NZDF General discussion thread

[recce.k1]

As far as Recce.K1 comments are concerned at the bottom line regardless of interpretation making any justification on the basis of moving our MB339s out just for the upgrading the 757, C130 and P3s pilot skills is really a nonsense with out a proper long term fast jet pilot scheme with government approval that institutes a major change in our Air Combat policy. Period.

Cheers.

G'day Markus40

Don't worry too much about what I say my friend! They are only my opinions, and only simply that. I certainly do appreciate your logic in that by having a comprehensive review of NZ's air combat force etc, would be the most open and transparent way to decide whether it requires such a force and if so, what should it be and more likely, let's get the right aircraft to do the job.

However I think that in my view, and some others from what I can see, appreciate that in this country dirty politics plays a big part in defence decisions. Labour has taken the moral high ground on defence over the years and it is hard for other parties to argue against everything from ANZUS (as Labour simply subsitutes it with "nuclear incineration") to maintaining an ACF mainly because in my opinion the current PM is a master of spin and deception (I'm sure even Karl Rove would be amazed). National under Shipley, English and Brash simply couldn't fight it with the PM (Key, well so far he's taken the fight back to Labour and judging by the polls is winning).

So in relation to the ACF, Labour under Clark won't revisit this. Labour possibly under a more right leaning leader in the future, and possibly National, may very well do so but not in 2007. If you read between the lines of my comments and those of others, especially Mr Conservative, it might be a possibility in the future but for now, some of us including myself think that it makes sense to get the MB339's flying because it will probably take 3 years or so to train up the first few pilots, plus the ground crews etc, the army's FAC's etc, so one has to make a start somewhere since the aircraft are there, it's the cheapest and simplist solution (granted not ideal in your view)!

Regarding comments from some that NZ will never have first tier aircraft. F35, probably so. F18/F16's, possibly. I'd like to hear more from Mr Conservative as he obviously in the know (great posts by the way, keep those thoughts rolling), but I too have suspected Labours decision to scrap the F16's and then A4's has affected this country's FTA prospects with the US (and was probably why Australia didn't want to include NZ in their talks, despite our CER, because NZ would prevent Australia getting theirs etc), so I think that Labour, under Clark stuffed up bigtime (as a NZ-US FTA is/was their no 1 priority) and as a result Labour have been playing catchup (Frigate deployments to the Gulf, SAS in offensive operations etc, and there's that FTA that Labour are now pushing with China, wonder if that's to "stick it" to our allies?). Defence & Trade Minister Goff, being in Labour's right wing faction, can probably see all this hence possibly the mutterings about the MB339 being reactivated (but personally I believe the left wing faction will prevent another right wing faction taking power, I wouldn't expect Goff to become the new leader despite his better appeal prospects to the mainstream public than those touted by the left).

Here's a couple of links from respected NZ Herald political reporter Colin James from the time that the F16's were cancelled in 2000. Note, if you recall at the time, Labour's public comments at the time dismissing critics of the decision and how this would be unrelated to relations with the US and Australia ... versus the behind the scenes diplomatic anger. So because of the important of trade, defence co-operation between NZ and its allies, etc there could come a day where an ACF is reestablished. It's something that it largely off the public's radar though, these matters that is (and perhaps this is why Labour has been so good at exploiting the public's lack of knowledge of how the bigger jigsaw fits together).

http://www.colinjames.co.nz/herald/Herald_2000/Herald_F16s_extra_Feb_05_00.htm

http://www.colinjames.co.nz/other_articles/Def_quart_new_govt_defence.htm


Another note, I may have been wrong about the MB339's being used for all pilot training. I based that knowledge from my distant memory of the 1980's when I was interested in joining the RNZAF and what I recalled about the Strikemaster jet trainer programme and somehow that thought permeated into the 90's when the MB339 replacements were bought. So if I'm wrong, I'm happy to admit that, and that would also remove a possible justification to assist with the MB339 reactivation. Although I do agree with the sentiments expressed also by others that if all pilots had some fast jet training, it could come in useful if there was a major conflict that required more combat pilots.

