Yeah, i brought that Fiji buys Russia Arms topic up here coincidently. This just might be the sort of diplomacy we need regards to Fiji if we we are indeed 'still freinds' as you say. A sight more helpfull than a shipload of weapons.
Though with all the damage done to Fiji Barracks and the civilian infrastructure we might be helping out our Fijian neighbours for a long time.That's thing, if we really do want Fiji & other such nations to stay under our wing then we really do need to commit to long term assistance. Trouble is Fiji has had some real political instability but perhaps on reflection did we play our cards wrongly!?!Yeah, i brought that Fiji buys Russia Arms topic up here coincidently. This just might be the sort of diplomacy we need regards to Fiji if we we are indeed 'still freinds' as you say. A sight more helpfull than a shipload of weapons.
Thanks gf0012-aust - a very good insight into something we probably all take for granted = planning!
Interesting concept and worth exploring. The Americans do it with helicopters, armed troops and if necessary, overhead firepower for support.
The above quote is taken from a paper by Lee K. De Palo, Colonel, USAF, which is a USAF Air War College Maxwell paper. The link at the end of the quote is for the paper itself.
There is a link to the Cabinet papers with the release but I believe that is covered in the updated papers link above.
While the budget will indicate that the defence budget is around 1.5% GDP this is not what defence actually gets. Included in this budget is the government capital charge (around 11% of defence assets)depreciation and war pensions. this adds up to a sum of in excess of 40%. So Defence only gets between 0.9% and 1.0% GDP, due to treasuries slight of hand in giving with one hand and taking it back with the other.
Would be interesting to see what NZDF could muster if given the full allocation, that would be a start then move to 2% mid 2020's
First, a bit of a disclaimer: I am a fairly pragmatic person, looking at NZ policies and politics with an outsider's perspective.
The government does start of correctly by saying that the first priority of defence is to preserve NZ's sovereignty, borders and coastline. It then fails to completely in giving Defence the tools or money to achieve this. The current defence set up has been built around achieving international political goals and not having to spend any money on what the politicians view as non vote achieving (there was an agreement some years back between National and Labour not to debate defence at elections so as to maintain the status quo ) and Defences primary function has been completely forgotten or ignored .
Regards to the Frigates currently almost never see the light of day patrolling our coastline, and we have no ACF now, id have to agree. With increased poaching in our waters and drought , famine ect affecting crops, water supply,diminishing resources globally, Nz must look like a tempting target with our resources largely unguarded and an apathetic govt attitude to changing this.
The frigates don't do inshore patrol work. It is a highly unproductive and very uneconomical utilisation of them. The rest of it is moot because until the pollies are given a ginormous fright that parslyses their sphincter muscles, nothing will change. When that happens it will be to late.
You are right in regard to resources, as about 5 years ago the London universities Defence analyst department identified clean water and arable land as being an increasingly likely cause for wars
To who? Who would want us and who could actually invade us? Whoever takes us probably has to take Australia first, I can't think of anyone who could realistically do that without the US getting involved, unless of course its the US doing the invading.
The world population is doubling every 50 years and running short of fresh water and arable land, we have a surplus so we could become an attractive target . We are not strategically important to the USA and by the time anything could get through their political system who knows what can happen. A rouge organization may want to have a crack because we are easy meat, who knows what the future holds. Defence is about being prepared for the unknown, the unexpected, and the undefined. Currently anyone could simply fly in using civilian aircraft and we could do little to stop them. What the future holds is unknown to us and not to have a credible defence is simply to gamble with the future freedom of our children and grandchildren. Just because we lack the imagination to see all the possibilities does not mean something we have not thought of won't come and bite us.
I'm not saying yes or no to your question, but would like to put into some context. In one of the official histories of WWII (I think the Defence of New Zealand or the Navy) there was mention that there was a debate around the size of any potential invasion force (brigade size vs division size). In the context of WWII that force was seaborne, today NZ needs to consider not just the amphibious capability of a nation but also their strategic airlift capability. I leave everyone to ponder the possible implications if they consider the WWII force size valid.
The problem with our current defence set up is they lack fast reaction time and cannot react to anything any distance from a base. this means that anyone who wants to simply needs to rock up and establish them selves and there is little we could do. Example some car transporters like they bring cars and trucks from Japan full of gear and people going into say the Mount or Taranaki and there is little we can do. The possibilities are endless because of our lack of fast reaction ability.
Any patrol force must have proper combat capable backing or else it can be just ignored and keep in mined that you can do a patrol boats work with a frigate (uneconomically) but you cannot carry out the functions of a frigate with a patrol boat.