NZDF General discussion thread

[recce.k1]

The Greens are a funny bunch, they also advocate sending the Navy in to chase the Japanese whalers and to protest against the French. Sure would be a quick fire way to harm our relations and trade with these countries. Would be kinda ironic if their pacifism lead to aggressive confrontations! Maybe they might want to keep a naval and air combat force to protect us from our pxxxed off neighbours!

 

[recce.k1]

Anthony, according to the CIA factbook site, Aussies GDP in 2007 was some US$760 billion whereas NZ's was only some US$111billion (I thought the recent figures in NZ dollars was around NZ$50+ billion - Flash G, are you lurking around to confirm)? So according to the CIA we are only 1/7 as rich as you cobbers. Traditionally NZ's contribution to Australia's defence was approx 20% or 1/5th (eg in terms of combat forces). So there's your answer, to what does NZ contribute to Australia, not bad eh (although with the demise of the ACF that puts a big capability hole in the mix but don't forget at the time some polling was done which found that most NZ'ers didn't want the ACF disbanded, but hey politicians will do what they want to do and there's nothing a democracy can do to stop that etc).

Now it's easy to criticise capability shortfalls in NZ's defence forces (and we certainly do so ourselves) but please perhaps tone down the generalisations about tokenism and micro usefulness, eg a good example would be, could one say what one wrote here to what one would say direct to someone's face? Eg I'd be happy to knock the delayed RNZN ANZAC Frigate weapon upgrades to an officials face but I wouldn't make a generalisation that the "Navy is sxxt" as a result! This is meant to be said in a kind way to ensure you don't run fowl of defence professional's contributing to these forums!

Another thing, there's more to NZ's contribution than simply fire-power. Look at the various events within the regional since the East Timor intervention in 1999 up to the present day, you will see that NZ has contributed (in proportion) whereas for better or worse the USA has stood back. I read recently Rudd was saying Australia can't rely on the USA as much for support, so maybe there's an interesting topic in itself. Diplomatically the good-cop/bad-cop NZ/Australia plays have assisted with efforts in the Pacific Forum etc to further Australian initiatives which may have not gone down so well when Australia first proposed them, like I say there's more to the relationship than who has the most and biggest guns.

Don't get me wrong, happy to examine in better detail, NZ's contribution to Australia's defence, but could you please be kind enough to outline some possible threat scenarios to Australia's homeland defence, where and when and what and how etc?

 

[AnthonyB]

recce,

I apologize if the term "micro" offended you, maybe "limited" would be a better term. In reality you would probably at most in naval terms be able to send 1 frigate, that is what I meant by "micro", I was not questioning the actually performance or ability of your forces, just that sending 1 frigate would not be a significant addition compared to what an ACF would offer us.

TO even things up a "wee" bit, I would say that historically the US at times may have felt that Australia's contribution to ANZUS was "tokenish". In some ways our paths (in terms of defence spending) have diverged in the last few years. I think NZ was historically about 1/5 of Australia in terms of population and GDP, the gap in both of these has begun to open up in the last 15-20 years. At the same time our % on defence spending and US alliance access has diverged, probably increasing the gap in force ability.

As for actual threats, (from recent reading) I think Australia could defend its territorial airspace well enough on its own. Defence spending IMHO is as much as about projecting the strength to ensure you don't have to fight, then actually engaging in hostilities. Having a regional ally with ACF committed to assiting us, just increased that perception and its demise reduced it.

Having read the thread through before I posted, I saw a number of references to your benign environment (from a kiwi perspectives it probably is.) and defence thinking being done solely in terms of that. I didn't see references to what your alliance with us (which AFAIK is still active) meant in terms of what you were planning. So I have been just trying to understand what as an "ally" your offering us. Maybe I have a peculiar view that if your committed to an alliance, then both sides bring something to table. I'm not saying NZ doesn't, I'm just asking what do kiwi's see you bringing to the table, that Australia would truly value.

As an Australian (and I'll admit being reasonable uninformed in defence matters) what I would like NZ to most bring to the table was ACF, that could be deployed to assist to defending the air andwaters over which any enemy would have to approach us both. That is looking like something that is of the past. Australia interfaces with Pacific, SEA and Indian Ocean, NZ's interface is largely Pacific.

Ensuring peace and order in Pacific has problably been under emphasized by Australians, New Zealand has something to offer us there. Maybe I as an Australian am still living out the last great conflict, where a remote power swept through the region above us and our traditional security ensurer was enable (due to circumstances beyond there control) to do anything about it.
Or maybe the split in Aussie v Kiwi psyche occurred even earlier, federation was driven in part by defence fears, maybe Kiwi's have just never felt as threatened as the colonies that formed Australia.

