NZDF General discussion thread

[mattyem]

I am starting to think that in our discussions we need to look at potential threats to Australia. Having determined what they may be, then we can look at possible force structures that will be best suited to aid Australia and also meet the other priorities, objectives and commitments identified in the DWP plus commitments we have now.

IMO

I agree in the importance of understanding the reference of Aussie in the DWP, but don't totally agree that it should be a influential point on how we structure the future of the NZDF.

First and foremost it should be focusing on defending NZ her territories to the best of its abilities. I'd rather a NZDF that is slightly less effective at assisting another country and in turn be stronger and more effective on the home front.

Lets not forget that if Aussie were to be attacked on what ever level, we are not going to be the only chaps jumping to help out. Big brothers USA and Britain will be right there with guns blazing.

At the end of the day we will be an augmentation force operating in a coalition with multiple nations in aid of Australia. This role does not require us to steer the future of the NZDF into a certain direction but rather just make sure we are inter-operable with other nations (Afghan has already proved this as a "yes we are").

The current exchanges/talks/and training ex's we run combined with equipment compatibility, I think we already more than meet our requirements to meet priority 2 in the DWP.

The point is as much of a political statement for the international stage as it is a policy for the NZG and NZDF. A reaffirmation to our ANZAC partnership if you will.

 

[ngatimozart]

I am sorry to keep this shot but a little help were to find things would help and as to the DWP my point is that they got it wrong and where to busy looking at the detail and no one looked at the big picture

They looked at the big picture and that's shown in the priorities. It's done; it's policy. We don't have to like it.

When I was in the RNZNVR we had to learn the job of the person above us. that was official policy, but in my Division we had a "warry" CO and he liked us sailors to know all the jobs from the Buffer down and the more experienced sailors also to know the Coxswains job. More than once we went to sea with an Able Rate doing a Petty Officers job because we sometimes didn't have the right hands for all the crew positions. Sometimes we also sailed short handed so that meant watch on watch off. On an 18 man IPC that rolled on wet grass it could be entertaining. But our CO was a true seaman so we were also taught basic navigation if we wanted to learn it. My belief that in the RNZN today it is expected that every rating and officer would be expected to be fully conversant of the job of their immediate superior. Undoubtedly the same would be in the Army and the RNZAF. When I was in the RNZAF we were told that most would go into combat with only some staying behind to train. In the RNZNVR we were told we would train our replacements and then go into combat rep;acing the regulars who would have gone first.

So we've fully discussed the DWP and it is time to build a bridge and get over it. There are far more interesting and exciting subjects like force structures and equipment capabilities of all three services. Plus looking into and discussing of threats to Australia and how NZ might structure itself to help Australia to counter those threats. We also must not lose sight of the fact that the tyranny of distance is both a blessing and a curse for us. 95% of our trade is waterborne so we must not forget that as well.

We are not isolated enough that what happens half a world away does not impact upon us. The Lehman Brothers bank collapse on Wall St in 2008 causing the financial crisis is proof of that. If the US or Israel decide to strike at Irans nuclear facilities that will have a direct effect upon us because Iran has declared that if such an attack occurs they will close the Straits of Hormuz and through those waters 40% of the worlds oil is shipped. So we do have to maintain a global perspective, a regional perspective a local perspective and an economic perspective all at the same time. Like I keep repeating we live in a real world and we have to deal with real world issues. Wish lists don't cut it.

 

[mattyem]

My belief that in the RNZN today it is expected that every rating and officer would be expected to be fully conversant of the job of their immediate superior.

This is indeed the way. Always progressing and learning. Wont get recommendation for promotion if you don't.
Though with the technology we have today the subordinate can only do "so" much of their immediate supervisors role. Most trades require time ashore on courses with their heads in books and in front of computer screens.
The days of the IPC are gone and now an AB could almost only dream about filling the role of a PO. An example between an able marine technician and PO marine technician is about 2 years of courses and study ashore along with at least 1 year of study and on job training at sea. This is similar in several trades. Id say that in todays navy the subordinate (if not professorially qualified) is able to competently fill about 60-80% of their immediate supervisors role (provided they arn't freshly promoted and have some on job experience).

 

[Rob c]

IMO

I agree in the importance of understanding the reference of Aussie in the DWP, but don't totally agree that it should be a influential point on how we structure the future of the NZDF.

