NZDF General discussion thread

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[Chino]

Please point to your evidence. We have nothing to be ashamed of.

Absolutely agree.

For a country of so few, so far away, NZ has consistently contributed above and beyond expectations towards security of the region and the world.

 

[barra]

Investigator,

This notion that a clear and present danger must be identified and that NZ will have plenty of time to acquire the capabilities to deal with it after it arises is fairly amusing really. I like to compare a defence force to an insurance policy. You pay the premium on the off chance that your house may burn down. You don't really expect it to, you would hope that your good neighbours would help you if it did catch on fire and they probably will, but you still pay the premium. It is when you don't pay the premium that you invite fate to bite you on the bum.

Resorting to petty insults is childish and achieves nothing, I won't play that game.

Hooroo

 

[Todjaeger]

I’m not sure if you mean me saying if the USN had a surplus OHP Frigate to sell to NZ etc? Don’t worry, this is what I meant by wishful thinking. I simply don’t know what the status of the OHP’s are etc (maybe Todjaeger or SeaToby might). Really at the end of the day, only if a NZ Govt decides a third Frigate is important as the result of a future whitepaper, then the MOD & NZDF will be tasked to look at the available options eg see what is available if at all and if not, what is the next best option etc (OPV etc) if anything etc?

Without wanting to turn this into a major issue and spend too much time on this (after all we’re simply speculating) I do agree with Barra and Todjaeger that NZ’s options are really limited because of timeframes and missed opportunities.

(However as an aside, the HMAS Adelaide is being decommissioned this year after 27 years in service. Unless the ship is falling apart or someone really wants to sink her as a dive wreck, could this ship be useful for the RNZN if a NZ Govt was interested in the next year or so? Even as a tie over until something better came onto the market later (eg HMAS ANZAC, if it ever does etc)? Would need some upgrading of course. Although I do realise this is one of the two US built ships and I may have read once that there are some issues with the Adelaide and Canberra necessitating their withdrawal from service earlier that the other 4 Australian built ships. Hence if this suggestion is nuts then let’s not waste anymore time etc).

I will do some checking on the figures for USN OHP hulls to see what is what and available. IIRC though, the USN vessels are all 20+ years old at this point. The RAN early Adelaide-class vessels (HMA Ships Adelaide, Canberra, Sydney & Darwin) were all laid down between 1977-1981 in the US. To be honest, unless NZ was looking for a third frigate to act as a large training and patrol vessel (OPV) I do not think an OHP would be a good choice, even if the RAN was interested in such a sale and the US would allow it. At present, HMAS Adelaide (decom scheduled for ~Dec of this year) has only two weapon systems in common with those currently in use by the RNZN. These are the 20mm Phalanx CIWS and the 324mm lightweight torpedoe (of which the RNZN torps are set to expire next year). As such, any OHP/Adelaide introduced into the RNZN fleet would require either substantial refitting to achieve commonality with other RNZN vessels. As an alternative, the current weapons fitout of an OHP/Adelaide could be kept as is, but the weapon systems not currently used by the RNZN could then be introduced into the RNZN. Finally, the OHP/Adelaide could just be added in, with minor refitting to arm with additional small calibre weapons like Typhoon and mini-Typhoon mountings and the majors systems like Standard, Harpoon and the 76mm gun just not utilized. In effect, a frigate-sized OPV.

Give the likely hull age and the wear and tear it woud have been subjected to, I do not see the value in adding such a vessel if it were to be refitted or cause weapon systems to be introduced to NZ. The additional money required to add such short-term assets (I do not imagine NZ would keep the vessel much beyond 2020) either refitted or with new (to NZ) weapons as well as the time needed for such a vessel to be available to deployment by NZ would make it not very worthwhile. I think it would likely be something like 2011 or later before such a vessel would be available. This is assuming that the RNZN was able to immediately get HMAS Adelaide upon decommission at the end of this year. At this point, I think perhaps the best course of action would be to wait and see what happens, and hope there is no major incident or event where a third RNZN frigate is needed before the Anzac replacement begins.

