NZDF General discussion thread

[swerve]

.. could the objective be to destroy Taiwan's crucial CPU manufacturing and development industries, so the CCP can dominate global AI chip development and therefore global ai and geopolitical dominance? If so do "we" (i.e. royal "we") need to re-think traditional defence planning and strategy? As in, are "we" investing billions/trillions to counter an adversary that will not show up to the fight so-to-speak, instead be pulverizing Taiwan whilst "we" plan a response? If so, too late? So do "we" need to do and plan things differently?

At the moment, making the fastest chips depends on machines which China can't make yet - & they're not made in Taiwan. The leading designer & manufacturer is ASML in the Netherlands, & IIRC the Japanese are second, though far behind. They're not being sold to China.

China can make lower-grade but still advanced chips, combine them, & produce software to make full use of their abilities, but it's still constrained at the leading edge.

 

[Rob c]

How can you contribute in a meanful and sustained way? I've heard debate that the focus should be on integrated into a unified command with AU, but I question whether being a jack of all trades and a multi role force is the best use of resources.

First of all, as stated by the defence minister we need to be able to defend ourselves. We are a small country with limited resources so any contribution outside of this will be limited because of this. However any significant contribution will be some time away due to the current rundown state of the current NZDF's and it will take many years to put things right, if that happens at all. Reality is that governments come up with White Papers and DCP's, do a bit of them, then the government changes scraps or delays that and do the plans all over again while ignoring the previous plan, whether it was theirs or the precious governments and kick the can down the road again. Just getting our ability to defend ourselves back again will take at least a decade and that is before we can move out in any significant way into the region and the decade will not start until there is a significant increase in the budget, It realy needs to double to make a significant difference due to the amount of work that needs to be done, including a start point of gaining and retaining the necessary personal.

 

[downunderblue]

I'll never doubt a professional, but I will doubt a politician no doubt.

First of all, as stated by the defence minister we need to be able to defend ourselves.

I looked for those direct comments (from Minister Collins?) but couldn't directly find them. I did however find a decent 2020 ASPI article titled 'New Zealand’s dangerous strategic apathy in an uncertain age'. It's an interesting article and references the continual NZ discussion about where they fit in the world.

"In 1949, a distinguished New Zealand soldier, Major General Sir Howard Karl Kippenberger, warned:

It may be a good thing to continue doing nothing as at present and trust in the mercy of God to a people too selfish and lazy to help themselves. We can say, truly, that New Zealand cannot alone defend herself…so, perhaps, we had better leave it to others, or deny that there is any danger and get on with our amusements and the rapid erosion of our land. Or we can pull ourselves together and act as a grown up Nation.

Those words should still sting".

This debate is clearly not new.

Now going to the referenced comments of the Minister, I honestly am baffled by the notion that NZ could or potentially should seek to independently defend themselves. Ex-PM Helen Clark in 2001 noted you are located in an "incredibly benign’ strategic environment", but these comments are another example of the blinkered strategic focus. Yet your political elite remained laser focused on the SW pacific completely ignorant that any threat will originate from Asia, not the Pacific.

Now there is no way possible that NZ will be able to defend themselves. Who on earth is arguing this and why? If it's a politician I'd question their reasoning and expertise. Is this even an option available to you? Australia will always struggle to defend itself as a sole nation, and we'd be foolish to try.

In Hugh White's book 'How to defend Australia' he referenced a more independent Australian foreign policy, but with that, he sited an increase in defense expenditure to 5% of GDP. I'd argue that even at 5%, there is no way we could defend ourselves without the benefit of being within a collective security partnership. We don't have the industrial base to do a Sweden (even they are now in Nato), nor want or need to.

Your way to ensure your security and independence is to be part of a collective security framework of likeminded nations. The easiest way to disuade potential adversaries is to remain a committed and reputable partner and your strength or protection is solely formed form the collective.

We are a small country with limited resources so any contribution outside of this will be limited because of this.

