NZDF General discussion thread

[Markus40]

There is a hell of alot more involved in staging or basing a squadron of Fighter/Bombers in NZ than dreaming of them flying over your house.

I do agree with your statement that we should open up our airspace to the RAAF more and have more of an interaction going on between both services than what is happening now. However i totally disagree with you on your assumption that the RNZAF couldnt be fixed up again and flying Jets like we used too. I think if you have a look at the prospects you will find that the costs would not be as expensive as what most seem to believe.

First the world is flooded with good value and non expensive fighter aircraft that NZ could look at again. As to setting up the infrastructure, that infrastructure is already available at Ohakea. Still left with support buildings and equipment for the aged A4s.

The biggest issue is the pilots and to train them and this would take time and effort but is not beyond the realms of impossibility. They can be pooled from our exisiting services and trained with a basic light trainer. Not to mention recruitment from other pilot schools. To begin with the pilots could begin their training in Australia to kick start things off and to elay costs up front. Then eventually once there are numbers back again we can move into our once owned training within NZ.

I agree that National would be the only political party that would have the political guts along with NZ First to form the air defence role for the RNZAF but unless this is done then the Airforce is left like a Tiger without teeth.

Hi guys,as much as I wish the combat wing had not been destroyed by Left wing Aunty Helen and I do wonder about what might have been if we had gone through with the F16 deal the best bet for our country is to join with Oz in some sort of ANZAC Force,by doing this it gives NZ acess to the legacy Hornet,Super-Hornet,F-35 etc.
Rebuilding the combat wing is a near impossiable dream requiring resources far beyond NZ capilbilties,the joint Labour and Greens effort made sure that it would be.
Even if National do take power the Labour goverment has spent a lot of money on other defence projects so that even if national wanted to restore the fighter wing the dollars will not exist.
Lets join Oz and open up our airspace,bases etc...its a win win for both countries.
I live in Blenhiem and I so do miss the roar of the mighty A-4k but Id be more than happy to have some Super-Hornets belting over my house!

 

[Todjaeger]

There is a hell of alot more involved in staging or basing a squadron of Fighter/Bombers in NZ than dreaming of them flying over your house.

I do agree with your statement that we should open up our airspace to the RAAF more and have more of an interaction going on between both services than what is happening now. However i totally disagree with you on your assumption that the RNZAF couldnt be fixed up again and flying Jets like we used too. I think if you have a look at the prospects you will find that the costs would not be as expensive as what most seem to believe.

First the world is flooded with good value and non expensive fighter aircraft that NZ could look at again. As to setting up the infrastructure, that infrastructure is already available at Ohakea. Still left with support buildings and equipment for the aged A4s.

The biggest issue is the pilots and to train them and this would take time and effort but is not beyond the realms of impossibility. They can be pooled from our exisiting services and trained with a basic light trainer. Not to mention recruitment from other pilot schools. To begin with the pilots could begin their training in Australia to kick start things off and to elay costs up front. Then eventually once there are numbers back again we can move into our once owned training within NZ.

I agree that National would be the only political party that would have the political guts along with NZ First to form the air defence role for the RNZAF but unless this is done then the Airforce is left like a Tiger without teeth.

Some points I'd like to make again about NZ restarting an air combat element. From what I understand, it would take some time (I've heard quotes of ~5 years) for an air combat element to develop sufficient "corporate experience" to be considered usefully proficient. Another point is the what the cost would be to have an air combat element. I'm not speaking of just initial startup costs, but ongoing or operational expenses as well. Leaving out the initial costs since these are "onetime" charges and are therefore not recurring, what effect would there be on the NZDF budget if it had to include an air combat element? Estimates I've read put the cost ~$200 mil/yr, looking further, the ADF 1999/2000 Defence Annual Report listed an operating cost of A$1.398 bil for the Tactical Fighter Group. This charge covered the operations of 72 F/A-18 A/B Hornets and some Aermacchi (sp?) trainers with the bulk of the operating costs likely revolving around the Hornets. By my estimates that puts the annual operating costs for the Hornet at roughly A$15-20 mil per aircraft, in 2000. If NZ to restart an air combat element with aircraft of similar capabilities then I would expect similar costs before adjusting for currency values and inflation. That translates into the following, if the RNZAF were to operate a sqd of 12 Hornet-like fighters that would work out to costing annually between ~ A$180-240 mil per year, before account for the value of NZ currency and cost increases between 2000 and 2007. With the NZDF having a current listed cost (2007/08; http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/corporate/defence-expenditure.htm) of NZ$1.985 bil, such an addition to the NZDF would require that ~10% of the budget be reallocated from other items or projects or that the overall budget of the NZDF would need to be increased by ~10%. And keep in mind, this budget item is an ongoing, year after year cost. Does NZ have the desire to either reduce expenditures on other NZDF items or have such a budgetary increase?

