So what kind of conflicts can New Zealand expect to face. The high intensity conflicts that are associated with major wars are beyond the means of all except the major powers . Consequently it is extremely unlikely that New Zealand will ever face an invasion. Even during World War II there was some debate as to whether any Japanese assault would be at Brigade level or divisional level.
MEDIUM LEVEL THREATS
A medium level threat is defined as the concentration of resources, for operations over a limited period of time . Given New Zealand’s distance for other nation’s two key items affect the ability to mount medium level operations against New Zealand. These two factors are….
- Logistical Capability – The opposing force must have, with the exceptions of Australia and France, sufficient logistical ships such as tankers, supply and other appropriate vessels to mount such an operation.
- Force Size - It must be capable of concentrating a significant sized force for operations that allows for steaming time from there own country and return. Very approx estimate of travel times, dependent of weather, speed of slowest ship and threat environment, are…
Europe 4-6 Weeks each way
America 2-3 Weeks each way
Asia 2-3 Weeks each way
Middle East 3-5 Weeks each way
Africa 4-6 Weeks each way
What constitutes a medium level threat?
The Falklands war is classified as a medium level maritime operation. Consisting of 2 Aircraft carriers, 25 Surface warships, submarines and some 100 RFA ships and ships taken up from trade to support the fleet and transport around 10,000 troops. Currently no country but the United States could currently carry out a similar sort of operation. While China could conduct a Falklands operation, it lacks carriers and would have to take ships up from trade in order to obtain the logistics support.
Consequently medium level threats to New Zealand given the inability of foreign powers to mount a Falklands type operation are more likely to be of a smaller scale.
Combined Air Craft Carrier & Amphibious Raid
Limited to those few countries with a carrier capability. Of these countries only the US, UK, France and Russia can mount an amphibious raid of greater than 1500 personnel.
In addition many of the carrier countries lack to logistical capability to mount such an assault, without the use of requisitioned ships. While the number of countries capable of such an operation has increased when compared to a Falklands war type operation, the threat is still minor.
Aircraft Carrier Assault:
With the exception of the United States the use of a carrier strike force against NZ (for whatever mad reason), would impact on operations in other parts of the world. The US, UK, France and a number of other countries have a range of alternative options that would be less costly, and would minimise the impact of other operations.
While other nations like Spain, Brazil, Italy process a carrier capability they lack the logistical vessels to sustain a carrier raiding force (carrier, 4 escorts over the distance), without seriously impeding other current operations. The outward leg would allow for port based refuelling the return leg may not as a result of political pressure. None have a normal aircraft capability of greater than 20 combat aircraft. This would result in fewer aircraft been operational as air stores are consumed and time at sea increases. As a result any such threat would be limited in aircraft numbers and time able to be spent on station.
Most carrier navy’s have no in flight refuelling capability except for buddy packs, which reduces the ability to deploy combat aircraft. For a non US carrier force to conduct operations against NZ it would have to close within strike range of its aircraft.
Given the limited number of air craft carried by a carrier an air combat force of 20-24 aircraft could equal most carrier threats? The risk from this sort of force is so low that I don’t see the need to acquire any more air craft than this.
Amphibious Assault (>Brigade Strength):
Limited to UK (Total Troop Lift capability 3887), Fr (2660), China (9050), US (42,483), Russia (5252) . An amphibious assault at this level would most likely be accompanied by supporting aircraft carrier cover, given its significance size
Why use a medium level operation against New Zealand
Realistically I consider a medium level threat would only be used as a diversion in relation to other actions taking place elsewhere (say an invasion by a major power of Australia or the Pacific Islands), in order to delay deployment by NZ of its forces. Use of a brigade level attack against NZ independent of overseas military operations could only been seen as an attempt to establish a bridgehead for the expansion of operations against NZ.
LOW LEVEL THREATS
Amphibious Assault (Below Brigade Strength):
The least likely of the low level options options, as most countries only have an amphibious capability of less than 2000 troops. These countries often lack the escorts and in many case’s the replenishment capability. For example the Netherlands has built up an extremely capable Amphib capability but at the expense of its combat force. Likewise the Singapore Navy has 3 capable amphibious ships but only 6 escorts and no refuelling at sea capability. At most I think assault force of battalion to battalion group is the most likely option.
The key to countering the above non carrier options is adequate Long Range Maritime Surveillance that is capable of launching sustained stand off attacks. If a force is detected early enough it gives NZ the ability to mobilise its military while pursing a political resolution (if possible). I think here the UAV’s could play a key role in the surveillance role, but given there current lack of stand off capability I’d limit numbers.
