NZDF General discussion thread

[steve33]

And one of the greatest problems, perversely, is those who support better equipped forces, because they have seldom done it properly, just look at how we lost the Air Force Strike Arm.

The other day in the Domion Post the editor wrote a column about the new Zealand defence forces and he said it was the right thing to get rid of the strike wing which i thought was crap.

It made me laugh when Helen Clarke said we lived in a benign strategic enviroment then the Bali bombings happened and even worse you may remember there was a guy flying around the Skytower and there wasn,t a damn thing anyone could do.

Even if they had brought 6 F-16 it would be better than nothing at least we would have the ability to put a high speed jet into the air but more importantly maintain the knowledge and expertise that we had built up since world war two.

 

[AnthonyB]

Humourosly, NZ could become a regional power being becoming part of Australia! (I'd even give you two states, one for each island)

As for the benign environment, surely there is more to NZ needs to consider.
As an aussie I would like to think that your defence treaty with us might sway into your defence planning. I can see what NZ gets from a Australia in Anzus. What do Kiwi's think that NZDF does to maintain your part of Anzus. Specifically as an aussie, I can see how we improve your defence but what do you add to our defence?

 

[Stuart Mackey]

The other day in the Domion Post the editor wrote a column about the new Zealand defence forces and he said it was the right thing to get rid of the strike wing which i thought was crap.

It made me laugh when Helen Clarke said we lived in a benign strategic enviroment then the Bali bombings happened and even worse you may remember there was a guy flying around the Skytower and there wasn,t a damn thing anyone could do.

Even if they had brought 6 F-16 it would be better than nothing at least we would have the ability to put a high speed jet into the air but more importantly maintain the knowledge and expertise that we had built up since world war two.

What concerned me about that editorial was that it was so short sighted.

What it must do is meet its responsibilities to its citizens and to the region to carry out the roles that are appropriate to a small but developed country in the middle of a large ocean.

The world does not begin and end with the South Pacific, the current economic woes of the major powers and its effect on NZ should enable the author to work that one out! His view's on the late air combat wing are symptomatic of this short-sightedness if one takes a wider view of the world and NZ's interests, those very interests which determine NZ's standard of living, way of life and ultimately our de-facto independence. Such facts as our dependence on trade and our acute vulnerability to trade disruption led to the formation of the air combat wing in the first place!.

I can only call those who subscribe to such a narrow view as 'Little New Zealanders', Helen Clark's South Pacific "benign strategic environment" remark is a good example of a person of this narrow ideal, as a trade dependent nation our strategic environment is the world and always will be, and it is not benign.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Humourosly, NZ could become a regional power being becoming part of Australia! (I'd even give you two states, one for each island)

That would be like incest, besides the thought of Kevin Rudd in a wedding dress does not appeal (you don't seriously think Helen Clark would go for a wedding dress do you?)

As for the benign environment, surely there is more to NZ needs to consider.
As an aussie I would like to think that your defence treaty with us might sway into your defence planning. I can see what NZ gets from a Australia in Anzus. What do Kiwi's think that NZDF does to maintain your part of Anzus. Specifically as an aussie, I can see how we improve your defence but what do you add to our defence?

ANZUS is effectively a dead letter as far as NZ is concerned, and has been since 87. As to what NZ can offer Australia these days, not much, if we ever did, but then there is not much that Australia cannot handle by itself anyway, and its alliance relationship with the US is unimpaired, thus has that as a fall back for those things it would struggle with.

 

[recce.k1]

The other day in the Domion Post the editor wrote a column about the new Zealand defence forces and he said it was the right thing to get rid of the strike wing which i thought was crap.

Don't worry Steve, as well meaning as Editors are on defence sometimes, I don't see many if any, with a deep understanding of defence issues, looks like this one bought into the spin of the Govt (which is easy to do for the uninitiated).

Here's a recent example, TVNZ's well meaning political reporter, Guyon Espiner, who can ask the hard questions of pollies on all sides, tried to out fox the Goff on Agenda last Sunday, but Goff the fox bombarded Espiner with with his typical over the top sermon style and shut Espiner down at very turn. For us here, who understand defence a little better than Espiner (not fault of his etc), can see that Goff the fox's modus operandi is to direct the reporter towards a particular pre-defined and well rehearsed subject area, ignoring any controversy or bad areas.

See from the transcript http://www.agendatv.co.nz/Site/agenda/transcripts/2008/September-08.aspx the presenter headlined with "army missiles that don't work" which is a refernce to the Mistral SAM system and what does Goff the fox say, that he disagrees with the presenters intro and tries to spin off onto the successful Maverick ASuM firings (ignoring the Mistrals) before being cut off by the reporter. Goff then talks about the coys being deployed and the $8B being spent to modernise the NZDF and increase numbers but ignores the reality the army is too small to support multiple deployments etc. I watched the interview and got nothing from it, it was a hopeless exercise except for Goff the fox who came out on top smiling as per usual.

