i think he meant cheaper than a Collins, from a recent deal with Pakistan it works out to about 3 Type 214 subs for the price of 1 Collins...
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
Thanks, I probably misunderstood him. The Malaysians paid a billion Euro for 2 Scorpene's
[no AIP] including the training package and an ex-French navy Agosta for training.
It is interesting to note that a significant number of people think that American help in the event of a trouble in our area is a done deal. While they may help it is far from a garanteed. We need to be aware of the factors that would influence an American desisionin this regard and the attitude of the American people.
First of all most Americans dont even know we exist and a significant number of those that have heard of us, think of use as some small third world country in a location they are not to sure about.
With the the American armed forces we have a similar problem, While those who have worked with us usually hold our forces in high regard, this is only a tiny fraction of the very large numbers in the American forces. The rest if they have even heard of us, regard us as third world. I have personally run into this attitude when I was in the RNZAF. We had gone to Clark Airbase to participate in a Cope Thunder exercise ( the Pacific Airforces version of Red Flag )and at the intial briefing the General Comanding said in his opening address " Welcome to our third world cousins from New Zealand". Comments by the end of the exercise where very of much more positive note, almost in awe of our performace.
For America to help us if they themselves had not been attacked the permission for armed action would have to go through Congress before action could be started and again most Congressmen dont know much about us and probibly dont care.
We are not in a geo-statigic area of interest to America unless of coarse we find large quantities of oil
The U.S. is not treaty bound to help us and even when ANZUS was alive it only ask for consoltations in the event of an attack on a member, there was no compulsion on members to act.
We should also look at America's record for helping nations. I will not go through the extended list, but one notable incident I think explains the possition is at the start of WW2 England almost went down the drain to Hitler and America stayed out of it until forced by Japan. Why, the wider political climate at the time, the president wished to give armed support to England but the public perseption would not allow this to happen.
Even Australia in their DWP require that there armed forces protect Australia without help as they know it is not garanteed and they are a far closer politically to the U.S. than we are.
America will come to our aid if their politicians think that there is a political advantange in doing so, or at least no disadvantage. If it is seen as a political disadvantage it probibly won't happen.
First of all most Americans dont even know we exist and a significant number of those that have heard of us, think of use as some small third world country in a location they are not to sure about.
With the the American armed forces we have a similar problem, While those who have worked with us usually hold our forces in high regard, this is only a tiny fraction of the very large numbers in the American forces. The rest if they have even heard of us, regard us as third world. I have personally run into this attitude when I was in the RNZAF. We had gone to Clark Airbase to participate in a Cope Thunder exercise ( the Pacific Airforces version of Red Flag )and at the intial briefing the General Comanding said in his opening address " Welcome to our third world cousins from New Zealand". Comments by the end of the exercise where very of much more positive note, almost in awe of our performace.
For America to help us if they themselves had not been attacked the permission for armed action would have to go through Congress before action could be started and again most Congressmen dont know much about us and probibly dont care.
We are not in a geo-statigic area of interest to America unless of coarse we find large quantities of oil
The U.S. is not treaty bound to help us and even when ANZUS was alive it only ask for consoltations in the event of an attack on a member, there was no compulsion on members to act.
We should also look at America's record for helping nations. I will not go through the extended list, but one notable incident I think explains the possition is at the start of WW2 England almost went down the drain to Hitler and America stayed out of it until forced by Japan. Why, the wider political climate at the time, the president wished to give armed support to England but the public perseption would not allow this to happen.
Even Australia in their DWP require that there armed forces protect Australia without help as they know it is not garanteed and they are a far closer politically to the U.S. than we are.
America will come to our aid if their politicians think that there is a political advantange in doing so, or at least no disadvantage. If it is seen as a political disadvantage it probibly won't happen.
