I think you are right in your idea that she dislikes/ hates the armed forces and for instance, back in the 1980's has been quoted as saying that if you was in a position to disband the ACF she would. However a lot of what she said over the years has shown a complete ignorance of the armed forces and she was a big user of fake news in this regard and simply disregarded any attempt to show her facts. When dealing with defence she used a lot of the methods that D.T. is using now, distortions, cajoling , and simply ignoring what she did not want to hear. When it came to the cabinet, she made it clear that it was her way or the highway.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
While I would agree that an invasion is not the most likely thing to happen, if by chance it does happen it is by far the most devastating outcome in a conflict. It is like when you get sick, a cold or the flu is far more likely than cancer and there are 500 deaths a year from flu , but which is more devastating? You need to cover the less likely area's as well were the outcome has a significant detrimental outcome to our freedom and sovereignty.
I fully agree with you that low probability, high impact events need to be considered, just as we plan to mitigate an enemy's MDCOA while defeating their MLCOA.
Ideally, a defence force would be resilient and flexible enough to allow for a range of possible threats, rather than the "credible minimum" of the last few decades.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Well that is the thing, or at least it is for me.
If someone holds and/or argues for a position based upon an ideology where facts are irrelevant that to me cannot be accurately described as ignorance. If it were simply ignorance, then one someone is exposed to additional relevant information they might change their position. OTOH if the position is based upon ideology, then facts or exposure to them do not really matter.
Given some of NZ's defence post-Korean War history, it does appear that ideologically-driven elements had been driving elements of NZ foreign and defence policies for at least 14 years before Clark became PM.
Sounds like someone who has never seen artillery in action nor studied it’s effect on the battlefield.
If NZ is going to have any pretence of combat forces able to even approach anything like actual conflict, removing your artillery capability, minimal though it may be, is akin to suicide.
If Ukraine the biggest drone user on the planet currently relies so heavily on artillery to offset it’s numerical disadvantage, how could it possibly be in NZ’s interest to remove it’s sole long range (ish) strike capability and no longer offer fires support to NZ’s miniscule and very light forces?
The reality is, if you are imagining (let alone preparing) NZ’s Army to actually fight someone else (even just in defence) then you are going to need all the fires you can possibly get your hands on to offset your very small combat force disadvantage.
The reality is, that unless NZ intends to drop even the current pretence their forces are designed to engage in any way at any level of intensity in combat, then you need MORE artillery, not less of it.
Modern fighter aircraft have a role in “topgun fantasy” as mentioned, but they have a few other roles too. OCA / DCA to name a couple. Missile defence, strike, maritime strike, ISR and a range of training opportunities for naval and land forces, FAC / JTAC training and so on.
Imagine (hard to believe I know) where a certain global super power decided that merely sailing a cruise and ballistic missile armed taskforce through the Tasman sea wasn‘t enough for them?
Imagine if they thought it might benefit them someway, or hell maybe even as a bit of fun, decide to rain a few of those missiles down on Wellington, Auckland or Christchurch, from say, 1000k away?
A few of those “top gun fantasies” might actually come in handy in such a situation, no?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Actually the scenario which repeatedly has been coming to my mind is sending up a fighter flight on an interception/interdiction mission to chase off or in the event of a conflict having gone hot, actually shooting down unfriendly ISR platforms which might be monitoring SLOC to or around NZ.
I still do not think it is a good idea for NZ to try and restart an ACF yet, for reasons I have already mentioned in previous posts, but it would be inaccurate to try and claim that establishing an ACF would be a 'vanity' project.
To add to your answer, Ukraine Loves artillery. The one thing we learned from the war, from the Ukrainains is that towed Arty is king. They are mich easier to hide, they are harder to detect, more resilient to drone drops, fpvs and lancets and they are easier to protect.
There are several popular UKr osint who bring info from the front and they say shoot and scoot SPGs are a major drawback, because they cant shoot and scoot. Drones own 20-30km of the frotn line. SPGs take too long to set up and are harder to hide and protect, and arre just so much more vulnerable.
For New Zealand, they should look into the new Turksih light towed gun, that can be transported by choppers. They pack the punch and are easier to move around.
I disagree with ditching the artillery as this one of thefew things on the battlefield where the NZ Army can actually provide fire support for a reasonable distance...we just need more modern arty systems that have less crew, modern logistics system to reload the guns!! The system also includes a munition carrier consisting of a removable, modified standard container mounted on a ballistic-proofed all-terrain lorry and takes about 10mins to reload.
The RCH-155
is what is really needed as it can also fire on the move!! RCH 155 - Wikipedia
As well as more drones but I see they seem to be onto that.
How can people see the effect of fighter jets in Ukraine, Red Sea in counter drone and cruise missile operations and still not see their value.
If you are being attacked by a bunch of long range cruise missiles and drones like Shaheds, F-16s with APWKS are the most cost effective solutions in taking them down.
