NZDF General discussion thread

Gooey

Well-Known Member
Any fortune tellers out there: How are the bets on whether the CCP bastards will be shortly about-facing the way they came, turning right for The Great Australia Bight or left for The Long White Cloud, or somewhere else?

Personally, I hope that they are dumb enough to take a left.

Ms Helen Clark could welcome them on the edge of our territorial waters, on behalf of the UN, and mediate an extended nuclear free zone into the South China Seas and the mainland.
 

Hawkeye69

Member
Meanwhile in Afghanistan terror groups are reforming, gaining strength and training to rain more terror around the World, all left unchecked as the World attention is on other wars, dictatorships, and rising military superpowers.

9/11 and the follow on war on terror should never be forgotten nor should these horrible groups be allowed to ever reform under any circumstances.

The World is certainly a very unstable dangerous place right now and I wonder what Helen Clark makes of it all, likely will have an answer for everything.
 

jbc388

Member
Mr Helen Clark and and The Clark Foundation will be furiously penning some answers to what has been going on!! Also informing everyone how the Government should respond or lack of response should look like!! and how NZ shouldn't increase the defence budget!!! and actually spend less!!
 

Warhawk

New Member
I think a little far fetched for NZ pollies .
I believe NZ and Australia should rotate deployment of P-8 to Fiji as advance warning and help the pacific for SAR and fisheries and marine patrol.The day of the OPV are over offer little deterant just must replace current frigates and OPV with 3 or 4 frigates.NZ army do away with 105mm move to 155mm to be able to be supplied via Australia for ammo . Also NZ army should run with the Third battalion but make a rapid response battalion that are trained in urban and amphibious warfare, as well disaster relief.
 

Catalina

Member
The Communist Chinese Party takeover of the Eastern Realm of New Zealand.
*The Cook Islands has become the latest Communist Chinese naval outpost*

After a successful communist Chinese intelligence operation to charm, corrupt, coerce, and control their latest target, Mark Brown Cook Islands PM, the Guoanbu, (China's KGB) has, in violation of the constitutional agreement of the Cook Islands, secured in Article 3 of the 2025 Deepening Blue Economy Cooperation Memorandum of Understanding the right to navalise and take over the Eastern lynch pin of the Realm of New Zealand.

Communist Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy warships will resupply and repair in the Communist Chinese Cook Island's maritime outpost. To base armed Communist Chinese coastguard (navy) warships there the CCP will builds up ports, wharfs and fuel storage silos. Communist deep sea fishing bases and sea bed mining will plunder the Realm of New Zealand for Communism.

The CCP's takeover of the Cook Island's as a PLAN naval outpost isolates New Zealand from United Navy Support and gives the CCP a direct route into their prized goal - the 44 trillion dollars worth of minerals and oil the Communist Chinese will rip out of Antarctica.
 

Hone C

Active Member
The day of the OPV are over offer little deterant just must replace current frigates and OPV with 3 or 4 frigates.
If RAN selects the FFM Mogami for SEA 3000, the reduced crewing requirements and multi mission capabilities could make a single class replacement for the RNZN's ANZACs, OPVs, and HMNZS Manawanui an option.

Ordering 5-6 hulls over a couple of tranches would raise frigate numbers to provide a much greater and sustainable capability, avoid block obsolescence, and reduce the number of vessel types, for a similar level of crewing to the current fleet.

NZ army should run with the Third battalion but make a rapid response battalion that are trained in urban and amphibious warfare, as well disaster relief.
We need to get both battalions up to strength first. Adding a fourth rifle company to each and raising another battalion could be useful medium-long term goals. Across NZDF, raising naval personnel numbers should take precedence though.

The planned LPD's will facilitate amphibious training, along with providing platforms for HADR, when they arrive. Army really needs better urban training facilities, the training estate could use some serious investment.

The Communist Chinese Party takeover of the Eastern Realm of New Zealand.
*The Cook Islands has become the latest Communist Chinese naval outpost*
A very concerning development. Unless there is some way of overturning this legally, we'll get used to seeing a lot more CCP maritime activity along our SLOC and in our EEZ.
 
