StevoJH
The Bunker Group
I know its what happens at the moment, doesn't mean I have to like it though.
Especially the attitude that it has brought with it. "Oh, we don't have to defend ourselves, the Americans and Australians will protect us".
New Zealand invasion
- Thread starter proletarian
- Start date
- Status
Especially the attitude that it has brought with it. "Oh, we don't have to defend ourselves, the Americans and Australians will protect us".
You are right.I know its what happens at the moment, doesn't mean I have to like it though.
Especially the attitude that it has brought with it. "Oh, we don't have to defend ourselves, the Americans and Australians will protect us".
Just to clarify I am a NZer and I totally agree with you.
It is embarrising really.
exported_kiwi
New Member
You are absolutely right. It's downright embarrasing and shameful indeed!
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I have a fair idea of what you are referring to, but at the same time I have trouble with the generalisations being implied (here and subsequently by later posters). When people knock NZ, I suppose they are really knocking those that control the purse strings and generally interfere with Defence (and other Govt Department's etc). In other words the b%$#%y Politicians! Especially as 99% of them haven't ever served in the military (apart from it seems the current DefMin and one of the Associate DefMin's, by chance).
So I take it that the main gripe is that NZ politicans play down NZ's need for expensive hardware (and don't tend to deploy them as much as they could etc)? Hence leave the hard choices for the likes of Australia to shoulder (eg tens of billions of dollars spent on massive air, sea and land capabilities) versus a couple-to-few billion that NZ spends etc.
If so the NZ politicans tend to play a very simple card game. It goes like this. "Who on earth is ever going to invade NZ? Go on tell us!!!" Alas the mindless media lap it up, the people buy into the frenzy and before you know it, those with defence credibility (eg like the former senior defence and diplomatic officials that tried to fight the Govt's axing of firstly ANZUS and later the air combat force) are dismissed as "geriatric generals". The media then report the bun fight with glee (for the media it's like reporting on a cat fight, it's too much fun to watch rather than have the facts get in the way), the poor old "generals' (with nil experience of waging a public information campaign) are then embarassed into silence by a dismissive and cyncial media and the people simply accept what they are told by the Govt. So the "generals" need to get with the programme and employ a public relations type company to counter attack IMO. After all that what lobbying is about (and is milked to the bone by the peaceniks)!
The other failure is that of linking NZ's economic wellbeing with stability in far away places, in our case, I'm thinking of Asia in its broadest sense (from SE Asia to the Gulf and up to Northern Pacific), let alone further afield such Europe, Africa and the Americas etc. Politicians very well know this but tend not to talk about it. People don't seem to see the connection (but that is starting to change as NZ engages economically more with the Asian giants etc).
The other failure is the agreement that the Australian and NZ Govt's have to not crticise each other. Thus in Howard's expansion years, Aussie politicians couldn't publically criticise NZ downgrading its defence. In NZ we had one or two muted expressions of criticism from a former Aussie ambassador but that would have been over the head of 99.99% of the population (who wouldn't have bothered to read his comments anyway). However in most respects this agreement is actually a good thing, because otherwise the politians here (as they would do anywhere) would have pressed the patriot button and accuse others of interferring in NZ's affairs, which would have fueled a bigger media frenzy and get even more everyday (non-thinking) NZ'ers on side etc.
The solution in my opinion is simple.
Australia needs to tell NZ what would happen if Austrlia couldn't defend itself properly (due to damage suffered) and thus how that would affect NZ.
For example if Australia said that an attack (for this purposes it doen't matter HOW eg be that NBC or terrorism or cruise missile etc) destroyed or severly affected Fleet Base West, then those elements in FBE would probably head westwards to defend Australia's Western flank. Similary the RNZN Frigates, if undamaged themselves, would head westwards too thus leaving NZ exposed.
Similarly if the major Eastern seaboard airfeilds were out of action (damaged runways or destroyed aircraft - let's say by local infitrators as a precursor to something bigger about to happen) then not only would some elements of the RAAF be crippled, but those that were remaining would be pressed to shore up against the main invasion force sweeping down from the north or west etc.