I think people are over complicating the issue ! IF NZ was to ever be attacked or invaded such foes would have already taken over most of (if not all) South East Asia, controlling large areas of the Pacific & Indian Oceans, I think the US and many other nations would be involved well before then 
We also must consider our local area for problems, For instance should Indonesia were to become a fundamentalist state or revert to being a dictatorship, this could be of local concern. Another remote possiblity would be if China threatened the US with Nuclear retaliation if they get involved, would they risk the civilian casualties. Wars often start for very complicated reasons. and while hind sight often shows a simple solution, at the time this is not always evident. We must also be aware that a threat to our area could be a multiple of different problems right down to simple military blackmail which has been successfully used in the past.I think people are over complicating the issue ! IF NZ was to ever be attacked or invaded such foes would have already taken over most of (if not all) South East Asia, controlling large areas of the Pacific & Indian Oceans, I think the US and many other nations would be involved well before then
Wars start for two reasons. Politics and greed. Case in point WWII. Germany & Poland. Japan and the Pacific. In both cases the aggressors lost out in the end but only after the "free" world in the form of the allies fought against them. In the case of Poland Stalin got in on the deal only to have bite badly two years later so his greed cost him in lives but he gained in conquered territory and political capital in 1945.
I do not think it is only China threatening the US with nuclear retaliation what would the US do if it was staring total military defeat down the barrel? Then there are Russia, India and Pakistan in the region who have nuclear weapons. So it is very complicated. Australia and NZ have the scientific knowledge, expertise and the raw materials (uranium, mined in Australia and present in Fiordland) to produce a nuclear weapon. Engineering side might be different and it could be done in NZ because it would be against existing law. There are ll sorts of permutations that could be feed into any scenario.
Ignoring the Constitutional issues that the United States and others may have in providing support to NZ I would tend to agree with you. However I believe New Zealand's isolation while being a significant contributor to New Zealand's defence has it drawbacks. The main drawback I see us that should (being an unlikely event) NZ ever need assistance effective combat forces are at least three days away, but air and longer by sea. IMHO this has implications for regarding the size of the NZDF and the size of the budget.I think people are over complicating the issue ! IF NZ was to ever be attacked or invaded such foes would have already taken over most of (if not all) South East Asia, controlling large areas of the Pacific & Indian Oceans, I think the US and many other nations would be involved well before then
To that end I have always thought that the RNZAF of the mid 80's was a highly capable balanced force and the RNZN was almost there. In contrast I am of the view that the army is holding onto to many core structures typical of a force designed for rapid expansion (i.e Divisional) rather than one designed for expeditionary warfare like the Royal Marines.
Last edited:
Agree, I was not suggesting (so hope it wasn't taken the wrong way) that NZ does not require the correct force and force structure, it is extremely important to have the correct measures in place with a well balanced and equiped force for the un-forseen and to protect sovereign territory, economic zones and the people. That seems to be where NZ is getting let down by the lack of foresight, budget constraints etc.
P.S. I think help is a little more that 3 day away at the moment
Agree, I was not suggesting (so hope it wasn't taken the wrong way) that NZ does not require the correct force and force structure, it is extremely important to have the correct measures in place with a well balanced and equiped force for the un-forseen and to protect sovereign territory, economic zones and the people. That seems to be where NZ is getting let down by the lack of foresight, budget constraints etc.
P.S. I think help is a little more that 3 day away at the moment
It wasn't taken the wrong way. The 3 days was is an estimate to deploy F-18 from Aussie with C-17 in support etc.
It's been less than 3 days in the past. ready reaction times would have been elevated due to whatever "tells" the combined AUSNZ INT agencies had been watching.
I'm aware of one event where assets would have been in place or in the AO/AI within 3 hours
As you'd know events evolve, and there's a whole pile of INT that piles up and is consumed as plans evolve and pawns are moved...
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
In a general sense that's actually a crucial point in terms of differences in public perception between the Aus and NZ population (and pollies).
And a point that is not debated to any extent or any further, to demonstrate why NZG's ideallistic or "niche" perspective for defence is severly flawed. If the NZ people could understand why Australia thinks and acts the way it does, we would be pretty much there in that the NZ population would be more supportive of spending more on defence.
