Stuart Mackey
New Member
I thought this might be of interest here given Nationals ambiguity on defence.
link to NZ Herald
link to NZ Herald
This may change as the election draws nearer.
Future NZ defence policy?
- Thread starter Stuart Mackey
- Start date
Do you think you will ever see a New Zealand Infantry battalion deplyed to Afganistan to carry our offensive military operations.
The excuse that was used in 2001 was that we had just finished a big deployment in Timor and that was true but it has been 6 years.
I saw Ron Mark in parliment a while back accusing the government of simply not being prepared to deploy one of the battalions and i agree with him,it doesn,t go along with the pacifist culture that has been built up in New Zealand.
Feel good peace keeping operations seem to be all the public can stomach and even that is a stretch i saw a poll on the Dominion Post website asking if people supported the latest reconstruction team to afganistan and 55% said no.
Not a shot fired not one casulty and there isn,t even support for that.
The only reason the government even sent the SAS is because it is out of sight and mind and they don,t tend to take the casulties of conventional troops which keeps pressure off the government.
The excuse that was used in 2001 was that we had just finished a big deployment in Timor and that was true but it has been 6 years.
I saw Ron Mark in parliment a while back accusing the government of simply not being prepared to deploy one of the battalions and i agree with him,it doesn,t go along with the pacifist culture that has been built up in New Zealand.
Feel good peace keeping operations seem to be all the public can stomach and even that is a stretch i saw a poll on the Dominion Post website asking if people supported the latest reconstruction team to afganistan and 55% said no.
Not a shot fired not one casulty and there isn,t even support for that.
The only reason the government even sent the SAS is because it is out of sight and mind and they don,t tend to take the casulties of conventional troops which keeps pressure off the government.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Personally, I don't think Labour (under Clark's leadership) will deploy a battalion to Afganistan. The reason, personally I think the PM is, a) too scared of the political fallout ramifications should casualties occur, b) the PM has a wide support base from the peace movement (she has to keep them happy), c) under MMP the PM needs the support of the Progressives, Greens etc (and she has to keep them happy).
Since the Timor deployment ended in 2001/02, the Army had to retrain and rebuild its skills to operate as a motorised LAVIII battalion etc. The excuse back in 2001/02 to not deploy a battalion again, was most likely true (which was probably a fortunate coincidence). IIRC the Army said it was ready only early last year to operate in their new role (or someone can correct me etc).
Ron Mark is correct, I recall back in 2002 then foreign minister Goff wanted to support the Australian led RAMSI intervention force big time, only to be knocked back by PM Clark to only allow 250 troops to participate (whereas Australia sent well over 2000) hence this is an example of the PM's relucantance to deploy NZ assets to any great level, even in a political/publically acceptable region like the Pacific!
So if the political will is there a battalion could be deployed on peace keeping missions. Although at great costs to the NZDF (the battalion's are under strength and should be builtup first etc, and probably for only short rotations etc). Thus I would hope Ron Mark and NZFirst is trying to persuade the Govt behind the scenes to build up the battalions (but I think he knows he's pushing **it uphill etc).
I wouldn't take online newspaper polls to heart, they have a very limited viewship who would actually vote (I mean a former One News Colmar Brunton poll, which surveyed people across the country and from different demographics, supported the retention of the air combat force back in 2001) nevermind an on-line poll which probably has the peace movement replying multiple times!
I don't believe the Govt is pacifist, look at the various SAS deployments, but the want to do things at the minimum cost (politically). Easier to send world class special forces into Afganistanthan the regular Army, who will then expose the lack of suitable equipment (eg a Pinzi LOV probably wouldn't stack up against an Aussie Bushmaster vehicle with special protection built in against land mines etc) plus the logistics issues in getting a regular force without the air transport capacity to carry LAVIII's that far (and lest they get stuck in the sand, the govt is still to approve the LAV combat recovery vehicles) plus the fact that maybe a couple of dozen tracked vehicles maybe useful (in my opinion the wheeled LAV's should be supplemented by a couple of dozen armoured reconnaissance tracked vehicles to ensure the Army can operate in all terrains. Funny that this Govt won't deploy a few LAV's to Afganistan or Timor simply even just for training and familairisation purposes)!