I'm not saying I am articulating myself well here, as others here could, but with a little bit of imagination and some slick information, the message would get through to the people of NZ. Politicans then tend to react when the people get worried.
Similarly there could be a number of win-wins. Greater investment in NZ defence infrastructure would be better accepted by the public knowing that in the event of an emergency, other countries elements may end up here (as the US did in WW2), perhaps as a re-grouping strategy let alone for local area defence purposes.
We're now in the "me" era/generation. And in NZ those baby boomers who sh@t upon their forebearers whom built up NZ defence during and after WW2 are now finding themelves in the odd position of reaching retirement age, with many assets and investments to preserve, as if they are still young things wishing to explore the world (and now with added grandkids etc), who ironically would like to see their way of life preserved still (something they didn't think about when they were the younger protesting generation etc). They (and we all) crave economic stability, thus with economic stability comes responsibility to ensure defence diplomacy plays its part. There's a generational shift happenning, and the younger generations are more interested in these matters (or at least don't have a closed mind. Not in all cases, but much more so than over the last 30-40 years).
bruceedwards
New Member
You make some excellent points Recce.k1. I have noticed that most people I talk to who are over 35 (or so - this is a generalisation!) seem to think we don't even *need* a defence force, on the grounds that 'nobody is going to invade us'.
They don't seem to understand that we live in a global economy, and 'overseas' isn't so very far away anymore.
It will be interesting to see if there is a slow shift in defence spending over the next 15 years or so, and whether defence spending ever becomes an election topic.
New Zealand will have to fund enough defense spending to keep at least some force Australia will be happy with. Otherwise, Australia will dump New Zealand as the US did. What bothers me is the fact that even if Australia terminated the Anzac Treaty, I don't think the citizens of New Zealand would blink an eye.
New Zealand is standing on the edge of the cliff as it is. They may step over the cliff with any more cuts.... Treaty partners expect help, not a burden.....
exported_kiwi
New Member
You're absolutely right. I am one of those oh so few enlightened Kiwis who believe we must pull our weight, and above it (with sufficent reserve forces trained and equipped) in place, ready for anything that comes our, or our allies, way. WE, the NZ public are an apathetic lot. As long as the All Blacks win, as long as beer and smokes aren't too pricey and as long as we can bludge off the taxpowers of both NZ and Aussie, we're ok Jack. It's high time for the lazy bunch of them to wake up and smell the roses. We DO live in an international community, we do have defense responsibilities (Cook Island, Niue, Western Samoa, Tonga(maybe) and Tokelau islands as well as a truly massive EEZ) to protect. With our current status, we couldn't even defend the local pub. It's a disgrace. Maybe it's time we had a reshuffle of politics in NZ and get some people in with cojones to tell the sheeple what they need and to tell people to get off their collective a$$es and shoulder the burden, tell young girls it's NOT ok to have babies and expect the workers to pay for it (we could use that money on defence) and to tell institutionalised bludgers to stop wasting your dole at the pub and get out and do something that benefits the country, and people that support you.
Sorry if this is a little too political, but as a Kiwi and former service member, I'm absolutely fed up!
Sorry if this is a little too political, but as a Kiwi and former service member, I'm absolutely fed up!
exported_kiwi
New Member
It is a little on topic I guess. Thankfully the mods have seen fit not to delete it as it rings a little too true...my thanks! Now back on topic, I highly doubt anyone would use any Pacific nation as a "springboard" to NZ. Too risky, the waters around the islands are too shallow for deeper draught ships I imagine so it may have to be an entirely blue water approach.
But why would anyone try invading New Zealand? While New Zealand is blessed with a beautiful countryside, unless its blessed with an unknown medal which can't be found anywhere else that would solve the fussion energy puzzle...
For starters New Zealand provides an armed aggressor a long supply line problem. Outside of using aircraft carriers an armed aggressor would have a difficult time of gaining air superiority. And if these problems could be licked, New Zealand's mountainous landscape won't make any land campaigns easy. Simply put, New Zealand isn't Denmark or Singapore. They are very small on key sea lanes.
