NZDF General discussion thread

[chis73]

More DWP analysis / opinion:

ASPI:New Zealand’s Defence White Paper: look south | The Strategist

Robert Ayson: A Defence Force for New Zealand conditions? | Stuff.co.nz

Dom Post: Editorial: Questions remain about $20 billion defence spend-up | Stuff.co.nz

Thank heavens for Peter Jennings. Guess it takes an Australian to be blunt enough to say what really needs to be said. One only has to remember the unfortunate case of David Dickens to realise the dangers of sticking your head above the parapet in NZ.

 

[recce.k1]

As much as I'd like the NZDF to have a fleet of AH1 Vipers in its inventory, I somehow doubt the NZ Army would deem them a priority when they have other areas that need strengthening.

Fair enough, good point.

No worries, although I was meaning in relation to Army's stated priorities (which is to build up its ground forces, combat support elements, ISR etc). We saw that previously with them having to put the VLLAD system into storage (and presumably the re-establishment of such, if not much better contemporary and Allied-interoperable systems, would be a higher future priority compared to the likes of the AH-1)?

But on the other hand if you were to have suggested that the RNZAF acquire the likes of AH-1's (post ACF demise - I'm sure the Air Force would've been happy with such an alternative to what they ended up with, which was nothing) then that could be a bit more likely on the "hypothetical" scale

It would have given the NZDF/NZG an additional option to contribute to broader coalition efforts of late (and perhaps at times help lessen the pressure the Army's ground forces faced over the last 17 years etc).

However I feel that boat (AH-1 or similar) has sailed for good now, it should have been something the last Labour Govt should have acquired back in 2001 when they announced the mothballing of the ACF, in order to strengthen their focus on the Army, and also when the RNZAF had the personnel on hand to support the likes of combat helicopters. Granted it would have taken a few years to reach FOC (or maybe much longer if we had partnered up with the AusGov and the Tiger ARH)!

For now and the future though, depending on the outcome of next year's election and the influence of the NZ First party in any post election arrangements, the "hypothetical" emphasis should be on a restored ACF albeit at the F-16 range of options (a la Mr C).

Yes, a 5th gen combat aircraft would be the ideal in terms of forward thinking, but realistically that isn't going to happen at this point in time funding wise, and even NZ First aren't advocating for 5th gen aircraft like the F-35 (I think NZF may have mentioned the likes of the Korean T50 Golden Eagle previously but I may be mistaken).

Also if the NZDF's focus is on it's immediate surroundings then does the NZDF need a 5th gen fighter when they are very unlikely to encounter such types here? I'm obviously ignoring previous contributions to the likes of FPDA (and nowadays Singapore and Malaysia have more highly advanced aircraft that NZ could ever afford and in significant quantities etc) or international coalitions efforts to enforce no-fly zones and/or air-to-ground engagements (because why call upon a token RNZAF contribution when there are a multitude of other nations with high-tech assets and experience in place).

Something like the F-16 could be acquired cheaply (primarily for maritime interdiction and anti-shipping roles) which would allow the NZDF to regenerate and operate a modest ACF capability again cheaply over the next several years (and we could then look at new gen a/c at that later point in time in the mid-late 2020's etc), but more importantly they could contribute to NZ's (and the South Pacific's) maritime defence in association with any future P-8/BAMS planning. It could even mean getting back into a basing arrangement at RAN Norwa and the enhanced opportunities that that provides in terms of training with the RAN (who also now have much more sophisticated detection and defensive systems in place, compared to the original ANZAC's and FFG's when the RNZAF were training with them). By being exposed to these more advanced systems means the hypothetical F-16's, although less stealthy, will at least be needing better counter-measures, detection and stand-off weaponry, which is a win-win in terms of making any re-generation effective (especially if the strategic outlook worsens, at least the NZDF has something useful in its inventory and any transition to something more advanced if need-be, could be a lot smoother)

Ok enough with the 'hypotheticals' from me, I'll concentrate more on the 'actuals' of the DWP next time!

