Joint Australian and New Zealand Defence Forces

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
As this idea has been mentioned a few time in different threads I though I there was enough intrest to start a new one specifically on this topic. As mentioned there a Foriegn policy issues and the obvious problems with Ddefence Spending equity espscially if one goes by the GDP percentage.
My idea is the combination of the Airforce and Navy.

The Airforce operates similar types Orions and Hercs I know due to upgrades they are vey different however replacemtns are likely to be similar. The Navy operates the same Surface platform, and the other NZ ships are tenix manfactured anyway. By creating single traiinng establishments money would be saved I think and would give the ADF an extra 4 million of pop to get pilots from. The Pacific Fleet has similar goals of Maritme fisheries protection, regional response and diaster relief.

Ideas, Pros, Cons, i would love to hear them all, I think it could work quite well as we are one of the few neighbours in the world never having fought each other and have a very proud military history together.
 

Padman

New Member
This idea has certain merit. Would you be expecting that both countries would jointly procure systems, as happened with ANZACS and almost happened with C-130J?

NZ would certainly benefit from been able to utilise RAN sealift capabilities, RAAF air lift and fighters. More career opportunities for NZ personnel, especially Air Force, re been able to fly combat aircraft.

A number of NATO forces already cooperate in many areas, for example Dutch and Belgian navies, Dutch and Royal Marines.

But, although Australia and New Zealand generally cooperate in defence matters with regards to SE Asia and the Pacific, this has not always been the case with regard to the wider world. For example, Australia has followed the lead of the US and Britian with regard to war in Iraq, whereas New Zealand has followed a more independent lead. Would Australia be willing to not be able to use certain assets at times that the foreign policy of the two countries diverges? The political problem of NZ forces exercising with US assets would also have to be overcome.
 

Snayke

New Member
I'm guessing the cooperation would be defence only. Limited to NZ and Australian sea and air space and to conflicts where the two nations are working together.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Rumours are that NZ wants NOTHING to do with "joint" military acquisitions with Australia, after the Seasprog and ANZAC problems. Reputedly they may order NH-90 but it won't be linked to Australia's program, other than spares sourcing etc.

I'll try and find a link to support this, but have read it recently. In reality, who could blame them either??? Australia may have performed well on operations, but otherwise we seem to be a bunch of tools, when it comes to any other aspect of running a Defence Force.

Again the political problems would prevent this from ever being a successful proposition. Australia as the senior partner would require the authority to decide the major decisions and I can't see NZ being real happy with it...
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
Issues

Joint Training would be the very first place to start, as with a joint Aus NZ advisory council be it military civilian or both, greater presence of NZDF and ADF personnel in each respective headquarters. In terms of acquisitions there are definite issues however they have signalled intent only at this stage for cooperation with Overlander, small arms replacement and artillery replacement, there is obvious room for more but if that works out it is a good place to start.

The NHR90 will be an interesting thing to watch the benefit to NZ Industry should be substantial if they open a production line in Australia, Could you AD or someone else explain the main differences between the NHR90 and MHR90 both will be extensively used for maritime operations. The Javelin purchase is another example of possible cooperation both purchases were announced around the same time and a joint purchase surely would of been more efficient including training etc if they did it together, the US gov seems to have no problem selling weapons under FMS to NZ it the resale of the items that the problems take place Skyhawks and M113’s being the example.

In terms of the US involvement in greater cooperation I do not see to much standing in the way of reconciliation other than the NZ gov desire to keep some difference in order to not aggravate the greens and there own more fringe members which may include PM Clark. They have however been with the US from the beginning in the War of terror and the only main issue was the initial invasion of Iraq, they were quick however to deploy a PRT and provide several rotations to this. Not to mention despite all the issues the Waihope station afaik is still operational as part of the Echelon system however I believe certain access was restricted after the squabble, that’s my understanding anyway.
 

Supe

New Member
Aussie Digger said:
Again the political problems would prevent this from ever being a successful proposition. Australia as the senior partner would require the authority to decide the major decisions and I can't see NZ being real happy with it...
AD is right. NZ govt would never deploy with Australians in politically touchy conflicts that don't mesh with the ideology of the Govt of NZ and the 'intellectual' class that influence NZ govt decision making. Australian policy could be held hostage by Kiwi politicians.

I'm not against co-operation and ensuring maximum compatibility between the two forces but given the current defence climate reflected through some bad decisions on the Kiwi side (bye bye strike component of airforce), I don't see AusGovt (and ADF) being interested. An additional concern is that this proposition would allow NZ defence to lean on Australian defence dollar. Certain aquisitions could be avoided because 'we're under the Australian defence umbrella'. Why buy air defence/anti-armour weapons when the Australians can provide them? Over the years I could imagine you'd see the RNZN virtually dissapear, relying on the RAN instead.

