NZDF General discussion thread

[RegR]

I find it alittle dis-heartening when our main defence force considerations are Antarctica and the southern ocean. Whilst it's a bonus NZDF can be of service in these areas to me they should not be defineing points of our armed forces and hold so much sway.

These areas are more or less bordering on the civilian world and in fact do not add any weight to a 'combat' orientated structure and actually push more the other way. With emphasis going down this path I can see just how easy it was to axe the ACF so readily.

 

[t68]

I find it alittle dis-heartening when our main defence force considerations are Antarctica and the southern ocean. Whilst it's a bonus NZDF can be of service in these areas to me they should not be defineing points of our armed forces and hold so much sway.

These areas are more or less bordering on the civilian world and in fact do not add any weight to a 'combat' orientated structure and actually push more the other way. With emphasis going down this path I can see just how easy it was to axe the ACF so readily.

We'll if they want to gear it towards a arctic warfare specialist Army you could always equip the Army with a structure like the Norwegian Army Telemark Battalion, (TMBN) which have Squadrons worth of Leopard 2 MBT and Squadrons worth of CV9030 AFV in the Calvary and Mechanical Infantry Role.

And they just happen to be able to not only the Arctic but elsewhere like Afghanistan

 

[htbrst]

I find it alittle dis-heartening when our main defence force considerations are Antarctica and the southern ocean. Whilst it's a bonus NZDF can be of service in these areas to me they should not be defineing points of our armed forces and hold so much sway.

These areas are more or less bordering on the civilian world and in fact do not add any weight to a 'combat' orientated structure and actually push more the other way. With emphasis going down this path I can see just how easy it was to axe the ACF so readily.

Indeed - there was some news stories about how the Navy should get a new Ice Breaker to protect the Antarctic based on one persons submission to the DWP

(they were not suggesting an ice-breaker, more of an ice-strengthened patrol vessel but most media were basing there articles on third hand reports)

Navy needs ice breaker - academic | Radio New Zealand News

 

[shanes_world_05]

Indeed - there was some news stories about how the Navy should get a new Ice Breaker to protect the Antarctic based on one persons submission to the DWP

(they were not suggesting an ice-breaker, more of an ice-strengthened patrol vessel but most media were basing there articles on third hand reports)

Navy needs ice breaker - academic | Radio New Zealand News

I've said it before but this country will only get the combat equipment it needed to win tomorrow's battles - after it needed. And the cream of New Zealand will be traded for the absence of that equipment. Sounds dramatic. But I don't care. Its as logical as war and peace being as inevitable as each other. We shouldn't have spent the last twenty years debating how to spend the insufficient funding across different service priorities but rather why we were prepared to tolerate such dismal level of funding in the first place.

 

[40 deg south]

Defence White Paper 2015 [Ministry of Defence NZ]

We are half-way through the White Paper public meetings. Has anyone attended one, or seen any accounts from people who have?

I'm curious about turn-out and the nature of discussion.

 

[40 deg south]

Indeed - there was some news stories about how the Navy should get a new Ice Breaker to protect the Antarctic based on one persons submission to the DWP

(they were not suggesting an ice-breaker, more of an ice-strengthened patrol vessel but most media were basing there articles on third hand reports)

Navy needs ice breaker - academic | Radio New Zealand News

Antarctica is the fifth-largest continent (above Europe and almost double the size of Australia), and can reasonably be assumed to hold huge mineral reserves.

Activities in Antarctica are regulated by a series of international treaties. The foundation stone is the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, which entered force in 1961. It sets aside Antarctica for peaceful activities and scientific research, and prohibits the use of military forces except to aid in scientific activities. This treaty was a highly successful diplomatic fudge that neatly skips over the seven countries that had already made territorial claims in Antarctica, including NZ.

NZ made an attempt to regulate commercial activities in Antacrtica with the Convention of the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities in 1988. While a handful of countries signed the Convention, non ratified it meaning it never came into effect.

It was effectively replaced by the Madrid Protocol (Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antactic Treaty), which was thrashed out in the early 1990s and came into effect in 1998. It has been ratified by 33 nations, including most big players including the USA, UK, Russia, China, India and most of Europe.

Key components include

Article 3 - protection of the Antarctic environment as a wilderness with aesthetic and scientific value shall be a "fundamental consideration" of activities in the area.

Article 7 - "Any activity relating to mineral resources, other than scientific research, shall be prohibited."

Article 15 - member states to be prepared for emergency response actions in the area.

In the short term, I think the NZ government is concerned about whether NZ is able to effectively meet the emergency response requirements of Article 15. In the longer term, the Protocol is up for re-negotiation in 2046. Whle that sounds a long way off, it is only 31 years. Any RNZN vessel ordered today is very likely to be still in service then. Depending on the state of international relations, there could be an unregulated gold rush as various powers send exploration teams and military escorts south to grab whatever they can. I wouldn't rate this as probable, but active attempts to get at Antarcticas minerals are far more likely than not at some point.

