NZDF General discussion thread

[Gibbo]

We (NZ) certainly need to ditch the concept that we are 'too far' from anywhere to be invaded as that silences the essential bigger debate about what are the strategic risks we face. The biggest risk IMHO is not invasion but economic blockade which would cripple us as a nation within a week or so ...initially due to our fuel supplies drying up.

It would only require the most basic show of force with an ICBM & torpedo equipped submarine to stop commercial shipping to/from NZ overnight and we'd be effectively neutralised as a 'threat' of any sort. Whether the aggressor then saw any value in making a 'presence' onshore there would be little left able to operate (fuel wise) to stop them, and we then would likely be to use as a strategic base for targetting Australia or supplying Antartic bases.

This is why NZ needs to start understanding the concept of 'forward defence' and working with allies to provide a meaningful contribution to the collective of like minded nations and dealing with risk at a distance from our shores. We need to stop measuring our defence capability against the singular concept of invasion alone. The debate seems to be finally starting but likely is too little, too late! ....and NZDF civvy staff cuts still being pressed for.

 

[Rob c]

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.

Why don't you read the posts in their entirety instead of picking on parts to make personal and not very smart comments. I have repeatedly said that you help your allies to the best of your ability and if you read earlier post you will also see that I called for good surveillance and intelligence so you know what is going on.
My main point is trying to rush out into the world and act like a mini America without your own house being in order (and ours is not) may look heroic, but in reality is just stupid.
READ POSTS IN THEIR ENTIRETY. It will also help if you understand them.

 

[Rob c]

Agee that forward defence is the first port of call, but you must also keep in mind the consequences of this failing, or some one doing a surprise attack like Pearl Harbour before you are even a war has started.
The reality of conflict is that it is seldom carried out as planned, but can turn chaotic from a defenders point of view very quickly and it is the side that survives this the best which is likely to prevail.
The other point that must always kept in mind is the politics of the time, as it is the politicians who start wars and in a majority of cases they decide when they end.

 

[Rob c]

Just a start point I feel would be to look at the main capabilities we had in the 1980's when the budget averaged about 2.5%GDP and refine this to more equate with modern practices.
I feel that a lot of younger people are unaware of how good the NZDF was during this period and how highly we were respected by our allies due to the high standards we achieved.

 

[swerve]

... Am I stretching it to add C-17's before the production line closes?

As Todjaeger pointed out, it's a bit late for that. Your choices are A400M, C390, C-2, more C130, or small stuff, or buy Russian or Chinese.

 

[downunderblue]

As Todjaeger pointed out, it's a bit late for that. Your choices are A400M, C390, C-2, more C130, or small stuff, or buy Russian or Chinese.

Yes it was noted. My point though was to commence a discussion (which didn't eventuate) on what capabilities would service their nation and strategic priorities.

Again Id suggest the issue is that those priorities are not fully outlined and differ across the NZ political class, as they at short notice grapple with an emerging China that many seemed to assume carried no real risk (or blindly or willingly ignored).

I do ponder though, was this the same political class who thought they knew it all and that all Australia needed to do was to follow their lead and show China some more respect?

Australia is not without its clowns though. Everytime Paul Keating sprouts his dated and spiteful world view you can see it is echoed in similar ignorance. The point though is they are in the minority and the past. The present leadership have read their briefings and can see where this is headed, and are trying to do something about it.

 

[downunderblue]

Why don't you read the posts in their entirety instead of picking on parts to make personal and not very smart comments. I have repeatedly said that you help your allies to the best of your ability and if you read earlier post you will also see that I called for good surveillance and intelligence so you know what is going on.
...

READ POSTS IN THEIR ENTIRETY. It will also help if you understand them.

Oh I understand and have read them. 'Some' of them even make sense, but some just stand out as outliers thus why I replied to them accordingly.

My main point is trying to rush out into the world and act like a mini America without your own house being in order (and ours is not) may look heroic, but in reality is just stupid.

That's the difference.