As i've mentioned many times before, we have been out of the protection of the US since the mid 1980s. Plenty of time for an invasion if there was a serious threat. I can point to the last 20 years to say there was no real threat. Please point to your evidence.

At this point, I believe we will just have to agree to disagree as to what could constitute a threat to New Zealand.

Good international citizen means charity. I support NZ providing charity but I do not support criticism of my country because our charity is monetary and political rather than in having the latest buzzword in weoponry. I'm glad to see you support our defense policy framework (that was the reason you posted it, right?). None of it includes doing more than we are currently doing. I support what we are currently doing!

It looks like this is a point of disagreement as well. What to some is charity, others see as being humane, and still others consider enlightened self-interest. By NZ being able to assist in establishing or maintaining peace and stability in other parts of the world, it benefits NZ, just not necessarily in a direct fashion. Take the following mental exercise.

Step back in time eight years and imagine, it would be mid-September 1999. In Afghanistan, instead of having an ongoing conflict between the weakening Northern Alliance and the Taliban, an international peacekeeping presence allowed for peace to take hold. As a result, there were fewer Afghans seeking to flee to other countries as refugees. Such a situation would have a direct impact on NZ, because then there would not have been approximately 150 Afghan refugees from MV Tampa getting granted asylum by NZ in 2000. Continuing forward, if the Taliban did not hold sway in Afghanistan, then Al Quaida could not have used the country as a sanctuary to plan the 9/11 attacks, the effects of which were felt around the world. Without such a clear example of the success non-state actors like Al Quaida can have in launching attacks, would the bombings in the London Underground or the Madrid train system, or the Bali nightclubs been attempted? And if these events had never come to pass, would NZ be better off than it currently is, worse off, or the same. In my opinion, even if there was no direct effect felt by events so far away, New Zealand would be better off.

-Cheers

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Stuart, my buddy,

Let me post the evidence, we have Labour overnments since 2000 and you have zero of your favoured National governments. Live in la la land if you want, but don't call it New Zealand. Don't try to re-write NZ history. You can only continue to lose!

Longevity of a government is not evidence, your concession is accepted

Sure. Call anything you disagree with a strawman argument. It saves time making any statement that which can be proven. Remember you keep losing elections! I'm sure it must hurt being in the minority for 10 years but like a stopped clock you will eventually be right. No evidence yet but may be in another 10 years.

I voted Labour for the last three elections, and it wasn't because of their defense policy.

Sure it is fun to whinge that the Govt. should spend the money so long as YOU don't pay any more tax. I suspect you are the first in line to say that Brash / National was right. We (YOU) should pay more tax. Tax cuts for all so long as you personaly don't pay any more tax! Am I the only one here who is advocating increasis in NZ taxation to pay for all the increases in NZ military expenditure? Am I for military expenditure and you just one handed typing?

I asked for evidence of anyone claiming we need tax increases for a third frigate and all I get is insults, wtf is with that?

Can I re state the argument that if you "fearful" psuedo NZers had your way we would have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars, rather than spending it on heath expenditure for 20 years. Would you rather have killed thousands of NZers in under funding health expenditure? Are you a communist? I support your right to be.

And yet more unsubstantiated claims and insults. Do you have any evidence at all to back up what you are posting?

So you want evidence that National will provide an increase in NZ expenditure. My evidence is the last two losing elections.

Thats evidence that national lost an election, not of tax increases

When did they ever have concrete plans that they wouild spend more? Please provide rather than misrepresenting your pro-bush views.

You made the claim, its up to you to support it. I am not going to do your work.

You may say you don't support him but the evidence says you are in the 20 or 30 % who does (in NZ or the US)! If you want to be a bush supporter please make that clear.

I voted Labour, for reasons that are my own, thank you.

It would save us a lot of time discussing your southern views.

Eh?

Now you are using the term Ad hominum. Let us add that to strawman it means nothing to the majority of English speakers but makes one suggest you have a university education. I went to Waikato in 2001, where did you go to?

Otago

You want the evidence that we should have been invaded in the last twenty years since the anti nuclear law? Here it is. We speak English! Do you speak Russian or Chinese? I suspect not. (I suspect you have not learnt any language other than English in your life). Your information?

