Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Geo-strategic Issues
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

IMG_0616.JPG

IMG_0615.JPG

IMG_0614.JPG

IMG_0613.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





NZDF General discussion thread

This is a discussion on NZDF General discussion thread within the Geo-strategic Issues forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; It was a simple question. Im not asking to be "convinced". There seams to be very few yanks here, rather ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 8 votes, 4.25 average.
Old September 25th, 2012   #2551
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 57
Threads:
It was a simple question. Im not asking to be "convinced".

There seams to be very few yanks here, rather few posters, even less with anything meaningful to say. Even worse "Super Mods" who like talking down to any American that speaks his opinion. I had enough of that nonsense.

There is that plain enough for you? Or an insinuation?

Quote:
Motto on our forums is: Freedom of speech with touch of respect.
That came from this web sight. Maybe you should change it to "Freedom of speech, unless you say something we dont like or agree with".

Read more: About us | DefenceTalk | Defense & Military News - Forums - Pictures - Weapons



Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonza View Post
If you're going to leave the forum for good, what difference does it make? Go or don't go. Please yourself. I'm not going to waste my time convincing you one way or the other.
USAF77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 25th, 2012   #2552
Super Moderator
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,278
Threads:
If you really believe I'm prejudiced against Yanks, not only are you very much incorrect, but there's no point arguing with you. You will only ascribe anything I do or say to my own "bias".

It's funny though that you accuse me of talking down to Americans while you yourself say "there are very few Yanks here, rather few posters, even less with anything meaningful to say". Who was talking down to who again?
Bonza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 25th, 2012   #2553
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,079
Threads:
Arguing that the forum is anti-american is abject nonsense, its almost as good as the usual dross that says we're anti-eastern because we're all assumed to be western - which we're not.

What's not on however - is hijacking the thread in an off topic manner.

I object to having to clean up or close threads just because they have been derailed with off topic commentary - as do the other Mods

If you're still inclined then take it into the General area or PM your concerns.

Keeping the current line of chat is unnecessary - esp as it is off topic.

Personally, and I wopuld hazard a guess that I can speak for the other Mods and americans on here I I don't care whether you're american or a bowl of fruit wearing a pink tutu.

We're only interested in the quality and calibre of debate/discussion

Any Mod will exercise judgement - if you want to question it then engage via other means. Don't bugger up this thread because you're wanting to continue to exercise your discontent about a Mods suggestion/direction/guidance.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

Last edited by gf0012-aust; September 26th, 2012 at 03:28 AM.
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2012   #2554
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant Colonel
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 1,269
Threads:
We complain about the lack of resources given to defence, which is true and it is not something new. Somewhere else I lurk had this along with the comment nothing changes. It is Kiplings poem "Tommy".

Quote:
I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.

[qote]I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)
I'd agree that nothings changed. Morale is low and reflected in the fact that NZDF numbers are lowest for many years. The article says this century. Annual New Zealand Defense Report Boosts Focus on South Pacific | Defense News | defensenews.com Then there is the Dominion article New Zealand Defence Force Morale Near Record Lows | Stuff.co.nz of 28/9/2012 which states that 51% of defence personnel said they didn't have the kit to do the job properly. it also talks about the much lauded first pay rise in four years, which is good in that a pay rise happened, but then it is offset by increased married quarters and living aboard charges, and loss of entitlements. The married quarters charges are being set at market rates, which in Auckland is very expensive. Mind you Waiouru won't be as expensive, but regardless it still is a kick in the guts yet again. In the intervening four years between pay rises inflation was 7.8% using this calculator New Zealand Inflation Graph and the 2012 NZDF pay rise 5.7% gross. It has also been argued that public (civil) service rates and conditions have always been far better than NZDF and I would agree with that. There has always been plenty of money to hire extra public servants and consultants and I know from personal experience that the public service work output is far less than service personnel doing the same or similar job. Yes the current NZG is axing public service jobs but NZDF is under the same axe, in fact a larger and sharper axe. One other very important difference. The public service has a union (PSA) which advocates and fights for them. Serving personnel in NZDF cannot by law have or belong to a union. If they formed one, or joined one, it would be classified as mutiny and there has been the odd mutiny in the past about pay and conditions.
ngatimozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012   #2555
Super Moderator
Major
MrConservative's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Behind a Desk
Posts: 964
Threads:
R.I.P Sir Wilson Whineray - Friend of the NZDF

Sir Wilson Whineray, a former Honorary Colonel Commandant of the NZSAS between 1997-2001, our longest serving All Black captain from the late 50's to mid 60's, and lead author of the October 1998 Whineray Report, which concluded that NZ should maintain an air combat capability, has passed away aged 77.