You're main point? I'll focus there. The only mini-America action I can think of it Timor or maybe RAMSI. Was it the right thing to do? Others will judge but for me it was a bit of a turning point and reinforced we needed to be regionally engaged, committed and if no one else is, lead, but do so based upon our values. I'd say our current actions (AUKUS, Quad, Ukraine, Commitment to freedom of navigation etc) seemed to be aligned with those values.

Ive watched from the 80s onwards NZ interact with in the world and await for the penny to drop. It just doesn't seem to drop. Your comments are littered with those same beliefs. I can't be don't, is too hard, to do so would make you militant or rash and the best course of action is to freeze in indecision.

I was in Gallipoli in November and was struck by the bravery and courage of both the Australian and NZ troops. I have never questioned anyone in Uniform, as they are will always fight with everything they have, but if a Gallipoli moment happened again would your political class commit? That defeatism, that want to look away, that indecision to wait for something to happen before you act is littered in your politics and in your response. If you keep waiting to get your house in order you will stand for nothing bar yourself, and be picked upon, alone or ignored in the world.

I'm not asking for a mini America as you say so run off trying to look heroically, but since 1980 where have you shown the world you truely stand for something that you are willing to stick your neck out to do so? Successive NZ govts say they are committed to the rules based order, but bar words, what does that commitment actually exist of?

Will NZ stick their neck out for anyone, or will they still be trying to get their own affairs in order? The Cook Islands noticed that you're asleep at the wheel and this is just the first of a series of incidents where you will falter until you actually commit to the values your politicians espouse so cheaply without knowing what they mean.

Coincidentally may I say that buying PNG a rugby team is not listed in the US playbook, nor is it "stupid" It's called action and it costs $. How does selling Rugby make you a mini America?!

 

[Rob c]

Will NZ stick their neck out for anyone, or will they still be trying to get their own affairs in order?

Both would be good, however not getting our affairs in order will significantly impacted and reduce what we can achieve for anyone else.

 

[Rob c]

Coincidentally may I say that buying PNG a rugby team is not listed in the US playbook, nor is it "stupid" It's called action and it costs $. How does selling Rugby make you a mini America?!

I was referring more to military actions, diplomatic actions are more in the political arena but none the less important.

 

[downunderblue]

Both would be good, however not getting our affairs in order will significantly impacted and reduce what we can achieve for anyone else.

I hear you, but will you die a slow death waiting for that to happen? Additionally you're so much more secure being a team player within a collective than a lone sheriff in a small town (no deputy sheriff pun intended, seriously).

Btw a RAAF P-8 just had a nasty encounter with a J-16 in the SCS. Are you saying in the NZ context you shouldn't/ wouldn't deploy an P-8s in the same scenario?

On another subject, a three ship PLA-N task force just entered the Coral Sea. Should Indopacom or AU keep you informed should they head south east? That's the strength of mutually beneficial relationships, but it has to be mutually beneficial for more than just one party, doesn't it?

 

[Rob c]

hear you, but will you die a slow death waiting for that to happen? Additionally you're so much more secure being a team player within a collective than a lone sheriff in a small town (no deputy sheriff pun intended, seriously).

As I am 80 next year, dying a slow death would be a bloody good idea.

Btw a RAAF P-8 just had a nasty encounter with a J-16 in the SCS. Are you saying in the NZ context you shouldn't/ wouldn't deploy an P-8s in the same scenario?

What ever gave you that idea, said nothing of the sorts.

but it has to be mutually beneficial for more than just one party, doesn't it?

Obviously
One thing that you must realise is that the international situations are controlled by the politicians and they firstly will do things in their best interests or what they see as there best interests, then in their countries best interests, finally they will do internationally what they see covers the first two.

 

[recce.k1]

Yes it was noted. My point though was to commence a discussion (which didn't eventuate) on what capabilities would service their nation and strategic priorities.

Again Id suggest the issue is that those priorities are not fully outlined and differ across the NZ political class, as they at short notice grapple with an emerging China that many seemed to assume carried no real risk (or blindly or willingly ignored).

I do ponder though, was this the same political class who thought they knew it all and that all Australia needed to do was to follow their lead and show China some more respect?