 

[Markus40]

I believe you are right about the FTA agreement and this i raised some time ago in a previous thread as a means of NZ stepping back in line with our Air Combat policy. I think NZs cancellation of the F16 deal, despite the US bending over backwards on its price for 30 of them was a complete embarrassment for the US government as they were basically giving them away. ! I think the up front cost was some $800 Million for the first ten years as a lease and paid off thereafter. Even the 8-9 NH90s at todays price exceeds this cost due to inflation and the cost of purchase. So in comparison anyone can see the stupidity of turning the deal down.

It would seem in the past that the Labour governments policy over Defence was one without a policy to be honest and its only recently that something has been done to pull our defence forces out of the "past".

I still believe at present that National will not share its defence policy over what it will do with our three armed services as they are holding this policy card very close to their chest. It is a very political hot potato in this country as anything to do with Fighters sends a hot chill to the unanitiated that we are heading to some sort of Nuclear association with the US. With the political hop scotching to the White House just recently by various ministers on both sides and with the stonewalling of the sale of our Air Combat wings suggests strongly to me that the US are holding the FTA Card without compromises in relation to our Defence posture, as i agree totally on this issue with you. It makes political sense for the US out of complete embarrassment after giving us a really good deal on the F16s that the Labour party in their right mind should have realised the FTA agreement would have come running at Mach 2 once the F16s had arrived here. Cant go begging when the horse has already bolted. Nzs defiance at the Anti nuclear policy was bad enough for the US, let alone another turnaround on our defence posture in regards to the RNZAF. Im sure the members in the White House would have been sitting at their security council briefing with a crate of Jack Daniels scratching and shaking their heads for at least 12 hours before saying anything to each other in utter disbelief.

Im also of the opinion that "resurrection" of the MB339s is not going to change a thing to the FTA until NZ works out properly its Air Combat role to its fullest potential. This may require the US and Australias asistance and we may need to eat humble pie in doing so till things are where they should be. Once achieved then things will be alot easier for NZ after that. Even with a democratically elected US government over the next 5 years is still going to be smarting over this issue and wont let NZ off the hook any time soon. Cheers.

G'day Markus40

Don't worry too much about what I say my friend! They are only my opinions, and only simply that. I certainly do appreciate your logic in that by having a comprehensive review of NZ's air combat force etc, would be the most open and transparent way to decide whether it requires such a force and if so, what should it be and more likely, let's get the right aircraft to do the job.

However I think that in my view, and some others from what I can see, appreciate that in this country dirty politics plays a big part in defence decisions. Labour has taken the moral high ground on defence over the years and it is hard for other parties to argue against everything from ANZUS (as Labour simply subsitutes it with "nuclear incineration") to maintaining an ACF mainly because in my opinion the current PM is a master of spin and deception (I'm sure even Karl Rove would be amazed). National under Shipley, English and Brash simply couldn't fight it with the PM (Key, well so far he's taken the fight back to Labour and judging by the polls is winning).

So in relation to the ACF, Labour under Clark won't revisit this. Labour possibly under a more right leaning leader in the future, and possibly National, may very well do so but not in 2007. If you read between the lines of my comments and those of others, especially Mr Conservative, it might be a possibility in the future but for now, some of us including myself think that it makes sense to get the MB339's flying because it will probably take 3 years or so to train up the first few pilots, plus the ground crews etc, the army's FAC's etc, so one has to make a start somewhere since the aircraft are there, it's the cheapest and simplist solution (granted not ideal in your view)!

Regarding comments from some that NZ will never have first tier aircraft. F35, probably so. F18/F16's, possibly. I'd like to hear more from Mr Conservative as he obviously in the know (great posts by the way, keep those thoughts rolling), but I too have suspected Labours decision to scrap the F16's and then A4's has affected this country's FTA prospects with the US (and was probably why Australia didn't want to include NZ in their talks, despite our CER, because NZ would prevent Australia getting theirs etc), so I think that Labour, under Clark stuffed up bigtime (as a NZ-US FTA is/was their no 1 priority) and as a result Labour have been playing catchup (Frigate deployments to the Gulf, SAS in offensive operations etc, and there's that FTA that Labour are now pushing with China, wonder if that's to "stick it" to our allies?). Defence & Trade Minister Goff, being in Labour's right wing faction, can probably see all this hence possibly the mutterings about the MB339 being reactivated (but personally I believe the left wing faction will prevent another right wing faction taking power, I wouldn't expect Goff to become the new leader despite his better appeal prospects to the mainstream public than those touted by the left).