Raiding Force:
A seaborne raiding force could range from a Rainbow Warrior type situation to a surface / sub surface launched team. Purpose of such an operation would vary depending on the organisation carrying it out. A terrorist situation may involve conducting an attack against a key target / event to cause maximise fear in the public. A Special Forces attack is more likely to focus on infrastructure in order to achieve some limited military or political purpose.
In a terrorist situation the use of a yacht or merchant ship can be countered by the use of either an OPV or IPV, subject to that vessel be equipped correctly. For this to occur the navy must be able to engage from outside the range of equipment such as RPG’s or MANPAD systems using a surface weapon. If there is a need to board then the ships must be able to close and sustain damage, in order to cover their boarding party all the way.
If a foreign country was to conduct the operation a vessel with more combat capability than an OPV or IPV is required. Given that the presence of a surface vessel is likely to be a giveaway, subject to adequate surveillance, or at least rise serious questions, then other than by performing another Rainbow Warrior type operation submarine entry is the only option for a foreign power.
It should be added here that both types of forces maybe seeking to support, train or equip subversive elements in New Zealand in order to destabilise the region. Given the nature and limited number of international airports in NZ and increased surveillance, the importation and landing of weapons and specialists trained in their operation is best achieved from the sea.
Mining of Ports:
A very real threat. A single mine if it successfully sinks a vessel, would not only close New Zealand’s all of New Zealand’s ports but could also result in an ecological or human disaster (especially if the LPG tanker was taken out). There would be economic consequences, if overseas shipping companies, which carry most of New Zealand’s exports were to withdraw from the market.
Modern Mines have the ability to set them selves of when a specific ship goes over them. So for example the entire US Navy might travel through Cook Strait and not set a mine off, an inter Island Ferry might then go over the same spot and boom! Other mines are torpedoes that sit on the sea bed and more recent mines bury themselves under the sea bed. All these mines tend to be restricted to Nation states and can be expensive to deal with (Just look at how much the Huon Class cost).
Most navies focus there mine laying capability around submarines, aircraft or a few specialist vessels. With the addition of flight decks and enclosed quarter decks there is little room to carry a significant number of mines on modern warships. Likewise submarines are naturally limited by their size in the number of mines they may carry. Only large specialist mine laying vessels, of the type used by Sweden can carry a significant number of mines. Given these nations are more likely to use advanced mine warfare capabilities, the impact could be greater than a traditional mine.
At the other end of the scale are the good old magnetic and WWII type acoustic mines that are more likely to be the domain of terrorist groups. Mines can be laid by any type of vessel. The Iranians used small merchant vessels in the Gulf War and Merchant ships of New Zealand in WWII were used to lay mines at the entrances to ports like Wellington. Merchant ships will be the primary choice for terrorist groups.
WWII Type Raider & Hindrance of Sea Lanes
If I remember my law of armed conflict training correctly attacks against merchant ships sailing independently are forbidden. Such ships may be stopped and inspected and if need taken to port for further inspection. Only ships sailing in convoy can be attacked without notice or warning. Having noted that my memory maybe slipping here I continue.
The threat of force against shipping maybe sufficient to cause shipping in New Zealand to halt . New Zealand has a vulnerability, in that with the exception of Westport (which is limited) and New Plymouth, all its shipping transport exits via the East coast. In addition there are, what I see as, choke points in NZ shipping (Bay of Islands-Auckland, Taraunga and Cook Strait), not to mention the predominantly West bound nature of trade. Confusing this issue is the fact that the majority of New Zealand’s trade is no longer carried by New Zealand Flagged vessels, which are now focused on the Cook Strait, limited coastal shipping and the carriage of LPG and Fuel from Marsden Point.
If my Law of Armed conflict training is correct, New Zealand is more likely to be threatened with rather than actually have shipping attacked. That may change were New Zealand to face a blockade or embargo of some type. A terrorist situation in this scenario would ignore the Law of Armed Conflict, but I consider that to be highly unlikely, but as 9/11 showed, nothing is impossible.
Stand Off Missile Attack
This I believe would be the preferred option, for countries with the capability, in mounting a low level attack against New Zealand. This option provides the opposing force with a low risk (to assets and personnel), in relation to other options such as laying mines or attacking shipping or raiding strategic targets. Countering this sort of threat would be extremely difficult if not impossible, given the ability for such missiles to alter headings onto target.
. As you all probably know, New Zealand has hardly any credible defence force: half a dozen transport planes, a few decommissioned fighter-jets rusting away, and some vintage helicopters.