I have never claimed we would have been invaded at all, please point out where I have and quote it in your reply, or concede that you have just lied.

Evidence that (actual) NZers support this policy, We have a Labour led governement. Hey, vote National in 2008. Eventually you must win! Maybe.

No, evidence in this case is is properly conducted polling of a scientifically valid sampling of the NZ population and you haven't done that.

Thanks Stuart for adding nothing to the discussion. Evidence please, evidence please, evidence please! Why even waste tapping onto your computer. My evidence is you keep losing. Try living once,

Thats right, evidence, the rules of this forum require that if you make a claim, that you back it up with evidence. If you did attend university you would be aware that to do otherwise is unsubstantiated opinion and academically unsound and to post opinion as fact is dishonest. But thanks for admitting that you have been doing all of that.

 

[recce.k1]

Fiji - nothing came of it for NZ or Aust (other than the tragic deaths) or the US. Soloman Islands - we supplied our own forces to the mission. East Timor - we provided a big part of our army to helping those people several thousand kilometres away. Bouganville - our intervention helped to kick start the peace process.

Hi Investigator

You asked a direct question ("When was the last time NZ called Canberra or Washington when diplomacy failed?") and I gave a direct answer. I stand by my answer. NZ would have called Canberra and Washington whether anything came out of it or not regarding Fiji, and so on.

Actually in the context of Barra's post, he's talking in a future tense. Therefore, from this point in time, we cannot rule out ever needing to call Canberra or Washington if a need arises that NZ couldn't project power on its own to resolve (eg if last year's intervention in Tonga got out of hand). Barra seems to be saying that NZ needs assets to project power (which NZ does have some assets to some degree) but my reading of that statement doesn't necessarily mean more firepower (eg the RNZAF acquiring F111's & aerial tankers etc), I suppose it could also be in the form of a second Multi Role Vessel (should the current MRV be on exercise elsewhere or be in dry dock etc) or UAV long range survellience assets etc. I personally would support the need for NZ to be able to project power better, using practical equipment especially in the Pacific area, seeing NZ does have responsibilities to many of its island states.

Good international citizen means charity. I support NZ providing charity but I do not support criticism of my country because our charity is monetary and political rather than in having the latest buzzword in weoponry.

I too don't support criticism of "my" country, but rather than simply slagging off anyone who does criticise, it is better to debate the issue to better understand where they are coming from and for them to better understand where "we" are coming from. Dialogue is better in all respects.

However having said that, sometimes criticism of NZ can be justified and when it is it should be taken on the chin. It's not that its yours or my fault etc that NZ has been criticised. For example the NZ Peacekeeping mission to Bosnia showed up so many deficiencies and the embarrasment that resulted has ensured that NZ's Army has been upgraded as a result. EG APC's needed bolt on armour protection, APC's were too slow to keep up with convoys, no decent anti-armour missile, poor comms etc (these have all be rectified within the last several years eg LAVIII's, LOV's, Javelin, new comms radios etc).

And of course NZ provides assistance other than weaponry, such as aid development, good governance practices, funds for NGO's, education grants. These are also good methods to assist with stability and hopefully ensure peace and thus minimise the need for NZ and others to intervene. Both in the immediate Pacific and much further away such as Afghanistan and dozens of other places. But again you need to spell this out and perhaps give some good examples of where and why and what NZ is doing etc, should you feel anyone is criticising, rather than simply go on the attack.

I'm glad to see you support our defense policy framework (that was the reason you posted it, right?). None of it includes doing more than we are currently doing. I support what we are currently doing!

I posted it because it outlined NZ playing its part in assisting with security in the wider world and I had the impression you might have thought that defence of NZ itself was all NZ needed to do? However as you have asked me, yes I support the policy on the whole (although acknowledging our relationship with our traditional allies should be included somewhere, and perhaps noting NZ's independant viewpoint should also be included alongside).