Last edited:

Challenger

New Member
Ms Helen Clark could welcome them on the edge of our territorial waters, on behalf of the UN, and mediate an extended nuclear free zone into the South China Seas and the mainland.
Sounds like the legend of ‘The Dragon and Tanihwa’ prophesied by the esteemed Nanaia Mahuta.
 

Xthenaki

Active Member
I think a little far fetched for NZ pollies .
I believe NZ and Australia should rotate deployment of P-8 to Fiji as advance warning and help the pacific for SAR and fisheries and marine patrol.The day of the OPV are over offer little deterant just must replace current frigates and OPV with 3 or 4 frigates.NZ army do away with 105mm move to 155mm to be able to be supplied via Australia for ammo . Also NZ army should run with the Third battalion but make a rapid response battalion that are trained in urban and amphibious warfare, as well disaster relief.
 

Gooey

Well-Known Member
Sounds like the legend of ‘The Dragon and Tanihwa’ prophesied by the esteemed Nanaia Mahuta.
You Sir, have a good memory or did I just block this 'piece' from our foreign relations?

Now colour me suspicious, but does the following NZ China Council announcement sound like a CCP United Front wedge into our community?

"Instinctive Māori approaches to engagement with China and its people have generated success for Māori and could hold the key to New Zealand continuing to stand out in a crowded Chinese market, according to new research commissioned by the New Zealand China Council Ko Te Kaunihera o Aotearoa me Haina."


This seems very similar to a lavish and pricey looking fashion show that I stumbled into when randomly staying at a Rotorua hotel in 2021. I wonder if anyone looked at the money trail for these events?

 
Last edited:

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
The Communist Chinese Party takeover of the Eastern Realm of New Zealand.
*The Cook Islands has become the latest Communist Chinese naval outpost*

After a successful communist Chinese intelligence operation to charm, corrupt, coerce, and control their latest target, Mark Brown Cook Islands PM, the Guoanbu, (China's KGB) has, in violation of the constitutional agreement of the Cook Islands, secured in Article 3 of the 2025 Deepening Blue Economy Cooperation Memorandum of Understanding the right to navalise and take over the Eastern lynch pin of the Realm of New Zealand.

Communist Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy warships will resupply and repair in the Communist Chinese Cook Island's maritime outpost. To base armed Communist Chinese coastguard (navy) warships there the CCP will builds up ports, wharfs and fuel storage silos. Communist deep sea fishing bases and sea bed mining will plunder the Realm of New Zealand for Communism.

The CCP's takeover of the Cook Island's as a PLAN naval outpost isolates New Zealand from United Navy Support and gives the CCP a direct route into their prized goal - the 44 trillion dollars worth of minerals and oil the Communist Chinese will rip out of Antarctica.
Woah, yes these are valid concerns, however let's pause and assess the landscape in front of us.

Firstly this is a Memorandum of Understanding (i.e. lays out the intentions; isn't necessarily legally binding etc), so this is an outline of what the CCP is wanting to (which was kept a secret until now). No contracts have been signed and a great gray fleet won't be rolling in over the horizon any time soon (ok sure some people from the mainland may visit to scope things out and have talks with the CI govt which is to be expected).

Now that the MOU is in the open I'd imagine there will be the meeting of minds from the mandarins in Wellington and Canberra and other places. The NZG will formulate a response (and in discussion with AusGov etc), look to cues from the respective Foreign Ministers.

Then finally and no doubt the CI govt will need to explain their intentions to the Pacific Island Forum members (after all there will be a host of extreme concerns such as the environmental disaster the CCP will inflict upon the surrounds etc).

