NZDF General discussion thread

[ngatimozart]

Maj Gen Tim Keating has been appointed CDF wef 1 Feb 2014 vice Lieutenant General Rhys Jones. Army Major General Tim Keating Named New Defence... | Stuff.co.nz I hope he is far more a leader than a manager and willing to stand up and fight for the sailors, soldiers and airmen of NZDF.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

Maj Gen Tim Keating has been appointed CDF wef 1 Feb 2014 vice Lieutenant General Rhys Jones. Army Major General Tim Keating Named New Defence... I hope he is far more a leader than a manager and willing to stand up and fight for the sailors, soldiers and airmen of NZDF.

Freaken beat me to it. ok. im over it know. Now that Maj Gen Keating has been announced. Im wondering if he will still wear the sandy beret.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

Maj Gen Tim Keating has been appointed CDF wef 1 Feb 2014 vice Lieutenant General Rhys Jones. Army Major General Tim Keating Named New Defence... | Stuff.co.nz I hope he is far more a leader than a manager and willing to stand up and fight for the sailors, soldiers and airmen of NZDF.

Ngati: do you want a super sonic attack air wing?. I'm getting a strong feeling you want an air wing of griffins and some A-400 atlas with some sort of Absalon iver huitfeild class frigate mix.

All jokes aside. retaining mid level NCO's and junior officers, would be top of my list if I wanted to look after the average servicemen. I'm just speculating. But thats where I would start, if I was to stand up for the individual. Especially around pay. And well pay rises may be a little out of range of the CDF portfolio.

Here in WA I am increasingly coming across young ex New Zealand servicemen. Whom get jobs straight out and are on 100 thousand per year with in a year.

Hard for any one to compete against that.

 

[Lucasnz]

Nothing most of us didn't already know but maybe things were / are worse than what been let on. TV3 Report

 

[ngatimozart]

Ngati: do you want a super sonic attack air wing?. I'm getting a strong feeling you want an air wing of griffins and some A-400 atlas with some sort of Absalon iver huitfeild class frigate mix.

All jokes aside. retaining mid level NCO's and junior officers, would be top of my list if I wanted to look after the average servicemen. I'm just speculating. But thats where I would start, if I was to stand up for the individual. Especially around pay. And well pay rises may be a little out of range of the CDF portfolio.

Here in WA I am increasingly coming across young ex New Zealand servicemen. Whom get jobs straight out and are on 100 thousand per year with in a year.

Hard for any one to compete against that.

In a perfect world I would like us to have:

• 24 x Gripen E + 6 for spares
• 16 x KAI T50 + 4
• 12 x NH90 + 3
• 4 x A400 Grizzly+ 1
• 6 x C27J Spartan + 2
• 3 x KC30MRTT + 1
• 6 x twin engined TP MPA + 2
• 6 x P8 Poseidon
• 10 x Beech T6 Texan II
• 15 x Basic training aircraft
• 6 x twin engined TP Multi Engine Pilot Training / Comms aircraft
• 12 x AW109 with second tranch of 7 marinised, armoured and armed + 3
• 8 x Kaman SH2G(I) Seapsrite + 2 to be superseded by 10 x NFH90
• 3 x Iver Huitfeild class frigate
• 1 x Absalon class vessel
• 6 x armed ice capable OPV about 2,500 - 3,000 tonne displacement with 76mm Oto Melara gun
• 1 x LPD type amphib vessel with large helo capability
• 1 x MPSC
• 1 x LWSC
• 4 x IPV
• Upgraded 105mm pack light weight howitzer & ammo
• 80 x NZLAV
• 12 x NZLAV fitted with 105mm howitzer
• MRAP vehicles (say 20 max)
• good Steyr replacement (RFI closed recently)
• really good packs and body armour for troops
• probably double the order of MAN vehicles
• mortar firing capbility from inside NZLAV
• good UAV capability across all three services
• good networking capability across all three services so that say a soldier on ground can give data direct to Gripen etc., or to frigate providing NSG
• and finally well paid NZDF personnel with good conditions of service such as the cheap housing and 26 working days of leave we used to have

Well we don't live in a perfect world and we will not get an ACF anytime soon, nor 7 x marinised, armed and armoured AW109s. I live with the reality of pollies who don't get defence, as well as tight arsed narow minded pollies and bureaucrats, who think of defence as nice to have but not a necessity. What we would like, what is actually needed, and what NZDF actually gets, are totally different stories.

