NZDF General discussion thread

[Cadredave]

Air force casualty 'awesome all-round Kiwi bloke' - family - National - NZ Herald News

Workmate of mine (ex RNZAF himself) reckons it may have been a 'marker' round - that's the only explanaton for the second guy being so close yet getting away so 'lightly'. Would also explain perhaps why the guy was putting a stake in the ground next to it - I wouldn't imagine you'd do that with a HE round!?!

For those 'non-kiwis' a 'Barry Crump' attitude is basically the last sort of attitude you'd want around unexploded ordnance - but I'm sure this chap was anything but that - they'll be referring to his personal life away from work. RIP!

No it was an HE round that exploded, marking it with a stake with a sign attached on it is standard practice when dealing with blinds in Waiouru for later dispossal, GPS here in Waiouru can sometimes be 300m out from the current maps so we use stakes & signs, get a 8 figure grid then report it so it can be destroyed latter.

 

[recce.k1]

Do you think the NZ government would have retired the A-4's even if they'd been used for CAS or similar in ET? I'm thinking they still would have, or at least tried, they simply would have exchanged "never used" with "hardly ever used".

Unable to give a definitive answer .... second guessing politicians is probably like second guessing Afghan warloards - in the morning they might accept a briefcase of cash from the CIA and in the afternoon they might accept a truckload of AK47's and RPG's from the Taliban .... so who knows!

Seriously, in the context you describe on the one hand I'd doubt they would have because of the public fallout .... but on the other hand it didn't fit in with their peacekeeping re-roling of defence, so perhaps you might be right .... they might have downsized the ACF eg withdrawn the Sqn from Norwa and cut operational funding to keep less remaining aircraft operational (and thus have less personel etc), but who knows this is all speculative and its all academic now.

The most important thing now is to not look back but look forward. Currently a top end ACF is unlikely even with the change of Govt here (probably in the same way a RAN aircraft carrier with its own strike aircraft is unlikely). The cost to re-establish a top end ACF here is not seen as a high priority due to other competing defence priorities, plus the reality that after 8 or so years, those hundreds of ACF support personel are gone (made redundant back in 2001) so the support skillbase is gone. It would take many years and extra spending to recruit new (and former) personnel to get up to speed, let alone train pilots etc.

Although there are some other options, as decribed currently on the RNZAF thread, which is to maintain a basic skillset and get some multirole training type aircraft operational, to at least allow the Army and Navy to receive training in CAS/FAC and anti-shipping etc. That way this basic skillset can be expanded upon later, if circumstances allow etc.

Although there is another option out of leftfield. Seeing NZ won't be able to restore an ACF of sorts very easily and quickly on its own, before all institutional knowledge is lost, the quickest way to shortcircuit getting either a basic training force or second tier ACF back again (eg regional defence i.e. defence of Australia) would be for someone else to give NZ a hand. I suspect Australia doesn't have a lot of spare capacity (as they are upskilling for the SH's and F35's plus aren't the Hawk's still pretty much at capacity etc) despite the likes of me suggesting Australia perhaps could in the past. The only nation with spare capacity and the political grunt to get things going again here really would have be the USA. Perhaps they can tie something into the Pacific regional free trade agreement proposal that the Obama administration is investigating with NZ (and others) as announced at the Apec conference in Singapore last week. After all, this out of leftfield thinking is how the US and NZ came up with the F16 solution back in 1998!

 

[greenie]

Unable to give a definitive answer .... second guessing politicians is probably like second guessing Afghan warloards - in the morning they might accept a briefcase of cash from the CIA and in the afternoon they might accept a truckload of AK47's and RPG's from the Taliban .... so who knows!

Seriously, in the context you describe on the one hand I'd doubt they would have because of the public fallout .... but on the other hand it didn't fit in with their peacekeeping re-roling of defence, so perhaps you might be right .... they might have downsized the ACF eg withdrawn the Sqn from Norwa and cut operational funding to keep less remaining aircraft operational (and thus have less personel etc), but who knows this is all speculative and its all academic now.

The most important thing now is to not look back but look forward. Currently a top end ACF is unlikely even with the change of Govt here (probably in the same way a RAN aircraft carrier with its own strike aircraft is unlikely). The cost to re-establish a top end ACF here is not seen as a high priority due to other competing defence priorities, plus the reality that after 8 or so years, those hundreds of ACF support personel are gone (made redundant back in 2001) so the support skillbase is gone. It would take many years and extra spending to recruit new (and former) personnel to get up to speed, let alone train pilots etc.