Here's a couple of links from respected NZ Herald political reporter Colin James from the time that the F16's were cancelled in 2000. Note, if you recall at the time, Labour's public comments at the time dismissing critics of the decision and how this would be unrelated to relations with the US and Australia ... versus the behind the scenes diplomatic anger. So because of the important of trade, defence co-operation between NZ and its allies, etc there could come a day where an ACF is reestablished. It's something that it largely off the public's radar though, these matters that is (and perhaps this is why Labour has been so good at exploiting the public's lack of knowledge of how the bigger jigsaw fits together).

http://www.colinjames.co.nz/herald/Herald_2000/Herald_F16s_extra_Feb_05_00.htm

http://www.colinjames.co.nz/other_articles/Def_quart_new_govt_defence.htm


Another note, I may have been wrong about the MB339's being used for all pilot training. I based that knowledge from my distant memory of the 1980's when I was interested in joining the RNZAF and what I recalled about the Strikemaster jet trainer programme and somehow that thought permeated into the 90's when the MB339 replacements were bought. So if I'm wrong, I'm happy to admit that, and that would also remove a possible justification to assist with the MB339 reactivation. Although I do agree with the sentiments expressed also by others that if all pilots had some fast jet training, it could come in useful if there was a major conflict that required more combat pilots.

 

[Todjaeger]

I completely agree with the idea of a "Ranger" company at this though a third Battalion could be nice a free standing company trained for higher end military operations would be a excellent asset to the NZDF, this could be supplemented by a ready force of LAV's. I have long pondered this idea and think it would be vital in allowing the NZDF to have a truly effective force

Leave the 1 RNZIR as mounted, 1/2 as light, the QAMR train as light cavalry with recce components and if the budget would allow with a tracked component for infantry support. This allows the 1/2 to be mounted as necessar via the QAMR.

How about "Commando" in lieu of "Ranger" for the company? I could be somewhat mistaken on the intended role of the company, but it sounds much like that of 4 RAR (Commando). If this is correct, then perhaps the NZDF and ADF could work out an arrangement where candidates for the NZ "Ranger" or "Commando" company could be inserted into the training program for 4 RAR, on completion, NZ candidates would then post to the NZ company. Opportunities would likely exist to exchange and cross-train with 4 RAR as well as ASASR and NZSAS. This could give NZ a rapid deployment ready action company, as mentioned though I'm not sure if this is what is desired.

-Cheers

 

[Stuart Mackey]

The RNZAF fighter training and A4 pilots were some of the best close knit guys within the RNZAF. There ability and flying experience was top notch. Most of those based at Nowra with the N0 2 Squadron would agree that there loss was significant as they had a major contributing factor to the training of the RAN. It is also a well known fact for those within the circles of the fighter pilot world who were posted on regular exercises with countries such as Singapore knew how good our pilots were even though they flew aircraft that were decades older than the F16. So suggesting that there was dysfunction at any level is talking pure stupidity.

I think Goff may have been referring to defence's seeming inability to justify their retention back then and articulate a coherant role within a broader strategic context.

 

[Markus40]

Yes i read that too that NZ rejected the C130J outright despite also it being cost effective riding on the Back of Australias commitment to purchase their C130Js.

Purchasing the C130Hs from Australia to bolster our infantory is is probably not the way to go based on the fact that the government will probably be looking at making some serious desisions on their replacement within the next few years. Maybe by 2010. This is already been signalled by National at least that this is what they intend to do once they get back into government.

I have also just read that the RAAF is seeking a possible 5th C17 to join the four that have recently been ordered. Not sure if anyone has any more info on that. Apparently due to the US extending the assembly line for the C17 for several more years, i believe.

Be kind as its my Birthday!

Happy Birthday! Excellent post. I few things I might be able to help with.

Tactical Transport

The RAAF made the offer to add 8 C130J-30s to there order for the RNZAF, so both enjoy the reduced purchase price but that was rejected by labour.
I believe some of the C130H of 36sqn RAAF are going to be retired then the C17s are fully operational. So we could buy those for upgrade knowing they have been looked after (As apposed to AMARC where they have been parked in the desert for how ever long)



Are any of the RAN Huons still left in Reserve? I believe they are being returned to service as EEZ patrol craft in the northern waters

 

[MrConservative]

Excellent site this. Glad I've found it. Could be addictive though.