However I, like others here (and you too), should always be free to criticise the Govt's interpretation of how it implements the policy, especially when the politicians are misrepresenting reasons and aspects of the NZDF that is crucial to the actual policy and NZ's relationships with like minded countries. It's got nothing to do with being anti-Labour or anti-National, it's to do with Govt's misleading the public simply to fulfil other agendas, writing blatantly narrowly focused capability reviews and ignoring or worse of all, assasinating the character of those that disagree. This particular NZ administration has taken this to an all time low and I'm sorry if that offends you, but you should question what you see and hear without blindly accepting it, be that defence or any other topic that interests you in NZ.

I see you are harking back to WW2. Our sacrifices in that war, and WW1, far exceed the sacrifices of any other English speaking nation. Do you forget your history?

I know our sacrifices were higher than other english speaking nations. I know my history. That's why I posted it. Can you tell me in your own words why our sacrifices were high? I would like to know and understand your viewpoint.

You say NZ was threatened by the Soviet Union. When did they ever come after us? As i've mentioned many times before, we have been out of the protection of the US since the mid 1980s. Plenty of time for an invasion if there was a serious threat. I can point to the last 20 years to say there was no real threat. Please point to your evidence. We have nothing to be ashamed of.

I would be interested to know your viewpoint on whether the USSR was a threat to NZ or not, your opinion is as important as anyone elses.

But to answer your question, I think you might have a picture in your head of a Russian Naval taskforce and long range bombers flying towards NZ i.e. to come after us, and thus we all know it didn't happen and therefore there can't have been a problem? My answer to your question is as follows.

We (and especially the Lange adminstration, and Clark and Wilson and co, who sponsored the anti-nuke legislation in the mid 1980's) need to acknowledge that the US was engaging the USSR at their very doorstep and for that reason, there was no way any Russian Naval taskforce or flight of long range bombers would ever get within thousands of miles of NZ (or even Australia, or Singapore, etc) before being taken out by the US and their allies. Of course these elements did not "come after us".

However the USSR had other means, such as subversion (funding of like minded interest groups and individuals to undermine NZ and other countries from within), biological warfare (why nuke a country and make it radioactive when you could simply have your agents release biological and germ warfare killing off the population but keeping the infrastructure working? I hope you've read up on some of the USSR's top secret programmes that have come to light since the collapse of the USSR? If not, hunt around for the info), and of course there were those pesky nuclear powered subs that if not necessarily targeting NZ, would have other capabilities to take out NZ oil and gas rigs, shipping, oil storage facilities and insertion of special forces for sabotage etc.

And of course I and others acknowledge the collapse of ANZUS 20 years ago didn't bring about an invasion. For some of the reasons outlined above (eg US and other allies keeping the USSR at bay), the fact that the USSR was on the decline economically anyway (I'd suggest this is why Lange, Clark, Wilson and co sacrificed ANZUS, they knew they could play and win "russian roulette" with the USSR not being a major threat and it did alot to enhance their credibility with the NZ public being the mouse that roared etc) and because of NZ's fortunate location (and let's be realistic, it's a major reason why NZ has a small defence force, but nonetheless did operate a handful of Frigates, Orions and Skyhawks etc to contribute to those other countries not so fortunate to be so remote as NZ and for NZ's local last line of defence against subs and shipping etc). Some capability is better than no capability if we are to learn from history.

Finally, sorry, unsure what you are referring to about having nothing to be ashamed of!

 

[KH-12]

Just a minute there is no University in the Waikato

Interesting the Health / Military expenditure debate, there has actually been a significant investment in health but with little additional patient benefit, there is also a point at which further expenditure (on a per capitata basis) will produce no significant improvement in a nations health status eg the USA, more gains could be achieved in this area through personal responsibility rather than additional spending anyway.

