Stuart M
Well-Known Member
Oh indeed.. but beggers cannot be choosers even when time is of the essence.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
benignstrategicenvironment
New Member
Hi everyone. Long time reader, first time poster.
Regarding the discussion of our defence spending there's some pretty understandable pessimism. The government's just announced $4 billion in budget cuts and defence has escaped the chop. Luckily it seems common sense has prevailed and national security (defence + intelligence) spending was off limits.
Government shaves off $4b: Where Robertson found his savings
While this is good news, a cynic (myself included) might argue that there was nothing left they could cut and get away with. I do think we will see defence spending rise gradually regardless of the election's outcomes. NZ is a small fish in a big pond and global trends are pointing towards increased defence spending and militarisation. Eventually we will get the idea and start swimming with the current. If not, I suspect we will suffer a strategic shock of some kind leading to a rapid and potentially panicked sharp increase in spending. The former is certainly preferable as we will be able to address the decay in a much more thoughtful manner.
Regarding the discussion of our defence spending there's some pretty understandable pessimism. The government's just announced $4 billion in budget cuts and defence has escaped the chop. Luckily it seems common sense has prevailed and national security (defence + intelligence) spending was off limits.
Government shaves off $4b: Where Robertson found his savings
While this is good news, a cynic (myself included) might argue that there was nothing left they could cut and get away with. I do think we will see defence spending rise gradually regardless of the election's outcomes. NZ is a small fish in a big pond and global trends are pointing towards increased defence spending and militarisation. Eventually we will get the idea and start swimming with the current. If not, I suspect we will suffer a strategic shock of some kind leading to a rapid and potentially panicked sharp increase in spending. The former is certainly preferable as we will be able to address the decay in a much more thoughtful manner.
While I agree a gradual increase is a likely outcome , I do not believe that it is an ideal outcome as it will just be a way of papering over the cracks and would not be able to restore the lost capabilities and personnel problems that have occurred over the last 3 decades plus. As I have said previously, even with a significant injection (2%+GDP Budget) it will take up to 20 years just to get us back to were we where in the 1980's capability wise. My personal view is that the first priority is to be able to actually defend our selves and hopefully provide a deterrent so we don't have to. Then regional defence followed by disaster relief peace keeping etc., etc.
We cannot defend NZ with a small army and that provides little deterrence.
A small navy is the same,
We can with a modest combat Airforce and it is a significant deterrent due to NZ being outside of the combat radius of land based strike aircraft.
Obviously we still need the army and the navy and they also need significant up grades to be combat useful,
My guess is that we need an additional $20B to $30B over the next 15 to 20 years above the current $20 B to achieve a modern modest, but capable defence force and little tweaks is not going to achieve this.
The damage has gone on for far to long and is too extensive for a gradual approach to work and have a meaningful outcome. for the gradual approach to work it needed to be started at least 15years ago when John Key first came to power and there were personal still available that were knowledgeable in the lost capabilities. But the opportunity was lost when we could have rebuilt at a modest cost due to a lack of understanding and a short term bean counter fixation on the budget with no thought of the long term costs.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Agree, that is a huge advantage that NZ has assuming no major long range aircraft development and an ACF can't happen overnight but wouldn't be longer than a RNZN frigate renewal albeit both are needed.
National's tax announced today also foretells some fairly reasonable spending cuts as expected, so given their reticence to buy into the current Defence debate I dont think there'll be much more than tying off current projects & a few new building & facilities projects that we'll see for a while... regardless of urgency. B757 coiuld be an early casualty given Luxon said a few weeks back the B757 'shouldn't be flying & don't warrant replacement'.
Great, that means that we should acquire, say 3 of either the Airbus A400M (shudder) or the KHI C-2 and 3 more C-130J-30.
Hawkeye69
Member
National win the election and the 757’s will be heading to scrap yard and no replacement sought.
The next Govt will be faced with huge issues and defence will not be a priority and not even close, we currently have 880,000 on NZ super and within next 5 years that number will sharply rise to 1.25 million and NZ super is currently the Countries highest expenditure and the numbers receiving it and costs associated with it are only going to keep rising at a significant rate. And to be fair the amount those on super get really is below par with cost of living and needs to rise a significantly to keep our retirees heads above water.
Then we have Health that’s in reality underfunded, we have dropped significantly in terms of our OECD rating to close to the bottom of the pack, Pharmac needs its budget doubled and anything less is a total cop out, we are now at the very bottom of OECD countries in terms of modern medicines and treatments funded, how bad it is we are rated now as a 3rd World Country on this one.