1. I understand National is going to stick with the uprated C-130s for a few years yet. There is a Health System to fix believe it or not. The A400M will probably take 10 years to arrive if ordered today as already the order book is growing and the EU nations are first up - let alone the A400M being not yet operational. The life extension of the C-130's will have them flying for sometime beyond 2018. Even the USAF is hanging on to its "H's" for as long as possible even with the J model in service. Pegging the GDP spend on Defence to 1% was the main rationale for turning down the J model participation as with the capping of the project Protector at $500mil.

2. Along the lines of 4RAR but of a Company size was what I was thinking of in terms of a re-activation of 1st Rangers Company. The 'Marine' company sized unit could be 'NZ Marine Commando' modelled on the Australian 1st Commando Regiment if we wanted to give it a name. I would like to see the development of both over the next 5 years. All this has just made me think of having a Territorial component as the Aussies have as part of their 1st Commando. I know of a few younger blokes, nephews included, who could join the Territorials but dont. They say its a little bit tame for them and they seem to be getting all the mateship and adventure from Deerstalking, Pig Hunting, Fishing and Diving on the weekends. They are all looking to be inspired and challenged. If there was an objective to strive for like a Territorial Rangers or Commando Company in which they could eligible for after serving 2 years in a Territorial Battalion that could be well worth investigating.

3. It was indeed a shame that Defence didn't have the ability to 'articulate' and justify the retention of the ACF back then. People like Gerald Hensley did try but weren't listened to. It was very simply a modest, yet much appreciated contribution to the regional strategic architecture of the Asian Pacifc area by our allies and trading partners. Just like we appreciated the significant contribution that our allies made and still make to this day in that regard. But then again many New Zealanders of both the public and the political persausion never really understood what in fact the ACF did or indeed the importance of a contribution to our regional strategic architecture.

 

[Gibbo]

There was something else Dr Mapp said in our meeting that bugged me & I'd forgotten what it was...remembered over the weekend! The more I think about it the more it bugs me & seems to confirm their 'no more ACF' view.

He mentioned he was trying to get a 'defence-interests' group together in Auckland and that it was basically a group of 'like minded individuals who could work to counter the "old-school" influence that still believed an ACF' was essential.

That made it quite clear to me that he was working to counter any moves to push for an ACF - so I really get the impression that there's no hidden 'ACF' agenda. Once again the committment to the Macchis seemed more on a 'point of difference' that a clear understanding of any potential role.

But following on from some of the most recent posts to this thread - I also believe the ACF demise is behind our not getting an FTA with the USA & I also quite firmly believe (speculate!) that the present Govt is now WELL aware the they have cocked-up BIG time with not taking the F-16's, but they are obviously prepared to put it behind them. I also think the reason we can't sell our ACF / Macchi fleets is related to the ACF issue - not so much the anti-nuke stance (but don't expect the media to be smart enough to work that one out!)

I guess we can't close the door completely on a future ACF but I wouldn't expect anything soon - under neither Labour of John Key's National Govt. It will take an unique combination of a number of factors (FTA's; war on terror; Chinese influence in the Sth Pacific; Indonesian stability; lining up of the stars... etc, etc)

 

[old faithful]

This is a good topic. I workred with the old ranger coy in the early 90.s when i was in 3RAR. I believe they were formed from a rifle coy 2/1 RNZIR? In sofar as operations were concerned,it was bannied about them becomeing Echo coy 3RAR if used in joint operations similer to the ANZAC Bns during Vietnam. As such they were really a Para group rather than a spec warefare unit.
Personlly,i think than rather form a new SF unit for NZ (with such a small Army,formation of a seperate unit would be mad) add another SQN to the NZSAS,the infrastructure is already there,as are the experience and know how to raise the SQN. If a CDO sqn was needed,troops could rotate through or the cdo sqn could be used as a qualifier to step up to the next level....just a thought.
As for the airforce,i think the damage has been done. Upgrade of the P3K,s has been usefull for NZ,s needs. The C130,s will do untill a replacement is needed A400? The NH90,s are a great chopper,but the numbers are small,id like to see another 4. 1 more ANZAC frigate and another 2 SH2G,s would really lift the capability of the NZDF.