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Good to know. thanks for that! I suppose the Navy may need to upgrade thier facilities too, to accomodate the larger ships they will eventually purchase?

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Would it be a more practile, cheaper option to just up armour and and increase firepower, something like the Canadians did with their Lavs recently could be in order? THE VLAAD system mentioned, maybe the land based version of Sea ceptor, that the British currently use,seeing our frigates are getting Sea ceptor fitted.

 

[recce.k1]

More DWP analysis / opinion:

ASPI:New Zealand’s Defence White Paper: look south | The Strategist

Robert Ayson: A Defence Force for New Zealand conditions? | Stuff.co.nz

Dom Post: Editorial: Questions remain about $20 billion defence spend-up | Stuff.co.nz

Thank heavens for Peter Jennings. Guess it takes an Australian to be blunt enough to say what really needs to be said. One only has to remember the unfortunate case of David Dickens to realise the dangers of sticking your head above the parapet in NZ.

Actually I thought Peter Jennings' article was a thoughtless contribution that also arrogantly treats NZ as if it were not only some sort of client state of Australia (and should thus go-about inflaming a range of regional nations that are economically and militarily greater than NZ - we'd just be viewed as a pesky, yapping little dog by them and laughed off), but that NZ were actually physically situated just off the NSW coast (meaning both nations share the exact same outlook). Physically our outlook is much different (perhaps he should consult a map and see what NZ sees - the Pacific and the Antarctic are areas in which NZ (and NZers) deal with on a daily basis and provides overwatch of. In much the same way physically Australia sees/deals with Indonesia and overwatches that area and surrounds.

Granted, I agree with his view that NZ needs to do more. NZ certainly needs to lift its spending to catch up with Australia's (GDP wise etc) and also be able to better and meaningful contribute to the defence of Australia. Granted I agree the wider region strategic outlook is important (SCS, SEA, Indonesia and NZ has a role to play, albeit a small one etc).

But rather than having a whingefest how about he articulate something meaningful from an Australian perspective? Here let me do his job for him:

* NZ to increase expenditure as a percentage of GDP over the next 10 years (actually the NZ PM actually stated that would likely happen albeit slowly/smaller than what needs to happen).

*Bring forward the acquisition of the P-8's eg buy 2 "now" (the rest can happen as per the schedule) in order for the NZDF to gain experience with this type and its enhanced capabilities. It could do then work alongside the ADF and USN in terms of training.

*Purchase 2 ice-strengthened OPV's rather than 1 (to ensure redundancy), enhance them with OCV type capabilities. Make some noises about joining in with the Australian OPV/OCV ship building programme.

*Make some noises about joining in with the Australian future frigate programme (I suspect that will happen in the next few years anyway, once the current upgrades are completed in about 3 years).

*Make some noises about joining in with the Australian efforts to expand its ISR capabilities (presumably that's part of the forthcoming NZ airborne ISR project anyway).

*Greater underwater ISR capacities due to the proliferation of submarines in the wider A-P region eg fit sensors to the current and future OPV's. Fit them to the new Littoral Support Vessel. None of these vessels need expensive weapon systems (which in the current OPV case wouldn't be physically possible) but as long as these vessels can detect something, then an appropriate Asset - NZ/AU/US - could then be dispatched to prosecute the target etc. (Fit them onto the IPV's and base 2 in the Pacific and the other 2 to patrol NZ's littoral environment)!!

I'm surprised Jennings wrote an ignorant comment that it's not clear how much analysis has gone into the $20B capital expenditure. It's been clear from informed people (and public documents) that Treasury is requiring a greater understanding of the NZDF's needs and appears to be for the first time in decades somewhat supportive. A $20B expenditure over (15 years) compares with $3 billion of the then Labour Govt LTDP of 2001-2010-ish and even earlier this year Janes was reporting a CapEx figure of $11-16B I think, so since then the figure has increased somewhat. It's NZ's biggest spend up since the 1960's/Vietnam war-footing modernisation of its Defence Force and as a percentage comparison to the Australian spend up, it's much, much better than previous miniscule attempts.

