NZDF General discussion thread

Stuart M

Well-Known Member
Boardgamer88

c. Without in anyway being anti-army (I used to be RNZIR), the army split itself and NZDF, back briefing the new PM Clark government that UN policing type ops were our way forward (ie, talking up armour and dumping on RNZN and especially RNZAF ACF). When Clack assumed PM, her response to the above friction from the professionals was to chop 2 whole layers of Generals etc to be replaced by junior’s who got the message about their place on the new totem pole. Add in a spot of ASW BS in the media b/ PM Clark and leaks to the media and I assess that NZG just did not trust the military anymore.
It wasn't only that, the wheels mob were actively lobbying Labour politicians out of hours behind the backs of Army/NZDF hierarchy. As I hear it you couldn't go to a labour event without tripping over someone from Army expounding a view, invariably based on Yugoslavia and how the future was wheels. That whole episode was a consitutional disgrace imo.
 

kiwi in exile

Active Member
And another thing … ref a nice ABC Between the Lines piece about Solomons with our own Prof Anne-Marrie Brady
between the lines is good. ABC's one conservative hosted show.

TVNZs Q & A has an interview with one Kevin Rudd today on the same topic. I missed the live broadcast, and as at time of writing cannot access it online yet.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
between the lines is good. ABC's one conservative hosted show.

TVNZs Q & A has an interview with one Kevin Rudd today on the same topic. I missed the live broadcast, and as at time of writing cannot access it online yet.
Some NZDF related excerpts from NZ Listener interview with Kevin Rudd (also on NZH today but pay-walled). Rudd supports calls for the establishment of an "ANZAC Maritime Surveillance Command".

The threat China poses in the Pacific is real, and NZ must act, says ex-Australian PM and China expert Kevin Rudd. By Bernard Lagan

Australia's former Labor prime minister, Kevin Rudd – long a scholar of China and its threat to the West – has urged New Zealand and Australia to pool military resources, beginning with joint maritime and air force patrols of the South Pacific.

"That's not really an option in my mind. It is now necessary for both of us," Rudd told the Listener in an interview to promote his new book, The Avoidable War. The book sets out a road map by which the former politician and diplomat hopes China and the United States might avoid war, and what he terms "global carnage on an industrial scale".
*****
The arrival next year of New Zealand's fleet of new P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft to replace the six ageing P-3K2 Orion aircraft offers an opportunity, he believes, to combine Pacific Ocean patrol operations with Australia. It has acquired the same aircraft, based on the Boeing 737 airframe.

Australia is known to be increasingly concerned about ventures by the Chinese navy far down the Pacific.

In February, crew aboard a Chinese-guided missile destroyer, disturbed by the Royal Australian Air Force while sailing in the Arafura Sea within Australia's northern exclusive economic zone, shone a military-grade laser into the cockpit of an Australian surveillance aircraft.

An Anzac Maritime Surveillance Command has already been suggested by the leading Australian defence think tank, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. This proposal is based on the North American Aerospace Defence Command (Norad), set up by the US and Canada, which provides aerospace warning and protection for North America.

"It makes every piece of national security sense for us [Australia and New Zealand] to pool our national security resources wherever we can," says Rudd. "It should begin with a comprehensive, expansive joint maritime and aerial surveillance of the South-west Pacific because that's what our Pacific Island neighbours demand most of all – in terms of their fisheries resources and other violations."
 

Stuart M

Well-Known Member
"FORMER Prime Minister and Member of Parliament for Small Malaita Hon Rick Houenipwela says the security treaty with China was supposed to be a secretly orchestrated deal.

Hon Houenipwela said the secret undertakings on this agreement started way back in 2019 when the Police Minister indicated in Parliament then that ‘if the government had its way, they would have China as the preferred security partner.’

He said it was a clear indication of the Government’s policy intentions but they intended to keep it under wraps until it was leaked."

So when the Solomons PM says he doesn't want a Chinese base, is it prudent to believe him?
I suspect that a lot of infrastructure will have duel use purposes, gives a nice veneer of plausible deniability.
 