-Cheers

 

[swerve]

Todjaeger: that's why I keep banging on about operating costs, & suggesting aircraft which are relatively cheap to run. I doubt NZ will reinstate its air combat arm in the foreseeable future, but I'm damn sure that if it does, it won't be with clapped-out (& therefore maintenance-heavy) aircraft that had high running costs when new. Either nothing, or something cheap to buy and run.

 

[Markus40]

We cant compare costs with such a large operating machine like Australia. NZ is tiny in comparison and therefore it is my opinion that operating military aircraft at a level lower than australia is going to be hugely insignificant if you want to compare their operating costs.

In actual fact im a strong advocate for a single engine fighter such as the Grippen that will give over all value and long term benefits to our economy and long term operating costs over an extended period of time. If what you say that it would normally take a 5 year time frame to set up the air defence wing(s) in my opinion that isnt a long period of time to invest into a long term option to complete our Defence Force capability. We are not talking about 75 front line F18s here, we are talking about 12-16 Grippens, that i believe would have a similar year long operating cost to that of the A4. Remembering that the A4 required ongoing tinkering and fix up jobs that required expensive parts and ongoing short term servicing that made them a liability in the long run.

The recruitment and training will take some time, maybe 5 years to complete however once completed then adding the additional funds at a set amount each year to set up IE 200 Million would not be beyond the realm of impossibility in fact would be very conceivable and logical to do so. We already have the advanced trainer, the MB339s to begin with and this resource alone is a great asset without having to pay out millions more for more equipment, in the long term.

Some points I'd like to make again about NZ restarting an air combat element. From what I understand, it would take some time (I've heard quotes of ~5 years) for an air combat element to develop sufficient "corporate experience" to be considered usefully proficient. Another point is the what the cost would be to have an air combat element. I'm not speaking of just initial startup costs, but ongoing or operational expenses as well. Leaving out the initial costs since these are "onetime" charges and are therefore not recurring, what effect would there be on the NZDF budget if it had to include an air combat element? Estimates I've read put the cost ~$200 mil/yr, looking further, the ADF 1999/2000 Defence Annual Report listed an operating cost of A$1.398 bil for the Tactical Fighter Group. This charge covered the operations of 72 F/A-18 A/B Hornets and some Aermacchi (sp?) trainers with the bulk of the operating costs likely revolving around the Hornets. By my estimates that puts the annual operating costs for the Hornet at roughly A$15-20 mil per aircraft, in 2000. If NZ to restart an air combat element with aircraft of similar capabilities then I would expect similar costs before adjusting for currency values and inflation. That translates into the following, if the RNZAF were to operate a sqd of 12 Hornet-like fighters that would work out to costing annually between ~ A$180-240 mil per year, before account for the value of NZ currency and cost increases between 2000 and 2007. With the NZDF having a current listed cost (2007/08; http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/corporate/defence-expenditure.htm) of NZ$1.985 bil, such an addition to the NZDF would require that ~10% of the budget be reallocated from other items or projects or that the overall budget of the NZDF would need to be increased by ~10%. And keep in mind, this budget item is an ongoing, year after year cost. Does NZ have the desire to either reduce expenditures on other NZDF items or have such a budgetary increase?

-Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

Hi Jase1: Re "I do wonder about what might have been if we had gone through with the F16 deal...". Well, certain high profile critics at the time (eg writers in the NZ Listener etc) knocked the F16 deal big time. Funnily enough those with actual knowledge on the F16 deal (who were mainly ignored by the media, remember at the time the mainstream media were smitten by the then new govt) such as David Dickens stated that "The 28 F16s New Zealand has agreed to lease are among the most modern F16 A/Bs built. They are built to the Block 15 standard with the Operational Capability Upgrade (OCU) ncluded. The New Zealand F16s will be equipped to a world class standard for their designated roles". See http://www.vuw.ac.nz/css/docs/Strategic_Briefing_Papers/Vol.2 Feb 2000/C&C.pdf

It was actually the then Labour/Alliance coalition that killed the F16 deal (remember seeing then deputy PM, who was the Alliance Party leader, joking and laughing off criticism from prominent Australian defence journalist Greg Sheridan in a TVNZ Holmes interview back in 2000)? Admittedly the Govt have kept the Greens at bay over the past 7 years, but you are right in the Greens do not support NZDF's offensive capabilities (can't find their defence policy on their website but here's a gem from their defence spokesman, who by the way describes himself as an "ex-communist" (being a communist in NZ is no longer in vogue nowadays, supporting indigenous rights is now seen as being politically correct) http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other4842.html. And yes, miss the roar of the mighty A4's too over the mighty Manawatu where I am!

