZ Herald has a journo in Afghanistan at the mo who has (to date) put out 4 interesting articles here.
 

Stuart Mackey

New Member
Aussie Digger said:
And what are your thoughts on the matter? What roles SHOULD the NZDF prepare for?
IMHO, NZDF should:Be able to self deploy and sustain its current combat forces in medium to high level combat within the context of a coalition outside of the South Pacific.

Be able to conduct independent operations {peackeeping/making, disaster releif etc} within the South Pacific region with current forces.

Be capable of countering known and historic assymetric threats, within NZ, dependent territories or those nations to which NZ has consititonal responibilities.

Be able to adequetly conduct survellance and law/customs enforcement in the NZ EEZ.

Be capable of, and trained for, rendering proper aid to the civil power, including civil defence/disaster releif.

Please note that I say 'current forces', one cannot have the forces one wants overnight and as such we should work on the capabilities/units that we have now rather than additional capabilities which should be addressed at a later date.

With respect to the LTDP, DSI etc, I have long been of the opinion that the current government has stopped the rot in defence, nothing more, and spun it as being the best thing since sliced bread. By and large, with a couple or three exceptions, I cannot fault Labour for what they have done. Its what they havent done equipment wise, and how that relates to 'strategic planning', that gets on my wick.
 

Mr Brown

New Member
The two major needs of the NZDF are enhanced airlift and an additional frigate. The A400M (perhaps 6) would be an ideal solution to the former (if it ever gets going), if not maybe the stretched verion of C-130J. I would also like to (finally) see a replacement for the Andover, perhaps 8-to-10, C-295, or C-27J. Add an additional 757, or replace now out of production 757s with A330 or A340s (second hand should be affordable). This would provide NZ with a cosiderably enhanced air lift.

The additional frigate (2 even better) is essential in order to provide Naval Combat Force with enhanced deployability. Current situation has one frigate under maintanece or training, with one available for deployment. If this frigate is deployed on duties out of area, say Arabian Gulf, what happens if a situation develops in Pacific that requires a warship. OPVs and the MRV are essentially good vessels, but lack the persuasive power of a 127mm gun. Something our guys in Solomons found very comforting. I like the Danish Absalon multipurpose vessel, has frigate armament, but also has amphib ability. Could be the ideal vessel for protecting NZ interests in Pacific.

This would of course cost extra money, but would provide good long term gains. Unfortuantely NZ govt and media mostly seem incapable of seeing beyond the price tag.
 
Top