Granted NZ can do better but the message is, things are greatly improving and especially after a 30 year hiatus (post ANZUS break down) and defence capability cuts of the 1990's/2000's, changes just don't happen overnight (especially with the loss of institutional knowledge and connections to the likes of the US which are now being rebuilt). If anything the likes of Jennings needs to view things in that context and offer some practical solutions.

For example perhaps NZ needs a US Mutual Assistance Programme boost to speed up the process (eg NZ should fund the asset purchases eg P-8 and the US part fund the technology within and some of the associated training)?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Actually I thought Peter Jennings' article was a thoughtless contribution that also arrogantly treats NZ as if it were not only some sort of client state of Australia (and should thus go-about inflaming a range of regional nations that are economically and militarily greater than NZ - we'd just be viewed as a pesky, yapping little dog by them and laughed off), but that NZ were actually physically situated just off the NSW coast (meaning both nations share the exact same outlook). Physically our outlook is much different (perhaps he should consult a map and see what NZ sees - the Pacific and the Antarctic are areas in which NZ (and NZers) deal with on a daily basis and provides overwatch of. In much the same way physically Australia sees/deals with Indonesia and overwatches that area and surrounds.

Granted, I agree with his view that NZ needs to do more. NZ certainly needs to lift its spending to catch up with Australia's (GDP wise etc) and also be able to better and meaningful contribute to the defence of Australia. Granted I agree the wider region strategic outlook is important (SCS, SEA, Indonesia and NZ has a role to play, albeit a small one etc).

I would say NZ needs to make meaningful contribution to defence of the region. That includes Australia, but also Indonesia, PNG, Fiji, Singapore, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand etc. Chinese fishing vessels are being sunk on off Argentina, if you think for a second that China is somehow not going to affect NZ interests in any way, well that is delusional. Good luck when China builds an absolutely massive naval base in Fiji.

I think Peters view will reflect many Australians view, that NZ may want to become a hermit kingdom of its own. I am also sure this won't be Peters last comment on the issue.

NZ has an important role to play. NZ is as critical as Singapore. Your location may not be as central, but the area of concern is much larger and much more at risk. In a world where people are looking for real tangible allies, NZ should take this opportunity to tangibly support hers.

I think there is some disappointment that NZ didn't put down a fully funded, physically tied down public commitment like Australia did. Obviously NZ is still living in a different reality. That things are business as usual.

I do think your recommendations are along the lines of what should have been included in the NZ WP.

 

[ngatimozart]

I would say NZ needs to make meaningful contribution to defence of the region. That includes Australia, but also Indonesia, PNG, Fiji, Singapore, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand etc. Chinese fishing vessels are being sunk on off Argentina, if you think for a second that China is somehow not going to affect NZ interests in any way, well that is delusional. Good luck when China builds an absolutely massive naval base in Fiji.

I think Peters view will reflect many Australians view, that NZ may want to become a hermit kingdom of its own. I am also sure this won't be Peters last comment on the issue.

NZ has an important role to play. NZ is as critical as Singapore. Your location may not be as central, but the area of concern is much larger and much more at risk. In a world where people are looking for real tangible allies, NZ should take this opportunity to tangibly support hers.

I think there is some disappointment that NZ didn't put down a fully funded, physically tied down public commitment like Australia did. Obviously NZ is still living in a different reality. That things are business as usual.

I do think your recommendations are along the lines of what should have been included in the NZ WP.

I agree in that a lot was left unsaid however before I pass full judgement on capabilities, I'll wait until the Defence Capability Plan is released later this year. I am pleased that there has been an increase in funding but IMHO it is still not enough and does not address the current and future resourcing and capability issues that confront NZDF. I agree with the concept that more attention needs to be paid to the southern regions and Antarctica, however the DWP's failing is that it pays lip service to Asia as a whole. I think that the pollies, their advisors & MFAT are insular and inward looking in their thinking with regard to the PRC and the Asia in general. Maybe there is still an inherent look towards Europe, UK mentality when we live in the Asia Pacific and where most of our threats will come from. I also believe that there is a strong assumption that others will pull our nuts out of the fire when the cow pats hit the fan.