 

[Todjaeger]

Nothing most of us didn't already know but maybe things were / are worse than what been let on. TV3 Report

Several pieces I took out from that. One is the Phil Geoff should be deployed alongside (or instead of) NZDF personnel next time there is to be a Kiwi deployment in a hostile area. A bit rich IMO to suggest that issues with operating NZDF kit ordered on one's watch is the fault of the current mob, when the Defence budget has been a problem for years and one does not bother to take sufficient steps to address the personnel problems the new kit is going to cause.

The other bit is where the upcoming CDF is supposed to 'save money' yet also fix the personnel issues. I have to really wonder just where and how the NZDF is supposed to save money.

 

[John Newman]

In a perfect world I would like us to have:

• 24 x Gripen E + 6 for spares
• 16 x KAI T50 + 4
• 12 x NH90 + 3
• 4 x A400 Grizzly+ 1
• 6 x C27J Spartan + 2
• 3 x KC30MRTT + 1
• 6 x twin engined TP MPA + 2
• 6 x P8 Poseidon
• 10 x Beech T6 Texan II
• 15 x Basic training aircraft
• 6 x twin engined TP Multi Engine Pilot Training / Comms aircraft
• 12 x AW109 with second tranch of 7 marinised, armoured and armed + 3
• 8 x Kaman SH2G(I) Seapsrite + 2 to be superseded by 10 x NFH90
• 3 x Iver Huitfeild class frigate
• 1 x Absalon class vessel
• 6 x armed ice capable OPV about 2,500 - 3,000 tonne displacement with 76mm Oto Melara gun
• 1 x LPD type amphib vessel with large helo capability
• 1 x MPSC
• 1 x LWSC
• 4 x IPV
• Upgraded 105mm pack light weight howitzer & ammo
• 80 x NZLAV
• 12 x NZLAV fitted with 105mm howitzer
• MRAP vehicles (say 20 max)
• good Steyr replacement (RFI closed recently)
• really good packs and body armour for troops
• probably double the order of MAN vehicles
• mortar firing capbility from inside NZLAV
• good UAV capability across all three services
• good networking capability across all three services so that say a soldier on ground can give data direct to Gripen etc., or to frigate providing NSG
• and finally well paid NZDF personnel with good conditions of service such as the cheap housing and 26 working days of leave we used to have

Well we don't live in a perfect world and we will not get an ACF anytime soon, nor 7 x marinised, armed and armoured AW109s. I live with the reality of pollies who don't get defence, as well as tight arsed narow minded pollies and bureaucrats, who think of defence as nice to have but not a necessity. What we would like, what is actually needed, and what NZDF actually gets, are totally different stories.

Ng, an impressive and balanced shopping list!

If you ever run for Kiwi PM / Def Min, I'd vote for you! (Hang on, means I'd have to become a Kiwi citizen, mmm, have to think about that....)

But of course you are right, it's not a perfect world and you have to live with the reality of dumb pollies, hopefully the little 'light bulb' will turn on for the decision makers sooner rather than later.

I shake my head at the pollies on this side of the ditch too, but at least for the moment they are making the right noises about returning the defence budget to 2% within the next 10 years, hopefully it become reality.

Will the NZ defence budget ever get to 2%? Probably not without some direct threat suddenly appearing over the horizon, but hopefully there is enough $'s in the coming years to at least get, as you said, what is needed!

