Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
I have always like this version where it is overlayed Europe and Africa... it just puts it in to true perspective of how vast the area is...
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
There was quite a good article by Russell Palmer on the RNZ website this afternoon (link). Apparently Mr Henare is now suggesting that "maintaining a cooperative Defence Force presence in the region - and not solely for humanitarian aid - is a priority for New Zealand". Hmmm.
Thomas Manch's article on Stuff is also a must-read (see link in htbrst's post #6765). Did anyone read the article by Thomas Coughlan in the NZ Herald today (link) - unfortunately for me it's paywalled? A short precis would be nice if someone could manage it.
I would agree with JohnJT that fixing/increasing NZ's maritime surveillance should be the first priority. I wonder how the EMAC project is going (like the SOPV project, it too seems to have stalled)? Perhaps its time to 'un-defer' the SOPV project, Mr Henare? Nothing says 'move-on, punk!' better than a 13000-ton ice-strengthened patrol vessel, does it. Perhaps even a ram-bow should be a consideration?
I imagine the Chinese are doing this deal with the Solomons primarily to annoy the Australians & the US (hey, welcome to the big leagues, Australia!). The overlap with the Japanese occupation of Guadalcanal in WWII is uncanny. My worry is that we will see an increasingly insidious Chinese grey-zone presence in the Solomons: first nuisance fishing fleets hoovering up all and sundry, then OPVs/naval vessels to 'protect them', and a finally a fully fledged military base (as only a remote possibility). In essence, the Solomons PM will undermine all that Australia (and NZ in a small way) has been doing over the last 30 years to protect their maritime sovereignty (eg. the Pacific & Guardian class patrol boat programmes).
Thomas Manch's article on Stuff is also a must-read (see link in htbrst's post #6765). Did anyone read the article by Thomas Coughlan in the NZ Herald today (link) - unfortunately for me it's paywalled? A short precis would be nice if someone could manage it.
I would agree with JohnJT that fixing/increasing NZ's maritime surveillance should be the first priority. I wonder how the EMAC project is going (like the SOPV project, it too seems to have stalled)? Perhaps its time to 'un-defer' the SOPV project, Mr Henare? Nothing says 'move-on, punk!' better than a 13000-ton ice-strengthened patrol vessel, does it. Perhaps even a ram-bow should be a consideration?
I imagine the Chinese are doing this deal with the Solomons primarily to annoy the Australians & the US (hey, welcome to the big leagues, Australia!). The overlap with the Japanese occupation of Guadalcanal in WWII is uncanny. My worry is that we will see an increasingly insidious Chinese grey-zone presence in the Solomons: first nuisance fishing fleets hoovering up all and sundry, then OPVs/naval vessels to 'protect them', and a finally a fully fledged military base (as only a remote possibility). In essence, the Solomons PM will undermine all that Australia (and NZ in a small way) has been doing over the last 30 years to protect their maritime sovereignty (eg. the Pacific & Guardian class patrol boat programmes).
Last edited:
Down there in isolation from the real world it may have escaped your attention that China has been doing this and similar for half a decade to "annoy Australia "
We have plenty of sand, but there's a lot less tendency to stick our heads in it. And less inclination to drop trou and take it.
oldsig
He suggests that the govt will not change " ... their current defence spending strategy, which is to pivot away from expensive hardware towards retaining staff, and fixing the ailing defence estate." That's no real surprise to any of us on here. He then goes on to show how NZ has pared back its defence spending over time, using a World Bank graph showing NZ-AU-US over time since 1960.
Then it's on to the PM saying that she will not be drawn on defence expenditure before the Budget.
I agree with your last paragraph completely.
There is no need for this snarky crap so lay off.
Boardgamer88
Member
My political-speak is a bit rusty, could someone explain what that actually means for NZDF, in english?
On that note, considering the potential Chinese Naval Base in the Solomon Islands, what sort of ships should NZ be looking at for it future fleet? I remember reading an article by Dr Wayne Mapp who suggested that NZ go with High/Low Spec Type 31s for future GPFs/OPVs. Is that still viable, or should NZ be looking at more advanced ships like the Type 26?
Wayne Mapp: Reflections on the implications of AUKUS for New Zealand's Navy - Defsec
In the wake of last week’s AUKUS announcement, decisions around NZ’s Anzac class frigate replacement have become immediately more important.
defsec.net.nz
Last edited:
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
My political-speak is a bit rusty, could someone explain what that actually means for NZDF, in english?
On that note, considering the potential Chinese Naval Base in the Solomon Islands, what sort of ships should NZ be looking at for it future fleet? I remember reading an article by Dr Wayne Mapp who suggested that NZ go with High/Low Spec Type 31s for future Frigates/OPVs. Is that still viable, or should NZ be looking at more advanced ships like the Type 26?
Wayne Mapp: Reflections on the implications of AUKUS for New Zealand's Navy - Defsec
In the wake of last week’s AUKUS announcement, decisions around NZ’s Anzac class frigate replacement have become immediately more important.