Gracie1234

Well-Known Member
I think it is very hard to believe the Prime Minister even if his intent is not to have a base. The reality here is that this will develop over time and the pressure and benefits(perhaps individual) will increase as the level of use of their territory increases. It will be quite easy for China to say that they are just putting in more logistic support and before you know a full-blown operational base is there.
This has numerous benefits for China, food security in my mind is core for them, supporting grey zone activities is second and the icing on the cake will be annoying Australia.
I think it is quite clear that this will be the turning point for NZ, i can not remember this much attention in our media. It will be almost impossible for us not to respond in some way, budget time is soon. That will be the answer and i believe the govt is not wanting to provide any leadership to her people until then. No surprise there, it can not be fixed with a hug. Sorry had to put a dig in.
The other aspect to this is, we were quite clear in our latest defence paper that a base in our region would be a red line. China obviously would have read this paper and have responded to it in our papers. Did they care about our view? Nope, they did what they wanted to do as a big country does. I think that is a very clear signal on their intention and how they view and respect us.
First, the Pacific next stop is Antarctica. History will be the judge of how we respond, as Kevin Rudd said 'it would be best for democracies to respond together so that they are not picked off individually by China'.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
H-6K CR ex Solomon Islands.jpg

The image is a graphic I have done in Google Earth. The circles are centred on Honoraria, the capital of the Solomon Islands. The red circle is the estimated combat radius of the Xian H-6K as stated by Military Today as being 3,500 km. The black circle is the maximum estimated range of air to ground missiles that can be launched from the H-6K extending it's range out to 5,000 km. It has been reported that the CJ-10 ALCM has a range of 2,000 km and is capable of being armed with either a nuclear or conventional warhead. The aircraft is operated by both the PLAAF and PLANAF. The H-6N is the AAR variant of the H-6 with a much longer range than the H-6K, it can also carry heavier weapons than the H-6K. A H-6B reconnaissance aircraft, a HD-6 electronic warfare aircraft. It is fitted with solid nose and canoe fairing with electronic countermeasures equipment, and a HY-6 (also referred H-6U) aerial refuelling tanker. The PLANAF also operate the Shaanxi Y-8X MPA which has a range of 5,600 km and an endurance of 10 hours.

Then there is the ubiquitous PRC fishing fleet that pillages the ocean of just about every living thing. They impact the whole ocean food chain from the benthic life through to the largest life forms in the ocean because they hollow out the food chain in the middle, the fish and the life forms on the sea floor. This causes a collapse in the local food chain leaving countries to go hungry because local fishers are left with very little, if any, fish stocks China’s Monster Fishing Fleet Makes Other Countries Go Hungry (foreignpolicy.com). They are also going dark by switching their AIS off which is against international maritime law China's 'dark' fishing fleets are plundering the world's oceans - ABC News.

The PRC fishing fleet has a military dimension because the fishermen when not employed to fish are part of the Peoples Armed Forces Maritime Militia and are used to monitor, bully, ram etc., non PRC fishing and law enforcement vessels when encountered. They also interfere with Freedom Of Navigation exercises, gather acoustic, signals and imagery intelligence The Strategic Significance, of the Chinese Fishing Fleet (army.mil).

It is already causing concern in the South Pacific with the Kingdom of Tonga voicing concerns Chinese fishing fleet poses threat to Pacific island economies | Indo-Pacific Defense Forum (ipdefenseforum.com) and this is what we will be facing, not just ourselves but on behalf of Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, and the NZ Realm territories. If / when the CCP / PRC deploy coast guard vessels to protect their fishing fleet then there will be trouble because those vessels are PLAN frigates without the vast majority of the weapons systems. There will also be the deployment of PLAN fleet units to the Solomon Islands on a regular basis including ISR capable vessels and shore capabilities.

If the PLA get established there in any sufficient force, they will be difficult to remove. The battles on Guadalcanal, the rest of the Solomon Islands, and surrounding region, during WW2 testify to that. Rabaul on New Britain was only liberated after the Japanese surrender in August 1945. In 1941 NZ government started to panic about June - July when the Japanese started looking south, and panicked when the Japanese attacked Hong Kong, Philippines and Pearl Harbour. They really panicked when Singapore fell and the Japanese took the Solomon Islands. They weren't prepared for a Pacific war. In 1938 / 1939 they weren't prepared for any war. I think history maybe repeating itself.