 

[AnthonyB]

Double post please ignore.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

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.

Trouble is that they also want conscription without the compulsion. Its not the most clearly thought out policy I must say.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

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!

My dear fellow, its not that they are idealistic, so much as they "turned on, tuned in and dropped out". That is to say, like most politicians, they don't actually know anything.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

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

Why? most of it does not actually say anything and, when they do want to say something, its on subjects that they cannot actually achieve anything with, but looks good to some voters which is why they say it, but they never have to follow through on it because of political opposition, which lets them of the hook by giving them a plausible excuse for not doing it.

Ultimately they will never have to do anything with defence because most of it is what defence does anyway and the rest is too politically courageous to contemplate, which is the entire point of their policy and that of every other political parties defence policy, to do nothing.

The entire document could have been written by Sir Humphrey Applby himself.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

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.

But now it is irrelevant, as the situation that led to that arrangement does not exist.

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.)

Well, you can rest easy in your bed at night with the full knowledge that no one here cares. As described the above the arrangement in the Australian constitution is now irrelevant, indeed it has been since federation and there are still 1200 reasons why that is the case, just as there were back then.

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.)

That's right, or no response at all. This is something the Australian government factored in when they went into the 'emergency', they knew very well that the US would not commit to war that did not have anything in it for them, treaty or no treaty.

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.

So what relationship is there? does it imply any level of commitment?. I happen to think there is, but you brought it up, so defend it.

 

[KiwiRob]

Well, you can rest easy in your bed at night with the full knowledge that no one here cares. As described the above the arrangement in the Australian constitution is now irrelevant, indeed it has been since federation and there are still 1200 reasons why that is the case, just as there were back then.

Speak for yourself only please, there are a hell of a lot of kiwis who favor closer union with Australia, be that economic ie. a common dollar, or indeed full political union, I'm one of them. The main reason why we didn't federate with Aussie back then was because the government of the day (especially the PM) wanted to remain independant, I consider it one of the biggest mistakes NZ has ever made.

 

[KH-12]

Closer economic relations and a common currency are one thing, full political and constitutional integration is quite another and something that has virtually no support in NZ that I am aware of, would be like suggesting that Canada and the US merge, never going to happen

 

[KiwiRob]

I think you would be surprised at the number of kiwis who would embrace federation with Australia, it should have happened, it didn't and now we have to live with it, or we could be like the other 500,000 of us who have made the decision and move there.

 

[steve33]

Why? most of it does not actually say anything and, when they do want to say something, its on subjects that they cannot actually achieve anything with, but looks good to some voters which is why they say it, but they never have to follow through on it because of political opposition, which lets them of the hook by giving them a plausible excuse for not doing it.

Ultimately they will never have to do anything with defence because most of it is what defence does anyway and the rest is too politically courageous to contemplate, which is the entire point of their policy and that of every other political parties defence policy, to do nothing.

The entire document could have been written by Sir Humphrey Applby himself.

Well because i said i liked the Idea of two full time Marine Battlions and a reserve battalion and some offensive capability doesn,t mean that i think that it will be done i just liked the idea.

The rest of the parties sound they like they want our military to be a unicef with guns.

 

[recce.k1]

Talking about NZF's defence policy, which on paper may offer some attractions .... I'll go ahead and say that last election I thought I'd do some tactical voting (being disgruntled with the 2 main parties) and gave my list vote to NZF (but not my constituency vote) for various reasons including:

1) to hopefully keep the main parties "honest" as it was going to be a close election and the outcome was uncertain (and what a fool I was considering the current shenanigans with the party).

2) but also because their defence policy looked attractive (after all their defence spokesman was a former army officer with attitude and made all the rights noises about looking after the troops' pay and conditions and ensuring they were properly equipped etc). But again what a disappointment because even though NZF entered into an agreement with the Govt as the kingmakers, NZF could have used that agreement to leverage some better deals for defence (like they did for the police and health etc) ... but they did absolutely nothing! So Stuart is correct, they can make their policy look attractive, but at the end of the day they know they won't have to deliver. They have lost my vote.

 

[AnthonyB]

I don't want to get into a political debate, I'd be happy for NZ to join but I'm fairly sure that for a century you have remained consistently opposed, so it ain't ever going to happen.