Secondary issues. Why is the CI seeking finance from the CCP to replace their aging ferries? Why are they going to the CCP to extract undersea resources? So in response why isn't NZ stepping up and providing funding (or a low interest loan) for replacement ferries via aid funding? Or better still, why isn't there a co-ordinated NZ/Australia (and/or Japan/EU etc) strategy on these critical infrastucture issues (that affects many PI nations)? For example Australia has a shipbuilding industry that could supply the vessels as part of a 10 year plan (or so), so why not use the skills and resources within the wider neigbourhood?

Ditto for natural resource extraction. Why can't NZ, and Australia for that matter, step up and do the extraction and in an environmentally safe manner (I mean Australia have the companies and resources if NZ doesn't). If fact, how about this, perhaps a PPP (Public Private Partnership) perhaps, where NZ/Aus (perhaps with buy in from Japan or possibly China itself), provide the funding (and profits) but that a meaningful proportion of the profits go back to the host (island) nation (compared to current practice where very little does), but get this, also divert a "reasonable" proportion of the profits to wider PI "climate change" and nautural energy resiliance and infrastructre projects meaning "everyone" has a stake. A soverign type fund in other words, for the greater good.

The third issue. The CCP have been active in the Pacific for years providing aid. The likes of NZ, Australia and the US have encouraged this (although they have under-estimated the CCP playing the longer game here and not for the same philanthropic reasons). And of course the CCP have then used this to squeeze Taiwan out (only 3 PI states look to Taiwan now), so my point is familiarity with the CCP is now the norm anyway (so much so they are bullying/corrupting some officials ... this needs to be addressed as the citizens see this manoevering and are aghast).

The other thing is that US AID has been paused under the new USG ... and if this isn't addressed (either by the US itself and/or NZ/AU/Japan etc, stepping up further), then a vacuum will fill and guess who has the chequebook to splash and gain further influence and dominance.

This is all (or actually just some) of the wider background of issues that are inter-linked and if not addressed in a much better co-ordinated manner, and by bringing the PI states in rather than telling them or forcing them, and delivering (instead of talking and promising ... very little) then we will continue to have problem after problem year after year. (Well, unless some decapitation occurs cough cough). ;)

And for balance, it could be that the CCP still plays a part but it has to be pulled back in line (like they would do to us if "we" start flashing chequebooks at the likes of Hong Kong or Tibet etc) allowing those nations traditionally aligned to, and within, the Pacific "family" to lead the way. After all that's what the people of these nations, with their ties to the bigger countries, would want.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Talk about good timing, looks like our Foreign Minister arrived in Beijing today.


Due to protocol I guess he'll leave it to the Australians or US to remind them that their assets would have prevented the flotilla from getting out of their second or third island chains in the first place? Suppose instead he can compliment them for scoring yet another regional own goal!

 
Last edited:

kiwi in exile

Active Member
Suprised this is only comming up now, seems obvious in retrospect. Certainly raises the stakes.
Australian defence ‘can’t be definitive’ whether Chinese nuclear submarine is part of live-fire flotilla

Guess they are in Australian waters rather than ours out of respect for the nuclear free stance /"independent foreign policy"

Maybe it was Luxons strong worded response before jetting off overseas (?on the planes he said he wouldn't use): 'would have like more early notice'. I guess they have been put on notice.
 

Catalina

Member
My problem with the P 8 being the primary maritime strike aircraft is that, we will never have enough of them to take the risk. also they are a high altitude aircraft with a very powerful radar, so any target will know for a long time that missiles are inbound and can organise ECM countermeasures, decoys and anti missile weapon systems in plenty of time.
A strike by strike aircraft is done from below the radar horizon, from multipool directions at the same time giving the target very little warning and a lot of threats to deal with at the same time. this significantly increases the chance of success.
Just as the goal in ASW is the neutralizing of the sub threat rather than its destruction, the goal of an air to surface strike need not initially be the destruction of the target vessels, a thoroughly worthwhile goal of an initially attack is stripping a hostile surface force defenseless.

Understanding naval warfare requires understanding modern naval weapons.