Honestly I think your being pretty optimistic considering recent decisions to shelve the future opv and sell off our Ipv ect. I'm willing to bet we'd be lucky if we end up with two T31 by 2035 the way things are going.
By which time we'd be learning Chinese as a third language
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
Probably means no change and carry on doing what they are doing or as you were... but by changingthe way it sounds and written, it means (sarcasm mode on) we are doing something... (sarcasm mode off)
Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
Well the USN is retiring 9 freedom class and the USAF is retiring 33 "trainer" F22's. Maybe we could get a package deal. Couple of B61's and some bridging equipment for a shipload of sauv plonk?My political-speak is a bit rusty, could someone explain what that actually means for NZDF, in english?
On that note, considering the potential Chinese Naval Base in the Solomon Islands, what sort of ships should NZ be looking at for it future fleet? I remember reading an article by Dr Wayne Mapp who suggested that NZ go with High/Low Spec Type 31s for future GPFs/OPVs. Is that still viable, or should NZ be looking at more advanced ships like the Type 26?
Wayne Mapp: Reflections on the implications of AUKUS for New Zealand's Navy - Defsec
In the wake of last week’s AUKUS announcement, decisions around NZ’s Anzac class frigate replacement have become immediately more important.
But seriously I doubt any decision of that sort will be rushed till its way too late. Anything happens we will be going to war eith whatever we haven't sold off.
Yep, Shane.
Ala 1915 and 1941, it'll be the boys and girls who wear the lack of equipment and training. Not the long line of politicians from both camps.
Everything that is happening now with Russia/Ukraine and China/Solomons/Fiji has been forecast and none of this is difficult unless you think you can be a smartie and play Foreign Affairs as being Trade centric and not require kinetic military options because the world loves us.
NZ really is a collection of chooks (actually, head in the sand is pretty good too).
So what to do:
1. Publicity, as often as you can (letters, comments, etc)
2. Write to your MP, MinDef, and PM
3. Contact Reporters and tell them the story
Ala 1915 and 1941, it'll be the boys and girls who wear the lack of equipment and training. Not the long line of politicians from both camps.
Everything that is happening now with Russia/Ukraine and China/Solomons/Fiji has been forecast and none of this is difficult unless you think you can be a smartie and play Foreign Affairs as being Trade centric and not require kinetic military options because the world loves us.
NZ really is a collection of chooks (actually, head in the sand is pretty good too).
So what to do:
1. Publicity, as often as you can (letters, comments, etc)
2. Write to your MP, MinDef, and PM
3. Contact Reporters and tell them the story
I can only hope the change in dynamics in the Southern Pacific is the latest wake up call for this Govt and Opposition, and the re equipping on the NZDF to at least its former capabilities. Sadly I feel it will do nothing.
The one thing that comes to my mind though is "people" , its all well and good to order new shiny capabilities but we just don't have the bodies to man/crew them. As highlighted a few pages back by SE-J the attrition rate is horrific, and has been for many years. They are quoting Op Protect as the main reason , I doubt this from my chats to fellow pers , its all about leadership and the ever expanding top of the pyramid. Multiple reports and surveys over the years have highlighted this , and yet nothing happens other than talk . There is very little confidence looking upwards (we see this in the lack of any public comment/acknowledgement re AOPV cancelation/postponement). In a dynamic labour market our highly skilled young men and woman are voting with their feet, Protect may have been the final straw for some, but not the main reason.
The senior leadership of the NZDF need to address this loss of pers publicly to the Govt first (only way things seam to get done) before trying to man future T26/ T31, P8s etc . For each service there will be there own individual reasons , eg housing on the Nth Shore for navy pers (imagine a leading Hand , partner and young child being able to afford to live on the North Shore, just cant happen).
New equipment in the pipe stream will have the "self licking ice cream" effect and entice pers to stay, this only lasts so long as, esp as delays kick in.
Sorry for my grumble , it all starts with people, lets turn the tap off first so we can look to the future.
The one thing that comes to my mind though is "people" , its all well and good to order new shiny capabilities but we just don't have the bodies to man/crew them. As highlighted a few pages back by SE-J the attrition rate is horrific, and has been for many years. They are quoting Op Protect as the main reason , I doubt this from my chats to fellow pers , its all about leadership and the ever expanding top of the pyramid. Multiple reports and surveys over the years have highlighted this , and yet nothing happens other than talk . There is very little confidence looking upwards (we see this in the lack of any public comment/acknowledgement re AOPV cancelation/postponement). In a dynamic labour market our highly skilled young men and woman are voting with their feet, Protect may have been the final straw for some, but not the main reason.
The senior leadership of the NZDF need to address this loss of pers publicly to the Govt first (only way things seam to get done) before trying to man future T26/ T31, P8s etc . For each service there will be there own individual reasons , eg housing on the Nth Shore for navy pers (imagine a leading Hand , partner and young child being able to afford to live on the North Shore, just cant happen).