Whatever defense forces New Zealand requires is for mostly expeditionary missions abroad as an element of any coalition to defend Australia and provide peace keeping or peace making forces. After several white papers the government has correctly identified its defense priorities. On the other hand is New Zealand pulling its share? This is open to question. Many feel New Zealand could spend more and do more pulling its share....
For example, the Pacific Patrol Boat program Australia has done wonders buying and building patrol boats to protect the fisheries of the Pacific Island nations. Unfortunately, these boats spend most of their time at the pier. New Zealand would do well to help pay for their fuel so that the boats would see more time at sea.
There are fears that the Anzac class frigates are being overused and will not last thirty years. Here is where a third frigate would have been useful to avoid.
There is talk the army is being overtaxed as well with foreign deployments. Another plane, another ship, another battalion. Get the picture, New Zealand comes up short.
For starters New Zealand provides an armed aggressor a long supply line problem. Outside of using aircraft carriers an armed aggressor would have a difficult time of gaining air superiority. And if these problems could be licked, New Zealand's mountainous landscape won't make any land campaigns easy. Simply put, New Zealand isn't Denmark or Singapore. They are very small on key sea lanes.
Whatever defense forces New Zealand requires is for mostly expeditionary missions abroad as an element of any coalition to defend Australia and provide peace keeping or peace making forces. After several white papers the government has correctly identified its defense priorities. On the other hand is New Zealand pulling its share? This is open to question. Many feel New Zealand could spend more and do more pulling its share....
For example, the Pacific Patrol Boat program Australia has done wonders buying and building patrol boats to protect the fisheries of the Pacific Island nations. Unfortunately, these boats spend most of their time at the pier. New Zealand would do well to help pay for their fuel so that the boats would see more time at sea.
There are fears that the Anzac class frigates are being overused and will not last thirty years. Here is where a third frigate would have been useful to avoid.
There is talk the army is being overtaxed as well with foreign deployments. Another plane, another ship, another battalion. Get the picture, New Zealand comes up short.
Last edited:
exported_kiwi
New Member
NZ is also blessed with fertile and arable land, an abundance of fresh water, an educated (for the most part) workforce and a hugely unexplored EEZ (there has to be oil in there somewhere) with vast fish stocks. There's plenty to invade us for.
Yes, sadly, although I feel that, with the cutbacks in our welfare system we can afford another 2 frigates, better equipped army and an increase in size as well as an ACF of some form. Alas, I am in the minority.
Yes, sadly, although I feel that, with the cutbacks in our welfare system we can afford another 2 frigates, better equipped army and an increase in size as well as an ACF of some form. Alas, I am in the minority.
proletarian
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #232
I am the original poster of this thread, which I started on 6 February. I have been too busy in the meantime to visit this website. Today, 9 months later, I can't believe that this thread is still up and running!
That, in itself, is quite worrying!
That, in itself, is quite worrying!
bruceedwards
New Member
It seems to me that New Zealand faces three major threats;
1. Invasion of our EEZ by unlicensed fishing/pirates/people smugglers etc. This is actually becoming more of a threat I believe - the success of the Somali pirates has emboldened others. Thankfully a half-decent deterrent seems to be the best way to prevent this, and as long as we have a couple of frigates and the ability to monitor ships in our waters we should be OK.
The trick here is that any reduction in capability - surveillance or strike - could open us up for this one.
2. Invasion of our waters/seizing of strategic assets by organised force. In the event that something of value is discovered in our waters or nearby (e.g. Oil) it would not be too farfetched to imagine a power taking the asset by force, or seizing an asset such as a port to get strategic access to it.
Once again, as long as we maintain at current levels we can (arguably) defend against the smaller powers (e.g. Indonesia) who may consider this.
The trick here is that it would take a long time to organise a defence with our current assets. In many cases, the Australians may be able to defend us before *we* can - it is not uncommon to have one Frigate elsewhere in the world, whilst the other is in for maintenance. IMHO this is unacceptable, and illustrates that to realistically defend ourselves we require either an airborne strike force (which could be ludicrously expensive to run) or a third frigate.