Hi Markus40: I agree, I'm sure the RNZAF could be "fixed up again and flying Jets like we used too" if the political will is there.

Hi Todjaeger: You are quite right, it is easier said than done. As you say it will take time and as well as aircraft, the operating costs need to be factored
(NZ$200M per year for F16 type aircraft, is about right according to various political sources). As well as training new pilots, we would have to recruit new ground crew, armaments and avionic technicians, aircraft engineers and support staff etc (over 300 hundred were made redundant at the time the A4's were axed). http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=198842 This will take years to train up the support crews. Hence my earlier comments, to fast track all this (and to prevent future changes of govt's undoing this) we need to explore a joint training arrangements (pilots and support crew and aircraft and facilities) with Australia. And it can only be the Australians, the US still has a (stupid) ban on US-NZ training programmes and the UK appears to be reducing its armed forces and thus capacity to assist.

Fortunately the Opposition have made some noises (but not clear and stated policy) along these lines http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=123&objectid=10392600 (ignore the criticism from the Govt defence minister, this is typical of the level of debate between our politicians) and something related in the last few lines at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3517486

Even then, this will still be easier said than done. NZ still needs to define its uses to justify an air combat role (which in previous defence policies has been almost the last priority). Will it be leading edge state of the art to maintain capabilities and interoperability with its allies? If so this would mean fighting in coalition/UN peace enforcement roles (NZ's air combat aircraft haven't done this since the 1960's in Malaya and the Indonesian onfrontation etc) which will incur a hugh cost and will attract alot of public skepticism. Or will it be niche (eg to supplement Australian capabilities), to train the Navy against air attack, special forces precision bombing, anti-shipping etc. We kiwis on this list need to move on and think about how we justify such a force if we want our politicians (of the left and right) to take this matter seriously and not become a political football (you know, politicians love a political football to kick around)!

 

[recce.k1]

F16 link stuffed up. Try http://www.vuw.ac.nz/css/docs/Strategic_Briefing_Papers/Vol.2 Feb 2000/C&C.pdf

 

[recce.k1]

F16 link still stuffed. Ok try manual locating it at:

http://www.vuw.ac.nz/css/
Strategic Briefing Papers
The F16: Capabilities and Costs: Part 2

 

[Todjaeger]

We cant compare costs with such a large operating machine like Australia. NZ is tiny in comparison and therefore it is my opinion that operating military aircraft at a level lower than australia is going to be hugely insignificant if you want to compare their operating costs.

In actual fact im a strong advocate for a single engine fighter such as the Grippen that will give over all value and long term benefits to our economy and long term operating costs over an extended period of time. If what you say that it would normally take a 5 year time frame to set up the air defence wing(s) in my opinion that isnt a long period of time to invest into a long term option to complete our Defence Force capability. We are not talking about 75 front line F18s here, we are talking about 12-16 Grippens, that i believe would have a similar year long operating cost to that of the A4. Remembering that the A4 required ongoing tinkering and fix up jobs that required expensive parts and ongoing short term servicing that made them a liability in the long run.

The recruitment and training will take some time, maybe 5 years to complete however once completed then adding the additional funds at a set amount each year to set up IE 200 Million would not be beyond the realm of impossibility in fact would be very conceivable and logical to do so. We already have the advanced trainer, the MB339s to begin with and this resource alone is a great asset without having to pay out millions more for more equipment, in the long term.

Not sure that the main thrust I was getting at was received all that well. What I was trying to say was that, if NZ were to have an air combat element again, the operating costs for the air combat element could be considerable and would need to be figured into both the NZDF and government budgets.