(There are various reasons for this thinking; some of it is politics and ideology of the anti-Vietnam and anti-US foreign policy generation; some of it is due to Australia having a much longer association with the US than NZ has (certainly since WW2 or perhaps one might be able to say the seeds for Aus were sown before WW2 and Australia's emphasis on a home grown defence system rather than NZ's emphasis on the "Empire's" Singapore strategy), after all NZ continued to look to Britain and after the shocks of the 70's and 80's for NZ (EC/EEC, Opec, near economic collapse etc) and then the ANZUS bustup, IMO (while Aus always had their US focus) it's only really been since the 90's that NZG's of both hues have really been going for hell for leather to make up with the US and improve the relationship, now that the NZG realised what it was missing. So perhaps one could say a shift in mindset is occurring within NZ finally (starting to move towards Aus's thinking all along) and over time as the NZ population then start to think about the dynamics and consequences of the US and the Rising Powers in their backyards, and how NZ needs to improve its intel, survellience, patroling and responsiveness may we see more acceptance to fund defence properly and ultimately that will require better firepower capabilities as a natural progression etc).
In terms of some other issues raised over the last few days such as ACF v UAV's: Lets face it right now, surely NZ won't have the funding to duplicate or create its own satellite/command/control system for a UAV survellience network across the South Pacific etc.
But hopefully Defence will partner-up with Aus (and the US) and hopefully a longer or mid-term objective would be to create some sort of improved "Joint ANZAC force survellience capability" so one day A&NZ can gather more detail of movements of vessels and such in their areas of responsibility, using US networks and systems for a BAMS type UAV operation.
In terms of prosecution of any vessels or such eg spy ships etc, that surely will be done by manned MPA's, future UCAV's and manned ACF. Why? Because there would have to be some instances where stealth and agility is required, that would have to be manned ACF sometimes getting down to the deck and seemingly turning away from their targets at times, rather than unmanned UCAV's flying at altitude on trackable flight-pathways (assuming the target of interest is in range of ACF, AAR or friendly airfields etc). I can't see any NZ govt or expert saying at this point in time, that it would be more cost effective to ditch/not resurrect a manned ACF over the much higher cost it would entail to develop a UCAV system that could actually survive in contestable airspace (or from ship based SAM's etc) and provide that flexibility. Looking at other nations they are still investing in manned ACF for the next up-to-20 years so there is still clearly a place for them.
Another thing, I see the NZ and Aus Gov's are talking up the Joint ANZAC sealift and airlift arrangement (although no real details on the airlift side). Now if NZ is to be taken seriously with only 4 C-130's available for the next few years due to the upgrades, meaning that typically only 2 will be available in all likelyhood in other words NZ will be stretched, does this suggest the NZG will ignore the Value for Money review recommendation and keep the 757's till end of life (approx 2020 or before) to ensure NZ can actually contribute airlift if called upon? Defmin didn't seem too concerned about actually following through with VfM 757 recommendation when asked at the time of the DWP release, so looks like the bean counters won't be getting everything their way. Also once a NZDF asset is tied into this ANZAC force structure it more or less becomes ring fenced. All we need now is to ensure any joint advanced pilot or fast jet training does have some sort of ADF tie in and who knows, maybe NZ fast air may become a reality again one day.
I agree with all of your analysis apart for the period of the Lange & Clark Labour Governments. Clark was a power in Lange's government and, as when she was PM, tried to play both ends against the middle and she was ideologically driven with a deep resentment of the US stemming from the Vietnam War era. As a PM she was as autocratic as Muldoon and as stubborn in that once she reached a decision, be it a good one or bad one, nothing would change it. So NZDF and NZ foreign policy suffered as a result. Secondly, a Green MP, Keith Locke is an avowed opponent of armed forces and he had a lot of influence on public opinion and in Green Party policy. Thirdly, when the Lange government introduced the nuclear legislation the vociferous US reaction, headed by the then Secretary of State, turned negative public support for the legislation into overwhelming public support. This was to such a degree that even today I think any politician trying to repeal the law would be signing their own political death warrant. Kiwi's are like Aussies don't pick a fight with us and especially don't back us into a corner.In a general sense that's actually a crucial point in terms of differences in public perception between the Aus and NZ population (and pollies).