Australia is not without its clowns though. Everytime Paul Keating sprouts his dated and spiteful world view you can see it is echoed in similar ignorance. The point though is they are in the minority and the past. The present leadership have read their briefings and can see where this is headed, and are trying to do something about it.

Downunderblue: appreciate your efforts to engage in some worthwhile discussion, you do make some good points at times. But a couple of things.

On the C-17 or similar there have been many discussions over the years here on DT about it including NZ being tantalizing close to acquiring it ("shot down" by Treasury IMO) and I guess no-one wanted to rehash it. To bring Swerve's commentary into the discussion the consensus (here, anyway) is that if such a capability is feasible it probably would be A-400M or C-2 nowadays (many of us here are fans of the C-2 but acknowledge that it may be risky in terms of FVEY interoperability and NZ would have to fund first-of-class trials etc). Buying from the likes of Russia or China wouldn't happen.

In terms of new C-17, as Tod points out, it would only happen if the USG wanted to reinvest in a new production line (IIRC the actual production factory itself was either dismantled or repurposed for other activities). Suspect NZDF would rather wait for a few years to see if this was to eventuate and simply acquire a few more C-130J-30's in the interim to reinforce that existing capability rather than go down a different path (A-400 etc) to that of its close interoperable partners in this region eg RAAF & USAF etc (hey just my thoughts and could be very well wrong).

As for the NZ political class, suggest not to worry too much about it. As you note in Oz there are clowns everywhere and we have our fair share (like the UK does with Corbyn and the US does with Sanders but no-one brings them up in UK or US discussion threads here). Trust me our "O'Connor chap who made those comments that you linked to was widely criticised and mocked by many in NZ and IIRC even his leadership had to distance themselves from his views. Not to say he didn't have a couple of other like-minded colleagues who would have agreed with him but overall his leadership also recognised the boundaries being crossed by wading into Australian politics and he hasn't uttered anything like that since (no doubt after getting a bollocking behind the scenes). Sometimes mountains are made of mole hills especially by overseas media who don't understand the nuances of NZ politics.

Finally, and despite the whinging and denials from some Kiwi's here, the current NZ political leadership also "have read their briefings and can see where this is headed, and are trying to do something about it." The question though is "what" and "when" and in my mind is what we should be focusing on.

 

[recce.k1]

Oh I understand and have read them. 'Some' of them even make sense, but some just stand out as outliers thus why I replied to them accordingly.


That's the difference.

You're main point? I'll focus there. The only mini-America action I can think of it Timor or maybe RAMSI. Was it the right thing to do? Others will judge but for me it was a bit of a turning point and reinforced we needed to be regionally engaged, committed and if no one else is, lead, but do so based upon our values. I'd say our current actions (AUKUS, Quad, Ukraine, Commitment to freedom of navigation etc) seemed to be aligned with those values.

Ive watched from the 80s onwards NZ interact with in the world and await for the penny to drop. It just doesn't seem to drop. Your comments are littered with those same beliefs. I can't be don't, is too hard, to do so would make you militant or rash and the best course of action is to freeze in indecision.

I was in Gallipoli in November and was struck by the bravery and courage of both the Australian and NZ troops. I have never questioned anyone in Uniform, as they are will always fight with everything they have, but if a Gallipoli moment happened again would your political class commit? That defeatism, that want to look away, that indecision to wait for something to happen before you act is littered in your politics and in your response. If you keep waiting to get your house in order you will stand for nothing bar yourself, and be picked upon, alone or ignored in the world.

I'm not asking for a mini America as you say so run off trying to look heroically, but since 1980 where have you shown the world you truely stand for something that you are willing to stick your neck out to do so? Successive NZ govts say they are committed to the rules based order, but bar words, what does that commitment actually exist of?

Will NZ stick their neck out for anyone, or will they still be trying to get their own affairs in order? The Cook Islands noticed that you're asleep at the wheel and this is just the first of a series of incidents where you will falter until you actually commit to the values your politicians espouse so cheaply without knowing what they mean.