I was using the RAAF budget for tactical/fighter (i.e. not F-111) aircraft were spending of ~A$1.3 bil was spread out over 72+ aircraft, resulting in estimates of between A$15-20 mil spent per fighter for operations over the course of a year. I don't see how NZ, having fewer numbers of fighter aircraft, would have a lower operating cost per aircraft than the RAAF F/A-18 Hornets without either purchasing a less capable aircraft (Hawk series comes to mind) or significantly less deployment during any given year. Or both of course.

And remember, the annual operating costs are something completely different from any costs involved in purchasing or developing the capability.

I do believe that there would be some variations in the annual operational costings per aircraft depending on which aircraft were to be selected and the fitout. In general though I think the A$15-20 mil per aircraft per year is a fairly good general estimate. But if anyone else has other info, feel free to knock holes in it.

As for possible low-cost alternatives to something like a Hornet... I'm sort of partial to an updated Hawk 127 LIF, making use of some of the developments in the Hawk 200-series like the APG-66H.

-Cheers

 

[Markus40]

I have always been a strong advocate for the Hawk being the most ideal for NZs needs. In my past threads i have laid out the fact that NZ does not need front tier fighters like the F16 or even the F18. What we do need is an aircraft that has a 360 degree ability to cover all our operations from training to Maritime and has a good maritime range for NZs needs, along with payload and equally has a within budget operating cost per aircraft.

Yes i do understand where you are coming from, however i really dont think if NZ was to purchase the Hawk that we would see anything like the cost estimates you have tabled that comes in comparison to the cost estimates with the F18 in the RAAF. The F18 is a far more maintenance intensive aircraft considering it has 2 engines, compared to a single one with the Hawk. Cheers.

Not sure that the main thrust I was getting at was received all that well. What I was trying to say was that, if NZ were to have an air combat element again, the operating costs for the air combat element could be considerable and would need to be figured into both the NZDF and government budgets.

I was using the RAAF budget for tactical/fighter (i.e. not F-111) aircraft were spending of ~A$1.3 bil was spread out over 72+ aircraft, resulting in estimates of between A$15-20 mil spent per fighter for operations over the course of a year. I don't see how NZ, having fewer numbers of fighter aircraft, would have a lower operating cost per aircraft than the RAAF F/A-18 Hornets without either purchasing a less capable aircraft (Hawk series comes to mind) or significantly less deployment during any given year. Or both of course.

And remember, the annual operating costs are something completely different from any costs involved in purchasing or developing the capability.

I do believe that there would be some variations in the annual operational costings per aircraft depending on which aircraft were to be selected and the fitout. In general though I think the A$15-20 mil per aircraft per year is a fairly good general estimate. But if anyone else has other info, feel free to knock holes in it.

As for possible low-cost alternatives to something like a Hornet... I'm sort of partial to an updated Hawk 127 LIF, making use of some of the developments in the Hawk 200-series like the APG-66H.

-Cheers

 

[Wild Woodsman]

If a new government came into power in New Zealand and had the vision of making New Zealand a regional power, what could they to to make this happen?

New Zealand's army is very well trained as in equipt with modern weapon such as:

Armoured Vehicles

105 x NZ Light Armoured Vehicle (NZLAV)
352x Pinzgauer Light Operational Vehicle (LOV)

Missile Systems

12 x Mistral anti-aircraft missile
24 x Javelin Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ATGM) launchers

Support Vehicle

Unimog trucks
Army Tractors
Recovery Vehicles, etc

Fire Support/Artillery

34 x 105 mm L118 Light Gun
50 x 81 mm mortar
42 x 84 mm Carl Gustav recoilless rifle M3
M72 Light Armour Weapon

Weapons

Browning 12.7 mm M2 machine gun
L7A2 FN MAG 58 7.62 mm GPMG
C9 Minimi 5.56 mm Light Machine Gun
M203 grenade launcher
F88 Austeyr 5.56 mm assault rifle
SIG P226 9 mm pistol

The Navy consists of:

Frigates

2 ANZAC class

Support
1 Muli-Role Vessel
1 Replenish ship

Patrol
2 OPV
4 IPV

Other
1 Hydrographic survey
1 Dive support/mine countermeasures

I personally would like to see about 50 tracked IFV in the NZ army. The NZ navy needs to increase the number of frigates to 4 and add another MRV so that they can project power.

The RNZAF is a large topic. We know that the RNZAF does not have a strike wing but one may evolve in the future. It would not be to hard to start a strike wing within the RNZAF. Obviously a new base would have to be constructed specifically for the fighters. Once this is done the best option would be to talk with the UK and USA and organise training for pilots and ground crew. While they are being trained, 20-30 second hand fighters could be purchased for several billion dollars. When the pilots and ground crew are trained they can then set up a training structure.