Although there are some other options, as decribed currently on the RNZAF thread, which is to maintain a basic skillset and get some multirole training type aircraft operational, to at least allow the Army and Navy to receive training in CAS/FAC and anti-shipping etc. That way this basic skillset can be expanded upon later, if circumstances allow etc.

Although there is another option out of leftfield. Seeing NZ won't be able to restore an ACF of sorts very easily and quickly on its own, before all institutional knowledge is lost, the quickest way to shortcircuit getting either a basic training force or second tier ACF back again (eg regional defence i.e. defence of Australia) would be for someone else to give NZ a hand. I suspect Australia doesn't have a lot of spare capacity (as they are upskilling for the SH's and F35's plus aren't the Hawk's still pretty much at capacity etc) despite the likes of me suggesting Australia perhaps could in the past. The only nation with spare capacity and the political grunt to get things going again here really would have be the USA. Perhaps they can tie something into the Pacific regional free trade agreement proposal that the Obama administration is investigating with NZ (and others) as announced at the Apec conference in Singapore last week. After all, this out of leftfield thinking is how the US and NZ came up with the F16 solution back in 1998!

Hello again
Been a long time I know but dutie calls.

Silly idea time....Talking about spare capacity.

I was reading the lastest Janes D/Weekly today and see the RAF are staring down the barrel of disposing of aircraft ( Harriers and Tornadoes) , pilots ? and groundies. Up 10,000 pers. Along with Base closures.
Perhapes we (NZ) could make an offer to lease a Sqn of Tornadoes and employ the whole pilot through groundie support for the Sqn . Killing two birds with one stone. We could have a Sqn of A/C set up with trained pers over night. Not to mention helping the RAF.

Silly I know ...just an Idea.

 

[MrConservative]

Poaching quality RAF personnel is not a silly idea at all - though I would leave the aircraft Harriers and Tornado's behind. However I suspect not all of the new Hawks currently stored will end up in RAF Valley if the razor gang is to cut deep. Which could lead to opportunities ....
We even might get some of our own people back who departed for old blighty in 2001!

 

[rye]

Aus & nz

It is crazy how often the word 'Australia' appears in a discussion area dedicated to the NZDF.

New Zealand is a great country and a good ally to Australia but it's ridiculous how much they rely on Australia should military might ever needed.

The fact that NZ wont even purchase half a dozen jets for their air force is a joke, and an insult to it's neighbours and allies. Nobody expects NZ to ever be able to defend itself completely, but to not even be able to control its air space is insane.

What would the NZ government say to its citizens if something were to happen? "oh...we thought we'd be ok, we just figured Australia would defend us while we counted all the extra cash we just saved by not having a single jet fighter."

Australia has a huge defence force, but we're also a huge country and don't have the resources to spread around if something were to happen.

So NZ, it's time to wake up. We don't live in Never Never Land, there are threats out there, you need to have some basic capabilities in order to prevent attacks, should it ever happen.

 

[moahunter]

The whole argument is silly. Air forces around the world are struggling to maintain their fighter fleets. The trend is increasingly to UAV's, manned combat aircraft may only have a niche role in 20 years time. The F35 may be the last high tech manned fighter/strike aircraft developed by the US - the trend over time will instead be to command aircraft managing dozens of UAV's.

A far smarter move for NZ is to acquire / develop experience with UAV's that can provide good strike capability for ground forces, and possibly long range strike and surveillance. That really will be something that can be used in operational theaters when the army works with allies, and monitoring and defending the waters around New Zealand.

 

[Twickiwi]

The whole argument is silly. Air forces around the world are struggling to maintain their fighter fleets. The trend is increasingly to UAV's, manned combat aircraft may only have a niche role in 20 years time. The F35 may be the last high tech manned fighter/strike aircraft developed by the US - the trend over time will instead be to command aircraft managing dozens of UAV's.

A far smarter move for NZ is to acquire / develop experience with UAV's that can provide good strike capability for ground forces, and possibly long range strike and surveillance. That really will be something that can be used in operational theaters when the army works with allies, and monitoring and defending the waters around New Zealand.

While I agree in principal that the lack of ACF is an opportunity to jump a generation or three in technology from 3rd gen figher to UCAV, I think the wait for the technology to become available will be inversely proportionate to the expense. If we seek to have a useful CAS using UAV now the costs would be eye-watering, add in some sort of self defence capability and it becomes American in its financial outlay.

