NZDF General discussion thread

[STURM]

Western appeasement of the Soviet Union was also evident when there was no protest about a big chunk of Finland seized by them as a condition for a pease treaty after WW2.

What could the West have done? The war was over; the Soviets were the dominant power in eastern Europe and Finland had participated in the War Of Continution alongside Germany [an enemy of the West] against the Soviet Union [an ally of the West which played a pivotal role in the defeat of Germany]. The Finns got off lightly IMO; Soviet peace terms could have been much harsher.

 

[swerve]

The Finns got off lightly because they'd been such tough nuts in 1939-40, & the last Red Army offensive, in the summer of 1944, suffered very heavy losses despite overwhelming material superiority.

 

[Shanesworld]

The Finns got off lightly because they'd been such tough nuts in 1939-40, & the last Red Army offensive, in the summer of 1944, suffered very heavy losses despite overwhelming material superiority.

But if you meet Finns and then consider they have methamphetamine lollies that 1939 to 1940 result starts to make alot of sense.

 

[Gooey]

Nga

Apologies; for myself 'hollowed out' equates to the lack of relevant knowledge of professional mastery.

With respect to RNZN, NZ Army, and RNZAF, this has been a decreasing commodity over the past four decades. For both Officers and SNCO's. Certainly, on one-hand knowledge at the Tactical level (ie. operating effectively fighting equipment, as oposed to safely using/driving/flying equipment) is good in areas and it is relatively easier to generate quickly (ugh, go that way with your stick & hit that guy); however, in others like ASW, Combined Arms maneuver, IAMD, EW, and Air Combat it has deteriorated significantly.

Separately, at the Operational and Strategic levels, relevant NZDF skills have rapidly decline. I suspect this is a combination of warrior class being driven from NZ and replaced with business managers. As well, as political interference. IMHO, of course.

This is absolutely nothing to do with the guys and is not meant as a slight on most peps within. I know absolutely that kiwis make good soldiers. My 'hollowed out' thoughts has everything to do with the lack of training and equipment that our Services have to somehow deal with. At some point the effects of under funding and the lack of a coherent doctrine/strategy has to show. I believe that point happened a while ago now. Well before the bow-wave effects of the recent COVID mission disaster.

Secondly, I like your ditty about the rams. Seen it on my uncles farm. Funny as hell. I fail to see the link though. You have two hopes that the Defence Review next year will generate anything more than chin-stroking; Bob Hope and no hope.

 

[swerve]

But if you meet Finns and then consider they have methamphetamine lollies that 1939 to 1940 result starts to make alot of sense.

I've been to Finland, more than once, & met plenty of them elsewhere.

Many years ago I & a friend spent Midsummer night on a campsite in Finland. Damn, they can drink!

 

[STURM]

The Finns got off lightly because they'd been such tough nuts in 1939-40, & the last Red Army offensive, in the summer of 1944, suffered very heavy losses despite overwhelming material superiority.

By 1944/5 the Finns were in a weak position; there was war weariness and they faced all manners of difficulties. They simply were not in a position to sustain further hostilities. Having won the war with Germany and being much stronger compared to 1939/40 the Soviets could have pressed for harsher terms in 1945 but were contend with what they had. Their focus was eastern Europe.

 

[Rob c]

You have two hopes that the Defence Review next year will generate anything more than chin-stroking; Bob Hope and no hope.

In my limited experience with pollies, I have come to the conclusion that any review will only ever be allowed to say what the pollies want it to say. This is achieved by very careful writing of the terms of reference for the said review. In this particular case I have not seen the terms of reference for the Defence Review and seeing the people who make up the review team and the complete lack of any military experience in the team I suspect that Gooey will be right about the outcome.
While there will probably be reference to the worsening global strategic situation, this is likely to involve minor tweaks and an insurance that increased diplomatic efforts and diplomacy will keep the problem in control. What happens if this fails will not be addressed.

 

[ngatimozart]

@Gooey Thought the dit would tickle your fancy. It was the cleanest one that I could think of at the time.

I am just biding my time to see what they actually come up with. I have my own ideas, but I am willing to wait. It's not black and white and I'm certainly trying very hard not to have any preconceptions about what the review will say. They won't come out and give NZDF an extra $30 billion CAPEX on top of the $20 billion, because that $50 billion CAPEX (over 10 - 15 years) is what's required to bring NZDF back up to an acceptable standard, for it to survive on a modern battlefield, regardless of whether or not it's part of an allied or coalition grouping.