 

[Markus40]

In my contact with Dr Mapp i will be honest and say i wasnt too convinced with his Defence policies to be honest and almost felt he was beating about the bush on many of my questions about the Air Combat Force and the Navy. There simply wasnt any clear directive and got the impression that he didnt have a clue on military matters. National has gone through 3 Defence spokesman within the last 2 years John Carter, McCully, and now Mapp. National are generalising but not naming specifics at this stage and this in many ways makes these ministers look like twits that dont know what they are doing.

I think in Recce.k1 interview with the minister i would strongly suggest he may share his personal view on what he would like done but in reality it may not be what others share with in the caucus and thus the confusion between what is a personal policy compared to a broader National policy which of course due to a democracy (of sorts) would mean a totally different view of Defence than what Mapp puts out to the public. Remember it wasnt Goff that scrapped the A4s but Helen Clarke. Woman simply have no appreciation of Defence like men do, without sounding sexist. Mind you Jenny Shipley was all for the fighters, but i guess in politics it makes a man out of a woman.! Cheers.

There was something else Dr Mapp said in our meeting that bugged me & I'd forgotten what it was...remembered over the weekend! The more I think about it the more it bugs me & seems to confirm their 'no more ACF' view.

He mentioned he was trying to get a 'defence-interests' group together in Auckland and that it was basically a group of 'like minded individuals who could work to counter the "old-school" influence that still believed an ACF' was essential.

That made it quite clear to me that he was working to counter any moves to push for an ACF - so I really get the impression that there's no hidden 'ACF' agenda. Once again the committment to the Macchis seemed more on a 'point of difference' that a clear understanding of any potential role.

But following on from some of the most recent posts to this thread - I also believe the ACF demise is behind our not getting an FTA with the USA & I also quite firmly believe (speculate!) that the present Govt is now WELL aware the they have cocked-up BIG time with not taking the F-16's, but they are obviously prepared to put it behind them. I also think the reason we can't sell our ACF / Macchi fleets is related to the ACF issue - not so much the anti-nuke stance (but don't expect the media to be smart enough to work that one out!)

I guess we can't close the door completely on a future ACF but I wouldn't expect anything soon - under neither Labour of John Key's National Govt. It will take an unique combination of a number of factors (FTA's; war on terror; Chinese influence in the Sth Pacific; Indonesian stability; lining up of the stars... etc, etc)

 

[recce.k1]

Gibbo had the interview not me! Actually Dr Mapp is ex Army or Territorials isn't he? Noticed in the NZ Herald? on Sat they speculated on a National lineup, and suggested Defence might go to Murray McCully, their prime strategist. Hmmm, I think his defence understanding is quite light in comparrison to Dr Mapp??? At least McCully has other strengths being a stategist, (eg how to lobby etc) however because of his strategy role he appears to be a continual target of the govt so I hope that he crosses his t's and dot's his i's if he became the defence minister (as Labour would be looking to discredit him and holding the defence port folio is always trickey eg cost over runs, deaths, aircraft breaking down etc). Meethinks defence could be in for a rough time, in terms of negative publicity.

 

[Gibbo]

Actually I must admit I also got the impression when meeting Mapp that he was by no measure an expert on defence. It was quite clear he was still working on policy so I guess it could've been a case of not wanting to give away too much detail!?!

He seemed to think the EC-145 was going to be the T/LUH but when I mentioned my belief that the A109 fits the Specs to the letter - he didn't even know what an A109 was! Fortunately I was able to show him one at the time - which he seemed quite impressed with! However given that "additional T/LUH" is an area he feels is a definite 'win' for National - you'd think he would've done his homework properly on the suitable options!

Oh my god - we're back to political football with the NZDF are we!?!

 

[Markus40]

Yes , just as i thought. I felt a lot he was light on the information and didnt seem to have the facts. Ex Territorial is really not a qualification for being a good defence minister. Sorry about that if there are any Army boys around on the forum, but seriously there seemed to me to be a lack of depth and understanding on Defence issues.

Actually I must admit I also got the impression when meeting Mapp that he was by no measure an expert on defence. It was quite clear he was still working on policy so I guess it could've been a case of not wanting to give away too much detail!?!