I too have concerns about Fiji under its current leadership and where its going. The last thing we need is a PLAN (& PLAAF) base there and anything is possible. There has been a push in China for the PLAN to have overseas bases with a suggestion for a base in Port Moresby (PNG), so if they couldn't get one there, Fiji could be a next choice.

 

[rjtjrt]

............

Frankly either we snap-up the last C17 (if it is in fact still available) ...........

Information on another site from a source I understand is at Boeing involved in C-17 is that it's still in long term storage at the San Antonio depot with no customer in sight, as of 16 May 2016.

 

[ngatimozart]

Personally I would look at re-purposing WB to looking after the 14 Sqd, 42 Sqd and the CFS training elements. I would have WP for 6 Sqd, 5 Sqd - P8 and UAV's - the maritime elements. The rest essentially air mobility would be at the OH Superbase.

I gather from the political chatterati that the POAL may shift to the Firth of Thames off Orere Pt - with Cruise ships still remaining at Princess Wharf and the Navy at Devonport.

I was being very tongue in cheek about a new air base near Burnham Although I could put up a valid argument for it. WB may be good for 14 Sqn, 42 Sqn and the CFS training elements. The runway wouldn't need to be extended but infrastructure would have to be built on the base both on the accommodation side and base side as well. It would return the bulk of training back to a training base where by rights it belongs. The only thing that concerns me is the topography, weather conditions and baby pilots under training.

Still some more fat to trim - and I am channeling Bill English.

I think that the C-40 figures at $713m are inflated. Even with a simple Israeli retractable twin hose drouge A2A upgrade there should be a lot more change for what is a essentially a production OTS aircraft. We are here envisaging basically a stripper P-8 airframe with a cargo door. The standard C-40A sold to the USN in 2014 as a one off sale at US$70m. $105m for the whole USN 5 year fleet support contract. Three would be great but going for two would be enough. They would give around 1500 hours p.a in any instance. Also with an A2A capability retro fitted into C-40's I would then question the requirement of KC-130J's if we are going to on this hypothetical force structure of NG's. The cumulative saving their will go towards the additional hangers we would require at WP at OH.

I also think the hypothetical modelling should be divided into the first 10 years (11 Billion) then the following 5 years period. I would keep the F-16 stuff out of the equation because though I am not discounting it out and would support in theory funding to support NZ First Policy - they are not yet part of the Govt.

What would be useful is what is realistically possible within the constraints as opposed to what is ideal.

Haha I was waiting for someone to pick up on the K130Js.

With the conversion of the C40 to KC40 I included the boom capability because the P8, C17 130J & F16 require boom refuelling and hose and drogue would be of use for F35B/C, F18, A400M & UK C130J that our allies and friends use. I had to go with what I could find and it worked out at US$46 million difference per aircraft between the cost of a B767-300 freighter and the KC46. I don't think it would cost that much per aircraft but you don't know so that's why I went with it.

One thought in the future proofing dept was to fit AAR receiving capability to our NH90s at some stage in the future and that's where the KC130J came in and that's the only reason why I put the K in front of the C130J. The cost cited is for the C130J not KC130J.

This wouldn't be bought in straight away all at once of course but over the 15 year period, although some capabilities will have to be sooner than others because of obsolescence issues with current platforms. I will look at what can be spilt into the 10yr and post 10yr sections.

 

[ngatimozart]

Information on another site from a source I understand is at Boeing involved in C-17 is that it's still in long term storage at the San Antonio depot with no customer in sight, as of 16 May 2016.