First and foremost it should be focusing on defending NZ her territories to the best of its abilities. I'd rather a NZDF that is slightly less effective at assisting another country and in turn be stronger and more effective on the home front.

Lets not forget that if Aussie were to be attacked on what ever level, we are not going to be the only chaps jumping to help out. Big brothers USA and Britain will be right there with guns blazing.

At the end of the day we will be an augmentation force operating in a coalition with multiple nations in aid of Australia. This role does not require us to steer the future of the NZDF into a certain direction but rather just make sure we are inter-operable with other nations (Afghan has already proved this as a "yes we are").

The current exchanges/talks/and training ex's we run combined with equipment compatibility, I think we already more than meet our requirements to meet priority 2 in the DWP.

The point is as much of a political statement for the international stage as it is a policy for the NZG and NZDF. A reaffirmation to our ANZAC partnership if you will.

Well said regarding the priority of first of all defending ourselves, most other nations have this as there first priority. To be realistic though the loss of Australia would be a major blow to NZ, but the loss of NZ would only be a minor irritation to Australia from a practical point of view. There would probably a greater emotional impact, than a practical impact.

 

[ngatimozart]

This is indeed the way. Always progressing and learning. Wont get recommendation for promotion if you don't.
Though with the technology we have today the subordinate can only do "so" much of their immediate supervisors role. Most trades require time ashore on courses with their heads in books and in front of computer screens.
The days of the IPC are gone and now an AB could almost only dream about filling the role of a PO. An example between an able marine technician and PO marine technician is about 2 years of courses and study ashore along with at least 1 year of study and on job training at sea. This is similar in several trades. Id say that in todays navy the subordinate (if not professorially qualified) is able to competently fill about 60-80% of their immediate supervisors role (provided they arn't freshly promoted and have some on job experience).

Agreed. All this modern technology does make life a bit easier in some respects but harder on others. One of the chiefs who taught me damage control at Philomel was sunk in the Falklands so I wonder what he would make of the technology now compared to what he used against the Argentinian Air Force? Ye olde technology is making war to dangerous. I think I prefer the days of the SLR and the .50 cal in some ways. Definitely no further back because I do like my creature comforts.

 

[Rob c]

Agreed. All this modern technology does make life a bit easier in some respects but harder on others. One of the chiefs who taught me damage control at Philomel was sunk in the Falklands so I wonder what he would make of the technology now compared to what he used against the Argentinian Air Force? Ye olde technology is making war to dangerous. I think I prefer the days of the SLR and the .50 cal in some ways. Definitely no further back because I do like my creature comforts.

I agree with the SLR I could never hit anythig with a SMG or pistol but the with SLR I was fairly good and you new one hit was all that was needed. The 50 cal has its limitatins on the inshore patrol ships however. In the late 70's one of the old Lake class patrol boats tried to stop an asian fishing boat illegaly fishing. they had twin 50 cal's on the bow. The fishing boat simply ignored the pratrol boat and started out to sea. I was at Def HQ when we heard that piggy had ordered the boat stopped or sunk. Two Skyhawks were armed with 20mm HE and HE 5" rockets and where airborne in 20 min. A couple of low passes over the fishing boat to show what was on board then a burst of 20 mm across the bow and he stopped. From this I believe that both types of patrol vessel we have are not armed with heavy enough wepons. They are armed like a major navy might arm them when help is always close at hand, but ours are going to have to deal with any problems on there own

 

[ngatimozart]

I agree with the SLR I could never hit anythig with a SMG or pistol but the with SLR I was fairly good and you new one hit was all that was needed. The 50 cal has its limitatins on the inshore patrol ships however. In the late 70's one of the old Lake class patrol boats tried to stop an asian fishing boat illegaly fishing. they had twin 50 cal's on the bow. The fishing boat simply ignored the pratrol boat and started out to sea. I was at Def HQ when we heard that piggy had ordered the boat stopped or sunk. Two Skyhawks were armed with 20mm HE and HE 5" rockets and where airborne in 20 min. A couple of low passes over the fishing boat to show what was on board then a burst of 20 mm across the bow and he stopped. From this I believe that both types of patrol vessel we have are not armed with heavy enough wepons. They are armed like a major navy might arm them when help is always close at hand, but ours are going to have to deal with any problems on there own