He seemed to think the EC-145 was going to be the T/LUH but when I mentioned my belief that the A109 fits the Specs to the letter - he didn't even know what an A109 was! Fortunately I was able to show him one at the time - which he seemed quite impressed with! However given that "additional T/LUH" is an area he feels is a definite 'win' for National - you'd think he would've done his homework properly on the suitable options!

Oh my god - we're back to political football with the NZDF are we!?!

 

[Markus40]

Opps , sorry about that one. Actually Murray is a light foot on Defence issues as well, and even though i havent spoken to him, i have watched him in Parliament and even though i dislike pre judgements without the evidence i will have to say that this minister seems to be a light foot as well when it comes to proper defence initiatives. If there is someone else on the forum that can tell me otherwise then i stand corrected.

The need is for someone who has precise direction when it comes to Defence and at this critical turnaround of Defence issues we need someone with muscle and isnt afraid to speak up and have the right information and has a good relationship with our Defence Forces to make the difference.

Gibbo had the interview not me! Actually Dr Mapp is ex Army or Territorials isn't he? Noticed in the NZ Herald? on Sat they speculated on a National lineup, and suggested Defence might go to Murray McCully, their prime strategist. Hmmm, I think his defence understanding is quite light in comparrison to Dr Mapp??? At least McCully has other strengths being a stategist, (eg how to lobby etc) however because of his strategy role he appears to be a continual target of the govt so I hope that he crosses his t's and dot's his i's if he became the defence minister (as Labour would be looking to discredit him and holding the defence port folio is always trickey eg cost over runs, deaths, aircraft breaking down etc). Meethinks defence could be in for a rough time, in terms of negative publicity.

 

[Lucasnz]

Opps , sorry about that one. Actually Murray is a light foot on Defence issues as well, and even though i havent spoken to him, i have watched him in Parliament and even though i dislike pre judgements without the evidence i will have to say that this minister seems to be a light foot as well when it comes to proper defence initiatives. If there is someone else on the forum that can tell me otherwise then i stand corrected.

The need is for someone who has precise direction when it comes to Defence and at this critical turnaround of Defence issues we need someone with muscle and isnt afraid to speak up and have the right information and has a good relationship with our Defence Forces to make the difference.

I think John Carter was the best of the recent spokespersons on Defence. When I spoke to him he seemed to have a real interest in defence issues. What defence needs is a person in house thats not afraid to stand up to the Behive. Look what the airforce got in the 1960's-70's when the then Chief of Air Staff ran over the politicans of the time, and took them on publicly.

 

[recce.k1]

I wouldn't worry too much, the election is still another year away and one probably shouldn't predict who will win this far out. If it is National, whether it's Mapp or McCully or someone else (or even if it's Labour), that's life and we need to support them in terms of feedback from the public etc. They do rely on advice from the Ministry, NZDF etc, so let's hope at least the MOD hasn't been politicised (NZ'ers would know of a recent case where a Minister was stood down after claims of politcal interference and/or the truth not being told). I wouldn't read too much into Mapp not knowing what an A109 is, if he ain't an equipment nutter like us nutters then it's up to his officials to give him the correct advice. At least with his army background he has an understanding of the importance of the NZDF. The problem overall really is that apart from Ron Marks of NZ First and now Heather Roy of ACT, no-one else in National or Labour has any military background. Hopefully I stand to be corrected!

 

[recce.k1]

Back to the ACF for a mo, I think Mr Conservative's last posting/final paragraph pretty much sums up the situation, whilst we appreciate the ACF hasn't had to fire a real shot and the Govt at the time of the demise played up this fact, the reality is and what the Govt tends to put to one side when it suits, is that the ACF was our modest but highly skilled contributions to our regional defence obligations. And as SM and others point out, defence (and even National) "have an inability to justify their retention" etc and there should be no excuse for professionals or even a free market political party not to, despite most NZ’ers lack of appreciation of how we connect to the wider world. Anyway the regional defence aspects with Australia and FPDA etc were mentioned as being important as outlined by some people posting to DT and in the postings where I quoted from various reports and other sources (and despite official acknowledgement that the ACF has some military role for the NZDF), so what intrigues me is why Labour had a change of heart when it disbanded the ACF (after all it was the Lange Labour govt that significantly upgraded the ACF in the late 80’s)?