I agree with your opinion on tracked vehicles i read a while back about American wheeled armoured vehicles getting stuck in sand and being pulled out by M113 APC,i think the British warrior armoured fighting vehicle looks pretty good.
I have to be honest i think the Pinzi LOV looks like a death trap it looks like a small bus a 10 year old could hit it with an RPG.
One of the reasons the government didn,t get Humvees which are also death traps is because the Pinzi could carry more men but it is a bad idea because yeah you can carry twice as many men in the Pinzi but when it runs over a mine or gets hit by IED you have twice the number of casulties.
There was an incident in Iraq where an armoured vehicle with 14 Marines in it was it and all 14 were killed and from then on they stopped loading the vehicles up to capacity.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Yes, interesting article and probably a politically astute move on JK's part to "talk up" the points where both parties agree on FA&D issues etc. After all the Govt will ruthlessly expose any points of difference with their incredible spin machine. Noted there are still no real policies for us to get excited about (something you have said is lacking previously, I'm sure!) but no doubt things will change in time.
NZ ain't a rich country and needs to prioritise its defence. Since the heydays of the 1950's and 60's, we've had the economic downturn of the 1970's, the near bankrupt 1980's and the retrenchment/rebuilding of the 1990's. Defence suffered the same pressures, fiscally etc, like the rest of the Govt sector. Why could (not necessarily agree with) but understand why cut backs took place, especially with the end of the cold war.
Anyway, i'm not saying anything new here, anything that kiwis would be familiar with already. On the other hand, the economy has finally turned the corner around 1999/2000 etc and year after year we are witnessing a govt with billion dollar surpluses and as others have pointed out in other posts over the last couple of years, why not invest some of this money (as there are other areas of priority and debt to payoff) to buildup parts of the NZDF that are lacking in capacity etc. Hopefully we can get some good ideas going in this forum on future defence policy and practical ways to achieve this.
I saw Ron Mark in parliment about two months ago asking a question about some recommendations that had been made about the New Zealand military and if these recommendations were going to be taken up and one of them was to increase the Infantry Battalions to four companies with one of them a Ranger company.
It would be a great move i believe for the New Zealand army to do this it would create a level as a Ranger below the SAS but above the standard infantry man.
It would give all New Zealand soldiers something more to aspire to lifting the level of the Battalions as a whole encourging everyone to get Ranger qualified people with the highest levels of achievment earning a place in the Ranger company and the others getting there tab and going back to there companies enhanced soldiers and maintaining that standard constantly pushing the soldiers around them to met the same standard,it would be a great thing for NCO to do.
It would also help narrow the gap soldiers have to jump from standard infantry to SAS.
It would be a great move i believe for the New Zealand army to do this it would create a level as a Ranger below the SAS but above the standard infantry man.
It would give all New Zealand soldiers something more to aspire to lifting the level of the Battalions as a whole encourging everyone to get Ranger qualified people with the highest levels of achievment earning a place in the Ranger company and the others getting there tab and going back to there companies enhanced soldiers and maintaining that standard constantly pushing the soldiers around them to met the same standard,it would be a great thing for NCO to do.
It would also help narrow the gap soldiers have to jump from standard infantry to SAS.
Stuart Mackey
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7
All vehicles are vulnerable, even battle tanks. But what would you have armed forces do? have every truck in a war zone armoured like a tank even if its just carrying ration packs? With all due respect, if we got rid of every vehicle that looked like a death trap according to every persons subjective point of view, without even a cursory look at the context of it's use, everyones army would be on foot for fear of the allmighty IED/ATGM/Boogy man threat of the month.
Stuart Mackey
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #8
This thread is getting away from what I intended.
I have bolded the relevant part. While the election is some time away this should cause some pause. Is this a shift in National Party idea's on defence, if so, to what?