New equipment in the pipe stream will have the "self licking ice cream" effect and entice pers to stay, this only lasts so long as, esp as delays kick in.
Sorry for my grumble , it all starts with people, lets turn the tap off first so we can look to the future.
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
On this site we can bemoan the lamentable state of affairs and speculate about what a govt should do to deal with a direct to NZ but sorry to say it, nothing will happen as the NZ political/civil establishment perspective on the world resides firmly in the period of 1987-2000, and that anything could alter the world as they see it is quite beyond their comprehension and this link shows it quite well
Govt tight-lipped on potential defence cuts amid Chinese Pacific threat
So what shows up in this article
New Zealand must send strong signal to Pacific over China - Defence Minister Peeni Henare | RNZ News
can readily be seen as the usual NZ methodology for domestic consumption of talking tough but in reality doing nothing, as they will not get the capability and capacity to back up their "strong signal to the pacific" or anywhere else.
Is it any wonder that the Solomon Islands made the agreement with China when the likes of NZ obviously and blatantly talk so much rot?
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Id say much of what Chinese foreign minister Wang weibing
I'd say much of what Chinese foreign minister Wang weibin was saying about foreign powers meddling in the south pacific was a self own for China itself.
So sending Humanitarian aid to the Solomans and the pacific, and peacekeepers at these govts request is meddling in foreign affairs and their sovereignty now?
How are we going to conduct further aid under these circumstances in the Solomans or other like minded Pacific islands?
Are we to expect Chinas permission first, while our Navy gets shadowed by their warships?
Is China going to police their own theft of resources from these island nations now, fish stocks or otherwise? Yeah, right.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Not sure that a component of JORN could be feasibly based in NZ, maybe a transmitter perhaps?
If (big IF) there can be an iron-clad commitment to both keep the level of data/accuracy a secret, as well as a promise to raise and sustain capabilities to make actionable use of such data, then Australia might be open to expanding JORN to cover more of NZ and approaches, as well as sharing relevant contacts with a NZ HQ.
I don’t see why not? My concern is it may not be necessary, depending on what Australia is prepared to ‘share’ with NZ given the FSP 2020 plan to expand JORN capability to cover Australia’s ‘eastern’ approaches?
If NZ were committed to developing an AIR-6500 compatible / networkable IAMDS and ‘response’ capability to add teeth to that surveillance picture in whatever form, that may improve the likelihood of a shared operating picture (assuming we don’t already) over the South Pacific?
Jindalee extension will put a constant Australian eye on Melanesia | The Strategist
Hopes and fears about the South Pacific drive Australia’s policy ‘step-up’—along with the great needs of Papua New Guinea and the islands. The hopes and needs get talked up while the fears quietly shape policy. ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Which part is it that you do not see an issue with? I ask so that I might better explain my reasoning and concerns.I don’t see why not? My concern is it may not be necessary, depending on what Australia is prepared to ‘share’ with NZ given the FSP 2020 plan to expand JORN capability to cover Australia’s ‘eastern’ approaches?
If NZ were committed to developing an AIR-6500 compatible / networkable IAMDS and ‘response’ capability to add teeth to that surveillance picture in whatever form, that may improve the likelihood of a shared operating picture (assuming we don’t already) over the South Pacific?
Jindalee extension will put a constant Australian eye on Melanesia | The Strategist
Hopes and fears about the South Pacific drive Australia’s policy ‘step-up’—along with the great needs of Papua New Guinea and the islands. The hopes and needs get talked up while the fears quietly shape policy. ...
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
Ah JORN... a pretty cool hard rock band from Norway... LOL sorry couldn't resist
Firstly I am not sure stationing a JORN station in NZ would be strictly necessary given the planned upgrade and introduction to service of "JORN East" is intended to cover the maritime and air approaches to Australia of most of the South Pacific anyway, given it's range it may well cover what NZ needs to look at anyway.
Secondly, if not and NZ required additional coverage and wished to join the program as a partner and invest in their own site, I'm not sure the Australian Government would especially object, particularly if a common operating picture could be developed between the 2 nations accordingly...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
For the first point, I agree that it might not be necessary for transmission and/or reception sites to be located in NZ. As I understand it, significant portions of the western approaches to NZ are already covered with existing JORN systems.
For the second, I am uncertain whether JORN sites could be established in NZ due to technical reasons.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Getting into something well beyond my ken, but are we talking curvature of the Earth issues due to the lower latitudes of NZ?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
No, though the latitude might impact performance as well, particularly during solar events. Rather it is mostly NZ's seismic activity which I could as being problematic, coupled with some of the magnetic anomalies which are to be found in and around NZ.
Of course these concerns might also be unfounded, since the JORN system's tolerances might be able to either account or compensate for issues caused. It is the sort of level of detail that I would be shocked if it came into the public domain.