There is on method and one method only for NZ to become a main player-get tooled with nukes.
Other than that she could open her borders to mass immigration from the mother country which would increase her population and ,therefore, her GDP without altering her national identity and culture. Many conservatives in GB are sick of the European Union and Blair's immoral society . We would love to come to NZ which reminds us of Scotland and bring our skills and money and our loyalty.

 

[recce.k1]

There is on method and one method only for NZ to become a main player-get tooled with nukes.
Other than that she could open her borders to mass immigration from the mother country which would increase her population and ,therefore, her GDP without altering her national identity and culture. Many conservatives in GB are sick of the European Union and Blair's immoral society . We would love to come to NZ which reminds us of Scotland and bring our skills and money and our loyalty.

Could you also bring a few Tornados, Typhoons, Merlins and Type 23 Frigates over with you? Heh, heh!

Putting aside your nuke idea, your other idea is not daft. Brits, I believe are among some of the larger nationalities migrating here and the "average kiwi" probably wouldn't have a big problem. However, similar to the EU issues you face, NZ (and Aust) is becoming more divergent and it is finding its place in the Asian/Pacific area in terms of trade and business links etc (and I'm not knocking this by any means). So not everyone would support this.

Anyway, why not simply just improve the UK-NZ-Aust relationship (call it the British empire I suppose!) and take more of our meat and butter exports, that way we might start buying Brit military hardware again (instead of US, Australian or EU)!

 

[Kiwi AEOP]

"Nukes" Not a bad idea but we would be missing a decent delivery platform. We would be better off with a decent stand-off PGM along the lines of SLAM-ER.
Dreaming aside, having only just joined this conversation and throwing in my two cents worth, the biggest mistake defence made was streaming the pilots so that only skyhawk pilots flew the macchi. This meant when the decision came to axe the skyhawks the macchi's went as well. They should have been kept on to keep a basic capability in air to air and air to ground warfare. They were new, cheap to run and had a lot of years left to go. As it stands now we can't sell them and are spending millions just to keep them in a saleable condition but of course the current government will not want to be seen to lose face by bringing them back up to a operational level.

 

[jase1]

There is a hell of alot more involved in staging or basing a squadron of Fighter/Bombers in NZ than dreaming of them flying over your house.

I do agree with your statement that we should open up our airspace to the RAAF more and have more of an interaction going on between both services than what is happening now. However i totally disagree with you on your assumption that the RNZAF couldnt be fixed up again and flying Jets like we used too. I think if you have a look at the prospects you will find that the costs would not be as expensive as what most see

I agree that National would be the only political party that would have the political guts along with NZ First to form the air defence role for the RNZAF but unless this is done then the Airforce is left like a Tiger without teeth.

Why is it then that every-one I talk to at Safe-Air (RNZAF retirement village) all say that rebuilding the combat wing is near on impossible? and these guys are on average 20+ years ex RNZAF so they should know if it can be done,even pilots such as Jason Easthope and Glenn Osbourne at the time of disbandment were saying it cant be done,you cant rebuild 80 odd years of combat wing history in 5 or so years!
But I do agree that a Jet wing of some sort could be built using the MB339,they have plenty off life in them and are a simple easy plane to maintain,be easier to join Oz than it would to rebuild.
Nukes?.............yea right..not even worth talking about those

 

[Markus40]

Never suggested Nukes, so not sure what you are talking about here.

If the people that you spoke too are in the RNZAF retirement village then i would suggest that most of them would be still experiencing post traumatic distress disorder over Clarkes disbandenment years ago of our air combat wings, and they wouldnt be able to give you an objective view on the subject. Putting that aside its definitly possible to put together over time a front line air combat force. This would of course would be a brand new start for the RNZAF and wouldnt have the top heavy and money wasting situation with the A4s like we had in the past.

It would be productive and involve NZ industry as a contributor to the Air Forces support role. Safe Air would obviously be a contributor to this and if selected would be an exciting turn around from what the RNZAF has experienced. Cheers.