 

[ngatimozart]

Several pieces I took out from that. One is the Phil Geoff should be deployed alongside (or instead of) NZDF personnel next time there is to be a Kiwi deployment in a hostile area. A bit rich IMO to suggest that issues with operating NZDF kit ordered on one's watch is the fault of the current mob, when the Defence budget has been a problem for years and one does not bother to take sufficient steps to address the personnel problems the new kit is going to cause.

The other bit is where the upcoming CDF is supposed to 'save money' yet also fix the personnel issues. I have to really wonder just where and how the NZDF is supposed to save money.

I saw the item when it was on the news and I think Sabin might've used some so called journalistic licence with regard to the saving money remark. Without knowing details it would appear to conflict with the DMRR and recent statements that the minster has made. It's not mentioned in the Stuff story, nor in the NZ Herald story and the Herald usually like sticking it to NZDF. I'd also like to see a copy of the auditors report before I make any more comments.

 

[Lucasnz]

Several pieces I took out from that. One is the Phil Geoff should be deployed alongside (or instead of) NZDF personnel next time there is to be a Kiwi deployment in a hostile area. A bit rich IMO to suggest that issues with operating NZDF kit ordered on one's watch is the fault of the current mob, when the Defence budget has been a problem for years and one does not bother to take sufficient steps to address the personnel problems the new kit is going to y.

Possibly clearing unexploded ammo

 

[John Newman]

Possibly clearing unexploded ammo

Especially ones that are going tick, tick, tick, tick ........ BOOM!

 

[Ocean1Curse]

In a perfect world I would like us to have:

• 24 x Gripen E + 6 for spares
• 16 x KAI T50 + 4
• 12 x NH90 + 3
• 4 x A400 Grizzly+ 1
• 6 x C27J Spartan + 2
• 3 x KC30MRTT + 1
• 6 x twin engined TP MPA + 2
• 6 x P8 Poseidon
• 10 x Beech T6 Texan II
• 15 x Basic training aircraft
• 6 x twin engined TP Multi Engine Pilot Training / Comms aircraft
• 12 x AW109 with second tranch of 7 marinised, armoured and armed + 3
• 8 x Kaman SH2G(I) Seapsrite + 2 to be superseded by 10 x NFH90
• 3 x Iver Huitfeild class frigate
• 1 x Absalon class vessel
• 6 x armed ice capable OPV about 2,500 - 3,000 tonne displacement with 76mm Oto Melara gun
• 1 x LPD type amphib vessel with large helo capability
• 1 x MPSC
• 1 x LWSC
• 4 x IPV
• Upgraded 105mm pack light weight howitzer & ammo
• 80 x NZLAV
• 12 x NZLAV fitted with 105mm howitzer
• MRAP vehicles (say 20 max)
• good Steyr replacement (RFI closed recently)
• really good packs and body armour for troops
• probably double the order of MAN vehicles
• mortar firing capbility from inside NZLAV
• good UAV capability across all three services
• good networking capability across all three services so that say a soldier on ground can give data direct to Gripen etc., or to frigate providing NSG
• and finally well paid NZDF personnel with good conditions of service such as the cheap housing and 26 working days of leave we used to have

Well we don't live in a perfect world and we will not get an ACF anytime soon, nor 7 x marinised, armed and armoured AW109s. I live with the reality of pollies who don't get defence, as well as tight arsed narow minded pollies and bureaucrats, who think of defence as nice to have but not a necessity. What we would like, what is actually needed, and what NZDF actually gets, are totally different stories.

B coy, 28'th maori battalion, was almost wiped out bar 6,(one been my Koro Black), WW2 casino campaign, because armoured support could not get in position. Never again.

I for one am constantly irked by comments in the media like from several individuals whom I shouldn't name. But can tell they are national and labour vot grabbers. Deployable this, amphibious that. With out been able to deal with a medium level threat and dominating an area of tactical operations, independently.

With out the ability to land and evacuate a battalion size force by sea. While deploying any sizeable force is for my mind an act of stupidity.