I hear that a lot and for me it's defeatist. Like Canada, your politicians have used decades of spending the benefits of collective security to shelve that money on social programs. Your defense expenditure as a % of GDP has fallen since 1980 (now at 1.2%), yet the decline notably increased after George Bush's famous 'New World Order' speech in 1990 signaled the end of the Cold War. That was 35 years ago and your society cashed in all along

Are you to tell me as a society you will struggle to realign your spending priorities? Are you addicted to the sugar high of social program spending yet now struggle to see a way you can live without those programs? Again my focus is on your political class who have been asleep at the wheel, but for me it's just a matter of priorities and values leading the way.

As to the comment that you are a "small country with limited resources", you are a rich fortunate country to have the 46th highest nominal GDP in the world, with the 23rd highest per capita. I started to look (difficult) at some comparisons of likelyminded democracies to compare, and found Finland 'somewhat similar'. You have the a similar population and GDP, yet Finland spends 2.4 times the amount in USD of their defense (1.2 % vs 2.9%).

To use Major General Sir Howard Karl Kippenberger's comparison, Finland clearly is a "grown up Nation" but historically where does your government stand in comparison?

However any significant contribution will be some time away due to the current rundown state of the current NZDF's and it will take many years to put things right, if that happens at all. Reality is that governments come up with White Papers and DCP's, do a bit of them, then the government changes scraps or delays that and do the plans all over again while ignoring the previous plan, whether it was theirs or the precious governments and kick the can down the road again. Just getting our ability to defend ourselves back again will take at least a decade and that is before we can move out in any significant way into the region and the decade will not start until there is a significant increase in the budget, It realy needs to double to make a significant difference due to the amount of work that needs to be done, including a start point of gaining and retaining the necessary personal.

Of course change may be "some time away", but your politicians have to plot a course and start somewhere.

I read the following on NZ Labour's website:

“Our foreign policy is based on principles,” Labour foreign affairs spokesperson David Parker said. This does not mean we are non-aligned. We are a liberal western democracy and share those precious values with others. We support the rules-based order ... New Zealand’s interests lie in trade, peace, and in on-going diplomacy, not in being a ‘force-multiplier’ for one super-power in a containment strategy directed against another,” David Parker said.

As a population you need to collectively show that thinking for what it is. Unrealistic, ignorant and dangerous. Start there.

 

[koxinga]

At the moment, making the fastest chips depends on machines which China can't make yet - & they're not made in Taiwan. The leading designer & manufacturer is ASML in the Netherlands, & IIRC the Japanese are second, though far behind. They're not being sold to China.

China can make lower-grade but still advanced chips, combine them, & produce software to make full use of their abilities, but it's still constrained at the leading edge.

For now. Will that still be the case in five, ten years time? I don't dare to place that bet.

We are assuming ASML/EUV monopoly remains unbroken or not being overtaken by an alternative technology where there is plenty of work. We are also assuming Chinese strategy is just throwing money at EUV and not something more sophisticated (e.g taking a stab at the broader semi con market, mature node)

 

[John Fedup]

Most nations now realize the post WW2 stable world order model is coming to an end. Although the cold war did somewhat disrupt things, it was not at the level we are seeing now. Generous social programs AND proper defence expenditures aren't both doable, especially when the latter has been neglected by many for decades. Decades of relative peace and prosperity are not kind to defence budgets.

 

[Rob c]

Now there is no way possible that NZ will be able to defend themselves. Who on earth is arguing this and why? If it's a politician I'd question their reasoning and expertise. Is this even an option available to you? Australia will always struggle to defend itself as a sole nation, and we'd be foolish to try.