And a point that is not debated to any extent or any further, to demonstrate why NZG's ideallistic or "niche" perspective for defence is severly flawed. If the NZ people could understand why Australia thinks and acts the way it does, we would be pretty much there in that the NZ population would be more supportive of spending more on defence.
(There are various reasons for this thinking; some of it is politics and ideology of the anti-Vietnam and anti-US foreign policy generation; some of it is due to Australia having a much longer association with the US than NZ has (certainly since WW2 or perhaps one might be able to say the seeds for Aus were sown before WW2 and Australia's emphasis on a home grown defence system rather than NZ's emphasis on the "Empire's" Singapore strategy), after all NZ continued to look to Britain and after the shocks of the 70's and 80's for NZ (EC/EEC, Opec, near economic collapse etc) and then the ANZUS bustup, IMO (while Aus always had their US focus) it's only really been since the 90's that NZG's of both hues have really been going for hell for leather to make up with the US and improve the relationship, now that the NZG realised what it was missing. So perhaps one could say a shift in mindset is occurring within NZ finally (starting to move towards Aus's thinking all along) and over time as the NZ population then start to think about the dynamics and consequences of the US and the Rising Powers in their backyards, and how NZ needs to improve its intel, survellience, patroling and responsiveness may we see more acceptance to fund defence properly and ultimately that will require better firepower capabilities as a natural progression etc).
.
Until the late 80's NZ, those then aged say 35+, still thought of Pomland as home, except the Maori population. Most of the immigrants from 1840 until the late 80's were from the UK and Western Europe, so it was very much a transplanted Pommy white society. That shaped the outlook of the politicians and the country. In WWII when Japan entered the war, the Australian troops were bought back to defend Australia. The 2nd NZ Division weren't, so Tiny Freyberg and his 40,000 thieves stayed in the desert. Churchill pressured the NZG to leave the 40,000 thieves in the Pommy 8th Army "for the good of the Empire". So NZ raised the 3rd Division and sent them to the Solomons. We did take a long time to realise that the Poms had shafted us and it was the younger generation that recognised it.
Where I think Clarke and Locke came from, was that they did not want us swapping one imperial "mother" for another. But they were flawed in their thinking and hence in the application of their subsequent policies. Whilst I am no great admirer of all things American (I have issues with the way they treat their troops, their discipline and their abilities) I do realise that it is in our best interest to be allied with them. However not to the extent that we have our foreign and domestic policy dictated to us. That was the public perception of the US reaction in 1985 - they were trying to tell us what we can and cannot do in our own country.
All alliances have to be built on trust and mutual respect. NZ has to show now that it can have some stability in it's foreign policy and it's defence policy. We have a very close and strong relationship with Australia but both countries also do pursue independant foreign policy goals as well as similar or joint goals. I think that NZ is starting to show that it has stopped the large swings in policy. The political attitude to the US as definitely warmed and it has been returned in kind. My general impression is that the average Kiwi is not overally fond of the US - I could be wrong but it is so in the circles I mix in. So a new era is entered.
In 1990 during the RNZN 50th Anniversary celebrations a parade by companies from Various RNZN version was made through Christchurch with drums beating, swords and cutlasses drawn, flags & colours flying and bayonets fixed, Very ceremonial occasion with all sorts of dignatories, national Naval, and local being present especially. Remember this was right in the middle of the Cold War between the US and NZ.
We had an after match function afterwards with BBQ, copious food and drink. In Christchurch at the time was based a permanent USN detachment VXE6 which provided air and logistic support to the US National Science Foundation for its work in researching in Antarctica. The support missions were jointly flow by USN C130 and RNZAF 130H crews. The USAF supplied Lockheed C141 Starlifter aircraft when needed, & the occasional C5B Galaxy. Missions are flown into McMurdo and the aircraft MUST CARRY enough fuel for a return to NZ (Invercargill) in case they cannot land due to weather conditions. SOP for ALL aircraft visiting McMurdo ex Christchurch.