As an aussie I would like to think that your defence treaty with us might sway into your defence planning.

I can see what NZ gets from a Australia in Anzus.

What do Kiwi's think that NZDF does to maintain your part of Anzus.

Specifically as an aussie, I can see how we improve your defence but what do you add to our defence?

1. It still does.
2. In your own words, what does NZ get from Australia?
3. Alas we're not formally part of ANZUS anymore (big strategic F-Up on all 3, yes 3, sides IMO).
4. As in defence of the Australian homeland, or as in joint operations in Asia-Pacific?

 

[AnthonyB]

NZ actually has all that and more though.....

Since our constitution list you as a founding state, (from what I understand) all you need to do is declare yourself a state (don't even need a referendum although all aussie states did, the NZ PM and Governor could just declare it) we would have to defend our new state and the US would be likewise dragged in.

Is there no thought in NZ that having a treaty means obligations to your treaty partners? That even though your environment is benign ours is less so and having us as a partner improves your security? If Anzus is really "dead" from a NZ point of veiw then IMHO Australia should walk away (and alter our constitution since you have clearly shown for a century now that you don't want to join us). Partnerships require both sides to give something, if one side won't put in then maybe the relationship isn't worth it.

Does anyone think NZ offers Australia anything? (Other then cooperation in the region which is as much in your interest as ours and we don't need a defence treaty to work together on things of common interest.) Does the probable new government mean any real change?

 

[AnthonyB]

recce,

(I'm not a defence junky, just a bloke with some q's)

1) How?

2)
a) NZ gets a regional power that sheilds you from an unstable region.
b) By still being linked to Australia, and therefore the likelehood of our coming to your defence, you get US alliance protection without having to pay the price of full alliance. (Since we would very likely get US assistane)
c) Train with a defence force that has a much fuller range of modern warfare equipment, assisting your troops to better prepared for modern warfare. (eg nearly all modern conflicts include strike air craft)
d) Greater grunt in regional deployments (would have NZDF been in a position to lead the Interfet operation)

3) I was under impression that Anzus was a trilateral agreement and only one link was broken but that it still maintained between Aus and NZ with only one being linked to US.

4) Defence of our home land primarily, but to a lessor extant protection of our sea lanes, some of which we have in common. I agree the US is the main protection Australia has but you must prepare for various circumstances and have the best defence arrangements you can manage with what you have. NZ has never been able to offer us much but I would have thought that having a defence treaty meant that you might feel obliged to give at least something above token resources.

(On a side note, I'm sure I read on this thread that you couldn't fly non AAR planes to OZ but surely Norfolk island would make the transit possible)

 

[recce.k1]

With the upcoming election, this 'new' political policy (and commentary) website lists amongst other things, a 'comparison' of the defence policies of the various parties http://www.policy.net.nz/df.shtml

As you can see still thin in detail, lets hope more policy is released by the parties, but at least one can see at a glance the differences (or is that difference in emphasis)? Well at least where there is 'policy' - although perhaps policy is not the right term, more like general/vague bullet points

 

[Stuart Mackey]

NZ actually has all that and more though.....

Since our constitution list you as a founding state, (from what I understand) all you need to do is declare yourself a state (don't even need a referendum although all aussie states did, the NZ PM and Governor could just declare it) we would have to defend our new state and the US would be likewise dragged in.

Which is never going to happen, we are not Australians geographically or culturally. That NZ gets a mention in the Australian constitution is an accident of history that was to do with the political situation in Australia, specific to that time, less so in NZ, a situation that no longer exists.

Is there no thought in NZ that having a treaty means obligations to your treaty partners?

ANZUS has no requirements other than to confer with treaty partners should they get into some sort of strife with another power, nothing more.

That even though your environment is benign ours is less so and having us as a partner improves your security?

The nature of ones security environment is a subjective matter, but Australia can no more stop work in the South Pacific than we can.

If Anzus is really "dead" from a NZ point of veiw then IMHO Australia should walk away

yeah, and?

(and alter our constitution since you have clearly shown for a century now that you don't want to join us).

I fail to see what the Australian constitution or the circumstances around its drafting have to do with ANZUS.

Partnerships require both sides to give something, if one side won't put in then maybe the relationship isn't worth it.

You have yet to define any partnership, real or implied.

Does anyone think NZ offers Australia anything? (Other then cooperation in the region which is as much in your interest as ours and we don't need a defence treaty to work together on things of common interest.)

To be blunt, no

Does the probable new government mean any real change?

No.

 

[recce.k1]

G'day Anthony , just keep reading and contributing and you'll be a defence junky here in no time!