Yes, as far as I have been able to ascertain it is homeless at the moment. One possible option for NZDF would be to acquire that one then one or two more of the 16 USAF ones being placed into long term reserve. IMHO three C17s and five C130Js thru FMS would be the best solution

 

[ngatimozart]

The 2015 Major Projects Report has been released. It is in three volumes and covers the following projects:

• A109 Training and Light Utility Helicopter
• C-130H Life Extension
• NH90 Medium Utility Helicopter
• P-3K Orion Mission Systems Upgrade
• Pilot Training Capability
• ANZAC Frigate Platform Systems Upgrade
• ANZAC Frigate Systems Upgrade
• Maritime Helicopter Capability
• Medium/Heavy Operational Vehicles
• Strategic Bearer Network
• Project Protector Remediation
• Defence Command and Control System

 

[rjtjrt]

Yes, as far as I have been able to ascertain it is homeless at the moment. One possible option for NZDF would be to acquire that one then one or two more of the 16 USAF ones being placed into long term reserve. IMHO three C17s and five C130Js thru FMS would be the best solution

The one remaining unsold new C-17 bought and pooled with RAAF fleet would seem to be the best solution for NZ. Given the new C-17 would be same spec as RAAF fleet it would fit well. with access to a larger fleet even if NZ aircraft is in maintenance RNZAF should have access to a C-17 to cover. So Antarctic supply is done, plus extra availabilty for other tasks.
It has been done in NATO, so doable with goodwill on both sides.
Only issue is would RAAF see anything in it for them? Sorry to be so mercinary, but no one has unlimited resources so they can do something that gives little or no value to one side.
If NZ want to get the remaining C-17, they need to make a decision. Secondhand from USAF seems to me to be wishful thinking/pie in the sky.
Then a buy of C-130J makes complete sense for an affordable and sorted out capability, rather than A-400 which is expensive and will take a long time to get right. Plus C-130 and C-17 support is much easier to come by in our area of ops.

 

[chis73]

Not only that, the 2013 & 2014 reports have also magically appeared in the MPR archive. Has someone knobbled them (MOD) under an official information request? Thought they may have stopped producing them. Should make interesting reading.

 

[MrConservative]

Secondhand from USAF seems to me to be wishful thinking/pie in the sky.

It is an option that is being closely considered. USG makes that final call on that. Though the NZ Govt makes the call on future preferred suppliers.

 

[t68]

It is an option that is being closely considered. USG makes that final call on that. Though the NZ Govt makes the call on future preferred suppliers.

If the USG does let them take just hope it will be four aircraft to spread the hours out to get max use of the capabilty

 

[MrConservative]

If the USG does let them take just hope it will be four aircraft to spread the hours out to get max use of the capabilty

That is unlikely. Two to three have been discussed over the last couple of years as ideal so 4 is not going to happen. It really all comes down to the status of the greentail kept at San Antonio, which operating by itself is evidently not an attractive proposition without the proposal of a further leased aircraft to make it operationally plausible.

It cannot be counted in or out. Just like the A400M. One thing though is that if the A400M gets the nod it would likely package up the whole NZDF Air Mobility sphere with the C-295 locking out US manufacturers for the next 40 years.

 

[RegR]

That is unlikely. Two to three have been discussed over the last couple of years as ideal so 4 is not going to happen. It really all comes down to the status of the greentail kept at San Antonio, which operating by itself is evidently not an attractive proposition without the proposal of a further leased aircraft to make it operationally plausible.

It cannot be counted in or out. Just like the A400M. One thing though is that if the A400M gets the nod it would likely package up the whole NZDF Air Mobility sphere with the C-295 locking out US manufacturers for the next 40 years.

I personally cannot see us getting a single whitetail or even a few 'spare' second handers. A single frame is problematic at best, as we have found with other assets and our policy of getting 2 of others does'nt actually fare much better for high usage equipment (which supposedly C17 would be) and the most beneficial 3 seems a long shot bar the US giving us some of their storage frames.

Buying the last whitetail then saying we can just tag it onto the Australian squadron and then borrow one of theirs when needed is abit of a ask even for them, we're not talking about a unimog here (and we barely do it for them). Expecting surplus USAF versions to be another fix is again not without issue as no doubt they would be the oldest high mileage frames and who's to say they even want to 'rent' them out anyway as they may indeed want to mothball them to save what life they have left for their use and rotation as well as save funds, there are no more C17s being built not a case of them building too many. In both cases what is the benefit to them in either of these scenarios and would we be the only country in line for consideration?