Aplogies for the length of post, but it is an area that few kiwis trouble themselves about, even though it is happening 'next door'.

 

[htbrst]

For those interested the NZDF loaded up HMNZS Canterbury over the last few days with a bunch of equipment to head off to exercise Talisman Sabre in Australia. The load includes 2 NH-90's which are travelling abroad for the first time. 22 LAV's and ~ 23 other vehicles.

Here is a video including a NH-90 landing and being loaded into the hanger, along with video of loading LAVs via the side door (which had to be done at high tide)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfSN6274uRE&feature=youtu.be

And a set of pictures from the NZDF facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.865721313465016.1073742035.166834123353742&type=1

 

[40 deg south]

Indeed - there was some news stories about how the Navy should get a new Ice Breaker to protect the Antarctic based on one persons submission to the DWP

(they were not suggesting an ice-breaker, more of an ice-strengthened patrol vessel but most media were basing there articles on third hand reports)

Navy needs ice breaker - academic | Radio New Zealand News

French Shipyard Piriou to Build a Polar Logistics Support Vessel for the French Navy & State

To keep with the Antarctic theme, the French are replacing their two southern ocean vessels with a single 'Polar Logistics Support Vessel'. Looks a handy little ship, with emphasis on the 'little'. Not bad for 50 million Euros, though.

 

[t68]

For those interested the NZDF loaded up HMNZS Canterbury over the last few days with a bunch of equipment to head off to exercise Talisman Sabre in Australia. The load includes 2 NH-90's which are travelling abroad for the first time. 22 LAV's and ~ 23 other vehicles.

Here is a video including a NH-90 landing and being loaded into the hanger, along with video of loading LAVs via the side door (which had to be done at high tide)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfSN6274uRE&feature=youtu.be

And a set of pictures from the NZDF facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.865721313465016.1073742035.166834123353742&type=1

Could not get the video to work on my phone, but are you suggesting that once Cnterbury is loaded she is either to low for the side loading ramp to the dock at low tide or she hits the bottom at low tide. Or is there something else?

 

[RegR]

Could not get the video to work on my phone, but are you suggesting that once Cnterbury is loaded she is either to low for the side loading ramp to the dock at low tide or she hits the bottom at low tide. Or is there something else?

They have to work with the tides to use the ramps in relation to the docks ie cannot open ramps if CY is too low alongside as they will not line up and be able to lower the ramp fully.

 

[chis73]

Just a reminder, submissions for the Defence White Paper are due in on Monday (22nd June). So, if you haven't already put your 10 cents in, now's the time.

If it helps, here are some thoughtful White Paper-related posts from various academics - Beth Greener from Massey, Hugh White from ANU in Canberra, & Matt Hill (Cornell University) over at the Incline blog (the most discussion I've seen in one place - apart from DT of course)
Incline - Home

Addendum: I missed this earlier piece from Karl du Fresne that excellently summarises the joint Victoria / Massey symposium on the White Paper held in May. Well worth a read.
http://www.listener.co.nz/current-affairs/foreign-affairs/fighting-talk-2/

Chis73

 

[40 deg south]

Just a reminder, submissions for the Defence White Paper are due in on Monday (22nd June). So, if you haven't already put your 10 cents in, now's the time.

If it helps, here are some thoughtful White Paper-related posts from various academics - Beth Greener from Massey, Hugh White from ANU in Canberra, & Matt Hill (Cornell University) over at the Incline blog (the most discussion I've seen in one place - apart from DT of course)
Incline - Home

Addendum: I missed this earlier piece from Karl du Fresne that excellently summarises the joint Victoria / Massey symposium on the White Paper held in May. Well worth a read.
Fighting talk - New Zealand Listener

Chis73

Thanks Chis 73

The Karl du Fresne piece in particular is an excellent read that I wouldn't have otherwise seen.

My own White Paper submission fell foul to a the unexected death of a memory stick on which my carefully-considered thoughts were stored. I ended up furiously typing comments into the on-line submission form late on the final day, while muttering comments under my breath that caused the dear daughter to threaten to report me to Mummy.

After all my wordy advice above to other submitters, I feel like a complete pillock,

 

[ngatimozart]

Thanks Chis 73

The Karl du Fresne piece in particular is an excellent read that I wouldn't have otherwise seen.

My own White Paper submission fell foul to a the unexected death of a memory stick on which my carefully-considered thoughts were stored. I ended up furiously typing comments into the on-line submission form late on the final day, while muttering comments under my breath that caused the dear daughter to threaten to report me to Mummy.

After all my wordy advice above to other submitters, I feel like a complete pillock,

Bugger, not fun. I managed to get mine just in on the last day with a few hiccups and what not on the way. Her indoors got to hear some language learned whilst in the forces Luckily the grandkids were not visiting.

The NZ Herald ran a Bryce Edwards opinion piece today Political roundup: NZ's military future that discusses the current DWP review. It is more of literature review and has links to some relevant pieces that are mostly worth looking at. They cover a broad spectrum of opinions.