With modern weapons it is relatively easy to achieve initial defence, far easier than Australia. This is due to our location and that we have a 2000km moat around us, We are also relatively compact, this all means that we are outside of the combat radius of land based strike and fighter aircraft and mass dones. Also the comments of Major General Sir Howard Karl Kippenberger were made almost 80 years ago and the defencive weapons that are now available are vastly different from what is available to day.
We are also very distant from possible threats which makes the problem of defence far more realistic.
So the problem of defending NZ is very basic requiring us to firstly know what is going on in NZ and secondly to be able to neutralize anything that is threatening. As the only way that NZ can be reached is by sea or air, this involves the ability to destroy aircraft and ships which would be outside of the range of land based escorts and with the use of modern missiles this is very possible. The obvious platform for these missiles would be some form of strike aircraft. This would also provide a significant deterrent, which is good as deterrence is far better than having to fight a war.
One must also take into account that any conflict in this area would also involve Australia, so any threat to NZ would be limited in size with the need to deal with Australia to be considered.
In the modern context, people who think that we cannot defend ourselves given the right personal and equipment are in my view ill informed and lack understanding of the problem. We simply need to use our advantageous defencive position to our best advantage.
The statement that "We need to be able to defend NZ" was by the Minister of Defence was made on tv during an interview.

 

[Rob c]

I hear that a lot and for me it's defeatist. Like Canada, your politicians have used decades of spending the benefits of collective security to shelve that money on social programs. Your defense expenditure as a % of GDP has fallen since 1980 (now at 1.2%), yet the decline notably increased after George Bush's famous 'New World Order' speech in 1990 signaled the end of the Cold War. That was 35 years ago and your society cashed in all along

The reason any contribution will be limited is simply because of our small size. Yes we do need to spend more on defence and in my opinion we should be looking in the region of 2-5 to 3% GDP. However with this expenditure of 2 to 3 times what we currently spend there will be limitations on what we can achieve. To look back you will see that this is the amount we spent in the 1980's with an average of 2.5% for the decade and while we had more capabilities then, they were still limited.
Your remark that certain comments are defeatist, well I consider that saying we cannot defend NZ is defeatist.

 

[Gooey]

downunderblue, have a 100% emoji thingy. Double bonus for including a quote from Kipp!

Our political classes have been basking in their made-up, nationalistic, anti-nuclear story since the 80's and lost sight of the reality that we can not defend ourselves interdependently, without the help of close Allies. Also, of course spending the nation building capital on sugar for reelection. For some like Parker this includes a healthy dose of self/western/US loathing. Personally, I believe this has been the biggest strategic disaster since the fall of Singapore. With the added humiliation of being entirely self-generated.

Finland is a very good example of a similar country which has chosen to act like an adult.

When Finnish Prime Minister Marina visited NZ in Nov 2022, in the presence of our PM it was noticeable that she spoke of the importance of being strong and NZ supported Finland's efforts to join NATO after the Russian war against Ukraine. Since then Finland has succeeded in entering NATO and has started to acquired 64 F-35s while we generated a mountain of papers stating the strategic environment is dire and the RNZAF have received 4 P-8s.

Obviously our strategic situation is somewhat different but it is pure sea-blindness to assume land-locked Finland has a more serious threat from Russia than isolated, undefended, NZ with CCP polluting our environment.

 

[spoz]

If they are in range of your strike aircraft, you are in range of theirs; and such things as aircraft carriers exist, and not only in one Navy. So do submarines equipped with land attack missiles. So do ballistic missiles with the range to reach New Zealand. Defending the country would require the ability to counter all these, as well as potential raiding force insertion from the air or sea, surface or sub surface. New Zealand has, effectively, none of the required capabilities at present. Acquiring all of them would require considerably more funding than is currently committed, or even, given the general lack of political will, seriously contemplated. Plus, of course, the trained people to operate those which, given the current state of, and interest in, the NZDFmight be quite difficult to achieve

 

[Gooey]

With modern weapons it is relatively easy to achieve initial defence, far easier than Australia.

Sorry mate for being hard nosed on this but absolute rubbish.

Our distance makes us more vulnerable in a naval sense to enemy interdiction by air, sea, and under water. Not understanding this is part of our collective sea blindness.

It may be 76 years ago that Kipp said "It may be a good thing to continue doing nothing as at present and trust in the mercy of God to a people too selfish and lazy to help themselves." but he had the mana, missing feet, and experience to know that we as a nation can't defend against the breadth of threats a modern enemy like PLAN could deploy against our realm (e.g., us, Cook Is, Samoa, Fiji), on our own.