I support the idea of a UAV force to suppliment the Maritime patrol capabilities of the RNZAF, because it looks at first pass cost-effective and importantly a "force multiplier" for a small nation. But to ask a UAV to do more than armed patrol and surveillance adds a couple if not three digits to the outlay.

If we wait, the cost will come down and eventually (a couple of generations) UCAV will be the pointy end of NZ's strike capability. What do we do in the meantime? Remember that while the tank in 1916 struck the death knell for mounted troops, Cavalry still existed at the outbreak of WWII and horses pulled most of the field pieces until into the mid 1940s.

Mr Conservative laid out careful modest plans for a small, but useful to our allies and ourselves CAS/maritime strike force for the next 25 years, about the time it will take for UCAVs to become common and affordable for small to medium countries. I would commend you to re-read his postings and think about the numbers and timings.

 

[moahunter]

If we wait, the cost will come down and eventually (a couple of generations) UCAV will be the pointy end of NZ's strike capability. What do we do in the meantime? .

In the meantime, NZ works closely with its allies as it has over the last decade without a strike component - no change. Implementing a historical technology to please the masses at air shows makes no sense. But NZ can start building up UAV capability / infrastructure now with the money some would want to spend on outdated aircraft (most combat aircraft flying today will soon be outdated and what is affordable to NZ already is outdated). Get some experience with some UAV / UCAV models. If possible, work with US suppliers / developers - become a test bed for some technology - start involving universities within NZ. By becoming involved early, NZ can be meaningfully engaged in a future technology that will be highly relevant to NZ forces. Invest more heavily in air defense / strike, but invest in a modern, smart, relevant way - look forwards to the future not backwards to the dinosaurs. Trying to recreate a noble past won't inspire people, but a vision of a cutting edge future air combat force, even a small niche one that can be built on, will.

 

[Twickiwi]

...Implementing a historical technology to pleases the masses at air shows makes no sense. But NZ can start building up UAV capability / infrastructure now with the money some would want to spend on outdated aircraft (most combat aircraft flying today will soon be outdated and what is affordable to NZ already is outdated). Get some experience with some UAV / UCAV models. If possible, work with US suppliers / developers - become a test bed for some technoglogy - start involving universities within NZ. By becoming involved early, NZ can be meaningfully engageed in a future technology that will be highly relevant to NZ forces.

Careful Moahunter, if there is no need for NZ to have its own CAS/strike asset now, why would NZ want it from its own UCAV in the future?

As far as getting into UAV technology as a player it would require NZ to be a full ally to the USA, continuing year-in year-out investment by the NZ government and for US Houses of Congress to start taking into account NZ's interests when deciding appropriations. Alternatively we could get into bed with the Israelis and get the tech through the back door and destroy our careful diplomatic positioning of the last 3 decades in the UN.

As far as what meaningful contribution NZ could have to the technology development of UAVs it would require urgency, investment, commitment and luck- there is no existing market or tech advantage for NZ to leverage. The party started quite a while ago and we would arrive quite sober.

 

[moahunter]

^It is not as impossible as it sounds, NZ could be a useful test bed for a particular military manufacturer of UAV's, for example, maritime surveillance UAV. It is a matter of forming alliances with appropriate corporations, I see such alliances regularly here in Canada, there is no reason why NZ companies and research institutes are not capable of the same, other than people saying "it is too hard".

 

[MrConservative]

The whole argument is silly. Air forces around the world are struggling to maintain their fighter fleets. The trend is increasingly to UAV's, manned combat aircraft may only have a niche role in 20 years time. The F35 may be the last high tech manned fighter/strike aircraft developed by the US - the trend over time will instead be to command aircraft managing dozens of UAV's.

A far smarter move for NZ is to acquire / develop experience with UAV's that can provide good strike capability for ground forces, and possibly long range strike and surveillance. That really will be something that can be used in operational theaters when the army works with allies, and monitoring and defending the waters around New Zealand.

I agree with you. It is the future. However there are some issues that lie ahead within the area of Armed Conflict Law surrounding UCAV technology that the Peace movement are beginning to create opposition arround. Particularly around the area of human interface control which they argue makes UCAV's illegal as they lack the direct human proximity dimension of weaponised manned aircraft. Notice the use of the word "drone" more frequently used with negiative connoctations by peace activists - now been picked up by the media. It is developing into the next cause celebre. Im not wanting to pour cold water on our enthuisam for UCAV's but we all know that huge influence a small minority of anti-defence loony's can have on NZ defence posture and equipment.