PLAN Task Force 107 is comprised of a Type 055 cruiser, a Type 054A frigate, and a Type 903 replenishment ship.
Our RNZAF, enlarged to 10 aircraft equipped with LRASM can easily defeat them in two strikes.*

LRASM have a 200nm range.
The HHQ-9Bs on the Communist Type 055 cruiser have a 100nm range.
The HQ-16s on the Communist Type 054A frigates a 25nm range.

Check out those ranges...Our Poseidon's launch LRASM at 200nm well outside the 100nm range of the Communist warships to engage our aircraft.

10 P-8s can let rip 40 LRASM at over 200nm towards a Communist task force. With a Pk of .9 a double tap is needed against each inbound bruiser to prevent leakers. The ChiCom's will be forced defensive and have to launch 80 birds. The Type 055 cruiser is said to carry some 56 HHQ-9Bs (100nm range), and the Type 054A 32 much shorter range HQ-16s (25 nm range). That's some 88 SAMs they would have against our LRASM. Lets say their SAMs all work as advertised and defeat our first strike. We RTB having scored no hits.

We simply reload and attack again. Another 40 LRASM now head towards the Communist warships who are now out of SAMs...Their point defence and soft kill can't stop 40 inbound vampires.

Modern technology has turned MPA's into excellent maritime strike aircraft.
One can argue that there has never been a more capable MPA than the Poseidon.
We don't need to waste resources/personnel/money purchasing an unnecessary imaginary strike force.
We simply need to arm our P-8s (and increase their number.)

* a smaller number of Poseidon's flying more than 2 ASuW strikes against Task Group 107 achieves the same victory.
 
Last edited:

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
We don't need to waste resources/personnel/money purchasing an unnecessary imaginary strike force.
Modern technology has turned MPA's into excellent maritime strike aircraft.

We simply need to arm our P-8s.

* a smaller number of Poseidon's flying more than 2 ASuW strikes against Task Group 107 achieves the same victory.
The problem with this is that the P8 does not have the flexibility of the strike aircraft. We can also be at risk from long range aircraft and the P 8 Can do nothing about this. In a time of conflict the task force will be a lot larger and may even include a aircraft carrier which will make the P8 very vulnerable.
You also must take into account availability rates for aircraft and having all of your fleet available at the same time is highly unlikely.
I do agree we do need more P8's however they do not have the flexibility to cover all our defence needs and I support the concept of a balanced defence force which was the goal of the government in the 1980's and 1990's before the Clark and Key governments destroyed the concept.
Strike aircraft bring more flexibility to the air domain and greater lethality, they dramatically reduce the warning time in the maritime role by attacking below the radar horizon, improve survivability in contested airspace, can be used for air to air and support for troops if necessary and they put the least number of our personal at risk.
 
Last edited:

Aerojoe

Member
The problem with this is that the P8 does not have the flexibility of the strike aircraft. We can also be at risk from long range aircraft and the P 8 Can do nothing about this. In a time of conflict the task force will be a lot larger and may even include a aircraft carrier which will make the P8 very vulnerable.
You also must take into account availability rates for aircraft and having all of your fleet available at the same time is highly unlikely.
I do agree we do need more P8's however they do not have the flexibility to cover all our defence needs and I support the concept of a balanced defence force which was the goal of the government in the 1980's and 1990's before the Clark and Key governments destroyed the concept.
Strike aircraft bring more flexibility to the air domain and greater lethality, they dramatically reduce the warning time in the maritime role by attacking below the radar horizon, improve survivability in contested airspace, can be used for air to air and support for troops if necessary and they put the least number of our personal at risk.
If NZ is facing a taskforce including a carrier and the preverbal has hit the fan sufficiently that we are launching P8s fully armed and with permissions to engage then it seems almost impossible that our ANZAC neighbour will not also have skin in the game and so a supporting F35 force or SSN could be assumed to be involved to address the risk posed by a carrier. We would not be acting alone so why would we structure our defence spend to have a little of everything rather than doubling down on what we know we can do and do well that supports a coalition approach.
 
Top