@Rob c I concur with what you say. However, like I said I am just going to wait.

 

[Alberto32]

RNZAF takes delivery of first P-8A Poseidon | ADBR

The Royal New Zealand Air force has taken delivery of its first of four Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft. The delivery was conducted in a small ceremony at the…

adbr.com.au

@Alberto32

You should know the rules regarding providing some commentary when posting a link. Please provide some narrative in future posts

Alexsa

 

[chis73]

@ Rob C:

I have not seen the terms of reference for the Defence Review and seeing the people who make up the review team and the complete lack of any military experience in the team

the terms of reference for the DPR are here (link). The members of the review panel are listed in this article (link)

Don't know what you're on about there, sorry. One of the members of the panel is former Chief of Army Dave Gawn. Of the other members - Roche has been doing the recent MoD procurement systems reviews, McKinnon at least brings decades of diplomatic experience, Capie is a professor of International Relations and head of the Centre for Strategic Studies at Victoria University. That's not too bad. Stevenson is currently CEO of Customs & former CEO of Corrections (so should at least be an expert on government bureaucracy). IMHO, the only 'patsy' is Pania Tyson-Nathan (CEO of Maori Tourism, ???), whose only relevant experience for this position would seem to be that she is Maori and a woman. Ideally, I would prefer to see someone with manufacturing/infrastructure industry experience (ie. someone with logistics and long-term planning skills) on the team instead. God knows, infrastructure is major problem that needs to be sorted out (base accommodations, dry-dock etc). But retaining people is the biggest problem at the moment

@ Ngati: well, you'll have to wait a bit longer. The DPR is already 6 months behind schedule (the first item on the agenda - a simple 'draft defence policy and strategy statement' was due out in October, now March 2023). The second item, a 'force structure design principle statement' is now due June 2023.

To my mind this entire DPR process is just a time-wasting exercise, to justify total inaction at ministerial & cabinet level. It is totally unnecessary.

Henare has been in the Minister's job two years and hasn't progressed one major new project through cabinet yet. I think the only projects approved since Ron Mark left are the very minor comms upgrade for the frigates, some new RHIBs, and maybe some new utility vehicles (Unimog & Pinzgauer replacements) for the Army. Several major projects that were in the pipeline are now deferred (ie SOPV), or otherwise 'status unknown' (eg. EMAC). The clock is ticking, we can't afford to waste an entire term of office. Look what needs to be replaced in the next decade (frigates, maritime helicopters, LAVs, possibly the entire Project Protector fleet).

 

[Rob c]

Don't know what you're on about there, sorry. One of the members of the panel is former Chief of Army Dave Gawn. Of the other members - Roche has been doing the recent MoD procurement systems reviews, McKinnon at least brings decades of diplomatic experience, Capie is a professor of International Relations and head of the Centre for Strategic Studies at Victoria University. That's not too bad. Stevenson is currently CEO of Customs & former CEO of Corrections (so should at least be an expert on government bureaucracy). IMHO, the only 'patsy' is Pania Tyson-Nathan (CEO of Maori Tourism, ???), whose only relevant experience for this position would seem to be that she is Maori and a woman. Ideally, I would prefer to see someone with manufacturing/infrastructure industry experience (ie. someone with logistics and long-term planning skills) on the team instead. God knows, infrastructure is major problem that needs to be sorted out (base accommodations, dry-dock etc). But retaining people is the biggest problem at the moment

What I am on about is quite simply that the primary role of any defence force is meant to be the retention of that countries sovereignty and in the case of a democracy the freedom of its people. Often this is forgotten and all sorts of complications are introduced that water this down to a point that we have got to in NZ were all the other tasks that an armed force carries out when not required to carry out their primary role have usurped our ability to carry out their primary task. The simple reality is that NZ is in the middle of a large amount of water ( A very large moat ) which should make it very easy to defend if we had the right airborne or seaborn assets, however I see no expertise in either of these fields. The terms of reference are interesting in what they do not say and as I suspected there is no reference to how do we actually defend NZ. It would be even better that we deter any potential aggression against us. Due to the large moat around us this is easier than it seams, but impossible with our current force setup which has been reduce to the point of having almost no ability to defend NZ.
In the last 30 odd years if equated in todays terms and as a percentage of GDP defence has been deprived of over $70B when compared with the average spending of the 1980's. While infrastructure is important, it is a waste of time if that infrastructure does not support a NZDF that can actually provide some defence for our people.