Sir Wilson was a legend in NZ. Highly respected as a corporate businessman,an All Black rugby great, and an influential and valued friend of the NZDF. So highly respected by the NZSAS that they asked him to take on the role as their regimental father. A very rare honour indeed for a man who chose a civilian life to one of military service.

His report on NZ's future Air Combat Capability for the 21st Century'was given a wide brief and called on the abilities, knowledge and intellectual talents of a large number of people both within NZ and abroad. Sadly an incoming government ignored this comprehensive and far thinking report and NZ and its defence force is all the poorer for it. We are also poorer for the the loss of real leadership that people like Sir Wilson possessed. Ake Ake Kia Kaha Sir Wison. RIP
MrConservative is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2012   #2556
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant Colonel
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 1,269
Threads:
See the odd senior officer in the US Navy is still not happy about the change in the circumstances surrounding ship visits by the RNZN to USN & USCG facilities. The comment was "So the SecDef [Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta] kind of threw 'em a bone recently with respect to maybe some policy changes down the road." Meaning that it now opens the door for other nations to refuse entry to US warships because of their neither confirm and deny policy. The argument runs that this deal now sets a precedent. Nuclear Navy Frets Over Panetta's Concessions To New Zealand I personally think we've heard this argument before back in 1985 - 1987 and it was called the Kiwi disease. Methinks that some admirals have to realise that they are not the ones who set foreign policy.
ngatimozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 5th, 2012   #2557
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Guangzhou, PRC
Posts: 168
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
You managed to miss the gist of my post.

What started the problem between elements of the US and NZ, was when NZ denied the USS Buchanan DDG-14 permission to enter NZ home waters in 1985, on the basis that Charles F. Adams-class DDG's were capable of being armed with nuclear depth bombs/charges, and the US was unwilling to declare that they were not aboard the USS Buchanan, due to US policy of not declaring whether something is or is not armed with nuclear weaponry.

The NZ requirement of a declaration that the USS Buchanan was free of nuclear weapons, was a new NZ Gov't policy as of some time in 1984 IIRC, and it did not become a legal requirement until made into an Act in 1987 (again, IIRC).

There was a significant amount of diplomacy and also political issues going on at the time in the background, and I have my own observations and thoughts about parts of the what and why, which are really not needed here.

What is IMO more significant is that at the height of the Cold War, there were an enormous number of nuclear warheads in the US inventory, and many different types of vessels, vehicles and aircraft could deploy them. As time has progressed, the US has retired a number of the warhead designs, so that less and less USN vessels are able to deploy a nuclear weapon. This was the point I was making.

If the NZ Gov't knows that a particular USN vessel requesting permission to enter NZ home waters and make a port call cannot field nuclear weapons because of it's class, then the 1987 Act does not cause a problem, because the NZ Gov't does not need to have the US declare the vessel in question is free of nuclear weapons.

-Cheers
Sorry folks, slow net day today so cannot appropriately quote but.....

"
If the NZ Gov't knows that a particular USN vessel requesting permission to enter NZ home waters and make a port call cannot field nuclear weapons because of it's class, then the 1987 Act does not cause a problem"

As far as I remember, we have no problem with nuclear powered vessels entering our waters. We do, however, require that there is a declaration of compliance ot NZ's "no nuclear weapons onboard" legislation.
We're not stupid! We know that so many USN vessels can field nuclear weapons. We would just like to know that, as respect dictates, we have none in our waters, no matter which class of vessel requests to enter our waters.
I can see nothing wrong with this.

P.S; nope, not a liberal, strongly conservative but those damn things are, no matter what anyone thinks, abhorrent!