I never said all vehicles should be armoured i just pointed out the fact that one of the reasons the Pinzi was purchased was because it could carry more people and it is folly because the IED is a real threat for the modern army not Boogy man threat of the month and more people in the vehicle means more people wasted in one go.
I don,t believe anything will change if National takes power,the Anti U.S government attitude is to strong to ignore in New Zealand and it will dictate Nationals defence policy,i don,t believe National will bring back the strike wing and you will just see more feel good peace keeping operations that earn us brownie points in the international community,to saddle upwith the U.S and deploy our infantry in offensive operations in places like Afganistan would be to much for the public to bare espically when the casulties start coming home from a so called American war.
Stuart Mackey
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #10
Your right, you just insinuated it. They packed men into trucks for decades, despite the risk of mines etc, but then, as now, they take every precaution they can to avoid mines/IED's but sometimes a vehicle will be hit and men will die. That a vehicle is vulnerable to certain things does not invalidate a vehicle type or it mission and you have yet to provide evidence for that.
Ok, how exactly are you connecting hardware purchaces with foreign policy? Just because a governement does not jump into every war thats going does not mean they must not improve a nations warfighting capacity.
With respect to defence policy, perhaps if the National party did its job and presented a rational policy that clearly argued a case for more frigates or a strike wing, with evidence to back it up, then maybe the public would support such purchases. The fact of the matter is that no one is going to support a party who's defence policy consists of getting someone to write a report for them that tells them what to do, which is what they have now. Its not anti Americanism, its because National cannot make a policy point on defence and defend it, and no one wants to spend billions on equipment when the people who want it cannot even say why they want it.
Still, its better than the Green's, they dont have a defence policy or a foreign policy.
Actually I didn,t insinuate anything i pointed out a valid point that one of the reasons we purchased the vehicle is because it had more carrying capacity than a Humvee and that is folly because the IED is a threat that was not faced in World War two or any other war we have been in but it is a reality now and one that can,t just be dismissed.
More people in the light skinned vehicle more people wasted in one go.
Okay how am i connecting defence purchases with foreign policy? well it goes like this the government looks at what it sees it,s self doing then bases it,s purchases on that.
The labour party felt not only that we couldn,t afford the strike wing but that we live in a benign stategic enviroment and didn,t need them so they got rid of them.
You don,t see them buying tanks no doubt they don,t see themselves in a combat situation where they will need them where as the Australians who are closley linked with the U.S and can see themselves in a higher intensity fight have done so.
You are kidding your yourself if you think anti Americanism doesn,t play a role no political party in New Zealand could send our troops to fight on an offensive footing alongside the U.S in what is seen as a U.S war when the casulties started coming home it would be the beginning of political suicide.
Peace keeping operations are the limit for any New Zealand government.
More people in the light skinned vehicle more people wasted in one go.
Okay how am i connecting defence purchases with foreign policy? well it goes like this the government looks at what it sees it,s self doing then bases it,s purchases on that.
The labour party felt not only that we couldn,t afford the strike wing but that we live in a benign stategic enviroment and didn,t need them so they got rid of them.
You don,t see them buying tanks no doubt they don,t see themselves in a combat situation where they will need them where as the Australians who are closley linked with the U.S and can see themselves in a higher intensity fight have done so.
You are kidding your yourself if you think anti Americanism doesn,t play a role no political party in New Zealand could send our troops to fight on an offensive footing alongside the U.S in what is seen as a U.S war when the casulties started coming home it would be the beginning of political suicide.
Peace keeping operations are the limit for any New Zealand government.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Hi Steve, good news then that some recommendations have been made to increase the infantry battalion sizes and incorporate a Ranger company. It would certainly be handy to have them with the recent unrest around the region in the last few years and as you say, give the regular infantry something higher to aim towards. Let's hope the Govt acts on the reccomendations sooner rather than later. Ron Marks' NZ First also wanted to remold the NZDF into some sort of Marines Corps force, ready to fight on land, sea and from the air, but anyway that's another thing altogether. Good to have him around asking the hard questions (and showing the Opposition how it's done)!