 

[MrConservative]

Careful Moahunter, if there is no need for NZ to have its own CAS/strike asset now, why would NZ want it from its own UCAV in the future?

As far as getting into UAV technology as a player it would require NZ to be a full ally to the USA, continuing year-in year-out investment by the NZ government and for US Houses of Congress to start taking into account NZ's interests when deciding appropriations. Alternatively we could get into bed with the Israelis and get the tech through the back door and destroy our careful diplomatic positioning of the last 3 decades in the UN.

As far as what meaningful contribution NZ could have to the technology development of UAVs it would require urgency, investment, commitment and luck- there is no existing market or tech advantage for NZ to leverage. The party started quite a while ago and we would arrive quite sober.

There is a clear need for CAS/Interdiction capability. Whatever makes you think there is not? Also there is the technical and design capability to do this within New Zealand and there are people working on this in NZ already. When it comes to UCAV's we are at very early days. There is not yet the institutional advantage out there that you might think. The powers that be in the US have loathed UCAV's because so much money has been invested in projects like the F-22 and F-35 that they did not want UCAV's to take any of the glory or funding. It has been private outfits like Global Atomic that have got the UCAV's out there in numbers. Do not think that just because NZ defence is low tech that there are aspects of our industrial science, research and technology base are not very capable or well advanced. They are.

 

[Twickiwi]

There is a clear need for CAS/Interdiction capability. Whatever makes you think there is not? Also there is the technical and design capability to do this within New Zealand and there are people working on this in NZ already. When it comes to UCAV's we are at very early days. There is not yet the institutional advantage out there that you might think. The powers that be in the US have loathed UCAV's because so much money has been invested in projects like the F-22 and F-35 that they did not want UCAV's to take any of the glory or funding. It has been private outfits like Global Atomic that have got the UCAV's out there in numbers. Do not think that just because NZ defence is low tech that there are aspects of our industrial science, research and technology base are not very capable or well advanced. They are.

Peace Mr C. Read post #1351.

I defer to your greater knowledge on UAV industrial structure.

 

[Preceptor]

Having looked at the category, there appear to be three different active threads covering general NZDF topics. At present I am considering merging all three threads together. If posters have objections to this, please either post within the thread the do not want merged with the others, and/or send me a PM with their reason(s) why.
-Preceptor

 

[Preceptor]

Having looked at the category, there appear to be three different active threads covering general NZDF topics. At present I am considering merging all three threads together. If posters have objections to this, please either post within the thread the do not want merged with the others, and/or send me a PM with their reason(s) why.
-Preceptor

 

[gf0012-aust]

The powers that be in the US have loathed UCAV's because so much money has been invested in projects like the F-22 and F-35 that they did not want UCAV's to take any of the glory or funding. It has been private outfits like Global Atomic that have got the UCAV's out there in numbers.

Sorry, that is just plainly incorrect. I've attended a number of UAV/UCAV/TUAV conferences in the last 5 years in both the US and Europe.

The US does not have a hostility to the capability at all, in fact I'd argue that for future weapons systems planning and doctrine development they are already miles ahead of the Israelis who were the bees knees for decades. They're force planning for 2020-2025, they're miniaturising weapons, they're miniaturising sensors, they're looking at UAV's operating at the battlespace sensor integration level. No one else but the Israelis has travelled further down this path, and the Israelis are focussed on immediate battlespace rather than theatre level constructs

The US has got more UAV programs underway than anyone else, they are weapons and sensor fitting onto disparate platforms faster than anyone and they're developing new solutions at the platform management level than even the Israelis.

Once the americans get going they invariably move well past the previous tech leaders - they have proved this time and time again and at the manned/unmanned doctrine level I'd argue that they're 5-10 years ahead of their nearest peers because they are already planning the doctrine and management at the force integration level while others are still focussed on designing the platforms.

 

[MrConservative]

Sorry, that is just plainly incorrect. I've attended a number of UAV/UCAV/TUAV conferences in the last 5 years in both the US and Europe.