Coincidentally may I say that buying PNG a rugby team is not listed in the US playbook, nor is it "stupid" It's called action and it costs $. How does selling Rugby make you a mini America?!

RobC has been a long time commentator here and he has been consistent in his views (I think you are getting a bit unnecessarily aggressive by inferring things he isn't suggesting nor hasn't suggested in the past). His point about defending one's nation first is no different from practically any other nation (including Australia in WW2 pulling its troops back from the Middle-East/Europe to take on the advancing Japanese). He also believes in Collective Defence but is making the point that NZ needs to have its own house in order first so that she can deploy and sustain that effort.

I think one of the problems with us Kiwi's here complaining about our political class (and yes they have been useless at times, many times in fact) is that the perception then filters through to especially overseas readers here that the NZDF is just as useless too. Not quite. Tell that to the crew of Frigate Te Kaha that is embarking on a six month deployment to the MEO, or tell that to the NZ Army that is working up for Exercise Talisman Sabre or tell that to a RNZAF P-8 Poseidon crew operating in the SCS. Granted retention was an issue (thanks to being tasked too long by our Pollies on Covid duties or better paying opportunities in the public/private sector etc) but this was no different anywhere else in the western world and attrition rates have improved. Granted some units are still under-strength but effort is being put in to address these issues. The only way from here is up.

 

[downunderblue]

[

Finally, and despite the whinging and denials from some Kiwi's here, the current NZ political leadership also "have read their briefings and can see where this is headed, and are trying to do something about it." The question though is "what" and "when" and in my mind is what we should be focusing on.

Thanks for the decent reply.

Yes re the current NZ leadership, I understand they are well briefed but it I question whether than extended to the former cabinet. Chris Hopkins may be playing politics but he is playing a fine line with some of the statements, which really surprised me considering he must know of the contradiction in his words. Surely sitting chairing the NSC of Cabinet (or whatever your NZ eqv is) must have informed him.

I also heard the Nationala are polling poorly. Worldwide 1 term governments are common when inflation is an issue. You wouldn't want Labour back too soon as your best laid plans may go to waste.

Politicians ... you need to keep the b@stards honest or they will take you all for a ride.

 

[recce.k1]

Btw a RAAF P-8 just had a nasty encounter with a J-16 in the SCS. Are you saying in the NZ context you shouldn't/ wouldn't deploy an P-8s in the same scenario?

NZDF assets (Frigates, AOR, P-3's, P-8's) are also shadowed and intimidated in the Gulf and SCS areas etc. Nothing as "nasty" has been reported (the NZG doesn't tend to talk even about shadowing and intimidation, let alone anything more serious. We only find out when the MSM carry out official information requests). I'm kinda of the view "we" (West) should be a bit more aggressive in countering these incidents however the reality is for that to happen things would escalate and "friendly" assets would then likely be targeted. So I am more than happy to leave responses, or lack of, to the military/governments to plan for. After all any freedom of sea (or air) excursion is planned with allies/command etc.

On another subject, a three ship PLA-N task force just entered the Coral Sea. Should Indopacom or AU keep you informed should they head south east? That's the strength of mutually beneficial relationships, but it has to be mutually beneficial for more than just one party, doesn't it?

Goodie ... perfect for ADF assets to fine-tune practicing their "responses" to such incursions!

I don't mean to sound flippant, as PLA-N are only doing what "we" do, in international waters. But I hear you, it is a concern ... but it is also an "opportunity" for the likes of ADF.

For NZDF there are some glaring capability gaps that need to be re-instated to "protect" against future incursions into NZ (or its Realm's) EEZ etc.