Returning to my graphic above, Auckland is inside the redline and I believe Hamilton maybe on the line of close to it. The rest of NZ is well within air launched missile range as are all of the major Australian cities. If the H-6K are refuelled in the air, then the missile coverage is even larger. A surveillance and / or EW aircraft with A2A refuelling would be able to cover the whole of the country, especially if it was unopposed. Therefore it is my conclusion that if the PLA deploy long range aerial assets to the Solomon Islands, this will be the first time in NZ history that a potential adversary will have the capability to deploy land based combat aircraft over NZ, projecting hard power against NZ sovereignty, security, defence, and interests.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The DPM&C have released a National Security Long-term Insights Briefing Consultation Summary. Long-term Insights Briefing Topic Consultation Summary | Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC). At the link there is a download link to a nine page pdf document containing the summary. Because I believe that it's a purely political process being down outside of the normal channels of Ministry of Defence, MAF etc., where the public service undertake the research and analysis before it is presented to the politicians, I have my doubts about the validity of it.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The DPM&C have released a National Security Long-term Insights Briefing Consultation Summary. Long-term Insights Briefing Topic Consultation Summary | Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC). At the link there is a download link to a nine page pdf document containing the summary. Because I believe that it's a purely political process being down outside of the normal channels of Ministry of Defence, MAF etc., where the public service undertake the research and analysis before it is presented to the politicians, I have my doubts about the validity of it.
I would have to say that due to a couple of recent events, Ukraine and the Solomons, that it is out of date already and should be scrapped forthwith. But the bureaucrats and pollies will continue to waste their time on it as that is what they are good at and by doing the time wasting exercise they don't have to do anything.
 

Stuart M

Well-Known Member
My google fu maybe weak, as I have not come across much of any widespread in depth MSM reporting on the Solomon's deal or its potential ramifications. From the tone of this article, its superficiality, where its from and from the nature of NZs fairly accommodating behaviour towards China, I think we will be able to discern the mood music of NZ's actual reaction to the Solomon Islands wee agreement with China.


Should NZ be worried about the China-Solomons security deal? | RNZ

"These countries have a whole host of issues they have to deal with, from climate change to governance to accountability to poverty. I think it's a bit unfair to heap all these other issues on them to consider in establishing their diplomatic relations when even countries like Australia and New Zealand are happy to do business with a lot of these big powers that may do things that we don't agree with in other parts of the world."

As ever with politics its best not to look at what is said but what is done and not done.
 

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
My google fu maybe weak, as I have not come across much of any widespread in depth MSM reporting on the Solomon's deal or its potential ramifications. From the tone of this article, its superficiality, where its from and from the nature of NZs fairly accommodating behaviour towards China, I think we will be able to discern the mood music of NZ's actual reaction to the Solomon Islands wee agreement with China.


Should NZ be worried about the China-Solomons security deal? | RNZ

"These countries have a whole host of issues they have to deal with, from climate change to governance to accountability to poverty. I think it's a bit unfair to heap all these other issues on them to consider in establishing their diplomatic relations when even countries like Australia and New Zealand are happy to do business with a lot of these big powers that may do things that we don't agree with in other parts of the world."

As ever with politics its best not to look at what is said but what is done and not done.
It makes me wonder if the Solomons that ignorant of how Chinas been poaching the hell out of the pacific? Do they think such an alliance will somehow have China leave thier resources alone?It's a bit like having the fox to guard the chickens..
 

Stuart M

Well-Known Member
It makes me wonder if the Solomons that ignorant of how Chinas been poaching the hell out of the pacific? Do they think such an alliance will somehow have China leave thier resources alone?It's a bit like having the fox to guard the chickens..
I suspect that the concern and knowledge of the Solomons Islands government towards its fishing stocks is a rather negotiable matter.
My primary concern is that what you say about the Solomons can just as well be levied against the NZ government, even if the 'negotiation of virtue' is more directed to NZ as a whole rather than individuals in power.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I suspect that the concern and knowledge of the Solomons Islands government towards its fishing stocks is a rather negotiable matter.
My primary concern is that what you say about the Solomons can just as well be levied against the NZ government, even if the 'negotiation of virtue' is more directed to NZ as a whole rather than individuals in power.
The saving grace of this situation may be that it does not appear to be the wish of many in the Solomon's with the PM at odds with many of his country men and the place expressing their disapproval of relationships with China (on a claim of corruption of those grating access) and he may not survive the next election ..... however, it is interesting that the PM has managed to push that out from 2023 to accommodate the pacific Games.

Solomons' government slammed over plan to delay elections - Pacific Beat - ABC Radio Australia

It appears that China will have some time to work on the place.
 
The saving grace of this situation may be that it does not appear to be the wish of many in the Solomon's with the PM at odds with many of his country men and the place expressing their disapproval of relationships with China (on a claim of corruption of those grating access) and he may not survive the next election ..... however, it is interesting that the PM has managed to push that out from 2023 to accommodate the pacific Games.