Thanks but no thanks. Until I see a serious committment from the Kiwis toward defence, I won't want to see ADF burdened with NZDF and a govt that just doesn't get defence. No disrespect toward NZDF personnel intended. I make the distinction between the organistation it has become (ideological driven tinkering) and the professionals who operate within it.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
robsta83 said:
Joint Training would be the very first place to start, as with a joint Aus NZ advisory council be it military civilian or both, greater presence of NZDF and ADF personnel in each respective headquarters. In terms of acquisitions there are definite issues however they have signalled intent only at this stage for cooperation with Overlander, small arms replacement and artillery replacement, there is obvious room for more but if that works out it is a good place to start.

The NHR90 will be an interesting thing to watch the benefit to NZ Industry should be substantial if they open a production line in Australia, Could you AD or someone else explain the main differences between the NHR90 and MHR90 both will be extensively used for maritime operations. The Javelin purchase is another example of possible cooperation both purchases were announced around the same time and a joint purchase surely would of been more efficient including training etc if they did it together, the US gov seems to have no problem selling weapons under FMS to NZ it the resale of the items that the problems take place Skyhawks and M113’s being the example.

In terms of the US involvement in greater cooperation I do not see to much standing in the way of reconciliation other than the NZ gov desire to keep some difference in order to not aggravate the greens and there own more fringe members which may include PM Clark. They have however been with the US from the beginning in the War of terror and the only main issue was the initial invasion of Iraq, they were quick however to deploy a PRT and provide several rotations to this. Not to mention despite all the issues the Waihope station afaik is still operational as part of the Echelon system however I believe certain access was restricted after the squabble, that’s my understanding anyway.
We DO train together extensively already. The ADF trains with NZ more than ANYONE else. We also deploy operationally with NZ more often than anyone else and operate significant numbers of similar platforms and assets.

We operate pretty much the same, and have mostly similar ideology, particularly with respect to peace keeping operations in the South Pacific.

I find it hard to imagine the forces of any other 2 neighbouring Countries being more closely aligned.

Other than existing arrangements, I fail to see how integrating them more closely could benefit either of us. Supe's rightly pointed out the political issues of opertional deployments one of us would not otherwise deploy too, and also the weapons and platform capabilities each require, as well as Defence funding...
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
Aussie Digger said:
We DO train together extensively already. The ADF trains with NZ more than ANYONE else. We also deploy operationally with NZ more often than anyone else and operate significant numbers of similar platforms and assets.

We operate pretty much the same, and have mostly similar ideology, particularly with respect to peace keeping operations in the South Pacific.

I find it hard to imagine the forces of any other 2 neighbouring Countries being more closely aligned.

Other than existing arrangements, I fail to see how integrating them more closely could benefit either of us. Supe's rightly pointed out the political issues of opertional deployments one of us would not otherwise deploy too, and also the weapons and platform capabilities each require, as well as Defence funding...
Hmm the you and Supe make a good point, the relationship is close enough and trying to bring it closer may do more harm than good, I hadn't seen it that way. I'll still stand by a NZ sponsored Fighter Squadron in the RAAF, 6 at Nowra again and six in the NZ, that is the most economical way of getting a air combat wing back while producing extra capability for both, oh well wishes are free.
 

Big-E

Banned Member
robsta83 said:
I'll still stand by a NZ sponsored Fighter Squadron in the RAAF, 6 at Nowra again and six in the NZ, that is the most economical way of getting a air combat wing back while producing extra capability for both, oh well wishes are free.
How hard is it for the RNAF to buy a squadron of F-16s... I don't see the problem.:confused:
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
F16's

As time goes on it gets harder, only because of the loss of the experience with the loss of capability with trained Fighter Pilots, alot of which went overseas, and the loss of the jet trainers which at this time can fly but once are sold, not to mention the closure of Whenuapi, which consolidates all major Airforce assets to essentially one field Ohakea, F16's definitely work and are an option once Labour goes I guess.
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
Big-E said:
How hard is it for the RNAF to buy a squadron of F-16s... I don't see the problem.:confused:
essentially when the RNZAF strike wing was disbanded the RNZAF (and Allies) lost one of the best maritime strike wings in the world (I hope someone else can back me here as I do not want it to be abot NZ Pride), there was 60 + years of institutional knowlege that was wiped out in one hit. One report suggests that it would be 10-15 years before they would be capable of operations to the level they were at in 1999.