As I mentioned in an earlier post a few days ago the problem wasn't with the armament but with the Loch Class patrol boast. They were not designed for NZ waters or the Great Southern Ocean. They could not handle the seas here. In lively seas they were dangerous to the crew and resulted in many broken bones. they could not transit Cook Straight at speed. In the case of the Taiwanese FV the Loch Class PB was beat North Through and out of Cook Strait in sea conditions which meant it could not reach a speed that matched that of the escaping FV. The IPC's were also not designed properly for NZ waters. They were only able to do 12 knots, rolled on wet grass, rated for 4m seas and 40 knot winds. I was in Kiwi in heavier seas and winds and it wasn't fun. I have experience of the .50 cal and it is a very good weapon. People don't realise the difficulty of shooting at sea. It is not like on land. It is harder - a lot harder if the sea is up, a gale is blowing, it's raining and your cold. My personal choice for a weapon is the .50 cal because you won't find much better. Yes it is heavy and it needs to be crew served but it does the job and a 2 nautical mile reach is pretty good.

 

[Rob c]

As I mentioned in an earlier post a few days ago the problem wasn't with the armament but with the Loch Class patrol boast. They were not designed for NZ waters or the Great Southern Ocean. They could not handle the seas here. In lively seas they were dangerous to the crew and resulted in many broken bones. they could not transit Cook Straight at speed. In the case of the Taiwanese FV the Loch Class PB was beat North Through and out of Cook Strait in sea conditions which meant it could not reach a speed that matched that of the escaping FV. The IPC's were also not designed properly for NZ waters. They were only able to do 12 knots, rolled on wet grass, rated for 4m seas and 40 knot winds. I was in Kiwi in heavier seas and winds and it wasn't fun. I have experience of the .50 cal and it is a very good weapon. People don't realise the difficulty of shooting at sea. It is not like on land. It is harder - a lot harder if the sea is up, a gale is blowing, it's raining and your cold. My personal choice for a weapon is the .50 cal because you won't find much better. Yes it is heavy and it needs to be crew served but it does the job and a 2 nautical mile reach is pretty good.

I did not make it clear but the patrol boat (Lake class was the correct name) did catch up with the fishing boat and did fire the twin 50 cal across the bow and was ignored.
I had the good fortune? of spending time out in a lake class in the late 70"s (who you know trype thing) At one stage we were required to investigate a contact north west of Cook Straight almost straight into a 35 knot NW gale, To catch up speed was 18 kts and the ride was extreme. You had to stand so that you could absorb the shocks through your legs, sitting or lying were out of the question ( The Skipper had 2 bottles of beer on the bottom shelf in his fidge, these broke due to the shocks)and due to their over stable nature as the original design armament had not been installed, the role rate was extremely quick ( design armament was 40mm on the bow and 20mm at the stern ). the contact was ok so we went home which was also intresting as down wind the boat tried to broach as it went down the face of every wave. Any stories you hear about these boats is probibly true. There where also mechanical problems with these boats including the gearbox on one side which was due to a Treasurey desision to buy all the same gearboxes on not the correctly handed versions so that one gearbox was running backwards from its design dirrection. Interestingly the navies original spec was for a 50m hull but treasurey got in the way of that. It is amazing the foul ups Treasure has caused and never been called to account over these in my time at Def HQ I saw may penny pinching directives that wound up costing far more than the money saved.

 

[Rob c]

You are just repeating a mantra that you have posted on a number of times over the last few days regarding the ACF and Defence. It is a broken record. Enough. No more!

Also a bit more relevance and analysis than a list is required here.

Also in the future please sort out your spelling, grammar and punctuation because frankly it seriously detracts from your credibility. The odd mistake here and there is OK, but a number of your posts are such a literal and visual distraction, I have had to spend time re-editing them out of sheer kindness towards other posters/readers. A couple of complaints have come through. Age is no excuse whether one is 16 or 66.

Lastly go to the intro thread for new members and write up your background.