I would think one of the current operators like UK or canada would realise as Aus has done and see the benefit of expanding their fleets as a last chance at gaining numbers for the remainig new build, Aus could still purchase it themselves, maybe just negotiating a favourable last time price. They have the experience, support and infrastructure, we do not, it would need to spend an unproportional amount of time in training just to keep crews current that along with regular maintainence would make operational time sporadic at best without heavy (over) usage. Aus struggled with 5 and we are considering 1, still not a wise move IMO in terms of logistics, operation and impact on the rest of the fleet(s) regardless of the perceived benefits.

 

[KiwiRob]

Fair enough, good point.

Yes there are some UAVs out there that soldiers can use at platoon or even squad level.

That's why Included the 8x8 wheeled 105mm SPG. Vehicles such as the Italian Centauro B1 or the Japanese MCV are examples.

My own view is something either as good as or better than the NZLAV and it has to be 8x8 wheeled because less cost, maintenance, is faster and quieter than tracked vehicles. We don't have tanks so we don't need the tracked IFVs to accompany them. IMHO it should have a 30mm gun and better protection than the NZLAV.

Or better yet rebuild some of the surplus LAV's into M1128 Mobile Gun System's.

 

[ngatimozart]

I had thought about that, but there appears to have been some problems with the LAV variants and 105mm guns. The force from the recoil is such that it has caused some structure cracking in the vehicle and that's even using a low velocity gun. I think that the US Army have also had problems with the automatic loader as well over time. There can also be ITAR issues that cause problems with acquisitions so sometimes its just easier to go elsewhere. That is what the RCN have done with their Halifax frigate upgrades and we have mostly done with our ANZAC frigate upgrades.

Just to throw something completely different into the mix and to put the cat amongst the (protected) native wood pigeons. If and it's a big if, a future NZG decides to reconstitute an ACF and they decide to go with new aircraft, for long term economic viability reasons, the F35A could be the choice because it has been predicted that its price will get to around US$80 million in 2019. Now that is basically the same cost as what F18F is at the moment and it is cheaper to operate according to the Danish govt report.

 

[recce.k1]

I would say NZ needs to make meaningful contribution to defence of the region. That includes Australia, but also Indonesia, PNG, Fiji, Singapore, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand etc.

Just wondering, is your definition of "meaningful" different to what is actually happening?

*ANZAC Frigates being upgraded to current "NATO" standards - LM CMS, compatibility with the RCN Halifax upgrades, compatibility with the RN's air defence weapon system which features an anti-shipping mode. Frigates to be replaced when they reach end of life in the mid-late 2020's.

*P-3 Orions surface ISR sensors upgraded, underwater ISR sensors next, hopefully the DCP will green light the weapons upgrade as part of the NZDF's planned combat enhancements 2015-2020. P-8's & UAV's earmarked as their replacement in the mid-2020's. Perhaps the forthcoming DCP may reveal additional assets and capabilities under consideration a la the ADF's recent acquisition announcements.

*Strategic/Tactical airlift replacements to transport NZDF to these locations (reportedly with a large budget, equivalent to the NZDF's annual budget allocation itself). If ex-USAF C-17's could be leased or bought, this could commence rather soon otherwise the timeframe is early 2020's.

*Army modernisation continues. Soldier individual weapon replacement recently approved and fully compatible with US logistics train. LAV's to be upgraded or replaced. Don't see the need to obtain heavy tanks (would be pointless sending them to the places you mention when those nations already have their own) but like the idea of a medium tank for LAV protection for asymmetrical warfare situations (eg Middle East currently).

Granted more of the above and additional capabilities would be the ideal. The DWP didn't outline that (NZ DWP's generally don't - that's why I was surprised Jennings was making a big deal of that as I would have thought he would have known better). We'll have to wait for the DCP as to give an indication of current thinking.