For that I'm in alignment with RobC. NZ doesn't necessarily need the likes of F-35's for example (to complement the P-8's). Second hand US types would suffice (eg at least for the next 10 years or so as an ACF is re-established) for such overt vessels and the beauty is, we could then better afford "mass" i.e. afford both greater numbers (and therefore better coverage) but also the other (just as) expensive necessities such as a variety of munitions, sensors, EW kit etc. IMO that's the lessons of NZ ACF's of the past, at times (i.e. between upgrades) they lacked the (timely) capabilities of its allies and by not having mass rendered them risky to deploy (in terms of dealing with potential losses and being forced out of the fight). Anyway I don't wish to expend too much time on ACF thoughts as people here are rightly sick of it, unless the NZG does intend to move back into this space. If anything, it's now or never so let's see what the forthcoming DCP says, if anything.

 

[recce.k1]

[

Thanks for the decent reply.

Yes re the current NZ leadership, I understand they are well briefed but it I question whether than extended to the former cabinet. Chris Hopkins may be playing politics but he is playing a fine line with some of the statements, which really surprised me considering he must know of the contradiction in his words. Surely sitting chairing the NSC of Cabinet (or whatever your NZ eqv is) must have informed him.

I also heard the Nationala are polling poorly. Worldwide 1 term governments are common when inflation is an issue. You wouldn't want Labour back too soon as your best laid plans may go to waste.

Politicians ... you need to keep the b@stards honest or they will take you all for a ride.

Yes I agree, I think our Opposition is simply playing to its own (our own) internal audiences ... but with 24/7 news/international coverage nowadays I think they are being unwise. They do tend to toe the line once in power though (as they did 2017-2023) so although their present day commentary grates me, because of the double-standards, I'm optimistic enough to think once back in the seat of power things will settle down somewhat. If it's ok I probably won't respond further on our pollies, even though it is defence related, because it walks a fine line in terms of DT's moderation policy.

 

[Gibbo]

Yes I agree, I think our Opposition is simply playing to its own (our own) internal audiences ... but with 24/7 news/international coverage nowadays I think they are being unwise. They do tend to toe the line once in power though (as they did 2017-2023) so although their present day commentary grates me, because of the double-standards, I'm optimistic enough to think once back in the seat of power things will settle down somewhat. If it's ok I probably won't respond further on our pollies, even though it is defence related, because it walks a fine line in terms of DT's moderation policy.

Yes Hipkins playing the 'opposition' card ...but not that cleverly IMHO. The last Labour Defence minister Andrew Little was making even stronger talk about the need to spend more on defence and Hipkins certainly didn't stop him so I assume Hipkins does 'get it'!

As an aside I am currently reading 'The Long Tug of Memory' by Ret'd NZ Army Major General Ken Gordon... a great well-rounded read (he's still alive and father of a colleague of mine). Anyway he was heavily involved in the setting up of the NZ Force (NZFORSEA) in Singapore after the UK & Australian pullout in the early 1970's... for relevance it is important to understand this went ahead as Kirk's Labour Govt was dead keen at the time to show NZ's emerging 'independent foreign policy' ....anyway Ken Gordon quotes the CGS at the time as saying this (not publicly but to one side at the celebratory drinks!):

"The Labout Govt says 'Is it within our Independent Foreign Policy?' ....If so proceed!"
"A National Govt in a similar position would have said 'How Much'?"

Whilst tongue in check it does reflect that the same core, misguided, drivers of Defence policy by the 2 major parties in NZ Politics are the same after exactly 50 years!

 

[Gooey]

Goodie ... perfect for ADF assets to fine-tune practicing their "responses" to such incursions!

Second hand US types would suffice better afford "mass" i.e. afford both greater numbers

IMHO, yes and no.

Mass has and will always be a NZ problem. It is not just a ACF thing, as shown by 2 frigates and half a battalion. But that is not the real issue. Finland and Singapore have seen through and worked this problem.

It is far more worrying than your "Don't panic" message suggests. NZ is in this position because it has not resourced national security; it has not done so because it does not consider this to be important. So, in my mind, this is far more a national disease along the lines of Kipp's message of not being an adult. Instead thinking that the inept anti-nuclear policy gives us some unique moral authority in the world when it has instead produced zero benefits and only antagonised our close Allies.