Also. Comments like. Relying on coalition partners, also ranks like an amateur.

I'm all for giving the New Zealand military what they need. But they first need people to do it with, while maintaining mana.


According to Population Pyramid of WORLD in 2035 — PopulationPyramid.net, (depending when you view this population calculator, the numbers fluctuate, according to UN data inputs, which vary between 5.3-10 million population growth), for a possible 150-300 billion annual GDP. New Zealand can easily average a 3 billion per year defence budget over the next 22 years, making Ngati's wish list very obtainable in the next 10 years.

One wouldn't even need to purchase the whole list in one go. But I would purchase enough as to maintain a high level of training in short notice. Then I would want to put on that list. An Olympic sized swimming pool. More grenades and training ammunition. We could also take a leaf out of an Australian army example.

While recruiting has also been poor in Australia. Australian army built a new aviation maintenance fissility in Queens land. Which produces world class aviation fitters. While I am not versed in what makes this fissility productive. I do know I like the way that apprentices are exposed to new technologies and technics like sensor installation and repair. And that's what I like about it. Which is an holistic approach to not having every thing you should. But been able to give individual service people what they need in short notice. Australian army has also bucked the recruiting trend, In terms of aviation maintenance. But as for the average grunt. May be we could just give them a few rounds to pop of, while they do all that running. Just to keep them happy.

 

[ngatimozart]

Back in 2000 the Howard govt in Australia undertook a Community Consultation Process on Defence. Community Consultation Team Report Released. On the surface it appears to have engaged the public in the formulation of defence policy. I am wondering if something similar would be worthwhile here in that it could raise the profile of NZDF in the publics eyes and at the same time it may educate the public in the need for a proper defence force and maybe reduce the influence of the anti defence brigade. The one thing that the Australians have that is needed here is a bipartisan approach to defence at the political level. Maybe that could possibly be a bridge to far because of current Labour party policy.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

Yea but that was the Howard era.

I can also remember before the 2004'ish election. Him telling people he was gana buy another infantry battalion for 2 billion. I call this the Howard manoeuvre. In the way he would refer to bits of paper and take his pledges to an election. There by circumventing a bipartisan approach.

But as we all know. Long term defence spending requires a bipartisan approach. Or one could just legislate a 2% defence budget.

A cursory look through ~ wiki, and comparing unit prices to Ngati's shopping list, should bring you to a ball park figure of a 20 billion dollar cash injection, and an annual defence budget of about 3.6 billion. Something that New Zealand is entirely capable of doing. And should.

According to statistics New Zealand. (The June quarter). New Zealand exported over half a billion dollars worth of goods and services, which represents around 90% of GDP for that quarter. When you consider that most of this trade is sent through pirate country on the way to Hong Kong. A 20 billion cash injection isn't that much in comparison. And is also very reasonable.

All though New Zealand does not have a belligerent state on its boarder. Our trading partners do. I think this point could be explained more clearly by certain people. Which would further erode the argument, (but New Zealand is so far away, no one is going to attack us).

 

[ngatimozart]

Yea but that was the Howard era.

I can also remember before the 2004'ish election. Him telling people he was gana buy another infantry battalion for 2 billion. I call this the Howard manoeuvre. In the way he would refer to bits of paper and take his pledges to an election. There by circumventing a bipartisan approach.

But as we all know. Long term defence spending requires a bipartisan approach. Or one could just legislate a 2% defence budget.

A cursory look through ~ wiki, and comparing unit prices to Ngati's shopping list, should bring you to a ball park figure of a 20 billion dollar cash injection, and an annual defence budget of about 3.6 billion. Something that New Zealand is entirely capable of doing. And should.

According to statistics New Zealand. (The June quarter). New Zealand exported over half a billion dollars worth of goods and services, which represents around 90% of GDP for that quarter. When you consider that most of this trade is sent through pirate country on the way to Hong Kong. A 20 billion cash injection isn't that much in comparison. And is also very reasonable.