You are correct in regard to foreign policy however I remember in the 1980's the defence policy at the time was for a balanced defence force and the ability to have a significant ability to defend NZ. This led to the increase in Skyhawk numbers and there updating, the increase in P3 numbers and their updating. There were a number of programs that happened at the time, But the change of government at the end of the decade led to a from memory a 27% cut in the defence budget and a significant number of programs were cancelled. The Bulger government did the cuts for financial reasons, however in their last term they had started to increase the budget and had said that this would continue. During this period they had ordered the F16's, paid for options on C130j's and authorised the airforce to plan an extensive upgrade for the P3's and put aside $750m for an additional combat ship, all of which was cancelled by HC
kiwi in exile
Active Member
Nice sarcasm
It's not hard to imagine, it's the subtext of most of the posts on this thread.
As I alluded to, something like loyal wingman could meet most of the capability requirements that you talk about at a cheaper cost (treasure, training, and lives)
Do fighter jets have anti ICBM capability?
AEGIS capable ships do.
downunderblue
Active Member
In AU we also have similar opinions. PJK and Bobb Carr remind me that such views are not just NZ based.
Maybe their commentary is more about their needs rather than whether any such argument is factually correct or logically sound; their ego needing continued stroking and that one last time in the limelight, reminding us of their relevance, influence and of course of their once in a generation political mind and incredible gift. Oh how I long for the good old days, hey?
Turnball has his moments but also at times can be in this camp. It's all about his need to see his ego restored and a drive to prove one for all that he was right, is still right, is an intellectual one of a kind and of course the rest were all wrong ("... you really should have listened to me ... folks, listen next time ...").
They collectively are nothing more than click bait distraction and need to be soundly critiqued for their motivation and bias, thereby ignored/ placed on the scrapheap so we don't have to hear their defeatist and dangerous voices again.
Rant over and back to the latest issue of the day.
downunderblue
Active Member
In light of the political outrage across both sides of the Tasman concerning the transit of the three ship PLA-N TF, and the ensuing 'calm' as they threw some trash overboard and pumped it full of .50 cal rounds, I reflected the reported emergence of a 'stingray like' PLA 'UAV sighted by PNG locals in their airspace near the Torres Strait as the TF transited ...
Our seas are now full of threat, but now our skies too?
In the spirit similar to the Geoffrey Robinson QC Hypotheticals TV series I watched as a kid, can I kindly seek notice to pose the following question (which amuses me tbh) to you all.
I couldn't think of anything more joyful to propagate more headlines, more outrage and at least in our part of the world remove the word 'Trump' from the most talked about news items for a 5 minutes period, at least.
The US used a U2 to get a pic and a AIM-9X/ Raptor to down theirs. I wonder if the wreckage is in a federal warehouse somewhere?
Do you think we would be mature and let it pass or should we equip Winston Peters with a pressure suit, jetpack and trident fork to take ours down ... ? Where should we house it or should we put it on public show?
Apologies in advance. Yes I'm being provocative/cheeky but like children I just don't trust them (our politicians) without supervision, and stranger things could/can happen (please, please please!)
Our seas are now full of threat, but now our skies too?
In the spirit similar to the Geoffrey Robinson QC Hypotheticals TV series I watched as a kid, can I kindly seek notice to pose the following question (which amuses me tbh) to you all.
- What do you think would be the commentary from our esteemed political leadership (of both persuasions) should a PLA balloon/ UFO/ UAV be sighted entering/ crossing AU/NZ airspace ... What do you think our leaders will say/ pronounce/ do?!!
I couldn't think of anything more joyful to propagate more headlines, more outrage and at least in our part of the world remove the word 'Trump' from the most talked about news items for a 5 minutes period, at least.
The US used a U2 to get a pic and a AIM-9X/ Raptor to down theirs. I wonder if the wreckage is in a federal warehouse somewhere?
Do you think we would be mature and let it pass or should we equip Winston Peters with a pressure suit, jetpack and trident fork to take ours down ... ? Where should we house it or should we put it on public show?
Apologies in advance. Yes I'm being provocative/cheeky but like children I just don't trust them (our politicians) without supervision, and stranger things could/can happen (please, please please!)
Which loyal wingman program can meet most fighter requirements? I am not currently aware of any. Australia’s for instance won’t even be armed… Not one of these programs has seriously proposed using these aircraft to replace manned fighter aircraft.
Some AEGIS ships, not all, can intercept “some” ICBM’s under “some” scenarios. Most systems - even GBI are doubtful at best against realistic ICBM threats..
No US missile defense system proven capable against 'realistic' ICBM threats: Study - Breaking Defense
Missile Defense Agency pushes back, pointing Breaking Defense to positive report from Pentagon tester, laudatory comments from senior military officials and recent test wins.
breakingdefense.com
In any case, I am not sure what relevance this has for NZ? I had not heard the NZDF was in the market for either AEGIS equipped ships or for the SM-3 Block IIA it would need as a minimum for such a capability (entirely disregarding the extensive sensor and C2 systems required…)
From memory the level of funding afforded by her politicians, made the NZDF struggle to even keep a single troop of Mistral VSHORAD systems in-service…
kiwi in exile
Active Member
You make some good points but all of the above could apply to re-establishing a fighter wing. NZ will (or at least should) be in the market for replacement combat ships. It may be feasable to have room for grownth for some later anti ICBM capability (lasers even?) perhaps as part of a networked system of systems to use a buzz phrase from a few years back.