Education wise have have 40% of our kids not attending school, our kids have fallen well behind the base line standards for numeracy and literacy on a World wide scale.
We are significantly short on housing in NZ that’s affordable, currently 30,000 on Public Housing Register and rising each year, every new immigrant, refugee adds to the pressures and we have employment skill shortages across numerous industries so immigrants that can fill these shortages are greatly welcomed but it sorts one issue and creates another with no easy fix or quick solutions.
It pains me to say it but defence is not and will not be a priority, we will never going forwards build back to anywhere close to what we had and for the defence of NZ will become the responsibility of Australia and the US should things turn pear shaped, our defence future will be small scale limited to a coast guard type force of fisheries and border patrol, HADR and the SAS and small peacekeeping type operations, anyone expecting more is going to be very disappointed.
There are 3 other events that are been planned for behind the scenes and all 3 are predicted to occur within the next 50 years and each year that passes moving forwards the chance of the event increases, those events are rated catastrophic events which means NZ does not have the capability to respond to the event and would need outside nations assistance and funding to both deal with and rebuild. The events are the Alpine Fault, Hikurangi Subduction Zone and Mt Taranaki Eruption, I have been involved in some work around Mt Taranaki eruption and even the best case scenario is bad news to both local and the NZ economy and will greatly impact our GDP, and to boot in past eruptions Mt Taranaki has erupted consistantly over a 10-12 year time frame and its effects have effected the entire North Island. The planning has been intense and at ground level its a very high priroty event and officials are clearly very concerned.
So when looking at defence and what we build to its more likely to be focused on how we best attend to local natural or catastrophic events rather that what could happen in the South China Seas.
The next Govt will be faced with huge issues and defence will not be a priority and not even close, we currently have 880,000 on NZ super and within next 5 years that number will sharply rise to 1.25 million and NZ super is currently the Countries highest expenditure and the numbers receiving it and costs associated with it are only going to keep rising at a significant rate. And to be fair the amount those on super get really is below par with cost of living and needs to rise a significantly to keep our retirees heads above water.
Then we have Health that’s in reality underfunded, we have dropped significantly in terms of our OECD rating to close to the bottom of the pack, Pharmac needs its budget doubled and anything less is a total cop out, we are now at the very bottom of OECD countries in terms of modern medicines and treatments funded, how bad it is we are rated now as a 3rd World Country on this one.
Education wise have have 40% of our kids not attending school, our kids have fallen well behind the base line standards for numeracy and literacy on a World wide scale.
We are significantly short on housing in NZ that’s affordable, currently 30,000 on Public Housing Register and rising each year, every new immigrant, refugee adds to the pressures and we have employment skill shortages across numerous industries so immigrants that can fill these shortages are greatly welcomed but it sorts one issue and creates another with no easy fix or quick solutions.
It pains me to say it but defence is not and will not be a priority, we will never going forwards build back to anywhere close to what we had and for the defence of NZ will become the responsibility of Australia and the US should things turn pear shaped, our defence future will be small scale limited to a coast guard type force of fisheries and border patrol, HADR and the SAS and small peacekeeping type operations, anyone expecting more is going to be very disappointed.
There are 3 other events that are been planned for behind the scenes and all 3 are predicted to occur within the next 50 years and each year that passes moving forwards the chance of the event increases, those events are rated catastrophic events which means NZ does not have the capability to respond to the event and would need outside nations assistance and funding to both deal with and rebuild. The events are the Alpine Fault, Hikurangi Subduction Zone and Mt Taranaki Eruption, I have been involved in some work around Mt Taranaki eruption and even the best case scenario is bad news to both local and the NZ economy and will greatly impact our GDP, and to boot in past eruptions Mt Taranaki has erupted consistantly over a 10-12 year time frame and its effects have effected the entire North Island. The planning has been intense and at ground level its a very high priroty event and officials are clearly very concerned.
So when looking at defence and what we build to its more likely to be focused on how we best attend to local natural or catastrophic events rather that what could happen in the South China Seas.
LOL...what bit about 'don't warrant replacement' does that fit under!?!
Killjoy...we might as well thrown in the towel completely...LOL!