Kipp also knew that our sphere of interest extended further than the South Pacific; much further. Hence, our support of Finland joining NATO.

 

[swerve]

The reason any contribution will be limited is simply because of our small size. Yes we do need to spend more on defence and in my opinion we should be looking in the region of 2-5 to 3% GDP. However with this expenditure of 2 to 3 times what we currently spend there will be limitations on what we can achieve. To look back you will see that this is the amount we spent in the 1980's with an average of 2.5% for the decade and while we had more capabilities then, they were still limited.
Your remark that certain comments are defeatist, well I consider that saying we cannot defend NZ is defeatist.

There's a difference between saying "We can't defend NZ" & "We can't defend NZ with current spending & policies". The first may be defeatist: the second could well be realist.

 

[Wombat000]

I think there is a fixated mindset here.
Instead of thinking (in a defensive sense) whether NZ can defend itself, there needs to be more consideration of how to best defend *with others*.
(NZ already does this, by assuming the ‘others’ will do it all for them).

Neither of the Baltic states can defend itself, by itself. So they all involve themselves in a collective defensive umbrella arrangement.

In any conceivable scenario a requirement to defend either Australian or NZ national interests intrinsically and unavoidably affects the other. And yet we still have a situation where ppl say NZ cannot defend itself!
Of course it can’t.

But what is bewildering is despite an obvious symmetry in requiring collective defence, there is no collective capability arrangement at all.
NZ has no minimum capability to dovetail into a collective defence posture.
NZ has an atrophied self serving light garrison capability only, because there is no ***requirement*** to field otherwise.
The endless bitching about lack of capability is because it doesn’t have to do anything more than it reluctantly wants to, because there is no dovetailing capability requirement to facilitate a unified defence posture, despite its inevitable eventual demand!

“Oh, but Kiwis are independent!”
Yes (currently in established world order), in unilateral voluntary geostrategic actions.
No, in anything relating to its own defensive wellbeing or survival as a self governing entity it has no independence.

This historical ‘exist alone’ defence mindset has got to evolve and end.

 

[downunderblue]

As an independent nation alone, NZ has no real capability to interdict interdict any threat the PLA could mount against them. It'd be a bad day for you to be isolated and alone in defending yourselves.

Mentions of geography are both a blessing and a curse. Yes your distance from Asia means any threat would an extended one therefore limited and non sustaining, however that geography is also a curse as the blinkers and tunnel vision blinds you from observing that Asian looming threat. You may not independently have a capability to see it, nor are the politicians really interested even if they were told.

Beyond geography, your security is 110% dependant upon someone helping you out. Even intelligence is collected by others then used to brief your Govt. I once heard a Canadian Admiral reference FourEyes and wondered if something had changed or whether had reality been shown?

What baffles me is for a country so dependant upon others, NZ is so limited in contributing to that collective. Surely like Australia you're aware your territorial security is only secure (or free from coercive influence) if your seen as an active partner giving back to the collective?

Let's face it. I'm talking about the US. The NZ Govt since 1980 hasn't been a good partner, mouths off with frequency and takes much much more than it gives. As an Australian who has worked with your govt I always wondered why we had to do so much heavy lifting for you, but it pales on what the US offers. Why on earth should they (or even AU tbf) share their intelligence, training, expertise/ mentoring, access to equipment or required force deployment enhancing NZ's security considering how little NZ gives back, or when accounting for the lip your politicians sprout out? They clearly are adamant they dont want to be a "force multiplier" (to quote the Shadow DM), but are ignorant of the drag they place on everyone in carrying them. Is there such a thing as a 'force multiplayer" when the drag created likely negates any benefit?

Again my issue is not with normal NZ'ers, but your political class. They preach like they know it all yet see the world only in the focal length of a little Pacific sandpit.

Australia has been aser focused on Asia for decades. We've been worrying about strategic deterioration for some time and appreciate we can only sustain our independence and way of life (being free from coercive influence) by our contribution to a collective deterrent, and by the relationships and reputation we have with like minded democratic friends. We're a team player and know we need to keep giving to ensure our future. That requires sacrifice and grit, but it's better to face up to the challenge and act as best as you can in the face of adversity.