But in reply to Stuart, Perth is further away from Eastern Aus then NZ. Australia is a lot closer then you think, Norfolk island is closer to NZ then it is Australia. If you ever did have the misfortune (from your perspective) of joining Australia, it doesn't mean you have to give up a disdain of Australians, I've got cousins who are Sandgropers and they maintain a very strong disdain for other Australians.

Anyway back to military/defence issues.... Australia's constitution gives you the option, our constitution is very hard to change, so even if it may never happens, (and it is immensely unlikely) it is something that has to be considered. We simply don't have the option of washing our hands of you like we did with say East Timor for several decades. In the immensely unlikely case you were invaded, you have the option of invoking statehood and we are then bound to your defence, this is above and beyond whatever defence treaties we may have.

Anyway thanks for you thoughts. Would I be fair in summing up, the prime assistance NZ can give Australia is increased ability for peace and nation building work in the Pacific region. Whilst being of less assistance in force projection power over the air space and sea lanes then you once were. I know as an Australian which one of those I'd prefer but your government has the right to order things as they see fit.

 

[battlensign]

Okay....some facts:

1) At the time of Federation all the australian states were as independent as the Aus/NZ relationship is now (only linked by mutual defence and economic interests). So including NZ was more about making an offer to a fellow state (Read: British Colony) in the area. Given the 3000 or so miles to WA there was little difference in the 3000 or so to NZ. The reason for not taking it up (the Offer to NZ from the NZ perspective) was a concern about the Australian position on the local peoples (indg isn't really the right word for them). Aust regarded aboriginals to be part of the flora and fauna til '67. Whereas the more left enlightened NZs had an actual treaty with the Maoris which guaranteed certain rights and benefits.

2) NZ does not contribute 1/5 to the common defence. 2 Frigates - Aus has 12 =1/6 (plus 6 Subs), No Air Combat Capability = 0/130ish, and 2.5 Battalions compared to (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8/9 RAR, 1st Armd Regt, 2nd Cav, 2/14th LH - QMI, and 3/4 Cav Regt.) = 4.8

NZ forces are well trained and are a useful asset at times. But spending at 2% of GDP net (Crappy Capital Charge!) would see a better force structure and would get more respect from Aussies.

3) Cut the crap. ANZUS is still in force, only mutual obligations between the US and NZ are suspended until NZ grows up and realises that a quiet diplomatic word with the US would have seen them send only non-nucs without the self-righteous posturing that demands a public declaration of status from vessels that form part of the forward deployed fleet that maintains the balance in Asia. For example, none of the frigates carry or are powered by nuclear associated technology. Neither do LPDs. or Supply Ships (unless carrying ammunition and surely the US could have made port calls during mutual training when that ammo wasn't there).

Brett.

 

[steve33]

Talking about NZF's defence policy, which on paper may offer some attractions .... I'll go ahead and say that last election I thought I'd do some tactical voting (being disgruntled with the 2 main parties) and gave my list vote to NZF (but not my constituency vote) for various reasons including:

1) to hopefully keep the main parties "honest" as it was going to be a close election and the outcome was uncertain (and what a fool I was considering the current shenanigans with the party).

2) but also because their defence policy looked attractive (after all their defence spokesman was a former army officer with attitude and made all the rights noises about looking after the troops' pay and conditions and ensuring they were properly equipped etc). But again what a disappointment because even though NZF entered into an agreement with the Govt as the kingmakers, NZF could have used that agreement to leverage some better deals for defence (like they did for the police and health etc) ... but they did absolutely nothing! So Stuart is correct, they can make their policy look attractive, but at the end of the day they know they won't have to deliver. They have lost my vote.

Well at the end of the day our military is in the state it is in because the New Zealand people are happy with the present situation.

The average Kiwi doesn,t give a toss about the scrapping of the skyhawks they don,t care about the pay that our soldiers recieve and the equipment they use and they don,t give a toss about the fact that the latest ships we purchased are good for nothing but cyclone relief and fisheries patrol they have no offensive capability.

All the New Zealand public have the stomach for is touchy feely peace keeping operations that reinforce our reputation as a peace loving nation that hates war i will will tell you now to send an infantry battalion to fight along side coalition forces in Afganistan when the body bays start coming home would be political suicide and that is the reason that no matter who wins the election you are not going to see stuff all change in defence force policy or offensive capability.

John Key knows what shaky ground Don Brash found himself on with the no nukes policy and the issue of sending troops to Iraq he is well aware of the mentality of the New Zealand public and won,t do anything to upset them because he wants to get power off Labour and keep it.