Solomons' government slammed over plan to delay elections - Pacific Beat - ABC Radio Australia

It appears that China will have some time to work on the place.
My immediate worry is that we end up with another riot which lead to the PM asking his new buddy China to help crack down on the rioters.
 

Stuart M

Well-Known Member
The saving grace of this situation may be that it does not appear to be the wish of many in the Solomon's with the PM at odds with many of his country men and the place expressing their disapproval of relationships with China (on a claim of corruption of those grating access) and he may not survive the next election ..... however, it is interesting that the PM has managed to push that out from 2023 to accommodate the pacific Games.

Solomons' government slammed over plan to delay elections - Pacific Beat - ABC Radio Australia

It appears that China will have some time to work on the place.
The cynic in me would suggest that there is a reason why the agreement has a clause about CCP providing direct law and order support.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
My google fu maybe weak, as I have not come across much of any widespread in depth MSM reporting on the Solomon's deal or its potential ramifications. From the tone of this article, its superficiality, where its from and from the nature of NZs fairly accommodating behaviour towards China, I think we will be able to discern the mood music of NZ's actual reaction to the Solomon Islands wee agreement with China.

Should NZ be worried about the China-Solomons security deal? | RNZ

"These countries have a whole host of issues they have to deal with, from climate change to governance to accountability to poverty. I think it's a bit unfair to heap all these other issues on them to consider in establishing their diplomatic relations when even countries like Australia and New Zealand are happy to do business with a lot of these big powers that may do things that we don't agree with in other parts of the world."

As ever with politics its best not to look at what is said but what is done and not done.
I agree there appears to be some superficiality (within that article and interview), but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is a reflection of the NZ Govt's stance, far from it and quite the opposite actually it appears.

So firstly the "superficiality" of the article aspects, although admittedly I only played back half (~10min) of the recorded interview (earlier) it became clear the interviewer deferred a lot to the subject expert (Dr Iati), who then outlined a real concern of Pacific people in a general sense which is to not see their wider region "militarised" (be that CCP or even Western nations i.e. not by anyone), this isn't anything new and politically the (old) "left" (some politicians, peace movement, some in academia and media etc) have always promoted this.

It can be understandable from their experiences of WW2 where they found themselves caught up in the front lines of other people's wars coming uninvited to their lands, seas and skies (eg Japan and the US and its allies etc). Also NZ's previous less than exemplary "colonial administration" of Western Samoa from 1914 onwards didn't help (thankfully NZ and Western Samoa have come a long way from then - Samoa regained their independence in 1962 and relations have been mostly "excellent" since (excepting the odd issue like NZ citizenship for those that were born during NZ's rule).

Dr Iati also talked about foreign aid from the CCP (for various Pacific nations) and as per the article stated it was "normal relations". Yes that may be so as these nations are independent but I never heard words mentioned like "debt traps", nor poorly constructed CCP infrastructure that doesn't allow for much local employment in the first place (unlike A/NZ/US/Japanese/Taiwanese aid efforts etc), nor covert CCP activities influencing the political class, nor how many other Pacific peoples are concerned with CCP influence within their societies etc (perhaps he covered them later in his interview, I'll have to check, or on maybe other occasions? I did see another article where the good Dr was being criticised by a former PM of Samoa, who did seem to have "influential" connections with the CCP, so who knows).

As for the NZ Govt (and although our Foreign Minister Mahuta attracted a lot of flack when she took up the role - admittedly I was also somewhat skeptical) her responses to this Sogavare/CCP security agreement has actually been very forthright. The MSM haven't explained why but I assume it's partially related to what I said above about not wanting the South Pacific to be "militarised" and if it were then certainly not by a totalitarian and provocative regime which has no real connections to Pacific cultures and way of life, which are also largely democratic and (increasingly) supportive of minority and women's rights etc. Presumably FM Mahuta and her Ministry are looking at the wider picture in which the CCP play the long game so keeping any CCP militaristic ambitions curtailed will be of the utmost importance.

So at the moment I would say she is probably the best person for her role (as NZ FM) as one of her reported strengths is understanding and bridging together indigenous peoples, so this is where she and the Pacific Islands Forum comes into the picture, to lend voices to reason with Sogavare, let's see how this all plays out.

As for the NZG and defence in general, yes although this particular Labour Govt is also somewhat pacifistic (today's NZ MSM mentions DefMin Penare actually wanted to send NZ Army Javelin missiles to the Ukraine but Cabinet didn't support him), the MoD's December 2021 Defence Assessment actually called for "radical" change to NZ's defence settings, by calling for a review of the current "risk management " policy approach, to that of a "proactive, strategy-led approach to defence policy".