Will NZ really need additional long range airlift once the 5 Hercs and the 2 moddded 757's are back on line ?, looking at the hours the 757's put in over the last couple of years there is lots of room for expansion in their activity, the refitted Hercs should also have a much better availability rate when they are back on line. There does however seem to be a capability gap in the tactical airlift role, such as within NZ or Pacific region, would be good to see this capability reinstated (perhaps the money from the Skyhawk sale could be used )

 

[Aussie Digger]

Will NZ really need additional long range airlift once the 5 Hercs and the 2 moddded 757's are back on line ?, looking at the hours the 757's put in over the last couple of years there is lots of room for expansion in their activity, the refitted Hercs should also have a much better availability rate when they are back on line. There does however seem to be a capability gap in the tactical airlift role, such as within NZ or Pacific region, would be good to see this capability reinstated (perhaps the money from the Skyhawk sale could be used )

Maybe not in overall numbers, but the Hercs (any Hercs) are nearing the time where they will no longer be competitive as airlifters. The reason for this is the size and weight of modern military equipment.

I recall NZ's political parties having arguments over the air-transportability of your NZLAV vehicles. I think it has been pretty well established that with the right preparation your C-130's can lift 1x NZLAV.

What I don't recall being established is how FAR the C-130 can take the NZLAV. My thoughts are, "probably not very far at all". Certainly not to "strategic" ranges.

Hence why many have suggested the A400M. It will provide a substantial ability to lift your armoured and non-armoured vehicle fleets over extended ranges and provide the capability to lift larger numbers of personnel, stores etc than your C-130's and can land them on rough strips, something your B-757's can't do.

The A400M is also a cheap way of gaining a dual use tanker aircraft, given that each aircraft is "plumbed" for aerial tanking duties from the begining (whether you want the capability or not ) and it's cruising speed means it's better able to keep up with fast jets than a C-130.

The acquisition of a few hose and drogue pods, could not be terribly expensive and it could be a politically attractive option for deployments, ie: "high demand" capabilities (airlift and tanking) and yet not an "offensive" role as such... It could be a way to claw back some of the regional standing NZ lost when it withdrew it's strike force...

 

[Aussie Digger]

When was the last time NZ called Canberra or Washington when diplomacy failed? I'm sure the most recent time was your unprovoked invasion of Iraq, but when was it that NZ's security was threatened? My guess is in the 1930s. Try to think of an example in the lifetimes of 95% of our respective populations.

When was the last time NZ citizens were in a failed state beyond the reach of NZ's C-130's?

I'd imagine it happens quite a lot actually.

Burying your head in the sand or shutting your eyes and declaiming, "if I can't see you then you can't see me" doesn't matter to the rest of the world.

NZ HAS interests abroad whether you recognise that fact or not, yet has precious little ability to do anything about it when those interests are affected, through the Defence policies of your Governments.

 

[KH-12]

From memory the range with a LAVIII on board is very marginal, not even sure if NZ-AUS is practical(might have to stage through Norfolk Is), In any event air transporting a reasonable number of LAVIII will be a long process, which is why the MRV was purchased, the A400M would help, but is it too much aircraft for a single task. The C-130's wont be up for replacement for at least another ten years post refit so will certainly have the opportunity to see how the A400M is working out.

The new Japanese CX design looks very interesting somewhere between a Herc and A400M in size, would be interesting if it was made available to the world market.

 

[Aussie Digger]

From memory the range with a LAVIII on board is very marginal, not even sure if NZ-AUS is practical(might have to stage through Norfolk Is), In any event air transporting a reasonable number of LAVIII will be a long process, which is why the MRV was purchased, the A400M would help, but is it too much aircraft for a single task. The C-130's wont be up for replacement for at least another ten years post refit so will certainly have the opportunity to see how the A400M is working out.

The new Japanese CX design looks very interesting somewhere between a Herc and A400M in size, would be interesting if it was made available to the world market.

An A400M could accomodate 2x NZLAV per trip, making the airlifting of armour, relatively feasible.

The A400M has a 37t max payload and 17.7m length internal cabin and should fit 2x NZLAV's with no huge problem. The length certainly wouldn't be an issue and the weigh comes in more than 3t under max weights.

I'm not quite sure what you mean a "single task", but with a fleet of between 5-8 A400M's NZ would be able to fairly rapidly deploy a motorised rifle company group to a fair distance from NZ.

Even at that weight, it should be able to deploy over 1000nm and return home without refuelling.

That's nothing to sneeze at...