Ignoring the fact defence of NZ cannot ever be considered the responsibility of Australia and the US, not if we don't make some credible attempt ourselves. The ADF will never be capable of coming to NZ's rescue as it will 100% be involved in whatever crisis is affecting NZ and the ADF is simply not resourced to do so...never will be, and why should it be!?!Passive non-compliance is NZ's new defense tactic. Cheap and Earth friendly.Killjoy...we might as well thrown in the towel completely...LOL!
I've been testing that tactic on my wife for the last 20 years with mixed results.
The problem I have with this short term assessment is that, we are responsible for our own freedom and sovereignty and know one else is, We need to wake up to our own responsibilities as not doing so is to gamble with the future of our children and grandchildren and in my case great grandchildren. National continually says that we are over taxed, but the reality is that we are amongst the lowest taxed in the OECD, 38th out of 40.
https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/taxing-wages-new-zealand.pdf
Defence is about our freedom and sovereignty, without which we will not have a functioning government. This would mean, no health care system , no pensions, no benefits and no control over education and in the long run significant deaths due starvation and lack of medical treatments if you cannot pay for them, so to say it is not important is very sort sighted as in the long term it is about our very existence as a free democratic country. As has been stated before, in the event any aggression in our area Australia would be fully committed to their own defence and in the case of America it would depend on the political situation at the time. The problem with our politicians is that they are only interested in getting into power for them selves and not in the long term interests of our country. In my view this is a form of corruption.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
Defend against what? If NZ is outside the combat radius of land based combat aircraft then we don't need to intercept them. Aircraft carrier launched combat aircraft would likely not get within strike range without some form of response by our allies, who would likely be targeted first. Bombers based in the Solomon's would be right on Australia's doorstep. If I wanted to attack NZ and I had the means I would try naval blockade (you don't neccesarily have to be near NZ to achieve this if part of a wider conflict), cyber, or ballistic or sub launched missile. Or sabotage on critical infrastructure. (Remember foreign agents have previously sunk a ship in auck harbour and escaped NZ).
Fast jets may not help us in these situations. I realise saying no to fast jets is blasphemous on this forum but I feel for the cost they would impose we could beef up other capabilities that may have greater utility. I would rather see an extra credible frigate.
The next generation of combat aircraft may be optionally piloted. NZ p8s may have potential for coordinating loyal wingman type UAVs.
I think that this misses the point, the reality is that without an ACF NZ would be extremely vulnerable to aggression and a surprise attack. an adversary could simply land on say Auckland airport without notice, take it over and continue to fairy in troops at will and then take over the port and bring in the heavy gear with RORO ships or similar and there would be little we could do to stop them. there are a buck load of similar possibilities that exist that are easy to do and mainly using civil transport options as we have no ability to control our area.
the other point is that an AFC also can carry its weapon load, be they anti ship or anti aircraft missiles to any location quickly and be combat ready at take off, making them very flexible. this is what makes them a very good deterrent and that is good. An other point to bear in mind is that an AFC puts the least number of lives at risk when in combat.
The point we must always keep in mind is that you can never eliminate any possibility unless you have very strong evudence to back that up.
On the question of a blockade at a distance, have you considered the resources needed to achieve this and the logistics to maintain such a blockade and how are you going to blockade us off from Australia? As we are self sufficient in the necessities for life and urgent items can be flown in, how long do you intend this blockade to last. Yes it would be inconvenient, but would it be a threat to our freedom and sovereignty.
im thinking not much.
the economic and logistical impacts on NZ even from just interference with NZ SLOC would be devastating.
the greater burden would be in the efforts on security of SLOC lanes.
the blissful joys of distance actually means longer and tenuous communication.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
The example I gave illustrate that you don't need to invade in - boots on the ground to incapacitate NZ economically +/- militarily. The example I have could still happen even with an acf.
Blockade may occur with conflict in South China sea. While not directly aimed at NZ it would have more impact than COVID related disruption. Even the sinking of a couple of freight ships would have a huge impact on trade.
benignstrategicenvironment
New Member
Not trying to single you out here, this example's been given a few times in the history of this thread as an argument for restoring an ACF and I don't think it stands up to scrutiny. No doubt a ACF could be used to repel this type of attack, but i'm not sure it is necessary to have an ACF to defend against this potential threat. For starters ground based air defence (which we currently lack, but would be cheaper than a ACF) could be used once we become aware of the aircraft's intentions. Additionally, any air assault force is likely to be relatively small and lightly equipped meaning they are vulnerable to counterattack by heavier and larger ground forces. The battle of Hostomel is very similar to this scenario. The Russians landed a fairly sizeable force at the airport and they were pushed out by Ukrainian ground forces (at least until reinforcing ground forces arrived). They also managed to shoot down a number of aircraft with air defence.