If the New Zealand people cared about defence it would be an election issue and the parties would be trying to out do each other with what they were going to do for the military but the fact is when push comes to shove the New Zealand people don,t care because they see no threat to New Zealand and they don,t support the war on terror so don,t see the need for us to have any offensive capability.

 

[recce.k1]

I said traditionally, meant as, in the past (well up to the late 1990's/early 2000's - how time flies!) NZ's contribution was 1/5th i.e. one combat ready fighter-bomber squadron v 5 RAAF & 4 Frigates v just under 20 RAN combat vessels and subs. Anyway certainly acknowledge the ratios are certainly a lot poorer nowadays! Any criticisms, please send them directly to our Miss PM (rather than us suffering kiwis here)!

Regarding ANZUS, perhaps you could say in your own words what benefit has come out of suspending NZ from the pact?

 

[t68]

Regarding ANZUS, perhaps you could say in your own words what benefit has come out of suspending NZ from the pact?

Really nothing has changed, ANZUS as said before is a treaty which talks to one another and is more symbolic .Australia invoked the ANZUS treaty for sept 11 we did not go rushing a fleet F18/F111 to conus; we went on a higher alert states which was an acceptable action for the time, as far as I am aware there is nothing in the treaty to suggesting the US has to come to our defence. Just as we are a strategic asset in terms of our position in the world (i.e. pine gap etc), just it’s in there best interest’s as ours to come to the defence of Australia.

What can New Zealand bring to the table?
With an ironic twist NZ is right to beef up the army, we can look to the kiwi’s to bring a supplemental force to assist the ADF which it is has done in the past, take Vietnam for instance, it was a task force were the kiwis brought in limited numbers but those numbers made a significant contribution to the operation of the task force (sas,artillery).
Fast forward to the present day, PM Rudd sees the need for an expanded navy and maritime strike force, increase the commitment for the navy and air force and of course army, but with army look at ways the kiwis can supplement (i.e. similar to a reserve force which can be brought up in case of emergency) Kiwi’s should look at deficiencies in ADF were it could make a bigger contribution but also for peacekeeping missions in the future

Evan though I would like to see a massive increase in New Zealand’s defence force they just don’t have the money to make it more of an overall force structure.
It is also not to say that they should get rid of the frigates and opv they are still a necessity for New Zealand’s territorial waters.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Well at the end of the day our military is in the state it is in because the New Zealand people are happy with the present situation.

The average Kiwi doesn,t give a toss about the scrapping of the skyhawks they don,t care about the pay that our soldiers recieve and the equipment they use and they don,t give a toss about the fact that the latest ships we purchased are good for nothing but cyclone relief and fisheries patrol they have no offensive capability.

No offence, but that's nonsense. The public would be happy to invest in something, anything, if they see a need to do so. The problem is that people don't see a connection between Defence and their way of life, standard of living and their aspirations as they do with, say, heath spending or the police.

All the New Zealand public have the stomach for is touchy feely peace keeping operations that reinforce our reputation as a peace loving nation that hates war i will will tell you now to send an infantry battalion to fight along side coalition forces in Afganistan when the body bays start coming home would be political suicide and that is the reason that no matter who wins the election you are not going to see stuff all change in defence force policy or offensive capability.

People will tolerate casualties if they see the need for it, I think that there would have been that tolerance if Timor had gone sour, for example. What people will not tolerate is casualties from a conflict that does not advance NZ's interests, whatever those interests may be at the time.

John Key knows what shaky ground Don Brash found himself on with the no nukes policy and the issue of sending troops to Iraq he is well aware of the mentality of the New Zealand public and won,t do anything to upset them because he wants to get power off Labour and keep it.

Of course! that's democracy and politics for you.

If the New Zealand people cared about defence it would be an election issue and the parties would be trying to out do each other with what they were going to do for the military but the fact is when push comes to shove the New Zealand people don,t care because they see no threat to New Zealand and they don,t support the war on terror so don,t see the need for us to have any offensive capability.

That's right, although I think people do support our activities in Afghanistan. You see when it comes to defence or anything else, its a conflict of ideas, and the supporters of stronger armed forces have lost the fight, and continue to loose because to date they have not put forward sound arguments nor have they publicised them properly. One can rail about journalists not knowing anything about defence, political apathy or hostility, public ignorance or blame the hippies, those are our excuses for our own failure to justify what we want.
At the end of the day we, the supporters of the armed forces, only have ourselves to blame.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I think you would be surprised at the number of kiwis who would embrace federation with Australia, it should have happened, it didn't and now we have to live with it, or we could be like the other 500,000 of us who have made the decision and move there.

I think you are mistaking economic opportunity with nationalism.