Ok to expand on the list
1. defend NZ. without our freedom we cannot carry out any of the other functions on the list . Also we can no longer look after the sick , educate our children the way we want , control our destiny, support the elderly, and so forth. As it is likely that eny invader would be of a different culture, the very worst case could even lead to ethnic cleansing. The possibility of that would be very low, but not zero. I have heard many years ago an expert state that the possibility of a direct threat to NZ was significantly less than 1%, this is interesting as the chance of your hous burning down in any one year is significantly less than 0.5%, yet most home owners would consider it prudent to insure there house but we don't seem to think we need full insurance on our freedom.
2.Defend the area. It is obvious that you would want to fight any aggresion as far away from home turf as possible. There is also a moral requirement to help your friends
3. Search and rescue. I think that saving life is more important than the remaining items so this item would also include disaster relief.
4. Control our economic area. helps the economy and allows us to to carry out other functions.
5. Peace keeping this is our moral comitment to world peace.

 

[Hoffy]

Ok to expand on the list
1. defend NZ. without our freedom we cannot carry out any of the other functions on the list . Also we can no longer look after the sick , educate our children the way we want , control our destiny, support the elderly, and so forth. As it is likely that eny invader would be of a different culture, the very worst case could even lead to ethnic cleansing. The possibility of that would be very low, but not zero. I have heard many years ago an expert state that the possibility of a direct threat to NZ was significantly less than 1%, this is interesting as the chance of your hous burning down in any one year is significantly less than 0.5%, yet most home owners would consider it prudent to insure there house but we don't seem to think we need full insurance on our freedom.
2.Defend the area. It is obvious that you would want to fight any aggresion as far away from home turf as possible. There is also a moral requirement to help your friends

I can see that you are very passionate about the dire state of the NZ Defence Forces.
You need to understand the limits of any such capablity in relation to the state of the NZ economy & the available money for that capability.
Frankly the idea of an invasion of NZ is ridiculous and probably doesn't deserve any further discussion.

What needs to be discussed is the importance of supporting/complimenting the ADF. This is the insurance policy and military capability you really need to focus on.
With approximately 95% of NZ business reliant on open international shipping lanes , this is where you need to focus on real "threats."
Just imagine how crippling a naval blockade could be to NZ.

 

[mattyem]

I can see that you are very passionate about the dire state of the NZ Defence Forces.
You need to understand the limits of any such capablity in relation to the state of the NZ economy & the available money for that capability.
Frankly the idea of an invasion of NZ is ridiculous and probably doesn't deserve any further discussion.

What needs to be discussed is the importance of supporting/complimenting the ADF. This is the insurance policy and military capability you really need to focus on.
With approximately 95% of NZ business reliant on open international shipping lanes , this is where you need to focus on real "threats."
Just imagine how crippling a naval blockade could be to NZ.

This is true, but I even think a "naval blockade" of new zealand is as far fetched as an invasion. Todays world is not a world of single nation armies but a multinational force.
With the many coalitions made and the UN council. If a blockade is set up for NZ, we wouldn't be facing this alone, this is why we are a member or the FPDA to counter such threats.

 

[Lucasnz]

What needs to be discussed is the importance of supporting/complimenting the ADF. This is the insurance policy and military capability you really need to focus on.
With approximately 95% of NZ business reliant on open international shipping lanes , this is where you need to focus on real "threats."
Just imagine how crippling a naval blockade could be to NZ.

A blockade would be crippling, but the Defence White Paper outlined the concentration of Defence at Ohakea, by closing Linton camp. I think there are strategic considerations arising from the proposed concentration of these two bases. The concentration makes sense fiscally but it exposes NZ to risks surrounding the the excessive concentration of assets. While this could apply from a external threat perspective I also thinking about the civil defence implications. Personally I think the NZDF would be better of closing Trentham than Linton. JFHQ to Ohakea, all tri service training to Woodbourne and all Army support functions to Waiouru.

 

[Rob c]

I can see that you are very passionate about the dire state of the NZ Defence Forces.
You need to understand the limits of any such capablity in relation to the state of the NZ economy & the available money for that capability.
Frankly the idea of an invasion of NZ is ridiculous and probably doesn't deserve any further discussion.

What needs to be discussed is the importance of supporting/complimenting the ADF. This is the insurance policy and military capability you really need to focus on.
With approximately 95% of NZ business reliant on open international shipping lanes , this is where you need to focus on real "threats."
Just imagine how crippling a naval blockade could be to NZ.