RNZAF service personnel, NZ Army personnel RNZN and RNZNVR personnel worked alongside NZDF personnel to ensure the smooth and efficient operation of the summer program. Close relations existed between the RNZNVR Division in Christchurch and VXE6. On-the Day of the RNZN Colour Parade through Christchurch, members of VXE6 put their best dress uniforms on. They also arrive at the after match function providing us wit a very large and tasty dish of chili concarne. They used to drink in our messes and we in theirs quite regularly. Now the service by the New York ANG flying C17's.
Last edited:
Julia Gillard is here on an official trip. It used to be that at the beginning of each year the AU & NZ PM's would visit to meet and hold discussions on items of mutual interest. This is the first such for a few years and the current NZ PM wants to reinstate the tradition. Maybe the ADF could suggest to NZDF certain NZDF assets it would think necessary in the ANZAC Force structure and at PM and MinDef level subtle overtures and suggestions from the Au Govt could reinforce said suggestions. As you said once in they would surely be ring fenced. Of interest both the RNZAF Boeing 757's are ice strengthened for operation in Antarctica and today NZ7572 is taking 104 relatives of Air NZ Erebus crash victims to Scott Base for remembrance service. I think the bean counters are starting to lose some influence now that it is being very slowly realised that short term "cheap" options turn out to be long term very expensive liabilities. Well I hope so.Also once a NZDF asset is tied into this ANZAC force structure it more or less becomes ring fenced. All we need now is to ensure any joint advanced pilot or fast jet training does have some sort of ADF tie in and who knows, maybe NZ fast air may become a reality again one day.
Last edited:
Treasury has caused a lot of problems over the years and they where behind the scapping of the ACF and the amalgamation of Ohakea and Whenuapai. That got dragged out until it became obvious that the cost far outweighed the savings. (the last figure I heard put the total cost at $1.2b) I think that the Ohakea - Linton amalgamation may go the same way with the costs outweighing any benifits. There will also be the problem of the clash of cultures between the AIrforce and Army as both forces tend to have a different style about how they like to operate.
Last edited by a moderator:
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Eh, what's the fascination with meddling with defence to make them fit into a "theoretical model" of how defence should be? How on earth would Treasury know? Are they in fact a bunch of 5th Columnists subverting NZ's ability to defend its sovereignty?
On a serious note we can't talk names or politics (as per forum rules) and perhaps there's the possibility of defamation if one did .... but generally speaking then are you simply meaning Govt's will pass back defence project costings/options back and forth to Treasury to investigate all costs and options ... allowing then the pollies of the day to chose a cost option that supports their thinking eg disband ACF because "here's the figures to support this option"? Seems as though costs were a primary "selling point" to the public at the time when Govt ditched the ACF, instead of using foreign policy changes as the reasoning etc? I guess Treasury are only doing their job and the pollies use them (or ignore them) depending on the situation. Perhaps I'm too hard on Treasury at times? Unless Treasury actually "enjoy" developing cost plans to eg merge airbases or army with airbases at the expense of defence because it gives funding to employ staff on projects for a few years? Do ya think Treasury have an "army" of ex-economists and analysts contracting themselves back to save up for their gold-plated retirement mansions on the Gold Coast of Australia
Treasury started the Ohakea - Whenuapai - ACF study themselves in the 1990's and the Government of the day rejected it, however the following Government ran with it when it was found that the savings gained by cancelling the ACF where wildly over stated( the savings where ment to be over $90m per year but wound up as significantly less than $30m) and the cost of amalgamating the bases that Treasury stated turned out to be only a small fracton of the actual cost of $1.2b. The savings on the cancelling of the ACf where only 1% of the re-instatment costs..
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
From what you're saying, if so, it seems to me Treasury's credibility (to the Govt) must be about zilch now if the results don't stack up with their planning figures.
This is all intriguing, please tell us more, as long as we don't run fowl of forum rules etc.
Christchurch Earthquake
The NZ Army are at present heading into the City of Christchurch following this afternoons massive Earthquake. The exercise they were undertaking in the Canterbury region has been cancelled.
They will be their to assist the local police, fire service, SAR unit and Civil Defence. It is a terrible situation. Lets hope the loss of life is kept to a minimum.
The NZ Army are at present heading into the City of Christchurch following this afternoons massive Earthquake. The exercise they were undertaking in the Canterbury region has been cancelled.