Reality is coming. Watching the concern over the Cook Islands is an example, but as the PLA and China in general expands their influence beyond the 2nd Island chain you are going to need your friends. It's time NZ (esp Labour) come to learn that the benefits of being in a team only exist if all players contribute evenly, and your country has been baulking it's responsibilities for over 35 years. Who needs friends like that when they actually don't seem like a friend nor are able to contribute if push comes to shove?

From a AU/NZ perspective, you're like our little brother, but I'm sorry, (to paraphrase Kipp but in more blunt Aussie speak) your leaders need to grow the FU and carry some of the family burden and live with more awareness of the tricky neighbourhood we current reside in. It's getting dangerous and we need to stick together.

 

[downunderblue]

As to how to expand your capability and contribute to the collective, I'm going to take a stab her and say that buying more P-8s may help? It's an impressive platform, has some strike capability at a pinch a d you're building off an existing base? Tanker support would I assume be a real support and in short supply when needed.

Equipping your Army with deployable 'long range precision fires' seems to be relevant in any SCS scenario, as well as also territorial defense if those headlines work best. Having the ability to strike a maritime target within 1000km would pack some punch and hopefully dissuade any potential adversary. You can also join our Army in enjoying the cuisine and delights of Northern Luzon. Balut is egg with feathers which get stuck in your teeth, but seriously they are wonderful people and they love us and by you as an extension.

Am I stretching it to add C-17's before the production line closes? Incredible planes and can both deploy those 'precision fires' northwards as well as look good in peacetime flying down to Antarctica?

And lastly and would their be value in utilising those assets in regional training. Not just once a year but in every deployment possible. Any exercise Australia participates in, so should NZ? Come, come, let us show you these American and Japanese friends we know. Let's train train train so we know how to properly work together if the crap hits the fan.

Again, just spitballing and I am sure others know what is best. I do assume every $ spent needs to contribute as effectively to capability. Who needs a squadron of F-35s when you may better contribute to the whole more effectively? Two evolved Mogami's and some amphibs may work but again what's best bang for buck based upon the expected mission.

Am I on mark, or off? I assume many of you spitball what is best? You'd want to know when the funds are committed that the $ is going where it should.

 

[Todjaeger]

Am I stretching it to add C-17's before the production line closes? Incredible planes and can both deploy those 'precision fires' northwards as well as look good in peacetime flying down to Antarctica?

Colour me confused, but what are you talking about?!

The last C-17 Globemaster III was completed back in 2015, nearly a decade ago. The Long Beach plant itself was put up for sale in 2018.

Therefore, the only way for the RNZAF to purchase C-17's at this point would be to purchase 2nd hand examples which have been either retired or mothballed, or else get Boeing to setup a new line to produce the C-17 somewhere else. Even before crashing into how reluctant successive Kiwi gov'ts have been to actually fund defence, I just do not see either option being a viable path forward.

I strongly suspect the only way that Boeing would invest in a new C-17 production line would be if the US gov't decided it needed new/more C-17's in service and in significant numbers. Given the chaos I suspect is coming from there, I just do not see that happening either.

 

[Rob c]

If they are in range of your strike aircraft, you are in range of theirs; and such things as aircraft carriers exist, and not only in one Navy

Sorry that is not correct, what you need to calculate from is the combat radius and unless they have taken Australia or similar they would not even be close and even then to project airpower over NZ would require a very large tanker fleet. As for aircraft carriers, yes they are available, however any conflict we would be involved in would almost certainly involve other powers and it is unlikely that any hostile navy would be able to spare any for a relatively low threat of NZ, maybe their least important one at a stretch. We could handle that with the right equipment.
Lets make myself clear. I do not propose that we ignore our allies and would help to the limit of our capability. However our defence of our sovereignty and freedom comes first and that is what any country does. You do not sacrifice that just to be the hero for someone else. Every country looks after itself first.
In regards to Major General Sir Howard Karl Kippenberger statement that we could not defend ourselves in 1949, at that time we probably could, as the RNZAF had recently received 80+ Mosquito's mk6's and had a reserve of Mustangs plus their were a large number of trained personnel left over from WW2. However the opportunity to benefit from this was squandered by the government.
The reality is that first we can defend ourselves if we wish to with the right tactics and equipment because of outside of the US there is no one currently that can project the amount of power needed to get here IF WE ARE Correctly ARMED, which is not the case currently.