But as you ask, is it a shift and if so to what? Good question, possibly, but there are no details to judge. There is still the inference of there being a difference, albiet small, and maybe wishful thinking, it means supporting current Govt policy on the whole but providing better resources to do so. And in other words, nothing "radical" is being proposed, like re-establishing ANZUS (which the Govt would have a feild day over, they'll link in the nukes "and gone before lunchtime" within a jiffy).
(In fact, if we are to talk about policy, perhaps we need to be thinking about how defence agreements are part and parcel of policy (and thereby equipment and structure). Anyone have any thoughts)?
Really though, the key to having both major political parties support policy, better equipment, improved structure, improved alliances and training etc (eg all the things we harp on about in these forums) is for the two major parties to come to some good old bi-partisan consenus, like the Aussie Liberal coalition and Labour parties etc. It has been so easy for NZ Labour to drive in a wedge and gain public support (therefore most importantly votes) over the last 20-30 years and once they gain that public sentiment (even if it is though lies and exagerations - eg on the nuclear issue), "conservative" parties like National, as they have found, just cannot easily go back to their former positions (ANZUS, air combat force etc), it is too difficult and the public mindset cane be easily manipulated by Labour. Having said that, things have moved on from the 1980's, the peace movement generation is getting older, and although there will be young radicals coming up trying to make their name, I've noticed a greater public shift over the last decade to support our armed forces. ANZAC day commemerations are growing year by year, there is less public criticism of defence purchases (apart from the same old hacks), people are turning out in public to support the E.Timor troops on their return in 02, the unknown warrior commemerations a couple of years ago. Personally (or at least hopefully) if JK can smooth the "differences" over Nat/Lab defence policy etc, then the strategy might work (it might make it hard for the Govt to disagree with what Nat propose, in some areas). But the Govt ain't done yet, unless their strategy team is starting to abandon ship (which you would think may be happening with the numerous govt back downs in recent times and falling opinion polls), then it will be interesting to see how the Govt spin machine counters this new angle of National's on their defence policy. Interesting times. Interesting contests and scraps lie ahead ...
Hi Stuart, thanks for clarifying this forum before we got get carried away with our wish lists. And good point, what does the above quote really mean? If you contrast this with previous National Policy (at the time of the 2005 election) http://national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=4873, it certainly appears different. (For comparison here's the Govt "policy" http://www.defence.govt.nz/defence-policy.html and here's the Labour Party policy http://labour.org.nz/policy/foreign_affairs_and_defense/2005policy/Pol05-defence/index.html. More blah blah on overview from all quarters but no real specifics as to how they all will achieve their policy goals. That's the reality here I suppose). However things have moved on since 2005 and personally I'm not too concerned with the JK statement at the moment - after all we're talking about politicians here, they're very economical with the truth. But that doesn't mean to say that I am unconcerned, because as you point out in your last posting, National needs to present a rational policy with clear arguements etc, if the public is to support spending on assets and structure etc, and if they are to have any credibility they need to do this well before next years election to ensure healthy debate (otherwise there will be more accusations of having hidden agendas and not having credible policy by not releasing the details earlier etc).
But as you ask, is it a shift and if so to what? Good question, possibly, but there are no details to judge. There is still the inference of there being a difference, albiet small, and maybe wishful thinking, it means supporting current Govt policy on the whole but providing better resources to do so. And in other words, nothing "radical" is being proposed, like re-establishing ANZUS (which the Govt would have a feild day over, they'll link in the nukes "and gone before lunchtime" within a jiffy).
(In fact, if we are to talk about policy, perhaps we need to be thinking about how defence agreements are part and parcel of policy (and thereby equipment and structure). Anyone have any thoughts)?