All though New Zealand does not have a belligerent state on its boarder. Our trading partners do. I think this point could be explained more clearly by certain people. Which would further erode the argument, (but New Zealand is so far away, no one is going to attack us).

Most of us on here know the arguments but it is the pollies and the great hairy unwashed that have to be edumicated. Pollies think in terms of three year electoral cycles and votes. They rarely think long term and the public if it doesn't interest them they don't want to know. That's what we would have to change if we could regarding NZ Defence. Do we live in benign times at the moment? I have my doubts about that and it's debatable.

 

[ngatimozart]

Ng, an impressive and balanced shopping list!

If you ever run for Kiwi PM / Def Min, I'd vote for you! (Hang on, means I'd have to become a Kiwi citizen, mmm, have to think about that....)

John I couldn't do that mate. If I did I'd be wanting to take a M2 .50 cal and a couple boxes of ammo into the debating chamber with me to drive home some points and edumicate the pollies. However if the NZG gave me $20 billion (in 2014 dollars) over a 10 year period and a relatively free hand, I, along with some advisors from here, could give them an effective and well equiped NZDF with a JATF and maritime strike foci, able to project NZ power and diplomacy far better than anytime previously, in both hard power and soft power options. I wouldn't even charge them much. Consultants rates plus a 40oz bottle of squirt each week or maybe 2 bottles - a bird can't fly on one wing.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

Huh?. Edumacating pollies. Hea. Umm. Think I might go with Ngati's first thought. Take an M2 into the beating chamber.

Or.... Politicians covert there business relation ships more than is publicised. So a quick explanation of how the US debt (well over 17 trillion dollars) is being manufactured to crash the US dollar. This is not just a conspiracy theory. The fed is printing money at a rate my google fuu can not keep up with, there by artificially creating inflation. And America is unable to deal with interest rates other than 0.

In this scenario any increase to US interest rates will make US government debt and bonds repayments un serviceable. And printing money is increasing inflation, and eventually interest rates. At which point. The US dollar can no longer be the reserve dollar of the world.

What will replace the failing US dollar. There has been talk for some time about an amalgamation of the US, Canada and Mexico currency. Acrimoniously called MEADS.

In this scenario. Government officials will lose there ability to accrue debt. Making trading routes even more vulnerable. And the need to protect capital rather than currency is a 50 year inevitable truth.

 

[John Newman]

Back in 2000 the Howard govt in Australia undertook a Community Consultation Process on Defence. Community Consultation Team Report Released. On the surface it appears to have engaged the public in the formulation of defence policy. I am wondering if something similar would be worthwhile here in that it could raise the profile of NZDF in the publics eyes and at the same time it may educate the public in the need for a proper defence force and maybe reduce the influence of the anti defence brigade. The one thing that the Australians have that is needed here is a bipartisan approach to defence at the political level. Maybe that could possibly be a bridge to far because of current Labour party policy.

Ng, I must say I've never really taken a look at the balance of political parties in NZ and what they stand for in regard to defence, so I just did, and it was an eye opener:

* 59 seats - National Party (Government) - Tried to find their defence policy on their party website, nothing particularly 'specific', but as they are the Government we can see what they are doing (or not) in regard to defence.

* 34 seats - Labour Party - Went to their website to look for their Defence Policy and couldn't find one (probably means they don't have one!).

* 14 seats - Green Party - Went to their website, my God!! Talk about a bunch of crazies! Some of the points in their Defence Policy made my hair stand on end:
- The NZ armed forces should dispense with capabilities gained to enable New Zealand to operate as a subordinate part in a combat task force led by the United States, Britain or Australia.
- Phasing out assets designed for major combat in a larger task force is also consistent with New Zealand's more independent role in the world,
- Phase out the ANZAC frigates as soon as possible and replace with more appropriate equipment.
- Not install specialist anti-submarine detection and fighting capability on our maritime surveillance airplanes.