Another thing, if we take Gibbo’s recent posting, Dr Mapp doesn’t appear to be a ACF advocate anyway. If I quote from the same Review of the F16 report I mentioned a few days ago, on page 23 (it would be good if there was a place in DT to post such documents or PDF’s of them etc):

In 1991, the role again came under review and the Ministry of Defence/ NZDF was obliged to defend it in a study titled A Review of New Zealand’s Combat Airpower Requirements.

In the same year, Dr Wayne Mapp, now MP for North Shore, published an article “Restructuring New Zealand’s Defence Force” in the Spring 1991 issue of Policy, where he argued that:

“Since the New Zealand armed forces do not have an independent capability in a conflict that would involve strike aircraft, the latter must be the first element to be either eliminated or integrated with the Australian armed forces”.

Dr Mapp’s conclusion was that a redesigned defence force could fulfil the various tasks confronting the present force. In particular, he wrote that the “present approach of maintaining virtually all elements of armed forces is wasteful and probably detracts from many of the objectives of the armed forces”.

This is pretty much the view the Labour Govt have taken. Now in some respects this is understandable, for example at the time the NZ economy was in very precarious position and defence in general was in need of significant reinvestment etc. On the other hand the economic conditions have improved since the late 1990’s and Dr Mapp may have a slightly different perspective on the ACF now compared to then (eg joint training possibilities with Australia might be more realistic nowadays etc). But let’s say that Dr Mapp has a point nowadays, putting FTA’s and regional commitments aside, as a point of difference would it be better to support the reactivation of the MB339’s for naval and army training, until a future National (or even Labour) Govt conducts a formal defence white paper review and possibly reassesses the place of air combat forces etc?

Perhaps until our strategic situation changes (eg if we strike oil etc), even if the MB339’s are reactivated, would a shorter term solution be for NZ to pay for several more Hawk’s for NZ to join into the RAAF training programme? If so could some Hawks be bought/based in NZ for the RNZAF or could the joint training Hawks be deployed to NZ periodically for navy/army training? If so what about NZ pilot retention issues as Markus40 point out?

And if whatever Govt doesn’t re-establish a dedicated NZ air combat force in the next few years (but we do have MB339 or Hawk training etc), in terms of the monies saved and of the capabilities that are deemed important even now, shouldn’t the Govt be putting the money into arming the P3’s with Harpoon etc sooner rather than later? Should they be arming them with an ASM or stand off missiles for land operations? Shouldn’t UAV’s similar to what the Australians are proposing be purchased for land/army surveillance and ocean patrol and surveillance?

In terms of helicopters, it strikes me that one RNZAF utility squadron is not enough. The NZ Army is wanting aerial reconnaissance, troop transport and armed etc. If we look at the amount and types of helicopters in the RAAF and Australian Army, one would have to conclude that NZ lacks a lot of capability (but some of which the NH90 and new T/LUH’s will address). Should NZ operate a couple of mixed NH90/LUH squadrons instead of one to support the Army’s two battalions? Should we have simple unarmed reconnaissance choppers for the Army (like how the Australians and US use the Kiowa etc)? What about armed reconnaissance choppers like the Australian Army’s new Tiger’s to support the Army in peace enforcement type operations etc? It seems to me that the Labour Govt policy (and to a large extent National supports) has refocused the NZDF to support the Army as the first priority. If the Army requires greater air reconnaissance but not necessarily a fully fledged air combat force then the Govt of whatever persuasion should be providing better alternative air assets.

So I wouldn’t get too hung up over Dr Mapp’s lack of interest to re-establish an ACF in the first instance (after all he could be directed not to, from a higher level etc). But should he or whoever the defence minister may be, be looking at providing alternative, better and effective assets? If so what should they be?