Really though, the key to having both major political parties support policy, better equipment, improved structure, improved alliances and training etc (eg all the things we harp on about in these forums) is for the two major parties to come to some good old bi-partisan consenus, like the Aussie Liberal coalition and Labour parties etc. It has been so easy for NZ Labour to drive in a wedge and gain public support (therefore most importantly votes) over the last 20-30 years and once they gain that public sentiment (even if it is though lies and exagerations - eg on the nuclear issue), "conservative" parties like National, as they have found, just cannot easily go back to their former positions (ANZUS, air combat force etc), it is too difficult and the public mindset cane be easily manipulated by Labour. Having said that, things have moved on from the 1980's, the peace movement generation is getting older, and although there will be young radicals coming up trying to make their name, I've noticed a greater public shift over the last decade to support our armed forces. ANZAC day commemerations are growing year by year, there is less public criticism of defence purchases (apart from the same old hacks), people are turning out in public to support the E.Timor troops on their return in 02, the unknown warrior commemerations a couple of years ago. Personally (or at least hopefully) if JK can smooth the "differences" over Nat/Lab defence policy etc, then the strategy might work (it might make it hard for the Govt to disagree with what Nat propose, in some areas). But the Govt ain't done yet, unless their strategy team is starting to abandon ship (which you would think may be happening with the numerous govt back downs in recent times and falling opinion polls), then it will be interesting to see how the Govt spin machine counters this new angle of National's on their defence policy. Interesting times. Interesting contests and scraps lie ahead ...
Stuart Mackey
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #13
Yes, you did, you explicitly reffered to them as "death traps" without providing the context of their use.
And their you go again, not providing the context of their job. These vehicles are more than troop carriers, they are light utility trucks, not IFV's.
Are you seriously suggesting that an IED is a greater threat than a fully developed minefield? or that the Germans did not use IED's? IED's have been around for centuries.
They are not IFV's or APC's, to expect them to perform as such is idiotic, its like expecting a troopship or Oiler to be able to defend itself like a proper warship.
Thank you
And therein lies one of the great problems of NZ politcs, lack of foresight and the inability to see further than the next election.
I never suggested otherwhise, what I did say was that Nationals inability to put up a defence policy had nothing to do with any sense of anti-americanism, but was because they dont know how, and the public will not support a policy that cannot be rationaly justified
And one apon a time the Americans had this idea of avoiding foreign entaglements.
I think the powers that be went with the pinnys over the hummers due to the fact that pinnys are more practical and provide more options. yes they do carry more people and cargo and the interior layout of a pinz is more usable then a humvee, cross country ability is as good (if not better), not as wide for the likes of our roads and by all accounts a good overall vehicle(bar the teething probs at first).
The guys over in Bamyan use some armoured humvees for QRF and escort but luckily have huge kiwis painted on the sides, as hummers typify america, I think its not always a good thing to be assumed american, especailly in that region.
Would'nt mind seeing our pinnys over in Astan with the PRT as would justify the purchasing of them in the first place, makes me think if we use 33 $1200US a month hiluxs over there on ops why we wouldnt just need to buy a fleet of hiluxs back here in NZ for the army, $50k hilux vs $250k pinz. I would also rather be in a armoured pinny as opposed to a regular hilux around IEDs even if it looks more military then your un-assumeing civi ute.
The suggestion of a Ranger company as the high readiness company is also a good idea as it provides the regular infantry a place to aspire to and gives the SAS a pool of soldiers(with slightly more skillsets) to better scope for recruitment. Allthough I suppose you could just train both Bns up to this standard but would probably be both costly and manpower intensive.
Either way due to the army having problems manning the positions it already has, trying to raise an extra coy would always be a big ask although it may help morale in the Battalions and possibly help retention, maybe even get some of the circuit boys back.
The guys over in Bamyan use some armoured humvees for QRF and escort but luckily have huge kiwis painted on the sides, as hummers typify america, I think its not always a good thing to be assumed american, especailly in that region.
Would'nt mind seeing our pinnys over in Astan with the PRT as would justify the purchasing of them in the first place, makes me think if we use 33 $1200US a month hiluxs over there on ops why we wouldnt just need to buy a fleet of hiluxs back here in NZ for the army, $50k hilux vs $250k pinz. I would also rather be in a armoured pinny as opposed to a regular hilux around IEDs even if it looks more military then your un-assumeing civi ute.