Anyone larger, with a full powered carrier-backed blue water fleet we would be unable to defend against in any event. Well, not unless we pump our entire tax take into defence, and North Korea shows us what a great idea *that* is.
3. Attack on our partners/economic lines/protectorates.
This is a bit more serious. Say a foreign nation or 'undesirable group' manages to place forces on an island nation - e.g. Tonga, how would we combat it?
Obviously our need here is to deploy a combat group capable of making it's way to the island, landing (possibly under fire), and achieving objectives such as rescuing our Nationals or eliminating the 'threat' etc.
The Canterbury goes a long way to providing us this capability - we can actually deploy troops now! - as does our Army. The danger here is that we are right on the line as far as capability goes. Our Airlift may or may not be functioning, our sea-based combat support may or may not be available, and although our forces would no doubt be capable and well trained, the lack of any kind of fire support means it would be a long hard slog.
So as far as I can our defence force is where it has been for many years - at 'minimum credible' strength - i.e. it can defend us against the threats we are most likely to encounter, but not always quickly and only if nothing breaks down!
Oh, and if we start taking losses, well ... I guess we put our fingers in our ears and hum, because nobody planned for losses in combat!
exported_kiwi
New Member
Yes, it is and there is a a very real threat to our beloved Aotearoa, but the sheeple can't see the forest for the trees! I have my bug out location back home, hope you do too!
True, There always has been little threat to us in New Zealand but that doesn't mean in the future others could start looking at us as a very resourceful country with a hell of a lot of land to used or perhaps we could have a Parliament in power who might take a side of a war they shouldn't and royally piss someone off. We would need to prepare for those things. We can't have "no military" and once again our military does a lot of peace keeping. Navy does boarder control doesn't it? So there is a lot more to it than just "preparing for an invasion."
And me, a 22 year old Female, (so you can generalize more) I would see it as a massive issue economically, politically as well as"defensively" if our ANZAC treaty was terminated. Friendless and ally-less... We will be sitting ducks.... Literally. People that wouldn't blink an eye are ignorant and haven't bothered to think or even look up what such things are and what it would mean to us if A or B etc happened.
People need to start following current events more, start doing research and be "Edumacated" because really, New Zealand isn't.
And me, a 22 year old Female, (so you can generalize more) I would see it as a massive issue economically, politically as well as"defensively" if our ANZAC treaty was terminated. Friendless and ally-less... We will be sitting ducks.... Literally. People that wouldn't blink an eye are ignorant and haven't bothered to think or even look up what such things are and what it would mean to us if A or B etc happened.
People need to start following current events more, start doing research and be "Edumacated" because really, New Zealand isn't.
anybody who would be capable of successfully invading new zealand is already sufficiently established to not need any of the resources you have mentioned. and such an opponent would probably be able to obtain NZ's assets through cheaper more peaceful means, and not to mention the countries currently capable of pulling off an an invasion of new zealand are defacto allies...
this does not mean newzealand shouldn't expand its current capabilities(which are fairly limited) at the very least new zealand should keep its defence force modern.
with the ability to react to situations with in "new zealands backyard".
If a conventional invasion was the method used, then I would assume that their presence and possibly their intention would be picked up by US intelligence before forces landed. That would give New Zealand forces time to prepare forces to counter the invasion. US aircraft would most likely be able to respond within hours and more assets within the next few days. If the invading force tried a more unconventional style of attack, hiding troops and equipment onboard cargo ships, then the time window in which to prepare to defend would obviously be alot shorter. Regardless of the invading forces method, US forces would be able to respond with a carrier strike group and a marine expeditionary force quickly and efficienty. The enemy ships could be sunk or boarded so the troops ashore would be stuck without support. Marine recon and SEALs could work alongside NZ forces to call in airstrikes and try to block and trap the invading forces. Marine landing forces could come up behind and the enemy would be pincered between LAAVs, M1s, infantry and Cobra gunships landing moving inland behind them and NZ infantry and LAVs with US marines, SEALs and FACs calling in airpower in front of them. Ofcourse all this would probably never happen! No enemy would be stupid enough to try to land troops this way. Nowadays a more realistic threat would be airstrikes, commandos or suicidal terrorists aiming to attack urban centers or take hostages.