My point is that an ACF is not necessary to respond to this kind of threat as rapidly deployable land forces and ground based air defence (two capabilities that would greatly improve the NZDF's capability in many situations) could be sufficient.
Why is it that we always come back to the notion of invasion? We need to employ 'projected defence' in cohort with allies to ensure as much as we can that adversaries find actual invasion unpalatable. Whether ACF or whatever is best, earlier comments are correct that economc blockade is the best tool against NZ. One airliner downed & one large commercial ship sunk and all transport to & from NZ would stop point blank, and we'd be stuffed fairly quickly. However back to my original point... Defence is far greater than dealing with an invasion.
Last edited:
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Let's perhaps look back to the foundations of the "modern" RNZAF and the thinking of the time to raise a capable "ACF". Are some of the reasons then still valid for today (and tomorrow)?
Sourced from Portrait of an Air Force by Geoffrey Bentley and Maurice Conly:
Sourced from Portrait of an Air Force by Geoffrey Bentley and Maurice Conly:
NB: Part 1 of 2 due to character limit.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Part 2:
I believe the bolded part in the previous quote above is still largely relevant today/tomorrow, with some adjustments of course (eg perhaps Guam instead of Singapore ... but also noting the likes of modern Singapore and its neighbors have their own modern and capable armed forces. Of course the USA plays a dominant role in the region whereas the UK doesn't, and Australia's capabilities across the spectrum or domains is first class), but would modify it to become roughly in this order, give or take:
(a) local defence.
(b) forward defence, involving our closest SW Pacific neighbors eg New Caledonia, Fiji, etc (and likely to be in conjunction with US, France, Australia anyway).
(c) assisting with the defence of Australia.
(d) the defence of shipping routes (primarily Tasman Sea, South Pacific and Southern Ocean but where practical also stretching from SE Asia to South America, as we did in WW2 with the RNZN Light Cruisers).
(e) SE Asia, Indo-Pacific ... Middle East, Europe etc.
(f) but also as well as kinetic efforts there is also cyber and space warfare to contend with (even if there were no direct military threat).
Of course we cannot do this all, in fact we can't as we are not a major player (apart from perhaps sending some niche elements to contribute to collective allied defence efforts if and where practical), but what will be expected to do at the very least is is to defend our own wider "neighborhood" so as to ensure the major players (USA, Australia etc) do not need to devote their critical resources away from their major areas of operations.
Of course also this is a multi domain effort but bringing it back to the ACF in a NZ/Pacific context (not expeditionary) ... again as per the bolded/quoted part for local defence (and ideally forward defence as in protecting the SW Pacific) an ACF (in conjunction with P-8A and long range maritime UAV assets & Navy) would likely be desirable to assist with the defence against the likes of submarines, raiders, merchant vessels (with concealed armaments, mine laying capability, potentially missile launch capability, perhaps in containers for example or aerial ISR assets etc), dozens if not hundreds of gray zone vessels that are likely to still be operating in the wider South Pacific region perhaps some of which also conducting signal/intelligence gathering and/or harassing merchant vessels or conducting sabotage on island or undersea infrastructure (data cables etc) and potentially the odd warship or so that could be transiting the region (even Iran sent a warship through the region a few months ago).
I don't think we necessarily need the latest 5th generation fighter (at this point in time) as we are not likely to face a peer threat, but something existing (4/4.5 gen & new or second hand initially) tasked to work with the P-8's and the proposed long range maritime UAV's would both protect and support these platforms (as well as needing a decent logistics tail and the critical trained personnel - but RNZAF tends to fair well with recruitment and retention anyway).
If we could ultimately work up a couple of squadrons again, then if the future situation (and finance) warrants it (in the 2030/40's) work up a third or fourth for expeditionary/coalition efforts. Whether this is actually feasible who knows but we have to make a start and take things from there. Can NZ afford to make a start? Yes we can!
(And of course in WW2 the RNZAF expanded from that small nucleas to a couple of dozen bomber/reconnaissance, fighter, fighter/bomber, dive and torpedo bomber, maritime patrol and transport squadrons in the SW Pacific thanks to Lend-Lease and being under USN command etc).