 

[MrConservative]

The problem with another NZSAS Squadron is that there are not enough people who meet the standard. It is a matter of population and an unwillingness by all concerned to not dilute the NZSAS capability. On the other hand there is a need to bridge a gap between 1RNZIR and the NZSAS.
Right now this is probably more of a priority to the NZDF than Macchi's back in the air or let alone the requirement for a return to an ACF. In my view a 3rd Battalion would be wonderful, but again it comes back to that bogey of manpower limits. So it would therefore alude to company sized formation which is rapidly deployable and possessed with significant combat skills. It would mean that the high level and multi-disciplinary capability of the NZSAS wont be overtasked and overstressed which is an issue. I also believe that contemplation of a return to an ACF wont make sense until we see how the geo-political 'tea leaves' look post 2010 to 2012. Mr Mapp's views on the ACF are inconsistent. In the early 1990s he was sceptical. In the late 1990s he was one of their biggest cheerleaders. Now he is swinging the other way. Who knows what his views will be in another five years. Maybe with the Macchi's option he can hedge his bets.

 

[Markus40]

Just of Interest, one of the IPVs, the first IPV Rotoiti, was launched in Whangarei on the 3rd Aug. I thought you might like to see the new addition.

Hon Phil Goff
Minister of Defence


02 August 2007
Media statement

First new inshore patrol vessel welcomed

Defence Minister Phil Goff announced the launch this week of the Rotoiti, the first of four new Navy Inshore Patrol Vessels (IPVs). Built entirely in New Zealand, the Rotoiti will be formally named at a ceremony at the Tenix shipyard, Whangarei this Saturday.

"This is another significant step in the introduction into the Royal New Zealand Navy of seven new ships under Project Protector. The Inshore Patrol Vessels are an impressive capability. At 55 metres long and with a 3000-mile range, they will contribute significantly to the patrolling of New Zealand’s 15,000 km coastline, and our Exclusive Economic Zone, the fourth biggest in the world", said Mr Goff.

"The design and operation of the IPVs reflects their primary role of multi-agency operations in support of national security tasks. Their versatile capabilities will also include surveillance, response and boarding operations, and search and rescue. Secondary roles for the vessels will be in New Zealand disaster relief and civil defence aid.

"Project Protector exemplifies the importance of a whole-of-government approach to the security of our borders. The IPVs will enhance the capabilities of a broad range of agencies, including Customs, Fisheries, Police, Conservation and Foreign Affairs, to pursue their resource patrol and protection roles.

"The Protector fleet will be tasked by the National Maritime Coordination Centre, which manages agencies demands for maritime assets. The available pool of assets to meet these demands will be greatly enhanced by the arrival of the Protector vessels. They will work alongside Customs and Police inshore vessels, and the RNZAF P-3K and patrol aircraft.

"Project Protector is a tribute to the strength and competitiveness of New Zealand industry. Under the Project Protector contract, New Zealand companies will deliver goods and services worth at least NZ$110 million. To date, $85 million worth of contracts have been awarded to New Zealand industry.

"By the end of 2008, the Navy’s Protector Fleet will comprise of seven ships of three different classes; one Multi Role Vessel (MRV), two Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV) and four Inshore Patrol Vessels (IPV). Rotoiti will now complete the ship fit-out at Whangarei and will be officially handed over to the Navy later in the year.

"The role of the Inshore Patrol Vessels recognises that the future security of New Zealand is not only about dealing with potential military threats but is also about securing our resources, protecting our biodiversity and guarding our borders against transnational crime", said Mr Goff.

 

[KH-12]

Quite a smart looking vessel would be nice to take the 25mm off the OPV's and put them on the IPVs as per the RAN Armidales. I wonder why the fit-out is taking so long post launch, it is not like it will have extensive weapon systems to install / test.

You would have to say Phil Goff has'nt done a bad job as Defence Minister, after all the party determines the policy not the minister who comes in half way through projects/long-term strategy, I think he is a pretty straight shooter who has made an effort to understand the portfolio, some of the parliamentary questions still being put forward by National and other parties are fairly inane, such as asking if the new radars on the P3 upgrade could detect illegal fishing boats

 

[Tasman]

Quite a smart looking vessel would be nice to take the 25mm off the OPV's and put them on the IPVs as per the RAN Armidales. I wonder why the fit-out is taking so long post launch, it is not like it will have extensive weapon systems to install / test.

What armament is planned for the IPVs? Models seem to show a couple of MGs mounted P & S and a third mounted forward. It seems to me that there would be space to mount a 25mm gun forward of the bridge but perhaps this is not the case. Is there contingency planning for a weapons upgrade in an emergency?

Cheers

Edit Note: Just looked at the RNZN thread and notice that this is being discussed there.