Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
Pretty sure they're hybrid.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
Coal fired along with methane.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Lucky they are not Nuke powered, wouldn't be allowed in NZ
We're working on that.Lucky they are not Nuke powered, wouldn't be allowed in NZ
Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
Would be if driven by a well connected dj.Lucky they are not Nuke powered, wouldn't be allowed in NZ
You're standing into danger there because you are sailing very close to foul waters of politics.
I don't think nuke powered is so much the problem as nuke weapons. The law has never been tested WRT nuclear powered vessels, vehicles, aircraft, or spacecraft, so it's hard to say. I think that at some stage nuclear power generation will have to be seriously considered because the current power generation capacity is reaching its finite capabilities.Lucky they are not Nuke powered, wouldn't be allowed in NZ
A nuclear power station close to Auckland, where the most the highest energy demand is, would be the optimal solution. You don't have loss of power due to long distance transmission lines from the point of generation to point of use as you do at the moment. There is wind power, the westerly winds are the predominant wind, and the most effective wind farm location would be offshore west of Auckland in the Tasman Sea. The windfarm would have to be huge large. The continental shelf there is relatively shallow and the windfarm wouldn't have to be to far offshore, maybe 50nm at its closest. Once ashore it's literally over the hill to Auckland.
Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
My apologies for that. Couldnt help itYou're standing into danger there because you are sailing very close to foul waters of politics.
I don't think nuke powered is so much the problem as nuke weapons. The law has never been tested WRT nuclear powered vessels, vehicles, aircraft, or spacecraft, so it's hard to say. I think that at some stage nuclear power generation will have to be seriously considered because the current power generation capacity is reaching its finite capabilities.
A nuclear power station close to Auckland, where the most the highest energy demand is, would be the optimal solution. You don't have loss of power due to long distance transmission lines from the point of generation to point of use as you do at the moment. There is wind power, the westerly winds are the predominant wind, and the most effective wind farm location would be offshore west of Auckland in the Tasman Sea. The windfarm would have to be huge large. The continental shelf there is relatively shallow and the windfarm wouldn't have to be to far offshore, maybe 50nm at its closest. Once ashore it's literally over the hill to Auckland.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
lAnna Marie Brady in smh re the solomons
We are lucky to have a commentator of her calibre. She deserves a higher profile here
We are lucky to have a commentator of her calibre. She deserves a higher profile here
The problem with reading that article is that it's well written but the current defence minister who is usually MIA and Curent PM plus foreign minister have their heads buried so deep in the sand they can't see daylight.
They have basically missed "the boat" regarding the stratgeic changes that are happening at a very fast rate of knots!!! They the Labour Govt which also includes the Green Party will not fund the NZDF with the appropriately realistic budget, in fact I can see budget cuts on the horizon!! let alone actually purchase actual warfighting equipement that would required in the comming years!
The challenges in the pacific are starting to come at us thick and fast and are only going to be more intensive in the future...just when NZ will require a defence force that has been funded/equiped for the coming years we actually won't be able to respond with any force due to lack of combat naval vessels, airforce transport fleet/ survellance fleet which includes rotary aircraft...lack of numbers!, an army lacking proper armoured forces and long range arty and actual numbers of personal and being able to project lethal force, and last but not least air defence for all of the fore mentioned.
I was going to suggest that they may have their heads buried elsewhere but I can't. The Labour Party don't require the Greens to pass any legislation or Budgets etc., because the Labour majority in the House enables it to govern on its own. As far as I am concerned the jury is still out about whether or not this draft agreement between the Solomon Islands government and the CCP / PRC is enough to shock NZ pollies out of their complacency. Them talking about it is one thing, but them undertaking any worthwhile action is a totally different story. It might pay me to acquire a defib just in case they do shock me by doing something. Poor old ticker mightn't handle it. In the mean time may have to have some Grunts Grog port.
Yes I was going to say their heads are buried somewhere else but would only end up in the naughty corner lol.
I'm afraid that the greens have just to much to say when it comes to govening the country, and nz pollies will only talk about doing something, but actually doing anything usefull is just beyond them, I would include the opposition parties in this as well it comes down to "all talk no action".
Even if the agreement is only a draft our (NZ) pollies will see that as a win and just carry on as usual heads buried somewhere the sun doesn't shine.
The Grunts Grog port is a nice drop enjoy.
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
Itl be more of the same until the CCP bases H6 and warships there, that's impression I get from Arderns and Brownlee's comments in the Herald.
______
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says there is no need for China to station military vessels near the Solomon Islands, following revelations the Solomons are negotiating a security deal with China.
"We do see this as gravely concerning."