1. As per the NZ Govt's defence policy framework http://www.defence.govt.nz/reports-publications/defence-policy-framework/defpol-frmwrk.html#policy see points 19 & 21 etc.

Defence planning (which was your question) occurs at the various political and military levels, even when it comes to NZ equipment purchases. NZ does consult with Australia on its purchases and planning etc, eg in practical terms the ANZAC Frigates, (when we had one) the air combat force, patrol ships, army re-equipping etc. Especially so in the past however what has upset Australia was the incoming NZ Govt in 1999 disbanding the air combat force, reducing the naval combat force in favour of re-prioritising the army, which for Australia (and NZ really) was strategically strange considering both countries are maritime countries, relying on keeping the 'bad guys' at arms length through force projection (Blue water navy, air combat and patrol/surveillence etc), and to keep the sea-lanes open etc.

So NZ's frist line contribution to Australian defence/offence is reduced to a smaller naval combat force, replenishment & maritime patrol.

On the other hand, thanks to 9/11 and regional instability etc, I would suggest the NZ Govt had the biggest fluke it could have possibly not expected, which was for their re-orientation of defence to prioritise the upgrading of the army to perfectly fit the new requirements of Australia, NZ (and other Pacific countries) to help stabilise a number of countries close to home (as well as Afghanistan etc). So the NZ Govt is smarting and (relucantly?) Australia has had to view the changes positively in some respects (i.e. not the non-combat areas but the peace enforcement areas).

2. Yes, well said. The interest groups here that dismiss an invasion of NZ as meaning we ought to downgrade defence capability further, ignore the reality that if Australia is threatened, then ipso facto, so will NZ too either directly or by strangulation.

3. ANZUS = A**US (the NZ link is broken). NZ contributes to Australia (& FPDA) seperate from ANZUS.

4. Don't worry brother, the day Australia is threatened will see NZ assist in its small way. Don't forget we are a smaller nation with a lot less GDP, we just can't afford all the big guns. However IMO we need to do better eg an increase to 2% GDP could potentially see at least one more Frigate, if the political will was there, some sort of ACF even if it were for training the Navy and Army, better ASW/ASuW surveillance (& UAV's) with P-3's armed with stand off missiles, a better mobile SAM system to protect our army and sites of importance, increased army firepower & much more helicopter and transport aircraft (maybe a 3-4 chooks for SAS use and some armed helos for the army). Keep the patrol ships for coast guard and anti-terrorism roles and grow the army numbers. This mostly sounds like the NZDF of the 1960's-90's but with added 21st century capabilities (eg the UAV's, armed P3's and bigger army)! Whether this will happen - under Labour, No, under National, some maybe.

 

[steve33]

What concerned me about that editorial was that it was so short sighted.



The world does not begin and end with the South Pacific, the current economic woes of the major powers and its effect on NZ should enable the author to work that one out! His view's on the late air combat wing are symptomatic of this short-sightedness if one takes a wider view of the world and NZ's interests, those very interests which determine NZ's standard of living, way of life and ultimately our de-facto independence. Such facts as our dependence on trade and our acute vulnerability to trade disruption led to the formation of the air combat wing in the first place!.

I can only call those who subscribe to such a narrow view as 'Little New Zealanders', Helen Clark's South Pacific "benign strategic environment" remark is a good example of a person of this narrow ideal, as a trade dependent nation our strategic environment is the world and always will be, and it is not benign.

I,m sure you will have found this problem,when you talk to so many New Zealanders and you say we need a well equipped military the first responce is that you are a war monger and love war and it drives me up the wall.

The world has always run on greed,self interest and might and does so to this day so it is an extremely bad idea to make yourself a lamb,you need to be a wolf with teeth but that doesn,t mean that you go around looking to bite people,you can work hard to build good relationships with other countries and try to sort things out without war but people also need to understand that you a not a weakling and have the ability and the will to defend what is yours and that is going to become increasingly relevent in the coming decades with the worlds resources going to be placed under a strain they have never been subjected too in this worlds history.

That is where so many New Zealanders go wrong.

 

[KH-12]

In a strange twist the proclaimed defence policies of the green party could actually result in a significant boost to the NZDF capacity (although it might end up being run by civillian dope smokin hippies :smokingc: !) they signal they want capacity to police our significant EEZ with "airplanes" and ships as well as bringing security to the South Pacific region, I'm thinking new P8's and Global Hawks ! as well as a LHP

The National policy is tantamount to not actually having thought about it.

 

[steve33]

With the upcoming election, this 'new' political policy (and commentary) website lists amongst other things, a 'comparison' of the defence policies of the various parties http://www.policy.net.nz/df.shtml

As you can see still thin in detail, lets hope more policy is released by the parties, but at least one can see at a glance the differences (or is that difference in emphasis)? Well at least where there is 'policy' - although perhaps policy is not the right term, more like general/vague bullet points

I have to say i like what i hear from New Zealand First.