The US does not have a hostility to the capability at all, in fact I'd argue that for future weapons systems planning and doctrine development they are already miles ahead of the Israelis who were the bees knees for decades. They're force planning for 2020-2025, they're miniaturising weapons, they're miniaturising sensors, they're looking at UAV's operating at the battlespace sensor integration level. No one else but the Israelis has travelled further down this path, and the Israelis are focussed on immediate battlespace rather than theatre level constructs

The US has got more UAV programs underway than anyone else, they are weapons and sensor fitting onto disparate platforms faster than anyone and they're developing new solutions at the platform management level than even the Israelis.

Once the americans get going they invariably move well past the previous tech leaders - they have proved this time and time again and at the manned/unmanned doctrine level I'd argue that they're 5-10 years ahead of their nearest peers because they are already planning the doctrine and management at the force integration level while others are still focussed on designing the platforms.

Sorry I did not specify the UCAV conference sector and industry which you are no doubt involved and familiar with. The oposition I noted is from the Political and ACHL side of the debate. The ACHL side of things is more my side of the street then the technical side which I grant is more your territory. Whilst you were attending the UCAV conferences I was at ACHL plenary sessions.

Here is the problem:

UCAV’s with the fully autonomous mode which is a route the US seems to be heading down presents the most problems legally due to a lack of a human-in-the-loop. Legal issues are yet to be resolved around the accountability chain and discrimination. People such as Andrew Brookes at CSIS, Joost Hilterman at Human Rights Watch have concerns about the legitimacy of target acquisition and weapon delivery centred around the legal notions of proximity and negligence – those who have a grasp on Tort law and its relationship to ACHL will know what I mean when Protocol 1 of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Article 48 is applied to UCAV's. USAF folk such as AJ Lazarski have also given caution how UCAV’s reduced discrimination is problematic and that fully automonous mode UCAV's might contravene the Missile Technology Control Regime and the 1988 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty that the US is a party to. Also the FAA and ICAA both regard that the sharing of civilian airspace and UCAV technology as been technically unlawful, which throws up some issues about training and flight operations over continental US and Europe. These are fundamental issues. We might have the technology but the legal dimension of the technologies controlled and responsible use is as yet to be tested in the legal sense. Oneday it will be - until then I have to take a non advocacy position. Stemming from this is emerging political debate and some congressional jockeying for protecting defence industry jobs and of course opposition from the peace lobby who get an amplified voice beyond their actual numbers via a media which turns it into a simplistic sci-fi good v evil plotline. Eric H. Biass and Roy Braybrook in Armada International (April - May 2006) did report that the USAF and USN canned the J-Ucas programme in their FY2007 budget requests because of there were concerns that it might threaten the F-35 programme. So such criticism are out there

Therefore I think that my comments are fully correct if understood in context. Im sorry I did not provide you with enough information to deduce that context.

 

[recce.k1]

My 2 cents worth .... I also agree that for NZ, UAV technology, especially for maritime survellience in particular, but also overland survellience has to happen in due course, and that NZ Defence should be provided the funding prompt smart by the Govt to investigate these trends with partner nations (and no doubt NZ is investigating, but at an uninformed guess, we're probably not up there with Australia for example at the high end, more like at the lower end etc).

Another area of importance is the ship launched UAV's that Australia has been trialling with its Armidale patrol boats (and for inclusion in their future OCV's. FF's and AWD's etc). Think how much such technology would enhance NZ's current IPV's, OPV's and Frigates etc.

As for armed UCAV technologies, it makes sense to also investigate the options (but no doubt, NZ will tread carefully thanks to these legal aspects that Mr C. raises).

We have to become more involved, but realistically to what level? Moahunter suggests we get in bed with the US but Twickiwi has pointed out NZ would have to make realistic contributions to curry favour. Sure I am for that but knowing the way changes of NZ Govt's can flip-flop on defence issues, I wonder how reliable the US Govt would see NZ? Especially when they can do all the testing with the likes of Australia - totally reliable ally, have plenty of airspace, most of it far, far away from people/spys/peaceniks etc, and have had a history of Govt-Govt defence investment. So I don't wish to sound as if I'm pooring cold water on Moahunter, for I'm interested in his viewpoint along with anyone else, but Canada/US and Australian/US relations are in a different league to NZ/US relations (certainly on the mend, but not there yet, and probably could never reach that same level as Can/Aus because of NZ politics, economics and economies of scale etc).