 

[Markus40]

Im not sure why you have come to the conclusion that the A400M is too much aircraft for a single task. This aircraft has significant improvements to the C130 and even the C130J and due to NZs location we are heavily dependant on a aircraft of this nature to take on NZs strategic airlift capacity.

A 20 tonne payload on the A400M will give you a Max. range of 3450 NM. 6500 km. If you have a 30 tonne payload that will give you a Max. range of 2400 NM. Nearly 4500 KM.

AD, is correct in his specs that the A400M is quite able to airlift 2 Lavs at 14 tonnes each making that 30 tonnes along with extra spares and equipment required making that a distance between Auckland and Dili quite easy to attain. However, even a provisional curb weight on the LAV 111s being actually 14.9 tonnes, and combat weight with applique armour 19 tonnes a piece, may reduce the max range a bit, but would still then give an approx. distance from Auckland to Dili, a walk in the park, with 2 fully armed LAVS.

Here are some extra points on the A400M i have been able to pick up.

"A400M has been designed to provide high strategic mission efficiency whilst meeting the demands of tactical operations.

Speed / Altitude Capability

The A400M is an economical turboprop aircraft with a cruise speed almost as fast as turbofan powered transports. Its advanced aerodynamic design, coupled with four new generation, high performance turboprop engines and 8-bladed propellers provide cruising speeds up to Mach 0.72 at 37 000 ft.

Field Performance

For tactical missions, good field performance is a crucial factor for mission success. The A400M provides excellent soft field capabilities and requires only a short runway length, both for take-off and landing. In a combat situation where it would land on a semi-prepared forward operating strip and unload all its cargo, the A400M would require less than 1000 m of usable runway.

The aircraft is capable of operating into unprepared landing strips under adverse meteorological conditions completely independent of ground
support. With its 12-wheel main gear and high flotation characteristics, the A400M will be able to land on soft grass fields over low plasticity clay, a performance which far exceeds that of any similar aircraft.

Operations from remote sites, with limited or no ground facilities and limited space for manoeuvre are severe constraints for a tactical airlifter. The A400M is designed from the outset to work in these conditions.

A turning radius of 30 m enables the A400M to be operated from simple air bases with limited aprons and taxiways; The A400M is capable of reversing up, under its own power, a 2% slope on hard surfaces and a 1% slope on soft surfaces at its tactical MTW in hot and high conditions.

Aerial Delivery

As a tactical airlifter, the A400M is capable of air dropping paratroops and equipment via parachute or gravity extraction. A single load up to 16 tonnes, or multiple loads up to 25 tonnes of total weight; 116 paratroops plus a wedge load of 6 tonnes.

The A400M can drop simultaneously paratroops and cargo. It can performs as well Very Low Level Extraction (VLLE – 15 ft above ground) of a single load up to 6.35 tonnes, or 3 individual loads, each up to 6.35 tonnes.

Aerial delivery by gravity extraction of a single load up to 4 tonnes, or multiple loads up to 20 tonnes of total weight can be performed by a nose-up attitude or by being manually dispatched.

Air-to-Air Refuelling

The A400M is also quickly convertible into a tactical tanker. The flight envelope of the A400M allows it to refuel a wide range of aircraft and helicopters, at the altitudes appropriate to their missions.

A two-point trailing drogue system can be installed within two hours by fitting two standard air-to-air refuelling pods (optional) to the multi-role attachment points on the wings. Each pod provides a fuel flow of up to 1200 kg/min. A centre-line pallet-mounted hose drum unit can be fitted in the rear cargo bay. It provides a fuel flow of 1800 kg/min.

To enhance the fuel volume, up to two optional cargo bay fuel tanks (CBT) can also be installed, providing up to 12 tonnes of extra capacity. These additional tanks connect directly to the aircraft's fuel system and thus become part of the A400M's computer-controlled centralised fuel management system.

Designed from the outset to be a dual-role air transport and air-to-air refuelling aircraft, the versatile A400M offers air commanders and planners new levels of flexibility in the delivery of air power. Its basic fuel capacity of 47.7 tonnes or up to 58 tonnes with two optional Cargo Bay Tanks fitted, coupled with its own low fuel-burn rate, makes it an efficient aerial tanker and a cost-effective way for air forces to acquire an aerial refuelling capability.