Imagine the thge USN losing ALL its carriers and then deiciding 19 years later that it wants them again. How long before they are capable of conducting operations to todays standards?
 

oldsoak

New Member
how much do NZ and Aus actually mesh their defence policies and strategies ooi ? When I chat with kiwis, the impression I get is there is a certain belief amongst the civvies is that NZ is far way enough never to figure in anyones master plan. The arguement is that if thats the case, why equip the NZDF beyond the level of a local militia with the ability to do UN peace keeping now and again ? Is sizeable military spending necessary ? I have no argument to offer against this other than NZ may serve as a taget for feint attacks - ie to force allies to bolster defences in NZ at the expense of other TO's - and its always preferable to rely on yourself if you can.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
oldsoak said:
how much do NZ and Aus actually mesh their defence policies and strategies ooi ? When I chat with kiwis, the impression I get is there is a certain belief amongst the civvies is that NZ is far way enough never to figure in anyones master plan. The arguement is that if thats the case, why equip the NZDF beyond the level of a local militia with the ability to do UN peace keeping now and again ? Is sizeable military spending necessary ? I have no argument to offer against this other than NZ may serve as a taget for feint attacks - ie to force allies to bolster defences in NZ at the expense of other TO's - and its always preferable to rely on yourself if you can.
True NZ is unlikely to face a conventional military threat. It DOES however have responsibility (as does EVERY maritime nation) for securing it's SLOC (sea lines of communication) as well as protection it's country and deployed military forces from attack. There is no guarantee that NZ forces will NOT have to face an air threat, even on UN "Peace Keeping" missions.

Certainly in Bosnia there was an air threat and NZ Army didn't even OPERATE a ground based air defence system of ANY kind when it deployed there in the mid-90's. At least now it has a troop of Mistral SAM's, but it's hardly a well-balanced solution is it? 1x single squadron of VERY short ranged SAM's for the whole ground force.

In addition to which, having dispensed of it's "air attack force" (rather grandiose but there you go) NZ has now rid itself of virtually ANY ability to provide air support for it's own forces (despite Government at least recognising the need to provide "adequate" combat weight for it's forces even on "peace-keeping" missions) ANY ability to provide aerial reconaissance or protecting it's own airlift/maritime patrol assets and most of it's maritime strike capability.

It has also divulged itself of the recognised need to "carry it's own weight" with respect to International deployments and instead will again rely on other forces to make up for IT'S capability gaps.

NZ is eminently capable of supporting a reasonable proficient air force and Navy. It has done so in the past and is in a good economic position now. There is not 1 technical or strategic reason why it couldn't operate an air combat and sustainable naval frigate capability, only the ideological reasoning of it's present Government...
 

teashoci

Banned Member
I am furious my posts are being deleted, to say that oz and nz are protected by britain is a valid point

Mod edit: As web's so adroitly pointed out. Respect others and make a reasonable argument for your points, supported by some sort of evidence. Don't simply "diss" others, otherwise your posts will simply disappear, as will your ability to post them... Cheers. AD.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

oldsoak

New Member
offtopic to teashoci

the UK has defence agreements with Aus and NZ, but we dont "protect" them, they do that themselves. Remember they spent two world wars protecting us. :p: . Of course we would do whatever we could to help out in a crisis, but by the time we got down there in any numbers, they would probably have mopped up and be down the pub wondering where we were. Dont underestimate them.
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
teashoci said:
I am furious my posts are being deleted, to say that oz and nz are protected by britain is a valid point
I am interested as to what you base this opinion on. Apart from Gulf Deployments, the only time we get to play with British forces is a two week period once every 2 years during a FPDA exercise off Malaysia.
IMO Australia & New Zealand are more under the US security umbrella than the British one.. This is based upon the deployment & capability of US forces already in the region. No disrespect to the Bristish armed forces, but it would take a lengthy time frame before it would be able to deploy forces of any note to this region.
 
Last edited:

webmaster

Troll Hunter
Staff member
teashoci said:
I am furious my posts are being deleted, to say that oz and nz are protected by britain is a valid point
You're damn right they are and for the right reasons.

You should have gotten the message that it could be that you are not following the rules and that is why your posts disappear.

  1. When you post, you are expected to follow the rules:
  2. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php
  3. When you post one liner reply, it will be deleted in most cases.
  4. When you disrespect/mock others your posts will be deleted and could get you banned.
  5. When you don't support your argument/claims with sources and evidence, your posts are deleted in most cases.
Your posts fall under all of the above hence they were deleted.

Now, you need to show us that you are above that and you are better than that. You need to demonstrate that you CAN debate and at the same time respect others. You need to show us that you CAN post more than 2 lines... if you cannot then this blind date with DefenceTalk is only going to hurt your chances of staying here as a member.

Enjoy!
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
teashoci said:
i dont think they could stand a chance, i mean there submarines run on diesel
Mate, where are you coming from with this line?:confused: Not sure if you have posted it in the right thread or not. Are you referring to Australia's Collins Class? If so, IMO you are not correct. Based upon exercise results & first hand experiece attempting to deal with them, I woul put them up against any other sub, even US or UK nukes.
Cheers
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
IMO, and I think it is basically happening, I think that the NZDF and ADF need to have similar force structure, training and equipment, with a joint logistics and maintenance approach.

If nothing else it is a seamless fit for joint operations, and cuts the costs associated with equipment purchases and maintenance.
 
Top