Ardern told RNZ last year the Government had been in discussions with the Solomons about China's presence and had expressed concerns about the direction they were taking.
"These are sovereign nations who are of course absolutely entitled to pursue their own security arrangements," she said.
___
"Brownlee, however, pushed back against the suggestion New Zealand had neglected the Pacific, saying it had a "very significant" foreign aid budget.
"When you've got a very big emerging power in China ... their ability to buy influence with the chequebook, and in this case, foothold potentially, is so much greater than we could ever compete with."
Brownlee said the potential security deal was "a concern" but, ultimately, Solomon Islands was a "sovereign government"."
'Gravely concerning': PM on Chinese warships being allowed in South Pacific
Ardern says there is no need for China to station military vessels near Solomon Islands.
www.nzherald.co.nz
_________
Grave concerns and the beginnings of excuses to do nothing, but not much else.
I do however think that NZDF personal are drawing circles on maps centered on Honaria representing known ranges of Chinese air/naval assets and their weaponry that will eventually be shown to ministers. Perhaps the prospect of personally being in range of things that go bang might motivate them.
Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
If i try to look at it from the perspective of the current govt (presumed on my part) the H6 would not justify rearmament.Itl be more of the same until the CCP bases H6 and warships there, that's impression I get from Arderns and Brownlee's comments in the Herald.
______
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says there is no need for China to station military vessels near the Solomon Islands, following revelations the Solomons are negotiating a security deal with China.
"We do see this as gravely concerning."
Ardern told RNZ last year the Government had been in discussions with the Solomons about China's presence and had expressed concerns about the direction they were taking.
"These are sovereign nations who are of course absolutely entitled to pursue their own security arrangements," she said.
___
"Brownlee, however, pushed back against the suggestion New Zealand had neglected the Pacific, saying it had a "very significant" foreign aid budget.
"When you've got a very big emerging power in China ... their ability to buy influence with the chequebook, and in this case, foothold potentially, is so much greater than we could ever compete with."
Brownlee said the potential security deal was "a concern" but, ultimately, Solomon Islands was a "sovereign government"."
'Gravely concerning': PM on Chinese warships being allowed in South Pacific
Ardern says there is no need for China to station military vessels near Solomon Islands.
_________
Grave concerns and the beginnings of excuses to do nothing, but not much else.
I do however think that NZDF personal are drawing circles on maps centered on Honaria representing known ranges of Chinese air/naval assets and their weaponry that will eventually be shown to ministers. Perhaps the prospect of personally being in range of things that go bang might motivate them.
I think the continueed threats from the CCP to its neighbours, more nz reporting on it, introduction of the rumoured PLAA strategic stealth bomber and PLAN marines in the Solomons in 18 months i think will be ebough to drag about a change in the nation.
But even then we need years to make any changes.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
Lots of hand wringing "concern" about the Solomon's and Ukraine but little inclination or ability to do anything meaningful (due to underinvestment by multiple govts over decades & ideological aversion to meaningful strategic regional engagement). It will be too late by the time the base is built. Our aquisition beurocratic process and election cycle political dithering will be too slow to respond to this- china will have ships there on 18 months. We use the myth of independent Foreign policy as a smokescreen for our lack of foreign policy.
I disagree about the greens influence. Labour and potentially national would be just as weak in this area on their own without the greens. Remember how much love national had for China lat time? Current govt doesn't need the greens at all and their current arangement is just window dressing, arden trying to be liked by as many nzrs as possible. Labour is hardly green in terms of it's climate policy.
I disagree about the greens influence. Labour and potentially national would be just as weak in this area on their own without the greens. Remember how much love national had for China lat time? Current govt doesn't need the greens at all and their current arangement is just window dressing, arden trying to be liked by as many nzrs as possible. Labour is hardly green in terms of it's climate policy.
Last edited:
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
Maybe.. I suspect the Chinese wont base their new bombers in the South Pacific, 5th gen fighters maybe due to AU F35's, but I dont think they need to use the new bombers this far south given the opposition. As NZ no longer possess the capacity to defend against a modernised knock off of an old USSR designed bomber with stand off weaponry, to say nothing of warships and troops, It really dosent matter what generation of weaponry they base in the Solomons the effect is the same. Fact is NZ is essentially defenceless, AU lacks capacity to do NZs job for it and I've no doubt that NZDF will forcefully tell NZGov that.
Of course this is all speculation at this point, the deal is not yet done and the Chinese have not placed any kind of forces in the Solomon's and may never do so. Its possible that the most they might do is put a 'listening post' there and some security personnel to keep the locals away from it, we just dont know. What we do know is that a draft agreement has the potential to allow basing of Chinese forces in the Solomons without much of any restriction on the type of forces and they could be placed there at any point in time.