 

[Alberto32]

RNZAF takes delivery of first P-8A Poseidon | ADBR

The Royal New Zealand Air force has taken delivery of its first of four Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft. The delivery was conducted in a small ceremony at the…

adbr.com.au

@Alberto32

You should know the rules regarding providing some commentary when posting a link. Please provide some narrative in future posts

Alexsa

Alexsa, I haven't had this experience previously with my other posts of this nature, let alone if I did say anything I know that I'd be pinged for not saying anything interesting to pass your rules.

 

[Lolcake]

IMO the costs with re-establishing a new ACF would far outweigh its benefits. 20 years of neglect would have such a massive upheaval and upkeep cost that it would outstrip any benefits brought about by such an aquisition, funds that could be better spent on other capabilities that better suit the current circumstances.

Despite the National NZ govt saying they would look at this option. Short of cut price F18Fs from the RAAF with the Platform life extension that goes along with the Block 3 upgrade i dont see how NZ could aquire this capability cheaply without throwing the kitchen sink at it.

I would think NZ should focus on replacing existing assets with a more capable platforms e.g NZLAV>Boxers Anzacs>Hunters and developing the skill set that goes along with operating such a platforms. Air and sea mobility should be expanded and be at the centre focus so as to move forces to where they need to operate efficiently and effectively to support allied operations. Would love to see NZ with an expansion of major naval combatants to 3 vessels but it seems unlikely to happen.

Expanding ASW assets (possibly more P-8s), Artillery and establishing Air defence for deployed forces should also be a priority, needless to say drones and anti-drone tech, AI and cyber capabilities should also be a large focus of the defence review. Joint munition development/manufacturing is something that could also be looked under an alliance framework

Cheers
L

 

[ddxx]

Honestly, I see much, much closer integration of the ADF and NZDF as being a complete no-brainer if and when politics can be put aside.

Common equipment, platforms, training and sustainment all conducted jointly wherever mutually possible and beneficial would deliver substantial mutual savings, efficiencies and much needed collective scale.

The barriers to which, are at the end of the day, fluff.

They’re not real barriers.

We just need real and ambitious effort from both sides of the Tasman.

 

[Rob c]

IMO the costs with re-establishing a new ACF would far outweigh its benefits. 20 years of neglect would have such a massive upheaval and upkeep cost that it would outstrip any benefits brought about by such an aquisition, funds that could be better spent on other capabilities that better suit the current circumstances.

I think that you have under estimated the defence ability that an AFC would have in NZ's case, as we are an island surrounded by lots of water. The only way to approach NZ is either by sea or air, this makes an AFC the most effective way of defending NZ. without an AFC NZ could easily be neutralized with little effort. Current circumstances are not what you plan for as the world situation is constantly. Your plan must be capable of maintaining your sovereignty until help can arrive. which can take time.

 

[Redlands18]

I think that you have under estimated the defence ability that an AFC would have in NZ's case, as we are an island surrounded by lots of water. The only way to approach NZ is either by sea or air, this makes an AFC the most effective way of defending NZ. without an AFC NZ could easily be neutralized with little effort. Current circumstances are not what you plan for as the world situation is constantly. Your plan must be capable of maintaining your sovereignty until help can arrive. which can take time.

Australia is not going to allow a foreign power to set up shop in NZ and park Bombers, Fighters and Warships in NZ if they can help it. Leaves our East Coast and Eastern Sea Lanes too exposed. The most direct flight route from any aggressor will take them over Australia and the only Sea Route that doesn't have a Naval TF within striking distance of the ADF is East of the Solomons or deep in the Southern Ocean(and that could create issues of its own).

 

[Lolcake]

I think that you have under estimated the defence ability that an AFC would have in NZ's case, as we are an island surrounded by lots of water. The only way to approach NZ is either by sea or air, this makes an AFC the most effective way of defending NZ. without an AFC NZ could easily be neutralized with little effort. Current circumstances are not what you plan for as the world situation is constantly. Your plan must be capable of maintaining your sovereignty until help can arrive. which can take time.