* 8 seats - New Zealand First Party - Went to their website and found their Defence Policy, probably the party that 'appears' to be more 'pro' defence that either of the three other main parties, some points from their policies:
- Work towards funding our Defence Forces at a level of 2% of GDP.
- Ensure the early procurement of essential modern equipment for our Defence Force to avoid obsolescence and to enhance a high level of interoperability with our closest allies.
- Create a new maritime focused Defence Force along the lines of the British Royal Marines and the US Marine Corps that concentrates our Defence Force elements, ensure that this Marine Force has fully integrated combat elements including an Air Combat Capability, capable of providing close air support, deploying across sea gaps, and landing ashore in the absence of port facilities.
- Successive Governments have run our Air Force into the ground to the extent that we now have no air strike capability. That is not a credible position for a Maritime Nation engaged in significant partnerships with its neighbours. NZ First's economic plan will enable New Zealand to regain an air strike force capacity and will build a fund specifically dedicated to achieving that objective. The defence of our shores as well as maritime surveillance and reaction capacity makes this an important objective.


Amongst the four major NZ political parties there appears to be rather extreme gaps between their various views on defence policies.

God help you lot if ever there is a Labour/Greens Coalition Government, especially if the Greens are in a position to significantly influence defence policy.

On the other hand if a National / NZ First Coalition Government was in power, probably wouldn't be a bad idea, especially if the NZ First Party has an influence on defence policy.

Getting back to your original point about a Community Consultation Process on Defence, would it make a difference? I don't know, certainly wouldn't hurt, especially if it was 'promoted' properly by Government, and the media, it should at least raise the awareness of the Defence debate amongst the general public NZ.

I'd be interested to know if the 'followers' of those four political parties above have the same level of 'extreme differences' in their views as the parties they support do?

Ng, I'm interested in your opinion on what I've written above.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

Ng, I must say I've never really taken a look at the balance of political parties in NZ and what they stand for in regard to defence, so I just did, and it was an eye opener:

* 59 seats - National Party (Government) - Tried to find their defence policy on their party website, nothing particularly 'specific', but as they are the Government we can see what they are doing (or not) in regard to defence.

* 34 seats - Labour Party - Went to their website to look for their Defence Policy and couldn't find one (probably means they don't have one!).

* 14 seats - Green Party - Went to their website, my God!! Talk about a bunch of crazies! Some of the points in their Defence Policy made my hair stand on end:
- The NZ armed forces should dispense with capabilities gained to enable New Zealand to operate as a subordinate part in a combat task force led by the United States, Britain or Australia.
- Phasing out assets designed for major combat in a larger task force is also consistent with New Zealand's more independent role in the world,
- Phase out the ANZAC frigates as soon as possible and replace with more appropriate equipment.
- Not install specialist anti-submarine detection and fighting capability on our maritime surveillance airplanes.

* 8 seats - New Zealand First Party - Went to their website and found their Defence Policy, probably the party that 'appears' to be more 'pro' defence that either of the three other main parties, some points from their policies:
- Work towards funding our Defence Forces at a level of 2% of GDP.
- Ensure the early procurement of essential modern equipment for our Defence Force to avoid obsolescence and to enhance a high level of interoperability with our closest allies.
- Create a new maritime focused Defence Force along the lines of the British Royal Marines and the US Marine Corps that concentrates our Defence Force elements, ensure that this Marine Force has fully integrated combat elements including an Air Combat Capability, capable of providing close air support, deploying across sea gaps, and landing ashore in the absence of port facilities.
- Successive Governments have run our Air Force into the ground to the extent that we now have no air strike capability. That is not a credible position for a Maritime Nation engaged in significant partnerships with its neighbours. NZ First's economic plan will enable New Zealand to regain an air strike force capacity and will build a fund specifically dedicated to achieving that objective. The defence of our shores as well as maritime surveillance and reaction capacity makes this an important objective.


Amongst the four major NZ political parties there appears to be rather extreme gaps between their various views on defence policies.