Last edited by exported_kiwi; November 5th, 2012 at 12:56 AM. Reason: Chinese computers, grrrr!
exported_kiwi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 5th, 2012   #2558
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Guangzhou, PRC
Posts: 168
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
You managed to miss the gist of my post.

What started the problem between elements of the US and NZ, was when NZ denied the USS Buchanan DDG-14 permission to enter NZ home waters in 1985, on the basis that Charles F. Adams-class DDG's were capable of being armed with nuclear depth bombs/charges, and the US was unwilling to declare that they were not aboard the USS Buchanan, due to US policy of not declaring whether something is or is not armed with nuclear weaponry.

The NZ requirement of a declaration that the USS Buchanan was free of nuclear weapons, was a new NZ Gov't policy as of some time in 1984 IIRC, and it did not become a legal requirement until made into an Act in 1987 (again, IIRC).

There was a significant amount of diplomacy and also political issues going on at the time in the background, and I have my own observations and thoughts about parts of the what and why, which are really not needed here.

What is IMO more significant is that at the height of the Cold War, there were an enormous number of nuclear warheads in the US inventory, and many different types of vessels, vehicles and aircraft could deploy them. As time has progressed, the US has retired a number of the warhead designs, so that less and less USN vessels are able to deploy a nuclear weapon. This was the point I was making.

If the NZ Gov't knows that a particular USN vessel requesting permission to enter NZ home waters and make a port call cannot field nuclear weapons because of it's class, then the 1987 Act does not cause a problem, because the NZ Gov't does not need to have the US declare the vessel in question is free of nuclear weapons.

-Cheers
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngatimozart View Post
See the odd senior officer in the US Navy is still not happy about the change in the circumstances surrounding ship visits by the RNZN to USN & USCG facilities. The comment was "So the SecDef [Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta] kind of threw 'em a bone recently with respect to maybe some policy changes down the road." Meaning that it now opens the door for other nations to refuse entry to US warships because of their neither confirm and deny policy. The argument runs that this deal now sets a precedent. Nuclear Navy Frets Over Panetta's Concessions To New Zealand I personally think we've heard this argument before back in 1985 - 1987 and it was called the Kiwi disease. Methinks that some admirals have to realise that they are not the ones who set foreign policy.
Very true my friend. KIA KAHA!

Mods, sorry, how can I make less of our own ways, by trying to make my post a several liner??? Some things can be said in a one liner!
exported_kiwi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 5th, 2012   #2559
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,079
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngatimozart View Post
See the odd senior officer in the US Navy is still not happy about the change in the circumstances surrounding ship visits by the RNZN to USN & USCG facilities.
I think any dissenting views within USN are a distraction, (just as there are dissenters within NZDF)

the reality is that the US has been providing access above and beyond the initial "contention" for the last 11 years.

any announcements re change were a formality - the backdoor stuff has been stronger than it ever was.

NZSAS would attest to that
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 15th, 2012   #2560
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant Colonel
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 1,269
Threads:
Various NZDF units have converged on various Auckland locations recently as part of Exercise Pae Tata. The exercise which aims to develop the Defence Force’s integrated amphibious capability, involves maritime, land, and air assets working together to secure a point of entry, executing a beach landing. Australian and UK trainers are helping with the participation of HMAS Toobroken (oops I mean Tobruk) and the UK trainers providing an amphibious warfare training package.
NZDF - Exercise Pae Tata Tests NZ Defence Force's Developing Amphibious Capability
United Kingdom and Australia help New Zealand army to develop its amphibious forces 0911121*-*Army Recognition
This, IMHO, is a stepping stone on a long journey and in my opinion I feel that we also need to work with a lot with, and learn a lot more from the USMC as well as the ADF. We have a history with the USMC in NZ and I for one would like to see that relationship deepened. They have a very profound institutional knowledge of amphibious operations.
ngatimozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2012   #2561
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant Colonel
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 1,269
Threads:
I first read this article in Pacific Sentinel blog Pacific Sentinel and followed the link back to original source, the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses in New Delhi Towards an Asia-Pacific Alliance | Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses It argues that the US is slowly pushing Asia - Pacific nations into a NATO type arrangement in order to deter Chinese expansionism and perceived aggression. Much as NATO did against the USSR and subsequent Warsaw Pact. The authors also suggested that in the long term, for this to work properly, eventually China would have to be included within the security sphere. This Asia - Pacific incarnation of NATO would include NZ and Australia and of course the US. No mention is made of Russia.