The other area I am not clear about (I have heard others with more authority comment, usually not at DT though) is whether the US, the leaders in UAV technologies, would necesarily want to either share or hand over such hi-tech technologies and information to other nations especially a country like NZ? It also seems we would be plugged into a US network system - what if NZ unfortunately suffers another ANZUS type relationship breakdown in the future and the plug is pulled? We'd be stuffed. And what's to stop others hacking in and taking control etc?

Don't get me wrong, it would make sense for there to at least be some sort of Pacific UAV survellience system involving the US, Australia and NZ etc. But how far beyond that is another question (in fact why would the US want someone like NZ being involved in these technologies beyond NZ's sphere of international surveillence and SAR etc, as they can simply do it themselves etc)?

My real point is, sure lets get involved more and lets take it to a higher level where possible, but don't put all our eggs in one basket.

For that reason I do support NZ reinstating its modest air combat force, either at a lower level for pure NZDF training purposes, or ideally at the level we did have eg maritime strike, CAS and land/sea interdiction. (And the other thing is, I don't see Air Forces around the world ditching their manned aircraft purely for unmanned aircraft - wasn't that supposed to have happenned supposedly in the 1960's? And didn't former PM Helen Clark say that one reason why NZ was ditching its ACF was because supposedly other nations would be doing so too? It didn't seem to happen, especially in the A/P region, and I wouldn't count the RAF cutbacks as being the same thing seeing they still have credible ACF's and are investing into both Typhoon and F35 etc. So please excuse me thinking I've heard this all before)!

For similar reasons I would support the continuation of NZ's P-3 long range maritime patrol force (and hopefully another long range replacement eg P-8), but supplementing them with long range maritime UAV's. An excellent force multiplier as Twickiwi says. Because to ditch the P-3's (or not go with the P-8) would have a similar devastating effect as ditching the ACF. Basically the entire P-3 air and ground crews would be made redundant and so much institutional knowledge would be lost, especially if we put all of our eggs into the maritime UAV basket and for some unforeseen reason it didn't work out as intended. Like the ACF it would be very hard to recreate after the fact.

So let's do it, but wisely and not be blinded by the marketing pitch that it will solve all our problems and needs etc. Sure, maybe post 2025 etc things will be there, but that's still another 16 years away.

On an ironical note, if the Greens and the like are so afraid of UAV technologies, maybe they'd support NZ reinstating a manned ACF then

 

[MrConservative]

I plead guilty to being carried away with some of the amazing UCAV technology and have seen the cost benefit advantages of such vehicles in small numbers doing combat air support roles for the NZDF in the future. I fully support the NZDF moving into UAV’s such as the RQ-4. However, I recently have had pause to reconsider whether or not we should pursue UCAV technology. I am more apt now to take a wait and see viewpoint on the matter. This is regarding the emerging legal controversy and I am aware that there is now an emerging anti “drone” movement amongst the usual suspects. I can clearly see the defence techheads getting carried away with something that in the end might get a red light if it cannot work within the package of established rules of armed conflict. UCAV’s have all the emotiveness that was conjured up in the continuing GE/GM debate or the whole enemy non- combatant debate which has seen huge doctrine reversals in how nations handle POW’s and post combat detentions. My warning is that the road to UCAV paradise is not as simple as we can build it - problem solved.

 

[recce.k1]

Well I plead guilty too for "generalising" UAV technologies with the same brush (I'd welcome more of those in the know to comment or to put me right etc!) for UAV technologies can be at the top end eg BAMS, fully networked with allied systems, all the way down to the NZ Kahu project, independently controlled etc.

So perhaps alot of my concerns aren't really an issue - it all depends to what extent NZ heads for, when, where and how etc.

As for armed UCAV's, surely NZ keeps to keep abreast of the technology (depsite the "anti-crowd" that Mr C is aware of). Seems silly to not have an armed maritime UAV for instance, some 5000km's from NZ, detecting an "enemy" surface vessel and not being able to take it out! So I do hope NZ Govt and Defence stick to their guns (so to speak) but treads carefully (and perhaps engages with elements of the anti-crowd so as to get the message thru of their importance and to correct any possible public disinformation campaign mounted by them. Otherwise saying nothing leaves the playing field wide open to the anti-crowd to exploit public support, to which it is very easy to manipulate public opinion when the views are one sided and distorted).

But hey, if the law issue becomes an issue, then that could only mean its in the public interest to maintain manned maritime patrol and perhaps combat aircraft forces!