113. The principal change we recommend is for New Zealand’s defence policy to shift from a risk management-centred approach to one based on a deliberate and proactive strategy, with more explicit – and explicitly prioritised – policy objectives. A more strategy-led approach would
better enable Defence – as part of broader national efforts – to pre-empt and prevent, as well as respond to, security threats, and better build resilience against the incremental impacts of climate change and other security challenges.

114. Changing approaches in this way will require more deliberate and rigorous prioritisation of effort, and some hard choices and trade-offs. And a more proactive strategy-led approach would still require Defence to respond to discrete contingencies: such a strategy would incorporate, not preclude, the requirement to maintain capabilities at readiness for situations in New Zealand and offshore. Ministers would still, as now, ultimately
determine how Defence capabilities are used.
Yes I think this NZG would still like to kick that can down the road (and unlike the recent Australian budget, I'm not hopeful much will change in the upcoming NZ budget in May), but if not later in this Govt's term eg later this year or next, then certainly the next Govt (polling trends suggest a change of govt in 2023) may see some long overdue changes to defence priorities and capabilities.

In some respects DefMin Penare's priorities of "People, Infrastructure and the Pacific" (perhaps unwittingly to Labour when they conceived these ideas) could actually be a helpful line in the sand. IIRC there is little in the way of public explanation as to what is to be done or expended on "P, I & P" apart from generalised statements on regenerating NZDF people capacity (since being caught up with the covid response and lack of wider training opportunities etc), upgrading old base infrastructure etc ... NZG needs make some "real" (enhanced) investments in "P, I, & P" to actually grow the three services over time (not just the Army as per previous coalition govt DCP19 plan) and increase infrastructure to cater for this as well as to include infrastructure for new capabilities.

Certainly the MoD/NZDF/NZG could look at Australia's plans to ramp up infrastructure (and capabilities) for real-life scenarios.

There are so many areas and shopping lists (so not going to go there now) apart from saying as well as the usual ISR, C4, network centric & maritime coverage needs etc, there needs to be prioritised efforts in the area of missile defence and offence (and the means to employ and deploy them).

For example, the RNZN are rather prudent planners, I would not be surprised if space and weight has been reserved on the ANZAC Frigates for canister launched anti-shipping missiles (there was a high end upgrade plan for the FSU upgrade which wasn't funded), if so let's plug into Australia's newly announced plans to replace Harpoon with Kongsberg NSM etc (which could also be a replacement for the Penguin ASM when the Seasprites are replaced).

Then there are the impending P-8A's requiring a long range stand-off missile, and arguably the need for coastal and air defence systems which where practical would also be air-transortable eg into the Pacific (eg if the CCP did gain a base in the Solomons?, as NZ did in WW2 where its forward defence positions moved up to New Caledonia and Fiji etc). If this sounds plausible does the NZDF need a type of all or joint ervices missile capability planning branch (as I wonder if leaving it to the three services eg some like Army may not prioritise these lethalities if they lack the technical expertise)?
 
So an article from ASPI was posted on the RAN thread which looks at the RAN deficiencies in air defence and missile strike capabilities and makes a number of suggestions (Some of which is already happening)



Now obviously the RNZN is not the RAN, and some of the suggestions may well be impossible given our limitations, but I was wondering if there anything from this piece that NZ should take on-board.

While the RAN waits for the Hunter-class frigates to arrive, what else can be done to radically improve the survivability of deployed RAN taskforces against the sprawling and increasingly sophisticated ASCM threat spectrum?

The answer is that any solution should consider tackling four critical issues: deeper fleet magazines; disaggregation of expensive crewed surface combatants into cheaper and expendable uncrewed assets; efforts to break the PLA’s ASCM kill chain; employment of long-range ordnance to engage in offensive air- and missile-defence operations, principally by targeting enemy ASCM launch platforms.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
So an article from ASPI was posted on the RAN thread which looks at the RAN deficiencies in air defence and missile strike capabilities and makes a number of suggestions (Some of which is already happening)



Now obviously the RNZN is not the RAN, and some of the suggestions may well be impossible given our limitations, but I was wondering if there anything from this piece that NZ should take on-board.
Some Harpoons would look good just in front of the Bridge of their Anzacs, we could probably spare some in a couple of years ;)
Some NSMs would probably look and work better though.
 
Top