I believe the bolded part in the previous quote above is still largely relevant today/tomorrow, with some adjustments of course (eg perhaps Guam instead of Singapore ... but also noting the likes of modern Singapore and its neighbors have their own modern and capable armed forces. Of course the USA plays a dominant role in the region whereas the UK doesn't, and Australia's capabilities across the spectrum or domains is first class), but would modify it to become roughly in this order, give or take:
(a) local defence.
(b) forward defence, involving our closest SW Pacific neighbors eg New Caledonia, Fiji, etc (and likely to be in conjunction with US, France, Australia anyway).
(c) assisting with the defence of Australia.
(d) the defence of shipping routes (primarily Tasman Sea, South Pacific and Southern Ocean but where practical also stretching from SE Asia to South America, as we did in WW2 with the RNZN Light Cruisers).
(e) SE Asia, Indo-Pacific ... Middle East, Europe etc.
(f) but also as well as kinetic efforts there is also cyber and space warfare to contend with (even if there were no direct military threat).
Of course we cannot do this all, in fact we can't as we are not a major player (apart from perhaps sending some niche elements to contribute to collective allied defence efforts if and where practical), but what will be expected to do at the very least is is to defend our own wider "neighborhood" so as to ensure the major players (USA, Australia etc) do not need to devote their critical resources away from their major areas of operations.
Of course also this is a multi domain effort but bringing it back to the ACF in a NZ/Pacific context (not expeditionary) ... again as per the bolded/quoted part for local defence (and ideally forward defence as in protecting the SW Pacific) an ACF (in conjunction with P-8A and long range maritime UAV assets & Navy) would likely be desirable to assist with the defence against the likes of submarines, raiders, merchant vessels (with concealed armaments, mine laying capability, potentially missile launch capability, perhaps in containers for example or aerial ISR assets etc), dozens if not hundreds of gray zone vessels that are likely to still be operating in the wider South Pacific region perhaps some of which also conducting signal/intelligence gathering and/or harassing merchant vessels or conducting sabotage on island or undersea infrastructure (data cables etc) and potentially the odd warship or so that could be transiting the region (even Iran sent a warship through the region a few months ago).
I don't think we necessarily need the latest 5th generation fighter (at this point in time) as we are not likely to face a peer threat, but something existing (4/4.5 gen & new or second hand initially) tasked to work with the P-8's and the proposed long range maritime UAV's would both protect and support these platforms (as well as needing a decent logistics tail and the critical trained personnel - but RNZAF tends to fair well with recruitment and retention anyway).
If we could ultimately work up a couple of squadrons again, then if the future situation (and finance) warrants it (in the 2030/40's) work up a third or fourth for expeditionary/coalition efforts. Whether this is actually feasible who knows but we have to make a start and take things from there. Can NZ afford to make a start? Yes we can!
Last edited:
The point you miss is that the AFC is rapidly deployable and can react to threats far quicker than deploying ground based units and you are covering only one threat in your argument, An AFC can react to all military threats apart from submarines. An air defence system capable of defending all of NZ would be extremely expensive, as some of the better long range missiles are very expensive for instance depending on the variant a single patriot missile can cost up to $6 MILLION and that is just for a missile, not including the launcher , controlers and radars. You are also assuming the threat in would be slow to build up, but with good planning significantly it could easily larger than our total army before the day was out. The other problem you don't address is the high number of casualties that would be incurred. On top of this what about the sea.
As I have pointed out before , while an economic blockade would be uncomfortable it would be survivable and how are you going to blockade us from Australia? In war desperate measures are taken, governments take total control and losses are accepted, In WW2 3000 merchant sips were sunk by the German Uboats but trade continued.
the reason we get back to invasion is that is how you lose your freedom and sovereignty, that how our way of life is destroyed, It is the worse case scenario and with an AFC is far less likely,. The projected defence idea is great if you have the time when things build up over time, but does have problems if we have a Pearl Harbour pulled on us. As for allies, we currently have only one and they will be tied up dealing with there own problems. As I have pointed out before an AFC does make invasion unpalatable.
On the question of cost, as has been pointed out before, we don't need the latest gen 5 aircraft as in the main they can operate unopposed, just the ability to carry modern anti air and sea missiles. second hand would achieve this a lot cheaper than the numbers of anti air and surface to surface missiles that would be required to give reasonable coverage.
The reasons I like an AFC is that with a modest force you can cover a large area, it is quickly deployable, It is flexible and covers both the sea and air, it puts the least number of lives at risk and it is a very good deterrent which is best as you don't want to fight a war if you don't have to.