Re loyal wingman- yea I didn't offer much clarity or specifics, but I do see potential for this type of platform to meet our needs as outlined by advocates of re-establishing fast air. When the systems reach maturity they may offer an affordable way to achieve some of our projected lethality goals.
I feel there is a lot times on this site where people are hung up on platform types where what we need is a capability that needs to be delivered.
These capabilities may be devilvered more cheaply and efficiently, with quicker cycles for training, upgrading, manufacture, by new forms/technologies rather than replacing legacy platforms with the next gen of the same. In some instances this is totally appropriate, but maybe not always.
We need mobile, ranged precision fire support. Not necesarrlily our 105mms need to be replaced by SPGs.
We need credible maritime domain awareness and deterrent. Not neccesarilly we need x # of frigates, x # P8s and x # fast jets.
We also need air deterrent, If you leave a gap the adversary will exploit it. Re Crete the Germans sent both sea and air invasions to Crete, due to the RN the sea invasion fleet was wiped out and due to the lack of fighters the air invasion .prevailed.
For our ACF to be re-established would need Labours support to provide continuity when a change of Govt occurred. Reintroduction over time would enable a wide spread with the cost, taking a large chunk out of the annual defence allocation. Funding would need to start now 2025 budget together with Frigates and their MH60r's (A BIG ASK)??
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Hypothetically of course ... if an ACF was re-established I think opposition to it would be muted in light of the recent PLA(N) deployment, because that deployment won't be the last one in our region. So it would have populist support and the Opposition can bark away but it will have little impact at the end of the day.
As for the cost ... perhaps lease the aircraft (like we intended to do with the F-16's originally). Hence why some advocate for utilising second-hand aircraft for the initial training and learning period. No CapEx, no depreciation and no capital charge! Sure the long term goal would be to buy something advanced and fit-for-purpose.
Another option could be simply leasing or purchasing a training/light combat type like the FA-50 or M-346 (something proven and in service). But again in light of the recent PLA(N) deployment it might now be regarded as not good enough (or survivable enough) ... but there would still be a need for a LIFT type anyway.
LIFT and/or leasing a combat type should be achieveable within an "up to" 2% gdp budget.
The biggest problem may be getting enough pilots in those intitial first few years, either new or existing transferring from other types, creating gaps in the other operational squadrons. But perhaps that could be alleviated by enticing experienced pilots back to fill those operational gaps?
Training could be provided by external providers and their knowledge would be invaluble.
Look I know, this could be "fantasy" and I appreciate the alternative points other people have made here recently that it could wiser to simply invest further in existing platforms (and with supplementary unmanned capabilities). I don't think there are right or wrong views, it is always good to read other people's thoughts and especially when they take the time to put a lot of thought into it.
Another area to explore, I think Aussie Digger brought it up last year or so, was whether to acquire EW/emission killing capabilities (like Growler or another type). Then perhaps let that complement the P-8's which could carry the ship-killing muntions. If so, fantasy or a practical and affordable alternative to take the fight to (i.e. deter) a powerful adversary operating in our region?
As for the cost ... perhaps lease the aircraft (like we intended to do with the F-16's originally). Hence why some advocate for utilising second-hand aircraft for the initial training and learning period. No CapEx, no depreciation and no capital charge! Sure the long term goal would be to buy something advanced and fit-for-purpose.
Another option could be simply leasing or purchasing a training/light combat type like the FA-50 or M-346 (something proven and in service). But again in light of the recent PLA(N) deployment it might now be regarded as not good enough (or survivable enough) ... but there would still be a need for a LIFT type anyway.
LIFT and/or leasing a combat type should be achieveable within an "up to" 2% gdp budget.
The biggest problem may be getting enough pilots in those intitial first few years, either new or existing transferring from other types, creating gaps in the other operational squadrons. But perhaps that could be alleviated by enticing experienced pilots back to fill those operational gaps?
Training could be provided by external providers and their knowledge would be invaluble.
Look I know, this could be "fantasy" and I appreciate the alternative points other people have made here recently that it could wiser to simply invest further in existing platforms (and with supplementary unmanned capabilities). I don't think there are right or wrong views, it is always good to read other people's thoughts and especially when they take the time to put a lot of thought into it.
Another area to explore, I think Aussie Digger brought it up last year or so, was whether to acquire EW/emission killing capabilities (like Growler or another type). Then perhaps let that complement the P-8's which could carry the ship-killing muntions. If so, fantasy or a practical and affordable alternative to take the fight to (i.e. deter) a powerful adversary operating in our region?
A lot of very good options to start with and build upon. The option to buy 2nd hand starts the project and allows other defence projects to continue.
I agree that it is great to read the thoughts given by members on this forum.