Cheers.

From memory the range with a LAVIII on board is very marginal, not even sure if NZ-AUS is practical(might have to stage through Norfolk Is), In any event air transporting a reasonable number of LAVIII will be a long process, which is why the MRV was purchased, the A400M would help, but is it too much aircraft for a single task. The C-130's wont be up for replacement for at least another ten years post refit so will certainly have the opportunity to see how the A400M is working out.

The new Japanese CX design looks very interesting somewhere between a Herc and A400M in size, would be interesting if it was made available to the world market.

 

[lozza]

NZ = power

En Zed is a regional power. As all the nations of the south pacific are generally small island nations that rely on you for trade etc. As for military power over these islands.If you don't allready have it then their really is a problem.
Use the good that you have in you.
To become a regional power means a major defence budget increase. You may have a multi billion dollar surplus, however remember that is NZ$.
Spend it, but remember, once you have all the best and latest equipment in quantities that are worth talking about. Then you must keep these things in the best order and that takes a dedicated monetary budget year in year out.
It also takes a large amount of dedicated personnel who are prepared to work year in year out as well. And if they ( the personnel) move on, you must be able to replace them (almost) straight away. So yes increase your military capability's and become buddy buddy's with all your old friends again, deploy your military to the hot spots, "they are amongst the best".
If you equip properly then the responsibility of being a regional military power will arrive at your door regardless. Good luck as we all have missed the Kiwi grit and determination.

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.
Mod edit:

Enough with the politics boys. Defence only here. Politics elsewhere thank you... The World Affairs board perhaps?

AD

 

[fob]

Well what could NZ do to become a regional power?

Yes by increasing its defence spending percentage of GDP to a minimum of 1.8% equip all defence assets to handle medium level conflicts. Planning to buy three new frigates by 2020, adding another OPV, replace our tanker so that it can take on some of the tasks of an MRV, two new MCM vessels, plan to buy the P8 poseidons minimum of 5, plan to buy A400m minimum of 5, get UAVs for the army, navy and airforce, and get the ACF up and running, I reckon a maritme interdiction fighter bomber would be ideal, say by 2015.

If none of this happens then NZ should become a charitable organisation and only offer medical assistance to it's allies, thats if its not too far away.

 

[recce.k1]

Investigator, with respect, you should have worked out from reading people's comments that this topic "NZDF under change of Govt" is not a pro-National anti-Labour thread. It is simply a thread discussing the possible shape of the NZDF if the Govt were to change next year (to National). We already more or less know what the shape of the NZDF is (and will be) under Labour, we know what their projections are for 2002-2012 as they have spelt it out. We also know that Labour is not prioritising a Defence Whitepaper, so we have to assume things will stay much the same as they are now, should Labour retain power next year.

Hence people here are speculating under a change of Govt, and people here really have been (including our Aussie and US friends) quite modest in their ideas, nothing too over the top I'm sure you would agree.

Y'know, there's no reason why you couldn't set up a thread called something like "How great the NZDF are under the current Govt", you have that choice. So please stop making this political and bagging people for their political viewpoints (or drawing them out, it's irrelevant and will only make people hestitant to post which may curtail free and frank discussion). Sure a few of us including myself have been a bit hard on the Labour Govt and knocked the PM, well I'm sure she can take the knocks, the knocking here is quite minor in comparison to the knocking she receives in real life! If National happened to be in power, I'm sure they'd be knocked here too. It's nothing personal.

So over to you, to stay on topic which is the NZDF under a change of Govt, apart from a third Frigate, what else do you see is required or missing or perhaps even not required for the NZDF?

Mod edit:

Enough with the politics boys. Defence only here. Politics elsewhere thank you... The World Affairs board perhaps?