This is the concern IMO, a NZ govt wont rearm unless the forces are there that can reach NZ, and will ignore the fact that they can be moved there at a moments notice so long as the facilities exist to support them, and use their absence as the excuse to do nothing.
Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
Sorry i should clarify. It wont be the realistic chances of nz being threatened by the H-20 bomber the carriers or boomers for that matter. They will be busy elsewhere. But just the prescence of those in the orbat, at the superficial level our media discusses these things, could be a headline grabber that stirs the electorate. In combination with other events.
In my mind the only threat is sea lane disruption or denial, port mining or a small frigate squadron operating in the eez. Or combination of the above. And that will be after open conflict elsewhere but us still powerless to prevent it.
Regards basing there- $10 and i say plan marines in 18 months and a listening post in 20.
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
Ok, I more or less agree with this.
I think that if China wants to effectively use the Solomons as any kind of base for naval activity, they need air support to deal with Australian forces and part of that mix will be be H6 (lots of em comparatively) and fighter support, to go after RAAF bases as well as RAN bases.
Effectiveness is a system of systems and without some sort of competent airstrike whats the point of a base of any sort in the Solomons? It would be eaten for breakfast after achieving nothing, I think that China is well aware of this.
Moreover I think that China knows that to effectively pressure AU/NZ they need air and naval forces and a local land force defence contingent, especially so when that far out from Mainland China. Functionally speaking permanent basing of large forces is another question.. I think they would put them there on a needs basis tbh for forces beyond "plan marines in 18 months and a listening post in 20. ." that I think they would want to be permanent.
And because of this NZ is potentially at risk simply because those forces potentially exist within range, and it must respond. As you say, the Orbat presence alone might wind up the media, especially if there is port and airfield enlargement that could accommodate suitable forces.
Sure the sea lane interdiction and mining are a good bet, but again, whats the point without the air coverage to back it up? a frigate squadron by itself would be an expensive bluff, too easy for Australia/US to outmatch.
I think the days of lone surface squadrons/ships being the shnizzle went out of fashion when Langsdorf heard that Ark Royal was coming for him after River Plate.
@Shanesworld & @Stuart M I will write more about this anon., but having a potentially hostile forces aside your SLOC & ALOC and not doing anything about it is not conducive to good governance. That's an existential treat to the nation's economic wellbeing for a start, and a potential threat to the nation's sovereignty.
Boardgamer88
Member
Forgived my ignorance, but wouldn't our western allies, particularly the USA and Australia, be leaning on NZ now more than ever due to China's latest move?
On another note, PM Ardern just announced that New Zealand Defence Force staff are being deployed to Europe to help with the war effort in Ukraine.
Ardern deploys Defence staff to Europe
The Government will deploy defence staff to Europe to help with Ukraine war.
www.nzherald.co.nz
What is the forum’s thoughts on a NZ response to regional developments with an indigenous ground-based air defence system? Possibly even one with some terminal Ballistic Missile Defence growth paths?
Pros:
1. From an operational POV, they are a purely defensive system with no offensive capability. Likely to be more politically attractive in the NZ context accordingly. NZ maintains naval air defence capabilities already, such a system could be viewed as a land based adjunct to an existing capability rather than an out-right new capability.
2. They would restore a capability to enforce control of NZ domestic airspace.
3. As a deployable capability, would provide a highly visible (from an optics POV) contribution and an operationally useful element of NZ commitment to regional security in conjunction with allies.
4. Could provide a capability that even a modern ACF would struggle to match, with respect to possible growth path ABM capabilities.
Cons:
1. Expensive. Modern high end systems (especially those with ABM capabilities are not cheap…)
2. Less flexible than a fast jet equipped force if increased air defence capacity were to be sought.
3. May be limited in ability to cover all of NZ depending on need / depth of capability sought…
Thoughts?
Pros:
1. From an operational POV, they are a purely defensive system with no offensive capability. Likely to be more politically attractive in the NZ context accordingly. NZ maintains naval air defence capabilities already, such a system could be viewed as a land based adjunct to an existing capability rather than an out-right new capability.
2. They would restore a capability to enforce control of NZ domestic airspace.
3. As a deployable capability, would provide a highly visible (from an optics POV) contribution and an operationally useful element of NZ commitment to regional security in conjunction with allies.
4. Could provide a capability that even a modern ACF would struggle to match, with respect to possible growth path ABM capabilities.
Cons:
1. Expensive. Modern high end systems (especially those with ABM capabilities are not cheap…)
2. Less flexible than a fast jet equipped force if increased air defence capacity were to be sought.
3. May be limited in ability to cover all of NZ depending on need / depth of capability sought…
Thoughts?