Chinese fishing vessels are being sunk on off Argentina, if you think for a second that China is somehow not going to affect NZ interests in any way, well that is delusional. Good luck when China builds an absolutely massive naval base in Fiji.

Unsure what Argentina sinking illegal fishing vessels has to do with this discussion. But in relation to you comments about China, I have no idea why you think I think that China won't affect NZ interests - I never raised it directly and even if I did of course I realise that China's actions in the Asia-Pacific region will affect NZ in various ways.

But if you are meaning in the context of the NZ DWP and my criticism of Jennings, I stand by my statements and criticism. NZ is not a client state of Australia and NZ's DWP's do not have to be carbon copies of Australia's. Jennings criticism seems to be about the lack of mention of China in the DWP. Is that really an issue? As some of the Senior DefPro's have stated on here in the past, the public DWP is a sanitised version for public (and media) consumption. You can be sure China's actions would feature in confidential NZG documents etc.

Jennings seemed to get his knickers in a knot because he wrote the "New Zealand statement can’t bring itself to say that Chinese assertiveness is undermining security", but according to the Australian DWP 2016 sections 2.7-2.18 titled "The United States and China" .... I don't see the AusGov stating anything like that either in their DWP that Chinese assertiveness is undermining security? Is there a reference somewhere else that I missed?

For the record the NZ DefMin at the Shangri-La Dialogue last week expressed concerns about China's actions in the SCS and like the Australian and US Govt's approach, is asking China to respect international laws and norms.
China must explain South China Sea plans to small nations, New Zealand says, East Asia News & Top Stories - The Straits Times
NZ cautions China over territory claims | Radio New Zealand News
In the first link the DefMin states "New Zealand sends surveillance aircraft regularly over the South China Sea", so again Jennings does himself a disservice when he writes "there is no expression of Wellington’s willingness to exercise freedom of navigation or overflight rights, only the limp observation that such rights have ‘been tested in recent years.’". Perhaps Jennings thinks NZ should buy some B-52's and fly them over the SCS to make a statement?

As for Fiji and China building a "massive naval base", oh come on that's ridiculous, where is the "massive" naval base in that article? Nothing. It reads to me like the Chinese ambassador is suggesting that they build the Fiji navy a new patrol boat base for them? (If so I'm not naïve to think there wouldn't be some form of Chinese military benefit).

But realistically I do not think the US would stand by and allow China to build a "massive naval base" without a fight so-to-speak, for such a base would threaten their Guam superbase as well as be of a major, major concern to Australia (and NZ - at least if such a base was built you'd see the NZ defence budget increase four-fold overnight ). Anyway such a base would be surrounded by "ANZUS" forces anyway so good luck to any Chinese assets based there for they wouldn't last long!

One last thing about Fiji, you seem to think the Fijian Govt are provocative and would be willing pawns in a fight against the West. That's ridiculous and that thinking is along the very same lines that caused Fiji to look towards China in the very first place when Australia (Howard/Rudd Govts), followed by NZ & EU in tow, arrogantly isolated and slapped sanctions on Fiji following the 2006 "anti-coup" coup. It hurt Fiji economically and was unnecessary, when the context of the 2006 coup, was to prevent the then corrupt Govt from releasing the 2000 coup plotters which they had been doing. I know it's not PC to look at the 2006 coup like that but sometimes Western contexts of "right and wrong" are totally meaningless to other cultures and their situation.

We have the NZ PM currently being hosted by the Fiji Govt at the moment (and from all accounts all is going well) and if "we", the West that is, wish to ensure Fiji doesn't go rouge the best way to prevent this is engagement. Hopefully the AusGovt will do the same, which is spend more time with their Pacific counterparts. Something that NZG does reasonably well, which assists with countering the influence of China in the Pacific, which is something that seems to be lost on Jennings when he criticises NZ's prioritisation of the Pacific ....

The dragon in our backyard: the strategic consequences of China’s increased presence in the South Pacific | The Strategist