Why is it then that every-one I talk to at Safe-Air (RNZAF retirement village) all say that rebuilding the combat wing is near on impossible? and these guys are on average 20+ years ex RNZAF so they should know if it can be done,even pilots such as Jason Easthope and Glenn Osbourne at the time of disbandment were saying it cant be done,you cant rebuild 80 odd years of combat wing history in 5 or so years!
But I do agree that a Jet wing of some sort could be built using the MB339,they have plenty off life in them and are a simple easy plane to maintain,be easier to join Oz than it would to rebuild.
Nukes?.............yea right..not even worth talking about those

 

[Aussie Digger]

Why is it then that every-one I talk to at Safe-Air (RNZAF retirement village) all say that rebuilding the combat wing is near on impossible? and these guys are on average 20+ years ex RNZAF so they should know if it can be done,even pilots such as Jason Easthope and Glenn Osbourne at the time of disbandment were saying it cant be done,you cant rebuild 80 odd years of combat wing history in 5 or so years!
But I do agree that a Jet wing of some sort could be built using the MB339,they have plenty off life in them and are a simple easy plane to maintain,be easier to join Oz than it would to rebuild.
Nukes?.............yea right..not even worth talking about those

Whilst I don't claim to be an expert on building an airforce, I'd suggest it's not impossible to regain an air combat capability, but I'd suggest the level of political will to do so AND to provide the level of funding required is not present in either of the major political parties in NZ and thus remains nothing more than a dream.

Likewise the basing of an Australian air combat squadron in NZ is a defacto admission by the NZ Government that the NEED for such a capability is there and that they were wrong to remove it, would be entirely unnacceptable to the present Government, though the alternative party might be more acceptable to such an idea.

Perhaps the basing of a Singaporean F-16 Squadron might be more realistic than an Australian Squadron anyway. They need the room to train, more than us...

 

[jase1]

The one problem we have in NZ is this system of MMP,in the days of 1st past the post the Goverment had a free rein to do what it wanted but this bloodly MMP means that if National wants to form a Goverment it has to hook up with smaller parties such as NZFirst which is pro-defence force but we then have the Greens and we know how they feel about the Forces let alone a combat wing!
National wants a Combat Wing but the shit-fight that will happen within political circles if National gets into power and moots this idea,what brasses me off is that the majority of NZers want a combat wing but the Goverment along with the Greens do what they feel like...thats MMP for you!
While im for the idea of joint ANZAC force if anyone can rebuild the combat wing the RNZAF can..Heck they keep 40 year old aircraft going and going well

 

[Stuart Mackey]

snip
National wants a Combat Wing but the shit-fight that will happen within political circles if National gets into power and moots this idea,what brasses me off is that the majority of NZers want a combat wing but the Goverment along with the Greens do what they feel like...thats MMP for you!
snip

Actually, thats FPP. The point of MMP was to moderate the elected dictatorship of FPP. With respect to a combat wing, given the time to rebuild it and the political realities that politicians face it is simply nothing more than a dream. If, and its a big if, National can do what it has not done for decades, and put up a strategic concept for defence and argue it with supporting evidence, then you might see a concensus on the jet trainers being used to support the skills base of the Navy and Army.

 

[Mr Brown]

I had to laugh at the Greens once again suggesting that the Navy send a frigate to protect the whales from the Japanese. How ironic, considering they were the most against the frigates in the first place.

Anyhow NZ wouldn't want to risk such a confrontation with a country that is one of our most valuable trading partners. If RNZN was to be used would be better to send Resolution, an unarmed survey vessel to provide a low level official protest that would not risk the possibility of Japanese sending a warship of their own in response. Anyhow what would a frigate do, sink a vessel that is undertaking a legal if immoral activity, that would be akin to state sponsered piracy.

Don't get me wrong I hate whaling, and part of me does relish the idea of using whalers for target practice, but the political ramifications would simply be to great.

 

[Nighthawknz]

The strategic rationale is that no-one is going to attack NZ without drawing Australia's ire too. If someone is attacking NZ and has FOUGHT their way through Australia and is STILL in a position to attack or invade, NZ isn't going to be able to do much about them anyway.

If Aussie was attacked on her own soil, NZ would be there defending her shores, that I can almost guarentee, (I say almost because it depends on the situation... ie where are our troops already deployed, etc etc, but we would definately be send what we can...) A force that size can't be moved with out being noticed especially with todays tech... and if the invading force over ran the combined anzac force then there isn't alot that could be done...

But I also agree the US would not stand by and allow a close ally and a "so called" very very good friend be over run with out steping in, in some way.

 

[Nighthawknz]

I don't see this changing short of Australia and New Zealand merging into one country. IIRC there was (is?) a provision during Federation, for New Zealand to merge with the other colonies that became Australia.

I believe that it is still there...