AD

 

[old faithful]

Investigater,i think the most dangerous voters are the ones that see "thier " party in the same light as a football team,and blindly support them out of loyalty. Try to keep an open mind about politics. If you guys are happy with the way things are in NZ,then stick to it. Like here in Oz,if it aint broke,then dont fix it! You obviously have a problem with our foreign policy,thats ok,you are allowed to. I dont have a problem with our current govt,our economy is in good shape,despite our "charity" as you put it...pakistan earthquake,tsunami,Afghanistan,Iraq,East timor,PNG,Solomans,our drought,wheat board scandals etc,but life is pretty good here in the lucky country....ask a few of your ex-pat country men,they seem to like it here!

 

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

So I can find your views in one easily concise response and continue with this thread (and not confuse them with other posters - which I may have done in the past - sorry, again):

My views on defence are this: Our standard of living, way of life, and therefore our political independence, are bound up in areas beyond that of the South Pacific and this has been the case since the Dunedin sent the first load of frozen sheep meat to Britain, and we need to remember that. We have forgotten where the income to pay for what we enjoy in this nation comes from, and it ain't Nuie, Fiji or Samoa.

It is for this reason that I think the governments strategic reasoning is fundamentally flawed for a number of reasons, albeit logical if that reasoning were to be accepted as sound. If I might, I strongly suggest you look at Britain's long term interest in the maintainance of a balance of power in Europe, the security of the Low Countries, and the nature and security of their world wide trade when they had an empire.

Its the strategic assumptions of defence that interest me, and what most don't understand, including National. Defence purchasing flows from strategic out look, or should, get that right and the defence forces and Treasury sort out the rest.

Do you think that under a National Government (if it wins and changes the Government) it should: a) Bring back ANZUS under US terms (see Australian foreign policy over the past 20 years including the invasion of Iraq); b) change our anti-nuclear laws (please say you want visits by nuclear armed vessels as I can at least prove you are in the minority with that view);

I do not believe that that nuclear weapons will ever be allowed in this nation and I agree with that. Nuclear power is another matter, but for different reasons not appropriate to this forum. As such ANZUS will never be a viable treaty vis a vis us and the US and I am happy with that, it was more of a declaration of independence than signing statute of Westminster 1931 in 1947 ever was.

c) d) e) f) should be spending more on an air combat wing (another trick question as National is not advocating adding this so if you believe it you are in a minority of a minority)?

Too much of that is political, really, don't need to get another clip from Mr Mod. It is interesting to note that use of debt has been used to purchase defence 'products' historically, namely one Battlecruiser, HMS New Zealand, and also on the Singapore naval base. I don't know if I would necessarily advocate use of debt for defence purchasing, but its always an option if the terms are favorable over the products lifetime.

Is your view that if NZ spent snip politics

My view is that it would not have cost lives. Sure it would not have been seen as sexy as paying for an air combat wing.

My view is that the argument is not relevant

I (in jest) apologise for not commissioning a scientific sampling to prove that NZers have certain views. My resources do not include tens of thousands of dollars to prove this contention. I can only take past results from elections - that you and I voted in the same way!

I recommend the use of Googlefu instead, its much cheaper.

You are posting on a thread that says "NZDF under a change of Govt". Do you want a change of Government (that you and I voted for)? If yes, fine, you have that right. If no, why give comfort to those who want a change in the NZ goverment?

"Give Comfort"? One does not have to agree with everything a government does, even if one voted for it, especially when some of its actions are badly flawed. We don't live in the 16th century you know.

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.
Mod edit:

Indeed. Guys, if this thread is to remain open, it at least needs to be a discussion based on particular force structure changes that may or may not occur under a different NZ Government, rather than the political ideology behind such choices.

We've been pretty tolerant of the multitude of NZ threads for a while now, I'd rather not have to close any...

Regards

AD

 

[Gibbo]

Aaaarrgghh!

I started this thread after having had the chance to meet Dr Wayne Mapp (then - still??? National Party Defence spokesman) & discuss his take on Defence. It provided some interesting discussion topics - on defence, not politics! My apologies if the title was a little too 'simplistic'.

Thanks 'AD' for stopping the intolerable mud-slinging that was going on - hopefully we can now see some sensible debate continue on this thread!?!