Recognising that we can not defend ourselves solo, we used to have a balanced force for maritime warfare operations in the early 80s with our Allies: ACF, 4 frigates, and a regular/reserve light brigade. Today: zip. To be blunt, we probably have some good operators at the tactical level but to be honest at the operational and strategic level NZDF is streets behind ADF or NATO capabilities, experience, and leadership. Judging by the number of tattoos on over weight, senior, female officers that I see in Defence House, it is not just the US that has lost the warrior class. But then a JNCO wrote an essay about that a few years ago.

This illustration of our decent into NZDF irrelevance is not a new thing. The PM Lange comments about 'geriatric generals' and PM Clark's hysterical fight against ACF and ASW, illustrates that our strategic thinking is indeed INFANTILE.

 

[John Fedup]

Hope NZ isn't counting on a future for its Antarctica territories, between Trump and Xi, it will be lost. The only difference is Trump will ignore 2048 treaty expiration date first. Welcome to the new world order.

 

[recce.k1]

Gooey - I don't disagree with anything you say, they are right on point. But a couple of things. Speaking generally (and not to anyone in particular) we can't keep dragging up the past and imply that's still the (govt) vision for the future. That's where I am coming from.

Let's quickly go back for context to some of your points. We had a black swan event - the partisan politicisation of our foreign policy in the 1980's which saw us suspended from ANZUS, the consequences of which created a vacuum and the US was no longer there to "pressure" us to maintain capabilities. You can bet if NZ remained in ANZUS then we wouldn't have lost the ACF nor saw a significant Frigate reduction.

But that was then and this is now. The "now" has been the re-building our relationship and interoperability with the US (and we chose to do so i.e. we weren't forced to do so). We are also now signing up closer defence co-operation agreements with a number of other SE Asian nations (yes we were behind Australia but we are now doing so that is good). So the frameworks, political talk and signals being sent are generally positive.

Ok, what's missing, which understandably is upsetting many of us here, is the "political walk" or "show us the money" aka forget the talk, show us what you are going to spend it on! So that's coming up in the DCP!

What little do we know at the moment? Well we know the CDF is talking about planning for (and sustaining) expansion. Will it happen? Who knows yet but the positive signal suggests it is being taken seriously, presumably enough for Treasury and the NZG to be wanting to anaylse costs (and presumably this does take some time etc). Should it happen? Who knows yet except there is a recognition that the global security order as we know it is being challenged and those nations challenging it will not be going away, if anything they are getting stronger.

So is the NZG going to sit back and preserve the staus-quo? Logically all the evidence suggests not!

Even the "independent foreign policy" orientated Opposition recognised this in their time recently, strengthened ties with NATO (IP4) and bought submarine hunting Poseidon's (compare that to their form previously when they were cutting ASW capabilities)! Yes some Opposition hotheads shoot off (including their leader sometimes) but when next back in power expect to see things toning down. And with the CCP flashing the cash around the region even the Opposition have the perfect excuse (and enough real concern) to maintain course settings.

So the things we could be talking about is the short/medium/long term (after all the DCP is out to 2040), eg what could the structure of the Army change to, in order to support Govt policy and strategy? Particularly in a maritime environment (are we talking about "Pacific-War II" scenarios, supporting agile USMC/ADF force elements)? Will that then accelerate the need for Naval and Air Force logistic support investment?

Then how do we better detect, protect (and deny) other adversaries in our near region (as part of a coalition efforts)? What Air and Naval maritime capabilities are feasible? Or should be restored?

Spoz rightly points out we have some glaring high-end capability deficiences. So what would be practical to start addressing (and assist with the wider allied effort)? Whilst a BMD system may be unlikely, as an example, could this mean RNZN may be funded to step-up to include anti-BM systems (sensors and weapons) in their Frigate replacement fit-outs? Or simply what about systems/personnel units to protect critical defence (and civilian) infrastructure?

And there is the AI /autonomous aspects, with plently of challenges but also plenty of opportunites, to colloborate with our close partners (and hopefully with greater domestic research and industrial capacities etc).

You have good insights to much of this (from your service knowledge) and obviously understand our limitations (so won't expect the impossible), so keen to hear your thoughts on where and what to start with ...