God help you lot if ever there is a Labour/Greens Coalition Government, especially if the Greens are in a position to significantly influence defence policy.

On the other hand if a National / NZ First Coalition Government was in power, probably wouldn't be a bad idea, especially if the NZ First Party has an influence on defence policy.

Getting back to your original point about a Community Consultation Process on Defence, would it make a difference? I don't know, certainly wouldn't hurt, especially if it was 'promoted' properly by Government, and the media, it should at least raise the awareness of the Defence debate amongst the general public NZ.

I'd be interested to know if the 'followers' of those four political parties above have the same level of 'extreme differences' in their views as the parties they support do?

Ng, I'm interested in your opinion on what I've written above.

Here's a link to a 10 part you tube video titled New Zealand defence documentary in which New Zealand first MP is featured. New Zealand Defence Part 1 - New Zealand - YouTube. I my self became reacquainted with defence issues as a result of viewing this documentary. And have formed most of my views about defence as a result of viewing this doc.

I particularly like the use of a swastika in a trash can.

 

[ngatimozart]

Ng, I must say I've never really taken a look at the balance of political parties in NZ and what they stand for in regard to defence, so I just did, and it was an eye opener:

* 59 seats - National Party (Government) - Tried to find their defence policy on their party website, nothing particularly 'specific', but as they are the Government we can see what they are doing (or not) in regard to defence.

The National party would be similar to the Australian Liberal Party in that it is a centrist right wing party. It's main constituents are professionals, business people and farmers.

* 34 seats - Labour Party - Went to their website to look for their Defence Policy and couldn't find one (probably means they don't have one!).

If you look at NZ defence and foreign policy from 1999 - 2008 that was and is current Labour Party policy. Goff who is the current labour defence spokesmen was foreign minister and defence minister in that govt under Clark. Much like the Greens, they do not like ASW capability nor were that keen on a frigate navy. Interestingly it has been Labour party policy since 1958 not to have an ACF and Clark was the first Labour PM to actually adhere to that policy. The NZ Labour Party maybe swinging further left wing now. Since 1984 it had been a centrist left wing party but with a right wing economic and social policy of neoliberalism which both main political parties in NZ (National & Labour) adopted enthusiastically. It was Labour who introduced neoliberalism economic and social policies to NZ in 1984 and since then the NZ ideological variant has been almost extreme. Unfortunately the NZ variant has excluded the neoliberal & neocon defence ideology.

* 14 seats - Green Party - Went to their website, my God!! Talk about a bunch of crazies! Some of the points in their Defence Policy made my hair stand on end:
- The NZ armed forces should dispense with capabilities gained to enable New Zealand to operate as a subordinate part in a combat task force led by the United States, Britain or Australia.
- Phasing out assets designed for major combat in a larger task force is also consistent with New Zealand's more independent role in the world,
- Phase out the ANZAC frigates as soon as possible and replace with more appropriate equipment.
- Not install specialist anti-submarine detection and fighting capability on our maritime surveillance airplanes.

The NZ Greens are more left wing than the Australian Greens and in issues like defence they hold extreme views. Like some of the older senior members of the Labour party, many senior Greens were activists in the 1960s / 1970s and thats informed or tainted their political views since. It didn't help that back then some of them might have had been taugh some manners by members of NZDF during protests

* 8 seats - New Zealand First Party - Went to their website and found their Defence Policy, probably the party that 'appears' to be more 'pro' defence that either of the three other main parties, some points from their policies:
- Work towards funding our Defence Forces at a level of 2% of GDP.
- Ensure the early procurement of essential modern equipment for our Defence Force to avoid obsolescence and to enhance a high level of interoperability with our closest allies.
- Create a new maritime focused Defence Force along the lines of the British Royal Marines and the US Marine Corps that concentrates our Defence Force elements, ensure that this Marine Force has fully integrated combat elements including an Air Combat Capability, capable of providing close air support, deploying across sea gaps, and landing ashore in the absence of port facilities.
- Successive Governments have run our Air Force into the ground to the extent that we now have no air strike capability. That is not a credible position for a Maritime Nation engaged in significant partnerships with its neighbours. NZ First's economic plan will enable New Zealand to regain an air strike force capacity and will build a fund specifically dedicated to achieving that objective. The defence of our shores as well as maritime surveillance and reaction capacity makes this an important objective.