You statement that an invasion is rediculous is emotive in contex and lacked any form of factual, logical debate and I would be the first to admit the chances of an invasion are not high. Even the DWP admitted that China could be a problem in the future and with that number of people wanting a western style of living when there are simply not enough resorces in the world for that to happen, the POSSIBILITY for trouble is there.

 

[MrConservative]

You statement that an invasion is rediculous is emotive in contex and lacked any form of factual, logical debate and I would be the first to admit the chances of an invasion are not high. Even the DWP admitted that China could be a problem in the future and with that number of people wanting a western style of living when there are simply not enough resorces in the world for that to happen, the POSSIBILITY for trouble is there.

The invasion topic has been raised before. The thread got shut down because it became both abusive and generally stupid.

The Mods have a very low tolerance towards people going into this area. It is a sinbinning offence - so be warned. I have already given a gentle reminder and dont want to again.

 

[Rob c]

The invasion topic has been raised before. The thread got shut down because it became both abusive and generally stupid.

The Mods have a very low tolerance towards people going into this area. It is a sinbinning offence - so be warned. I have already given a gentle reminder and dont want to again.

I understand where you are coming from and can see why it has got generally stupid, I was not intending that we should be going into particular topics but rather an overall view as the direction we should be going. Quite a lot of My reply's have been due to individual items being used, sometimes out of contex, and not the overall message. However i think that the subject of what direction china will take and how it will achieve this is a valid one as this could impact hugely on NZ. You will also note that I have only use the term invasion in replying but have tended to use the term direct threat which covers all manner of threats that we may face.

 

[mattyem]

all tri service training to Woodbourne and all Army support functions to Waiouru.

Although the idea of this is great, the NZDF has already identified that the initail costs of setting this up would outway the advantages. It has already identified facilities in seperate bases/training facilities that have the infrastructure to cope with tri service training in specific trades etc.

For a large country having a few centralized bases may be a bad idea, but geographically the nzdf could be anywhere in NZ in a matter of hours if need be.
We are small enough not to require bases spread throughout.

 

[Hoffy]

This is true, but I even think a "naval blockade" of new zealand is as far fetched as an invasion. Todays world is not a world of single nation armies but a multinational force.
With the many coalitions made and the UN council. If a blockade is set up for NZ, we wouldn't be facing this alone, this is why we are a member or the FPDA to counter such threats.

Sorry - I should have been more specific.
Of course a naval blockade of NZ is far fetched.
I meant a regional action ie; Straits of Malacca , Singapore etc.

 

[mattyem]

Sorry - I should have been more specific.
Of course a naval blockade of NZ is far fetched.
I meant a regional action ie; Straits of Malacca , Singapore etc.

Yeah after reading and posting, I thought this may have been the point you were getting across. And agree totally.

Another point to think about too, if a blockade was to take place in this area, trade would be diverted to a course which brings it closer to NZ and may in turn increase NZ's economy by ships having to utilize NZ shipping services etc etc. This was a point brought up in a exercise brief on one of the Bersama FPDA exercises I was on in 2009.

Mining I think would be the biggest and more realistic threat than a blockade

 

[Hoffy]

So - the NZ defence forces should be primarily focused on complementing the ADF.
Any ACF that is reintroduced in NZ should been done with this in mind. There should be strong synergies in place for this to make any useful difference whatsoever.

The recent NZ white paper didn't seem overly concerned with this capability from a practical perspective , although frequent mention was made of the importance of Australia as a key ally.

So perhaps a re-visit of the Aussie DWP is the best starting point.

 

[ngatimozart]

This is true, but I even think a "naval blockade" of new zealand is as far fetched as an invasion. Todays world is not a world of single nation armies but a multinational force.
With the many coalitions made and the UN council. If a blockade is set up for NZ, we wouldn't be facing this alone, this is why we are a member or the FPDA to counter such threats.

The Lyttelton Port Company are dredging the main channel in the harbour to a deeper depth in order to accommodate larger draught vessels. As part of this they were concerned with WWII mines laid near the entrance (I think) by the Kreigsmarine and never recovered after the war. A full on naval blockade realistically is not going to happen, but as I have said previous posts, 1 or even 2 hostile attack subs, working off the the east coast of both Islands would create havoc. The loss in shipping alone would be chronic but the psychological impact i.e., fear factor would be enormous, especially amongst parts of the civilian population.