They will be their to assist the local police, fire service, SAR unit and Civil Defence. It is a terrible situation. Lets hope the loss of life is kept to a minimum.
Unfortunately the anti-nuclear legislation was seen and is still seen in the USA as the Kiwi's picking a fight with long standing US foreign policy... Americans don't like to be told to Go Home when we are there to help you... If you can't trust your allies, you have none...
The problem is many Kiwis saw US government department secretaries as politicians which they are in New Zealand, not as civil servants such as the then US secretary of state at the time, George Schultz, who never ran for any political office... Kiwis allowed shrilly partisan politics to rule over foreign policy logic...
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
True SeaToby, but remember it was a small number of NZ'ers that "wanted a fight" (i.e. those with the agenda), whereas initially the majority of NZ'ers didn't want a fight and the majority wanted to remain in ANZUS.
But NgatiMozart hit the nail on the head.
Public support changed once the "protagonists" used the heavy handed attitude of the US (the public face to NZ'ers was the Sec of State, certainly not the President he barely featured if at all from memory) to whip up public opinion to show the US were "bullying" NZ(and Australia supporting the US view) etc.
Looking back now, it is easy to see how public opinion was manipulated and aided by a sympathetic media enjoying the cat fight, and that's what happened, but even more disturbing was the NZG and USG's total lack of ability or desire to correct the mis-truths and sway public opinion back (all I can think was it was a clash of the generations - the older, stuffy WW2 generation in power "who knew what was best" versus the younger idealists who knew how to use the public opinion to counter the old guard). For the record I supported ANZUS and didn't have an issue with the US warship visits.
(There was a Radio NZ or newspaper interview last year with Marilyn Waring, the National MP who crossed the floor to support the Labour nuclear free-zone bill which was used as an excuse by then PM Muldoon to call for (and lose) the early election in 84. She said she had a visit from the Nat Govt defmin at the time who correctly, but lamely, stated to her that what she was doing would be the end of ANZUS and affect the US-NZ relationship. To that younger generation of "activists" that Waring supported (feminism, anti-military, anti-establishment etc), she said she truely couldn't give a stuff about maintaining old guard alliances and the such because the defmin represented every thing she despised (patriarchy, industrial military complex etc), so here was the clash of generations in play and the old guard simply incapable of dealing with the generational change occurring around them since the mid 60's-80's etc).
Rob C: you would have a fascinating insight into the whole debarcle from your position at the time. Could you offer your views when able to?
But NgatiMozart hit the nail on the head.
Public support changed once the "protagonists" used the heavy handed attitude of the US (the public face to NZ'ers was the Sec of State, certainly not the President he barely featured if at all from memory) to whip up public opinion to show the US were "bullying" NZ(and Australia supporting the US view) etc.
Looking back now, it is easy to see how public opinion was manipulated and aided by a sympathetic media enjoying the cat fight, and that's what happened, but even more disturbing was the NZG and USG's total lack of ability or desire to correct the mis-truths and sway public opinion back (all I can think was it was a clash of the generations - the older, stuffy WW2 generation in power "who knew what was best" versus the younger idealists who knew how to use the public opinion to counter the old guard). For the record I supported ANZUS and didn't have an issue with the US warship visits.
(There was a Radio NZ or newspaper interview last year with Marilyn Waring, the National MP who crossed the floor to support the Labour nuclear free-zone bill which was used as an excuse by then PM Muldoon to call for (and lose) the early election in 84. She said she had a visit from the Nat Govt defmin at the time who correctly, but lamely, stated to her that what she was doing would be the end of ANZUS and affect the US-NZ relationship. To that younger generation of "activists" that Waring supported (feminism, anti-military, anti-establishment etc), she said she truely couldn't give a stuff about maintaining old guard alliances and the such because the defmin represented every thing she despised (patriarchy, industrial military complex etc), so here was the clash of generations in play and the old guard simply incapable of dealing with the generational change occurring around them since the mid 60's-80's etc).
Rob C: you would have a fascinating insight into the whole debarcle from your position at the time. Could you offer your views when able to?