The suggestion of a Ranger company as the high readiness company is also a good idea as it provides the regular infantry a place to aspire to and gives the SAS a pool of soldiers(with slightly more skillsets) to better scope for recruitment. Allthough I suppose you could just train both Bns up to this standard but would probably be both costly and manpower intensive.
Either way due to the army having problems manning the positions it already has, trying to raise an extra coy would always be a big ask although it may help morale in the Battalions and possibly help retention, maybe even get some of the circuit boys back.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Gudday RegR, I can say that the NZ Army does use Hilux's (with cab) in NZ, I live in Palmy and see them all the time. Seems to be used for light duties, eg perhaps running goods around the place. Although when the LAV's, LOV's and Unimogs trundle thru town, I don't see the Hilux's accompanying them, so maybe they aren't normally used (or used in high numbers) on exercises etc. Apart from them being painted some sort of dull metallic green, as opposed to std dark green, they don't really have any markings and don't really stand out very much as being military, which is probably a good thing in a way.
Presumably they are in Chch/Burnham too - Stuart, got your ears on - we haven't heard from you for quite a while, seen any there?
Presumably they are in Chch/Burnham too - Stuart, got your ears on - we haven't heard from you for quite a while, seen any there?
hi reece, yes I know NZDF has hilux type utes in NZ, nissan navaras across the 3 services. replaced the holden rodeo NMVs(non-military variants) of Timor fame, and is used as light GS and runabout.
What I am saying is that if they don't even use the pinnys on our biggest and quite long running op in Astan(they do use a small number in sollies and Timor) then what was the point of buying so many expensive wagons when we could have just purchased more cheaper NMVs (hilux). It just seems if we are not going to use them overseas on operations where the troops need them then where are we going to use them, surely did not buy this very capable vehicle just for the badlands of Waiouru. Id like to think deployment is the main reason we bought them otherwise we could just rent vehicles where ever we go(as in Astan).
I understand why NZLAV has not been deployed for the PRT due to size and weight over the treacherous mountain goat tracks they have, but pinzgauer has excellent off-road capabilities and load carrying capacity so if anything would be ideal in those conditions
What I am saying is that if they don't even use the pinnys on our biggest and quite long running op in Astan(they do use a small number in sollies and Timor) then what was the point of buying so many expensive wagons when we could have just purchased more cheaper NMVs (hilux). It just seems if we are not going to use them overseas on operations where the troops need them then where are we going to use them, surely did not buy this very capable vehicle just for the badlands of Waiouru. Id like to think deployment is the main reason we bought them otherwise we could just rent vehicles where ever we go(as in Astan).
I understand why NZLAV has not been deployed for the PRT due to size and weight over the treacherous mountain goat tracks they have, but pinzgauer has excellent off-road capabilities and load carrying capacity so if anything would be ideal in those conditions
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Yup, totally agree with your sentiments!
I wonder if it is a cost thing i.e. cheaper to hire US Humvees and Hiluxs rather than airlift over NZ vehicles (and then back again once the deployment is finished, one day, bit like the logistical headache of getting US equipment out of Iraq sometime in the future) because maybe the NZ Govt didn't expect the deployment to Afghan. to last as long as it has?
I wonder if it is a cost thing i.e. cheaper to hire US Humvees and Hiluxs rather than airlift over NZ vehicles (and then back again once the deployment is finished, one day, bit like the logistical headache of getting US equipment out of Iraq sometime in the future) because maybe the NZ Govt didn't expect the deployment to Afghan. to last as long as it has?
yeah probably is a cost thing, usually is with our government, although US sent over a C-17 to take the SAS wagons to Astan could have done a similar thing for the PRT. Also could be a good run for the troubled Canterbury(again another waste of what it was intended for), ideal job -drop off, pick up, job done, purchase justified.
Yes however probably too little too late as surely must be pulling out or downsizing soon, I know guys already back from their second deployment and cannot be possibly staying there forever, running out of qualified pers to send and having negative affect on retention to constantly deploy.
Yes however probably too little too late as surely must be pulling out or downsizing soon, I know guys already back from their second deployment and cannot be possibly staying there forever, running out of qualified pers to send and having negative affect on retention to constantly deploy.