 

[Rob c]

Who needs a squadron of F-35s when you may better contribute to the whole more effectively?

If we are outside of the combat radius of strike aircraft then something far simpler than the F35 is all that is needed even 2nd hand with good weapons fit would suffice. As for contributing to the whole, firstly contribute to ones self then to the whole. If there is a major incursion in our area involving both Australia and our selves you will find that Australia will be to busy looking after their interests to help us and US help will depend on the political situation at the time and how militarily they are engaged at the time. Other parties are likely to find it difficult to help in a timely manner.

 

[Todjaeger]

Sorry that is not correct, what you need to calculate from is the combat radius and unless they have taken Australia or similar they would not even be close and even then to project airpower over NZ would require a very large tanker fleet. As for aircraft carriers, yes they are available, however any conflict we would be involved in would almost certainly involve other powers and it is unlikely that any hostile navy would be able to spare any for a relatively low threat of NZ, maybe their least important one at a stretch. We could handle that with the right equipment.
Lets make myself clear. I do not propose that we ignore our allies and would help to the limit of our capability. However our defence of our sovereignty and freedom comes first and that is what any country does. You do not sacrifice that just to be the hero for someone else. Every country looks after itself first.
In regards to Major General Sir Howard Karl Kippenberger statement that we could not defend ourselves in 1949, at that time we probably could, as the RNZAF had recently received 80+ Mosquito's mk6's and had a reserve of Mustangs plus their were a large number of trained personnel left over from WW2. However the opportunity to benefit from this was squandered by the government.
The reality is that first we can defend ourselves if we wish to with the right tactics and equipment because of outside of the US there is no one currently that can project the amount of power needed to get here IF WE ARE Correctly ARMED, which is not the case currently.

PLAAF H-6's armed with air-launched LACM have a strike reach of ~5,000 to 5,500 km. When measured from PRC facilities located at Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratlys/SCS (closest direct PRC facility I could find) the distance to Auckland is ~8,000 km with overflight permission from Malaysia, Indonesia and Australia. Aerial tanking could certainly extend the strike reach and yes, there are AAR variants of the H-6.

It is also quite possible that the PLAAF might deploy a few H-6's to a friendly Pacific island nation for a show the flag and/or military 'exercise' which could put NZ within fairly easy reach even without using long-range standoff ordnance. The distance between Auckland and the main int'l airport in the Cook Islands is less than 3,000 km, which is ~500km less than the combat radius of an H-6. Potentially making things even worse is that it would not take a large strike package, or a significant force size to inflict serious damage. Hit some of the bulk fuel storage and/or receiving facilities and that would put a significant hurt on NZ.

Not a scenario I consider highly probable, but certainly one that is possible. Similarly, sub-launched LACM could also be used and it likely would not take very many either. Should such an attack take place, it would likely badly damage the NZ economy, shake civilian morale and effectively neutralize NZ and keep it from becoming involved in conflicts elsewhere.

 

[downunderblue]

Colour me confused, but what are you talking about?!

Just hold your hat Jackaroo. I wasn't aware and thought in passing it was still active.

My discussion bar all the politic earlier was what capability would service NZ and any allied effort well. Yes it's clear that they missed the C-17 boat but I would have thought that additional airlift in the time of a crisis would be valuable.

 

[downunderblue]

As for contributing to the whole, firstly contribute to ones self then to the whole.

That's the spirit. Too busy drooling in your own bucket to worry about anything around you. Might as well just put on the eye shades and just ignore everything as it's just too hard.

Speaking of hard though, just don't go to pick up the soap. Only so long you can stay trying to be a small target. Good luck with that.