 

[John Fedup]

Bugger, not fun. I managed to get mine just in on the last day with a few hiccups and what not on the way. Her indoors got to hear some language learned whilst in the forces Luckily the grandkids were not visiting.

The NZ Herald ran a Bryce Edwards opinion piece today Political roundup: NZ's military future that discusses the current DWP review. It is more of literature review and has links to some relevant pieces that are mostly worth looking at. They cover a broad spectrum of opinions.

An interesting read and I found the comments about the Australia New Zealand relationship in some aspects mirrors the U.S. Canada one. Canada, like NZ, has allowed defence spending to fall to 1% of GDP and we depend on our neighbour as well. The big difference is we share a border and the U.S must protect us for their security. Australia's defence doesn't depend on NZ so much. Both countries also lack the means to properly protect their Polar assets although in Canada's case it is easier to do.

The real problem is the apathetic atitude of NZ and Canadian citizens towards defence matters in general and the way some feel on how the world works. They need to educate themselves.

 

[RubiconNZ]

The real problem is the apathetic atitude of NZ and Canadian citizens towards defence matters in general and the way some feel on how the world works. They need to educate themselves.

New Zealand and Canada alike need their "Crimean moment" the tremors that went through the Nordic and Baltic nations were significant and national defense issues were suddenly public and newsworthy, not just people complaining about the cost and noise of the JSF. (Norway)

All of a sudden the value of their countries militaries were apparent and the long built up apathy and war on terror fatigue were placed into perspective.

Canada will face something in the medium term with the Arctic North, and the Harper government attempted to make that developmental shift however for whatever reason it has been bungled so far.

The closest moment NZ has had was the failure of the Navy to apprehend the illegal fishing (more legality than capability of course). I believe the NZDF has a PR problem and it is not helped by a left leaning media. While I hope it doesn't take Tuvalu being annexed to wake up NZ, something needs to change. Even people smuggling and terrorism are very far removed from NZ shores.



Is NZ still the mother hen of the Pacific? Due to what I attribute to trade sensibilities, NZ seems to have kept a rather low profile when it comes to Asia. The 90's for NZ was the UN Peacekeeping decade, the 2000's more focus was on the War On Terror spilling into the teen's as well. What's next? The JATF is the concentration for now, IMO rightfully so. But it has to be equipped and trained appropriately, and even more so, what will it be used for? Even more importantly capital purchases must be made, billions must be spent on critical defense capacity ie. Frigates, 3 and the CN has to fight properly on why 3 is critical, air transport and maritime patrol. I know few here would argue this but this capability has to be public. In the Frigates case they have to be used, there has to be flag waving with their use and it needs to be very clear why only a Frigate will do.

I am very curious to see if the White Paper attempts to answer these questions in a meaningful way. Even more so can a White Paper ever be more than a partisan political document that is automatically dismissed when a new party enters?

 

[KiwiRob]

New Zealand and Canada alike need their "Crimean moment" the tremors that went through the Nordic and Baltic nations were significant and national defense issues were suddenly public and newsworthy, not just people complaining about the cost and noise of the JSF. (Norway)

All of a sudden the value of their countries militaries were apparent and the long built up apathy and war on terror fatigue were placed into perspective.

I disagree the Norwegian PM last week said

Norway’s Prime Minister has described Nato’s campaign to push member states to spend two percent of GDP on defence as “nonsense”.

There is no political will to increase defence spending in Norway.

 

[Volkodav]

I disagree the Norwegian PM last week said



There is no political will to increase defence spending in Norway.

Except Norway has five AEGIS frigates, modern AFVs and plan to replace their fighter fleet in the next decade. They have been able to do what they need to do with less than 2% which is great, other nations haven't.

 

[John Fedup]

Except Norway has five AEGIS frigates, modern AFVs and plan to replace their fighter fleet in the next decade. They have been able to do what they need to do with less than 2% which is great, other nations haven't.

....and a pretty impressive missile has been developed for their JSFs and for any interested partner nations.

 

[KiwiRob]

Except Norway has five AEGIS frigates, modern AFVs and plan to replace their fighter fleet in the next decade. They have been able to do what they need to do with less than 2% which is great, other nations haven't.

There less than 2% is a whole lot more than ours.

They can't crew all the Nansens, I believe right now they have crew for 2, one of them is now a parts hulk for the other 4, it's a long way from servicable.

 

[Volkodav]

There less than 2% is a whole lot more than ours.

They can't crew all the Nansens, I believe right now they have crew for 2, one of them is now a parts hulk for the other 4, it's a long way from servicable.

Is that due to budget cuts or retention issues? During the mining construction boom the RAN were paying huge retention bonuses to submariners and where still unable to retain sufficient qualified and experience technical people to operate the required number of boats. Part of the problem ironically was due to the reduction in crew size, particularly in technical sailors, meant there were never any qualified sailors to spare and being even one sailor down could prevent a boat from deploying, the Nansens have very small crews but remain extremely complex ships, I could imagine them suffering similar issues.