We had SEATO back in the 1950s and 1960s, which was an attempt to replicate NATO in SEA and the Pacific, to confront the scourge of communism in its Soviet form and its Chinese form. However SEATO didn't survive because of a lack of internal cohesion and common purpose within the group of treaty nations. Therefore one would have to ask, has that changed today some 40 or 50 years later? In NZs case we are keen to make defence committments as a matter of foreign policy, but our pollies don't have the moral fortitude or common sense, to backup their promises with adequate resourcing of NZDF, which is going to be the ones who have to carry out the committments. 50 years ago we had an air force and navy that could project NZ diplomacy and govt policy within the international arena, as well as meeting committments made by the NZG. No longer does that situation exist and a scion of SEATO, if it eventuates, is going to place a great deal of extra pressure on NZDF.

One can argue, relatively easily, that it would be in NZs best interest for such a security treaty structure to exist, but having said that, unless there is a 180 degree change in attitude by Kiwi pollies, and significantly greater access to resources and funding given to NZDF, then NZ entering such an agreement would, IMHO, not be in NZDFs best interest, because it wouldn't have the capability to meet the committments required of it, and that could do it irrepairable harm.
ngatimozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012   #2562
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 339
Threads:
I see NZDF are going to a new multi terrain cam but also cannot help but notice we should have it just in time to pull out of Afganistan, strange considering this was the main driver behind it in the first place, and also Timor and Sollies. I understand its the way of the future but in this time of trying to save money we seem to be investing in a capability now that is most likely not going to be used to its fullest potential for a long period while we re-org from all our deployments, again alittle late to the party.

This will be a added expense in a time of 'shifting' funds that will need to replace alot of other ancillary DPM pattern related equipment (otherwise defeating the purpose if mixing old and new pattern) that could have been done on a as needed process waiting for the next big deployment to fully kit out NZDF which in all honesty could be a few years away now. For the few minor deployments that will be continueing even the old DPM/DDPM would suffice or you could just kit those few pers out fully easing the cost of a army/DF wide roll out(at this stage anyway).

Also seems pointless to me in having the new packs and webbing in a tan colour different to the uniform otherwise could'nt we have just made the uniform tan? If you are requireing the benefits of the new pattern on ops then surely you are requireing the use of your webbing, armour, weapon etc so should all be the same otherwise stands out that much more.
RegR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2012   #2563
New Member
Private
Zach Z.'s Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 23
Threads:
I agree with what you're saying, let me see if I can get this thing back on track with a question.

I'm wondering something, what is the size and makeup of the NZDF as of 2012? Like what are their troop numbers, vehicle formations and makeup, aircraft type and numbers, ships and ship types, and what all does the NZDF do in its region and abroad?

A lot of this sounds like it's the question newby but I am new to this subject so please don't chop my head off.
Zach Z. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2012   #2564
The Wanderer
Major
robsta83's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 906
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zach Z. View Post
I agree with what you're saying, let me see if I can get this thing back on track with a question.

I'm wondering something, what is the size and makeup of the NZDF as of 2012? Like what are their troop numbers, vehicle formations and makeup, aircraft type and numbers, ships and ship types, and what all does the NZDF do in its region and abroad?

A lot of this sounds like it's the question newby but I am new to this subject so please don't chop my head off.
In this case wikipedia is your friend:

That and the associated service wiki pages and home pages should cover all that you have asked.
________________
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
robsta83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2012   #2565
New Member
Private
Zach Z.'s Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 23
Threads:
Thank you. But I don't honestly expect that Wikipedia would have all the answers. It never really does. I've learned to believe only what I hear and read from a primary source. But then again, I can use the sources Wikipedia cites.
Zach Z. is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:37 AM.