 

[steve33]

In a strange twist the proclaimed defence policies of the green party could actually result in a significant boost to the NZDF capacity (although it might end up being run by civillian dope smokin hippies :smokingc: !) they signal they want capacity to police our significant EEZ with "airplanes" and ships as well as bringing security to the South Pacific region, I'm thinking new P8's and Global Hawks ! as well as a LHP

The National policy is tantamount to not actually having thought about it.

The Greens had a comment in there about getting rid of weapon systems for major combat.

getting rid of the Frigates.

And then there was the section on civilian based resistance based around non violent means.

They are a bunch of potheads without a clue and would be the greatest disaster to befall the New Zealand military.

 

[KH-12]

The Greens had a comment in there about getting rid of weapon systems for major combat.

getting rid of the Frigates.

And then there was the section on civilian based resistance based around non violent means.

They are a bunch of potheads without a clue and would be the greatest disaster to befall the New Zealand military.

Of course 7th battalion Tai Chi

 

[Pro'forma]

Constructive operation with other states is striking agenda. Exchange
mission in air security and current personnel level of international program.

Something as best project could get wings under from NZ to Scandinavia.
Perhaps be prepared 10 years in advance, speaking volumes.

 

[recce.k1]

Not trying to be political but the reality is, the Greens, the Progressives (and it possibly looks like United Future), would favour reducing the combat abilities further in favour of lightly armed peace keeping roles and greater civilian roles. For example, the Protector patrol boats could become coast guard or civilian run (this was considered by the govt initially). The Navy could lose the Frigates (and possibly the Seasprites in favour of troop carrying helos without sensors and weapons). The Orions could go too (they almost got axed in 2000/2001 with the Skyhawks). Army wouldn't need howitzers & Javellin. Say goodbye to the 5PDA (and in the case of the Greens, cooperation with the French in the Pacific). These guys are too idealistic with their heads in the sand for my liking!

 

[KH-12]

Yes the Greens have their heads up their Backsides in many ways not just in Defence areas, pity because a good solid green party with sound realistic policies stepped in the real world would be desirable. They do however have some good points with regards to the need to adequately patrol our EEZ and defend our natural resources, I don't think we have the luxury of both a civilian Coast Guard and Navy as larger countries may have, would involve too much duplication of training etc, and after all the USCG is an "Armed Force".

 

[AnthonyB]

Stuart,

NZ's reps at the various conventions on federation, indicated that you didn't want to join but did want the right to join if you wished without being blocked. That arrangements still exists.

What has that got to do with Anzus? Simply that no matter what the defence relationship NZ and Aus have, due to our constitution, NZ if it so wishes may join the Commmonwealth of Australia and we cannot stop you. Now I realize that kiwi's largely revile that option but it is in the end an option that even as a last resort you have. Many other small nations would love to have an option like that guareenteed them, totally in their power to decide whenever they wish to avail themsleves of it. (I think Australia should remove the option from you.)

Anzus may only officially specifies consultations but it creates a level of ambiguity as to what the eventual response maybe. This ambiguity alone is a deterent, as any agressor has to factor in possible actions into its plans. (The US committment to Taiwan worked for a long time with only an ambigious military commitment but the ambiguity has been enough.)

Clearly IMHO there is a relationship, if there is "no partnership" then we should cease to train with your forces. We should publicly announce that we have no relationship and that we will not committ to your defence.

recce and steve,

As an island the most valuable defence asset is surely control of air space and then sea lanes. I think I see NZ abandoning Air Combat as giving up the most important thing you could do to assist Australia in our defence. You micro naval response would not make a marked increase to our naval forces and would take quite some time to come.

Has a small HLD ever been considered for your navy? Given your a nation of islands, in a region of islands and helicopters are your air "vehicles". Canberra class is probably too big but a mid sized one would give you the ability to station helicopters and troops in a regional intervention. (And free ours to possibly be used by F35B's, in the unlikely event we ever got that bold.)

 

[steve33]

Yes the Greens have their heads up their Backsides in many ways not just in Defence areas, pity because a good solid green party with sound realistic policies stepped in the real world would be desirable. They do however have some good points with regards to the need to adequately patrol our EEZ and defend our natural resources, I don't think we have the luxury of both a civilian Coast Guard and Navy as larger countries may have, would involve too much duplication of training etc, and after all the USCG is an "Armed Force".

The Greens do have a good point about be able to patrol our EEZ as the worlds fishing resources get wiped out people are going to look to poach ours.

Apart from that they are a disaster.

The only policy i really liked the look of was New Zealand first.