No doubt. I just cant see it happening budget wise. Air combat forces are expensive to retain and operate (The A-4s took 14 per cent of the NZDF budget). That was simply upkeep for an already established capability. Fuel alone costs $4000 per hour of operation.

Creating one anew, would require a whole new generation of pilots, infrastructure, maint crews, weapons crews..the weapon aquisitions and of course the aircraft themselves (maintenence and purchase).... the whole bangers and mash. NZDF are currently having quite significant staff shortages..this would require hundreds of additional staff.

Pilots that piloted the A-4s are long gone and more than likely close to playing lawn bowls somewhere near Chirstchurch. Everything would need to be vetted and pushed via RAAF as the only realistic scenario (again, additional cost).

Going off extremely loosey goosey numbers from Europe, likely ~10bn mark (double the current defence budget) as a conservative estimate and that would be just to establish the capability. The question remains would that 10 Bn be better served as extra naval and ASW assets. You are giving up alot of distribution among the armed forces for that money.

Aquiring this would be likely be concurrent or in the time frame of the ANZAC replacement and the NZLAVs (again billions of dollars). Will be interesting to see what the NZ Defence review prioritises and if there is a budget for all these things in addition to the invevitable massive recruitment drive needed.

Fully support an ACF for NZ, infact i wrote to the Nationals leader at the time he was contesting the election post ACF dismemberment where he was fully supportive of re-establishing the ACF had he won the ensuing election, a far easier feat than now. Unfortunately, they were defeated and the rest is history, RNZAF pilots and crews either transferred to the RAAF or outright retired.

TL : DR Restablishing an ACF is extrememly difficult after it has was stripped to bare bones by Clarkey.



Cheers

 

[Wombat000]

in the end of the day, there is no such thing as individual geo-strategic actions.
I cannot think of any scenario impacting on either Aust or NZ that does not profoundly and inevitably impact the other.
it’s NOT NZ or Aust, it’s the joint Australasian Archipelago.

the Notion of strategic remoteness is optimism-speak for dangling on the butt end of a long supply line.

to be brutally honest, NZ is geo-strategically irrelevant, excepting its voice.
it may have the best intended argument for good but if the opposition refuses to listen, then it’s impotent, to others and it’s own integrity.

NZs very existence as a freely determining nation rests on historical convention of world order, and its mates to effect the continuance of that order.
in effect it carries no capacity to effect its influence on that order that it depends on.
in the event of external pressure NZDF is compelled to withdraw and rely on the good will and capacity of its mates to directly support it. - Australia on the other hand has positioned itself with the ability to effect an outcome but currently lacks any substantial depth and will also ultimately need to rely on bigger mates. (Contributing to that lack of depth is the capability-absence from its natural neighbouring partner).

what is frustrating is the strongly apparent situation where geo-politically NZ is not even considered on the order of battle - because it’s irrelevant.
Where is the NZGOV being drawn to answer?
Where is NZDF aspirational goals v capability mismatch questioned? - it is independent in its parliament but NOT in its defence!
where is the dovetailed (“ANZAC”) capability in respect to the archipelago security, as it will obviously inevitably require.

you know what really matters? - ANYTHING but question or expect NZ to contribute anything meaningful to its own defence and security of ITS OWN region.

 

[Rob c]

Australia is not going to allow a foreign power to set up shop in NZ and park Bombers, Fighters and Warships in NZ if they can help it. Leaves our East Coast and Eastern Sea Lanes too exposed. The most direct flight route from any aggressor will take them over Australia and the only Sea Route that doesn't have a Naval TF within striking distance of the ADF is East of the Solomons or deep in the Southern Ocean(and that could create issues of its own).

I would suspect that any attack would be regional and that Australia would already have its hands full defending it's self and it has a huge area to defend. While with time help could arrive we need the ability to stall any move in our direction for a limited period of time to allow this to happen.

 

[Gibbo]

I would suspect that any attack would be regional and that Australia would already have its hands full defending it's self and it has a huge area to defend. While with time help could arrive we need the ability to stall any move in our direction for a limited period of time to allow this to happen.

Certainly the Oz Govt would not stand for NZ becoming an 'enemy' asset, but the ADF would by & large defend Australian interests in NZ from Australia... the supply train across the width of the Tasman Sea is too fragile due to extreme distance. Having said that I'm sure we'd get RAN subs cruising our waters in that scenario.