I appreciate that the above arepurely theorretic possiblities that N.Z. is highly unlikely having to face.
But I agree that N.Z. needs to do more to defend its EEZ and assist in maritine policing duties for its South PacificiIsland neighbours.
Most probably the most cost effective asset for this that N.Z. already has is their P3 maritine patrol aircraft. These are a very versatile unit for N.Z., they can partrol over vast areas of oceans around N.Z., they can be used purely for reconnisance, or suitably armed anti-ship or anti-submarine.
It could be , if suitable airworth P3's could be obtained., a very cost effective way to enhancing N.Z.'s military capabilities .
One thing that Australia could do in the future ( when it gets the P8's ) is to give our P3's to N.Z. for free. Its highly unlikerly we will be able to sell them to anyone.
Additional Anzac frigates would be nice, the only thing that concern's me with the Anzac's suitability for the Southern Ocean environments, I saw one under construction at the Williamston dockyards, I was amazed at the small thinks of the hull plating, it only looked about 3/16"? I believe one of the N.Z. Anzac's suffer some structural damage at sea recently?
One small advantage we have is that threats to N.Z. &/or Aust. will take time to develop, so we both would have some breathing space to get the necessary armourments from our good buddy Uncle Sam.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I am uncertain whether it would be worthwhile for the RAAF AP-3C Orions to be turned over to the RNZAF once (if) they are replaced by P-8A Poseidon. For one thing, it seems likely that the RAAF would not be receiving a one-for-one replacement of the AP-3C, more likely a two-for-one replacement. This means that the RAAF might decide to keep some AP-3Cs in service after the P-8A in inducted into service. Given that the AP-3C version was introduced in 2002 and appears to be the most advanced variant currently operated, that is IMO a possibility. Another distinct possibility is that the aircraft can no longer provide worthwhile service by the time the Poseidon enters service... While the mission systems of a AP-3C may date from 2002, the airframes themselves date from ~1968. While searching for a timeframe for AIR 7000 (AP-3C replacement) I could not come across a specific date, but it would not surprise me if the expected IOC was sometime around 2018-2020, which means the RAAF Orions would be reaching the half-century mark. The P-3K Orion airframes currently in RNZAF are of similar vintage. IIRC one of the airframes is in fact an ex-RAAF P-3B Orion...I appreciate that the above arepurely theorretic possiblities that N.Z. is highly unlikely having to face.
But I agree that N.Z. needs to do more to defend its EEZ and assist in maritine policing duties for its South PacificiIsland neighbours.
Most probably the most cost effective asset for this that N.Z. already has is their P3 maritine patrol aircraft. These are a very versatile unit for N.Z., they can partrol over vast areas of oceans around N.Z., they can be used purely for reconnisance, or suitably armed anti-ship or anti-submarine.
It could be , if suitable airworth P3's could be obtained., a very cost effective way to enhancing N.Z.'s military capabilities .
One thing that Australia could do in the future ( when it gets the P8's ) is to give our P3's to N.Z. for free. Its highly unlikerly we will be able to sell them to anyone.
Additional Anzac frigates would be nice, the only thing that concern's me with the Anzac's suitability for the Southern Ocean environments, I saw one under construction at the Williamston dockyards, I was amazed at the small thinks of the hull plating, it only looked about 3/16"? I believe one of the N.Z. Anzac's suffer some structural damage at sea recently?
One small advantage we have is that threats to N.Z. &/or Aust. will take time to develop, so we both would have some breathing space to get the necessary armourments from our good buddy Uncle Sam.
While it would certainly be nice if the NZDF had greater maritime patrol and surveillance resources, particularly those as capable as a P-3 Orion, I have my doubts as to the viability of retaining any of the current RAAF or RNZAF Orions. A possibility is for NZ to seek to purchase some low flight hour Orion airframes which might still be in storage at Davis-Monthan AFB in the US and then updating them... Otherwise it would seem a better choice for NZ to just outright replace their long-range MPA.
-Cheers
- Status