NZ First is a problem child. It is centred around its leader and he is fond of the perks and baubles of office even though he strenuously has denied such and lambasted others for such. However IMHO he is ego driven and his ego would have trouble fitting inside a C17. He was the last foreign minister of the Clark Labour govt and did do a good job of it. He did bring a sense of reality to the job.

Amongst the four major NZ political parties there appears to be rather extreme gaps between their various views on defence policies.

God help you lot if ever there is a Labour/Greens Coalition Government, especially if the Greens are in a position to significantly influence defence policy.

In the 1999 - 2008 Clark Labour govt the Greens were an active coalition partner and they will be if there is another Labour govt in the future.

On the other hand if a National / NZ First Coalition Government was in power, probably wouldn't be a bad idea, especially if the NZ First Party has an influence on defence policy.

On past history, when NZ Firts has been in a govt coalition, I cannot remember them doing anything constructive for defence. I could be wrong.

Getting back to your original point about a Community Consultation Process on Defence, would it make a difference? I don't know, certainly wouldn't hurt, especially if it was 'promoted' properly by Government, and the media, it should at least raise the awareness of the Defence debate amongst the general public NZ.

I'd be interested to know if the 'followers' of those four political parties above have the same level of 'extreme differences' in their views as the parties they support do?

Ng, I'm interested in your opinion on what I've written above.

I think I've addressed your astute observations as best I can. It is quite interesting to have an outsiders take on our pollies party policies. I think their polices reflect some of the views of their 'followers'. In the case of the Greens, that would be true of the majority. Last year I asked the Mana party for their foreign and defence policy; they didn't have one, but they are quite left wing. The main problem in NZ is that the great hairy unwashed lack any political inertia, especially in defence and foreign affairs, and so the ones that do get to make decisions on party policies have ideological motivations that necessarily are not in the best interest of the country as a whole. Having said that my own opinion is biased towards a well structured, strong and viable defence forceso who'se opinion or view is in the best interest of the country? Each view is subjective.

 

[Lucasnz]

In a perfect world I would like us to have:

• 24 x Gripen E + 6 for spares
• 16 x KAI T50 + 4
• 12 x NH90 + 3
• 4 x A400 Grizzly+ 1
• 6 x C27J Spartan + 2
• 6 x twin engined TP MPA + 2
• 6 x P8 Poseidon
• 10 x Beech T6 Texan II
• 15 x Basic training aircraft
• 6 x twin engined TP Multi Engine Pilot Training / Comms aircraft
• 12 x AW109 with second tranch of 7 marinised, armoured and armed + 3
• 8 x Kaman SH2G(I) Seapsrite + 2 to be superseded by 10 x NFH90
• 3 x Iver Huitfeild class frigate
• 1 x Absalon class vessel
• 6 x armed ice capable OPV about 2,500 - 3,000 tonne displacement with 76mm Oto Melara gun
• 1 x LPD type amphib vessel with large helo capability
• 1 x MPSC
• 1 x LWSC
• 4 x IPV

In order to get an idea of the cost of your proposals (which I know is the dream list) I did some calculations using NZDF info and the ever reliable Wikipedia on the above list. The Army equipment is a bit messier given what you were proposing so I excluded it. For simplicity I've also removed the spares from the equation. In total the total cost is $17,545,537,734 requiring annual capital contributions of $584,851,258. Assuming a service life of 30 years and annual costs increases on 3% (there seems to be a lot of debate about military inflation) the cost rises to $27,824,541,716.

PM me if you want the spread sheet.